|
On January 25 2011 10:45 PukinDog wrote:
To the OP,
You spent a lot of time on this, but I think the push-back is coming, because your arguments are poorly constructed. You establish a bunch of premises, but then you move on before proving them. If you cant prove a premise, then the premise stays false until you do.
You say things like, "When Zerg smashes, say, a moderate Terran push often times a siege tank and a bunker is all he needs to get right back into the game.”
Well, fine. PROVE IT.
Did the Terran not bring all the tanks for the first engagement? What was Zerg doing while Terran was putting up the bunker? Why was Zerg unable to take out the SCV? Give data, be specific.
Without evidence, it’s just conjecture.
You do this throughout your post.
You have a valid opinion, but for it to become a Resolved Conclusion, you have to back it up with more than personal experience, opinion, and apparent frustration.
I am not saying you are wrong; you just haven’t proved that you are right.
If you are a young dude, consider taking up debate.
Hi PunkinDog, thanks for your response. I agree, I was vague but this is intentional. I would refer you to my 'preface' as it addresses why I constructed my arguments this way. My goal was to be, overall, more right than wrong. I tried my best to avoid specifics because of people's tendency to pick at small things and add 'if' arguments.
For example:
Person A: Banshees are too good vs. hydras.
Person B: Not if queens are there to back them up.
Person A: But they will probably have cloak so it doesn't matter.
Person B: But overseers only take 17 seconds to morph!
Person A: Terran already has a starport, all he has to do is make a viking.
And it goes on to infinity. I've literally seen arguments go from zerglings vs zealots to carriers vs vikings in the same way as my example. I constructed my argument to provoke thought while avoiding as many silly counter-statement responses as possible. The method seems to have been somewhat successful as many of the detractors attack the length of the post or say nonsensical things like 'less qq, more pewpew'.
|
I feel as there is no in between in my games. It's either I get completely crushed because I failed to read my opponent with the incomplete information at my disposal, or I win effortlessly through massive economy/production.
|
On January 25 2011 09:06 Angra wrote:
In SC2 you need UNITS to stay alive, because there is absolutely no defender's advantage. There's no high ground, there's no units that can be used defensively (reavers, good psi storm, spider mines, lurkers, defilers, for example), and you can fit your whole 200/200 army through a choke point or ramp in 2 seconds rather than several more.
The bottom line is, no matter what race you are, 99% of the time if your opponent has more units than you, you are going to automatically lose if either one of you engages, and end up losing the game because of it.
Absolutely nothing you said is true.
The defender's advantage is huge. There are siege tanks that can be used defensively. Yes there are high grounds, everywhere (and EVERY main base), and you need vision. No, you cannot fit a 200/200 zerg army through a small choke. Try fitting ultras anywhere, on any ladder map. No, you do not lose 99% of the time your opponent has more units than you ; for example, forcefields, storms or colossus can compensate for a 30-40 supply gap against a roach-hydra army.
Do you even play the game?
|
IMO Zerg isn't UP, or OP, they just need alot of practice to be good with.
I'll agree that the current 1v1 map pool blows if you're Zerg, and that scounting against effective wall-in's with Cannon/Bunker backup in the Early-Mid game can be difficult. All these things I think could be easily fixed though with minor mechanical tweaks.
:The scouting problem:
I think this one should be relitivly easy to fix. OL speed...Perhaps instead of Lair requirement, change it to Spawning Pool or Evo Chamber or something??? Keep the cost the same, just change the requirements to make it availeable earlier in the game. Should help to make OL sac's worth it occasionally, and the speed boost proves wonderful when you can dart OS into your Opp's base for changeling drops. Like so many other people have already said, Zerg just need reliable early-mid game scouting method.
:The Map Pool:
There isn't really much we as players can do about this, other than forward our concerns to the Blizz development team. They'll get around to fixing the Map pool for sure, it's probably just gonna take a little time. In the mean time though, ICCUP have a few maps available that are really interesting and fun to play on. It's not ladder but what the heck...
