[Poll] Best/Worst race?

KR vs US vs EU: In Korea, Zerg needs to be nerfed because Zerg is so dominant. For EU/US, Zerg needs to be buffed. At this point, due to limited sample size, nobody knows for sure what races are the most powerful.

On April 23 2010 18:28 samachking wrote:
KR vs US vs EU: In Korea, Zerg needs to be nerfed because Zerg is so dominant. For EU/US, Zerg needs to be buffed. At this point, due to limited sample size, nobody knows for sure what races are the most powerful.


From the new write up at Blizzard HQ. And according to Idra/Artosis, the koreans are way ahead of foreigners in SC2 strategy and probably skill level. So Idk. I didn't vote since I'm not in the beta yet.

On April 23 2010 19:43 Unstable wrote:
The result; a biased and faulty data-chart.

On April 23 2010 20:36 MorroW wrote:
btw i voted zerg is best and terran is weakest, and i have statistics to support that^^

On April 24 2010 03:20 Inori wrote:
This poll shows that there's more zerg players than protoss + terrans combined.

On April 24 2010 03:18 Gaxton wrote:
Zerg both strongest/weakest
WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE!? D:

On April 24 2010 03:22 gaizka wrote:


Did not think about it, you're right!

On April 24 2010 03:29 Antimage wrote:
My opinion:

Strongest race in first 10 minutes: Zerg
Strongest race in late game: Protoss

Weakest race: in first 5 minutes: Protoss (nerfed immortal build time AND nerfed gateway build time? come on - whereas terran can block ramp and zerg basically has maphack)
Weakest race in late game: Zerg

On April 23 2010 20:32 Fosh wrote:
Well you can't really expect a poll to not have bias. The thing that confuses me is why theres two polls when the first one answers the question fully, obvioulsy it shows which is the strongest and the weakest. The second poll is completely useless and just screws with the numbers.

On June 07 2010 07:21 wankey wrote:
lol wtf. Zerg are definitely one of the most OP races right now. Mainly due to larva injection basically makes early zergling rush incredibly powerful. That and plague that immobilizes! It completely obliterates psi storm (what a pathetic storm... I can immobilize you WHILE draining health and it only costs 75 mana)

And if you have massive units, I'll just mind control you. Watcha gonna do now?

I think most people aren't really playing Zerg properly. Hydralisks is the staple unit in Zerg play, I think a lot of people are just going roaches and whining when they don't get anywhere with it.

I think when the game comes out, everyone is gonna be playing Zerg. Terran is going to be second best with their siege tanks being able to counter zerg and protoss will be spat upon simply because they have been so nerfed out of existence.

Right now, Zerg are most OP, simply because they have many openings, Terran are second because they can wall off easily and siege up and protoss, good luck protoss players.

Immortal is basically a useless unit against terran with half a brain (ghosts anyone?) And Hydralisks, mutalisks and speedlings completely own immortals. Stalkers are a joke against marauders and speedlings and zealots are completely pwned by infestors and siege tanks.

I pity the toss player.

On April 23 2010 18:17 likeaboss wrote:
Ok.... since this poll is pretty crazy voting going on right now.... please dont vote if your not in the beta or if you dont feel your skilled enough to understand the imbalances of ALL matchups. Dont vote for protoss being the strongest just because you think immortals are OP

On April 23 2010 20:36 MorroW wrote:
z weakest and strongest lol

btw the majority r z users atm so they will automatically get better votes because ppl favor their own races in polls

sry but polls like this r useless just for this reason

and patch 9 just came out so its pretty damn impossible for anyone to say for real what they think without testing it for a week or so

btw i voted zerg is best and terran is weakest, and i have statistics to support that^^

On June 07 2010 07:58 gillon wrote:


I do sure hope you were trolling cause that sure is some ignorant shit you've got going on there, lol.

On June 07 2010 08:01 TLOBrian wrote:


Is it possible to double troll? Because he was actually right lol. Who needs skill when you can make tanks and thors and instant win?

On June 07 2010 07:46 Mnijykmirl wrote:
they (Protoss) have way more flexible game in builds and tech, good speed overall, and scary regeneration and amplifies their strength of mobility and map control. It becomes very frustrating to deal with, if my slower, more cost efficient-only-if-built-just-right-against-their-tech army can't crush their army outstandingly at once, Protoss is easily the strongest over all.

