|
On June 03 2010 23:40 freestalker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 20:22 slowmanrunning wrote:
Many maps lacked naturals, which they honestly should have thought would be anti zerg considering their hatcheries are cheaper than nexus/cc. I seriously hate this statement anytime I hear this. How significant is the difference of 300(for hatch)+50(for drone)+(mining time in the length of a new drone) and 400 for CC?
how significant is the difference between 500 for a hatch + queen and 400for cc/nex+ X for 4 warpgates and a robo or 2 facs+addons+a starport+ 2 rax?
people forget that zerg with expanding not only get a cheap expo but also alll the production they need to support that expo while the other races have to invest more in the expo, need way longer to saturate it AND have to spend lots of money and time for production buildings to make use out of that expo.
dont see evrything so one dimensional...
|
Zerg can't fight mech terra head on, period.
So zerg needs to do some early harassing, a lot of expanding, make perfect counters, flank, drop, nydus etc.
Conclusion: Zerg has to work a lot harder to win, which is pretty much the definition of "imbalanced".
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 04 2010 06:36 Philosophy wrote:
Conclusion: Zerg has to work a lot harder to win, which is pretty much the definition of "imbalanced".
The statement is over-broad and very vague. At most levels of play in SC1, Terran has to "work harder" than Protoss to win at TvP, simply because the mechanical demand of performing basic actions for Terran is harder than for Protoss. Yet we see no imbalance in higher level play.
|
On June 03 2010 06:04 Disastorm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 03:04 Lz wrote:On June 03 2010 02:59 Disastorm wrote:On June 03 2010 02:53 hejakev wrote:
Platinum protoss player here.
Tanks have become more of a tier 3 unit, where they were a tier 2 unit in SC1. More often than not, I will have zealot charge, stalker blink, or a bunch of immortals to help me with the tanks.
I have yet to see a successful tank-heavy build like people would do in BW. I went up against someone who litterally just got mass tanks vikings and cloaked banshees. I had maxed supply of hydra roach and couldnt break his army. I ended up winning by dropping in his base due to his immobile army and expanding while we traded bases. I feel there was no way that a zerg could break an army like that. Granted I won due to base trading antics, but I feel that is a strange way to have to win against a build. try and break a maxed tank gol vult vessel army in scbw with hydra ling ultra or any unit combo you want and its going to fail~ straight up.. maxed Mech army has allways > zerg in scbw or sc2.. nothing new.. thats why zergs have to use there brain.. sadly they would rather QQ then actually nydas worm , drop or over expand at first sight of mech. The difference is that in scbw you had dark swarm and lurkers which you could use to at least defend your base while now in sc2, you can't defend your base with anything and it ends up in base trading antics. Maybe its just me but doesn't it seem like base trading is a hell of a lot more common in sc2 than in bw? It seems like base trading is almost a standard strategy nowadays in sc2? It might also just be because I play Zerg and Zerg has very few in any defensive units in sc2 as opposed to sc1 where they had defiler and lurker.
in how many high level games do you see base trading?
basetrading is because average joe's fail at scouting and splitting force/multi tasking.
between the queen and spine crawler, zerg have some good defensive units.... not to mention fungal growth / neural parasite which are infinitely better than plague or dark swarm for defending.
|
On June 04 2010 08:25 tarsier wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 06:04 Disastorm wrote:On June 03 2010 03:04 Lz wrote:On June 03 2010 02:59 Disastorm wrote:On June 03 2010 02:53 hejakev wrote:
Platinum protoss player here.
Tanks have become more of a tier 3 unit, where they were a tier 2 unit in SC1. More often than not, I will have zealot charge, stalker blink, or a bunch of immortals to help me with the tanks.
