|
On January 31 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 00:41 Rabiator wrote:On January 30 2013 23:04 Big G wrote:On January 30 2013 03:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote:
If both units have the same stats but one of those is free, the winner will be quite clear
Thanksfully, there is no such thing in SC2, "Free unit" spawner all cost a lot, are slow and have built-in limits to their arsenal, right because of that, because they can spam free unit
The "infinite cost-efficience" argument isnt exclusive to them, colossus and siege tank do that quite easily since WoL, they just throw free shell and laser instead of units, so I dont think the "concept" is skewed oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them. The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it. I assume by your nickname we're talking about MTG here.  In MTG, token generators are strong because they can provide what's usually called "card advantage". This is a basic principle in SC2 too: free units (tokens) that trade with non-free units (cards) provide a big advantage. I don't think this is a problem per se and I don't know how can someone think that it doesn't feel zergy. The problem lies in specific implementations of this concept and more so in their interaction with other units/strategies, namely broodlord/infestor. The concept behind BL and swarm host is very simple: as Zerg, protect them at any cost and let the "tokens" do the job; as the Zerg's opponent, circumvent the "tokens" and go kill the slow, fragile and expensive "token generator". I like it. What I don't like, for example, is that a single spell (fungal) can completely shut down this basic gameplay dynamic. So, the point is: as of now, can we really punish a Zerg player that badly manages its "token generators"? That same simple spell shuts down the whole opposition as well ... and there is hardly any way to get past a combination of both to actually get to the token generator. Honestly "token generators" are a terrible idea in a game that is so resource focused as Starcraft. With "slow token generators" (Ravens) it might not be such a problem, but there is still the problem of being able to "focus power" and getting a lot more out of it. With the Broodlord you dont even need to "focus" the power because the Broodlings come out at a super fast rate, so killing them on the ground doesnt matter because they get replaced almost instantly. If the Broodlings had a lifespan five times greater but the rate of fire was five times lower it might work, but there is still the Fungal Lockdown to worry about. The easiest way would be to bring back the "tennis ball spewing" Guardian from BW. Tokens/Unit Spawns are fine design wise--whether they're interesting or not is arbitrary. I LOVE spawn generation as after effects such as broodlings popping out of dying zerg structures, broodlings spawned from spawn broodling. I dislike the idea of using unit generation to create a "swarm" effect. Now, mathematically, thematically, and visually it is accurate. Large numbers of units being thrown to their deaths without costing Zerg money to do it to create the look and feel of an endless swarm of units. The problem is that it isn't mechanically accurate to playing "the swarm race." You as the player who picked the swarm want to grab a crapload of cheap units and throw it at the enemy. You don't want to babysit high supply siege units that rally tokens at the enemy. Going back to MTG--Green was the token race, Red was the burn race; but Green never felt as much as a swarm color than red does. Token generation creates a swarm, but it doesn't let you play with a swarm. The same thing is happening in SC2. People are upset that Zerg is the mech race with its slow siege units and Terran is the Swarm race throwing wave after wave of 1 supply units at the enemy.
First of, isn't White the Token race? Imo whie outshines all other colors by far in (useful) token generation, while I never really liked greens tokens at all.
Also there have been quite some useful goblin token generators for red as far as I remember 
Back to SC2: The core problem in Zerg using those siege weapons, is that the economy/map layout does allow for incredible turtling. Therefore melee/low range units get very weak options to actually attack with and fast units cannot abuse their speed to attack undefended locations, as there are none. (by metagame/balancing/map layout)
So the only reasonable Zerg strategies to attack an opponent that only has 3-4bases (or more accurately, only 2-3 locations to defend) is to build longrange units themselves.
On the other hand, Terran only has decently ranged units, so their T1-T2 units do very well when it comes to actually attacking a defensive location. So those units (in names, Marines/Marauders/Hellions) fullfill all the "siege-need" on their own, so you actually can attack with them very well.
|
On January 31 2013 02:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 31 2013 00:41 Rabiator wrote:On January 30 2013 23:04 Big G wrote:On January 30 2013 03:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote:
If both units have the same stats but one of those is free, the winner will be quite clear
Thanksfully, there is no such thing in SC2, "Free unit" spawner all cost a lot, are slow and have built-in limits to their arsenal, right because of that, because they can spam free unit
The "infinite cost-efficience" argument isnt exclusive to them, colossus and siege tank do that quite easily since WoL, they just throw free shell and laser instead of units, so I dont think the "concept" is skewed oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them. The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it. I assume by your nickname we're talking about MTG here. In MTG, token generators are strong because they can provide what's usually called "card advantage". This is a basic principle in SC2 too: free units (tokens) that trade with non-free units (cards) provide a big advantage. I don't think this is a problem per se and I don't know how can someone think that it doesn't feel zergy. The problem lies in specific implementations of this concept and more so in their interaction with other units/strategies, namely broodlord/infestor. The concept behind BL and swarm host is very simple: as Zerg, protect them at any cost and let the "tokens" do the job; as the Zerg's opponent, circumvent the "tokens" and go kill the slow, fragile and expensive "token generator". I like it. What I don't like, for example, is that a single spell (fungal) can completely shut down this basic gameplay dynamic. So, the point is: as of now, can we really punish a Zerg player that badly manages its "token generators"? That same simple spell shuts down the whole opposition as well ... and there is hardly any way to get past a combination of both to actually get to the token generator. Honestly "token generators" are a terrible idea in a game that is so resource focused as Starcraft. With "slow token generators" (Ravens) it might not be such a problem, but there is still the problem of being able to "focus power" and getting a lot more out of it. With the Broodlord you dont even need to "focus" the power because the Broodlings come out at a super fast rate, so killing them on the ground doesnt matter because they get replaced almost instantly. If the Broodlings had a lifespan five times greater but the rate of fire was five times lower it might work, but there is still the Fungal Lockdown to worry about. The easiest way would be to bring back the "tennis ball spewing" Guardian from BW. Tokens/Unit Spawns are fine design wise--whether they're interesting or not is arbitrary. I LOVE spawn generation as after effects such as broodlings popping out of dying zerg structures, broodlings spawned from spawn broodling. I dislike the idea of using unit generation to create a "swarm" effect. Now, mathematically, thematically, and visually it is accurate. Large numbers of units being thrown to their deaths without costing Zerg money to do it to create the look and feel of an endless swarm of units. The problem is that it isn't mechanically accurate to playing "the swarm race." You as the player who picked the swarm want to grab a crapload of cheap units and throw it at the enemy. You don't want to babysit high supply siege units that rally tokens at the enemy. Going back to MTG--Green was the token race, Red was the burn race; but Green never felt as much as a swarm color than red does. Token generation creates a swarm, but it doesn't let you play with a swarm. The same thing is happening in SC2. People are upset that Zerg is the mech race with its slow siege units and Terran is the Swarm race throwing wave after wave of 1 supply units at the enemy. First of, isn't White the Token race? Imo whie outshines all other colors by far in (useful) token generation, while I never really liked greens tokens at all. Also there have been quite some useful goblin token generators for red as far as I remember Back to SC2: The core problem in Zerg using those siege weapons, is that the economy/map layout does allow for incredible turtling. Therefore melee/low range units get very weak options to actually attack with and fast units cannot abuse their speed to attack undefended locations, as there are none. (by metagame/balancing/map layout) So the only reasonable Zerg strategies to attack an opponent that only has 3-4bases (or more accurately, only 2-3 locations to defend) is to build longrange units themselves. On the other hand, Terran only has decently ranged units, so their T1-T2 units do very well when it comes to actually attacking a defensive location. So those units (in names, Marines/Marauders/Hellions) fullfill all the "siege-need" on their own, so you actually can attack with them very well.
