|
Alright, so beta has been out for a while and things feel, for the most part, pretty balanced. However, it is at the high-end level of play that slight imbalances really show, and I think it is safe to say now that zerg is the strongest of the three races.
1) SPAWN LARVA
There are many reasons for why this may be true, but I think it mostly revolves around one core mechanic - spawn larva.
This ability makes the zerg an economical oppurtunist. The zerg have the potential to make workers at multiple times the rate of terran or protoss. If a skilled player is using the zerg, he will know exactly when it is safe to abuse the seemingly limitless larvae to produce mass amounts of workers. If he keeps an eye on the opponent, he will know exactly when to spawn units with his mass reserves of larva, and they will be counter units to the opposing army. In the hands of a skilled player, this can all be done safely.
So to this mechanic, here is a simple proposed change: Make spawn larva only spawn 3 additional larva instead of 4. (Possibly lower, but I'm not going to push it.)
This seems like a reasonable nerf to the zerg's huge macro power, forcing them to either create more hatcheries, which in turn require more queens, or just slowing down their economy in general, making them play a more economically balanced and more strategic, less mind-less(omg spam units - hes coming), game.
2) BANELINGS
So, now that the macro mechanic is out of the way, I want to discuss banelings, particularly relevant to ZvT. I know this has been discussed in another thread but I want to give my views on this unit. Banelings are literally the bane of the terran army. A smart zerg user, when given banelings, will always be able to massacre your marines. This is most likely done with zergling surround spam with +armor and a bunch of banelings in the mix raping the marines. And don't say terran don't need marines, because they do. A smart zerg will ignore units like marauders, or flank, so those are not viable excuses.
The best change, imo, would be to greatly reduce the splash radius of banelings. Right now it seems that 1 baneling hitting my group of marines kills about 4 of them, which is pretty rediculous. This may be an exaggeration but I think we get the point, and the radius being reduced would help this problem.
Another options is allowing for overkill. Overkill would still make banelings almost just as effective in the hands of a skilled micro-oriented zerg player.
Finally, we have the boring reduce-damaged change. Reduced damage would require more banelings to die in order for more marines to die. This would help balance things up a bit.
I don't think (though I can't really say so myself) that banelings are used to much extent in ZvP, but these changes would probably be balanced in that regard also.
3) THE ROACHES
This is not really a "balance issue" per say, but now I want to move on to a problem emphasized in ZvZ, and this problem is centralized around roaches. Most zerg users complain of the mundane, tedious MU that is ZvZ. In this MU one thing is apparent: Roaches Rule. In my opinion there is one main reason for this: The zerg do not have a specialized anti-armor-type unit like both the protoss(immortals) and terran(marauder).
At first glance of this change people may think, "Omg don't even get me started, now you're going to make zerg even more OP by giving them armor-piercing units", but in reality, this may make zerg more balanced in all matchups. First lets talk about how this change would affect ZvZ.
Let me illustrate with an example. In ZvP, what's to stop the zerg from massing roaches all game? The answer to that is simple: the hard counter immortals, silly. Why can't zerg spam roaches against the terran all day? Marauders. Why can't zerg spam roaches against zerg all day? oh shit.. they can. The solutions is simple: the zerg need a new unit. This unit must be higher on the tech tree than the roach(obviously), allowing the roach to still be a viable opening. Just by thinking about it, adding this unit would diversify ZvZ so much that it makes my head hurt. I think that's pretty good justification. Armies would have to be mixed, many more timings would be introduced, sometimes hard-counters really are good solutions, and this is seen in the greater diversification in both ZvP and ZvT.
I don't think it would affect the other MUs too much, especially if this new unit was a dedicated ground-only unit which was also an armored-type unit. Who knows, it can even be a melee unit. VS terran it would probably not affect the MU much, as it could be potentially strong(and weak) against marauders but weak against marines. VS Protoss it would be both equally strong and weak against armored units also, making the 2 foreign matchups balanced, but totally diversifying ZvZ (as roaches are armored but do not have an armored-piercing attack like toss and terran). I'm just throwing the solution out there, and leaving the polishing to future brainstorming.
That's all I can think of for now, I may add more later as I think of it. Tell me your views on these changes.
|
Just suggestion:
You have described only 1st tier units. Please, provide information on late units I think there are more imbalances. For example: HSM, Colossus, Broodlords. I believe in TvZ zerg can do nothing against HSM.
|
On March 20 2010 05:25 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Just suggestion:
You have described only 1st tier units. Please, provide information on late units I think there are more imbalances. For example: HSM, Colossus, Broodlords. I believe in TvZ zerg can do nothing against HSM.
I could write pages and pages, but these are the only balance changes I particularly feel like talking about at this time, and that stand out to me. I may add more later. Thanks for the suggestion.
Note: please don't make this a discussion about HSM, stay on topic please (mostly to the poster below).
|
On March 20 2010 05:25 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Just suggestion:
You have described only 1st tier units. Please, provide information on late units I think there are more imbalances. For example: HSM, Colossus, Broodlords. I believe in TvZ zerg can do nothing against HSM.
Learn to dodge. HSM is vastly overrated.
|
I like the idea of making an anti-armored unit for zerg.
The rest is fine imo.
|
I really don't think battle charasteristics of baneling should be nerfed. Better option is to make it hard to get. Increase cost or build time. Say terran and zerg clashed in the middle and terran usually does not have enough time to get sufficient forces after the battle. Nerfing build time also delays banelings, and zerg won't control the map very fast.
In terms, of cost effectiveness terrans have very good units. If you nerf banelings they simply become useless. And we will end up with unbeatable terran mmm ball.
|
On March 20 2010 05:29 Odds wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 05:25 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Just suggestion:
You have described only 1st tier units. Please, provide information on late units I think there are more imbalances. For example: HSM, Colossus, Broodlords. I believe in TvZ zerg can do nothing against HSM. Learn to dodge. HSM is vastly overrated.
Drop the stupid comments.
You could write 'learn to rush faster' if any terran complains about Broodlords.
And check other thread, a proper abuse of HSM makes it unavoidable.
As on topic, its another 'NERF ZERG OMG' Thread, and all of those points were already touched in the numerous topics on the forum.
Whast the point of yet another same thread?
|
On March 20 2010 05:22 JTPROG wrote:
3) THE ROACHES
This is not really a "balance issue" per say, but now I want to move on to a problem emphasized in ZvZ, and this problem is centralized around roaches. Most zerg users complain of the mundane, tedious MU that is ZvZ. In this MU one thing is apparent: Roaches Rule. In my opinion there is one main reason for this: The zerg do not have a specialized anti-armor-type unit like both the protoss(immortals) and terran(marauder).
At first glance of this change people may think, "Omg don't even get me started, now you're going to make zerg even more OP by giving them armor-piercing units", but in reality, this may make zerg more balanced in all matchups. First lets talk about how this change would affect ZvZ.
Let me illustrate with an example. In ZvP, what's to stop the zerg from massing roaches all game? The answer to that is simple: the hard counter immortals, silly. Why can't zerg spam roaches against the terran all day? Marauders. Why can't zerg spam roaches against zerg all day? oh shit.. they can. The solutions is simple: the zerg need a new unit. This unit must be higher on the tech tree than the roach(obviously), allowing the roach to still be a viable opening. Just by thinking about it, adding this unit would diversify ZvZ so much that it makes my head hurt. I think that's pretty good justification. Armies would have to be mixed, many more timings would be introduced, sometimes hard-counters really are good solutions, and this is seen in the greater diversification in both ZvP and ZvT.
I don't think it would affect the other MUs too much, especially if this new unit was a dedicated ground-only unit which was also an armored-type unit. Who knows, it can even be a melee unit. VS terran it would probably not affect the MU much, as it could be potentially strong(and weak) against marauders but weak against marines. VS Protoss it would be both equally strong and weak against armored units also, making the 2 foreign matchups balanced, but totally diversifying ZvZ (as roaches are armored but do not have an armored-piercing attack like toss and terran). I'm just throwing the solution out there, and leaving the polishing to future brainstorming.
The problem with ZvZ isn't only roaches. Roaches can't attack air, so mutas/brood lords counter them pretty well. But you can't use mutas or brood lords in ZvZ, because of hydras. And zerg have banelings for anti-light units, but roaches counter them very well. That's usually why most ZvZ are roach -> hydra from both sides.
|
On March 20 2010 05:52 Defrag wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 05:29 Odds wrote:On March 20 2010 05:25 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Just suggestion:
You have described only 1st tier units. Please, provide information on late units I think there are more imbalances. For example: HSM, Colossus, Broodlords. I believe in TvZ zerg can do nothing against HSM. Learn to dodge. HSM is vastly overrated. Drop the stupid comments. You could write 'learn to rush faster' if any terran complains about Broodlords. And check other thread, a proper abuse of HSM makes it unavoidable. As on topic, its another 'NERF ZERG OMG' Thread, and all of those points were already touched in the numerous topics on the forum. Whast the point of yet another same thread?
I agree.
Anyway dodging HSM is the same thing as dodging banelings.
|
I think doubling queen build time would be interesting and make it not so automatically better than a second hatchery. Double build time = same as hatchery build time; then comparing queen to hatchery you get a similar production boost that's much more fragile and can't give you another resource drop-off point, and it costs less.
I'm not sure Z is too powerful, but I'd like to see hatchery vs queen be a more interesting decision than it currently is.