My two cents.
|
The thing is, Terran possesses the best mineral-only units in the game, and the game engine works directly against the other races' mineral-only units because of the way units clump together.
I wouldn't go as far to say that Terran is overpowered, but it is DEFINITELY the easiest race to pick up and play simply because of how mobile and how much dps a Terran bioball can dish out in tandem with how robust it actually is.
|
On January 25 2011 09:58 GT wrote:
i dont think any zerg player really cares about the race being linear in regards to the unit variation. you dont really hear about macro terrans complaining about only playing biotank. it would just be nice to not lose games due to fundamental flaws within the structure of the race.
what can you do if someone is just abusing their race by patrolling the edge of their base with marines/stalkers and a walloff?
you cant zergling scout or overlord scout and they can kill you with 4-5 different openers that all require very different responses and you cant know which one to pick which just essentially gives you a 20-25% of guessing right. sure if you drone scouted you have a reference point to work from, (worker count, available chronoboosts, etc) but that right there isnt even a matter of unit balance its just a flat out flaw in the structure of the game.
EDIT: I'd agree with a buff to overlord base speed or lowering ovie speed to t1. It's not that I can't deduce what one base they're doing when I can actually see it, its that i can never really see it against "good" players.
i agree, here.
Most of the games i loose because i didnt scout well enough, or more importantly COULDNT scout at all.
While on maps like Blistering Sands where the main is kinda big, you can sneak in on Ovie. Try that on maps like Xel Naga, Steppes etc.
With situations like this a smart player WILL block you before you get to T2 with OvieSpeed and Overseer, which will die, so you have to invest 100/100 Speed, 50/100 for Overseer and 100/0 just for scouting the crucial information ONCE, other races get away with 50/75 and is invisible (and you won't always see them) or getting 270 minerals a bit later . After that its still 150/100 for Zerg
And don't tell me with an expo you can't have units in your main. If the Zerg goes Muta/Ling, you can defend your Nat with surprisingly few units, and at the same time have some marines/stalker in your base to deal with Mutas (though you can scout with them either way or force T to stim or P to blink).
do you go Roach/smth or smth entirely else, they can still hide units and leave a few at their main, they will most likely spot you either way before the battle is about to begin.
In Lategame this might not be true, but by then you dont have too scout that much anymore.
The thing is, its ridiculously easy to deny a Zergs scouting.
Front/ramp scout, hide units in your back so Zerg guesses wrong, spread rines (their dps is insane, 4 rines max and the zerg wont see anything at all) out in your base.
While i agree that Protoss doesnt have too many stalkers you can scout, but the tech can be hidden and you dont see anything at all.
You have 2 options either he proxies, in that case you will always find the tech, though its on time.. well thats another point, but its manageable or he hides its well enough in his base, so you have to sac 2 ovies, and you still might not see a thing.
For a race that has to REACT to almost everything the opponent does, its hard to believe that their T1 scouting is so incredible bad.
I play Terran offrace sometimes and Zerg as a main race and i'm fairly high ranked (though that doesnt mean im pro or smth), but almost never a Zerg can scout my whole Army and / or my tech, while i laugh at them saccing ovies left and right.
the only thing zerg excels in scouting is, wether your opponent goes 1 base (allin) or 2 base play.
When Terran and Toss will learn that 1 Ctrl Syndrome is bad, and hiding tech/units is good (or showing "more", which could indicate to another BO), Zergs scouting will be much much more costly.
Changelings will get spotted immediately on high levels, and while contamination is good (not for scouting but for delaying, you have to use your overseers ability somehow^^), its only good vs players who keep all their units @ one spot.
Thats enough ranting, while i might have exaggarated too much on some points, its mostly true.
|
In general I disagree with your post. I think it's accurate to say that Zergs win and lose in different ways than Terran and Protoss.