On June 08 2010 09:03 Saechiis wrote:
*sigh* Some people won't be happy till siege tanks can be overtaken by a zergling. Unfortunately Blizzard's numbers suggest the oppposite , since ZvT is pretty much 55% across the board in favor of Zerg. But ofcourse you will counter that by saying Blizzard is a money-snatching company that hates anything Zerg. In fact, they've probably received Terran money to makes roaches 2 supply. *those bastards*

I would like someone to do a Poll on what race TL members play, wouldn't be surprised to see a majority of Zerg. And after that we'll calculate the "whine-percentage" of each race, I'm guessing it's imba.

On April 23 2010 19:43 Unstable wrote:
Protoss players vote that Zerg or Terran is the strongest, whilst their race is the weakest
Zerg players vote that Protoss is the strongest, whilst their race is the weakest
Terrans vote that either Protoss or Zerg is the strongest, whilst their race is the weakest.

The result; a biased and faulty data-chart.

On June 08 2010 09:26 EliteAzn wrote:
Can OP please add an option that asks what race they (the voter) uses?

Terran is second because of how good mech is, especially versus Zerg. Weaker Terran players are taking out stronger Zerg players left and right with mech (TLO defeating Sen multiple times with shingled tanks and hellions. Poop). - RogerChillingworth Ireland. June 08 2010 09:36. Posts 107

On June 08 2010 09:26 dhe95 wrote:
Wouldn't the least strongest be the weakest
and the least weakest be the strongest?

So why are there 2 polls? We have like 180 more people voting in the most strongest poll anyway.

On June 08 2010 10:30 metasonic wrote:
I still think the MU's are balanced as such:

Terran > Zerg
Protoss > Terran
Zerg > Protoss (? not too sure about this one cause I play terran so I'm speaking from pro VOD's mostly)

But really, none of them are too bad.

On June 08 2010 09:26 EliteAzn wrote:
Can OP please add an option that asks what race they (the voter) uses?

On June 08 2010 10:30 metasonic wrote:
I still think the MU's are balanced as such:

Terran > Zerg
Protoss > Terran
Zerg > Protoss (? not too sure about this one cause I play terran so I'm speaking from pro VOD's mostly)

But really, none of them are too bad.

On June 08 2010 11:03 larjarse wrote:


This goes along with SC lore.

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.

On June 08 2010 09:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Blizzard has never said that ZvT is 55%. You're pulling that out of your ass.

Not only that, statistics don't = balance.

On June 08 2010 11:56 xenocide.psv wrote:


Muta's are very weak when you consider their cost, and are probably best used against Toss I will agree. But using Banelings really cuts into your gas which makes getting Muta's even harder. I do agree that Roaches and Hydra's are awful against Terran, but there isn't any really effective options against Terran players when Terran Mech is as powerful as it is. Vikings will destroy Muta's and everyone knows Thor's will massacre them, then Roachs get stomped by Marauders\Tanks. I guess Lings\Banelings are worth a shot but it still is NOT easy bu any stretch of the imagination.

I'm going to continue playing Zerg because I love the mechanics of the race and the units, but there are a lot of areas that needs improvement ;p

I can't believe I forgot Dimaga =x As for the Korean Zerg they are a mystery to me. I keep hearing Korean Players are very good with Zerg but whenever I go Replay hunting I see dozens of TvP\PvT replays and all the Zerg ones have the Zerg player losing.

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.

hatcheries arent really cheaper since it costs a 50 mineral drone + its future mining time as well
nexuses are the cheapest, since it gets its macro mechanic for free while queens and orbitals cost another 150 minerals

I think the cheaper hatcheries is a misconception. Not only do hatcheries cost 300 minerals, they also cost a drone and an overlord of supply ~ 450 minerals. Zerg can drone up faster than other races, but dones don't mine less efficiently than scvs, and only slightly less than probes.

The main reason that zergs in pro games try to take more bases, imho, is that zergs have that early game aggression bonus of 6 lings in case of trouble. In addition, zerg armies tend to be less cost effective than terrans ones so pro zergs take more bases, but less workers per base, so it doesn't boil down to a war of attrition where the zerg loses. Now in starcraft 2, I can't really say anything about cost effectiveness.