I'm an MTG dinosaur--I'm still off put by the existence of rebels let alone the new paradigm of white getting efficient tokens, red getting after-effect tokens and green getting mass swarms of tokens. (I also dislike that Black now gets big tokens--that's weird to me, but so is the whole Blue getting efficient 1 drop 3 power flying cardboards of death)
But yeah, I definitely agree that we need to make Zerg less siege-y and most likely map changes are needed for that to work (Barrin's reduced mineral patches comes to mind actually--I love the idea that economy gets better with more bases through base inefficiency)
|
On January 31 2013 01:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:38 Rabiator wrote:On January 31 2013 00:59 xsnac wrote:
nothing is free . you would better open and talk about cost efficiecy since time=money=uits that takes time to spawn units = resources . same for energy , time = energy , time = money , energy = money Sorry, thats rubbish, because the Broodlings spawned by the Broodlord are replaced faster than you can kill them and then you still have the "your units that cost resources to replace die while only stuff that costs no money dies for the opponent" problem. Energy isnt the same as money if you have a "potential ratio" of getting the equivalent of EIGHT stimmed Marines for a fully charged Infestor which just occupies TWO supply ... The potential to focus your power on one point in time is just too much for caster units, but the rate of fire of Broodlords is so high that it replaces the free units it generates as they die. With a lot of Infestors the energy regeneration is pretty high, so energy is not a factor. Now if there was a "permanent cost" - something like losing hit points for every Broodling dropped - it might work, but there isnt anything like it. In BW the Dark Archon lost all its shields every time it cast Mind Control and that was great. Sorry, that's rubbish, because you can simply do the math. A Broodlord spawns 1 every 2.5seconds+1extra on the first shot. In a 5second combat, there are 4 Broodlings spawned by a broodlord. That's 120HP. That's less than what 3stimmed marines do damagewise in that time - so easily cleaned up fast by any reasonable marine army. (that's why unsupported broodlords aren't very good vs marines unless you can mass them or get a perfect position) Sorry, but I don't believe there is any reasonable even scenario in which your statement is true. What maybe discussable is the "frontload amount of Broodlings spawned" in the first seconds. Meaning that a combat is started on 0cooldown and with 2broodlings that spawn before the opponent can combat the broodlords, due to range (longrange vs air excluded). E.g.: 10 Broodlords spawn 20 broodlings at the beginning of a combat, 30 in the first 2.5seconds. So in conclusion, it's quite the opposite of what you are talking about that maybe a problem. Broodlords do too much early on in a combat, not in the longrun!
You didnt think that one quite through and try the idiot way to prove your point by totally ignoring that those Broodlings are killing the Marines while the Marines only kill "free stuff that gets replaced at almost twice the range of the Marine". So your calculations are totally skewed and personally I hate people who try to fake a statistic into proving their point. In any case you have a "1 Broodlord = 3 stimmed Marines" equation and dont include the damage which those 4 Broodlings do to the Marines in the same time; the Broodlord will still be there at the end of the five seconds, but the Marines will be gone (more or less).
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ... at 9.5 range even. Thats basically almost three dead STIMMED Marines.
