[Poll] Best/Worst race? - Page 6

On June 08 2010 11:08 Ryuu314 wrote:
Wth...how is Zerg the weakest when pretty much all stats released say Z are "dominating" or otherwise have winning percentages...

On June 08 2010 11:08 Ryuu314 wrote:
Wth...how is Zerg the weakest when pretty much all stats released say Z are "dominating" or otherwise have winning percentages...

On June 08 2010 11:10 IdrA wrote:

the last overall stats i saw had zerg at 49% in both matchups and that was before the roach -> 2 supply change.

On June 08 2010 08:12 Drowsy wrote:
I feel like zerg is very strong against protoss and just has a ton of options in that matchup. ZvT is very hard though which offsets this somewhat. Terran is the strongest, and zerg and protoss are tied for weakest, with protoss being, imo, slightly weaker.

On June 08 2010 11:30 leeznon wrote:
Weakest/strongest race depends on the player.

On June 08 2010 11:11 selboN wrote:

This is AFTER Zerg being nerfed every patch ;D Voted Terran as strongest and Protoss as weakest.

On June 08 2010 11:10 IdrA wrote:

the last overall stats i saw had zerg at 49% in both matchups and that was before the roach -> 2 supply change.

On June 08 2010 10:18 RogerChillingworth wrote:
TLO is an amazing player, but not as good as Sen. I mean c'mon: he cheesed the first 4 games and lost 3/4 of them. And then won the mech games on Kulas Ravine and Desert Oasis.

Please, watch that Desert Oasis game.

If that were the case you would see an equal number of each race at the professional level. Instead I see a lot of Toss\Terran matchups and Toss\Terran players making it to the finals, but hardly ANY if ANY Zerg players in both. There is really only Sen and IdrA to watch, and they have a very hard time, even though they are both exceptional players. I feel like Zerg is easily the hardest to master which could have something to do with it, but should 1 race really be significantly harder to be viable? Is that REALLY balanced?

On June 08 2010 11:31 xenocide.psv wrote:


The only options I can see Zerg having is Roachs\Hydra's, which is pretty much the only option they have in every matchup. Zerg feels like a one-trick-pony since only a handful of their units are effective. Zerglings early on are good for harassing but despite late game fully upgraded having the highest dps, they are more than likely going to get stomped by Colossi. Plus wasting the time and money to upgrade Melee attacks puts you in a crummy spot since there are no other Melee units in the Zerg arsenal that are worth getting (Ultralisks are terrible). Banelings are decent early game and can be powerful for flanks, but once armor upgrades go out they just become a waste of resources.

Roachs and Hydralisks are the staple units for Zerg and their supply cost seems backwards. Roachs do more damage, have way more hp, and are armored. Yet they cost the same supply and are available earlier on? Why not switch Hydralisks to 1 supply since Roachs were bumped up to 2? I could see that maybe they attack too fast but why not lower their attack speed to compensate?

Then once you get past T2 it's tragic at best (I realize Hydra's are T2 as well, but I figured mentioning them WITH Roachs made more sense). Mutalisks are very expensive when you take into account their strength and just don't have the effectiveness outside of harassing that Zerg players want, Corruptors are expensive and it's unlikely you'll need them in most matchups outside of maybe abusing Corrupt against some Colossi\Thors. Hydralisks are a more reasonable solution when it comes to Anti-Air units. Infestors are GREAT but they are very gas-heavy and are susceptible to focus fire which makes they very difficult to use against high level players. Especially Toss players that have Blink on Stalkers since they can just blink into range and destroy said Infestor.

Tier3 is basically a joke, Broodlords are powerful but slow and VERY EXPENSIVE. The strange thing is that Zerg ONLY have A\GtG units in Tier3 where the Terran and Toss have A\GtA\G which adds a lot of versatility. I won't even talk about the Ultralisks short-comings since that dead horse has been beaten about a thousand times. The major problem I see is that the Zerg is supposed to be the "Swarm" but they are a race with very few DIFFERENT units, and aside from Lings all of their units cost at least 2 Supply which makes the amount of massing you can do minimal.

Protoss and Zerg both needs some buffs to be on the level Terran are at, but I think Terran honestly just need a slight nerf and Zerg needs some tinkering while Toss needs a few buffs (NOT TO STALKERS).



If that were the case you would see an equal number of each race at the professional level. Instead I see a lot of Toss\Terran matchups and Toss\Terran players making it to the finals, but hardly ANY if ANY Zerg players in both. There is really only Sen and IdrA to watch, and they have a very hard time, even though they are both exceptional players. I feel like Zerg is easily the hardest to master which could have something to do with it, but should 1 race really be significantly harder to be viable? Is that REALLY balanced?

On June 08 2010 11:10 IdrA wrote:

the last overall stats i saw had zerg at 49% in both matchups and that was before the roach -> 2 supply change.

Anyway, the point is: There needs to be a 1-food unit for Zerg, or a 1.5 supply Roach at the very least to tank the firepower of P and T early and late game mech/6-gate all-ins. It's kind of silly how the macro advantage has shifted from BW. A 2-base, saturated toss can easily keep up with a 3-base Zerg. It's just silly. And the entirety of the map pool doesn't support a 4+ base Zerg unless there's some surreal contain. And 4-basing just isn't a consistent -15 minute play given the viability of 2-base T and P play.

On June 08 2010 11:43 ilbh wrote:

mutas/lings/banelings

mutas/roaches

both compositions can be mixed with infestors

roaches/hydras are awful against terrans unless you outmacro your opponent having a huge hydra roach army... cause tanks can melt hydras and roaches

and Tier 3 is not a joke. its really good but like you said, its soo expensive and you need a lot of time to make hive/greater spire/corruptors/broodlords

dont be so pessimist about zergs

btw, you forgot dimaga and all the korean zergs. the world cup was decided between 2 zergs... cool vs dimaga.

On June 08 2010 11:56 Lithose wrote:


I'm pretty sure base per base, T and P are supposed to have the advantage, which is why hatcheries are cheaper for Zerg? The zerg design philosophy is based on macro/expansion. Their tools allow for faster growth than the other two races, both in army and expansion numbers. (Tools like, cheaper hatcheries, multiple drone production, creep allowing for more mobile defense forces, limited need for production buildings due to production being consolidated into hatcheries ect.)

Zerg is still definitely the strongest macro race. I think the problem is more about whether that advantage is sufficient to combat certain builds, not whether or not its there.