Let's start with the failed all-in scenario. Terran bunker rushes you, you get proxy 2-gated, whatever it is. Now they put up a bunker/tank/void ray/whatever it is. At this point, what's preventing you from expanding, droning really hard, teching, or taking any number of advantages that don't involve attacking and killing them? I mean that's the most basic premise of Zerg, "if my opponent can't attack me, then I can build drones."
You wipe his mid-game push and have units left over? Great, time to expand. No need to attack that front wall of pylons cannons and bunkers that he's invested into heavily. I mean yeah you might not win immediately, but you can make them dead in the water. Every time I see a 2 rax marine push I smile, because I've practiced that crap out of defending it and I know I've got an advantage once it's defended.
I don't see anything wrong with a race being able to gain large economic advantages in order to win. Zerg is not a death-ball race. It never was even in Brood War, so I don't understand why it should be able to win like one in Starcraft 2.
To the point of not having stalling techniques, you can use that Zerg mobility you highlighted to do just that. Zerglings can backstab, Mutas can harass, you can cut off rally points, all sorts of things to delay an attack and make the death ball head back toward its base. You can now raise flags like "but what if he has cannons/bunkers/tanks?" Then great. That means your opponent has already delayed his own push by investing in those things before pushing out.
I do agree with your point about ultras. I think it mostly has to do with me not knowing when it's safe to transition to them, but I do seem to lose a lot once I start building them. I don't know that it's their size so much as movement speed off creep that needs some help, but I digress.
I don't think ultras and banelings are necessarily supposed to be the most cost effective units. Like you said banelings suicide and ultras are high resource and feel clumsy, but what about brood lords? What about roaches and nydus late game? I mean it's not like you don't have effective ways of spending that money.
Also you don't talk about being able to attack multiple places because of mobility. You can split off units, attack, and still bring them back in time to defend a push. There's a lot of ways to take advantage of Zerg mobility and economy mechanics to be able to win. Just because you can't a-move your way to victory doesn't mean it's the wrong way to win.
|
good post. reflects the main problems zerg players have with the race.
|
Very nice post. It is what I struggle with too. I would say that especially recently, 90% of my losses are due to 1 base all-ins or other very low economy timing push.
The classic 4 - blue flame hellion into cloaked banshee is pretty easy to execute (I showed this build to my gold player friend, he doesn't lose tvz and tvt anymore) and is so insanely hard for zerg to stop on a majority of maps. I could counter with the roaches I made, but the reality is one marine will stop me and I'll probably die to banshees now.
As zerg it's almost impossible to punish a T or P while a zerg can lose a game because he made a few too many drones.
1 base all-ins are incredibly hard to scout because people have learned to place pylon, bunkers and ranged unit at proximity of their base. I've lost games to 3 gate robo rush because my queens couldn't wobble fast enough to kill the transport before it spawned 3 zealots and dropped two immortals, while 3 stalkers were attacking my front. Don't even get me started on warpgate/stargate all-ins. It seems I manage to defend it so I can start dronning again (because if he expands he will catch up) to realise he stayed on one base and got blink and now all my roaches were useless. By the time he I have a 16 lings he has a sentry and uses force field. Most games I feel helpless and scouting only makes things slightly better.
I've seen SO MANY zergs switch to protoss only to 1 base all-in everyone. I pretty much win macro games, lose to 1-base all-ins and lose the occasional ZvZ. It's pretty aggravating, and it's hard to ask for help because it is really situational. I just played this ZvP where he had a zealot blocking his choke and one stalker patrolling the ledge so I guess stargate play and he simply arrived with like 14 zealots into my base, which i barely held with well micro'd roaches I had barely made. I still lost my queens and he simply expanded and according to the graph we were at the same economic level. He made 4 stalkers so my roaches could do nothing, and the game progressed into a normal game. Needless to say I crushed him in a macro game.