On June 08 2010 13:02 clickrush wrote:
how can races be imbalanced at all? the Author of this poll really has no idea what hes talking about.

there might be matchups that favor one side on certain maps and certain spawning locations. everything else is too generalized.

ppl who are actually voting here have no idea about balance (wether theyre skilled or not)

On June 08 2010 13:00 nam nam wrote:
I don't get it. A couple of weeks ago when a lot of tournaments were happening and zerg dominated in most of them, people were saying zerg was imba and now all of a sudden they are the weakest? Is it just a coincidence that zerg players have been as successful as they have been?

On June 08 2010 13:11 synapse wrote:


I think you missed out on the patch that made roaches 2 supply...

On June 08 2010 13:07 RogerChillingworth wrote:


yes, actually. which is the funny thing


for the same reason everyone said mech was useless at the start of beta. Then, after one small change, it's overpowered. (hint: it was always really good). Players aren't a gram stain of race balance. Really. Especially this early on. You have to look at the overall capability of T/P/Z.

On June 08 2010 13:33 kryto wrote:
I voted zerg strongest and protoss weakest, but I think it is by a very small margin.

I believe the majority of people voting zerg weakest are doing so because they fail to abuse all the insane lategame tactics zerg has available to them and in doing so assume that their race must clearly be weakest. Show me someone who utilizes nydus worms to link spread out expansions and uses broodlords whenever they have the opportunity and STILL thinks that zerg is the weakest, and i'll eat my words . And yes, TvZ is my best matchup, but I still believe that zerg has so much untapped potential.

Terran are probably the easiest to abuse and as such recieve a disproportionate amount of the strongest votes.

I think that Protoss is completely capable of beating any race but since they are so limited in their tech choices (that are actually viable) i voted them weakest.

I voted zerg strongest and protoss weakest, but I think it is by a very small margin.

I believe the majority of people voting zerg weakest are doing so because they fail to abuse all the insane lategame tactics zerg has available to them and in doing so assume that their race must clearly be weakest. Show me someone who utilizes nydus worms to link spread out expansions and uses broodlords whenever they have the opportunity and STILL thinks that zerg is the weakest, and i'll eat my words . And yes, TvZ is my best matchup, but I still believe that zerg has so much untapped potential.

Terran are probably the easiest to abuse and as such recieve a disproportionate amount of the strongest votes.

I think that Protoss is completely capable of beating any race but since they are so limited in their tech choices (that are actually viable) i voted them weakest.

On June 08 2010 13:55 Saechiis wrote:


Laughing at someone who actually tries to reason and support his opinion is the saddest thing of all. Especially considering your lack of any reasoning-capability whatsoever. I hope you get banhammered and I'm not usually that guy.

Same goes for the guy beneath you.

On June 08 2010 13:22 DooMDash wrote:
Tournament results argue Terran is the worst.

Laughing at someone who actually tries to reason and support his opinion is the saddest thing of all. Especially considering your lack of any reasoning-capability whatsoever. I hope you get banhammered and I'm not usually that guy.

Same goes for the guy beneath you.

On June 08 2010 08:29 Zurles wrote:
I'm a terran player always have been and always will, And Terran is by far the strongest race in my opinion. Like tester said, if all the Korean pros were playing terran would be dominating. I think the terran style has the built in advantage, because of you defend everything properly it's like an unstoppable force coming at you, and the better people get at defending all sorts of builds the more powerful it becomes. But in sc2 now terran have much more options and the general disadvantages of mobility and lack of early game control/options no longer exist for them.

Most people in this thread think terran is the strongest for the wrong reasons...

On June 08 2010 14:08 monitor wrote:
My troubles are ZvT. To me, I have to scout the Terran, while he knows I will get zerglings, roach/hydra, and fast expand. My builds are WAAAAY to confined as Zerg I feel like compared to Protoss and Terran, where creativity is at my fingertips.

All of this is just minor, for I like the game,
monitor

On June 08 2010 14:08 monitor wrote:
My troubles are ZvT. To me, I have to scout the Terran, while he knows I will get zerglings, roach/hydra, and fast expand. My builds are WAAAAY to confined as Zerg I feel like compared to Protoss and Terran, where creativity is at my fingertips.

