|
The problems I'm seeing right now in SC2 all seem to stem from zerg. PvT, PvP, and TvT seem to be a lot better, especially with the marauder nerf. I think immortals might need a toning down, but that's a minor tweak compared to what zerg needs.
Everything about zerg just doesn't seem to feel right. After hundreds of games I'm noticing all the problems seem to branch from one:
Spawn larva is broken.
Zerg has access to infinite larva once he gets 2 hatch 2 queen. I have trouble spending my larva with 2 hatch 1 queen, adding a second means I'll be able to make infinity of anything I want provided i have the money.
This causes a very serious problem:
If zerg is allowed to drone, they can make more units in a shorter timeframe than either of the other races. Protoss can somewhat compensate because warpgates and chronoboost pump out units very very quickly. Terran is screwed because reactors only work for 4 units.
Therefore, to balance the game, protoss and terran are given the ability to keep zerg down completely: terran has reapers which on some maps actually keep a zerg from expanding ever. Protoss has proxygates which are virtually unstoppable, and chronoboost to get those zealots out ridiculously fast. In addition, terran has viking/banshee play, which if not scouted can end the game very quickly. Protoss has voidrays which do the same thing effectively.
When I beat a zerg, it's because I gain some massive advantage earlygame with harass, outeco, and then push while he's trying to catch up in economy. I have to be winning all game to beat zerg.
If I play a fairly passive macro game, one of 2 things occurs:
-I get steamrolled by banelings
-Zerg expands as well and drones up
Banelings aren't really much of an issue for mech, so that's why I usually play mech.
However, if zerg is allowed to drone up to match terran economy, zerg can produce so many roach you can't beat him. Usually what occurs is I do a midgame timing attack and his army clashes with mine and I usually am left with a tiny force at the end. Then zerg makes 40 roaches at once and kills me.
Now lets go back to spawn larva and see how it plays into this problem:
-In BW, zerglings were extremely cost efficient, but they also sucked up all your larva. It was a massive larva investment to make lots of lings, so you couldn't drone at the same time, and you couldn't make higher tech units too. Spawn larva increases the amount of larva available to the point where you don't have to make choices anymore. You can make 40 zerglings and still have larva leftover for other things. In 40 seconds you can do it again. This applies to roaches and banelings too since they are larva intensive for what you get. Notice how those units are the ones that are breaking the game.
-Spawn larva makes for ridiculously easy macro. Zerg players I've talked to agree. Zerg is easy. There's no larva management anymore. Just get your spawn larvas on time and you'll never have an issue. In BW managing larva was huge. Why ruin one of the biggest aspects of skilled zerg play?
-Lategame zerg is unbeatable. I have never seen a zerg lose lategame. Ever. The only time I was able to beat lategame zerg was as protoss and that involved denying expansions with mass colossi all game and required a mothership to end it, BEFORE mothership nerfs. That's 1 time out of hundreds of games. The reason behind it is this: Lategame is all about smashing armies together nonstop. Whoever can widdle down the opponent faster will win. This can be done through harass or winning repeated battles or out expanding. Zerg does this by rebuilding their army in 1 second. With spawn larva you can simply save up larva (up to 19 per hatch wtf) and then when your army dies you have 80 more roach or 160 more speedling at your disposal. How can anyone expect to win vs that when zerg units already do fine cost for cost.
So what I want to see in patch 9 is a fix for spawn larva. I want to see a larva cap of 5, so zergs don't get much of a benefit from just mashing spawn larva all day. I also what to see it reduced to reflect what the queen actually costs. Make it 2 larva. Why the heck is a unit that costs 150 producing more larva than a hatchery anyways?
With the spawn larva fix we'll be able to actually balance the game instead of provide a pseudo balance by making cheese the counter to zerg. Then we can go and fix all the cheese strats that are keeping zerg from winning everything right now. Once all the rushes and cheeses are balanced, and zerg is balanced in the macro game, we'll have a much better game than we started with.
|
I haven't got a beta key, so my comments are kind of invalid. I can see your point though, it seems a little ridiculous the notion of 19 larvae per hatch
|
I've talked about this in a post I made a while ago on zerg balance changes, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116574 , I suggested Spawn larvae be made to spawn only 2 or 3 at most larvae. I also think there should be a cap at the hatchery, encouraging constant macro, probably around 6 tops.
|
I'm kind of neutral on this. I mean yes spawn larva seems broken, but on the other hand, zerg really does need this. A good example is Thors 1 shotting hydras. I guess maybe make it so they spawn alittle less larvae?
|
So uhmm...
Basically u are saying that if u let zerg build up 5k minerals and 3k gas and 4/5 hatches with 10 larva each, they can reproduce fast. Yeah, thats true, but WTF have u been doing till that time?
However, if zerg is allowed to drone up to match terran economy, zerg can produce so many roach you can't beat him
lol?
|
I'm a platinum zerg and I agree of this message. Just make sure to balance it in another way in the end.
In every matchup except ZvZ I feel that I need to play a macro/defensive game and get map control every game. I'd love to be able to be the aggressor for once beside doing some cheese pool rush...
|
@JTPROG Ironic how I've never seen that thread before and we say basically the exact same things...
|
On April 09 2010 01:58 Defrag wrote:So uhmm... Basically u are saying that if u let zerg build up 5k minerals and 3k gas and 4/5 hatches with 10 larva each, they can reproduce fast. Yeah, thats true, but WTF have u been doing till that time? Show nested quote +However, if zerg is allowed to drone up to match terran economy, zerg can produce so many roach you can't beat him lol?
I'm busy taking 4-5 base and pumping nonstop from 6+ factories. The issue is not me losing the macro game because of economy. I often lose games where I'm even on resource count or even ahead by a bit. The issue is once it reaches that stage you'd need 30 factories to match zerg production. It's just not doable and you'll get worn down.
edit: oops, sorry for double post =/
|
On April 09 2010 02:01 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 01:58 Defrag wrote:So uhmm... Basically u are saying that if u let zerg build up 5k minerals and 3k gas and 4/5 hatches with 10 larva each, they can reproduce fast. Yeah, thats true, but WTF have u been doing till that time? However, if zerg is allowed to drone up to match terran economy, zerg can produce so many roach you can't beat him lol? I'm busy taking 4-5 base and pumping nonstop from 6+ factories. The issue is not me losing the macro game because of economy. I often lose games where I'm even on resource count or even ahead by a bit. The issue is once it reaches that stage you'd need 30 factories to match zerg production. It's just not doable and you'll get worn down. edit: oops, sorry for double post =/
Replay please, this is obviously a direct outcome of you screwing the game up at some point.
And you are exaggerating way 2 much for this post to be credible.
Also, you do know that Marauders counter Roaches, not Factory units?...
|
I've been noticing similar acts in my games. I'm a Toss and my Friend is a Zerg. We both agree something is broken in Zerg's play. It has to be the spawn larva. I find it just ridiculous to deal with. I can beat Zerg only with timing pushes (yay) or by waiting for the zerg to make a mistake. I don't mind doing the occasional timing push, but it does get boring. I really wanna play a macro game against a Zerg without getting steam rolled by a massive counter. (lol I tired mass Phoenix once, it got raped by Corruptors, so much for air superiority fighter.)
Two players of equal skill will favor the Zerg. "Oh wait hes about to attack me" Let me just mass w/e hard counter I can think of. Oh nvm, hes pulling back. Let me just make a million drones now." Maybe I'm just ranting, but who knows.
It really is frustrating to think about. I'm trying to compose non biased thoughts, but something needs to change. I really like the idea of capping each expo at 5 larva tops. It will definitely force the Zerg to have to scout better and make harder decisions, rather then just cookie cutting the entire way to a win. How this will effect ZvZ and TvZ is another issue I have no say on.
|
Those posts are retarded, no offence.
Posting any suggestions on balance thread should require replays AND your current league/rank placement, other way its a waste of time on posting anything.
|
On April 09 2010 02:10 Defrag wrote:
Those posts are retarded, no offence.
Posting any suggestions on balance thread should require replays AND your current league/rank placement, other way its like throwing a brick on the wall.
A brick on a wall... Good one......................
|
the thing is that zerg needs to have more units than the opponent.
tanks, colossi and hts melt down so many zerg units its not even funny. zerg doesnt have any unit that could be compared to those 3. zerg depends on masses of single attackers dealing low damage.
you can either try to get t3 units or get masses of roaches and hydras. if you are able to get t3 units, your opponent messed up at some point.
btw. im 8th in plat
|
On April 09 2010 02:20 imperator-xy wrote:
if you are able to get t3 units, your opponent messed up at some point.
The fact that you said this shows that something is broken. It should be a viable option to go to higher tech so long as you and you opponent are on even ground. If he has to mess up for you to go a higher tier that's not cool. Maybe I'm not understanding your post completely?
|
On April 09 2010 01:57 IcMp wrote:
I'm kind of neutral on this. I mean yes spawn larva seems broken, but on the other hand, zerg really does need this. A good example is Thors 1 shotting hydras. I guess maybe make it so they spawn alittle less larvae?
Yeah, let's ignore that the thor is
1) Ridiculously overcosted
2) Has a slow attack speed
3) Cost a million food
4) Takes forever to build
If the reason why you're losing ZvT is because of the Thor, you're doing something wrong buddy.
|
On April 09 2010 02:20 imperator-xy wrote:
the thing is that zerg needs to have more units than the opponent.
tanks, colossi and hts melt down so many zerg units its not even funny. zerg doesnt have any unit that could be compared to those 3. zerg depends on masses of single attackers dealing low damage.
you can either try to get t3 units or get masses of roaches and hydras. if you are able to get t3 units, your opponent messed up at some point.
btw. im 8th in plat
Mass roach beats all of those. Storm vs roach = meaningless. Colossi vs roach are actually ok, but you'd have to hit that critical mass of like 5-6 colossi. That's not easy to do. Tanks are freaking worthless out of siege mode, and only about even in it.
|
You make it sound like zerg has some amazing winrate. They are barely playable post patch-8. I play random and I'm about to choose either Terran or Toss because they are pretty crap now. Maybe if there were maps wherein flanking was actually possible zerg would be playable...but in the current build with the current mapset... They arnt.
Roaches are supposed to be tanks, yet they are squishy and melt, hydras melt faster. And at this point in the game mutas are a nuisance but not game ending unless you tried to just mass straight zealots. How exactly do you propose a zerg win without any larva with squishy ass units?
Havent lost a game post patch to zerg, I've only won once as. And there was a game I should have won but apparently didnt set a hotkey and was trying to macro nothing...
|
On April 09 2010 02:39 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 02:20 imperator-xy wrote:
the thing is that zerg needs to have more units than the opponent.
tanks, colossi and hts melt down so many zerg units its not even funny. zerg doesnt have any unit that could be compared to those 3. zerg depends on masses of single attackers dealing low damage.
you can either try to get t3 units or get masses of roaches and hydras. if you are able to get t3 units, your opponent messed up at some point.
btw. im 8th in plat Mass roach beats all of those. Storm vs roach = meaningless. Colossi vs roach are actually ok, but you'd have to hit that critical mass of like 5-6 colossi. That's not easy to do. Tanks are freaking worthless out of siege mode, and only about even in it.
my point was that zerg is what it should be; as a zerg you need to mass units that are weak at dealing damage compared to tanks, colossi and hts.
as a protoss, you can just melt big armies of hydras using hts or colossi. tanks kill every zerg ground unit in seconds. but those 3 have to be protected well by the army to show their use.
zerg doesnt have such a unit, zerg has to mass what other races just use to protect their key units.
but im pretty okay with that. as i said zerg should be about lots of units and not about key units.
additionally zerg will have no chance in a 200/200 vs 200/200 fight, so they have to get reinforcements very fast.
by the way pure mass roaches are easily countered by immortals i think. i never tried it though.
|
On April 09 2010 02:40 dogabutila wrote:
You make it sound like zerg has some amazing winrate. They are barely playable post patch-8. I play random and I'm about to choose either Terran or Toss because they are pretty crap now. Maybe if there were maps wherein flanking was actually possible zerg would be playable...but in the current build with the current mapset... They arnt.
Roaches are supposed to be tanks, yet they are squishy and melt, hydras melt faster. And at this point in the game mutas are a nuisance but not game ending unless you tried to just mass straight zealots. How exactly do you propose a zerg win without any larva with squishy ass units?
Havent lost a game post patch to zerg, I've only won once as. And there was a game I should have won but apparently didnt set a hotkey and was trying to macro nothing...
You shouldn't base your evidence on your personal winrate. I feel like zerg is at a huge advantage against terran, as they are able to macro incredibly and get away with it. From my experience (and I could be wrong), I often have trouble trying to punish a zerg that goes hatchery before spawning pool. By the time my first couple of marines get there, they are already outnumbered by zerglings. I watched one of my replays where my opponent went hatchery before spawning pool. I constantly pumped SCV's, except when to make the OC. At the point I had 19 SCV's, he had over 30 drones, which is a little ridiculous.
Also, about the roach comment - as of patch 8, I haven't found roaches to be OMG IMBA vs protoss. With only two colossus I was able to kill a significant number of roaches in 3-4 shots. I basically won the games I played because I took the time to get a colossus or two and walk over the zerg.
|
My suggestion is to nerf spawn larva and remove infested terrans, and give infestor some sort of ability to support your troops, like dark swarm, but in another way. Like buff to dmg or armor or somthing for short time when casted on zerg force. Or target spell like defence matrix but it gives the unit ability to leech life equal to the dmg done. I think this could make them much more interessting.
Actually this would make me wanna play zerg, sounds really cool
|
On April 09 2010 02:40 dogabutila wrote:
You make it sound like zerg has some amazing winrate. They are barely playable post patch-8. I play random and I'm about to choose either Terran or Toss because they are pretty crap now. Maybe if there were maps wherein flanking was actually possible zerg would be playable...but in the current build with the current mapset... They arnt.
Roaches are supposed to be tanks, yet they are squishy and melt, hydras melt faster. And at this point in the game mutas are a nuisance but not game ending unless you tried to just mass straight zealots. How exactly do you propose a zerg win without any larva with squishy ass units?
Havent lost a game post patch to zerg, I've only won once as. And there was a game I should have won but apparently didnt set a hotkey and was trying to macro nothing...
I never said zerg is imbalanced and is winning everything. I said zerg is broken. The balance lies in the inability of zerg to fight off early pressure, but if they do they can literally mass roach or mass baneling to victory. There is no unit for terran besides the marauder that can deal with mass roach.
|
On April 09 2010 02:52 Jugan wrote:
At the point I had 19 SCV's, he had over 30 drones, which is a little ridiculous.
Its actually pretty fair considering that you also have mules and that he have to sac a drone for every building he makes, or unit he create.
|
Im going to echo my sentiments from antoher thread that got closed on this matter:
I believe this is intentional. Zergs are the race that is most affected by its opponents action (or inaction) based on their unique build structure. The fact that they have to chose between producing combat units and harvesters (droneing as the op calls it) forces its opponents to either apply pressure or allow the zerg to relentlessly macro harvesters and expand. The more pressure applied to the zerg the less economy that player will be allowed to have, therefore it makes perfect sense for the zerg player to be able to win once hes allowed time to get a full economy running.
|
I haven't really seen a problem. I mean you say if you decide to play passive, zerg takes the map and rolls you. Well, you deserve it for not scouting and denying expansions frankly. I don't know the exact math but I think if spawn larvae was THAT imbalanced and broken then bliz would have nerfed the larvae count long ago. If top plat players are really having trouble with this then maybe take off one of the larvae it spawns?
To be honest though, i'm rank 14 Gold zerg, and as far as timing goes, I use every single larvae as soon as it bursts and I can BARELY get a single hydra out in time for a banshee harass. If I even had one less larvae, that would mean one less drone every X seconds of larvae spawn time per hatch/queen, and then I would have less minerals when my lair pops. probably have to wait to drop my hydra den, wait to spawn hydras, get rolled by banshees and life would suck.
Do you not think orbital command would be broken for the same reason? you can save up two OC's worth of energy, land a CC on a high yield, drop 8 mules and your economy is ridiculous.
As far as I have seen, the macro mechanic features for all races are very balanced and benefit the style of the race, in fact, it even helps define the style. If anything, I would say chrono boost needs a buff, OC and queen should stay the way they are
|
On April 09 2010 02:55 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 02:40 dogabutila wrote:
You make it sound like zerg has some amazing winrate. They are barely playable post patch-8. I play random and I'm about to choose either Terran or Toss because they are pretty crap now. Maybe if there were maps wherein flanking was actually possible zerg would be playable...but in the current build with the current mapset... They arnt.
Roaches are supposed to be tanks, yet they are squishy and melt, hydras melt faster. And at this point in the game mutas are a nuisance but not game ending unless you tried to just mass straight zealots. How exactly do you propose a zerg win without any larva with squishy ass units?
Havent lost a game post patch to zerg, I've only won once as. And there was a game I should have won but apparently didnt set a hotkey and was trying to macro nothing... I never said zerg is imbalanced and is winning everything. I said zerg is broken. The balance lies in the inability of zerg to fight off early pressure, but if they do they can literally mass roach or mass baneling to victory. There is no unit for terran besides the marauder that can deal with mass roach.
So mass marauder?
|
Its funny that whenever a thread like this comes up, you'll see overwhelming favor of the suggested nerf - from people who don't play the race. Its also funny that the majority of these players try very hard to disguise their own bias.
"Well gee uh, I play terran and yeah this definitely pisses me off when I lose to Zerg. I've tried everything and you just simply can't stop <insert unit composition here>"
The reality of it is, as much as some of you try to convince yourselves that you're merely seeking balance and fairness in the starcraft world - you're not. You want the other two races that you don't play nerfed to the point where you no longer struggle with them. I'm sure many of you will jump at the chance to claim that I'm wrong, but posts from this thread and many other threads like this prove otherwise.
Yes, I play Zerg. If the majority of suggested changes in this thread were implemented, Zerg would simply not be able to keep up, regardless of macro. Putting a cap on the larva would greatly damage Zerg. Reducing the amount of larva spawned by 1 or 2 is debatable, but not absolutely absurd like some of the other suggestions.