---
As for roaches in zvz, you just need to make a unit that wins vs roaches and doesn't get hilariously splattered by hydras like mutalisks do.
|
On March 20 2010 05:22 JTPROG wrote:
The solutions is simple: the zerg need a new unit. This unit must be higher on the tech tree than the roach(obviously), allowing the roach to still be a viable opening. Just by thinking about it, adding this unit would diversify ZvZ so much that it makes my head hurt. I think that's pretty good justification. Armies would have to be mixed, many more timings would be introduced, sometimes hard-counters really are good solutions, and this is seen in the greater diversification in both ZvP and ZvT.
lol, did you know we can make hyrdalisks? i walk all over zergs who only make roaches. late game battles with 20+ units you had better mix in hydras if you want to win.
|
Tbh redo Z, tons of people are shouting OP, despite that it has been shown every damn unit has a hardcounter. On top of that, Z are commenting how dull the gameplay is as its only a choice between mutas hydras or mass roaches.
|
i agree that the ZvZ matchup is totally mundane, but do not agree at all with 1 & 2
|
It can get kinda booring if the T goes for bio with MM and zerg goes banelings/lings/hydra, Its just chaos really and you cant really micro good at all except for hit and run. If the banelings get into the MM its insta death of the entire army.
I also want to mention that HSM is super late tech and cost alot of energy/money so It should be good compared to banelings that cost nothing
|
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long.
|
On March 20 2010 06:07 wayreth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 05:22 JTPROG wrote:
The solutions is simple: the zerg need a new unit. This unit must be higher on the tech tree than the roach(obviously), allowing the roach to still be a viable opening. Just by thinking about it, adding this unit would diversify ZvZ so much that it makes my head hurt. I think that's pretty good justification. Armies would have to be mixed, many more timings would be introduced, sometimes hard-counters really are good solutions, and this is seen in the greater diversification in both ZvP and ZvT.
lol, did you know we can make hyrdalisks? i walk all over zergs who only make roaches. late game battles with 20+ units you had better mix in hydras if you want to win.
Well if you are walking all over Roach users probably you have been playing against bad players. I would have to say that Hydralisks may seem to be a good counter to Roaches, but under circumstances they will lose horribly to Roaches. I just played a game today where Roaches > Roaches + Hydra (and I mean Roach/Hydra 40-50 population higher) so you might want to look into that.
To the OP: 3 spawn larva looks like a good fix. Banelings should change so that they cause damage ONLY when they attack their target, not when they are destroyed. ZvZ is fine.
|
Attica United States. March 20 2010 08:02. Posts 12 PM Profile Quote
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long.
Exactly, this is perfect. banelings are not overpowered, use tanks and other units that ARE NOT tier one... I watch my friend play and play a few times and tanks definitely work against banelings. Otherwise the only other option a zerg player has is broodlords and if you need broodlords to beat a tier 1 unit something's wrong
|
I don't agree with any of your ideas by the way
|
On March 20 2010 08:27 jakel wrote:Show nested quote + Attica United States. March 20 2010 08:02. Posts 12 PM Profile Quote
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long. Exactly, this is perfect. banelings are not overpowered, use tanks and other units that ARE NOT tier one... I watch my friend play and play a few times and tanks definitely work against banelings. Otherwise the only other option a zerg player has is broodlords and if you need broodlords to beat a tier 1 unit something's wrong
Great idea man! My tanks pwn those mutalisks so hard! And don't say having both will help a ton with baneling/zergling mix, cause it really doesn't. Not to mention you'd prob get raped cause you wouldn't have enough marines. Please post intelligently.
And I wouldn't expect you to agree with any of my ideas, it seems you don't have much game-sense.
|
good positioning with your army u will not face a flank of banelings, they are slow and low hp they just evaporate if countered properly. and at the top ranks they are mostly protoss players anyways, the game just came out, people need to figure out new builds to counter others, and not bash on balancing the game just because they dont understand the mechanics.
|
If zerg were to get any changes (and i'm not saying they do), I would stop at the 3 larva for spawn larvae. That is general, universal nerf to the zerg that you couldn't justify any further nerfs until more gameplay experience indicated it was needed.
But as both a z and a p player, the zerg feels pretty good to me right now.
|
1. spawn larva, either 3 or make it so that "mutant" larva cannot produce workers, only combat units. This will force zerg to rethink timing of the queen since having it earlier doesn't provide a benefit unless zerg is rushing. it will be a good tell-tale sign and also a later queen means zerg does not get the benefit of having a monster scout killer so early.
2. banelings are fine. 1 baneling does not even kill 1 marine...according to what you said about splash radius, 2 banelings will kill 4 marines which doesn't seem bad at all considering that's 100 min/50 gas vs 200 minerals. this assumes 2 banelings hit, but in reality some banelings die off so it really takes 3 banelings to kill 4 marines if 4 marines kill 1 off. which sways the exchange in terran's favor. And according to this, as army size increase, marines become more efficient resulting in more banelings dying off which hugely favors terran. The banelings are only felt to be overpowered because of again, the spawn larva mechanic allows zerg to make so many more banelings to a ratio that is not fair. (zerg produces 4 banelings per 4 marines you build is how it feels like)
3. roaches are fine. again same problem with macro mechanic allow zerg users to produce a lot more roaches which make them seem insanely strong. to fix zvz, we can just add +bonus damage to armored onto hydras and lower their base attack. it seems fine to me with zerglings < roaches < hydras < zerglings.
AND stop with the dullness bullcrap. Have you guys not played sc1? same units there...
|
United States7166 Posts
getting sick of all these recent whining threads
queen's spawn larvae is not the problem. if zerg had mules instead of queens that would be just as good, probably even better than queens. with the extra resources zerg could just go back to making additional hatcheries at only twice the cost of queens (about twice build time as well), that are harder to kill/help wall off from hellion harass/can be used as expansions/protect sunkens/act as an extra meatshields before natural is dead unlike the feeble queen. and provide 2 supply rather than use up 2 supply, generate creep.
or with a zerg equivalent of chrono boost + warpgates (think chrono boosting hatches for faster larvae generation, eggs hatching, research/upgrades, and morphing to lair/hive/greater spire)..and then for warpgates, the ability to spawn units anywhere there's creep as well as faster larvae generation
point is, queen's spawn larvae isn't the problem, if there is one. you should be whining about their units, cost/efficiency of units, and freedom to expand instead.. if anything
|
United States2095 Posts
As a high level zerg I will discuss what I think about your changes for zerg. Totally unnessecary.
You might think that zerg needs these changes, but from where I'm at as a zerg player I find it balanced enough. Terran can miraculously roll over almost anything zerg can do at times. Protoss has the same disadvantage towards zerg as terran does vs. protoss. Imo its somewhat just like orignal SC. Roaches do seem a little strong... but other then that seems ok !
|
JTPROG United States. March 20 2010 08:34. Posts 86 Profile
On March 20 2010 08:27 jakel wrote:
Show nested quote +
Attica United States. March 20 2010 08:02. Posts 12 PM Profile Quote
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long.
Exactly, this is perfect. banelings are not overpowered, use tanks and other units that ARE NOT tier one... I watch my friend play and play a few times and tanks definitely work against banelings. Otherwise the only other option a zerg player has is broodlords and if you need broodlords to beat a tier 1 unit something's wrong
Great idea man! My tanks pwn those mutalisks so hard! And don't say having both will help a ton with baneling/zergling mix, cause it really doesn't. Not to mention you'd prob get raped cause you wouldn't have enough marines. Please post intelligently.
And I wouldn't expect you to agree with any of my ideas, it seems you don't have much game-sense.
Yeah because I definitely meant just use tanks.... Tanks+rines+marauders and I believe an above post mentioned cost effectiveness. Also tell me, besides banelings how does a zerg counter the MMM ball? And chill with the rude language you need a vacation or something. On a side note, zergs don't have unlimited resources at all but the way you talk (so many mutas +banelings ect) make it seem like they outexpand you drastically.
Actually the queen idea isn't too bad (4 to 3 larva) but to be honest the other macro options are just as good (queen is better in some situations but so is mule in another). Finally, the idea of a queen being a cheap scout killer, zvt broodwar (marines kill overlords).
|
1. Spawn larva:
Protoss have chrono boost and Terran have the reactor where they're building two units.
So no nerf required. Did you saw how fast a T can push marines from 2rax with reactors?
Don't forget that a zerg must also morph drones from larve. With this mechanics in sc2 you need that ability to spawn lave or u will get rushed hard.
2. Banelings:
Don't think they need a nerf. Scourges from sc:bw were stronger than banelings and people learned to handle them. With what? right, with micro.
Build some marauders. If you see banelings coming, marauders at front, marines behind them. Tank with the marauders. And micro the banelings out.
Banelings making only additional damage to light armory. So they make less damage to marauders. If the marauders at front tanking and marines behind, you shouldnt have suchs a problem with banelings.
3. Roaches:
Not possible what u are writing.
Let's imagine for a moment, there would be a new zerg unit, against roaches. With a higher tech tree. So.. what will happen? Right! Mass roaches and early gg. Cuz of the higher tech tree you can't go that new-anti-roaches-unit. If the tech tree would be the same as roaches , there would be mass whining that thats imba. Why does the most ZvZ matches going Roaches or Mutas?
Because it is so. I remember sc:bw the most ZvZ matches were lings vs lings or fast mutas.
Now its roaches and mutas. instead of lings and mutas.
|
remove 1 armor from roaches. that'll make lings stronger in zvz, and will soften roaches on other matchups.
|
On March 20 2010 09:01 Rucky wrote:
1. spawn larva, either 3 or make it so that "mutant" larva cannot produce workers, only combat units. This will force zerg to rethink timing of the queen since having it earlier doesn't provide a benefit unless zerg is rushing. it will be a good tell-tale sign and also a later queen means zerg does not get the benefit of having a monster scout killer so early.