|
On January 31 2013 06:41 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:55 Big J wrote:On January 31 2013 01:38 Rabiator wrote:On January 31 2013 00:59 xsnac wrote:
nothing is free . you would better open and talk about cost efficiecy since time=money=uits that takes time to spawn units = resources . same for energy , time = energy , time = money , energy = money Sorry, thats rubbish, because the Broodlings spawned by the Broodlord are replaced faster than you can kill them and then you still have the "your units that cost resources to replace die while only stuff that costs no money dies for the opponent" problem. Energy isnt the same as money if you have a "potential ratio" of getting the equivalent of EIGHT stimmed Marines for a fully charged Infestor which just occupies TWO supply ... The potential to focus your power on one point in time is just too much for caster units, but the rate of fire of Broodlords is so high that it replaces the free units it generates as they die. With a lot of Infestors the energy regeneration is pretty high, so energy is not a factor. Now if there was a "permanent cost" - something like losing hit points for every Broodling dropped - it might work, but there isnt anything like it. In BW the Dark Archon lost all its shields every time it cast Mind Control and that was great. Sorry, that's rubbish, because you can simply do the math. A Broodlord spawns 1 every 2.5seconds+1extra on the first shot. In a 5second combat, there are 4 Broodlings spawned by a broodlord. That's 120HP. That's less than what 3stimmed marines do damagewise in that time - so easily cleaned up fast by any reasonable marine army. (that's why unsupported broodlords aren't very good vs marines unless you can mass them or get a perfect position) Sorry, but I don't believe there is any reasonable even scenario in which your statement is true. What maybe discussable is the "frontload amount of Broodlings spawned" in the first seconds. Meaning that a combat is started on 0cooldown and with 2broodlings that spawn before the opponent can combat the broodlords, due to range (longrange vs air excluded). E.g.: 10 Broodlords spawn 20 broodlings at the beginning of a combat, 30 in the first 2.5seconds. So in conclusion, it's quite the opposite of what you are talking about that maybe a problem. Broodlords do too much early on in a combat, not in the longrun! You didnt think that one quite through and try the idiot way to prove your point by totally ignoring that those Broodlings are killing the Marines while the Marines only kill "free stuff that gets replaced at almost twice the range of the Marine". So your calculations are totally skewed and personally I hate people who try to fake a statistic into proving their point. In any case you have a "1 Broodlord = 3 stimmed Marines" equation and dont include the damage which those 4 Broodlings do to the Marines in the same time; the Broodlord will still be there at the end of the five seconds, but the Marines will be gone (more or less). If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways? 4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ... at 9.5 range even. Thats basically almost three dead STIMMED Marines.
Yeah, about the bold part, is that the Broodlings' melee damage? If so, that scenario will never happen. First off, Marines have so high dps that Broodlings are barely living any seconds, and second, if there are mass Broodlords, they are massing a lot of Broodlings at the start of the fight, when they shoot 2 Broodlings at once, that like half of the Broodlings aren't even attacking, they are being blocked by other Broodlings.
And I found your comment "I hate people with fake statistics that try to prove their point" completely ironic and hypocritical since you are almost always doing the same thing, and reading your comments in other threads I am sometimes wondering do you even play this game? Some comments that are not just wrong, but doesn't make any sense whatsoever, with pure hate and constant bashing on SC2.
|
On January 31 2013 01:03 Ohyra wrote:
I'm so tired of the infested terrans and inject larva. How many games have we not seen where the zerg comes out of a fight just barely winning thanks to that extra 20+supply of IT's and then make a round of roughly 30-90 lings at once and just roll over their opponent? Those games really make me want to kill someone - especially the zerg player for being so damn "skilled" as to produce 100 units in the time i get about 8-10.
Oh man and I hate mules. How many times have we seen a terran lose most of his workers but he throws down mules and can keep production while any other race would be dead?
Jesus you need to chill out lol.
|
On January 31 2013 01:03 Ohyra wrote:
I'm so tired of the infested terrans and inject larva. How many games have we not seen where the zerg comes out of a fight just barely winning thanks to that extra 20+supply of IT's and then make a round of roughly 30-90 lings at once and just roll over their opponent? Those games really make me want to kill someone - especially the zerg player for being so damn "skilled" as to produce 100 units in the time i get about 8-10.
I guess you've never played zerg. Try to keep up with economy and army production without it.
|
I can't believe this topic is still going...
I don't understand why people go completely nuts about every strength that Zerg has as a race. When my friend read about the things you guys are complaining about (who is a Terran player) said "Why can't Zerg have nice things too?".
Zerg's not exactly in the best place balance-wise in HotS, on top of that if you look at the list of full changes in HotS Zerg got by far the least changes, the least buffs, and the most nerfs, and every change aside from Swarm Host and Abduct was basically something from SC BW.
They give us Burrow a bit earlier (which isn't nearly as strong of an early game upgrade as the other races got in HotS) and people complain endlessly about it. Now people are complaining about "free units" (which is straight up twisting the truth) and complaining about compositions that aren't even that strong anymore. Now people are going even farther and saying Zergs SIEGE is too strong??? When Zerg already has the latest siege in the game???
For a long portion of the game Terran and Protoss are literally unbreakable and Zerg in many cases CANT EVEN LEAVE THEIR BASE until late game. And Zergs siege weapons don't even come until RIGHT BEFORE Hive tech... at which point once they finally get the tech that lets them leave their base they do at the earliest point. How could people be acting like Zerg players "turtle with siege" when they don't even have it, and the other races turtle unbreakably the whole game before that. Besides, "Zerg Siege" does not even defend nearly as well as they attack.
People complain about the "free units" taking hits, when that's what they are SUPPOSED to do. Zerg siege doesnt do instant aoe damage and blow everything up in seconds the way other races siege does, but people ignore this fact. It absorbs some hits so that the super weak Zerg units that do small damage in low numbers but big damage in high numbers can actually do that damage. Other races siege can ALREADY do a significant amount of damage even in low numbers and prevents the enemies from even getting close without getting blown up, and Zerg doesn't have any real defensive that can absorb that kind of damage nor do that kind of ranged damage, like the other races can do. If you take that mechanic your basically gimping Zerg (which, by all indications, seems like the goal of every terran/protoss player on the forums).
Then you have the other people saying "Unlike the other races Broodlord is a flying siege unit and you cant fight it siege vs siege"... Okay this is a HotS forum, what about the Tempest??? As mentioned many times, Broodlord/Infestor isn't even that strong of a composition anymore. Why try to use WoL information to balance HotS?
Meanwhile, you have people who complain about ANY early game buff to Zerg saying it will allow them to get to late game too easy, when if Zerg wasnt so weak a majority of the game their late game wouldn't need to be so strong. No matter what Zerg gets, the other races complain. Even objective players who don't play Zerg can see that people just don't want Zerg to have anything good.
You guys are being crazy and completely ridiculous. Why do players of other races want to strip every mechanic of the few mechanics that Zerg has as a strength? Zerg players are lucky Blizzard doesn't listen to topics like this.
|
On January 31 2013 08:02 Spyridon wrote:
I can't believe this topic is still going...
