EPTDoes zerg win and lose games the wrong way? - Page 5
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
|
Traveler
United States451 Posts
On January 25 2011 11:03 LWr wrote: 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? I was reading through the entire thread so that I could make an informed post in reply, and then I saw that post and was just waiting for someone to tell him how absolutely wrong he is, thanks LWr. I mean, I've attacked a terran with an army 1.5 times in value, while having 1.5 times the economy, only to lose that entire army, then get my third and natural destroyed, all my production gone, and GG out, because zerg does not win by having a bigger army. It is not just me, in plenty of TvZ's in the GSL I see zergs lose much bigger armies to smaller ones. Also, when I do manage to kill a terran or toss's army, and say I decided to play safe and match him for economy (actually allowing me to overwhelm his army early) one forcefield, or 2 tanks and a wall-in mean that my army is essentially useless. All I can do is drone, and then lose when the next push comes out a minute later. Anyways, my rant about zerg having less army efficiency and no way to recover from army loss, while terran and protoss have both, is over. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The OP made such a nice post laying out almost exactly the disadvantages zerg experiences, and 80% of the posts in this thread are about how it is all QQ. Seriously when someone goes through all that effort to write up something that extensive, show a little respect and actually address what he said. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are a few things I would like to see changed to help zerg in tiny ways. First, zerg needs some viable early to midgame scouting option. Perhaps make overlord speed upgradeable at hatchery tech, or make it automatic upon getting a lair. Second, zergs need a harassing option that is viable earlier, mutalisks really don't do as much damage as a banshee or hellions or marine drops or zealot warp in. Perhaps make nydus worms cost effective (I mean recently pheonix were buffed and observers were buffed for similar reasons to make them more useable). Nydus worms would also provide excellent threat of counter attack as well as easier defense against the more powerful terran and protoss armies. Third, zergs need ultras to be useful so that they have a late game army capable to taking on other late game armies, people consistently talk about how ultras should function like Collosi and I agree, make them step over small units such as zerglings and banelings. Fourth, zergs need less risk in their production facilities. A lot of the problem comes from zerg producing out of hatcheries, and those hatcheries often are in forward positions, so every expansion lost early is like wiping out 1/3 to 1/2 of a zerg's production along with that expansion. That is all, any one or two of those things I feel would help quite a bit, for it is fairly undeniable that these things are some of the contributing factors to why playing zerg doesn't feel like you are winning or losing based on player skill. | ||
|
Ghost-z
United States1291 Posts
1 lurker can stall that damn 4 gate push. 1 lurker gives zerg the ability to actually fight in a choke rather than die. Lurkers would also force more scans/raven/observers which Terran and Toss only use at their leisure at the moment. Ok yea maybe burrowed roaches, big deal how many people complain about losing to that? | ||
|
GifteDzerGG
United States2 Posts
Now, I'm not one to complain. I've always used the "underdog" factions in any rts ive ever played due to my enjoyment out of the challenge, but Zerg in SC2 is the first of these underdog factions that doesn't feel satisfying to me. Idra made a good point in some interview about Zerg being a "momentum race", and I don't mind Zerg being such mechanically because I enjoy macro styled play, but it is also where the problem really lies. You have to constantly maintain a lead or a lower mistake-count than your opponent, and as soon as any kind of momentum switches in your opponent's favor, you are at a loss. The cost-effectiveness of Protoss and Terran units simply outoes Zerg's ability to "swarm" the enemy with more units most of the time, and the fact that banelings are a guarenteed loss in resources amplifies the problem even more when banelings become a NECESSITY in a game to counter Terran bioballs. Atm im high-diamond but I still get my head smashed in by players I can clearly tell are worse than me BY FAR, macro-wise and even game mechanics-wise. A large contributing factor to these moments are the maps that work against the way Zerg was designed to be played. As much as I'd hate to intentionally not play a map in the map pool, (because experience on every map is a good thing and a must if you want to be competitive), thumbing down Jungle Basin and Delta have recently become important in maintaining my sanity while laddering. I've even contimplated trying to learn Terran for when I'm playing like crap but still want to win a game... Basically, this isn't a complaint post, as I do enjoy a challenge; I just wanted to acknowledge you, OP, for pointing out my race's problems so well. | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