I have yet to see a successful tank-heavy build like people would do in BW. I went up against someone who litterally just got mass tanks vikings and cloaked banshees. I had maxed supply of hydra roach and couldnt break his army. I ended up winning by dropping in his base due to his immobile army and expanding while we traded bases. I feel there was no way that a zerg could break an army like that. Granted I won due to base trading antics, but I feel that is a strange way to have to win against a build. try and break a maxed tank gol vult vessel army in scbw with hydra ling ultra or any unit combo you want and its going to fail~ straight up.. maxed Mech army has allways > zerg in scbw or sc2.. nothing new.. thats why zergs have to use there brain.. sadly they would rather QQ then actually nydas worm , drop or over expand at first sight of mech. The difference is that in scbw you had dark swarm and lurkers which you could use to at least defend your base while now in sc2, you can't defend your base with anything and it ends up in base trading antics. Maybe its just me but doesn't it seem like base trading is a hell of a lot more common in sc2 than in bw? It seems like base trading is almost a standard strategy nowadays in sc2? It might also just be because I play Zerg and Zerg has very few in any defensive units in sc2 as opposed to sc1 where they had defiler and lurker. in how many high level games do you see base trading? basetrading is because average joe's fail at scouting and splitting force/multi tasking. between the queen and spine crawler, zerg have some good defensive units.... not to mention fungal growth / neural parasite which are infinitely better than plague or dark swarm for defending.
There was a couple base trades in the BIO today including demuslim being on the losing end of one. and day9 did a daily on crisis management in a base trade situation with a couple high level players. it happens. it's more likely that the pros will see ahead of time that they won't win the situation they are in and gg. not that base trades don't happen.
|
I don't have any experience in SC1, but I think many people look at this the wrong way.
I do play terran, but that was just by random when I installed the beta, I don't really care what race is the strongest, as I feel the game is quite balanced already, and it is up the player to win.
Anyways, for wc3 players, I see terran as night elf, and zerg as human.
Can 2 base human lose to 1 base elf? Of course, does that make it imbalanced? No, because of human's incredible ease of expansion.
Can 3 base zerg lose to 2 base terran? Sure, does that make it imbalanced? No, because of zerg's incredible ease of expansion.
Are terran units 1 for 1 better than zerg units? Yes. But zerg has a much easier time getting a large economy than terran. If you let a ZvT go to a 6 base vs 6 base, you deserve to lose, imo.
A great zerg player can often deny the terran from taking a 2nd or 3rd expansion, while getting 2,3, or 4 expansion himself.
Starvation baby.
1. i dont think you realize how hard it is to push a turtled terran.
2. lets say i totally outplay a meching terran get on 4 bases leaving him to only his nearly mined out main and his nat. he turtles i expand. this is where its stupid because a terran can get to 200/200 on 2 bases. and after that it dont matter how many bases i have. if i cant kill his ball ill lose one base then 2 then 3 then 4 then 5 and it will be gg. a 200/200 zerg army should not be so incredibly fucking weak against mech. period.
|
I see Thors as being problematic because they're so good against mass Muta, and no slouch on the ground either. Sure 1-2 Thors won't necessarily single-handedly erase a mass Muta force, but a Terran with good unit composition of Thors, Vikings, and turrets certainly can.
The thing I don't quite understand is how the Thor is intended to fit into the Terran army composition - Without Thor, Terrans still have Vikings and Marines, which are themselves pretty good against Mutas, and then Thor comes in with even better AA against them. I don't really understand why Terran needs something to hard counter a strategy they can already softcounter through scouting and having the right unit composition.
|
Perhaps a dark swarm-like spell is the answer.
Something that helps a zerg ground unit gain some ground instead of getting stomped by tanks from so far away would be great
|
On June 04 2010 10:07 charlie420247 wrote:Show nested quote +I don't have any experience in SC1, but I think many people look at this the wrong way.
I do play terran, but that was just by random when I installed the beta, I don't really care what race is the strongest, as I feel the game is quite balanced already, and it is up the player to win.
Anyways, for wc3 players, I see terran as night elf, and zerg as human.
Can 2 base human lose to 1 base elf? Of course, does that make it imbalanced? No, because of human's incredible ease of expansion.
Can 3 base zerg lose to 2 base terran? Sure, does that make it imbalanced? No, because of zerg's incredible ease of expansion.
Are terran units 1 for 1 better than zerg units? Yes. But zerg has a much easier time getting a large economy than terran. If you let a ZvT go to a 6 base vs 6 base, you deserve to lose, imo.
A great zerg player can often deny the terran from taking a 2nd or 3rd expansion, while getting 2,3, or 4 expansion himself.
Starvation baby. 1. i dont think you realize how hard it is to push a turtled terran. 2. lets say i totally outplay a meching terran get on 4 bases leaving him to only his nearly mined out main and his nat. he turtles i expand. this is where its stupid because a terran can get to 200/200 on 2 bases. and after that it dont matter how many bases i have. if i cant kill his ball ill lose one base then 2 then 3 then 4 then 5 and it will be gg. a 200/200 zerg army should not be so incredibly fucking weak against mech. period.