I don't understand why people go completely nuts about every strength that Zerg has as a race. When my friend read about the things you guys are complaining about (who is a Terran player) said "Why can't Zerg have nice things too?".
Zerg's not exactly in the best place balance-wise in HotS, on top of that if you look at the list of full changes in HotS Zerg got by far the least changes, the least buffs, and the most nerfs, and every change aside from Swarm Host and Abduct was basically something from SC BW.
They give us Burrow a bit earlier (which isn't nearly as strong of an early game upgrade as the other races got in HotS) and people complain endlessly about it. Now people are complaining about "free units" (which is straight up twisting the truth) and complaining about compositions that aren't even that strong anymore. Now people are going even farther and saying Zergs SIEGE is too strong??? When Zerg already has the latest siege in the game???
For a long portion of the game Terran and Protoss are literally unbreakable and Zerg in many cases CANT EVEN LEAVE THEIR BASE until late game. And Zergs siege weapons don't even come until RIGHT BEFORE Hive tech... at which point once they finally get the tech that lets them leave their base they do at the earliest point. How could people be acting like Zerg players "turtle with siege" when they don't even have it, and the other races turtle unbreakably the whole game before that. Besides, "Zerg Siege" does not even defend nearly as well as they attack.
People complain about the "free units" taking hits, when that's what they are SUPPOSED to do. Zerg siege doesnt do instant aoe damage and blow everything up in seconds the way other races siege does, but people ignore this fact. It absorbs some hits so that the super weak Zerg units that do small damage in low numbers but big damage in high numbers can actually do that damage. Other races siege can ALREADY do a significant amount of damage even in low numbers and prevents the enemies from even getting close without getting blown up, and Zerg doesn't have any real defensive that can absorb that kind of damage nor do that kind of ranged damage, like the other races can do. If you take that mechanic your basically gimping Zerg (which, by all indications, seems like the goal of every terran/protoss player on the forums).
Then you have the other people saying "Unlike the other races Broodlord is a flying siege unit and you cant fight it siege vs siege"... Okay this is a HotS forum, what about the Tempest??? As mentioned many times, Broodlord/Infestor isn't even that strong of a composition anymore. Why try to use WoL information to balance HotS?
Meanwhile, you have people who complain about ANY early game buff to Zerg saying it will allow them to get to late game too easy, when if Zerg wasnt so weak a majority of the game their late game wouldn't need to be so strong. No matter what Zerg gets, the other races complain. Even objective players who don't play Zerg can see that people just don't want Zerg to have anything good.
You guys are being crazy and completely ridiculous. Why do players of other races want to strip every mechanic of the few mechanics that Zerg has as a strength? Zerg players are lucky Blizzard doesn't listen to topics like this.
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
|
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book
Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing
|
On January 31 2013 08:54 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive Show nested quote +I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy. That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing
But damn was it fun to watch
|
On January 31 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 08:54 Protosnake wrote:
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy. That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing But damn was it fun to watch
It was fun to play to. Unfortunately as he said terran/tosses figured it out and we zergs had to do a more boring play style if we want to win consistently.
|
On January 31 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
Whats more swarmy then suddenly getting surrounded by a suprise attack when I.T. or locusts engage the main army and the rest of zs army attacks from every side?
|
On January 31 2013 09:02 insectoceanx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 08:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
Whats more swarmy then suddenly getting surrounded by a suprise attack when I.T. or locusts engage the main army and the rest of zs army attacks from every side?
You misunderstood me--as I said in the prior pages, I actually do think it is technically and visually more swarmy
I wanted it to feel swarmy to the player. Babysitting Broodlords/Swarmhosts does not feel like you're commanding the swarm. It looks like it, but it doesn't feel like it.
|
On January 31 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 08:54 Protosnake wrote:
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy. That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing But damn was it fun to watch
Sure it was, but since it was the only choice, it wasnt a sustainable metagame
Since new midgame aggression are now possible for Z in hots, it may do a great comeback
|
On January 31 2013 09:05 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 31 2013 08:54 Protosnake wrote:
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy. That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing But damn was it fun to watch Sure it was, but since it was the only choice, it wasnt a sustainable metagame Since new midgame aggression are now possible for Z in hots, it may do a great comeback
That swarm tactic is only viable with the existence of multiple fast units being able to both keep up and compliment each other (ling/bling, muta/ling, etc...) The problem is that Zerg only has 1 low cost fast unit that is supply efficient. Hydras are too slow for their health and roaches are too supply heavy for their flexibility. A 1 supply fast moving roach/hydra would be a wonderful option and allow for variations in mobile-based play styles that need a different response than muta/ling/bling.
Right now it's either muta/ling/bling or 3base never move out without having built 100 spines game play. It'd be nice if it was Muta/Ling, _______, Turtle play. Whatever "blank" is--so long as it is mobile and makes use of low cost fast units other than lings.
EDIT::
To be honest, this post is very much off topic of the main discussion of the relevance of "free units" in HotS. I'm sorry about that-lets try to shift back to that. I made clear my disagreement of it a page or so back, reference that for my opinions on the matter.
|
On January 31 2013 08:02 Spyridon wrote:
I can't believe this topic is still going...
I don't understand why people go completely nuts about every strength that Zerg has as a race. When my friend read about the things you guys are complaining about (who is a Terran player) said "Why can't Zerg have nice things too?".
Zerg has all manner of strengths as a race, and I don't think most people here are saying they shouldn't or attacking most of them. But if something Zerg has is legitimately imbalanced, shouldn't that be addressed just as much as if Terran or Protoss had an imbalanced unit or strategy in their arsenal?
Zerg's not exactly in the best place balance-wise in HotS, on top of that if you look at the list of full changes in HotS Zerg got by far the least changes, the least buffs, and the most nerfs, and every change aside from Swarm Host and Abduct was basically something from SC BW.