On January 25 2011 11:03 LWr wrote: 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? You're picking and choosing little tiny instances and pieces of information to try to debunk my broad statements, and that's pretty silly. Yeah siege tanks in huge mass can defend, and LATE game there are indeed things you can do to win with a smaller army. Early to mid game, however, that is not true whatsoever. With tanks at least, you can't defend with them early game though as you will just get run right over by things like immortals and void rays. Yes there is obviously high ground, what I meant was the miss chance from BW. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Obviously ultralisks are an exception, and a perfect example of what you're doing here - taking a general statement like "a huge army can fit through chokes with ease" and nitpicking about it like "well ultralisks can't do that so your whole argument is invalid!". And yes forcefields early game are an exception, but one of the ONLY exceptions. Also, stop having such a huge zerg bias in your posts. It shows. | ||
|
HotS
Sweden46 Posts
I think you need to understand the game a bit better not a all that i understand the game completly but when it comes that you lose against a player that have a army with the same value as you thats just right. As zerg early game and most of the middgame you should have a greater economi then you opponent thats just how the diffrent races work. so if you play a terran or toss you allways need to have one base up if this wasent the case Zerg would just be impossble to win against becouse they would drone up alittle and then just started to throw army at you and becouse both lose the same amond of army value zerg would just drone for alittle while becose the slow macro of its opponents and remacro and in every exchange zerg would get more and more ahead. With this said this should get closer and closer the longer the game goes becouse terrans and protoss macroing being better and better the same with there economi the later the game goes so in a late the % between army value for the fight to be even should be smaller then early game. However supply vice zerg should allways need to have a larger supply army for the fight to be even becouse of the faster remacroing. Second of all you need to get that some races are harder to play then others its the truth in sc2 and its the truth in bw that dosent make the game imba its the things you can do with the race that makes it imba. Third i feel like not enough players use fungal on marines to prevent the terran to micro and if the terran cant macro a zerg dont really need more micro then amove to crush an terran army. And i feel that zerg makes alot of micro misstaks even at the highest level for example the lack of drops or nydos but most of all ZERG DONT FLANK i mean you cant attack a terran or a toss army stright on becouse it will destroy you so its pretty simple the better flank you will have the less army value and supply you will lose. Now i have to agree with you that alot of the maps are just imba and that sucks but thats something that will get better with time you can se that GSL is starting to use new maps and iam sure blizzard will chance there ladder map pool sooner or later. I do also agree that the scouting for zerg early game is almost nonexisting i hope blizzard will do something about that and iam sure they will at some point. The 2rax opening for terran combined with the lack of scouting early game is really OP becouse its privent the zerg from getting up there economi in the early game and basicly terran just need to exchange armys and get more and more ahead. So to sume it up i feel that the real imba you can find in tvz is the maps the 2rax and the lack of early scouting more then that i really dont feel is something wrong with. The reasson why Zerg lose a lot of games is becouse the 2rax so the terran gets ahead or that the terran do an all in and i think alot of terrans do and becouse zerg cant scout it they lose but in late game i really dont think there is any imba so i dont se any need for some buff on ultras or whatever you may want. Plz pm if you agree or if there is anything you just think is straight up wrong or even if there are something you dont understand. I would love to get some responds thats for all of you guys that read this=) | ||
|
Joroth
United States318 Posts
| ||
|
Galleon.frigate
Canada721 Posts