This is exactly what I've found. Unless someone can come up with some transitions that work I feel like I'm losing a whole bunch of games to inferior players with 40 apm while I'm trying to do drops and harass and doing a decent job but they still just end up a-moving my nat then my main when I basically don't kill them off. There's not much I can do to keep them from raping me eventually. Even if I do totally decimate their main and they suicide push my base often times I'll win the game but I just have my third left and I have to rebuild everything. The harass stuff with roach drops and mutas can only do so much and I think terrans are starting to learn how to deal with it and I'm having a harder and harder time.
|
TL;DR: Terran wins by default once supply gets to a certain level, and Zerg has no reliable way of preventing him from getting there.
Long version:
I agree with guitarizt... The problem is twofold:
1) Zerg lacks the ability to effectively harass or contain Terran in the early game.
2) Once Terran gets to a certain point, no Zerg unit mix is effective, and Terran basically has to 1a2a3e (Siege Tanks!) to win.
And yes, the Terran can get to the "I win" point by mining out his main and his natural. All he has to do is watch for drops and counter Muta harass, both of which are made easy by Sensor Towers and Vikings. Zerg has no real way to apply pressure, and a long macro game will end in the Terran's favor, decisively, 99% of the time.
Zerg's options upon seeing a walled Terran (often walled at the natural with lifted off Barracks) are:
1) Go Roach. This fails because, simply put, Roaches are terribad. They aren't strong enough to break decent Terran early/mid-game defense, and they set you back severely on tech. If your Roach push fails (and it will), you can't catch up to the Terran before he reaches "critical mass".
2) Baneling bust. This also fails against a competent Terran with a proper wall. He will probably have a Siege Tank before you can get a good quantity of Banelings, too.
3) Try Muta and get beaten off because he sees it coming (scans). Then you can try to mass Muta, but that is basically feeding his Thors, because he'll rush them out in lieu of more tanks if he sees that you're going air.
4) Realize that his defense isn't breakable in the early or mid-game, expand, and start macroing. You're Zerg, after all. You can try to harass via drops, but a competent player will prevent it. Either way you have an excruciatingly long, boring game until he rolls out of his natural at 200/200 and stomps on whatever army you've got. Hydra/Speedling, Hydra/Roach, Muta/Anything, Baneling/Anything, hell, Anything/Anything/Anything... You name it, he can stomp it hardcore. And probably have most of his blob left. The only way to beat it is if you catch him with his Siege Tanks undeployed, or he parks them on top of a bunch (30+ minimum) of burrowed Lings and/or you manage to Baneling his bio support. Then the rest of your army might have a chance. But note that both of those things rely upon the Terran making a dumb mistake.
Either way, a perfect Terran game beats a perfect Zerg game. Hell, a pretty sloppy Terran game can beat a near-perfect Zerg game. You basically have to play like God and hope that he throws the game away.
|
I have still yet to see extremely heavy corruptor/broodlord armies attempted, even in games where the zerg clearly has the opportunity to do so. It seems like the most logical response to to a tank/thor heavy terran. Vikings may do well against corruptors, but not so well that 50/200 viking or so will beat 100/200 corruptor. Not even close. Then what your left with is nearly useless thors vs broodlords, while the tanks do nothing but blow themselves up. Even if T manages to mass up enough vikings to kill Z after their inital assault, the damage will be huge, and they are unlikely to have the tanks needed to counter a fallow up rouch/ling sweep.
|
On June 05 2010 18:42 D3lta wrote:
I have still yet to see extremely heavy corruptor/broodlord armies attempted, even in games where the zerg clearly has the opportunity to do so. It seems like the most logical response to to a tank/thor heavy terran. Vikings may do well against corruptors, but not so well that 50/200 viking or so will beat 100/200 corruptor. Not even close. Then what your left with is nearly useless thors vs broodlords, while the tanks do nothing but blow themselves up. Even if T manages to mass up enough vikings to kill Z after their inital assault, the damage will be huge, and they are unlikely to have the tanks needed to counter a fallow up rouch/ling sweep.
The problem is that if you're going for Brood Lords and Corruptors, you need an assload of gas (at least 6 geysers). This leaves you vulnerable. There is also the fact that he could roll out and kill you basically at any time late in the game before you reach Broodlord critical mass.