All of this is just minor, for I like the game,
monitor


how does he know that you get this composition? and why would you make this against mech for example which counters it? and when you do this composition anyway then why do you have to scout the terran?

On June 08 2010 14:14 monitor wrote:
2) There is no counter for Terran mech, just plainly outplaying the Terran.

On June 08 2010 14:18 monitor wrote:
lolaloc please explain what "counters" Terran mech as Zerg. I consider Terran mech to be:

-siege tanks
-helions
-marines
-thors
-ravens
-vikings

Also, bunkers and missle turrets are also common. Now, for zerg, explain what counters that in Mid game. (ultras are considered late game for me).

Honestly, tell me because my friend keeps wooping my ass :-(.
monitor

On June 08 2010 14:14 monitor wrote:


1) This is the only unit composition that Zerg can go. (banelings I suppose)
2) There is no counter for Terran mech, just plainly outplaying the Terran.

As Roger said, Dark Swarm needs to be added back to SC2 BADLY. Something needs to be done for Zerg, any different ideas?

monitor

On June 08 2010 14:22 Soel wrote:


lol. so he is simultaneously countering roaches/ultras/lings (the tanks & marines), mutas (thors), hydras (ravens, marines) , and broodlords/corruptors (vikings)

are you stupid or something? thats a ridiculous amount of gas. if you let a terran sit on 3 base of course he will stomp you. also a pure macro roach build would stomp any build consisting of a bunch of marines vikings and ravens... you can only get so many tanks if you are getting all that other shit

On June 08 2010 14:19 Saechiis wrote:


It's funny how some people think they are center of the universe and that their opinion is THE opinion. Saying someone's perspective is "100% backwards" is admitting that you think your opinion is what counts, and that others forms of thought are apparently laughable ...

And what is weird about him mentioning he is Terran? You're acting like it's wrong to play Terran. He actually admits he might be biased because he plays Terran, you however are a (biased) Zerg player that rejects the possiblity of being biased.

And ending your continually degrading, no-reasoning whatsoever rants, with insults on a personal level proves once again you have nothing objective to say.

Well, he explains why he voted Zerg as strongest (most Zerg late-game trickery remains un(der)used). Whether you find it hilarious or not, he supported his opinion ... that's leagues ahead of: "OMG MECH IMBA!" ... Why? ... "Idra and Artosis say so and my cookiecutter 1a build loses to it too!".

On June 08 2010 14:22 IdrA wrote:

dunno why people want dark swarm back so badly
it was a fucking awful spell that made for horrible games in sc1 and doesnt even really address the problem. swarm wasnt what made mech beatable, at all. swarm raped bio, cuz there you could focus on lurkers and lurker+swarm was invincible. vs mech you didnt want lurkers, and tank splash means that regular units under swarm still get raped. obviously it would help, but really it would mostly serve to make bio even worse vs zerg and wouldnt help vs mech all that much. stop asking for swarm.

And yet there's dozens of threads full of people disagreeing, how ignorant can you be.

Haha,

That's funny since Mech has already been nerfed ... and strangely enough I don't see any threads popping up complaining about it. In fact it's still threads of Zerg players complaining about the Roach supply nerf. ^^ Since it's obviously ridiculous that you can't make a 200/200 Roach army and 1a beat anything with it.

Roaches are still awesome, but most Zerg are too proud to still focus on them because their feelings are hurt *sniffles*

[B]

Roach: A 75 Minerals , 25 gas armored unit with 145HP, 16 Attack and 27sec build time ... and it used to be 1 supply. Easily massed.

Let's compare it to the Terran counter, the Marauder:

A 100 mineral, 25 gas armored unit with 125HP, 10 Attack and 30 sec build time and 2 supply.

Wow, a counter that's 25 minerals more expensive, has 20 HP less, 6 Attack less, Takes 3 sec. longer to build and is double the supply cost ... only thing it has going for it is it's superior range/ slightly faster cooldown.

On June 08 2010 15:03 RogerChillingworth wrote:
On what map isn't it really strong? I'm not going to say imbalanced. That would be way too presumptuous.