2. banelings are fine. 1 baneling does not even kill 1 marine...according to what you said about splash radius, 2 banelings will kill 4 marines which doesn't seem bad at all considering that's 100 min/50 gas vs 200 minerals. this assumes 2 banelings hit, but in reality some banelings die off so it really takes 3 banelings to kill 4 marines if 4 marines kill 1 off. which sways the exchange in terran's favor. And according to this, as army size increase, marines become more efficient resulting in more banelings dying off which hugely favors terran. The banelings are only felt to be overpowered because of again, the spawn larva mechanic allows zerg to make so many more banelings to a ratio that is not fair. (zerg produces 4 banelings per 4 marines you build is how it feels like)
3. roaches are fine. again same problem with macro mechanic allow zerg users to produce a lot more roaches which make them seem insanely strong. to fix zvz, we can just add +bonus damage to armored onto hydras and lower their base attack. it seems fine to me with zerglings < roaches < hydras < zerglings.
AND stop with the dullness bullcrap. Have you guys not played sc1? same units there...
Yeah i don't get why poeple want to nerf banelings they are pretty much the least cost effective unit you can use as zerg they are only specialty is aganist buildings and light units a nerf to banelings = tvz terran clearly overpowered in high level play, already top terrans rape me in zvt becuase they micro their rines away with stim and shoot back at my banelings and lings and leave their maruaders to soak up damage. It might look go at lower end play but as things go up it becomes very hard for zerg to win without going mass muta into broodlords.
|
I had 30 marines in the middle of the map and he came in with 30+ bane.
I did the smart thing and killed about 5 then ran away! He followed me up to the front of my base where the 4x siege tanks killed them all instantly.
|
The problem is, that many terran players balling with marines and wonder why banelings owning them.
1 Baneling make 35 dmg ( 15+20 vs light) .
1 Marine have 45 hp.
So you need at least 2 banelings for 1 marine. With that splash damage, 2 banelings are able to kill more than 1 marine. If you are balling hard you can lost 10+ marines.
Marauders have 125 HP and banelings make only 15 dmg against them. So you need 8 banelings for 1 marauder.
So micro that marines and marauders. Marauders as tanks to stop the banelings and marines behind.
Also get that shield upgrade for marines. That are 10 additional hitpoints!
So your marines will have 55 hp.
|
I feel like alot of the people who replied recently are not very experienced.
|
I think a lot of the people whining are not very good.
|
OP is wrong in my opinion. I don't buy that Zerg is the strongest at this point or that Terrans are weak.
1) Spawn larvae is very powerful but I don't think there is good evidence that it is significantly stronger than mule. Each mule is equivalent to 3 scvs so even if I can have more drones, it is not that significant of a difference.
2)Flat out wrong here. "Banelings beat my marines" is like saying "immortals beat my roaches" or "Collossus beat my hydra". All are obvious and deserve a big "DUH" afterwards. Last time I tried to go baneling, he came with a mix of marines and mauraders slightly heavy on the marauder. Then he came back with the same again but a bunch of hellions too. As long as you are not marine heavy, blings will not cause you grief. Banelings are horrible against Mauraders (actually anything that isn't "light" in general, big waste of resources). You asked that we not say, say "Terran doesn't need marines" and I won't say it but I will say, "Terran doesn't need to be marine heavy". If Zerg is going bling, then go maurader or hellion heavy...if he is going roach instead, then go Maurader heavy. Do that annoying and extremely powerful push that Terran can make before tier 2 comes in for Zerg and win the game. For all early zerg units, Terran have a powerful counter that does bonus damage (the converse is not true for zerg. Only against marines can we do bonus damage).
Zergling<Hellion (bonus to light and splash)
Baneling<Hellion (bonus to light again) and Maurader (waste of zerg money)
Roach<Maurader (bonus to armored)
Its not until Hydra that we can get a unit that you can't do bonus damage too. And the Terran push comes before a Zerg (unless he skipped roach AND baneling) can get tier 2 anyway. So a Terran can always push with an army designed to beat whatever the Zerg is doing. I think in general what T's need to learn to do is scout better and counter (even if that means forgoing a mule for a scan). I don't buy the argument that T is significantly weaker at this point.
3)Roaches--Well actually I agree with you here that Zerg need another unit that has bonus against armored. Maybe if Hydra den could be built after a roach warren but before lair, then nerf their overall damage but give them bonus to armored. Maybe? Who knows. Or we could just wait till first expansion to get out lurkers back.
|
Baneling and Spawn Larvae seem fine to me.
However, adding a new unit seems to be a pretty good idea to me. To the guy who said higher up the tech tree doesn't work due to rush roaches, i'm sure same level as hydra tech is fine. And even if you feel that's too high up, then maybe make it a Lair tech?
|
On March 20 2010 14:38 Savio wrote:
OP is wrong in my opinion. I don't buy that Zerg is the strongest at this point or that Terrans are weak.
1) Spawn larvae is very powerful but I don't think there is good evidence that it is significantly stronger than mule. Each mule is equivalent to 3 scvs so even if I can have more drones, it is not that significant of a difference.
2)Flat out wrong here. "Banelings beat my marines" is like saying "immortals beat my roaches" or "Collossus beat my hydra". All are obvious and deserve a big "DUH" afterwards. Last time I tried to go baneling, he came with a mix of marines and mauraders slightly heavy on the marauder. Then he came back with the same again but a bunch of hellions too. As long as you are not marine heavy, blings will not cause you grief. Banelings are horrible against Mauraders (actually anything that isn't "light" in general, big waste of resources). You asked that we not say, say "Terran doesn't need marines" and I won't say it but I will say, "Terran doesn't need to be marine heavy". If Zerg is going bling, then go maurader or hellion heavy...if he is going roach instead, then go Maurader heavy. Do that annoying and extremely powerful push that Terran can make before tier 2 comes in for Zerg and win the game. For all early zerg units, Terran have a powerful counter that does bonus damage (the converse is not true for zerg. Only against marines can we do bonus damage).
Zergling<Hellion (bonus to light and splash)
Baneling<Hellion (bonus to light again) and Maurader (waste of zerg money)
Roach<Maurader (bonus to armored)
Its not until Hydra that we can get a unit that you can't do bonus damage too. And the Terran push comes before a Zerg (unless he skipped roach AND baneling) can get tier 2 anyway. So a Terran can always push with an army designed to beat whatever the Zerg is doing. I think in general what T's need to learn to do is scout better and counter (even if that means forgoing a mule for a scan). I don't buy the argument that T is significantly weaker at this point.
3)Roaches--Well actually I agree with you here that Zerg need another unit that has bonus against armored. Maybe if Hydra den could be built after a roach warren but before lair, then nerf their overall damage but give them bonus to armored. Maybe? Who knows. Or we could just wait till first expansion to get out lurkers back.
Just wondering, do you know the zerg have a unit called the mutalisk that they make with their banelings? And do you know if you don't have a massive amount of marines, the mutalisks will rape you? Just checking, as I thought you said I don't need to go marine-heavy.
|
On March 20 2010 16:16 JTPROG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 14:38 Savio wrote:
OP is wrong in my opinion. I don't buy that Zerg is the strongest at this point or that Terrans are weak.
1) Spawn larvae is very powerful but I don't think there is good evidence that it is significantly stronger than mule. Each mule is equivalent to 3 scvs so even if I can have more drones, it is not that significant of a difference.
2)Flat out wrong here. "Banelings beat my marines" is like saying "immortals beat my roaches" or "Collossus beat my hydra". All are obvious and deserve a big "DUH" afterwards. Last time I tried to go baneling, he came with a mix of marines and mauraders slightly heavy on the marauder. Then he came back with the same again but a bunch of hellions too. As long as you are not marine heavy, blings will not cause you grief. Banelings are horrible against Mauraders (actually anything that isn't "light" in general, big waste of resources). You asked that we not say, say "Terran doesn't need marines" and I won't say it but I will say, "Terran doesn't need to be marine heavy". If Zerg is going bling, then go maurader or hellion heavy...if he is going roach instead, then go Maurader heavy. Do that annoying and extremely powerful push that Terran can make before tier 2 comes in for Zerg and win the game. For all early zerg units, Terran have a powerful counter that does bonus damage (the converse is not true for zerg. Only against marines can we do bonus damage).
Zergling<Hellion (bonus to light and splash)
Baneling<Hellion (bonus to light again) and Maurader (waste of zerg money)
Roach<Maurader (bonus to armored)
Its not until Hydra that we can get a unit that you can't do bonus damage too. And the Terran push comes before a Zerg (unless he skipped roach AND baneling) can get tier 2 anyway. So a Terran can always push with an army designed to beat whatever the Zerg is doing. I think in general what T's need to learn to do is scout better and counter (even if that means forgoing a mule for a scan). I don't buy the argument that T is significantly weaker at this point.
3)Roaches--Well actually I agree with you here that Zerg need another unit that has bonus against armored. Maybe if Hydra den could be built after a roach warren but before lair, then nerf their overall damage but give them bonus to armored. Maybe? Who knows. Or we could just wait till first expansion to get out lurkers back. Just wondering, do you know the zerg have a unit called the mutalisk that they make with their banelings? And do you know if you don't have a massive amount of marines, the mutalisks will rape you? Just checking, as I thought you said I don't need to go marine-heavy.
sucks when you play a zerg with 6 gas on established tier2 when you are tier1 and have no expo eh?
|
stop talking about things in absolute terms rather talk in relative terms. this is the problem with imbalance.
people seem to miss this. here it is folks.