He'll also be able to adjust to a more Thor-heavy army. Thors are not useless against Brood Lords. Remember that Thors have huuuuge anti-air range.
|
That's what I think people dont get. It's not the strength of terren mech that makes it OP. Though the thor AA should lose at least some of it's splash(I think it should be 33% like ultra)
The main problem, especially for zerg is that blizzard basically took all our counters to siege tanks from SC1 (lurkers, dark swarm, spawn broodling) and removed them without giving really anything to compensate. Compound that by the fact that terran can do now with 4 thor what they had to build 10+ goliaths to do before and the new siege tank no-overkill feature. it just makes terran mech stronger and easier to play vs zerg and gives the zerg much less options to counter it.
And no I dont 1a ever. Though I see in alot of replays people that do. Or even worse people that box select a. Cringe.
|
On June 05 2010 18:50 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 18:42 D3lta wrote:
I have still yet to see extremely heavy corruptor/broodlord armies attempted, even in games where the zerg clearly has the opportunity to do so. It seems like the most logical response to to a tank/thor heavy terran. Vikings may do well against corruptors, but not so well that 50/200 viking or so will beat 100/200 corruptor. Not even close. Then what your left with is nearly useless thors vs broodlords, while the tanks do nothing but blow themselves up. Even if T manages to mass up enough vikings to kill Z after their inital assault, the damage will be huge, and they are unlikely to have the tanks needed to counter a fallow up rouch/ling sweep. The problem is that if you're going for Brood Lords and Corruptors, you need an assload of gas (at least 6 geysers). This leaves you vulnerable. There is also the fact that he could roll out and kill you basically at any time late in the game before you reach Broodlord critical mass. He'll also be able to adjust to a more Thor-heavy army. Thors are not useless against Brood Lords. Remember that Thors have huuuuge anti-air range.
How does having 6 geysers leave you vulnerable in these huge ass turtle games? Most of the examples people give for mech imbalance include games where Z players had a good 5 bases, while the T player had to juggle base to base with tanks/thors to keep his expos up. If a T player is playing heavy turtle/turret up and get tech upgrade style (like in the QXC vs Sheth games), he's handing over map control to Z, along giving him plenty of opportunity to resource/drone up. The assumption he is making is that he can on 3 bases, make an army that will counter anything Z throws at him, because he knows the Z WILL have more econ than him.
Any kind of attempt to move out, even in 200/200 late game, is extremely risky and slow affair for the T. It leaves expos open, and the possibility of getting caught with your pants down.
All Im saying is if a guy has an opportunity to make that many ultras, he could have done corruptor/broodlord instead.
|
Mech just got insane nerfs, get over it
I got destroyed yesterday by infestor / ling / roach, i mean, 9 infestors who took over 90% of my tanks.... i mean, srs?
|
BTW, thors do like 4 attacks that do 1 damage to armored units with 2+ armor. There attacks are also quite slow. In other words, fighting broodlords with thors is like fighting thors with mutalisks..probably worse.
|
as a protoss player i have no problem with mech. Build orders that people do are really terrible at the moment. i think 1 gateway, 1 stargate Fast expand will be standard for protoss players in the future against 1/1/1 and when it is, hopefully there will be less whining.
As for zergs, im not too sure as i never play the zvt matchup hehe.
|
On June 05 2010 19:08 Snowfield wrote:
Mech just got insane nerfs, get over it
I got destroyed yesterday by infestor / ling / roach, i mean, 9 infestors who took over 90% of my tanks.... i mean, srs?
10 damage is not an "insane nerf" for a unit with huge range and huge splash. You just need 2 more of them before you can gib any Zerg land army. The upgrade nerfs pretty much just bring them in line with other races, and even at 3/3 don't make a big difference.
Also, realize that both Lings and Roaches are easily counterable... And that Infestors are vulnerable, cost more than Tanks, and require both energy and an upgrade to be able to neural parasite. Sounds like bitching to me.
|
looks like hating terran is a new trend , im being accused of using imba race in like half of my games (yes even after patch 15 with all the huge nerfs) even when opponents played horrible mined less, had smaller army they still think they should win LOL
|
On June 05 2010 18:59 Icetrain wrote:
The main problem, especially for zerg is that blizzard basically took all our counters to siege tanks from SC1 (lurkers, dark swarm, spawn broodling) and removed them without giving really anything to compensate.
Have you played SC1?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