This protoss practice partner, who I repetitively crush has been in masters league for about a week now. I'm still in Diamond in an endless cycle or winning and losing to all-ins, and it's getting pretty aggravating. I looked at his match history when he told me he had been promoted to see about 10/15 wins using 4 gate. I honestly don't think that's normal. I can't stop it without being behind on Delta, Steppes, Blistering Sands, Close position 4player maps and Jungle Basin is impossible for zerg to win on. I can only downvote 4 maps.
I'm pretty mad and your post outlines why pretty well.
And I haven't even mentioned 2 barracks play...
What can zerg do to be tricky, all-in ish or to force anything, at all?
|
I play random, Z is harder to win with in early game scenarios where T and P have stronger pressure options, if you get to the midgame skill determines winner. The game is 80% balanced imo, maps will solve most issues, the two expansions that are coming will solve any other problems.
|
Man, based on the topic title, I was expecting something interesting of people noticing a trend in how zerg players talk about their wins and losses. Instead I was greeted by a huge balance whine that states nothing new. Allow me to restate your tl;dr:
Losing a game simply because you literally cannot scout your opponent means zerg is underpowered.
Winning because you correctly blind countered your opponents strategy is unsatisfying.
Losing the game because your opponent made ten minor mistakes and you only made one means zerg is underpowered.
Winning because your opponent made a massive mistake is unsatisfying.
Losing because your opponent has less ability/skill but plays a stronger race is lolol zerg is underpowered!
Winning the game because your opponent fell asleep from of how boring/easy it is... what?
Losing because you got close spawns on a map means zerg is underpowered.
Winning because RootDrewbie let his kid sister play his account is...what?
Losing because of horrible map design/balance means zerg is underpowered.
|
There is a big difference between zerg and the other races and that is that T and P are heavily reliant on Build Orders. Zerg is basically drone as much as you can while trying to react to what your opponent does. Too often do I see zergs say "I'm gonna do X" and they just fail. You can't just do "X", you have to react to "Y" and "Z" and play accordingly. This is why so many zergs fail, they can't react or don't know how to react which is why experience is everything.
Also I don't really agree with what you say about zerg scouting. Zerg has lings for watch towers, and overlords for the places in between those towers where you can't see making zerg very effective at watching an enemy army. Sure toss has observers and terran has scans but that's all balanced out in the end by what zerg has. Get to lair and suddenly a bunch of stuff is available to you, overseers who are fast by themselves, changelings who can track an army and then there is overlord speed making all your overlords good scout tools. Sure zerg has a disadvantage in a certain part of it's scouting but so does Terran (has to sacrifice mules for a scan) and so does Toss (has to tech to robotics to get any kind of detection).
|
On January 25 2011 08:33 avidday04 wrote:
Winning because you correctly blind countered your opponents strategy is the wrong way to win.. [/b][/i]
I agree Z is lacking in design, however the tightrope that is balance is not as skewed as you seem to make it seem. You fail to look at maps inherently causing imbalance.
And to those that have placed BW on a pedestal as the shining knight of pureness and racial equality:
1. Its not 100% fully balanced on every map for every MU. On some maps its far from it.
2. The mapmakers are to thank for that, the game on blizzard released maps is still imbalanced.
BW has consistantly been active about new maps in competitive competitions which allow for a variety of styles to be utilized. From cheese to timing push to macro games. major games have come down to 4 pools or 6 pools in BW tournaments.
|
On January 25 2011 09:57 Icx wrote:
more harass ability's?
I suggest you go play terran or protoss and go deal with a flock of mutalisks.
Or nydus worms when you move out, zerglings that run into your main/nat when you move out.
Or even baneling drops.
And yes things like that can be stopped, but you can also stop drops/banshees/etc, it's just how you manage to deal with it.
I don't get what you want (ibreakurface, not the Op) you want zerg to be the best macro-race, and at the same time have the best harass ability's in the game, and all of that on all larger maps?
Yes, that is gonna turn out well...