SC1
zerg income = low (drones or units) & zerg unit costs = low
terran income = med (separate worker production, but scv used to build) & terran unit costs = med (some cheap, some expensive)
protoss income = high (separate worker production) & protoss unit cost = high
SC2
zerg income = high (queen: larva is a resource afterall *listen to day9*) & zerg unit costs = low
terran income = high (mule) & terran unit costs = high (the only thing cheap is marines)
protoss income = high (chrono boost) & protoss unit costs = high
Yes, a few of you guys are right and noticed that zerg's spawn larva ability is not imbalance such that mule and chrono boost gives protoss the same income. But this is the source of the problem. Why do you zergs feel entitled to the same income as terran/protoss when in SC1 zerg never had that same amount of income. for the game to be balanced, the income has to match the unit costs. In sc1 zerg's income was low which allowed cheap zerg units to be balanced. Now zerg's income is too strong for zerg units to be cheap.
Two obvious solutions. 1) work on cost efficiency like some people here suggests and increase the unit costs of zerg. 2) decrease the income of zerg by reforming the macro mechanic of the queen with suggestions i posted earlier.
there was a very early article about zerg larva injection (what it use to be called) by teamliquid (you guys should read, if you've haven't) which shows how powerful it really is. fixing the spawn larva alone could dramatically fix all the baneling and roach "imbalances." the very fact they seem powerful is because they have like someone said 30 banelings to 30 marines or a lot more roaches than twice the enemy army size.
OR maybe it will all just be easier if they just nerf all zerg units to cost more and make them lose their identity with all 3 races being equal...
COME on, i thought we wanted distinction!!! zerg is suppose to be CHEAP and fast and a lot, but require more bases with less workers at each base to produce the same amount of income. zerg is now just like the other races where you have enough larva to the extent that the drone vs unit dilemma is dissolved. workers or fighters???? wait i have enough larva for both.
edit: i might be a little extreme, but there is truth to the matter. there is something here which i am seeing.
|
y do people expert a nerf for the zerg? i'm a terran player and if u see the zerg player go banelings...guess what...u shouldn't go marines and run into it. in fact if they make more than 4-5 banelings that's a heap of gas they could be using to get a lair, or some roaches...what does that mean?...it means they can only make zerglings...so turtle up and go air and counter it or expand and make tanks and contain. everyone is expecting the fact that banelings do dmg but they also cost a good amount of gas which prevents a lot of other units being built...and it's suicide units. if ur asking for a nerf to banelings...what kind of nerf do u want it to be?....so that marines/marauders can take it out without getting killed?...what kind of balance is that -- that'll just make the mm army imba. so think about what u can do as terran before u play and don't expect to win every single game with mm.
on a side note though...i do think that the larva thing is pretty crazy haha i would say limit it to an extra 3 larva and not 5...haha.
|
Do you have any statistical evidence that zerg is dominating?
|
No replays
No solid evidence
Not even giving his current division/rank so we know if he is competent player.
Another whine thread about zerg, with ALL three points being extensively discussed in other threads.
Why is this not closed ;(
|
There is no bloody way muta-banelings is cost effective versus MMM tanks
I could bet my life i can build a terran unit composition half the cost of muta-banelings and still beat it.
This whining is taken way too far. There is no such thing really as zerg imbalanced. only bad players.
|
OP:
I find it silly that you counter argue yourself in your first post by just saying that the argument is silly and that a good enough player will do X.
Also stating that it's now pretty "safe to say" that Zerg is the strongest race just made me chuckle. This truly isnt anything but QQ.
I'm not saying the game is completely balanced, but your assumptions way of presenting arguments are downright silly.
--
I only have problems with unit devirsity for Zerg, and that has nothing to do with balance but rather fun factor. There are things to be done to help that problem, but that however would impact balance and it would be abit dangerous. I hope it will be done though.
|
Really like these suggestions. Especially the 3 larva for queen thing, and possibly a build time increase for the queen on top of that, the zerg's ability to mass produce so easily needs to be toned down. Roaches just need to be nerfed imo, take away an armor point, and some hp. To compensate, drop marauders and immortals +armored dmg a bit perhaps.
And banelings, not sure how to fix. But this won't work:
Another options is allowing for overkill. Overkill would still make banelings almost just as effective in the hands of a skilled micro-oriented zerg player.
This is a result of units dying instantly so can't be fixed like that. Where in sc:bw it takes a small fraction of time to die (so units will overkill on an already dead target) in sc2 they die instantly so the target is simply dead and there is nothing to overkill on. Probably just have to tweak their numbers somewhere.
On March 20 2010 08:27 jakel wrote:Show nested quote + Attica United States. March 20 2010 08:02. Posts 12 PM Profile Quote
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long. Exactly, this is perfect. banelings are not overpowered, use tanks and other units that ARE NOT tier one... I watch my friend play and play a few times and tanks definitely work against banelings. Otherwise the only other option a zerg player has is broodlords and if you need broodlords to beat a tier 1 unit something's wrong
This won't work vs good zergs. They'll just expand like crazy and turbo their econ. Dimaga easily takes not even his natural he just goes straight for the high-yield because banelings will rape any early game marine pressure easily. So by the time you roll out with your slow siege tanks, a good zerg will already be too much ahead. Not only in terms of economy, also with more bases he can soooo quickly mass produce whatever unit he needs to counter what terran has.
|
Complaining about unit imbalances does you no good. You will win more games by improving your scouting, counter scouting, timing, and macro (not to mention MICRO!!!)
1.) If the zerg can't get any good scout information, they won't know weather to spam workers or units. If you fake an attack and pull back, you can force them to make units. Just try and pick off OL and hide your tech as best as possible.
2.) If you keep scouting the zerg, you will know if they are expanding, teching, getting drones, etc. and that is important information! Keep making SCVs constantly! You need to sac a few from time to time to scout, just using scan will get you into trouble. Scan is for the places your scv scout can't get to.
3.) And use your scouting knowledge your advantage, don't just take note of it! Too often I notice somebody scout that they have an army advantage, and don't even try and put pressure on. If at any point they are being too greedy, push in. If they spend all their larva on units and they can repel your attack, and you are overextending, pull out!
4.) Make it hard for them to make drones safely. (and countering their scouts is important for this) If they know your incoming, they will spend larva on units. IF THEY KNOW. So again, you can just make a feint from time to time, too, if you know they will see it coming. Otherwise, just killing the OLs and scouts will put them on semi-alert and unable to just make drones safely.
5.) Don't put all your MM in one ball, make like 2 to 4 control groups at the least so you can spread/surround/maneuver and just have better control of them. Its not that banelings are OP, its that balling your units into Ctrl+1 is a very bad habit. Banelings are the counter control group balls.
No matter what the state of balance is, if you work on all that, you will have an easier time against zerg.
|
On March 20 2010 08:27 jakel wrote:Show nested quote + Attica United States. March 20 2010 08:02. Posts 12 PM Profile Quote
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long. Exactly, this is perfect. banelings are not overpowered, use tanks and other units that ARE NOT tier one... I watch my friend play and play a few times and tanks definitely work against banelings. Otherwise the only other option a zerg player has is broodlords and if you need broodlords to beat a tier 1 unit something's wrong
Actually Hydra do really well against Marines. Don't expect to take down a 2/2 Marine force, with 0/0 Hydras. I see this all the time....then the Zerg complains. Whenever I play a competent Zerg and they keep up with macro, and upgrades, Hydras are damn fearsome and tear into my bio. As for banelings....I think they should bring overkill back (to all AoE) and friendly fire. Tanks have it. HSM has it. Nukes have it. All Terran splash has friendly fire, except PF. That should change. All AoE damages in SC II should be FF also. That would balance that out sufficiently. As it is now, it only takes one baneling to wipe out 4-5 marines at a time, with no micro. Let's put a little skill and thought into our troop movements.
As for Zerg in general....they are pretty well balanced. Banelings fill the role of lurkers by holding ground, and forcing the T to get mobile detection. (Not sure why I don't see more Zergs use burrowed spider mines...err banelings) I do feel that Zerg could use another caster that is more of a support unit, ala defiler. Move Infestor down the tech tree a little, and bring in a support caster at T3.
For Protoss...Have Warp Gate tech be 120 seconds, not 140. Also I would like to see a cost of 50Gas for every warp gate transformation. 50/50 initial tech, then 50gas to transform each Gate. There should be some dynamic cost / benefit to each production facility. This may be heresy, but I feel as though Storm is a bit weaker in SC II than SC I. Perhaps slightly upping the damage, or lowering the energy requirement. HT should compliment the Phoenix for AA. If you give AoE to Phoenix you have to take away Gravitron. This doesn't seem like a good move to me. Perhaps lowering the cost to 150/150 to research storm, also...
As for Terran....I hate TvT. I feel Banshees are a little too good. Instead of 12 * 2, perhaps 10 * 2. I would also give Tanks another armor, and reduce their build time by 7 seconds. For the love of god, make the Thor smaller. That thing is so slow, and so clunky it is a nightmare to use. Other than that Terran seems fine.
|
I don't see how it's "no micro" and it takes 2 banelings, not 1. Course they is micro. If you just attack move into a group of marines, they could kill a lot of your baneling just by stim and moving back after killing some. Banelings are effective only if you manage to move really close, like sorta flank? before you blow em up. Lotta times terran with medivac manage to stim and back up while being healed to take down banelings.. It's just that other times, people just sit there, stim, and wait for all their army to just die.. ><
In any case, i think banelings are fine the way they are.
|
On March 20 2010 19:54 zLnoEk wrote:
I don't see how it's "no micro" and it takes 2 banelings, not 1. Course they is micro. If you just attack move into a group of marines, they could kill a lot of your baneling just by stim and moving back after killing some. Banelings are effective only if you manage to move really close, like sorta flank? before you blow em up. Lotta times terran with medivac manage to stim and back up while being healed to take down banelings.. It's just that other times, people just sit there, stim, and wait for all their army to just die.. ><
In any case, i think banelings are fine the way they are.