It's way too early to judge HotS from a balance perspective accurately. Zerg's additions in HotS are late-game, while the other races got earlier additions, so one would anticipate that Terran and Protoss would win a bit more often until Zerg learned to properly hold off aggression and defend until hive. Once they do, I'm certain Zerg's winrate will go up a bit, at least against Terran. Protoss's lategame is quite a bit stronger in HotS, but Terran's changes are much less lategame-oriented. I suppose the raven change will be nice, and if that battlecruiser damage buff is still in the game, that should help occasionally.
They give us Burrow a bit earlier (which isn't nearly as strong of an early game upgrade as the other races got in HotS) and people complain endlessly about it. Now people are complaining about "free units" (which is straight up twisting the truth) and complaining about compositions that aren't even that strong anymore. Now people are going even farther and saying Zergs SIEGE is too strong??? When Zerg already has the latest siege in the game???
I must have missed the thread where people complained endlessly about hatch-tech burrow. I remember the thread where it was announced, and comments were mostly positive. There's always someone complaining about anything you can name, especially in this community, but I don't know the overall consensus was negative. Possibly someone expressed concern about the possibility of burrowing banelings at hatch-tech, since baneling landmines are a very powerful tactic that was previously limited by your opponent needing lair before they could get them.
And the issue isn't that zerg siege is too strong in HotS; the problem is that fungal combines with zerg siege to great effect in WoL. Judging the lategame in HotS is waaay too difficult at this stage, since games reach lategame so rarely and there's been so little time to work out compositions and tactics in a lategame scenario.
For a long portion of the game Terran and Protoss are literally unbreakable and Zerg in many cases CANT EVEN LEAVE THEIR BASE until late game. And Zergs siege weapons don't even come until RIGHT BEFORE Hive tech... at which point once they finally get the tech that lets them leave their base they do at the earliest point. How could people be acting like Zerg players "turtle with siege" when they don't even have it, and the other races turtle unbreakably the whole game before that. Besides, "Zerg Siege" does not even defend nearly as well as they attack.
Zerg leave their base all the time. The only time Zerg wasn't really able to leave their base was TvZ pre-queen range buff, when hellions were used to contain the zerg. That was nearly a year ago. As for T and P being unbreakable, that depends on how well they defend. In WoL, Zergs all-in against T and P all the time, mostly because it works fairly often. A huge number of TvZ's end very early because the Terran went 3CC and didn't turtle up enough, and the Zerg just baneling busts with lings or roaches and kills him.
Nobody complains about Zerg turtling with broodlord/infestor. They complain about Zerg attacking with broodlord/infestor. Once Zerg has broodlord/infestor they want to be defending with static defense, not units. This way they can continue their death push while drops and such try to pull them back, but to no avail.
People complain about the "free units" taking hits, when that's what they are SUPPOSED to do. Zerg siege doesnt do instant aoe damage and blow everything up in seconds the way other races siege does, but people ignore this fact. It absorbs some hits so that the super weak Zerg units that do small damage in low numbers but big damage in high numbers can actually do that damage. Other races siege can ALREADY do a significant amount of damage even in low numbers and prevents the enemies from even getting close without getting blown up, and Zerg doesn't have any real defensive that can absorb that kind of damage nor do that kind of ranged damage, like the other races can do. If you take that mechanic your basically gimping Zerg (which, by all indications, seems like the goal of every terran/protoss player on the forums).
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
Then you have the other people saying "Unlike the other races Broodlord is a flying siege unit and you cant fight it siege vs siege"... Okay this is a HotS forum, what about the Tempest??? As mentioned many times, Broodlord/Infestor isn't even that strong of a composition anymore. Why try to use WoL information to balance HotS?
Since that's a direct reference to my post, I assume I'm the one you're responding to. What about the Tempest? I said that siege units are long range, meaning to fight them you have to either approach before you attack, or find a unit equally long-range. In WoL there's nothing with sufficient range to attack the Broodlords, since the other siege units attack ground, so you have to approach. This only becomes a problem because Fungal Growth is specifically designed to prevent the opponent from approaching. The effect is that a) you need to approach the army to fight it, and b) you can't approach it, therefore c) you can't fight it.
The Tempest is also a flying siege unit, but the dynamic is completely different. Yes you have to approach it to fight it, since nothing has the same range as the Tempest, but Protoss also doesn't have fungal growth with which to prevent your approach. Forcefields are obviously good for that, but you'd usually be approaching the Tempest from the air anyway, which you can do. So Protoss can use the Tempest to force you to engage on their terms, which is how siege units are supposed to be used; they cannot attack you while preventing you from engaging at all, which is a capability specific to the BL/infestor composition.
We use WoL information to balance HotS all the time, because we have a lot more data on WoL than HotS and the two are fairly similar. I hear zergs are having a big problem with the tempest/high templar army PvZ; since I play neither P nor Z I haven't experienced many such games, and can't comment on whether there may be an issue there. I'm certain Blizzard wants to let players try to find an answer to the composition before they just throw nerfs at it, which is a valid philosophy. In TvZ, however, BL/infestor is still a very strong composition for all the same reasons as in WoL.
Meanwhile, you have people who complain about ANY early game buff to Zerg saying it will allow them to get to late game too easy, when if Zerg wasnt so weak a majority of the game their late game wouldn't need to be so strong. No matter what Zerg gets, the other races complain. Even objective players who don't play Zerg can see that people just don't want Zerg to have anything good.
Who are these objective players you're referring to? You already confessed that at least 2/3 of the forum is biased against you. Are Zergs that don't see an issue with BL/infestor the only objective ones? What about the Zergs who still think there's a balance issue there, even though they don't appear to have anything to gain from nerfing it?
You guys are being crazy and completely ridiculous. Why do players of other races want to strip every mechanic of the few mechanics that Zerg has as a strength? Zerg players are lucky Blizzard doesn't listen to topics like this.
No really though, this makes you sound really, really paranoid. I think most everyone here who complains about imbalance or bad design does so because they actually think there's a balance or design issue to be fixed that could improve the game. And you don't really have any good reason to believe differently, you're just dismissing everyone's opinions by asserting that they secretly want Zerg to cease to be a viable race so their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
|
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything.