I don't expect this type of nerf-everything-but-my-own-race mentality to ever stop, because its prevalent in pretty much any other game as well, but people reading this thread should be mindful of the heavy bias that is at work here.
|
On April 09 2010 03:30 grieve wrote:
Its funny that whenever a thread like this comes up, you'll see overwhelming favor of the suggested nerf - from people who don't play the race. Its also funny that the majority of these players try very hard to disguise their own bias.
"Well gee uh, I play terran and yeah this definitely pisses me off when I lose to Zerg. I've tried everything and you just simply can't stop <insert unit composition here>"
The reality of it is, as much as some of you try to convince yourselves that you're merely seeking balance and fairness in the starcraft world - you're not. You want the other two races that you don't play nerfed to the point where you no longer struggle with them. I'm sure many of you will jump at the chance to claim that I'm wrong, but posts from this thread and many other threads like this prove otherwise.
Yes, I play Zerg. If the majority of suggested changes in this thread were implemented, Zerg would simply not be able to keep up, regardless of macro. Putting a cap on the larva would greatly damage Zerg. Reducing the amount of larva spawned by 1 or 2 is debatable, but not absolutely absurd like some of the other suggestions.
I don't expect this type of nerf-everything-but-my-own-race mentality to ever stop, because its prevalent in pretty much any other game as well, but people reading this thread should be mindful of the heavy bias that is at work here.
I've played as all races. I'm suggesting a rebalance of the game around a nerf. Right now zerg cannot be allowed to get to lategame, regardless of how many bases protoss or terran has. This is unacceptable. The game needs to be fixed so zerg has more strength earlygame, but not overwhelming strength lategame. As terran I feel like I have a timer until I lose. If I let the game go too long I can't possibly win. As zerg I felt like I was just struggling to survive vs allins. The problem isn't balance, it's the way it's balanced.
|
As a top 10 terran player myself I definitely have to agree that zerg macro is much better than terrans. You pretty much have to pressure them all game and prevent them from expanding more than once or twice, because zerg macro is better than terran macro. I feel like terran vs zerg is pretty balanced early-mid game if you attack early and often, but if you let it get into late game it's pretty much always a loss.
I'm not sure how I would balance the zergs late macro game without hurting their early/mid game, however, and a flat spawn larva nerf would obviously hurt the race too much.
|
@Floophead_III
Post the god damn replay finally or stop whining.
Late game zerg with equal food supplies ( talking about 150+ supply battle's 20+ minute into game ) gets DESTROYED in both ZvP and ZvT due to massive AOE effects, if u dont realise that you are bad. Rebuilding fast is the only option there is.
|
Spawn larva is broken.
Zerg has access to infinite larva once he gets 2 hatch 2 queen. I have trouble spending my larva with 2 hatch 1 queen, adding a second means I'll be able to make infinity of anything I want provided i have the money.
If you have trouble spending larvae off 2 hatch 1 queen your economy is too weak.
Also, what's with this use of infinity? It's completely ridiculous; you need infinite time to make infinity of everything and RESOURCES ARE NOT INFINITE.
Try this:
Terran has access to infinite units once he gets 1 CC, 1 Barracks, 1 Factory, and 1 Starport. I have trouble spending my money with just 1 CC 5 seconds into the game. Adding a bunch of other buildings means I'll be able to make infinity of anything I want provided I have the money.
Oh, and newsflash' supply cap is 200 supply.
If zerg is allowed to drone, they can make more units in a shorter timeframe than either of the other races. Protoss can somewhat compensate because warpgates and chronoboost pump out units very very quickly. Terran is screwed because reactors only work for 4 units.
"If zerg is allowed to drone". We're not playing 4v4 BGH 60 minute No rush. If he's droning you're making probes or scvs or expanding or killing him or whatever.
"they can make more units in a shorter timeframe than either of the other races." No they can't. what if terran has 20 barracks with 10 reactors and 10 tech labs? Yeah, exactly. We have to compare TIME to get 2 hatches 2 queens + RESOUCRCES needed to make production facilities. I'd wager 2 base terran can easily beat a zerg staying on 2 base. You have mules therefore more money and more efficient units.
Therefore, to balance the game, protoss and terran are given the ability to keep zerg down completely: terran has reapers which on some maps actually keep a zerg from expanding ever. Protoss has proxygates which are virtually unstoppable, and chronoboost to get those zealots out ridiculously fast. In addition, terran has viking/banshee play, which if not scouted can end the game very quickly. Protoss has voidrays which do the same thing effectively.
When I beat a zerg, it's because I gain some massive advantage earlygame with harass, outeco, and then push while he's trying to catch up in economy. I have to be winning all game to beat zerg.
Both of these are indicative of a 1 base playstyle. So you can harass/gain an advantage off 1 base through superior tech since he expanded and has to defend. It's the same as SC:BW: In 1 base vs 2 base you either do damage or you lose. Of course you need to get an advantage to win.
If I play a fairly passive macro game, one of 2 things occurs:
-I get steamrolled by banelings
-Zerg expands as well and drones up
Banelings aren't really much of an issue for mech, so that's why I usually play mech.
However, if zerg is allowed to drone up to match terran economy, zerg can produce so many roach you can't beat him. Usually what occurs is I do a midgame timing attack and his army clashes with mine and I usually am left with a tiny force at the end. Then zerg makes 40 roaches at once and kills me.
I don't think your personal experience can justify an imbalance thread, unless you're like of the top players. If e.g FA was to post here I'd give it more respect. Getting steamrolled by banelings? Huh? Zerg expanding as well and droning up sure that's the natural response. But if he's droning up 3 base fully I doubt he can stop your 'timing' attack or whatever off 2 base. Remember, he has lots of larvae not lots of money. If he's spending all money on drones it will take time to have the economy kick in AND larvae aren't as fast as you think it does take time to build up an army.
If zerg can produce 40 roaches at once he needs 40 larvae saved. That means he basically used none of his queens larave in like 5 minutes so that's not a midgame timing push.
The rest of your post is
1: Comparing BW zerg to SC2 zerg. If zerg in SC2 didn't have spawn larvae they'd lose horribly. You can NOT keep up with chrono boost and MULE's with just 2-3 hatch.
2: Saying that zerg is easy because of no larvae management. There still is, you just have more larvae to play around with. YOU DO NOT HAVE INFINITE LARVAE. You just have more. Unless you're playing 'poor' you will be able to use your larvae. Also, as random I consider Protoss as by far the easiest race to play, followed by zerg followed by terran. Mechanically at least. Getting spawn larave on time in the middle of a game is just not being done by >ANY< zergs right now consistently at least.
3: Apparantly zerg wins lategames because
a: You are ALWAYS at 200/200 in lategame
b: You ALWAYS have enough money to reproduce your army
c: Fights happen at 200/200 AFTER the zerg is given time to spam spawn larvae enough.
Your post feels like you are acutally believing the 'infinite' crap at the start of your post. Spawn larvae is like having extra hatcheries. Great. Cheap extra hatcheries and this gimmick thing of saving larvae for 200/200 battle's which happens in about .01% of games anyway.
|
I am not going to argue with your reasons at all, but there have been a multitude of tournaments happening and zerg have not been dominating them at all, and that was before the roach/hydra nerf. It is hard to imagine that top players wouldn't be able to abuse the lategame OPness of zerg to be winning everything.
Unless you want to suggest that every game a zerg loses it is because of constant harass, which hasn't seemed to be the case in the games I have watched.
|
if you turtle with just building some army, leaving your opponent alone, you shouldnt really be surprised that he beats you.
Its the same with all races, maybe zerg players tend to exploit that quicker because its a long zerg tradition, but other players will do the same.
besides, you can always just build your MMM ball with ravens and lol at the cute zerg.
|
On April 09 2010 04:20 LaNague wrote:
if you turtle with just building some army, leaving your opponent alone, you shouldnt really be surprised that he beats you.
Its the same with all races, maybe zerg players tend to exploit that quicker because its a long zerg tradition, but other players will do the same.
besides, you can always just build your MMM ball with ravens and lol at the cute zerg.
This doesn't particularly seem logical. I mean, if the zerg turtles with just building some army, leaving his opponent alone, he should be surprised when he.... wins ?
|
This post is shit, you make absolutely zero valid arguments. Zerg obviously produces more units faster because they are meant to be a massing race. Zerg doesn't have any extremely powerful units like tanks/thor/collossi/etc and win by numbers. If you let a zerg tech to ultras, that's quite a fail right there. Broodlords? Get destroyed by vikings and toss can just blink stalkers and focus them down or storm
Lets see... PRE-patch 8, LZ (T) vs idra (Z) going to late game, mass roach/hydra vs mass m&m&m, LZ wins. Or in one of the triple strike tournament games (ZvP), early 5-gate all-in vs FE zerg, zerg manages to hold it off with great play and win the game. Early game zerg is fine when done right, late game zerg is fine to deal with when done right.
|
I can't help but feel that OP is either too early with this thread(since the new patch hasn't been out for even a day and it nerfed two of the most used units in the zerg arsenal) or it's too late. What I mean by too late is that OP is basically saying that zerg has a hard time getting rid of it's units(they live too long) and z can thus save up a shit ton of larva for drones or a new army(once the current one dies out) but now that hydras die easier to t1 units and roaches die easier to everything it's a different game(only a question of how different).
|
I think the main issue is that there is less skill required anymore to manage your larva for eather drones or units. SC1 zerg players have to make choices every time and this needs practice and thinking.
|
I often have the same or better economy than the terran that rolls right over me. so idk Where ur coming from. If ur bad and playing a better player its not spawn larva that gave him an advantage... Make a game and play a zerg today. No matter what race u choose he has no chance. I surely agree that zerg should be a race that masses a lot of weak units but they have weakened our units without lowering the prices. So we zerg players are paying top dollar for weak / slow / useless units. zerglings and banelings seem to be the Only unit with any usefulness and after the early game even that is out the window. praying for a better patch soon -_-
|
The thing about spawn larvae is, If you miss a spawn larvae, you will never get it back unless you share a queen with 2 hatches which is very inefficient. Unlike terran and protoss mechanics where you can just spam mules or chronoboost, there is no way to make up for the 4 larvae you missed. Arguably you can spawn a tumor or heal something, but overlords do the same job, and I think 4 larvae is better than a heal 99% of the time. This makes every spawn larvae so much more important than muling or boosting
rank 1 in gold
|
I do think spawn larva needs some tweeks. Like spawn 2-3 larva with a cap of some sort.
I also thought of a different way to handle this though.
Since the main reason this skill exists is because Zerg need the larva to make more workers; since they get consumed upon constructing a building. It wouldn't be difficult for Blizzard to make it so that every time you hatch two drones you get an extra larva. That way if you're building workers you can keep building them but also be able to support that with some other unit construction.
|
I'm guessing this is a just a long rage post about zergs. We need larva to produce any kind of units, drones or army, but hey guess what you can build scv AND build an army too! I often find myself actually needing more larva (we need a good amount of lings to deal with marauder, thors, immortal and stalkers) so I have to build a 3 hatch with 2 base. I'm guessing you haven't played zerg yourself so you're just speaking as a terran here. You should play a couple of games (40ish) to understand the race before making such a statement.
|
On April 09 2010 04:39 HTX wrote:
I think the main issue is that there is less skill required anymore to manage your larva for eather drones or units. SC1 zerg players have to make choices every time and this needs practice and thinking.
It's all about timing in SC2. And Spawn Larva is a big part of that.
In SC1, it always felt like you were barely squeezing out a few Drones when you could. It was basically a binary choice: make a drone, or make a unit. In SC2, the prevalence of larva gives you more options. At the same time, it gives you more ways to screw up.
If you spend a full Spawn Larva cycle, 7 larva per hatchery, on only drones, you will have very quickly gotten a lot of workers. Far more than a Protoss or Terran in the same timeframe. However, in so doing, you have gotten zero units. At that moment, an alert player can start pressuring you. Between the time you first start making those Drones and your next SL cycle, they have a small window of opportunity to cull your standing army, if not sack your natural.
As people start to understand this, they will take advantage of it more and more. Zergs will simply be unable to spend entire SL cycles on Drones; they will have to build units. They will have to make decisions about how many of those 7 larva per Hatchery to invest in Drones vs. Units. It's not a binary choice anymore, and playstyle will show through.
An aggressive player will play more like SC1, opting to get as few Drones as they can, maybe 1 or two per SL. An econ player will get more Drones, even to the point of investing in additional Spine Crawlers to help pick up the slack. Some players will opt for a more middle-of-the-road approach, getting a more even split.
The difference between SC1 and SC2 in this respect is that you can always make some Drones; it's now a question of how many.
|
Grieve <3 the way u put it =)
And for all u who suggest a larva cap would u also agree with a gateway/rax/factory cap? blizz would have to put a limit on every unit/worker producing stucture. dont be a moron.
|
well if you think about it its not that extreme. while having 3 hatcheries/3 queens be able to easily compete with anything the toss/terran can throw at them, 3 queens cost 1.5 hatches and are very fragile, so its just a little less than 5 hatch 3 base zerg in BW keeping up with 2 base toss/terran with many more production facilities.
I can understand where people are coming from tho, just having the mining hatches being able to keep up with a player who goes heavy in units seems on the surface pretty unfair, he needs to spend no money on extra production.
|
Spawn larvae is no different from having another 2.5 or whatever hatcheries. The ONLY thing it does is saves you money and drones, while forcing you to use an unforgiving macro mechanic. It's really stupid to argue that spawn larvae gives zerg such a huuuuge production boost lategame when all it does is increase the production ability of zerg early and midgame (3.5-4.5 hatch early game, 7 hatch midgame).
"Why the heck is a unit that costs 150 producing more larva than a hatchery anyways?"
Why the heck is a unit that costs 50 mana mining more minerals than something that costs actual minerals anyways? It's the race's macro mechanic. Each race has a different one, and they each focus on specific aspects of the game. Zerg's is basically replacement hatcheries that require actual work to maintain.
By the way, you have to constantly use spawn larvae, every sub-25 seconds, or else it just gets wasted. It's so much more forgiving than with the other two races, where you can just chronoboost multiple buildings or MULE every sub-50 seconds or twice every sub-100 if you build up energy.
I agree with lowering the larva cap, though. 19 is a bit ridiculous.
|
Blizzard should have given the queen Proton Charge with a slightly nerfed Spawn Larva (or even mutant larva) for energy tension.
|
OP is retarded. A queen is just like making an extra hatchery, except it costs 150 minerals instead of 300. So basically, zerg just saves 150 minerals for each queen they make instead of a hatch, just like how Terran gains some minerals each time they make a MULE.
|
One thing I've seen suggested to equalize out the macro mechanics of zerg is to make a larvae cap (perhaps somewhere in the range of 7-9) and allow multiple spawn larva injections at once. Thus saving up would still cost you, but you could spend the extra energy from the queen if you made a mistake. Would solve the problem of zerg players spawning a billion larva late game, and also make them a more forgiving race early to mid.
Potential abuses of this, though, would be making multiple queens per hatchery. Oh well. =/\
|
|
|
Energy Tension Queen
Drone Nectar (Same as Proton Charge, AoE buff, +1 mineral gathering for drones)
Spawn Larva (2 Larva, Hatcheries can hold 7 at a time)
Gestation (Channeling ability, speeds up zerg build constuction)
Creep Tumor
|
maybe they could add an upgrade that gives faster larva spawn as default that needs hive tech to upgrade (hive tech needs more stuff imo)
they could nerf spawn larva from 4 to 3
in this way u wouldnt get over-many larva early mid game and u wouldnt get too few larva late game ^^
why dont they give autocast to spawn larva? they want it to be some macro mechanic that u must learn or what?
|
On April 09 2010 05:11 teamsolid wrote:
OP is retarded. A queen is just like making an extra hatchery, except it costs 150 minerals instead of 300. So basically, zerg just saves 150 minerals for each queen they make instead of a hatch, just like how Terran gains some minerals each time they make a MULE.
The problem is that you are not only saving 150 minerals for each queen you make instead of a hatch. With queen hatch combination you dont need as much hatches in midgame (compared to sc1) so you dont have to spend your money for production buildings hence you can spend all your money for your army. And worse than this you dont need to think about getting new hatches before your eco kicks in due to the spawn larva abillity.
In short: you can drone like the other races, have equal armys (all fine so far) , but you are saving a lot of money because you are not forced to hatch more and then you can spend the money right away on units to secure more ground or outproduce him with equal bases.
|
On April 09 2010 02:52 Jugan wrote:
You shouldn't base your evidence on your personal winrate.
What should I base it on then? The opinions of the majority of people (not you) who dont even play the race?
On April 09 2010 02:52 Jugan wrote:
I feel like zerg is at a huge advantage against terran, as they are able to macro incredibly and get away with it. From my experience (and I could be wrong), I often have trouble trying to punish a zerg that goes hatchery before spawning pool. By the time my first couple of marines get there, they are already outnumbered by zerglings. I watched one of my replays where my opponent went hatchery before spawning pool. I constantly pumped SCV's, except when to make the OC. At the point I had 19 SCV's, he had over 30 drones, which is a little ridiculous.
On April 09 2010 02:55 Floophead_III wrote:
I never said zerg is imbalanced and is winning everything. I said zerg is broken. The balance lies in the inability of zerg to fight off early pressure, but if they do they can literally mass roach or mass baneling to victory. There is no unit for terran besides the marauder that can deal with mass roach.
clearly, one of you two are doing it wrong.
And thats the problem the same way you cant fight mass roach unless you went mass marauder, there is no way for zerg to fight mass marauder.
|
On April 09 2010 05:32 HTX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 05:11 teamsolid wrote:
OP is retarded. A queen is just like making an extra hatchery, except it costs 150 minerals instead of 300. So basically, zerg just saves 150 minerals for each queen they make instead of a hatch, just like how Terran gains some minerals each time they make a MULE. The problem is that you are not only saving 150 minerals for each queen you make instead of a hatch. With queen hatch combination you dont need as much hatches in midgame (compared to sc1) so you dont have to spend your money for production buildings hence you can spend all your money for your army. And worse than this you dont need to think about getting new hatches before your eco kicks in due to the spawn larva abillity. In short: you can drone like the other races, have equal armys (all fine so far) , but you are saving a lot of money because you are not forced to hatch more and then you can spend the money right away on units to secure more ground or outproduce him with equal bases.
This would be remotely close to true if you completely disregard the fact that the other races have macro mechanics as well.