But, really. LT? Kulas Ravine? Steppes? IZ? Blistering Sands?

You name it. It can work. It's not unbeatable, just a little too good against Zerg. Most Terrans agree. It's not really debatable, even.

On June 08 2010 15:26 Saechiis wrote:

Roach: A 75 Minerals , 25 gas armored unit with 145HP, 16 Attack and 27sec build time ... and it used to be 1 supply. Easily massed.

Let's compare it to the Terran counter, the Marauder:

A 100 mineral, 25 gas armored unit with 125HP, 10 Attack and 30 sec build time and 2 supply.

Wow, a counter that's 25 minerals more expensive, has 20 HP less, 6 Attack less, Takes 3 sec. longer to build and is double the supply cost ... only thing it has going for it is it's superior range/ slightly faster cooldown.

Roaches are still awesome, but most Zerg are too proud to still focus on them because their feelings are hurt *sniffles*

Waving away numbers isn't going to change the fact that Roaches are still very good. Marauders by no means "beat the crap out of Roaches" since 5 Roaches beat 4 Marauders in a straight up fight (and that's supposed to be a hard counter).

Also, if the Zerg is macro'ing decently there is literally NO way Roaches lose to mass marine, a Roach can easily take on Marines in a 1:2 ratio.

It was splash that did the major damage in the first place, and Blizzard has mentioned their Tank nerf was aimed at making TvT more varied ... it wasn't supposed to make much of a difference TvZ. Also good job pretending a reduction of 10 in damage isn't significant.

On June 08 2010 16:23 Saechiis wrote:


I suppose it depends on your definition of a terrible post. Posting unit stats as an illustration of your point is surely better than outright claiming something is IMBA and OP? Or is it all about who shouts the loudest?

Also you seem to ignore my claim that 5 Roaches in a straight up battle beat 4 marauders, I've never claimed Marauders don't beat Roaches ... I'm clarifying why the 2 supply roaches are justified (since in superior numbers they still beat their supposed hardcounter in cost-effectiveness).

Also Concussive and Stim are upgrades which are not present by default, but to counter I could say your Roaches could have Burrow and Tunneling Claws which makes them even better against Marauders since they can burrow and regen while the Marauders continually lose 20HP stimming. You seem to handily overlook that Stim is temporary while Roach speed is permanent, making them faster overall.

And yes I forgot the +Armor which makes them do 11 damage instead of 10, my bad even though it really isn't THAT significant in outcome. Am I ashamed? No, not really ... why would I care about your judgement when there are clearly far worse posts in this thread which you don't bombard? Making it clear you are a Zerg player also (or have only read the last page).

On June 08 2010 18:05 Geo.Rion wrote:

without any upgrades marauders demolish roaches, with full upgrades marauders demolish roaches even more.

And what you say about supply, no, roaches arent suppoused to be 2 supply. maybe they are a bit too strong for 1 supply, but terribly bad for 2.

I played so many games when my 200/200 mid-late game army with better upgrades gets destroyed by P or T mid-late game armies, without doing serious demage to them, so i lose the game right after, even though i have more resources and i stream reinforcement.

On June 08 2010 12:43 Lithose wrote:


The reason Zerg takes more bases is because their production is tied directly to the number of bases, since their CC is also their main production building. No other race works like that, for every other race, there is only an economic link to production (More money, more structures, more production.)...For the zerg, there is a direct link...More bases, more production. The zerg mechanics, like creep expansion/movement bonuses, all point to aggressive expansion.

This is why I say zerg definitely have a macro advantage...I can't say if its enough of one to balance the game but it is there. (Just clarifying the last part, because I don't want people to think the word "advantage"=OP...It doesn't )

On June 08 2010 16:01 Shiladie wrote:
I fully support the current results of the poll terran is the most powerfull, and will continue to have the revelations that happened with mech. Where terran finds a new build and rolls everything with it. The fact is terran is currently the hardest race to master, but blizzard is balancing around the fact people have it 75% figured out, vs the people who are sitting at 95% figured out on zerg or protoss (numbers out of my ass, but you get the picture.)

On June 08 2010 17:32 Brokengamer wrote:
Ultralisk+cracklings+infestors rape T mech as long as you dont engage them on choke points.. There just wasn't enough beta time since patch 14(ultra buff) for many zerg players to discover this. Just my 2 cents.. low diamond zerg.