You know fuck all bout Zerg if you think those kinds of Harasses are anywhere near as cheap, quick or viable as any harass Terran or Protoss can do and do do on a regular basis.
|
i completely agree with all your points in this thread....
blizzard should seriously copy+paste this and make it their goal for life
|
On January 25 2011 11:05 LunarC wrote:
The thing is, Terran possesses the best mineral-only units in the game, and the game engine works directly against the other races' mineral-only units because of the way units clump together.
I wouldn't go as far to say that Terran is overpowered, but it is DEFINITELY the easiest race to pick up and play simply because of how mobile and how much dps a Terran bioball can dish out in tandem with how robust it actually is.
couldnt have said it better
|
On January 25 2011 11:01 avidday04 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2011 10:45 PukinDog wrote:
To the OP,
You spent a lot of time on this, but I think the push-back is coming, because your arguments are poorly constructed. You establish a bunch of premises, but then you move on before proving them. If you cant prove a premise, then the premise stays false until you do.
You say things like, "When Zerg smashes, say, a moderate Terran push often times a siege tank and a bunker is all he needs to get right back into the game.”
Well, fine. PROVE IT.
Did the Terran not bring all the tanks for the first engagement? What was Zerg doing while Terran was putting up the bunker? Why was Zerg unable to take out the SCV? Give data, be specific.
Without evidence, it’s just conjecture.
You do this throughout your post.
You have a valid opinion, but for it to become a Resolved Conclusion, you have to back it up with more than personal experience, opinion, and apparent frustration.
I am not saying you are wrong; you just haven’t proved that you are right.
If you are a young dude, consider taking up debate.
Hi PunkinDog, thanks for your response. I agree, I was vague but this is intentional. I would refer you to my 'preface' as it addresses why I constructed my arguments this way. My goal was to be, overall, more right than wrong. I tried my best to avoid specifics because of people's tendency to pick at small things and add 'if' arguments. For example: Person A: Banshees are too good vs. hydras. Person B: Not if queens are there to back them up. Person A: But they will probably have cloak so it doesn't matter. Person B: But overseers only take 17 seconds to morph! Person A: Terran already has a starport, all he has to do is make a viking. And it goes on to infinity. I've literally seen arguments go from zerglings vs zealots to carriers vs vikings in the same way as my example. I constructed my argument to provoke thought while avoiding as many silly counter-statement responses as possible. The method seems to have been somewhat successful as many of the detractors attack the length of the post or say nonsensical things like 'less qq, more pewpew'.
I understand, OP. BTW, its "Pukin"Dog, after the Navy Fighter Squadron of the same name.
It is difficult, when you have counters to counters, to counters, to form an argument of merit.
I personally think Zerg is played wrong also, but I have nowhere near the energy to put down my arguments supporting my opinion, as you did.
When I think Zerg, I think SWARM. With Terran, I think Offense, with Protoss, I think Defense.
Zerg need to be everywhere, all the time, which is why I think Zerg Cheese is valid strategy. How to fix? Leave everything the same, except bring back the Lurker, and see what happens.
That is my humble opinion.
|
I recently switched from zerg to protoss, and it has been so laughably easy to win games. My strategy so far has been make a bunch of stuff, throw it at opponent, win. I have almost 0 real understanding of each matchup, yet after a week I am already at the skill I was at with zerg (which I have been playing since beta). With zerg it is so easy to lose games, I've had a 3 base advantage and have lost because I couldn't stop their 200 food push. Thank you for outlining my complaints with the race.
|
I love the post. I wholeheartedly agree with everything. However, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD its definitely not defiantly.  Spell check has done you wrong sir.
|
It's not that zergs can't scout, they can. It's not that zergs can't harass, they can.
It's because zerg cannot win unless they have a macro lead. How many games have you seen zerg win when they are behind in the worker count when the GG comes out?
(not that it doesn't happen but its very rare and much more common among the other races)
The other thing is zerg cant throw units at their opponents base like the other races can. Send your ling/roach/hydra (whatever) army at the enemy base and watch it enter the meat grinder by their sim city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