And if you ignored the fact that you lose a drone every time you built a building.
|
Hatcheries cost 350 minerals + time to build the drone + time to build the hatch. Queens cost 150, actually fight things and can be used to plant creep tumors, produce MORE larva than a hatchery, and are easily replaced if they die.
Zerg can still accidently make too many drones or too few drones. SC2 has not changed the fact that you need to know when to drone and when to not. The strength of spawn larva is moreso that you don't need any time to build up an army. With 2 hatch 2 queen you can pump over 36 lings in a minute. That's absurd. Marines take 25 seconds to build. You would need 8 reactor barracks to match that rate of production. That's 200/50 * 8 or 1600/400 resources just to match zerg's production factor which they spent a whopping 350+150*2 = 650 minerals on. Not to mention they also expanded by making more production. To match their expansions you'd need to spend another 400 minerals.
So what if zerg has 20 less drones than you have scvs. All that extra money has to go into production just to keep up with the rate zerg makes units. The point is that zerg hardly needs full saturation to pump a ridiculous number of units, because they never needed to invest in all that production in the first place.
|
There could be some nice alternatives to spawn larva, like upgrades to hatcheries that let them make larva more quickly, or even decreasing the hatchery cost and build time to let the zerg player get more down rather than depend so heavily on the queen's specials. You could then use the queen for her other abilities rather than keep her slaved to the hatchery.
|
The OP over-simplified the problem a little, especially with the lategame conclusion.
Zerg gets (up to) 1 larva every 15 seconds per hatch, and an additional 1 larva every ten seconds from a queen.
Up until saturation, probes and scvs take 17 seconds to complete, so ignoring all macro mechanics, zerg can only keep up economically if they build nothing but drones.
The queen produces up to one larva every 10 seconds. Terran needs 3 barracks to match that output with marauders, but one reactor barracks gets them nearly there. Ignoring chronoboost, protoss needs 3 gateways to produce a zealot for every roach/pair of zerglings and 4 to produce stalkers/sentries 1:1.
This is an apples:oranges comparison, but my basic point is that zerg isn't getting an unreasonable production capability - once protoss or terran expands, running 6 barracks or warpgates is reasonable, although you're more likely to see 2-3 and 2-3 tech buildings.
In the late game things change drastically. To use the most extreme example, I'm going to go straight to carriers/battlecruisers - with a 120/110 second build time, you'd need to build 12 stargates to match zerg's capacity to build broodlords or ultralisks. (At 75 seconds, thors and colossus are a little bit more reasonable). What really hurts here is the gas costs - 8 tech production facilities is prohibitively expensive.
So (part of) the reason that zerg are running you over late game is that their parallel production system ramps up as the build time of the units increase. Zerg builds more and more efficiently relative to protoss/terran as the units get bigger.
So nerfing spawn larva would destroy zergs early game, and not have the desired effect in the late game, where you will just make it cost-effective for zerg to spend some minerals on an extra hatch the way they did in BW.
Solutions are much harder to find than problems, but there are a few things that might work.
You could make production buildings cheaper, although that would change a bunch of timings.
Or you could ramp up the macro mechanics - if chronoboost stacked then a couple of nexuses would make protoss very reactive, and if mules could gas then terran could afford the extra buildings.
Or (the way blizzard has handled it to date) you could make zerg units flimsier than terran/protoss, so that zerg loses more units and needs to build more. In a very real way, the hydra hit-point nerf was nerfing spawn larva.
|
I dont see why spawn larvae is such a sticking point for some people. ZvP in broodwar requires 5 hatches on 3 bases. All spawn larvae does is allow the zerg to use 3 hatches on 3 bases with 2 or 3 queens for the same production levels.
|
The reason they are bothered is that for the first time, the zerg can stack larvae. I agree that is kinda weird and way different from BW, in that it really affects lategame play.
But I don't think the larvae stack up all that fast really, and once they get past 3, queens are your only source of larvae from then out. You got 2 queens, you'll get 8 larvae per 40 (?) secs until you finally start building more units. So you aren't getting 5 hatches worth of larvae unless you are spending them all.
The only difference is that in BW when you got a huge army you had to suicide it before you could get any more larvae. Given how fast my units die in the average skirmish, I don't know if I could survive without a steady supply of larvae late game. T/P armies are STRONG. It is not uncommon to have 30 or 40 hydras die in a skirmish and leave 4 collosus roaming around regenning shields.
In any case, even if my theoretical production rate is fast, I'm still constrained by resources and I'm never going to produce more than I can afford. Also the first 30 or so larvae of every hatch/queen combo is going to be used for drones and buildings, so that lowers the overall rate of effective army regeneration within the game by a bit.
|
I agree that zerg is way too easy to macro but nerfing spawn larva will make zerg too weak early and mid-game without any other changes imo.
|
On April 09 2010 06:36 guitarizt wrote:
I agree that zerg is way too easy to macro but nerfing spawn larva will make zerg too weak early and mid-game without any other changes imo.
how about buffing the zergling/hydra
and going down to 5-7 larvae is not a bad idea imo
|
On April 09 2010 06:36 guitarizt wrote:
I agree that zerg is way too easy to macro but nerfing spawn larva will make zerg too weak early and mid-game without any other changes imo.
I actually experimented with doing no queen FE builds ZvT for a while. Reapers obviously were a massive deterrent in continuing that, but on some maps reapers aren't too bad (scrap station, metalopolis). It worked fine actually, so I know that zerg does not need the extra larva from spawn larva earlygame to survive. The reason zerg is weak in the early-midgame is because they're so open to cheese. If you get caught with your pants down at all you lose.
|
On April 09 2010 02:55 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 02:40 dogabutila wrote:
You make it sound like zerg has some amazing winrate. They are barely playable post patch-8. I play random and I'm about to choose either Terran or Toss because they are pretty crap now. Maybe if there were maps wherein flanking was actually possible zerg would be playable...but in the current build with the current mapset... They arnt.
Roaches are supposed to be tanks, yet they are squishy and melt, hydras melt faster. And at this point in the game mutas are a nuisance but not game ending unless you tried to just mass straight zealots. How exactly do you propose a zerg win without any larva with squishy ass units?
Havent lost a game post patch to zerg, I've only won once as. And there was a game I should have won but apparently didnt set a hotkey and was trying to macro nothing... I never said zerg is imbalanced and is winning everything. I said zerg is broken. The balance lies in the inability of zerg to fight off early pressure, but if they do they can literally mass roach or mass baneling to victory. There is no unit for terran besides the marauder that can deal with mass roach.
You can deal with roaches as terran more easily than you can deal with zealots, probably more easily, since they don't have Charge. Shielded marines in front of tanks work just fine, or a MnMnM mass that's even 1/5 marauders seems to work fine with stim.
Marines got effectively a 25% boost in damage vs roaches, and barracks are not difficult to mass up throughout the game, or even as needed.
|
Because you can always spend all your larvae into eggs at all times right? Free moneys and gas at all times?
|
On April 09 2010 06:35 onmach wrote:
The reason they are bothered is that for the first time, the zerg can stack larvae. I agree that is kinda weird and way different from BW, in that it really affects lategame play.
Stacking larva is super inefficient - you lose the hatcheries production. To get 19 larva on a hatchery, you need 45 seconds (including a well-timed spawn larva) to get the first 7, and then 4 spawn larva to get the next 12 - 160 seconds, and you've wasted 10 or 11 larva in that time from the hatchery not producing. In that 205 seconds, you could be getting 20 larva from the queen alone, and another 13 or 14 for the hatchery.
To put it another way, to be getting 21 larva every 45 seconds, you only need 3 Hatcheries with queens, which is not hard or unusual, while 3 and a half minutes is a ridiculous amount of time to not be building drones or units.
Does anyone have a replay where the zerg stockpiles larva and it helps? I really can't imagine it being a strong strat.
On April 09 2010 07:37 zomgzergrush wrote:
Because you can always spend all your larvae into eggs at all times right? Free moneys and gas at all times?
Cheap enough Using 1 mineral/second/worker, with 16 workers you get 640 minerals in 40 seconds. Using 7 larva every 40 seconds (you get less), you get slightly more than 90 minerals per larva from saturated bases. Those numbers are a bit wobbly, but close.
Given that drones and zerglings cost only 50, you've got enough resources to morph all your larva, and you only end up with surplus of larva when your income hiccups.
|
good thing people in this thread are not on the balance team... if they nerfed spawn larva they would need to buff zerg units they melt way fast. oh and tmech is very good vs z +1 thor can 1 shot a hydra. hmm after the patch i dont think you even need to have the +1, not sure. hellion tank thor banshee your set for whatever zerg throws at you.
|
On April 09 2010 07:39 MeditationError wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 06:35 onmach wrote:
The reason they are bothered is that for the first time, the zerg can stack larvae. I agree that is kinda weird and way different from BW, in that it really affects lategame play.
Stacking larva is super inefficient - you lose the hatcheries production. To get 19 larva on a hatchery, you need 45 seconds (including a well-timed spawn larva) to get the first 7, and then 4 spawn larva to get the next 12 - 160 seconds, and you've wasted 10 or 11 larva in that time from the hatchery not producing. In that 205 seconds, you could be getting 20 larva from the queen alone, and another 13 or 14 for the hatchery. To put it another way, to be getting 19 larva every 45 seconds, you only need 3 Hatcheries with queens. 3 and a half minutes is a ridiculous amount of time to not be building drones or units, but 3 bases is pretty modest, and gives much more larva overall. Does anyone have a replay where the zerg stockpiles larva and it helps? I really can't imagine it being a strong strat.
Assuming your macro doesn't suck, no it doesn't help. If you are stockpiling larvae, there is a discrepancy between your income and your production. The likely culprit is that you have too many queens. for ex: early on there should only be one queen, even if you have two bases.
People have this misconception that you always have a queen at all hatches and all larvae is automatically able to egg into w/e. That is not the case. There simply isn't a way to afford spending all those larvae if you do that off the bat everywhere. Unless your macro sucks and you float your resources all day.
|
I'm with you on this. For example in PvT if you harass the zergs mineral line and kill 10+ workers it's no problem at all to replace, the zerg will overtake you in econ very soon.
2 base Z vs 2 base T is not really fair, macro-wise, but terran has some really strong army composition against Z to make up for that - but it's a shame they can't all-out macro battle as much.
I'm not sure what to do, but Zerg could still produce incredibly fast in BW without queens.
The problem with any nerf to spawn larva is that it doesn't feel as useful to spawn 2 larva for example, so keeping it balanced and fun is tough if Blizz were to change it somehow.
It's a pity that Zerg doesn't need more than 2 hatcheries for 2 bases because it makes all build orders very similar and makes scouting builds as we did in BW pretty damn tough.
Overall Zerg is pretty unappealing mechanically, but i must say i'm loving them graphically.
|
it's not zergs fault u sit in your base and try to outmacro it.
in reality zerg has the worst production value - if zerg attacks you and fails its game over for him 90% of the time, if you attack zerg and fail. Well.. zerg gains no advantage.
Lets say you go banshee and you succeed. Dead zerg. Lets say he goes muta and he denies you. What happens? You yawn and continue with your post banshee gameplan without any setback.
|
I think this problem arose from the fact that overall units deal more damage than in BW.
Since BW was delicately balanced, the stats of Zerg units fit in there almost perfectly.
When moved to Starcraft II where the game is just bigger, Zerg has a bit more trouble using the slow rate of larva to create lings early game. Lings with speed is same tech as the barracks with lab which has access to mauraders, reapers and marines. Gateway with cyber core has zealots, sentries and stalkers.
Though Cybercore and Roach W. are similar in the case that they are completely new buildings used to create different types of units, Sentries AND Stalkers have much more flexibility than just Roaches.
This forces the Zerg to be unable really do much earlier on, ling micro to get map control in so you could tech was crucial in BW.
Chronoboosting your zealots can easily get you map control and if a Terran walls off and just goes for a big early game army, then he'll get map control too. Supplies depots helped a little in walling off while Warpgate helped alot for those who use their first gateway to block their base and use warpgate to get units out.
Because of all of these changes to the Terran and Protoss, Blizzard saw inspiration in the fact that Zerg is the swarming race, compared to the defensive race compared to the strong-units-high-cost race. The only logical route? More units!
Hence, extra larva! But, because of the fact that they implemented that larva increase through a Queen that can in addition to the Hatchery, create 5 more, this though, makes the Zerg a much more flowing race: "huge amount of units all in drones with no army into, no drones whatsoever and all army." This was the sole advantage and disadvantage of Zerg in BW had
Now that the other races have become so easily aggresive, the extremely mobile reaper, viking and helion, the super early Zealot, the sentries which just annihilate melee armies.....aka. ZERG, etc, etc, etc. Zerg is forced into the situation that we see all too much. They're losing all game until they can finally support army production, armies clash, survivors limp away back to respective bases and then Zerg uses all of the production to only make army units.
That's how it always was in BW but in BW, you had to get multiple Hatcheries but instead, spawn larva, being something so standardized and powerful (compared to how "normal" it would be to get a 10 hatchery at your MAIN) makes our problem.
Both my ideas for how to fix this are too radical now:
1. Take Queen completely out or put it back into an offensive spellcaster. An upgrade somewhere that increased larva production speed and/or larva cap. Simple but doesn't allow Zerg to instaneously get 5 units. It can even be the exact same tier as Queen and have the same net production.
2. Take Queen and raise it to lair or hive tech. The Queen would be like a termite Queen, swollen, barely capable of moving and after long time, produced a large amount of babies (which could either be larva, or you select queen, select larva and make the units from the queen itself.
|
Zerg just plays differently then the other races. If you weaken their ability to produce units quickly and erratically, then you need to heavily buff the units they do produce. As Zerg, it's all about the choices you make. I can't both produce workers and units, so I have to time my lulls in army production and scout very well and avoid cheese.
Larvae (like creep) are a RESOURCE for Zerg, same as Minerals and Gas. Damaging our econ by killing 10+ workers, like an above poster mentioned, isn't worthless because we can quickly replace them; it still costs us the minerals, and it costs us important Larvae that we generally need to desperately fight off timing pushes. As it stands we generally need to heavily out-supply the opponents army to win army vs army, because our units are rather flimsy. People say "that's what Zerg is about" but then also say "they shouldn't be able to make so many units"?
Fine, nerf larvae production down to Terran and Protoss level production. But don't complain if our units get buffed up, and never complain about a lack of diversity, because then all the races really will play pretty much the same.
|
On April 09 2010 06:05 Floophead_III wrote:
Hatcheries cost 350 minerals + time to build the drone + time to build the hatch. Queens cost 150, actually fight things and can be used to plant creep tumors, produce MORE larva than a hatchery, and are easily replaced if they die.
Zerg can still accidently make too many drones or too few drones. SC2 has not changed the fact that you need to know when to drone and when to not. The strength of spawn larva is moreso that you don't need any time to build up an army. With 2 hatch 2 queen you can pump over 36 lings in a minute. That's absurd. Marines take 25 seconds to build. You would need 8 reactor barracks to match that rate of production. That's 200/50 * 8 or 1600/400 resources just to match zerg's production factor which they spent a whopping 350+150*2 = 650 minerals on. Not to mention they also expanded by making more production. To match their expansions you'd need to spend another 400 minerals.
So what if zerg has 20 less drones than you have scvs. All that extra money has to go into production just to keep up with the rate zerg makes units. The point is that zerg hardly needs full saturation to pump a ridiculous number of units, because they never needed to invest in all that production in the first place.
8 Reactor barracks is not reasonable to be able to produce off 2 bases, but you don't need anywhere near 1 marine per 2 zerglings. The zerg's on 2 bases, so assume you are too. Or else you're trying to secure one. He will need a significant number of drones to pump pure lings. At least 1-1.5 per patch. 1 Planetary fortress + 2 bunkers can secure your second base vs all in zerglings and once you're even on bases you can EASILY crush 36 zerglings a minute. I know 2 queens 2 hatcheries requires full saturation on minerals to produce 18 roaches a minute. Full 2 base saturation terran + MULES can support what, 4-5 barracks + 1-2 factories +1 starport?
Are you still arguing this by the way? The thread is about 4 pages of people explaining why you're wrong and the odd post suggesting nerfing it down to 3 larvae which wouldn't make a massive difference until later on.
"I'm with you on this. For example in PvT if you harass the zergs mineral line and kill 10+ workers it's no problem at all to replace, the zerg will overtake you in econ very soon."
This is terribly wrong. He has to spent 500 minerals and 10 larvae. By the time he mines that extra minerals with whatever drones he has left and makes the drones you probably have an extra 1000 minerals or more of an army and can just kill him.
|
It is a really difficult thing to balance. I think early game you need it because there is a point where your queen first hatches and your using your larva immediately for the first few spawn larva. This is either to drone up on your expansion or producing attacking units. A lot of non zerg players complain about how much larva you have but fail to realise that terran and toss have their own buildings they can make units out of. Also if they are a good player they will be spending there money as and when they have it. So if you whipe out an army they wont be able to replenish it straight away unless they were food capped.
Overall i wouldn't say it was broken just because you need it to be the way it is early game to help keep up. But stopping the late game stock pile of larva being used on mass crackling once a massive fight has occured leaving both sides left with nothing needs to be addressed, but there is no real way that can be sorted without effecting early game.
|
On April 09 2010 07:42 zomgzergrush wrote:
People have this misconception that you always have a queen at all hatches and all larvae is automatically able to egg into w/e. That is not the case. There simply isn't a way to afford spending all those larvae if you do that off the bat everywhere. Unless your macro sucks and you float your resources all day.
It depends what you're morphing. Zerglings will consume every larva you've got, but turning all your gas into mutalisks will take a tiny proportion of your larva even without queens.
Reducing zergs larva will just put pressure on them to build more expensive units, it won't reduce their ability to turn minerals into armies in the blink of an eye. Especially late-game, where zerg will just compensate with more hatcheries.
In an actual game situation, when the larva pops off, you have a certain amount of minerals and gas. If you have more larva, then zerglings are an option, roaches are attractive. With fewer larva you can still comfortably spend all your gas on mutas/hydras, with enough larva left over for a couple of drones, you just can't build zerglings because they cost too much larva.
Nerfing larva just leads to fewer units, not smaller armies. Just a less zergy zerg.