Try spreading some creep tumors across the whole map (Swear, it takes like 2 minutes to do since you get a new one every 15 seconds), and get baneling speed upgrade. Or, just get burrow....
By the time Terran gets medivacs you should have Hydra's. Since Banelings give you map control, you can power like it's no ones business either going for mass Muta, or Hydra. I don't know how many times I've seen Zerg go baneling/zergling and power. If you try to attack you get easily repelled, and many times destroyed. I have like 10 replays where I am producing SCV's non-stop and I go back and watch the counter and its something ridiculous like 38 drones to 25 SCV, and I can't do shit about it. Introduce some micro and thought processes to banelings. That will balance them. You can leave their stats the same if you want, just make them overkill and FF.
I bet you do. Are you a Zerg player? Don't you agree that all splash damage in the game should be FF? Banelings are ridiculously cost effective and forces your opponent on the defensive, which against Zerg, who can expand and power like no ones business with spawn larvae, is a recipe for disaster.
Yeah, like I am a copper Terran who doesn't know how to play...
|
On March 20 2010 06:26 Koffiegast wrote:
Tbh redo Z, tons of people are shouting OP, despite that it has been shown every damn unit has a hardcounter. On top of that, Z are commenting how dull the gameplay is as its only a choice between mutas hydras or mass roaches.
Dude, you are not getting it. People like you don't even play the game because you don't understand why Z is so overpowered. It's not the units. Of course there is a counter for all of them, the units (other than the Roach) are nothing special or ridiculous. The simple fact is that the Zerg economy + production capability is too strong. Zerg can out macro the other races by far with Queens's spawn larva ability, so even though the units aren't ridiculously overpowered, Zerg still usually ends up running over other races because they can produce so many more of them. For example, Immortals may counter Roaches, but 40 Roaches are still going to beat 2 Immortals.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Zerg is the "hands down best race" because all races have options, but it seems that RIGHT NOW, the known Zerg options seem to be the strongest and come the earliest. This is probably more pronounced in the ZvP matchup than the ZvT though, because T does have a lot of very strong early game choices and lots of solid possible army compositions that, as stated, don't really cost a lot of money.
|
wtf, I don't understand terrans. Enough of whining... top europe players are Morrow and Demuslim. Lucifron (former wc3 player, now terran in sc2) won ESL invitational and beated Dimaga btw, who is scbw pro gamer . Lucifron's strategy was vikings, as simple as that. You just feel like stimpacked M&M has to own everything. Try others strats. Why the heck your first tier cheapest unit has to fight everything??? Even banelings are more expensive and require some tech.
I think most terrans are so used to SCBW terran balls which beat everything. So they like wtf, how can my army die.
|
That's why gamers from other games like WC3, CnC3, AoE3, etc. are doing well at SC2 and some BW players are struggling; the game is different and they have trouble UNadapting their minds to BW mindsets. In other words, they think they are still playing BW and have trouble forcing themselves to play differently. Skilled players from other games are starting fresh, so they don't have this problem.
|
On March 20 2010 20:13 LF9 wrote:
That's why gamers from other games like WC3, CnC3, AoE3, etc. are doing well at SC2 and some BW players are struggling; the game is different and they have trouble UNadapting their minds to BW mindsets. In other words, they think they are still playing BW and have trouble forcing themselves to play differently. Skilled players from other games are starting fresh, so they don't have this problem.
I'm a RA95 and AoK/AoE III player. As it is right now, Terran's main units in all match ups is bio, because Hellions are so flimsy and deal little damage to anything other than light, and Tanks take way too long to field in any sufficient quantity / replenish. Against Zerg who usually goes Muta, Vikings get decimated. The best answer to Muta, is ironically, our tier one unit, until we get HSM. Same as SC I. The difference being, in SC I Zerg didn't have a cheap massable T1.5 unit that could rape marines to death without much micro. Zerg in SC I also didn't get a speed boost on creep, and Zerg buildings didn't spawn 5 broodlings upon death.
So, early game Zerg got a massive boost, and Terran didn't get much. My solution to the problem is to make all splash FF and overkill. That goes for every unit that deals splash. Would you be opposed to such an idea?
Of course, in TvT this is the exception. Bio absolutely blows.
|
Hahaha okay yea that's true actually, since i've done that before, with the creep tumors (forgot about that). Andd i normally don't get to hydra, since i like to use muta. So, my experience in that field is a lot lower..
I wasn't trying to say you don't know how to play either. I was just stating my opinion about what i've seen from the games i've played. Most terran i've played against have managed to micro away,. The creep tumor thing is true, but that's pretty situational in that you'd have to have it everywhere, which you won't always.
Banelings may be strong against marines, but really that's pretty much all they're good for, and i don't think that's so incredibly cheap that they're good against marines. Marauders do a plenty good job, esp with stim.
I think if you really want to nerf banelings, it'd be better to nerf the +damage, rather than giving them FF.
Anyway, i guess yea banelings are really strong, but only against a few units. I don't think it's enough to warrant a nerf. It almost feels like saying immortals need nerf cause they rape roaches, just my opinion.
|
Open a "SC2 Whine Forum" please. This has nothintg to do with strategy what so ever.
|
Zurich15345 Posts
On March 20 2010 20:55 Slunk wrote:
Open a "SC2 Whine Forum" please. This has nothintg to do with strategy what so ever.
Correct.
|
if you nerf roaches for zvz, it will just switch to zergling wars, which is even more boring.
with the spawn larvae ability, theres no way you could fast tech to lair without being totally eaten by 400 zerglings before your tech is ready.
At least there's variation with roach strategies.
|
wow...this thread is so fail. i keep trying to add constructive stuff in here and then a bunch of ********** posts clutters the rest of it. i won't add insights anymore...i feel like everybody who actually understands this stuff left sc2 forum for good.
have fun whoever is left
|
On March 20 2010 21:46 Rucky wrote:
wow...this thread is so fail. i keep trying to add constructive stuff in here and then a bunch of ********** posts clutters the rest of it. i won't add insights anymore...i feel like everybody who actually understands this stuff left sc2 forum for good.
have fun whoever is left
I appreciate posts like yours, instead of people who are SOMEHOW claiming I am WHINING? rofl. Yes, I really personally care that zerg is OP and am whining by making all these insightful suggestions and not once saying anything relatively close to a complaint.
Then there are people like this (and I hate to say it cause i'm 100% Polish also).
[B]March 20 2010 18:06. Defrag Poland. Wrote:[B]
No replays
No solid evidence
Not even giving his current division/rank so we know if he is competent player.
Another whine thread about zerg, with ALL three points being extensively discussed in other threads.
Why is this not closed ;(
While I have my league, division, AND rank in my sig. Nice one there man.
Everyone: this is NOT a whine thread. Anyone with half a brain will see that as apparent. These are well thought-out balance suggestions based off logical theorycrafting from evidence seen in the current game. All of the top players will agree zerg macro mechanic with larva is overpowered. Banelings ARE a problem right now. And the zerg unit addition is a pretty damn good idea. Please see this thread as what it's worth, and post constructively, because when you say it's a whine thread and dismiss it, it sounds like you're whining.
Rucky, thanks for your posts, they were quite insightful and you seem to agree with at least some of my ideas here, seemingly mostly with the macro mechanic. Don't be discouraged by all the trash posts, they will inherently be filtered out by the good players.
|
I think blizzard should work on making zerg fun to play instead of just focusing on these "imbalances."
|
On March 20 2010 22:43 Kletus wrote:
I think blizzard should work on making zerg fun to play instead of just focusing on these "imbalances."
Fun is subjective. Imbalance, is not.
|
On March 20 2010 22:45 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 22:43 Kletus wrote:
I think blizzard should work on making zerg fun to play instead of just focusing on these "imbalances." Fun is subjective. Imbalance, is not.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that Blizzard should focus on making zerg more appealing to play with more options open to them before actually worrying about balancing zerg.
|
On March 20 2010 22:29 JTPROG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 21:46 Rucky wrote:
wow...this thread is so fail. i keep trying to add constructive stuff in here and then a bunch of ********** posts clutters the rest of it. i won't add insights anymore...i feel like everybody who actually understands this stuff left sc2 forum for good.
have fun whoever is left I appreciate posts like yours, instead of people who are SOMEHOW claiming I am WHINING? rofl. Yes, I really personally care that zerg is OP and am whining by making all these insightful suggestions and not once saying anything relatively close to a complaint. Then there are people like this (and I hate to say it cause i'm 100% Polish also). Show nested quote +[B]March 20 2010 18:06. Defrag Poland. Wrote:[B]
No replays
No solid evidence
Not even giving his current division/rank so we know if he is competent player.
Another whine thread about zerg, with ALL three points being extensively discussed in other threads.
