[SC2B] Zerg: The Evolution (or Devolution) - Page 6

On April 21 2010 21:48 Slunk wrote:


In PvT that's kinda true for your main army composition to rely on zealot/goon until arbiters arrive, which are pretty high up the techtree, but not nearly as high as broodlords. Also they are much cheaper in tech and resources, especially with zealot/goon being mineral-heavy.
What separates goon/zealot from roach hydra is the fact that protoss in SC1 had a choice in the opening. You could open with DTs and get arbiter off two bases, since you have the tech buildings allready (imagine going for mutalisk harrass into two base broodlord/hydra/roach, not viable at all) or you go for reaver harass or you stay defensive to grab a quick third.
SC2 zerg on the other hand is much less flexible there are no beautiful transitions (yet). You start making roaches and hydras and you are forced to keep on doing this or you die. Then you have to hit the right timing to transition to broodlords, you have enough units inorder not to die, but get BLs in time to roll your opponent.
I am not saying that roach/hydra is overpowered or something, I just dislike the fact that it is the only branch that works in both non-mirrors.

On April 21 2010 22:05 IdrA wrote:

arbiters are pretty much the highest tech sc1 p had, same level as carriers.
and again, not true. roach-> roach/hydra isnt even the best opening vs t, much less mandatory. roach/hydra isnt the best army composition vs most protoss armies, and the roach:hydra ratio still varies alot according to their ratio when it is. if you just spam roach hydra and attack move you arent gonna win much vs good people. muta/ling is nearly as good as hydra/roach in macro zvz's now, and theres all kinds of gay shit thats viable early game.

On April 21 2010 22:46 Ricjames wrote:
I agree that zerg is not finished as many people are saying. Still the main issue with SC2 for me with all races is that the gameplay amount of possibilities is much more limited than in bw. It seems to me that bigger army always wins and the whole thing is about having better/bigger army whereas in broodwar it was more about battle tactics. For instance 3 well placed siege tanks could defend much bigger protoss or zerg army, small amount of lurkers could defend protoss fairly well unless he had mass goon + obs or very good storms. Few HT's with 3 cannons could hold zerg's attack very well. I miss these things in SC2. I thing the gameplay/tactics has less options than in bw. The game is a lot of fun to play, but still missing some very important elements or we will just have to figure these things out.

On April 21 2010 23:01 suejak wrote:

Totally disagree here. There are plenty of defensive strategies available, and lots of cool choke/static defense action. It's entirely possible to defend with fewer units and good static defense.

Moreover, I think it's clear that new strategies are coming out all the time. People are still playing the game at a very basic level (i.e., mass units), but you have your innovators and you have your cool new strategies. (Remember when the baneling bust-in was new? When forcefields really started being used?)

RE: the OP. I like zerg a lot, but I agree that they are overall kind of boring to play (compared to the other races). I think you completely underestimate the power of zerglings, and I like how they tend to come in much bigger masses now than they did in BW.

I also think the ultralisk is undervalued, but the other races do have ways of easily immobilizing it, which isn't cool. (I still think FF should be destructible).

On April 21 2010 23:44 Qikz wrote:


Wait, why should zerglings be improved? With upgrades they literally rape any form of Terran infantry already. They just auto surround and kill marines so fast it's ridiculous.