I'm not saying that there aren't issues with zerg in the late game, but I am saying that spawn larva isn't the source of these problems, and nerfing larva is not the solution.
|
On April 09 2010 06:05 Floophead_III wrote:
Hatcheries cost 350 minerals + time to build the drone + time to build the hatch. Queens cost 150, actually fight things and can be used to plant creep tumors, produce MORE larva than a hatchery, and are easily replaced if they die.
Queens cost 150 minerals + time to build the queen + easily dies to sniping + prevents lair tech while building + cannot be used as an expansion.
So... you save like what 200 minerals for every queen instead of a hatch. Guess what? Each MULE brings in Terran like 300 minerals and this happens every 50 seconds for EVERY OC, while you only make 2-3 queens per game max. Stop whining, zerg would just mass hatches if there weren't any queens like SC1. This is simply their macro mechanic.
|
On April 09 2010 08:21 w_Ender_w wrote:
Zerg just plays differently then the other races. If you weaken their ability to produce units quickly and erratically, then you need to heavily buff the units they do produce. As Zerg, it's all about the choices you make. I can't both produce workers and units, so I have to time my lulls in army production and scout very well and avoid cheese.
Larvae (like creep) are a RESOURCE for Zerg, same as Minerals and Gas. Damaging our econ by killing 10+ workers, like an above poster mentioned, isn't worthless because we can quickly replace them; it still costs us the minerals, and it costs us important Larvae that we generally need to desperately fight off timing pushes. As it stands we generally need to heavily out-supply the opponents army to win army vs army, because our units are rather flimsy. People say "that's what Zerg is about" but then also say "they shouldn't be able to make so many units"?
Fine, nerf larvae production down to Terran and Protoss level production. But don't complain if our units get buffed up, and never complain about a lack of diversity, because then all the races really will play pretty much the same.
Easily the most sensible post in this thread.
|
I think it does make sense to cap the larvae count at each hatchery to 7 (for example, since that's the number with 3 saved + 4 spawned) as it encourages good macro and still allows zerg the huge production boost they need for drone pumping while expanding or unit pumping after a battle.
|
On April 09 2010 07:43 MaD.pYrO wrote:
I'm with you on this. For example in PvT if you harass the zergs mineral line and kill 10+ workers it's no problem at all to replace, the zerg will overtake you in econ very soon.
2 base Z vs 2 base T is not really fair, macro-wise, but terran has some really strong army composition against Z to make up for that - but it's a shame they can't all-out macro battle as much.
Have any of you guys even looked at the income tab of a replay? Especially TvZ.
Income of two FULL bases of drones equal one full base of T with constant mule.
|
People's issues with larva seems to be about late game zerg or their ability to drone very quick.
1) You rly shouldn't be going to late game vs zerg if you play properly.
They do have the macro advantage there due to stacking larva.
It would be like, if I didn't use my CC/Nexus, and my 4 GYs/Barracks to produce units 4 workers and 10 Zealots/20Marines (IE they are not producing units for the time it would take to make those units list above) then my GYs and Nexus or CC and Raxes for the next 4 SCVS/Probes and 10Zs or 20 Marines, now produce EXTRA fast. Essentially I saved up their unused production power.
However the other races can Q production. So to make up for zerg;s ability to rebuild super fast, Q up reinforcements while you fight. Make your raxes produce 10 marines (with Reactors) each this way as you're losing units in battle, or moving across the map you're rebuilding your army.
2) Make them build units, instead of drone by attacking/harassing them. If you mass and only attack after 10 minutes then they can spend all their drone for 7-8 Minutes on Drones then mass an army in the last 2 minutes. You have to scare them into making units early game, so they don't just make drones.
It is true that if all they do is produce drones, and expand they will achieve saturation and a massive economy much faster than you. This occurs b.c they are effectively using ALL their production buildings for workers, while you can only produce workers 1 at a time from your CC or Nexus. Even with CB or Mules you're still behind. It would be like if you could build workers from ANY production building.
However, while this gives them a HUGE economic advantage that if left unchecked will win them the game, they are defenseless. They can't D up w/o spending larva or using workers to build the defenses and thus cutting into their eco advantage. Terran and Toss can field workers, an army and produce defenses (mineral permitting). Zerg has to pick either: Make a Unit, Make a Worker, or Make a Worker to Make a Colony.
So what is the lesson here? If you leave them alone to make nothing but workers and expand, while do do the same. They will win. You are at a disadvantage since you are much less versatile, so you have to beat them by punishing them for their choices. When he goes and drones up like crazy send a few reapers or even marines and harass him, he'll have to make units or lose his drones. In PvZ even 1-2 Zealots can get an droning Zerg to react and make zerglings, effectively stifling his economic pure drone spam advantage.
That being said, I am not sure if some changes need to be made to stacking larva. if I under stand it correctly you can only stack the Queen larva once you're beyond the initial hatchery larva the hatchery stop making it's own larva. Is that correct?
If so then, all they are doing is stacking "Chrono boosts" and Mules. The only race to legitimately complain is Toss since they can't stack chrono boosts on a single structure and to benefit from a full nexus they'd need 4 of that building. IE 4x Stargate or 4x Robo Facs. I'd much rather see a nexus stacking change than a larva stacking nerf.
|
On April 09 2010 08:22 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 06:05 Floophead_III wrote:
Hatcheries cost 350 minerals + time to build the drone + time to build the hatch. Queens cost 150, actually fight things and can be used to plant creep tumors, produce MORE larva than a hatchery, and are easily replaced if they die.
Zerg can still accidently make too many drones or too few drones. SC2 has not changed the fact that you need to know when to drone and when to not. The strength of spawn larva is moreso that you don't need any time to build up an army. With 2 hatch 2 queen you can pump over 36 lings in a minute. That's absurd. Marines take 25 seconds to build. You would need 8 reactor barracks to match that rate of production. That's 200/50 * 8 or 1600/400 resources just to match zerg's production factor which they spent a whopping 350+150*2 = 650 minerals on. Not to mention they also expanded by making more production. To match their expansions you'd need to spend another 400 minerals.
So what if zerg has 20 less drones than you have scvs. All that extra money has to go into production just to keep up with the rate zerg makes units. The point is that zerg hardly needs full saturation to pump a ridiculous number of units, because they never needed to invest in all that production in the first place. 8 Reactor barracks is not reasonable to be able to produce off 2 bases, but you don't need anywhere near 1 marine per 2 zerglings. The zerg's on 2 bases, so assume you are too. Or else you're trying to secure one. He will need a significant number of drones to pump pure lings. At least 1-1.5 per patch. 1 Planetary fortress + 2 bunkers can secure your second base vs all in zerglings and once you're even on bases you can EASILY crush 36 zerglings a minute. I know 2 queens 2 hatcheries requires full saturation on minerals to produce 18 roaches a minute. Full 2 base saturation terran + MULES can support what, 4-5 barracks + 1-2 factories +1 starport? Are you still arguing this by the way? The thread is about 4 pages of people explaining why you're wrong and the odd post suggesting nerfing it down to 3 larvae which wouldn't make a massive difference until later on. "I'm with you on this. For example in PvT if you harass the zergs mineral line and kill 10+ workers it's no problem at all to replace, the zerg will overtake you in econ very soon." This is terribly wrong. He has to spent 500 minerals and 10 larvae. By the time he mines that extra minerals with whatever drones he has left and makes the drones you probably have an extra 1000 minerals or more of an army and can just kill him.
They don't have to be zerglings. What if they were banelings. What if they were 18 roaches? The point is the same. I can produce more banelings than you can produce infantry. I don't care how many infantry you make, cause I'll have more banelings. When you attack, I will kill your entire army then flood speedling which you can't stop. Worst case, you don't die but I get full map control to expand and then start the process again. Oh and if it's mech, I just make roaches.
In BW you couldn't make a force of zerglings of that magnitude on such short notice. That would have to be planned and build ahead of time. SC2 makes it so you can literally flood 20+ units at once.
|
Spawn Larva takes away from the Drone v Overlord v Attacker balance in the original. It still exists, but is greatly diminished.
SC1 Zerg - Units are very weak. But they are very cheap - cheap enough that the price-to-utility ratio was often higher than the other races. So you have weaker units but they are cheaper, so you just make more with the money saved and you come out ahead right? Well, not quite. Your ability to make them is limited because the same building must make drones and supply. Ouch.
Well in SC2, once you get a Queen or 2 out that's not a problem. Now your units which are stronger in price-utility come out in enough numbers.
Almost every unit has higher DPS and/or more health in SC2. Fine. But even though Hydras just got a nerf, and are slower than SC1 (off creep anyway), they are wickedly good. 75/25/1 got you ~10dps versus large, and ~5dps versus small (and 7.5 against the rare medium). 100/50/2 is overall less than a double increase. And it gets you ~16dps versus large (less than double - fine) and ~16dps versus small (over 3 times).
So you have a problem there. In SC1 you got a weak, but cheap unit. But you had problems massing them due to larva. In SC2, you get a stronger, normal cost unit. Therefore you do not need to use as many larva to create an effective hydra force. And to top it off, you have more larva!
If Roach is the new hydra (same costs) then you can see why we complain. They are quite potent, besides lack of air attack. So I argue they are better than SC1 Hydra in many situations. Even if you disagree, you still have the fact that spawn larva means way more of a cheap unit.
Expect more Zerg units to get a nerf if spawn larva does not. They are STILL too strong for the amount you get.
|
On April 09 2010 10:58 Crisium wrote:
Almost every unit has higher DPS and/or more health in SC2. Fine. But even though Hydras just got a nerf, and are slower than SC1 (off creep anyway), they are wickedly good. 75/25/1 got you ~10dps versus large, and ~5dps versus small (and 7.5 against the rare medium). 100/50/2 is overall less than a double increase. And it gets you ~16dps versus large (less than double - fine) and ~16dps versus small (over 3 times).
You forget to mention that hydralisk HP didn't go up at all. Paying almost twice as much for a unit with exactly the same HP is of course a terrific deal. /sarcasm
You forgot that mention that zerglings do less damage as well.
Very self serving argument.
Expect more Zerg units to get a nerf if spawn larva does not. They are STILL too strong for the amount you get.
Sure, right after MULE and Chrono boost are nerfed too. Queens don't exist in a vacuum. They exist within the context of a new game where every race has the ability to accelerate production.
Like most of these arguments, yours boils down to "Different races are different, so nerf the one that I don't play to be like mine, except in the ways where mine is advantageous."
|
On April 09 2010 11:09 Wintermute wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 10:58 Crisium wrote:
Almost every unit has higher DPS and/or more health in SC2. Fine. But even though Hydras just got a nerf, and are slower than SC1 (off creep anyway), they are wickedly good. 75/25/1 got you ~10dps versus large, and ~5dps versus small (and 7.5 against the rare medium). 100/50/2 is overall less than a double increase. And it gets you ~16dps versus large (less than double - fine) and ~16dps versus small (over 3 times).
You forget to mention that hydralisk HP didn't go up at all. Paying almost twice as much for a unit with exactly the same HP is of course a terrific deal. /sarcasm You forgot that mention that zerglings do less damage as well. Very self serving argument. Show nested quote +
Expect more Zerg units to get a nerf if spawn larva does not. They are STILL too strong for the amount you get.
Sure, right after MULE and Chrono boost are nerfed too. Queens don't exist in a vacuum. They exist within the context of a new game where every race has the ability to accelerate production. Like most of these arguments, yours boils down to "Different races are different, so nerf the one that I don't play to be like mine, except in the ways where mine is advantageous."
The units which completely dominate this game are not lings and hydras, but roaches and banelings. Both of these units are very larva intensive. Spawn larva makes these units stronger than they ever should be.
|
When I beat a zerg, it's because I gain some massive advantage earlygame with harass, outeco, and then push while he's trying to catch up in economy. I have to be winning all game to beat zerg. It sounds like you're saying that you have to gain an advantage and then utilize that advantage to win. May I ask how you beat the other races?
Usually what occurs is I do a midgame timing attack and his army clashes with mine and I usually am left with a tiny force at the end. Then zerg makes 40 roaches at once and kills me. If your armies clashed and they were of equal strength. Yet, the Zerg has enough resources to instantly make 40 roaches, then the game was over long before your armies clashed. It sounds like you're being out macro'ed.
In BW, zerglings were extremely cost efficient, but they also sucked up all your larva. It was a massive larva investment to make lots of lings, so you couldn't drone at the same time, and you couldn't make higher tech units too. Spawn larva increases the amount of larva available to the point where you don't have to make choices anymore. You could stockpile larvae in BW by building lots of hatcheries. Yes, queens make it more efficient but you'll notice that each race can produce units more efficiently in SC2. Your problem is not with "spawn larvae" so much as the way Zerg has always produced units. Maybe, you're not utilizing your race's improved unit production capabilities?
I think that I understand what you're trying to assert here with this entire post, that Zerg should not have the ability to produce excessive amounts of units at once because the other races cannot produce at the same rate. But you've completely disregarded the other half of unit production: Resources. Drones are not free. Units are not free.
edit:
Like most of these arguments, yours boils down to "Different races are different, so nerf the one that I don't play to be like mine, except in the ways where mine is advantageous." Well put. Zerg production is different because it was designed to be so and the race was balanced accordingly.
P.S. Awesome name Wintermute, my WoW character's name is Neuromancer ^^
|
EGGS
AREN'T
FREE.
These threads and all similar are looking at it all wrong. The limiting factor isn't really how many larvae you have, but the resources you accumulate and the cost per units. Larvae are merely a vessel for you to spend properly.
Just as reactors exist and chronoboost/warpgates exist, spawn larvae exists. They are all simply vessels to facilitate spending.
Without spawn larvae, Z would be stuck in BW production ages while all other races have boosts.
And what the hell does "larvae intensive" mean? ALL zerg units come from larvae.
This thread is a complete apples and oranges argument, though I know now that no one who starts these threads ever goes back on their opinions. These imba threads are all a damn waste of time.
|
On April 09 2010 11:35 Floophead_III wrote:
The units which completely dominate this game are not lings and hydras, but roaches and banelings. Both of these units are very larva intensive. Spawn larva makes these units stronger than they ever should be.
First of all, you're the one that brought up hydras. I just pointed out the error you made. Now you're trying to go back and pretend that hydras aren't an issue when you just said they were.
Second, you haven't once addressed the fact that protoss and terran also have macro mechanics which allow them to do things that zerg can't do (such as speed research, or gain extra saturation from minerals via MULEs). Use some of those extra terran resources to make extra barracks, and voila, problem solved. Use those chrono boosts to rebuild your forces quickly after a battle. Voila, problem solved.
You still haven't demonstrated a problem, just a way in which zerg are different.
|
I don't understand why people don't see it, so I'll explain again:
Protoss and terran have to spend money on production structures. In addition they need enough production to make not only enough units, but also enough of whatever unit they need.
Zerg's production comes from the hatchery, and they do not need to spend more money to sway their production more into one part of the tech tree than another.
The way this is balanced out is zerg has to choose what to do with their larva, drones, overlords, or military.
In addition, zerg was limited in BW in how they could spend their larva because many units, such as hydralisks and zerglings, were very good in large numbers, but also took up a lot of larva and so required substantial additional production in the form of more hatcheries. Therefore, zerg had to spend a good bit of money and time to increase their production, allowing them to actually spend their money on army compositions which were larva intensive.
In SC2, zerg now has access to spawn larva. Spawn larva enables zerg to use fewer hatches to attain the some production. However, because spawn larva is SO good, it leads to the following problems:
-Zerg now do not have to spend nearly the number of resources/time to attain the same level of production. While terran has more resources to spend (at least on barracks), and protoss has more efficient production with warpgates + chrono, they still need to spend a lot of time and money growing their production. Keep in mind that production is a 1-time cost. The later the game goes, the more zerg benefits from a better scaling production system, as terran and protoss must keep spending money on production, but zerg does not.
-Larva heavy armies are not an issue for zerg now because they have such easy access to so many larva.
-Zerg can actually save up larva if they don't have the money to use them. In BW they could do this as well, but only up to 3. In SC2 the max is 19!!!! Granted you should never reach 19, but it is very possible to end up with 1 hatchery with 10+ larva stored up while you waiting for your economy or tech to kick in. This is not unreasonable, especially if you're spending all your minerals on drones from 1 hatchery and saving larva/gas for when tech (spire/den/etc) finishes.
-Lategame zerg no longer has to worry about having constant and consistent macro. Because spawn larva produces so many larva, just using it when you have the chance is more than enough to support your macro. This makes for exceptionally easy macro which lowers the skill level of zerg, something which is bad for competitive play.
Now it's clear that without spawn larva zerg will be completely dominated because of the macro abilities of the other races. However, the changes I proposed are necessary to minimalize the aforementioned problems.
-By introducing a lower larva cap (5-7 is reasonable), zerg is forced to manage their larva at ALL points in the game, and is punished for bad macro. It also promotes the use of more hatcheries to increase the larva stockpile max.
-By reducing the number of larva spawned, the queen's cost efficiency falls back in line with that of the hatchery, again giving a choice to zergs. It also helps keep zerg production per cost more in line with the other races.
|
As far as balance goes, I am not credited enough to say much... However, from a standpoint of a zerg player I can say that I hated having to be 1 base ahead of T and P in BW. Having queens that can help your larvae count nullifies the need to be one base ahead.
|
On April 09 2010 12:54 studmac wrote:
As far as balance goes, I am not credited enough to say much... However, from a standpoint of a zerg player I can say that I hated having to be 1 base ahead of T and P in BW. Having queens that can help your larvae count nullifies the need to be one base ahead.
The real reason you had to be "one base ahead" was indeed a byproduct of needing the extra hatcheries for larva. You would place them at an expansion if you had enough map control to get away with it, but you didn't really utilize the expansion fully for a long time. People realized you could kill two birds with 1 stone by doing early expand builds. However, vs terran you couldn't really fight early bio pushes on two fronts since you needed sunkens. Vs toss you could expand twice because forge FE took so long to become aggressive. Notice how in ZvZ people often place hatcheries in their main if they don't have map control to hold it at an expo. That's because you still need the larva, but you can't get away with expanding while growing production.