If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
|
On January 31 2013 10:14 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
This thread was supposed to point out the design flaw of free units for the swarming race.
Taking a look at BW zerg, you couldn't surround the terran or toss while he was in his base. You could also expand a lot while he was in his base. It was easy to surround the terran or toss when he moved out. Your cost ineffective units became very cost effective when all of them, being melee, could attack him all at once. So you expanded more, thanks to the map control he relinquished so he could survive the early/mid game. This forced your opponent to either move out or lose to your expo advantage. When it came time to attack him if he wasn't moving out, you were supposed to throw units at him, but you could because you were actually mining on 5ish mineral lines at once while he was maximum 3. The economics in BW played a role in how many bases each race needed, zerg included, and map control was given to the race that needed more bases.
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings). This is a design flaw, cost effectiveness is mech's territory and mech, btw, is not about being slow or immobile, its about being cost effective, at the cost of having to always be prepared. Terran design was supposed to be about holding ground and being the most cost effective out of the races. A toss was even far more wasteful than a terran. A zerg only received effective units to attack a fortified position late late in the game, and these units weren't mindless 1A units, bad players were bad with them.
And before you claim there must have been an imbalance, there was. For the race that was supposed to be more wasteful. For the race that was supposed to expand because they were simply were given mechanics that favoured this.
In ZvP, zerg tended to win more.
In ZvT, zerg tended to win more.
In PvT, toss tended to win more.
This imbalance in the statistics is linked solely to which race was expected to take more bases. And everyone was happy with this imbalance.
EDIT: trust me, id love to have zerg compensated for being less cost effective....
|
On January 31 2013 09:36 ChristianS wrote:
Zerg has all manner of strengths as a race, and I don't think most people here are saying they shouldn't or attacking most of them. But if something Zerg has is legitimately imbalanced, shouldn't that be addressed just as much as if Terran or Protoss had an imbalanced unit or strategy in their arsenal?
It's way too early to judge HotS from a balance perspective accurately. Zerg's additions in HotS are late-game, while the other races got earlier additions, so one would anticipate that Terran and Protoss would win a bit more often until Zerg learned to properly hold off aggression and defend until hive. Once they do, I'm certain Zerg's winrate will go up a bit, at least against Terran. Protoss's lategame is quite a bit stronger in HotS, but Terran's changes are much less lategame-oriented. I suppose the raven change will be nice, and if that battlecruiser damage buff is still in the game, that should help occasionally.
Seems your 2nd paragraph contradicts the first? You say if somethings legitimately imbalanced it should be addressed, then say its way too early to judge from a balance perspective...
All there is to go by atm is watching the trends of how Terran and Protoss have changed, and if that's any indication Terran and Protoss are even at higher ranks, with Zerg still far behind.
I'm sure peoples counter argument for this is going to be that the balance is going to change, but lets face it, the current results hold a lot more weight than guesses of what is actually going to happen in the future.
I must have missed the thread where people complained endlessly about hatch-tech burrow. I remember the thread where it was announced, and comments were mostly positive. There's always someone complaining about anything you can name, especially in this community, but I don't know the overall consensus was negative. Possibly someone expressed concern about the possibility of burrowing banelings at hatch-tech, since baneling landmines are a very powerful tactic that was previously limited by your opponent needing lair before they could get them.
Look at pretty much every Zerg thread on the HotS forum. You will find endless amounts of people who say "just get burrow instead of ling speed" who don't even understand the basics of Zerg build orders, or the fact that researching burrow delays either your queens or lair, harming or preventing macro focused builds and leaving some glaring weaknesses to be exploited.
And the issue isn't that zerg siege is too strong in HotS; the problem is that fungal combines with zerg siege to great effect in WoL. Judging the lategame in HotS is waaay too difficult at this stage, since games reach lategame so rarely and there's been so little time to work out compositions and tactics in a lategame scenario.
So why are people (even in this thread) STILL arguing about the WoL metagame on a HotS forum? As I said, shows how ridiculous people are being...
Zerg leave their base all the time. The only time Zerg wasn't really able to leave their base was TvZ pre-queen range buff, when hellions were used to contain the zerg. That was nearly a year ago. As for T and P being unbreakable, that depends on how well they defend. In WoL, Zergs all-in against T and P all the time, mostly because it works fairly often. A huge number of TvZ's end very early because the Terran went 3CC and didn't turtle up enough, and the Zerg just baneling busts with lings or roaches and kills him.
Nobody complains about Zerg turtling with broodlord/infestor. They complain about Zerg attacking with broodlord/infestor. Once Zerg has broodlord/infestor they want to be defending with static defense, not units. This way they can continue their death push while drops and such try to pull them back, but to no avail.
Why do you keep talking about WoL balance when this is supposed to be about HotS?
In response to saying Zerg leave their base all the time, again check out the Zerg threads on the HotS forum. I've even stated to others many times that there are situations you can leave (particuarly in ZvT), but that doesn't change the fact that there still exists builds where Zerg can't safely leave base until lategame tech (heavy tank pushes for example).
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
How could you decide what the best part of getting broodlords are supposed to be? They were the upgrade from Guardians to Broodlords in WoL, and one of the things that made up for Zergs lategame being significantly weaker than it was in BW.
Without completely rebalancing Zerg as a whole, removing broodling and locusts would gimp the whole concept of Zerg siege. Even moreso than BW, Zerg is balanced to be weaker unit per unit in small numbers, but powerful in heavier numbers. This is the only reason the current iteration of Zerg siege works.
But mostly what I was saying, was it's silly that people complain about EVERY single unique strength of the Zerg race. Apparently if something works different from the other races, it's OP.
Since that's a direct reference to my post, I assume I'm the one you're responding to. What about the Tempest? I said that siege units are long range, meaning to fight them you have to either approach before you attack, or find a unit equally long-range. In WoL there's nothing with sufficient range to attack the Broodlords, since the other siege units attack ground, so you have to approach. This only becomes a problem because Fungal Growth is specifically designed to prevent the opponent from approaching. The effect is that a) you need to approach the army to fight it, and b) you can't approach it, therefore c) you can't fight it.