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... The point the op made is that 3 units from terran or toss can gg a zerg. Now thats what I call harras. I don't mean 3 types I mean just 3 of them. There is no zerg unit that can do this, though droped banes can do a lot of dmg there is nothing that compares directly to the ablity to send in 4 hellions or 2-3 banchees and win if z fucks up but actually lose very little if the defence is perfect. No comment on balance and yes zerg is powerful, but when you are being harrased by those mutas, think about how that 'flock' costs 2k+/2k+ and think what you could have done with that money... just saying that that 4k of resorces for those 20 muta , ya that should do dmg, but man imagine if it doesn't, you defend perfectly or he just clicks them over some marines and a thor? ya that zerg is sure gg'd ... everything in the game can be stopped, there are no unbeatable builds, however in a game of inpefect information have more strong options sure is nice  | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On January 25 2011 09:01 Bagi wrote: People like Idra can really pinpoint where the zerg race is having trouble. This felt like 5 pages of nonsensical rambling filled with assumptions and anecdotal evidence, picking at weaknesses that may or may not exist within the race. All topped off with pretentious writing and a sense of entitlement that the OP is actually better than the people he loses to. I get it, some zergs are frustrated... But come on. That pretty much sums it up, Bagi. Ultimately it's just another whine post, if a painfully lengthy one. Far too many complaints about inherent zerg weaknesses without anything to back them up. | ||
|
Icx
Belgium853 Posts
whatever , you can't have an actual discussion in these threads | ||
|
RHMVNovus
United States738 Posts
On January 25 2011 09:01 Bagi wrote: People like Idra can really pinpoint where the zerg race is having trouble. This felt like 5 pages of nonsensical rambling filled with assumptions and anecdotal evidence, picking at weaknesses that may or may not exist within the race. All topped off with pretentious writing and a sense of entitlement that the OP is actually better than the people he loses to. I get it, some zergs are frustrated... But come on. Oh, good, I was thinking there wouldn't be a completely ironic rebuttal in this thread. | ||
|
Yogurt
United States4258 Posts
lurker and sunkens were the zergs way of being defensive terran has bunkers and tanks and planetary fortress etc protoss has cannons and templar and sentry etc zerg has... spine crawlers? | ||
|
Jeby
United States20 Posts
I agree. But the majority of these 'tricks' actually have to deal with the map size, and less about race balance. Cross position 4gate on meta is far far easier than cross position because it comes so fast and is so strong. I feel this is the majority of reasons why zerg complain (and as a zerg i do complain), and for good reason, because of map size its extremely hard to compete with another race that has a "quick" win ability. Where as zerg there are far less (note: yes you can early pool or attempt a strong baneling bust, but these can be easily stopped, except probably steppes) of these. For zerg no matter the "positions" you have to try to extend the game to have a more "reliable" chance of winning. This map size can actually be seen in a zerg strat. that is very powerful on closer positions (creep highway fast hydra push) but you put this on a cross positions meta, and you best be playing very well to pull this off. Many T and P also complain that large positions are zerg favored, no they are more zerg equal because to pull off a 4gate or a fast tank push, there is actually time for zerg to do something, it should not be "well because he is close to me and is trying to expand to balance out his economy i win." If T or P would actually play a strong macro game (see: Jinro) you can actually do very very well. TL;DR the game is actually kinda balanced, on large maps. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
this is the way it works most of the time now but you'll never see it happen always | ||
|
NearPerfection
232 Posts
Secondly, Lair is not a very expensive investment and should be researched as soon as your not in a clutch situation, if hes 4 gating off 2 gas and you get burrowed roach, there is no way for him to win, you can pop up, kill a bunch of sentry/stalker then reburrow and regain your HP rinse/repeat Thirdly, Zerg is not the only race that loses all the time for stupid reasons that don't involve actual mechanical skill. Examles: DTs, Cloaked Banshee, Marine/Scv all in, etc etc etc the list goes on and on, if your losing it's because your build order is somehow flawed or you played it out incorrectly and need more experience. I also don't buy into Zerg UP, ever compare 4 lings vs 1 zealot? Compare charge upgrade to speed upgrade? compare 2 roach to 1 stalker? These comparisons are all the same resources but who wins 100% of the time in that situation? Your also not the only race that must blind build order to win, Terran have it with blind engineering by around 6:15 minute mark to counter possible DT, Protoss have it with the Robo to counter burrow/dt/banshee The game is evolving into a more refined RTS where the skilled players are winning much more often than in the Beta, in 6 more months time I don't think anyone at the top doesn't deserve to be there. | ||
|
Cerpher
United States37 Posts