Why is this not closed ;(
While I have my league, division, AND rank in my sig. Nice one there man. Everyone: this is NOT a whine thread. Anyone with half a brain will see that as apparent. These are well thought-out balance suggestions based off logical theorycrafting from evidence seen in the current game. All of the top players will agree zerg macro mechanic with larva is overpowered. Banelings ARE a problem right now. And the zerg unit addition is a pretty damn good idea. Please see this thread as what it's worth, and post constructively, because when you say it's a whine thread and dismiss it, it sounds like you're whining. Rucky, thanks for your posts, they were quite insightful and you seem to agree with at least some of my ideas here, seemingly mostly with the macro mechanic. Don't be discouraged by all the trash posts, they will inherently be filtered out by the good players.
Actually this thread is full of whine and makes wild claims without any backup evidence. Zerg is SO op! Thats a dumb thing to do especially within a day of a great TL article that actually gives the data clearly.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116377
Look at how OP zerg is. They definitely need a nerf. Their top US players are almost as highly rated as Terrans! We now have TL threads complaining that:
1. Zerglings are OP cause they can run through zeals
2. About 20 threads about roaches being OP
3. And now this thread and others saying banelings are OP
4. And who knows how many threads saying muta are OP.
You'd think that if lings, blings, roaches, and muta were all OP that Zerg would be winning 90% of games since those are the most commonly used units right? Then people come along and without referencing real data say, "It has been well established that Zerg is the most powerful race".
It gets old.
EDIT: Oh I forgot. Apparently infestors are OP too.
EDIT2: And how can I forget broodlords?
Apparently the only zerg units that are not OP are: corrupters, hydra, ultralisk (although I have seen some comments about ultralisk being OP as well).
I wonder why we Zerg aren't winning 90% of their games?
|
On March 20 2010 06:03 SLush wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 05:52 Defrag wrote:On March 20 2010 05:29 Odds wrote:On March 20 2010 05:25 hellitsaboutme wrote:
Just suggestion:
You have described only 1st tier units. Please, provide information on late units I think there are more imbalances. For example: HSM, Colossus, Broodlords. I believe in TvZ zerg can do nothing against HSM. Learn to dodge. HSM is vastly overrated. Drop the stupid comments. You could write 'learn to rush faster' if any terran complains about Broodlords. And check other thread, a proper abuse of HSM makes it unavoidable. As on topic, its another 'NERF ZERG OMG' Thread, and all of those points were already touched in the numerous topics on the forum. Whast the point of yet another same thread? I agree. Anyway dodging HSM is the same thing as dodging banelings.
No, its totally not.
|
On March 21 2010 00:14 Savio wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 20 2010 22:29 JTPROG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 21:46 Rucky wrote:
wow...this thread is so fail. i keep trying to add constructive stuff in here and then a bunch of ********** posts clutters the rest of it. i won't add insights anymore...i feel like everybody who actually understands this stuff left sc2 forum for good.
have fun whoever is left I appreciate posts like yours, instead of people who are SOMEHOW claiming I am WHINING? rofl. Yes, I really personally care that zerg is OP and am whining by making all these insightful suggestions and not once saying anything relatively close to a complaint. Then there are people like this (and I hate to say it cause i'm 100% Polish also). Show nested quote +[B]March 20 2010 18:06. Defrag Poland. Wrote:
No replays
No solid evidence
Not even giving his current division/rank so we know if he is competent player.
Another whine thread about zerg, with ALL three points being extensively discussed in other threads.
Why is this not closed ;(
While I have my league, division, AND rank in my sig. Nice one there man. Everyone: this is NOT a whine thread. Anyone with half a brain will see that as apparent. These are well thought-out balance suggestions based off logical theorycrafting from evidence seen in the current game. All of the top players will agree zerg macro mechanic with larva is overpowered. Banelings ARE a problem right now. And the zerg unit addition is a pretty damn good idea. Please see this thread as what it's worth, and post constructively, because when you say it's a whine thread and dismiss it, it sounds like you're whining. Rucky, thanks for your posts, they were quite insightful and you seem to agree with at least some of my ideas here, seemingly mostly with the macro mechanic. Don't be discouraged by all the trash posts, they will inherently be filtered out by the good players. Actually this thread is full of whine and makes wild claims without any backup evidence. Zerg is SO op! Thats a dumb thing to do especially within a day of a great TL article that actually gives the data clearly. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116377Look at how OP zerg is. They definitely need a nerf. Their top US players are almost as highly rated as Terrans! We now have TL threads complaining that: 1. Zerglings are OP cause they can run through zeals 2. About 20 threads about roaches being OP 3. And now this thread and others saying banelings are OP 4. And who knows how many threads saying muta are OP. You'd think that if lings, blings, roaches, and muta were all OP that Zerg would be winning 90% of games since those are the most commonly used units right? Then people come along and without referencing real data say, "It has been well established that Zerg is the most powerful race". It gets old. EDIT: Oh I forgot. Apparently infestors are OP too. EDIT2: And how can I forget broodlords? Apparently the only zerg units that are [b]not OP are: corrupters, hydra, ultralisk (although I have seen some comments about ultralisk being OP as well). I wonder why we Zerg aren't winning 90% of their games?
LOL that's not even a possible chart. The percentages add up to like 180% or something. The total # games won must = total # games lost. Therefore if zerg is winning 60% protoss 60% terran better be winning less than 50% cause you can't have everyone winning more than they're losing. It doesn't make sense.
I'd like to thank whoever wrote that TL article for being a complete retarded and making up statistics that other retards can use to back up bad arguments. Seriously, Zerg is broken, Protoss needs AA help, and Terran need some mech help. This is well understood by lots of top players and it's pretty evident in almost any decent game.
|
On March 21 2010 01:46 Floophead_III wrote:
LOL that's not even a possible chart. The percentages add up to like 180% or something. The total # games won must = total # games lost. Therefore if zerg is winning 60% protoss 60% terran better be winning less than 50% cause you can't have everyone winning more than they're losing. It doesn't make sense. Thanks for your bogus statistic though.
This is from a TL article, it only includes the winrates of players ranked high enough, not of all players.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116377
|
Well that makes no sense then, because what that's saying is that players who are winning are winning. Of course they are. It doesn't show anything at all.
|
Zurich15345 Posts
On March 21 2010 01:46 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 00:14 Savio wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 20 2010 22:29 JTPROG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 21:46 Rucky wrote:
wow...this thread is so fail. i keep trying to add constructive stuff in here and then a bunch of ********** posts clutters the rest of it. i won't add insights anymore...i feel like everybody who actually understands this stuff left sc2 forum for good.
have fun whoever is left I appreciate posts like yours, instead of people who are SOMEHOW claiming I am WHINING? rofl. Yes, I really personally care that zerg is OP and am whining by making all these insightful suggestions and not once saying anything relatively close to a complaint. Then there are people like this (and I hate to say it cause i'm 100% Polish also). Show nested quote +[B]March 20 2010 18:06. Defrag Poland. Wrote:
No replays
No solid evidence
Not even giving his current division/rank so we know if he is competent player.
Another whine thread about zerg, with ALL three points being extensively discussed in other threads.
Why is this not closed ;(
While I have my league, division, AND rank in my sig. Nice one there man. Everyone: this is NOT a whine thread. Anyone with half a brain will see that as apparent. These are well thought-out balance suggestions based off logical theorycrafting from evidence seen in the current game. All of the top players will agree zerg macro mechanic with larva is overpowered. Banelings ARE a problem right now. And the zerg unit addition is a pretty damn good idea. Please see this thread as what it's worth, and post constructively, because when you say it's a whine thread and dismiss it, it sounds like you're whining. Rucky, thanks for your posts, they were quite insightful and you seem to agree with at least some of my ideas here, seemingly mostly with the macro mechanic. Don't be discouraged by all the trash posts, they will inherently be filtered out by the good players. Actually this thread is full of whine and makes wild claims without any backup evidence. Zerg is SO op! Thats a dumb thing to do especially within a day of a great TL article that actually gives the data clearly. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116377Look at how OP zerg is. They definitely need a nerf. Their top US players are almost as highly rated as Terrans! We now have TL threads complaining that: 1. Zerglings are OP cause they can run through zeals 2. About 20 threads about roaches being OP 3. And now this thread and others saying banelings are OP 4. And who knows how many threads saying muta are OP. You'd think that if lings, blings, roaches, and muta were all OP that Zerg would be winning 90% of games since those are the most commonly used units right? Then people come along and without referencing real data say, "It has been well established that Zerg is the most powerful race". It gets old. EDIT: Oh I forgot. Apparently infestors are OP too. EDIT2: And how can I forget broodlords? Apparently the only zerg units that are [b]not OP are: corrupters, hydra, ultralisk (although I have seen some comments about ultralisk being OP as well). I wonder why we Zerg aren't winning 90% of their games? LOL that's not even a possible chart. The percentages add up to like 180% or something. The total # games won must = total # games lost. Therefore if zerg is winning 60% protoss 60% terran better be winning less than 50% cause you can't have everyone winning more than they're losing. It doesn't make sense. I'd like to thank whoever wrote that TL article for being a complete retarded and making up statistics that other retards can use to back up bad arguments. Seriously, Zerg is broken, Protoss needs AA help, and Terran need some mech help. This is well understood by lots of top players and it's pretty evident in almost any decent game.