On June 09 2010 01:24 Dremic wrote:
I used to feel somewhat hopeless against terran but if you scout starports or a factory a nydus with cracklings roaches or hydras can easily take out a terran early game, which is the only way to succeed in defeating them if they have any skill. Midgame/late game terran is out of control strong,


Most people reply with "expand your zerg, expand, expand!"

Terran have scans and marauders which make map control easy. A small group of marauders with stim can destroy a hatch before my units can destroy them.


So for those of you that are losing to terran mid and late game, prevent them from gaining an unbeatable force. You can nydus out of tank range and rip through a terran base, their block in reassures them safety wise

On June 09 2010 01:39 nyshak wrote:


I find it funny that people always say "expand more" to zerg players, as if expanding was something you could do any time for no cost. Lolz. Expanding takes resources and time and makes you very very vulnerable. Plus, as zerg your not done with just the expansion itself, you must construct your creep highway as well. Terrans simply build ther CC in base and fly out when ready, Protoss warp in Nexus, Gas and a Pylon at the same time. Maybe Pylon plus cannons first. While Terran and Protoss can do pretty much anything from one base early on, Zerg are almost forced to expand. Thats predictable beyond measure and a huge weakness.

I hope Blizz will fix that or someone proves me wrong by creating more 1 base builds for zerg that last until the mid game and don't suck.

On April 23 2010 18:17 likeaboss wrote:
Ok.... since this poll is pretty crazy voting going on right now.... please dont vote if your not in the beta or if you dont feel your skilled enough to understand the imbalances of ALL matchups. Dont vote for protoss being the strongest just because you think immortals are OP

On June 09 2010 01:57 Oddysay wrote:
actualy that more : everyone is going to vote strongest on the race they lose all the time
and weakest on the race they play .

i can tell you 95 % of people here understand almost nothing about the game and they just shoot
imba imba imba imba when they lose or follow what other people say , who care what tester think lol? pff they just follow the current good player build order . almost funny .

I dont think you fully understand why people say that Zerg allways can expand more than T/P.

first of all Z expands cheaper and faster than P/T. secondly: if T/P expands faster/more than Z then Z has the possibility to overrun them. for example if T/P fast expands against a one base Z then he will not be able to deal against nydus/muta without the help of static defenses. if they still decide to build static defenses then you can expand safely, faster and cheaper than P/T. all this means that Z determines the rythm of expanding and has allways a little more income.

edit: I didnt vote either because the concept of the poll is flawed in my opininon. but I somewhat like this discussion nontheless.

On June 09 2010 01:39 nyshak wrote:


I find it funny that people always say "expand more" to zerg players, as if expanding was something you could do any time for no cost. Lolz. Expanding takes resources and time and makes you very very vulnerable. Plus, as zerg your not done with just the expansion itself, you must construct your creep highway as well. Terrans simply build ther CC in base and fly out when ready, Protoss warp in Nexus, Gas and a Pylon at the same time. Maybe Pylon plus cannons first. While Terran and Protoss can do pretty much anything from one base early on, Zerg are almost forced to expand. Thats predictable beyond measure and a huge weakness.

I hope Blizz will fix that or someone proves me wrong by creating more 1 base builds for zerg that last until the mid game and don't suck.

On June 09 2010 02:20 nyshak wrote:


A Zerg hatch is 300 mins but you have to include 50 for the drone plus the drone's build time. Vs. a 400 min CC as terran that can be build without exposing it and a 400 Nexus that does not block your worker unit. My point is that expanding for zerg is not as easy as many Terrans and Protoss make it out to be. Plus its predictable and not flexible (boring?).

As a matter of fact, a CC, a Nexus and a Hatchery all have build time of 100 (not including the drone you have to replace as zerg). So why can you say zerg can expand faster? Thats simply not true.

On June 08 2010 13:16 Saechiis wrote:


Ironic, because I'm willing to bet that you're a Zerg player. Q_Q

Seriously, there hasn't been any time to claim racial imbalances with all the patches flying around. There's just biased people and polls claiming their race is weakest and the stuff they lose to the most is OP.