protoss and terran can always overlord hunt in the first couple of minutes but we cant pylon hunt or depot hunt becuz no terran or protoss are stupid enuf to place it randomly in the middle of the map Terran and Protoss almost always wall off against zerg if zerg is supposed to be the race that "overruns" the enemy doesn't this directly counter the purpose?? Also Zerg needs at least 2 structures to build units(tech and hatch) If the terran does a drop and snipes your spawning pool and roach warren and then flies away you wont be able to make any attacking units for at least another minute(early on in the game) I've had this happen to me a couple times >_> Or another example protoss goes void rays gets 2 or 3 and then snipes ur hydra den and target fires your queens. they can still "defend" counterattacks easily with a sentry forcefield ^^^That one ive lost plenty of times to There are plenty of "imbalances" in MY OPINION but Terran and Protoss take them for "granted" like its not an "imbalance" Its not the same if a terran snipes a roach warren and then a zerg snipes a barracks somehow someway... but either way lets just pretend so... the terran player will still have more racks and continue to make units as the zerg has to rebuild that tech structure thats all i got for now... | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On January 25 2011 12:20 Ghost-z wrote: Oh and I also agree very much 100% with the lurker. Bring it back and I think it solves most of the zerg issues. 1 lurker can stall that damn 4 gate push. 1 lurker gives zerg the ability to actually fight in a choke rather than die. Lurkers would also force more scans/raven/observers which Terran and Toss only use at their leisure at the moment. Ok yea maybe burrowed roaches, big deal how many people complain about losing to that? Lurkers dont' need to be brought back honestly banelings fill the roll pretty perfect now. Would be easy for a terran/toss to rape them anyway marauders/immortals would just rape them so bad (colossi/thors pretty much anything a terran/toss normally has). | ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
On January 25 2011 12:34 Galleon.frigate wrote: The point the op made is that 3 units from terran or toss can gg a zerg. Now thats what I call harras. I don't mean 3 types I mean just 3 of them. There is no zerg unit that can do this, though droped banes can do a lot of dmg there is nothing that compares directly to the ablity to send in 4 hellions or 2-3 banchees and win if z fucks up but actually lose very little if the defence is perfect. No comment on balance and yes zerg is powerful, but when you are being harrased by those mutas, think about how that 'flock' costs 2k+/2k+ and think what you could have done with that money... just saying that that 4k of resorces for those 20 muta , ya that should do dmg, but man imagine if it doesn't, you defend perfectly or he just clicks them over some marines and a thor? ya that zerg is sure gg'd ... everything in the game can be stopped, there are no unbeatable builds, however in a game of inpefect information have more strong options sure is nice Not only that but when people mention Muta as an equal to Banshee harass I want to kick myself in the head. First off, you don't get Muta harassed in the first 5 minutes of the game so it's in no way the same. Sure, Nydus Worms are cool but really, they aren't as effective in a real game as they are in theory craft. Baneling drops?... Effective but thats the only one you have a point with and even that isn't plausible until later in the game. BTW, the fact that Terrans mass Marines in every game against Zerg I don't see how Muta is such a problem... If Zerg masses hydra to protect from harass they get owned by anything and everything... Hence the reason Toss will open Phoenix and then switch to Collosus. On January 25 2011 13:35 NearPerfection wrote: There is alot of misinformation in this thread. First off, spine crawlers are incredibly good, a 4 gate push is immediately doomed to fail if you have 3 spine crawlers ready, they also do bonus damage to armored which helps alot vs stalkers. Secondly, Lair is not a very expensive investment and should be researched as soon as your not in a clutch situation, if hes 4 gating off 2 gas and you get burrowed roach, there is no way for him to win, you can pop up, kill a bunch of sentry/stalker then reburrow and regain your HP rinse/repeat Thirdly, Zerg is not the only race that loses all the time for stupid reasons that don't involve actual mechanical skill. Examles: DTs, Cloaked Banshee, Marine/Scv all in, etc etc etc the list goes on and on, if your losing it's because your build order is somehow flawed or you played it out incorrectly and need more experience. I also don't buy into Zerg UP, ever compare 4 lings vs 1 zealot? Compare charge upgrade to speed upgrade? compare 2 roach to 1 stalker? These comparisons are all the same resources but who wins 100% of the time in that situation? Your also not the only race that must blind build order to win, Terran have it with blind engineering by around 6:15 minute mark to counter possible DT, Protoss have it with the Robo to counter burrow/dt/banshee The game is evolving into a more refined RTS where the skilled players are winning much more often than in the Beta, in 6 more months time I don't think anyone at the top doesn't deserve to be there. Prime example of bad information coming from a bias source who probably hasn't played Zerg a day in their life. Seriously, how can someone afford Lair tech when a 4 gate is coming? It's impossible to get speed, spines and lair and then some how get roach burrow before the 4 gate hits, to think this is at all possible is way off base and stupid. I dont see any Zergs QQing here I see a bunch of Protoss and Terrans QQing with stupid reasons about how Zerg is fine. Some of the ideas for Zergs to try in this thread are literally r-e-t-a-r-d-e-d. | ||