Once again, why are you arguing about WoL balance in a HotS forum, where you even said yourself its too early to judge HotS balance?
We use WoL information to balance HotS all the time, because we have a lot more data on WoL than HotS and the two are fairly similar. I hear zergs are having a big problem with the tempest/high templar army PvZ; since I play neither P nor Z I haven't experienced many such games, and can't comment on whether there may be an issue there. I'm certain Blizzard wants to let players try to find an answer to the composition before they just throw nerfs at it, which is a valid philosophy. In TvZ, however, BL/infestor is still a very strong composition for all the same reasons as in WoL.
But you said yourself, its way too early to judge HotS, so why would you try to from a prior iteration? Hell, even judging from past patches doesn't make sense. 2 balance patches ago the leaderboards were all Protoss, look at what just a couple small changes did.
BL/Infestor is still strong, but nowhere near as strong as it was in WoL, and Terran has not only more and stronger ways to harass to prevent it from getting to that point, but also some new timings that could be exploited.
Who are these objective players you're referring to? You already confessed that at least 2/3 of the forum is biased against you. Are Zergs that don't see an issue with BL/infestor the only objective ones? What about the Zergs who still think there's a balance issue there, even though they don't appear to have anything to gain from nerfing it?
You could call anyone who isnt crying about anything being gamebreakingly OP an objective player, which there are few around these days.
BL/Infestor was an issue in WoL I agree, but this isn't even the same iteration of the game, people need to let that go.
How bout I bring up how OP Terran was at release of WoL (in comparison to the end of WoL) and use that for an argument of balance? How would you feel about that? That's basically what people are doing now with Zerg. It makes no sense to argue balance out of old + outdated information.
No really though, this makes you sound really, really paranoid. I think most everyone here who complains about imbalance or bad design does so because they actually think there's a balance or design issue to be fixed that could improve the game. And you don't really have any good reason to believe differently, you're just dismissing everyone's opinions by asserting that they secretly want Zerg to cease to be a viable race so their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
Not paranoid, just kind of annoyed. You don't see topics popping up for every single buff that Terran and Protoss get, saying free siege and free hallucation are game-breakingly OP and not fun to deal with, yet the few buffs that Zerg got have people complaining that the race is broken, when the results show nothing of the sort.
You say I'm dismissing peoples opinion, I wouldn't mind an argument if you had some sort of information or results to back it up. But instead of that, people are using "opinion" as "fact", when in reality they have no facts to back up their claims. I'm not dismissing their opinions, reality is. If Zerg starts dominating, and these issues people are complaining about actually do become a problem, then I'll have no problem accepting opinions that these issues are a problem. But that's not the reality of the situation.
At least WoL BL/infestor was backed up by results. Now people are complaining about "burrowed banelings" and "free units" with absolutely no results to back that up. Where are all these dominant Zerg players, with their burrowed baneling bombs and unstoppable ultralisks and limitless amount of free units that are "impossible to deal with"?
Zerg isn't in this all-powerful state that people are acting like they are, and definitely not in a state that nerfs should be happening to the few strong aspects of the race that are keeping Zerg working in HotS.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 31 2013 13:18 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 09:36 ChristianS wrote:
Zerg has all manner of strengths as a race, and I don't think most people here are saying they shouldn't or attacking most of them. But if something Zerg has is legitimately imbalanced, shouldn't that be addressed just as much as if Terran or Protoss had an imbalanced unit or strategy in their arsenal? Show nested quote +It's way too early to judge HotS from a balance perspective accurately. Zerg's additions in HotS are late-game, while the other races got earlier additions, so one would anticipate that Terran and Protoss would win a bit more often until Zerg learned to properly hold off aggression and defend until hive. Once they do, I'm certain Zerg's winrate will go up a bit, at least against Terran. Protoss's lategame is quite a bit stronger in HotS, but Terran's changes are much less lategame-oriented. I suppose the raven change will be nice, and if that battlecruiser damage buff is still in the game, that should help occasionally. Seems your 2nd paragraph contradicts the first? You say if somethings legitimately imbalanced it should be addressed, then say its way too early to judge from a balance perspective... All there is to go by atm is watching the trends of how Terran and Protoss have changed, and if that's any indication Terran and Protoss are even at higher ranks, with Zerg still far behind. I'm sure peoples counter argument for this is going to be that the balance is going to change, but lets face it, the current results hold a lot more weight than guesses of what is actually going to happen in the future. Show nested quote +I must have missed the thread where people complained endlessly about hatch-tech burrow. I remember the thread where it was announced, and comments were mostly positive. There's always someone complaining about anything you can name, especially in this community, but I don't know the overall consensus was negative. Possibly someone expressed concern about the possibility of burrowing banelings at hatch-tech, since baneling landmines are a very powerful tactic that was previously limited by your opponent needing lair before they could get them. Look at pretty much every Zerg thread on the HotS forum. You will find endless amounts of people who say "just get burrow instead of ling speed" who don't even understand the basics of Zerg build orders, or the fact that researching burrow delays either your queens or lair, harming or preventing macro focused builds and leaving some glaring weaknesses to be exploited. Show nested quote +And the issue isn't that zerg siege is too strong in HotS; the problem is that fungal combines with zerg siege to great effect in WoL. Judging the lategame in HotS is waaay too difficult at this stage, since games reach lategame so rarely and there's been so little time to work out compositions and tactics in a lategame scenario. So why are people (even in this thread) STILL arguing about the WoL metagame on a HotS forum? As I said, shows how ridiculous people are being... Show nested quote +Zerg leave their base all the time. The only time Zerg wasn't really able to leave their base was TvZ pre-queen range buff, when hellions were used to contain the zerg. That was nearly a year ago. As for T and P being unbreakable, that depends on how well they defend. In WoL, Zergs all-in against T and P all the time, mostly because it works fairly often. A huge number of TvZ's end very early because the Terran went 3CC and didn't turtle up enough, and the Zerg just baneling busts with lings or roaches and kills him.