I'll QFT this and add it to the list of why you will soon be banned from the SC2 strategy forum.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Hello! "A complete retarded" here, checking in. Feel free to post comments on my article if you would like to continue praising my efforts.
|
Blizzard has been, and still is playing around with the Infestor. Maybe they could be used as a decent counter to Roaches. It seems like Blizzard is already playing around this idea (Fungal Infestation now prevents units from burrowing seems to be directed towards Roaches)
Maybe instead of spitting out Infested Terrans (UGH that doesn't make any sense!), they could spit out some type of unit that does +dmg to armored. It would give the ability more of a point, and could make Infestors good against Roaches.
|
I find the charts to be really non-indicative of any balance right now. Just because they are fairly close, does not mean everyone knows how to use their race perfectly or to their potential yet. And plus this is just the win-rate of the best players? ok.. Oh - but even according to this flawed chart (when being contrasted to game balance), perhaps the Asians have discovered something, no? haha.
|
Does anybody else completely hate the roach? I'm zerg only and i cant stand these things. They made zerglings shitty. Hydras shitty. No lurkers, because fuck you, here's the most boring unit on the planet. Puke, run, puke, run, puke, run.
And while we're on it. What is it with the Muta and Hydra attack? Where is it? Am i suppose to see it? Where's the CHAAAPTUU! or the UUUAAAPSHH!? And why do Mutas fly like they are stoned? Seriously, i can actuality hear the elevator music in the background when i look at these things.
Larva inject, borrowed blings (and the little fuckers in general), ultras, great focking fun! The rest is just a shadow of it's former self...
|
Zerg vs Terran imba? I doubt so, if you look at recent results the Terrans are arguably the best race. 3/4 Terrans in PlayXP semi finals, 2/4 Terrans in CraftCup semi finals with a Terran winning, 1/4 Terrans in Zotac Cup semi finals with a Terran winning too. And vs Zerg terrans can do more than just the "MorroW" build as i will call it, since he is doing only MMM and is successful with it, like Lucifron yesterday and also Plot on today showed in PlayXP vs Check where he won with some Hellions mixed in and some awesome harassment with Hellion drops to kill Drones.
US Server stats Terrans got quite a boost too. Certainly has something to do with the last patch, and i have my doubts another patch buffing Terrans or nerfing Zergs would be justified, maybe some lesser used units can be changed with a patch, i would agree with that.
|
On March 21 2010 01:52 Floophead_III wrote:
Well that makes no sense then, because what that's saying is that players who are winning are winning. Of course they are. It doesn't show anything at all.
I do agree that everyone should enjoy the game, but not at the cost of balance. and in this case only high level, or "winning" players matter in terms of balance.
On March 21 2010 04:12 HolydaKing wrote:
Zerg vs Terran imba? I doubt so,
I agree. and IF ZvT is imbalanced, I would say its in favor of the terrans.
|
On March 19 2010 15:29 CharlieMurphy wrote:Stats currently among the top 8 ranks:51 Zerg ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Zicon_small.png) , 32 Protoss ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Picon_small.png) , 52! Terran ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/Ticon_small.png) , 17 Random . #1 Leader Ranks Only: 1! Protoss , 9 Zerg , 7 Terran , 2 Random
Terran doesn't need a buff and Zerg doesn't need a nerf.
|
Banelings wouldn't be a problem if they fixed larvae :/
|
On March 20 2010 22:45 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 22:43 Kletus wrote:
I think blizzard should work on making zerg fun to play instead of just focusing on these "imbalances." Fun is subjective. Imbalance, is not.
Wrong. They are both subjective. Rock: Scissors is fine. Nerf paper.
|
On March 21 2010 03:06 JTPROG wrote:
I find the charts to be really non-indicative of any balance right now.
In all seriousness....what else could be indicative of balance?
Blizzard is doing a statistical look at the game, which is the truest way to find balance. And the results(aka the chart) show a pretty balanced game right now. That will of course change with time. We may in fact get a revolutionary gamechanging strat at some point, the equivalent of Heavy Metal Terran in SCI (for those who weren't around back then, there was a time when terrans fought toss with bio, tanks, and bunkers....now THAT was a tough matchup!)
|
On March 21 2010 16:46 Karas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 03:06 JTPROG wrote:
I find the charts to be really non-indicative of any balance right now. In all seriousness....what else could be indicative of balance? Blizzard is doing a statistical look at the game, which is the truest way to find balance. And the results(aka the chart) show a pretty balanced game right now. That will of course change with time. We may in fact get a revolutionary gamechanging strat at some point, the equivalent of Heavy Metal Terran in SCI (for those who weren't around back then, there was a time when terrans fought toss with bio, tanks, and bunkers....now THAT was a tough matchup!)
Alright, then if we play your game and say that the charts are indicative, how do you explain zerg in Asia?
|
Jaedong.
oh wa--
Not as good terrans?
|
I never said anything about zerg being OP, but that the macro mechanic for zerg could seriously be overwhelming. The problem is that zerg is not the funnest race to play as everyone can agree, even pros. If a race is not fun why would anyone play it. If all the top players are playing terran/protoss and not playing zerg yet zerg is still winning at an equal rate as terran/protoss, what is up there? The statistics show that the races are pretty balance, but right now a lot of pros are moving away from zerg and playing other races. I don't know when the statistics were taken, but if it was during this shift then it actually supports and indicates that zerg is incredibly powerful being able to match terran and protoss even with a smaller pro user base.
|
I love how zerg players cry imba on ravens when their broodlords and infestors have been destroying terran armies since day one. It's the same as a toss player crying nerf on EMP because it's easier for the terran player to micro an EMP shot than for the protoss to kill the enemy ghost. Hello, ever hear of High Templar, psi storm? Same argument could be applied there. You've been throwing those around every matchup since SC1 do you hear people crying about it? That was kinda off topic, but my point is tech units are supposed to be strong, that's what makes them worth teching to. Toss and zerg players need to man up. Terran's been fighting an uphill battle being underpowered since beta started up, they dealt with it, and found counters to seemingly imba strats. Now your turn.
|
I love how OP is whining about Zerg when there is absolutely nothing overpowered about Zergs
If anything, there are more Terran players at the top of SC2 right now owning it up
Damn this thread needs to be closed and the OP banned from making threads again
|
On March 24 2010 15:05 AzureEye wrote:
I love how OP is whining about Zerg when there is absolutely nothing overpowered about Zergs
If anything, there are more Terran players at the top of SC2 right now owning it up
Damn this thread needs to be closed and the OP banned from making threads again
Pretty much this. If anything protoss needs a slight boost. Zerg and terran are about equal right now.
On March 24 2010 14:14 Rucky wrote:
I never said anything about zerg being OP, but that the macro mechanic for zerg could seriously be overwhelming. The problem is that zerg is not the funnest race to play as everyone can agree, even pros. If a race is not fun why would anyone play it. If all the top players are playing terran/protoss and not playing zerg yet zerg is still winning at an equal rate as terran/protoss, what is up there? The statistics show that the races are pretty balance, but right now a lot of pros are moving away from zerg and playing other races. I don't know when the statistics were taken, but if it was during this shift then it actually supports and indicates that zerg is incredibly powerful being able to match terran and protoss even with a smaller pro user base.
I think you are confusing win rate with overall win numbers. Win rate is easier to keep high with less players in a race. If anything, that would indicate very good players playing an underpowered race. Pro's dont move away from a race because it isnt fun. Pros move away from a race because they cannot win with it. Casual players might move away because it isnt fun, or too much stress. Do not confuse the two.
|
On March 24 2010 15:05 AzureEye wrote:
I love how OP is whining about Zerg when there is absolutely nothing overpowered about Zergs
If anything, there are more Terran players at the top of SC2 right now owning it up
Damn this thread needs to be closed and the OP banned from making threads again
May I ask why some people claim this is a whine post?
I seriously think the people who say this is a whine thread have an IQ of like 10. My OP has no signs of whine in it at all. It is a well-constructed opinion-oriented discussion thread giving ideas on balance changes to the game. I am a completely objective person by the way, I could care less which race is overpowered or not, I just want to give my opinion and balance the game through intelligent discussion. If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. If anything people like you need to be banned from making posts again, as yours was a useless bash post which included making ridiculous claims without any support.
|
i wanna see somekind of "fake" bio so zerg goes banelings but then bam T got shitload of helions!
|
Pretty much this. If anything protoss needs a slight boost. Zerg and terran are about equal right now.
Yeah, right. Protoss is underpowered. This is exactly why half the platinum players on asia choose protoss.
The biggest problem with balance right now is that protoss ground and especially robo units rape everything. If they get nerfed a lot and if the scouting opportunities become equal for all players, than the ballance is pretty much better than of most RTS released.
|
Appearance of intelligence does not preclude whining.
This is a whine thread because you somehow assume zerg is clearly stronger:
On March 20 2010 05:22 JTPROG wrote:
I think it is safe to say now that zerg is the strongest of the three races.
Yet nothing shows this to be true. You then give the macro mechanic, banelines, and roaches for reasons why you subjectively believe that zerg is stronger without showing that they are in fact stronger. Subjective opinion w/ logic behind it is still subjective. Perhaps showing that zerg is in actuality stronger with proof, (too bad the evidence does not bear this out and actually indicates that zerg and terran are on par) with logic exploring the reason they might be stronger would give this thread a semblance of value.
Otherwise, this thread is exactly the same content wise as "whine about X" thread #7, Differing only in that the opinions are dressed up more intelligently.
Further,
On March 20 2010 08:34 JTPROG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 08:27 jakel wrote: Attica United States. March 20 2010 08:02. Posts 12 PM Profile Quote
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long. Exactly, this is perfect. banelings are not overpowered, use tanks and other units that ARE NOT tier one... I watch my friend play and play a few times and tanks definitely work against banelings. Otherwise the only other option a zerg player has is broodlords and if you need broodlords to beat a tier 1 unit something's wrong Great idea man! My tanks pwn those mutalisks so hard! And don't say having both will help a ton with baneling/zergling mix, cause it really doesn't. Not to mention you'd prob get raped cause you wouldn't have enough marines. Please post intelligently. And I wouldn't expect you to agree with any of my ideas, it seems you don't have much game-sense.