|
Clog
United States950 Posts
One really good point that I had also been thinking about was how the matchmaking system inherently deals with this. It will basically attempt to place you such that your win-loss is as close to 50-50 as possible. Therefore (under the assumption that race A is bad and race B is better), you will usually have players of race A matched against lesser skilled players of race B to handle the imbalance. Players of race A will find themselves losing half the time to worse players, and getting wins that often feel anticlimactic when they see the opponent making obvious mistakes. On January 25 2011 13:35 NearPerfection wrote: There is alot of misinformation in this thread. First off, spine crawlers are incredibly good, a 4 gate push is immediately doomed to fail if you have 3 spine crawlers ready, they also do bonus damage to armored which helps alot vs stalkers. Secondly, Lair is not a very expensive investment and should be researched as soon as your not in a clutch situation, if hes 4 gating off 2 gas and you get burrowed roach, there is no way for him to win, you can pop up, kill a bunch of sentry/stalker then reburrow and regain your HP rinse/repeat Thirdly, Zerg is not the only race that loses all the time for stupid reasons that don't involve actual mechanical skill. Examles: DTs, Cloaked Banshee, Marine/Scv all in, etc etc etc the list goes on and on, if your losing it's because your build order is somehow flawed or you played it out incorrectly and need more experience. I also don't buy into Zerg UP, ever compare 4 lings vs 1 zealot? Compare charge upgrade to speed upgrade? compare 2 roach to 1 stalker? These comparisons are all the same resources but who wins 100% of the time in that situation? Your also not the only race that must blind build order to win, Terran have it with blind engineering by around 6:15 minute mark to counter possible DT, Protoss have it with the Robo to counter burrow/dt/banshee The game is evolving into a more refined RTS where the skilled players are winning much more often than in the Beta, in 6 more months time I don't think anyone at the top doesn't deserve to be there. I don't think anyone is suggesting that most top level pros don't deserve it. There's also a lot of misinformation in your post. If there is a 4 gate coming, you will not have burrow done in time, unless you rush lair off one base, which rarely happens anyway. You are also, for some reason, doing unit comparisons that rarely happen past the first several minutes of a game. 4 zerglings may beat 1 zealot, and 2 roaches may beat 1 stalker, but this trend does not continue into larger numbers that you will see once you hit early-mid game. As the OP mentioned, which you ignored, these zerg units are low ranged or melee. You can only mass so many low ranged units before any additional ones have to basically wait in line. This can be easily abused with things like force fields. Zealots are also melee, but you don't really see protoss massing zealots in the way zerg mass their units. | ||
|
pirsq
Australia145 Posts
On January 25 2011 12:19 Traveler wrote: First, zerg needs some viable early to midgame scouting option. Perhaps make overlord speed upgradeable at hatchery tech, or make it automatic upon getting a lair. When would you ever choose to spend 100 gas + 60 seconds on faster overlords instead of getting your lair? On January 25 2011 12:19 Traveler wrote: Second, zergs need a harassing option that is viable earlier, mutalisks really don't do as much damage as a banshee or hellions or marine drops or zealot warp in. Perhaps make nydus worms cost effective (I mean recently pheonix were buffed and observers were buffed for similar reasons to make them more useable). Nydus worms would also provide excellent threat of counter attack as well as easier defense against the more powerful terran and protoss armies. Yeah, nydus worms are pretty good. In most pro games I've seen them in, the player who used them has won. So... use them? As for mutalisks, you're not seriously suggesting they need a buff, are you? On January 25 2011 12:19 Traveler wrote: Third, zergs need ultras to be useful so that they have a late game army capable to taking on other late game armies, people consistently talk about how ultras should function like Collosi and I agree, make them step over small units such as zerglings and banelings. Have you ever watched an ultralisk walk? It wouldn't step over zerglings, it would walk over them and squish them. On January 25 2011 12:19 Traveler wrote: Fourth, zergs need less risk in their production facilities. A lot of the problem comes from zerg producing out of hatcheries, and those hatcheries often are in forward positions, so ever expansion lost early is like wiping out 1/3 to 1/2 of a zerg's production along with that expansion. Actually, this is one of zerg's main advantages. A terran/protoss expansion is the equivalent of building a hatchery that can only make drones, after which you need to build another hatchery that can only make ground units, and yet another hatchery that can only make flying units. Would you rather have that instead? | ||
| ||