Nobody complains about Zerg turtling with broodlord/infestor. They complain about Zerg attacking with broodlord/infestor. Once Zerg has broodlord/infestor they want to be defending with static defense, not units. This way they can continue their death push while drops and such try to pull them back, but to no avail. Why do you keep talking about WoL balance when this is supposed to be about HotS? In response to saying Zerg leave their base all the time, again check out the Zerg threads on the HotS forum. I've even stated to others many times that there are situations you can leave (particuarly in ZvT), but that doesn't change the fact that there still exists builds where Zerg can't safely leave base until lategame tech (heavy tank pushes for example). Show nested quote +Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid. How could you decide what the best part of getting broodlords are supposed to be? They were the upgrade from Guardians to Broodlords in WoL, and one of the things that made up for Zergs lategame being significantly weaker than it was in BW. Without completely rebalancing Zerg as a whole, removing broodling and locusts would gimp the whole concept of Zerg siege. Even moreso than BW, Zerg is balanced to be weaker unit per unit in small numbers, but powerful in heavier numbers. This is the only reason the current iteration of Zerg siege works. But mostly what I was saying, was it's silly that people complain about EVERY single unique strength of the Zerg race. Apparently if something works different from the other races, it's OP. Show nested quote +Since that's a direct reference to my post, I assume I'm the one you're responding to. What about the Tempest? I said that siege units are long range, meaning to fight them you have to either approach before you attack, or find a unit equally long-range. In WoL there's nothing with sufficient range to attack the Broodlords, since the other siege units attack ground, so you have to approach. This only becomes a problem because Fungal Growth is specifically designed to prevent the opponent from approaching. The effect is that a) you need to approach the army to fight it, and b) you can't approach it, therefore c) you can't fight it. Once again, why are you arguing about WoL balance in a HotS forum, where you even said yourself its too early to judge HotS balance? Show nested quote +We use WoL information to balance HotS all the time, because we have a lot more data on WoL than HotS and the two are fairly similar. I hear zergs are having a big problem with the tempest/high templar army PvZ; since I play neither P nor Z I haven't experienced many such games, and can't comment on whether there may be an issue there. I'm certain Blizzard wants to let players try to find an answer to the composition before they just throw nerfs at it, which is a valid philosophy. In TvZ, however, BL/infestor is still a very strong composition for all the same reasons as in WoL. But you said yourself, its way too early to judge HotS, so why would you try to from a prior iteration? Hell, even judging from past patches doesn't make sense. 2 balance patches ago the leaderboards were all Protoss, look at what just a couple small changes did. BL/Infestor is still strong, but nowhere near as strong as it was in WoL, and Terran has not only more and stronger ways to harass to prevent it from getting to that point, but also some new timings that could be exploited. Show nested quote +Who are these objective players you're referring to? You already confessed that at least 2/3 of the forum is biased against you. Are Zergs that don't see an issue with BL/infestor the only objective ones? What about the Zergs who still think there's a balance issue there, even though they don't appear to have anything to gain from nerfing it? You could call anyone who isnt crying about anything being gamebreakingly OP an objective player, which there are few around these days. BL/Infestor was an issue in WoL I agree, but this isn't even the same iteration of the game, people need to let that go. How bout I bring up how OP Terran was at release of WoL (in comparison to the end of WoL) and use that for an argument of balance? How would you feel about that? That's basically what people are doing now with Zerg. It makes no sense to argue balance out of old + outdated information. Show nested quote +No really though, this makes you sound really, really paranoid. I think most everyone here who complains about imbalance or bad design does so because they actually think there's a balance or design issue to be fixed that could improve the game. And you don't really have any good reason to believe differently, you're just dismissing everyone's opinions by asserting that they secretly want Zerg to cease to be a viable race so their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously. Not paranoid, just kind of annoyed. You don't see topics popping up for every single buff that Terran and Protoss get, saying free siege and free hallucation are game-breakingly OP and not fun to deal with, yet the few buffs that Zerg got have people complaining that the race is broken, when the results show nothing of the sort. You say I'm dismissing peoples opinion, I wouldn't mind an argument if you had some sort of information or results to back it up. But instead of that, people are using "opinion" as "fact", when in reality they have no facts to back up their claims. I'm not dismissing their opinions, reality is. If Zerg starts dominating, and these issues people are complaining about actually do become a problem, then I'll have no problem accepting opinions that these issues are a problem. But that's not the reality of the situation. At least WoL BL/infestor was backed up by results. Now people are complaining about "burrowed banelings" and "free units" with absolutely no results to back that up. Where are all these dominant Zerg players, with their burrowed baneling bombs and unstoppable ultralisks and limitless amount of free units that are "impossible to deal with"? Zerg isn't in this all-powerful state that people are acting like they are, and definitely not in a state that nerfs should be happening to the few strong aspects of the race that are keeping Zerg working in HotS.
I think you're in the wrong thread. In fact, I don't know which thread suits you, the website feedback forum might have a thread, or you can make one, in which you complain about how the mods are allowing all this balance whining.
Recall the OP, no-one talks about burrowed banelings. In fact, it's the free units swarm (ie. Its, broodlings and locusts) that are considered unzergy from the perspective that a zerg no longer needs/takes more bases than the other races, instead, they have a very cost-effective army because their UPUs allow them to cost the opponent for no cost of their own.
The main problem people have with this design choice is that it's not fun to play. The swarmy zerg where one builds more bases and more situational cheap units and tries to set up flanks for good engagements is more enjoyable than having the zerg sit somewhere with a bunch of UPUs (one of which can stop any unit from coming close) and the opponent slowly feeding real units into them.
As the main focus of this isn't a balance decision (what would a bunch of forum posters know anyway), it doesn't matter if the zerg strategies are balanced or not. That's something that will ironed out with patches as time goes by. Instead, what matters is that the game is fun to play. And the UPU-based gameplay doesn't feel fun and swarmy to many zerg and other races alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