However, you still need to early expand vs terran or protoss in SC2. Taking a 3rd is less essential though. A fully saturated 2 base zerg has an awful lot of larva to play with.
|
Some people aren't going to be happy until they have a 100% win rate against zerg.
|
Anyone actually like this floop guy? Anyone think he makes sense? zerg is the weakest race since patch 8. From the get go Zerg was given (i think three) less attacking units thus less options as to counters and varying strategies. And now they nurfed our two main units. Its not like they nurfed our reactor core which makes mech a equal and or better option. They nerfed the units we HAVE to make. Zerg is now weaker EVERY game. And yet ur still whining about our race. QQ moar.
|
The guy is talking into the wind.
What he fails to see is the comparison between MULEs and Queens. Very basic math here... each Queen built instead of a hatch = 200-300 minerals saved (at the very best), each MULE dropped = 300 minerals gained. Neither of these mechanics are hugely imba, and the Terran one is in fact far better due to the 50 sec CD on each OC. If queens didnt exist Zerg would simply make more hatcheries. Close thread please.
|
Dude. You keep saying "In SC1 Zerg had to do this for good macro, and now they don't because of SPAWN LARVAEEEEE". Then you completely fail to look at the new unit making abilities of the Terran and Protoss.
"In SC1 Terran needed 2 barracks's to make 2 marines and now they can do it with one, NERF PLZ!!!!!"
I've been watching all the tournaments posted on the front pages of this site. And I can only imagine how ugly the games would be for Zerg with a nerfed spawn larva. Seems like they lose most of the time in those tournament anyway.
PRODUCTION OF UNITS ISNT THE SAME IN SC2, GET OVER IT.
Terran make shit faster, Protoss make shit faster, Zerg make shit faster. End of story
Your stupidity actually pushed me to actually make an account on this site, just to post this. I hope you're happy for wasting my time.
|
I don't agree with some of your points regarding your examples 'cause they're kinda over-exaggerating. And I don't think Zerg is the complete focal point of the balance problem of SC2 but I completely agree with the spawn larva being too good.
The queen makes more larva than a hatchery and that should definitely be revamped. Why bother making a hatchery at all when you can make a queen and get even more larva?
Perhaps a larva cap isn't necessary. I think all they really need to do is to just lower the amount of larva spawned to 2 or 3.
@ Johoseph: Because you just made an account you obviously haven't been around TL for very long. Ever since beta started, no before beta started, top SC players have been saying spawn larva may be too good. Now that beta's been going on for a while, those sentiments still haven't disappeared. Although you don't see as many people talking about that now because there are other, more pressing issues of balance, I have yet to see a single top SC or SC2 player say that spawn larva is completely and perfectly fine the way it is.
|
Whatever Ryuu. I see you posting in other threads about this too. You and Floop should go get married and continue your DOWN WITH SPAWN LARVA crusade together foreeeever~~
|
Baa?21243 Posts
If Blizzard listened to advice like this, SC2 is gonna go down the path of RA3 where a balanced game in need of minor tweaking, due to incessant whining by one faction of players (Allied fanboys in RA3's case), became a terribly imbalanced game that met its demise in less than half a year.
|
On April 09 2010 09:13 grieve wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 09 2010 08:21 w_Ender_w wrote:
Zerg just plays differently then the other races. If you weaken their ability to produce units quickly and erratically, then you need to heavily buff the units they do produce. As Zerg, it's all about the choices you make. I can't both produce workers and units, so I have to time my lulls in army production and scout very well and avoid cheese.
Larvae (like creep) are a RESOURCE for Zerg, same as Minerals and Gas. Damaging our econ by killing 10+ workers, like an above poster mentioned, isn't worthless because we can quickly replace them; it still costs us the minerals, and it costs us important Larvae that we generally need to desperately fight off timing pushes. As it stands we generally need to heavily out-supply the opponents army to win army vs army, because our units are rather flimsy. People say "that's what Zerg is about" but then also say "they shouldn't be able to make so many units"?
Fine, nerf larvae production down to Terran and Protoss level production. But don't complain if our units get buffed up, and never complain about a lack of diversity, because then all the races really will play pretty much the same. Easily the most sensible post in this thread.
Thanks! I try to make a bit of sense at least.
Now, let's not turn this into a "bash Floophead" session here. Guy makes some valid points, and he certainly has the right to bring up potential balance issues. That being said, I don't particularly agree. Perhaps spawn larvae could be changed, but as it is, it's what keeps Zerg players from being completely overrun, particularly in mid-game. And saying Larvae are a free macro mechanic is like saying scouting is free for Terran's because they can Scan. Please refer to my earlier post in the spoiler tags.
If you want Spawn Larvae to be changed to make it so Zerg players can't easily mass military units as a reactionary measure, you need to heavily modify Zerg as a race. You can't both have "Zerg units are supposed to be weak and die very quickly" and "Zerg shouldn't be able to out produce me" at the same time. Zerg has to outproduce opposing players in order to win, primarily due to a lack of powerful units that can tank and/or deal splash damage. We don't have the Colossus, the Immortal, the legions of Zealots. We don't have the Thor, the Siege Tank, or the Marauder. We have the slightly nerfed Roach that can take a few shots, and literally nothing else that can stand in front of an army. Our armies melt. We rebuild them, and win by outnumbering people. That's the Zerg way.
If you want to change that so we don't have to win by outnumbering enemy forces, and give us stronger units with less production ability... then you've made Zerg exactly like the other races, but with less unit diversity, less micro-able units, and less cool tricks. Do you really want that?
|
On April 09 2010 14:32 Johoseph wrote:
Whatever Ryuu. I see you posting in other threads about this too. You and Floop should go get married and continue your DOWN WITH SPAWN LARVA crusade together foreeeever~~
Actually spend more than 20 minutes on TL and read more threads before you start bashing on people and making stupid points. I'm no veteran poster by any means but I've sure as hell have been on here much longer and read more threads than you have. Don't just come into TL forums and start bashing people. Or you could keep doing this and get banned from TL. I don't mind either way.
EDIT: And if you actually read any of my post you'll see that I disagree with Floop like 90% of the time.
|
On April 09 2010 14:41 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 14:32 Johoseph wrote:
Whatever Ryuu. I see you posting in other threads about this too. You and Floop should go get married and continue your DOWN WITH SPAWN LARVA crusade together foreeeever~~ Actually spend more than 20 minutes on TL and read more threads before you start bashing on people and making stupid points. I'm no veteran poster by any means but I've sure as hell have been on here much longer and read more threads than you have. Don't just come into TL forums and start bashing people. Or you could keep doing this and get banned from TL. I don't mind either way.
And the fact that I just signed up for this site a few minutes ago makes you think IIIII would mind? You two may not be "bashing" other people, but you're both definitely ignoring the hell out of other people's opinions, just trying to force your own on everyone. Seriously, you guys are churning out small novels in several threads ENTIRELY aimed at nerfing Zerg. Excuse me if your incredibly committed attempt to bring the bat down on Zerg makes it hard for me to believe what you're spouting.
|
On April 09 2010 14:49 Johoseph wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 14:41 Ryuu314 wrote:On April 09 2010 14:32 Johoseph wrote:
Whatever Ryuu. I see you posting in other threads about this too. You and Floop should go get married and continue your DOWN WITH SPAWN LARVA crusade together foreeeever~~ Actually spend more than 20 minutes on TL and read more threads before you start bashing on people and making stupid points. I'm no veteran poster by any means but I've sure as hell have been on here much longer and read more threads than you have. Don't just come into TL forums and start bashing people. Or you could keep doing this and get banned from TL. I don't mind either way. And the fact that I just signed up for this site a few minutes ago makes you think IIIII would mind? You two may not be "bashing" other people, but you're both definitely ignoring the hell out of other people's opinions, just trying to force your own on everyone. Seriously, you guys are churning out small novels in several threads ENTIRELY aimed at nerfing Zerg. Excuse me if your incredibly committed attempt to bring the bat down on Zerg makes it hard for me to believe what you're spouting.
Or you could, you know, actually read more than one or two threads where we aren't throwing the nerf stick at Zerg. In fact Floop actually wanted to nerf Protoss in some of his posts. And how are we ignoring other people's opinions? Why else would we post shit that's supposed to be discussed? That's what the [D] stands for in the thread title btw. Especially this mechanic, which has been mentioned as a balance issue for a LONG time.
Just stfu and get off TL.
|
On April 09 2010 14:40 w_Ender_w wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 09:13 grieve wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 09 2010 08:21 w_Ender_w wrote:
Zerg just plays differently then the other races. If you weaken their ability to produce units quickly and erratically, then you need to heavily buff the units they do produce. As Zerg, it's all about the choices you make. I can't both produce workers and units, so I have to time my lulls in army production and scout very well and avoid cheese.
Larvae (like creep) are a RESOURCE for Zerg, same as Minerals and Gas. Damaging our econ by killing 10+ workers, like an above poster mentioned, isn't worthless because we can quickly replace them; it still costs us the minerals, and it costs us important Larvae that we generally need to desperately fight off timing pushes. As it stands we generally need to heavily out-supply the opponents army to win army vs army, because our units are rather flimsy. People say "that's what Zerg is about" but then also say "they shouldn't be able to make so many units"?
Fine, nerf larvae production down to Terran and Protoss level production. But don't complain if our units get buffed up, and never complain about a lack of diversity, because then all the races really will play pretty much the same. Easily the most sensible post in this thread. Thanks! I try to make a bit of sense at least. Now, let's not turn this into a "bash Floophead" session here. Guy makes some valid points, and he certainly has the right to bring up potential balance issues. That being said, I don't particularly agree. Perhaps spawn larvae could be changed, but as it is, it's what keeps Zerg players from being completely overrun, particularly in mid-game. And saying Larvae are a free macro mechanic is like saying scouting is free for Terran's because they can Scan. Please refer to my earlier post in the spoiler tags. If you want Spawn Larvae to be changed to make it so Zerg players can't easily mass military units as a reactionary measure, you need to heavily modify Zerg as a race. You can't both have "Zerg units are supposed to be weak and die very quickly" and "Zerg shouldn't be able to out produce me" at the same time. Zerg has to outproduce opposing players in order to win, primarily due to a lack of powerful units that can tank and/or deal splash damage. We don't have the Colossus, the Immortal, the legions of Zealots. We don't have the Thor, the Siege Tank, or the Marauder. We have the slightly nerfed Roach that can take a few shots, and literally nothing else that can stand in front of an army. Our armies melt. We rebuild them, and win by outnumbering people. That's the Zerg way. If you want to change that so we don't have to win by outnumbering enemy forces, and give us stronger units with less production ability... then you've made Zerg exactly like the other races, but with less unit diversity, less micro-able units, and less cool tricks. Do you really want that?
I feel like BW zerg was actually more reliant on tech units and tech advantages than any other race. Look at ZvT nowadays. Players build mostly tech units early which function with maximum efficiency per larva so they can drone. Why can't players do that in SC2 as well. Right now all SC2 zerg play seems to be is make tons of units and attackmove. Just watch Idra. The guy literally is the king of mass macro zerg right now. He also has a ridiculous ladder winrate and is dominating quite a bit in tournaments. All he seems to do is not die to stupid cheese and macro. Is this really what we want zerg to be in SC2?
Reducing the amount of available larva means you have to pick the most EFFICIENT means of fighting. Sure you can beat someone with mass speedling, but wouldn't a few infestors and banelings be a better use of your larva? What about just making 8 mutas instead of those 50 speedling? Obviously just random examples, but the point is that zerg was always about finding the most efficient way to use larva. In SC2 it's only about finding the most efficient way to use money by making the right army composition and massing it. That makes for really uninteresting play and will completely kill the lifespan of this game.
|
I feel that spawn larva should be based on the level of your hatchery
something likes this :
hatch - 1-2
lair 2-3
hive 3-4
not sure which would balance better, the lower or higher value
|
Baa?21243 Posts
On April 09 2010 14:53 Ryuu314 wrote:
Or you could, you know, actually read more than one or two threads where we aren't throwing the nerf stick at Zerg. In fact Floop actually wanted to nerf Protoss in some of his posts..
Then it's obvious that Floop plays Terran ^_____^
|
On April 09 2010 15:05 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 14:53 Ryuu314 wrote:
Or you could, you know, actually read more than one or two threads where we aren't throwing the nerf stick at Zerg. In fact Floop actually wanted to nerf Protoss in some of his posts.. Then it's obvious that Floop plays Terran ^_____^
Right now I do actually =P
However, I have played as all 3 races. I only stopped playing zerg cause of the state of ZvZ. 90% winrate or something ridiculous in that matchup because it was broken and if you knew how to play it you couldn't lose. Now it's very very different though imo.
|
On April 09 2010 14:55 Floophead_III wrote:
I feel like BW zerg was actually more reliant on tech units and tech advantages than any other race. Look at ZvT nowadays. Players build mostly tech units early which function with maximum efficiency per larva so they can drone. Why can't players do that in SC2 as well. Right now all SC2 zerg play seems to be is make tons of units and attackmove. Just watch Idra. The guy literally is the king of mass macro zerg right now. He also has a ridiculous ladder winrate and is dominating quite a bit in tournaments. All he seems to do is not die to stupid cheese and macro. Is this really what we want zerg to be in SC2?
Reducing the amount of available larva means you have to pick the most EFFICIENT means of fighting. Sure you can beat someone with mass speedling, but wouldn't a few infestors and banelings be a better use of your larva? What about just making 8 mutas instead of those 50 speedling? Obviously just random examples, but the point is that zerg was always about finding the most efficient way to use larva. In SC2 it's only about finding the most efficient way to use money by making the right army composition and massing it. That makes for really uninteresting play and will completely kill the lifespan of this game.
I think that the reason Zerg players are more inclined to, for example, spend Larvae and Min/Gas on 50 Speedlings (or more realistically Hydra/Roach) compared to a few infestor/baneling or Mutas is twofold.
Effectiveness of the enemy counters to Zerg units and Zerg unit health.
If you put yourself in the Zerg players shoes for a minute, you might find that the majority of Zerg player complaints is that units that counter Zerg units do it almost too effectively. Particularly Terran units. A critical mass of Hellions (not all that many for their cost) can effectively "counter" a near infinite number of Zerglings (and a pretty high number of Hydras) in a realistic mixed-unit battle. Mutalisks in particularly have been hit hard recently, and are generally considered nigh unusable against Terran players at cost due to splash damage from Thor's and the Turret buff (mostly the Thor thing though. Watching a few Thor's just decimate an entire group of Mutas is quite depressing).
The particularly interesting units, such as Infestor's, are really un-tenably weak and easily destroyed. Those paper thin, slow Infestor's pretty much explode if something sneezes on them. Banelings are dominated by splash damage or "run away then attack" micro. Zerg players have to use them anyway to keep up often, but they aren't an acceptable alternative to "meat of the army" spamming simply because Zerg units die fast and are on a whole less micro-able then in SC1. Hydras in particular are greviously slow off of creep.
I would argue that if you reduce Larvae then there is no EFFICIENT means of fighting for the Zerg player. I don't mind and SC2 that's about good unit composition, clever harass, and out-expanding an opponent and trying you damndest to figure out a way to fight an army without getting your entire force facerolled by a smaller supply enemy.
If you change Zerg combat units, I wouldn't mind seeing a change to Spawn Larvae I suppose. But I maintain that you can't have your cake and eat it too on this; pick "weak Zerg units that are easily killed" or "Zerg unit production that matches other races". If you combine the two, you get weak Zerg units that get facerolled and can't be replaced.
Quite frankly a lot of matches are frustrating enough from a Zerg perspective, especially against a good Terran mech build, because it relies on me literally drowning the Terran army in the blood of my units.
|
I don't really feel there is any validity in the statements about zerg having too much larva production.
I think race to race each one has a macro mechanic to enable to them to do something faster. Build Units, Mine Minerals, Research Tech/Build Units.
This only issue that I feel has any ground to stand on is the one regarding the saving up of production.
If Terran build 4 starports and doesn't build units with it for 10 minutes he can't go back to his base and build a ton of banshee all at once. Terrans and protoss especially with warp gates have to manage their production such that their facility are producing units efficiently. If you use 4 Stargates at 50% , why not make 2 and use them at 100% efficiency. (Obviously there are advantages to having 4 ports even if u don't use them).
Zerg do not have to worry about building the right amount of buildings. You just need some larva and you can go from a 40 ling army to a 20 Hydra army provided you have the larva.
Personally a reduction in the MAX larva per hatchery would result in Zerg not losing production since your larva regen at the same rate and your queen injects just as much larva every CD. BUT you'd have to pay attention to make sure you are using your larva, just like Toss has to make sure they use their Warp Gates on CD, and Terran/Protoss have to make sure their production buildings aren't idle.
Frequently players will engage in harassment or a battle and their resources will pile up. A good player would have his buildings on hotkeys and Q production while fighting/scouting or harassing. Zerg doesn't have to do that. They can take a 5 minute break from their macro, and as long as u hit Spawn larva when it's available you are not penalized for not building units while your mind is focused on fighting. Essentially you require less attention to your macro while you're microing. This is a advantage no other race has.
SC1 required you to use your larva effectively. You had some leeway since ur hatches could have 3 larva waiting, but if you had 3 and didn't use them you didn't get anymore, much like if your terran factory isn't producing any units you lost that production time and your army will be delayed. This was a skill you need to have as zerg since not having it, meant you would be behind army wise compared to someone who did.
Also a large stockpile of larva make your options far greater than any other race. Not sure what I'm building, no worries stock up your larva while you figure it out, all you need to do is build your buildings IE Hydra Den, Spire, etc. and if I'm going immortals, you can easily build mutas instead of roaches. If you didn't have an option to pile up larva you would have to build something while you waited or lose those larva. Every other race has to keep producing units or they will fall behind, zerg does not. Unit count only matters IF/WHEN a battle occurs. You don't need 20 Roaches in your base chilling if you're not attacking me and I'm not attacking you. As long as those roaches are made B4 I arrive you're all set. If I show up with Immortals or Marauders ...you build Lings or Mutas instead...
|
Very Simple / Elegant Solution:
Hatchery Changes:
- Hatchery Maximum - Hatchery now have a maximum # of larva they can hold or sustain around them. Beyond that number the Hatchery ceases to produce anymore larva. (Hatch: 3, Lair: 4, Hive: 5)
Hatchery's also indicate the number of larva currently held/sustained by them in their selection box. This way you an click on a hatchery and see if you need to build units now or you can still wait a little bit since you're not at max yet.