Good job ripping into what is actually an intelligent post because it does not agree with your outlook. His suggestion was actually not bad. You claim banelings as being overpowered. He shows they are not. Higher tier units SHOULD in general be better then lower tier units, given the fact that the only way for zerg to counter MMM is baneling or broodlord, why should the early game counter be nerfed simply because they actually do what they are designed to do? Should we then nerf medivacs because they heal too fast and change it to 3 energy per HP instead of the other way around? No, find a way to play around it. MMM is not the only way to play terran. Anybody that disagrees doesnt have game-sense. Right.
Quit trolling.
|
On March 24 2010 23:17 Slunk wrote:Show nested quote +Pretty much this. If anything protoss needs a slight boost. Zerg and terran are about equal right now. Yeah, right. Protoss is underpowered. This is exactly why half the platinum players on asia choose protoss. The biggest problem with balance right now is that protoss ground and especially robo units rape everything. If they get nerfed a lot and if the scouting opportunities become equal for all players, than the ballance is pretty much better than of most RTS released.
Protoss has no anti air. Its as simple as that. If protoss robo gets nerfed then they have no options. Subjectively, robo is weaker then storm. Smartcasting and unit clumping make storms so much more powerful, plus feedback is necessary vs ghost. Robo gets killed by tanks and ghosts, or mutalisks.
|
Biggest thing I would change with Zerg is decreasing the 30% movement on creep to something like -10% for T or P units, as is and how easy it is to spam a map it creep the buff is pretty much constant.
|
On March 24 2010 23:19 dogabutila wrote:Appearance of intelligence does not preclude whining. This is a whine thread because you somehow assume zerg is clearly stronger: Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 05:22 JTPROG wrote:
I think it is safe to say now that zerg is the strongest of the three races.
Yet nothing shows this to be true. You then give the macro mechanic, banelines, and roaches for reasons why you subjectively believe that zerg is stronger without showing that they are in fact stronger. Subjective opinion w/ logic behind it is still subjective. Perhaps showing that zerg is in actuality stronger with proof, (too bad the evidence does not bear this out and actually indicates that zerg and terran are on par) with logic exploring the reason they might be stronger would give this thread a semblance of value. Otherwise, this thread is exactly the same content wise as "whine about X" thread #7, Differing only in that the opinions are dressed up more intelligently. Further, Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 08:34 JTPROG wrote:On March 20 2010 08:27 jakel wrote: Attica United States. March 20 2010 08:02. Posts 12 PM Profile Quote
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long. Exactly, this is perfect. banelings are not overpowered, use tanks and other units that ARE NOT tier one... I watch my friend play and play a few times and tanks definitely work against banelings. Otherwise the only other option a zerg player has is broodlords and if you need broodlords to beat a tier 1 unit something's wrong Great idea man! My tanks pwn those mutalisks so hard! And don't say having both will help a ton with baneling/zergling mix, cause it really doesn't. Not to mention you'd prob get raped cause you wouldn't have enough marines. Please post intelligently. And I wouldn't expect you to agree with any of my ideas, it seems you don't have much game-sense. Good job ripping into what is actually an intelligent post because it does not agree with your outlook. His suggestion was actually not bad. You claim banelings as being overpowered. He shows they are not. Higher tier units SHOULD in general be better then lower tier units, given the fact that the only way for zerg to counter MMM is baneling or broodlord, why should the early game counter be nerfed simply because they actually do what they are designed to do? Should we then nerf medivacs because they heal too fast and change it to 3 energy per HP instead of the other way around? No, find a way to play around it. MMM is not the only way to play terran. Anybody that disagrees doesnt have game-sense. Right. Quit trolling.
You do realize there is no 100% clear-cut proof I can give right? Logic and speculation based on experience are the best tools one has, so don't discredit it. What, am I supposed to sit around until some all-powerful god of statistics proves 100% that a mechanic is overpowered? Some thigns can be figured out through logic. I have speculated that at high-level play, one can easily abuse the zerg macro mechanic to give an unfair advantage through the reasons I listed. I'm sure many others have as well.
I never even said roaches were OP, I was just making suggestions in ZvZ.
And try incorporating tanks against muta/some banelings/lings, see how you do. Then tell me how intelligent the post was.
|
On March 20 2010 12:57 PiepTon wrote:
The problem is, that many terran players balling with marines and wonder why banelings owning them.
1 Baneling make 35 dmg ( 15+20 vs light) .
1 Marine have 45 hp.
So you need at least 2 banelings for 1 marine. With that splash damage, 2 banelings are able to kill more than 1 marine. If you are balling hard you can lost 10+ marines.
Marauders have 125 HP and banelings make only 15 dmg against them. So you need 8 banelings for 1 marauder.
So micro that marines and marauders. Marauders as tanks to stop the banelings and marines behind.
Also get that shield upgrade for marines. That are 10 additional hitpoints!
So your marines will have 55 hp.
No point getting the upgrade because you would still die from 2 banelings.
|
the larva-system isnt OP. you have to calculate them very well and scout constantly what your opponent is doing. Be aware of the fact that you need the larva to make overlord (for supply), drones for income and all kinds of units for your army. No other race has to think about this and timing this is kinda difficult. how do you scout a toss or terran who has walled in?
the only option is: sacrifice an overlord - which has to be replaced. even if the costs arent that much, the zerg-player loses a drone. especially in earlygame the right larva-management is crucial.
|
On March 24 2010 23:38 JTPROG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 23:19 dogabutila wrote:Appearance of intelligence does not preclude whining. This is a whine thread because you somehow assume zerg is clearly stronger: On March 20 2010 05:22 JTPROG wrote:
I think it is safe to say now that zerg is the strongest of the three races.
Yet nothing shows this to be true. You then give the macro mechanic, banelines, and roaches for reasons why you subjectively believe that zerg is stronger without showing that they are in fact stronger. Subjective opinion w/ logic behind it is still subjective. Perhaps showing that zerg is in actuality stronger with proof, (too bad the evidence does not bear this out and actually indicates that zerg and terran are on par) with logic exploring the reason they might be stronger would give this thread a semblance of value. Otherwise, this thread is exactly the same content wise as "whine about X" thread #7, Differing only in that the opinions are dressed up more intelligently. Further, On March 20 2010 08:34 JTPROG wrote:On March 20 2010 08:27 jakel wrote: Attica United States. March 20 2010 08:02. Posts 12 PM Profile Quote
What's really the problem. The fact that banelings counter a tier 1 unit well or the fact that terran rely solely on a tier 1 unit all game long. Exactly, this is perfect. banelings are not overpowered, use tanks and other units that ARE NOT tier one... I watch my friend play and play a few times and tanks definitely work against banelings. Otherwise the only other option a zerg player has is broodlords and if you need broodlords to beat a tier 1 unit something's wrong Great idea man! My tanks pwn those mutalisks so hard! And don't say having both will help a ton with baneling/zergling mix, cause it really doesn't. Not to mention you'd prob get raped cause you wouldn't have enough marines. Please post intelligently. And I wouldn't expect you to agree with any of my ideas, it seems you don't have much game-sense. Good job ripping into what is actually an intelligent post because it does not agree with your outlook. His suggestion was actually not bad. You claim banelings as being overpowered. He shows they are not. Higher tier units SHOULD in general be better then lower tier units, given the fact that the only way for zerg to counter MMM is baneling or broodlord, why should the early game counter be nerfed simply because they actually do what they are designed to do? Should we then nerf medivacs because they heal too fast and change it to 3 energy per HP instead of the other way around? No, find a way to play around it. MMM is not the only way to play terran. Anybody that disagrees doesnt have game-sense. Right. Quit trolling. You do realize there is no 100% clear-cut proof I can give right? Logic and speculation based on experience are the best tools one has, so don't discredit it. What, am I supposed to sit around until some all-powerful god of statistics proves 100% that a mechanic is overpowered? Some thigns can be figured out through logic. I have speculated that at high-level play, one can easily abuse the zerg macro mechanic to give an unfair advantage through the reasons I listed. I'm sure many others have as well. I never even said roaches were OP, I was just making suggestions in ZvZ. And try incorporating tanks against muta/some banelings/lings, see how you do. Then tell me how intelligent the post was.
You're supposed to look at high level play to see if a mechanic is balanced or not. Not to look at your own experiences and then project them into high level play. If zerg were really so imbalanced, they would be winning the vast majority of the time and sc2 tournaments. Yet if what you or somebody else said is true and pros are moving away from zerg, to me that indicates zerg is underpowered, not because it isnt fun.
re:roaches, my mistake. I took a peek back at the OP to see what specifically was in it and forgot you wernt actually complaining about roaches.
I dont play terran 1v1, but I play random in 2's and tanks have done decently well against banelings. I dont build more then 2 of them to go with MM, but in general I use vikings against mutas and overlords anyways.
|
I think giving the Zerg an anti-armor unit (even higher tier) would result in the same thing like in PvP: No P builds armored units, especially not Stalkers (well they suck anyway, but also there is the Immortal to counter it) and thus no P will build Immortals (nothing to counter). That being said neglecting Colossi being an armored unit that is being used, but Immortals hardly counters Colossi due to their superior range (with upgrade).
Something similar would happen in ZvZ in my opinion: Noone will build Roaches (because they're easily countered), and thus the counter unit will not be built either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Daigomi/hey_Win_rate.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Daigomi/hey_Average_rating.png)
![[image loading]](http://intothesunset.kilu.de/tl/sc2/random.png)