Spawn Larva: No Change to the ability, except you cannot use it on a Hatchery with MORE than it's Maximum larva.
You can use it on a maxed out hatchery, but due to the Hatchery Maximum the action of spawning larva prevent that hatchery from spawning larva unit it has less larva than it's maximum and after doing so you will not be able to use spawn larva again until those excess larva are used up.
What does this change accomplish.
- Well your ability to produce units does not change, provided you pay attention and use your larva and don't let your hatcheries exceed their maximum.
- Your Queen still allows you to produce extra larva, but those larva are for you to use. Ideally you'd use them immediately and your hatchery would keep producing larva. Essentially you'd still produce the same # of units as before, except you couldn't stockpile unused production.
- Net effect: You'd have to pay attention and make sure you were using the larva you were producing.
Why this Change?
No other race can stock pile production of units. An unused Factory does not build standardized parts over time, such that it would have X seconds of saved up production time. IE: I didn't use it for the past 3 minutes thus I can produce 5 Siege tanks in 45s. Why 5? Tanks have a build time of 45s so essentially his 3 minutes of save time allows an extra tank to be build for each 45s of saved time. Essentially 180s / 45 = 4 + 1 for the current production queue. (I am not suggesting they implement this).
Even the protoss with their Chrono boots cannot, apply a Chrono boost to a building not producing units and expect that CB to increase the speed of the NEXT unit to be built. Or apply 4x Boosts and it it affect the stucture for the next 80s starting ONLY when the building is producing a unit.
So you shouldn't be able to "zerg chono boost" aka spawn larva your hatchery and not use your boost until later.
Nor should you be able to save up more than a small maximum of larva. So as long as your hatchery larva are used b4 the 4th larva spawns you experience no change from the way things are right now.
|
Ender's point about changing spawn larva at the cost of buffing Zerg units is, I think, the best one.
The reason is because I'd rather have a Zerg that has units that can actually be micro'd and useable than having a mechanic that allows the Zerg to create weak, unmicro-able units at a ridiculous rate. The Hydralisk is my best example. Rather than having a hydralisk that dies incredibly quickly due to the lack of micro capability off creep, I'd rather face a hydralisk that takes more than two seconds to kill. It adds more micro depth to the game.
With the spawn larva mechanic as it is, it simply reinforces the fact that Zerg is the 1a2a3a race of SC2. Losing an army for Zerg has almost no repercussions. At least not nearly as much as it was in SCBW or in comparison to the other races.
Daerthalus touched on what I think is the biggest issue with spawn larva. The other races can build very quickly with their macro mechanics (chrono and reactors) but you can't neglect the cost and build time of all the production buildings that Protoss and Terran must build. Zerg on the other hand, just has to build 1 or 2 hatcheries and 1 or 2 queens and they have all the production facilities they will realistically need. This puts them at a pretty big advantage.
I absolutely hate the way Zerg can switch tech so quickly on you, but I feel that that's a key element of Zerg. I do not in any way want to take that part of Zerg away. Rather, I feel that the spawn larva mechanic not only makes it easy for Zerg to switch tech, but it makes it almost too easy and too effective for Zerg to switch tech. A big nerf isn't necessary to spawn larva, I think. Probably all it needs is a reduction of the number of larva spawned from 4 to something like 2 or 3.
Putting a cap on the number of larva a hatchery/lair/hive can have limits the Zerg's new macro advantage too much. I personally feel that if you somehow let a Zerg mass up to 19-20 larva on each of their hatcheries you're doing something wrong. That shouldn't every really happen. I thinkt hat capping the amount of larva would either be so extreme that it would ruin the new Zerg macro mechanic or it'd just be redundant.
Another way to balance this would be to maybe give each individual larva a specific time limit before they die. An expiration date if you will. This will still allow Zerg to mass up larva, but after they are unused for X amount of time, they die thus wasting the larva. This will prevent Zerg from massing up too many larva at their hatcheries and will also punish bad macro. The one downside to this would be that it may become too complex for many players to realistically handle as keeping track of every larva's "time limit" may be too demanding.
|
On April 09 2010 16:39 Ryuu314 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Ender's point about changing spawn larva at the cost of buffing Zerg units is, I think, the best one.
The reason is because I'd rather have a Zerg that has units that can actually be micro'd and useable than having a mechanic that allows the Zerg to create weak, unmicro-able units at a ridiculous rate. The Hydralisk is my best example. Rather than having a hydralisk that dies incredibly quickly due to the lack of micro capability off creep, I'd rather face a hydralisk that takes more than two seconds to kill. It adds more micro depth to the game.
With the spawn larva mechanic as it is, it simply reinforces the fact that Zerg is the 1a2a3a race of SC2. Losing an army for Zerg has almost no repercussions. At least not nearly as much as it was in SCBW or in comparison to the other races.
Daerthalus touched on what I think is the biggest issue with spawn larva. The other races can build very quickly with their macro mechanics (chrono and reactors) but you can't neglect the cost and build time of all the production buildings that Protoss and Terran must build. Zerg on the other hand, just has to build 1 or 2 hatcheries and 1 or 2 queens and they have all the production facilities they will realistically need. This puts them at a pretty big advantage.
I absolutely hate the way Zerg can switch tech so quickly on you, but I feel that that's a key element of Zerg. I do not in any way want to take that part of Zerg away. Rather, I feel that the spawn larva mechanic not only makes it easy for Zerg to switch tech, but it makes it almost too easy and too effective for Zerg to switch tech. A big nerf isn't necessary to spawn larva, I think. Probably all it needs is a reduction of the number of larva spawned from 4 to something like 2 or 3.
Putting a cap on the number of larva a hatchery/lair/hive can have limits the Zerg's new macro advantage too much. I personally feel that if you somehow let a Zerg mass up to 19-20 larva on each of their hatcheries you're doing something wrong. That shouldn't every really happen. I thinkt hat capping the amount of larva would either be so extreme that it would ruin the new Zerg macro mechanic or it'd just be redundant.
I feel like that would be completely reasonable, and I would happily trade my ability to stock up 19 Larvae (especially since it rarely happens) or lose a few Larvae per Spawn for more microable units. Hell, I really hope they do that, even if it just means a Hydra movement speed upgrade.
|
It was never my intention to NERF zerg. Obviously any changes would come with other changes to even any resulting imbalances out.
Assuming the zerg are "perfectly" balanced based on incredibly awesome macro, then reducing their macro would require a buff elsewhere, but the changes I proposed are not weakening their macro.
In fact I already noticed that keeping track of larva would be difficult and factored that in by suggesting each hatchery show the # of larva it has and it's max (eg. 1/3). This way you can click or hotkey + tab through your hatcheries and see which one you need to build from and which you can afford to wait on. You'll still have better reactive abilities than other players and better macro, but you won't be able to stockpile larva.
A Hatchery Maximum wouldn't make you produce units slower, it would just necessitate extra attention being paid to your production buildings, aka Hatcheries, Lair(s) and Hive(s). If you use your larva before they reach max, you wouldn't notice a difference in the # of units you have, nor anything else. If you slack off, or get distracted you'd be subject to a penalty just as every other race suffers if they let their resource numbers soar while their production buildings are idle. If you play properly, you'd just be doing more work for the same results you had before. Obviously no one wants to do more work for the same result, so they ask for something to compensate them. That doesn't mean they should get it.
A guy is getting paid 100k per year to sit around doing next to nothing. His company restructures and changes his job. They say, he'll keep the same salary BUT he'll have to do more work. Obviously he's upset, he had it made: 100K per year and no need to do much work. He'd tell himself and them that he'll do more work but they'd have to pay him 150K instead. Thing is he won't get 150k, they aren't asking him to do $150K worth of work for $100K, they just expect him to work equivalent to what they are paying him. They are fixing an imbalance, not offering him a trade or deal.
The suggested change would serve the purpose of injecting some skill back into the decisions zerg players make, since you couldn't rely on the current larva safety net in place. Skilled players with good macro skills would be able to keep track of their hatchery production and insure that they don't lose larva unnecessarily. This is a positive change, since skilled players want their skill to make a difference in the match, rather than have their winning or losing based entirely on game mechanics.
|
When will you guy realize that even if you have infinite larvae, you actually need has much minerals and gas as the others race in order to produce units ? This whole larvae thing is just ridiculous. It's just another excuse to justify their lose. Do you guys even realize that we need tons more units than the others races ? Which means more larvae spent, more hatcheries spent thus more minerals spent. Which is somewhat what terran or protoss could spend for more gates or rax or whatever building you think could be good for futures battles.
The only advantage i see from a z is just that we can afford to forget to macro for a little time. But that's all, really.
|
On April 09 2010 01:35 Floophead_III wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Zerg has access to infinite larva once he gets 2 hatch 2 queen. I have trouble spending my larva with 2 hatch 1 queen, adding a second means I'll be able to make infinity of anything I want provided i have the money.
I have various problems with the way Zerg are implemented right now, but spawn larvae is not one of them.
I don't know how you're playing, I haven't seen your replays, but 2 hatch 2 queen is nowhere near enough larvae, ever. Even when I'm only on one base early game with a FE, I'm still having to make the hard choice between drones and army. If I balance it right and manage to saturate the expansion, 2 hatcheries with a queen each is no longer anywhere near enough. I've had some games where I have 3 or 4 expos going, one of which is gold, and 5 hatcheries w/ queens is not enough either.
Spawn larva is strong, don't get me wrong. But so are chrono boost and MULE.
|
Make it so hatcheries have a max amount of larva possible at once, or change the energy requirements on spawn larva? Zerg players don't need as many hatcheries as they do in BW because of this, it's slightly dissapointing.
|
On April 09 2010 15:17 w_Ender_w wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I think that the reason Zerg players are more inclined to, for example, spend Larvae and Min/Gas on 50 Speedlings (or more realistically Hydra/Roach) compared to a few infestor/baneling or Mutas is twofold.
Effectiveness of the enemy counters to Zerg units and Zerg unit health.
If you put yourself in the Zerg players shoes for a minute, you might find that the majority of Zerg player complaints is that units that counter Zerg units do it almost too effectively. Particularly Terran units. A critical mass of Hellions (not all that many for their cost) can effectively "counter" a near infinite number of Zerglings (and a pretty high number of Hydras) in a realistic mixed-unit battle. Mutalisks in particularly have been hit hard recently, and are generally considered nigh unusable against Terran players at cost due to splash damage from Thor's and the Turret buff (mostly the Thor thing though. Watching a few Thor's just decimate an entire group of Mutas is quite depressing).
The particularly interesting units, such as Infestor's, are really un-tenably weak and easily destroyed. Those paper thin, slow Infestor's pretty much explode if something sneezes on them. Banelings are dominated by splash damage or "run away then attack" micro. Zerg players have to use them anyway to keep up often, but they aren't an acceptable alternative to "meat of the army" spamming simply because Zerg units die fast and are on a whole less micro-able then in SC1. Hydras in particular are greviously slow off of creep.
I would argue that if you reduce Larvae then there is no EFFICIENT means of fighting for the Zerg player. I don't mind and SC2 that's about good unit composition, clever harass, and out-expanding an opponent and trying you damndest to figure out a way to fight an army without getting your entire force facerolled by a smaller supply enemy.
If you change Zerg combat units, I wouldn't mind seeing a change to Spawn Larvae I suppose. But I maintain that you can't have your cake and eat it too on this; pick "weak Zerg units that are easily killed" or "Zerg unit production that matches other races". If you combine the two, you get weak Zerg units that get facerolled and can't be replaced.
Quite frankly a lot of matches are frustrating enough from a Zerg perspective, especially against a good Terran mech build, because it relies on me literally drowning the Terran army in the blood of my units.
This hits the nail on the head, it really does. Zerg lost the Lurker, lost the Defiler, and lost the Spawn Broodling Queen. Literally the only unit they have right now that is even remotely designed to counter a mass of units is the Infestor (I'm obvously ignoring the currently-worthless Ultralisk). And even Fungal Growth is only useful in a very small number of situations. This means that the Zerg currently have no choice but to out-macro the opponent, and swarm them under with a bigger (sometimes much bigger) mass of units.
Looking from the other side, Terran have Hellions, Tanks, Thors (anti-mass-air now), EMP for protoss, and Ravens. All of these things are good anti-mass units (some more specialized than others). Protoss have Sentry, Colossus, High Templar. Fewer choices, but all of them pretty godlike.
Using any of these with the proper application of micro and skill, you can defeat larger, or even significantly larger, armies with a smaller force. The same cannot be said for Zerg. You can dodge storms all day, avoid HSMs, etc etc, but at the end of the day it still comes down to whether your mass was big enough to swarm them under. There's no strategic placement of Lurkers, no sniping of tanks/HTs with Queens, no hiding under Dark Swarm. It's straight up dodging his anti-mass abilities and then praying you still have enough units to win the attack-move war.
|
Although I manage to get "many many" larvaes, never once have I felt I had the resources to use them all at once.
|
I understand why OP came to such conclusion. The racial idea of Zerg is most visible in ZvT matchup. Almost always it comes to this: Zerg fast expands, then gets 3rd and 4th base; while Terran is trying to kill him using various cheeses/all-ins/timing attacks.
ZvP matchup can also be played the same way, but also there is an option of Zerg being agressive.
I think OP is fooled by his "Terran mentality" - I admit I was fooled as well and thought that Zerg macroing and defending timings/cheeses/all-ins is a bad thing. But after I have played about 100 games as T, 150 as P and over 400 as Z, I understand that it's just a way the game is designed.
Please don't nerf Spawn Larva, please don't dumb the game down. What Zerg needs is more diversity, particularly Infestor buff and return of the Lurker.
|
I don't know how you're playing, I haven't seen your replays, but 2 hatch 2 queen is nowhere near enough larvae, ever. Even when I'm only on one base early game with a FE, I'm still having to make the hard choice between drones and army. If I balance it right and manage to saturate the expansion, 2 hatcheries with a queen each is no longer anywhere near enough. I've had some games where I have 3 or 4 expos going, one of which is gold, and 5 hatcheries w/ queens is not enough either.
Spawn larva is strong, don't get me wrong. But so are chrono boost and MULE.
If you don't have enough larva then that means you're using them, which means a change to the stacking of larva mechanic would not actually have an effect on you, since the larva creation rate in my suggestion would not change from the way it is right now. Thus, why are you against it?
|
Decrease the max larva per hatchery, not the amount of spawn larva.
|
On April 09 2010 22:12 Daerthalus wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If you don't have enough larva then that means you're using them, which means a change to the stacking of larva mechanic would not actually have an effect on you, since the larva creation rate in my suggestion would not change from the way it is right now. Thus, why are you against it?
I was responding to the suggestions saying it should reduce the number of larvae spawned. I don't care about reducing the stacking of larvae to 10 or something. The only time I've ever seen a decent player stack larvae for something is if the spire is building.
|
Without touching the balance issue, I agree with the OP that managing larva is definitely a useful talent toi have, and it'd be very stupid to just ditch it.
If nothing else, at least change the cap, 19 is like wtf.
|
No stockpiling after 10 sounds fine to me. Dont like it to see 30 seconds after 1 big battle that zerg has most of his units back and goes straight for rush.
|
Next Zerg player that complains about not having enough larvae has to start making more than two hatcheries and two queens. I'm sincerely curious. Is making hatcheries in the main and natural (heaven forbid) viable? Or is it just the ravings of a madman hellbent on shoving old strategies into a new game?
Sarcasm aside, what Zerg really needs is one good unit that doesn't die easily and doesn't use a ton of larvae (like how the Lurker was). Then larvae spawn can be tweaked for balance.
|
On April 10 2010 00:53 LunarC wrote:
Next Zerg player that complains about not having enough larvae has to start making more than two hatcheries and two queens. I'm sincerely curious. Is making hatcheries in the main and natural (heaven forbid) viable? Or is it just the ravings of a madman hellbent on shoving old strategies into a new game?
Sarcasm aside, what Zerg really needs is one good unit that doesn't die easily and doesn't use a ton of larvae (like how the Lurker was). Then larvae spawn can be tweaked for balance.
I find that if i go for any sort of army with alot of zerglings I have to get third hatch or my minerals will just keep going up, up and up.
I even saw a replay from that korean touranment going on right now where zerg did something like 14 hatch (in main), spawning pool, hatch (at expo). Then went for a zergling/muta mix against a protoss.
|
You all do realize that the larva are about the only way to keep up with the other races, especially when you put in chrono boost/mule's....
You also have to figure out that the ZERG units are weak compared to Protoss/Terran units. In a for instance 100v100 or whatever equal fight there is, zerg will always lose, why? because their units are weak.
They depend on mass production and constant reinforcements to win not unit strength. Thats how it's always been.
If a Zerg player is out doing you in macro, he has no units because he spent everything on drones.
If a Zerg player keeps expanding, ask yourself, what are you doing??? Why are you letting him expand?
I think its just that too many terrible players here are complaining because they don't know how to play or counter....
Patch after patch zerg are getting harder and harder to play to win, even before it was difficult if your opponent actually knew how to fight.
BTW am always hovering between 1-15 in Plat 1v1 division as Zerg.
|
ever since the storm nerf I've never beat a zerg if I didnt kill him after 10 minutes.
they just have like a 5x bigger army than me at any point.
maybe I just suck way too much at macro(i dont think this is the case), but I think it's just impossible to go toe to toe with zerg in a macro game as toss.
|
On April 10 2010 01:53 Ideas wrote:
ever since the storm nerf I've never beat a zerg if I didnt kill him after 10 minutes.
they just have like a 5x bigger army than me at any point.
maybe I just suck way too much at macro(i dont think this is the case), but I think it's just impossible to go toe to toe with zerg in a macro game as toss.
Timed pushes.
Push earlier than 10 minutes.
Attack.
Prevent Z from getting 10 bases.
As it is now, Z can have an army twice as big, but P can manage to kill it all with well placed forcefields and a couple immortals or colossus.
|
On April 10 2010 02:00 Koffiegast wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 01:53 Ideas wrote:
ever since the storm nerf I've never beat a zerg if I didnt kill him after 10 minutes.
they just have like a 5x bigger army than me at any point.
maybe I just suck way too much at macro(i dont think this is the case), but I think it's just impossible to go toe to toe with zerg in a macro game as toss. Timed pushes. Push earlier than 10 minutes. Attack. Prevent Z from getting 10 bases. As it is now, Z can have an army twice as big, but P can manage to kill it all with well placed forcefields and a couple immortals or colossus.
yea that's the problem. I HAVE to do serious damage to him in the early game or else I can't kill him (and I mean SERIOUS damage). The matchup shouldnt be completely about whether or not I can kill the Zerg in my 1st attack (as it wasnt in BW).
Another thing about the larva issue is how now harassment almost means nothing (or at least is significantly less important than it was in any MU in BW). In BW if you do a storm or reaver drop and kill 12 drones, that's fucking huge. That's like 1/3 or 1/4 of the Zerg's entire economy destroyed and that means to rebuild the 12 drones, that's 12 larva he cant spend on hydras or whatever. Now I can do colossi/warpprism harass and kill 10+ drones but it doesnt even matter, Zerg has so much larva that he can still keep army production going. Couple this with the fact that Zerg now make 2 times more drones than they did in BW and harassment just isnt cost effective (or maybe I just suck too much at it, and Im sure I could do it a lot better, but I dont think nearly all of the story).
|
While it is completely possible to stockpile larva, it's not effective in any way. I don't think there should be a cap to larva as low as you people suggest. But it is pretty ridiculous to see like 14 larva on one hatch.
But think about it this way. A hatch naturally produces larva up to 3. If you're stockpiling them up to high numbers, you're hatchery isn't producing ANY more larva, only your queen.
So you ARE losing production by stockpiling, so I think its a LOT less macro friendly then you all seem to think.
Just did a small test. Had 2 hatches, both being larva'd ASAP. Did 3 spawn larva cycles. ProduceD lings from first constantly with every larva out. Let the 2nd stockpile over all 3 cycles then pumped them out when 3rd larva cycle popped. The stockpiled hatch made 32 lings. The hatch that had constant production on it made 48 lings. Thats a pretty big difference.
The stockpiling may be noob friendly, but you're not exactly on your way to Korea by doing it. You're losing production, a lot of production.
|
It is really amazing how many replies are in this thread vs how many are actually relevant. No one reads anymore...
I agree, after playing some 1v1 obs game with a zerg friend of mine who is raging about how the first half of a Zv anything involves getting your drones attacked constantly. Defending cheese isn't fun, but as it stands it is also the only way to keep zergs economy and production under control.
Cap spawn larva and give zerg better anti-cheese early on. Zerg win ratios are relatively balanced, but its in a way that does NOT make for the kind of competitive RTS we like to see here.
|
Well, spawn larva can be seen as a problem, but it's not a necessity to fix spawn larva, but you can also make the Zerg Units a bit weaker.
As we've seen with the recent patch that nerfed Hydras and Roaches, Zerg cannot win very easily in a straight-up battle, but they can surely win because of the better economy.
In SC1, Zerg could spawn many Units in a very short time because they built every Unit from Larva. This also meant, that Zerg had to choose to either produce Drones or attacking Units, resulting in a constant dicision whether to invest in the lategame through better economy or invest into other Units to either defeat the opponent or defend against an Incoming attack.
In SC2, Zerg can easily produce lots of Drones and Attacking-Units at the same time, making it much easier for the Zerg to stay alive while pumping out drones to have a very strong economy. Through the recent patch, Zerg had to start setting Priorities, because 1 Larva spent on a Hydra and Roach wasn't as good as before anymore.
Spawn Larva is not broken because you can stock up Larva, but because the Units produced compared to the Larva spent are too good, resulting in zerg having good Eco and a lot of strong Units without having to neglect one for the other.
by nerfing a few Units, you really also balance spawn larva and Zerg will have to learn when they can heavily pump Drones and when they need Units and Static defense to survive a push, because as of yet, Zerg has still by far the best Macro and just because their Units aren't as strong when the same Foodcount of Z-Units fight against other Units, Zerg is still a very powerful race when you play it correctly, which is very economy-oriented and with knowing when to pump drones and expand and when to pump Units to defend against timing-pushes.
You see it when watching Korean ex-SC1-Pros or other very good players: They have a few Minutes of time and they'll macro like hell but they know when they have to cut drone-production to pump out Units.
IMHO Zerg is the best Race in SC2 in solid macro-games by far and as soon as ppl start playing Zerg right and start to figure out how to defend against the timing-pushes, which is basically the only way for Protoss to win against Zerg and a very important tool for Terran as well, Zerg will be even stronger, just because of their ridiculously strong macro-abilities.
|
I have to disagree with you saying that late game zerg always win. That is so inaccurate, as a top 10 plat player, zergs game comes from early to mid game. We get destroyed toe to toe with protoss or terran because pound for pound terran/protoss units are stronger then zerg units ESPECIALLY after this latest patch.
|
On April 10 2010 03:26 Limenade wrote:
I have to disagree with you saying that late game zerg always win. That is so inaccurate, as a top 10 plat player, zergs game comes from early to mid game. We get destroyed toe to toe with protoss or terran because pound for pound terran/protoss units are stronger then zerg units ESPECIALLY after this latest patch.
Agreed. Just watched Idra vs. Lzgamer. Was a looong game. near 200/200 armies for both. Lategame, having 2 more bases than the terran, idra still couldn't beat an army of just MMM rolling around.
|
On April 10 2010 03:26 Limenade wrote:
I have to disagree with you saying that late game zerg always win. That is so inaccurate, as a top 10 plat player, zergs game comes from early to mid game. We get destroyed toe to toe with protoss or terran because pound for pound terran/protoss units are stronger then zerg units ESPECIALLY after this latest patch.
That's exactly in line with what I've written above.
You have to stop to think that Zerg has to win in straight-up Battles and abuse the fact that they can harrass and counterattack extremely well, while being able to take and defend expansions and pump workers better than any other race.
Some of the things I've rarely seen a Zerg do because they are used to having very strong Units and winning in decisive battles:
- Nydus-Worm defense in Lategame and Harrass/Counterattacks in the lategame. (punishes pushes by the opponent and keeps him in his base while Z can expand)
- Overlord-Drops (basically the same as above. Why win toe-to-toe when you can kick Unit-production and win by slowly killing the enemy Units off)
- Speedling Counterattacks (again, you don't need to absolutely defend a push or win a battle, just counterattack and force the opponent to retreat. Just a few speedlings will do the trick)
- containments with burrowed Units. (Many Armies win by shooting some of the Zerg-Units before they reach their target or by hindering them to reach the target with force-fields - when you can burrow and attack right when the enemy is above you, he has a huge disadvantage against zerglings, banelings etc. so he's forced to stay in his base or use up scans, while you can slowly retreat and secure another expansion).
- Contain with Broodlords (self-explanatory)
Zerg has just much more options to harrass, counterattack and defend multiple expansion, they are also much faster than the other races, so why should they also win toe-to-toe?
And by writing that Zerg has an advantage in the Lategame I mostly mean Economy-wise, not that their Army's are better. I do think that Zerg Army can have problems against other Armies, but you have to realize that that's not the way Zerg should be played to fully optimize their effectivity.
@Johoseph: Maxed out Terran is still a very strong Army and Z can't really win toe-to-toe, but Idra could've played more creatively and harrass better. besides, Z can reinforce much faster when their Army has been killed. But we've also seen it in the first Game of DIMAGA vs HasuObs on LT on the Germany VS. Ukraine Showmatch - DIMAGA nearly lost in the end, besides being ahead in bases, but he contained the Protoss and kept reinforcing extremely fast and won the game, even though he let HasuObs expand to both Islands without doing anything about it, which he could've easily done by dropping/Nydus-Worms.
|
On April 10 2010 03:26 Limenade wrote:
I have to disagree with you saying that late game zerg always win. That is so inaccurate, as a top 10 plat player, zergs game comes from early to mid game. We get destroyed toe to toe with protoss or terran because pound for pound terran/protoss units are stronger then zerg units ESPECIALLY after this latest patch.
Zerg players literally roll around with a ball of hydra/roach/ling and expect to win fights with absolutely nothing more than attackmove right now. The full power of zerg is definitely underused, primarily because until this patch zerg COULD attackmove to victory. I'm hoping to see zerg strategy eventually evolve into just that - strategy. Maybe in the next few rounds of tournaments we'll get another innovative strategy that shows up. Baneling bust is hardly a viable standard strategy, and that's the last big thing to come out of zerg =/
|
On April 10 2010 01:23 BeJe77 wrote:
You all do realize that the larva are about the only way to keep up with the other races, especially when you put in chrono boost/mule's....
You also have to figure out that the ZERG units are weak compared to Protoss/Terran units. In a for instance 100v100 or whatever equal fight there is, zerg will always lose, why? because their units are weak.
They depend on mass production and constant reinforcements to win not unit strength. Thats how it's always been.
If a Zerg player is out doing you in macro, he has no units because he spent everything on drones.
If a Zerg player keeps expanding, ask yourself, what are you doing??? Why are you letting him expand?
I think its just that too many terrible players here are complaining because they don't know how to play or counter....
Patch after patch zerg are getting harder and harder to play to win, even before it was difficult if your opponent actually knew how to fight.
BTW am always hovering between 1-15 in Plat 1v1 division as Zerg.
Thats all clear and fine so far. Compared to mule and chrono the larva inject is the zerg macro way to keep up. Think what most people dont like is the stockpiling abillity whats get you further away than just keeping up(lategame situations). Think about lategame where you dont need to spend your money on hatches for more larva but you can spend your money all at once on units.
|
I'm not sure if anyone has tracked this or even tried to, but exactly how many larva can you get per minute (on average) with 1 hatch and 1 queen (using spawn larva every time it's up) and you using the larva as you get?
|
Your premise is essentially flawed. The queen is worth 1 larva per 10 seconds. A hatchery produces a larva 1 per 15 seconds. 2 hatch 2 queen is the same production as 5 hatches. If 2 hatch 2 queen gives you infinite larva, any nerf to queens just requires you to build 5 hatches. This is a mineral difference of 750.
Changing queens to be 1 larva per 20 seconds reduces production from 5 hatches to 3.5 hatches. Building another hatch and queen is 500 minerals, which would give you 5.25 hatches of production.
Zerg players aren't stockpiling past 3+spawn larva amount, because waiting 40 seconds without producing anything is silly. You are going to either spend on drones, on an expo, or on army. Zerg doesn't traipse around with 200/200 food building up larva. This means changing the max larva down to 3+spawn larva amount isn't going to change anything.
Are you saying that in the early game a window of 100 seconds to build the 3rd hatch and 500 extra minerals spent on it is going to fix all of Zerg's problems? That is somehow going to make late game Zerg macro more, larva heavy armies not viable, and add the need to choose between econ and army production?
Weakening queens too much will just shift Zerg play to ignore the queen, build more hatches, and not have to use the macro ability at all. Requiring 1 extra hatchery and queen is not going to make the current playstyle change, it is just going to give an extra 100 seconds of time and 500 minerals before it kicks in.
|
Floophead lost all credibility when he said "the reason for second hatch in bw was for larvae"
uh, maybe also PRIMARILY coz you need more money to fund a bigger army? Especially gas? Among other factors?
You completely forget to mention that 2 fully saturated bases in sc2 is equivalent to the mineral income of a 1 base T
How bout lets start playing other races first before talking..... All of your posts screams that you haven't even touched zerg and don't understand anything beyond "the queen makes moar larvae"
i.e. Zerg is the only one who's macro mechanic gets penalized if you miss the timing of the cast. If you forget to mule, you can spam a bunch of em later. If you forget to chronoboost, you can just spread it across other stuff later. If you forget to inject larvae quickly over time and your queen generates 25 extra energy, you just lost 4 larvae. You can't spam inject into one hatchery and if you had to build another hatch to accommodate for your slowness, that's just plain sloppy.
That's like being P or Z and saying "terran has too much money. Nerf mules."
Or T or Z saying "P's chronoboost gives them insane upgrades and mothership. Nerf mothership and chronoboost"
The more you press at the matter with the points you have made so far, the more you're losing credibility. Everything you are posting just screams that you have no understanding how the race works. Anyone who has a remote idea what they're talking about knows most your points are complete bull.
|
On April 10 2010 04:43 ZypherIM wrote:
Your premise is essentially flawed. The queen is worth 1 larva per 10 seconds. A hatchery produces a larva 1 per 15 seconds. 2 hatch 2 queen is the same production as 5 hatches. If 2 hatch 2 queen gives you infinite larva, any nerf to queens just requires you to build 5 hatches. This is a mineral difference of 750.
Changing queens to be 1 larva per 20 seconds reduces production from 5 hatches to 3.5 hatches. Building another hatch and queen is 500 minerals, which would give you 5.25 hatches of production.
Zerg players aren't stockpiling past 3+spawn larva amount, because waiting 40 seconds without producing anything is silly. You are going to either spend on drones, on an expo, or on army. Zerg doesn't traipse around with 200/200 food building up larva. This means changing the max larva down to 3+spawn larva amount isn't going to change anything.
Are you saying that in the early game a window of 100 seconds to build the 3rd hatch and 500 extra minerals spent on it is going to fix all of Zerg's problems? That is somehow going to make late game Zerg macro more, larva heavy armies not viable, and add the need to choose between econ and army production?
Weakening queens too much will just shift Zerg play to ignore the queen, build more hatches, and not have to use the macro ability at all. Requiring 1 extra hatchery and queen is not going to make the current playstyle change, it is just going to give an extra 100 seconds of time and 500 minerals before it kicks in.
Therefore, zerg will be unable to produce larva heavy armies in the earlygame as easily, which is makes them consider how to spend larva again. Larva stockpiling also makes it very difficult to see/scout changing army compositions, because they can do it instantly. In BW on 5 hatch you could produce up to 15 units instantly, which, although considerable looks pale in comparsion to what 3 base zerg can do in sc2. With 2 queenloads (which is not unrealistic) of larva, you can produce 30 units instantly. 60 lings as soon as you see them move out with an army that doesn't fare well vs ling. 30 roaches vs a zealot heavy army. 60 banelings vs bio. That's ridiculous.
The thing is, zerg doesn't even need to spend ANY money to expand his production past queens. Every single hatchery is an expansion, and CHEAPER than a CC or nexus. Macro-wise, zerg is completely broken right now.
HOWEVER, zerg still loses quite a bit, mostly because they don't have good army diversity, good defense vs harass, and good tech choices in the midgame. Blizzard keeps nerfing zerg units to keep them from winning macro fights, but that's not going to do any good. All it does is make them weaker early and pretty soon at this rate zerg won't even be viable because they won't even make it past 10 minutes. Zerg needs fixing. They need more viable midgame tech and lategame tech. Infestors really need to not be armored too. It makes them die to everything.
I'm writing this while talking in vent to whiplash and tiki and we're all just facepalming at the balance changes that blizz is doing with zerg. T and P are looking better and better, zerg is such a mess =/
|
On April 10 2010 05:21 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 04:43 ZypherIM wrote:
Your premise is essentially flawed. The queen is worth 1 larva per 10 seconds. A hatchery produces a larva 1 per 15 seconds. 2 hatch 2 queen is the same production as 5 hatches. If 2 hatch 2 queen gives you infinite larva, any nerf to queens just requires you to build 5 hatches. This is a mineral difference of 750.
Changing queens to be 1 larva per 20 seconds reduces production from 5 hatches to 3.5 hatches. Building another hatch and queen is 500 minerals, which would give you 5.25 hatches of production.
Zerg players aren't stockpiling past 3+spawn larva amount, because waiting 40 seconds without producing anything is silly. You are going to either spend on drones, on an expo, or on army. Zerg doesn't traipse around with 200/200 food building up larva. This means changing the max larva down to 3+spawn larva amount isn't going to change anything.
Are you saying that in the early game a window of 100 seconds to build the 3rd hatch and 500 extra minerals spent on it is going to fix all of Zerg's problems? That is somehow going to make late game Zerg macro more, larva heavy armies not viable, and add the need to choose between econ and army production?
Weakening queens too much will just shift Zerg play to ignore the queen, build more hatches, and not have to use the macro ability at all. Requiring 1 extra hatchery and queen is not going to make the current playstyle change, it is just going to give an extra 100 seconds of time and 500 minerals before it kicks in.
The thing is, zerg doesn't even need to spend ANY money to expand his production past queens. Every single hatchery is an expansion, and CHEAPER than a CC or nexus. Macro-wise, zerg is completely broken right now.
First off, that statement is the most wrong thing in this post. Zerg needs MORE money to expand PRODUCTION past queens. You are mistaking over and over and over again that more larvae AUTOMATICALLY = more production. More larvae is only PART of more production, but to get more production, you need MORE RESOURCES.
Everything you are saying just shows that you haven't touched zerg at all. Ever. You are forgetting very basic concepts:
-Hatcheries arent CC's or Nexii. CC's can turn into fortresses and orbital commands. Nexii can chronoboost.
-Which brings me to: T and P both have their own macro mechanics too
-Stockpiling larvae is INEFFICIENT and BAD MACRO
-Larvae require resources to spend.
-I don't get what the hell "larvae heavy" and "larvae intensive" mean. All zerg units are spawned from larvae.
-Resources
-Resources
-Resources
|
In fact.
I bet OP is simply, and I mean that's really all, a little whiner. You lost some games? What are you doing? Right, created topic after topic about nerfing Zerg. But don't bring any valid argument, that may justify your opinion... and you don't want that.
It was said so often... and you never replied to someone who said:
-protoss and terran have their own macro mechanics
-you need to make Drones and your army out of larvae
-you cannot build without resources
And whenever you came to a situation of having 19 stacked larvae you're doing s.th. terrible, terrible wrong.
I by the way think that Protoss' Warp Gate ability is at least on par with having a lot of larvae.
And last but not least. SHOW US A REPLAY OF YOURS AND TELL US YOUR LEAGUE!
|
Um. Larva IS a resource. It is a production resource which limits the number of units you can make. In BW it was a very integral part of zerg play. Obviously by the fact that you think it's not even a resource in SC2 you are proving my point, which is that it is no longer even a consideration for zerg players. There's no larva management to be done. Macro getting bad? No problem you have 15 larva to blow your money on! Busy fighting a battle? No problem spend 3 seconds spawning larva and macro when it's over!
|
On April 10 2010 05:51 Floophead_III wrote:
Um. Larva IS a resource. It is a production resource which limits the number of units you can make. In BW it was a very integral part of zerg play. Obviously by the fact that you think it's not even a resource in SC2 you are proving my point, which is that it is no longer even a consideration for zerg players. There's no larva management to be done. Macro getting bad? No problem you have 15 larva to blow your money on! Busy fighting a battle? No problem spend 3 seconds spawning larva and macro when it's over!
Last time I checked, a spawned larvae does not give you minerals nor gas, one or both of which are required to egg said larvae. The number of larvae you have is but one limitation of your production, just like how many gateways/rax you have limits your production, but you need the proper resources in order to produce out of all gateways/rax.
This is backwards, if you have many larvae that MEANS you have bad macro. Also, yeah, just completely ignore my earlier post why don't you. You fuckup the spawn larvae timing and you don't get it back since you can only spew on a hatch once at any time.
Finally, I'm pretty sure you never responded with your league at any point.
Actually, just continue ignoring everyone's valid points throughout the thread.This thread is a waste of time... Clearly you made this post because you are having trouble vs Z and instead of asking for help, conclude that it HAS to be and won't listen to anyone's reasonable points.
|
On April 10 2010 06:00 zomgzergrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 05:51 Floophead_III wrote:
Um. Larva IS a resource. It is a production resource which limits the number of units you can make. In BW it was a very integral part of zerg play. Obviously by the fact that you think it's not even a resource in SC2 you are proving my point, which is that it is no longer even a consideration for zerg players. There's no larva management to be done. Macro getting bad? No problem you have 15 larva to blow your money on! Busy fighting a battle? No problem spend 3 seconds spawning larva and macro when it's over! Last time I checked, a spawned larvae does not give you minerals nor gas, one or both of which are required to egg said larvae. The number of larvae you have is but one limitation of your production, just like how many gateways/rax you have limits your production, but you need the proper resources in order to produce out of all gateways/rax. This is backwards, if you have many larvae that MEANS you have bad macro. Also, yeah, just completely ignore my earlier post why don't you. You fuckup the spawn larvae timing and you don't get it back since you can only spew on a hatch once at any time. Finally, I'm pretty sure you never responded with your league at any point.
He's pretty hopeless man. And yes, he completeeeetly ignored your post.
Like zergrush said earlier, the Zerg macro mechanic is actually LESS forgiving then the other 2 races. If you forget to spawn larva whenever its up you LOSE those potential larva. If you forget to SPEND your larva, you LOSE the extra larva that are produced out of the HATCHERY ITSELF.
Terran forget their OC macro? Spam mules down to 0 energy, money isn't really lost unless you let the energy cap and sit there forever. And chrono can be spammed among however many buildings you have producing units.
And yes, like zergrush said again and you decided to ignore. If you sit on 15 larva in one hatch you MESSED UP. The larva that spawn from a hatch every 15 seconds are never coming back. You lost that production possibility.
Is it nice to have larva spawn there and not cap out? Hell yes. Is it effective in any way? No. Not at all. If you read my post 2 or so pages ago, I even performed a small test on it. One hatch constantly producing units is FAR more effective than a hatch piling up larva for no reason.
|
On April 10 2010 06:00 zomgzergrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 05:51 Floophead_III wrote:
Um. Larva IS a resource. It is a production resource which limits the number of units you can make. In BW it was a very integral part of zerg play. Obviously by the fact that you think it's not even a resource in SC2 you are proving my point, which is that it is no longer even a consideration for zerg players. There's no larva management to be done. Macro getting bad? No problem you have 15 larva to blow your money on! Busy fighting a battle? No problem spend 3 seconds spawning larva and macro when it's over! Last time I checked, a spawned larvae does not give you minerals nor gas, one or both of which are required to egg said larvae. The number of larvae you have is but one limitation of your production, just like how many gateways/rax you have limits your production, but you need the proper resources in order to produce out of all gateways/rax. This is backwards, if you have many larvae that MEANS you have bad macro. Also, yeah, just completely ignore my earlier post why don't you. You fuckup the spawn larvae timing and you don't get it back since you can only spew on a hatch once at any time. Finally, I'm pretty sure you never responded with your league at any point.
I'm a platinum player. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge since I say it in basically every thread I post in. If you think I'm posting because I'm losing, I'm not. I win quite a bit vs zerg, but it's not the way I want to be winning. It doesn't feel right. All I do is abuse maps and they can't stop it. If maps were balanced this game would show a massive favoring towards zerg. You know how I know this? I never ever ever win on metalopolis vs zerg. I can't do it, because there's absolutely nothing to abuse.
The point is not that I have so many larva I can't use them, it's that I have so many I can use them however I want. I can make any army composition at any point provided I have the money. I also never ever ever have issues spending my money, because if I use my spawn larvas I'll always have a way to just build 30 units at once and use everything. It's not even enjoyable to play zerg because I can just not macro for 3 minutes and still have a bigger army than the other player because of spawn larva. Granted it's bad play, but it isn't punished and it should be.
|
On April 10 2010 07:04 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 06:00 zomgzergrush wrote:On April 10 2010 05:51 Floophead_III wrote:
Um. Larva IS a resource. It is a production resource which limits the number of units you can make. In BW it was a very integral part of zerg play. Obviously by the fact that you think it's not even a resource in SC2 you are proving my point, which is that it is no longer even a consideration for zerg players. There's no larva management to be done. Macro getting bad? No problem you have 15 larva to blow your money on! Busy fighting a battle? No problem spend 3 seconds spawning larva and macro when it's over! Last time I checked, a spawned larvae does not give you minerals nor gas, one or both of which are required to egg said larvae. The number of larvae you have is but one limitation of your production, just like how many gateways/rax you have limits your production, but you need the proper resources in order to produce out of all gateways/rax. This is backwards, if you have many larvae that MEANS you have bad macro. Also, yeah, just completely ignore my earlier post why don't you. You fuckup the spawn larvae timing and you don't get it back since you can only spew on a hatch once at any time. Finally, I'm pretty sure you never responded with your league at any point. I'm a platinum player. I thought that was pretty much common knowledge since I say it in basically every thread I post in. If you think I'm posting because I'm losing, I'm not. I win quite a bit vs zerg, but it's not the way I want to be winning. It doesn't feel right. All I do is abuse maps and they can't stop it. If maps were balanced this game would show a massive favoring towards zerg. You know how I know this? I never ever ever win on metalopolis vs zerg. I can't do it, because there's absolutely nothing to abuse.The point is not that I have so many larva I can't use them, it's that I have so many I can use them however I want. I can make any army composition at any point provided I have the money. I also never ever ever have issues spending my money, because if I use my spawn larvas I'll always have a way to just build 30 units at once and use everything. It's not even enjoyable to play zerg because I can just not macro for 3 minutes and still have a bigger army than the other player because of spawn larva. Granted it's bad play, but it isn't punished and it should be.
Once again, not listening to past posts at all. That entire last statement about Z play also just makes you lose even more credibility in everything you're saying. It's just completely wrong on so many levels that I'm sure others can post if they care, I'm getting pretty tired of talking to a wall.
"Only being able to win by abusing" doesn't really fall under the winning category. You just admitted that you have trouble vs Z. In other words, you can't win straight up TvZ on "maps that force you to."
That's like saying I win 90% just fine vs T coz I baneling bust every single game but on maps where I can't baneling bust with small chokes and fatty walls, I can't make a straight up win, therefore MULES, plantary fortress, and reactors are OP. Also, I'll say scans are OP but I'll ignore anyone who says that they cost almost 300 minerals to cast.
That sounds silly doesn't it?
This thread shouldn't even have gone on this long.
|
What the hell are you smoking floop? No one stockpiles 2 cycles of spawn larva up, unless you're like..200/200 and not attacking for some reason. Note that 2 hatch 2 queen is the same as 5 hatch in larva production. Max reasonable larva saving would by 14 from those 2 hatches, which is actually less than the 5 hatches!
Also: 2 queenloads is 8 larva, and 2 hatches is another 6 for 14. How are you getting 60 zerglings out of that? Or do you mean sitting on 80 seconds worth of spawn larva for 2 queens for 22 larva (still short by 8, guess its 3 queenloads at 2 hatches for 120 seconds, which also makes you lose 150 seconds worth of larva)? 60 banelings is going to cost you 3000 minerals and 1500 gas. Who the hell sits on that kind of money and who lets him have 3 minutes to build it up? You could attack forcing him to use the larva/money, or just expand like 3 times and just slap him around.
Complaints about how larva, expansions, and unit production are no different from SC1. Zerg gets to not build redundant hatches in exchange for having to macro more. If the Zerg wanted to he could ignore queens and build more hatches, which is essentially having a lower ling count. This just makes early game that much harder for Zerg, and it doesn't effect late game. Once you hit late game, these changes would not impact Zerg significantly.
I'm not saying that Zerg is perfect, but changing spawn larva is NOT the solution to Zerg's problems. Their unit producing speed is not out of line compared to them in SC1 after taking into account the bonuses the other races get in SC2. They need to have roach balanced for the cost (nerfed), which then would give room to buff other units, such as upgrades to Infestor.
Stop ignoring the comments about how unforgiving the Zerg macro mechanic is compared to the others.
EDIT: Saying you can sit for those 3 minutes and still be fine means you're playing scrubs.
|
That's like being P or Z and saying "terran has too much money. Nerf mules."
Or T or Z saying "P's chronoboost gives them insane upgrades and mothership. Nerf mothership and chronoboost"
UMM...can you read patch notes? Chrono boost did get nerfed. And while you can use CB anytime if you have a full nexus and 1 Robo if you forget to use CB on your robo, then in order to use that energy properly you'd need more than 1 Robo, since you can't stack CBs on a single building. Wow fancy that...I make a mistake build more production buildings, you make a mistake with your queen macro...build more hatcheries (zerg production building) to compensate for your slowness....seems pretty much the same.
As for Mules...it's a resource macro mechanic not a production mechanic.
First off, that statement is the most wrong thing in this post. Zerg needs MORE money to expand PRODUCTION past queens. You are mistaking over and over and over again that more larvae AUTOMATICALLY = more production. More larvae is only PART of more production, but to get more production, you need MORE RESOURCES.
So lets say you have limited resources but limited production capabilities, so you have to either spend those resources on increasing production or building units. I on the other hand have nearly unlimited production capabilities and also limited resources. I only need to spend resouces on my units and tech/defensive structures. Who do you think is better off?
That being said, I don't believe that zerg has unlimited production capabilities as they do have limited larva. The only issue at hand is while everyone else's production must be used or it is lost, zerg has a mechanic that allow it to save up a portion of it. If it is indeed he case that your Hatches cease their 1/15s production beyond a low number (3 was it?) then this issue is less serious but the ability to stock up larva spawned from the queen is still something very much unique to the zerg and arguably very strong.
Terrans do not save production so even if they don't use a mule until their CC is almost full, you can't compare mules to queen's larva from a resource only perspective. The only other racial macro mechanic that is comparable is Chrono boost, which must be used constantly or you're forced to build more production buildings to compensate. Protoss cannot use their CBs on buildings and have that building build quicker LATER. If you use a CB on a Stargate doing nothing, you don't get any benefit.
|
Op cant be serious. There are very good Zergs building a 3rd and 4th hatchery vs Terran because you never have enough larvas when u pump lings...
Saying that lavainject needs a nerf is nothing but totally insane and just shows Op has no idea whatsoever. Its sick how many people are replying to this trolling.
|
Alright, how about this: Remove all macro mechanics.
Results:
1. Terran doesn't have huge amounts of minerals to spend.
2. Zerg doesn't have over-access to larvae.
3. Protoss can't get units or upgrades extremely quickly.
Done.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Queen provide more larvae than a single Hatchery, for less than half the cost? This is just based on observation.
You can use Spawn Larva every 25 energy, which takes 50 "normal" seconds to regenerate (confirm/deny?), so that's 1 larvae every 12.5 seconds.
Whereas, a normal Hatchery spawns one Larva every 15 seconds (another pops out just before a Drone is finished, which takes 17 seconds) and can even get cock-blocked by already having too many larva present and unable to produce any more, while the Queen can just keep getting nasty with that Hatchery.
Seems like a remarkable difference compared to those big, honkin' Hatchery nests in SC1.
|
On April 10 2010 04:22 HTX wrote:
Thats all clear and fine so far. Compared to mule and chrono the larva inject is the zerg macro way to keep up. Think what most people dont like is the stockpiling abillity whats get you further away than just keeping up(lategame situations). Think about lategame where you dont need to spend your money on hatches for more larva but you can spend your money all at once on units.
Protoss and Terran can stockpile energy to MULE or Chrono boost whenever they get to it. Zerg have to inject larva every time it's available or that energy gets wasted for macro purposes.
Stockpiling larva is like saving energy to chrono boost and MULE later on.
|
On April 10 2010 09:27 LunarC wrote:
Alright, how about this: Remove all macro mechanics.
Results:
1. Terran doesn't have huge amounts of minerals to spend.
2. Zerg doesn't have over-access to larvae.
3. Protoss can't get units or upgrades extremely quickly.
Done.
what are you tlking about thats ridiculos people NEED macro mechanics to survive and macro would be to eazy and supr noob-friendly without them
|
On April 10 2010 09:30 Bibdy wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Queen provide more larvae than a single Hatchery, for less than half the cost? This is just based on observation.
You can use Spawn Larva every 25 energy, which takes 50 "normal" seconds to regenerate (confirm/deny?), so that's 1 larvae every 12.5 seconds.
Whereas, a normal Hatchery spawns one Larva every 15 seconds (another pops out just before a Drone is finished, which takes 17 seconds) and can even get cock-blocked by already having too many larva present and unable to produce any more, while the Queen can just keep getting nasty with that Hatchery.
Seems like a remarkable difference compared to those big, honkin' Hatchery nests in SC1.
you use a 2nd and 3rd queen for more injecting when u get more hatcherys ofc. you can only inject once not several times on one hatchery.
If u try mass lings/blings vs terran even with 2 bases 2 hatcherys will never even be close to enough to pump lings.
|
On April 10 2010 09:34 TheDna wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 09:30 Bibdy wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Queen provide more larvae than a single Hatchery, for less than half the cost? This is just based on observation.
You can use Spawn Larva every 25 energy, which takes 50 "normal" seconds to regenerate (confirm/deny?), so that's 1 larvae every 12.5 seconds.
Whereas, a normal Hatchery spawns one Larva every 15 seconds (another pops out just before a Drone is finished, which takes 17 seconds) and can even get cock-blocked by already having too many larva present and unable to produce any more, while the Queen can just keep getting nasty with that Hatchery.
Seems like a remarkable difference compared to those big, honkin' Hatchery nests in SC1. you use a 2nd and 3rd queen for more injecting when u get more hatcherys ofc. you can only inject once not several times on one hatchery. If u try mass lings/blings vs terran even with 2 bases 2 hatcherys will never even be close to enough to pump lings.
That's because you reach drone saturation so quickly with the inject larvae ability.
Then again Terran can get extra Barracks/Marines/Supply Depots quickly with the MULE, and Protoss can get upgrades and critical units out super quickly, not to mention reach saturation quickly with Chrono Boost.
|
Protoss and Terran can stockpile energy to MULE or Chrono boost whenever they get to it. Zerg have to inject larva every time it's available or that energy gets wasted for macro purposes.
Stockpiling larva is like saving energy to chrono boost and MULE later on.
Actually if that was the case, the queen would have a non-energy using ability that had a cooldown. You forget to use it, you lose it. As it stands if you have an extra hatch you can easily cover for forgetting to use your queen.
Once again, Mule DO NOT INCREASE unit building times, or unit production. So yeah you don't have to use it on CD. Chrono boost does increase production speed, so if you have 1 Nexus and 1 Stargate and you don't CB that Stargate EVERY 20s you're losing out. You can't CD it 4x and have it build 200% faster. 1 Chrono boost per production building every 20s is the optimal way to do it.
Replace Nexus with Queen and Stargate with Hatchery.
If you have 1 Queens and 1 Hatchery and you don't spawn larva on that hatchery every 50s you're losing out. BUT you can Spawn larva on it 4x (over 200s) in advance and have it gain 20 larva that you can use later.
It's not identical, but very similar mechanics except Zerg can stock pile their macro mechanics. A Protoss with no Robo Bay can't CB his Robo Fac a few times and then later once his Robo Bay is done build Colossi super fast. A zerg w/o a spire can stock pile larva then make a bunch of mutas once his spire is up.
Don't say BLAH BLAH I don't have unlimited resources...Both races don't have unlimited resources and need mineral/gas to build units there is no difference.
|
Zerg in SC1 is super imbalanced because three hatch muta can make nine mutalisks in 40 seconds. You would need six starports to make 900 minerals worth of wraiths to match in the same time.
To fix this, I propose that hatcheries should no longer store more than one larva.
[[EDIT]] If you let the zerg player make thirty roaches in one minute, that means he had 1500 / 750 sitting around. What did you do with your 1500/750? (Or something like 2000 / 750 since your macro mechanic is made of minerals.) If your problem is that both of you are sitting around with 1500 / 750 and you and the zerg start up production at the same time and you get rolled, you shouldn't have stockpiled that money, and it sure as hell does not take eight reactor rax to spend down the income off two bases if you're continuously pumping.
|
[[EDIT]] If you let the zerg player make thirty roaches in one minute, that means he had 1500 / 750 sitting around. What did you do with your 1500/750? (Or something like 2000 / 750 since your macro mechanic is made of minerals.) If your problem is that both of you are sitting around with 1500 / 750 and you and the zerg start up production at the same time and you get rolled, you shouldn't have stockpiled that money, and it sure as hell does not take eight reactor rax to spend down the income off two bases if you're continuously pumping.
The imbalance is not that he can rebuild faster, it's that he can rebuild faster with no effort beyond his spawn larva 1/ 50s, while you have to macro those Barracks to keep unit production up. AND that you have to anticipate what he doing and react in advance, while he can switch production instantly if has the structure and larva.
A Terran going from Bio to Mass Banshees has to build more ports, this telegraphs the strategy/unit comp change to the other player. If I see 4x Rax I assume Bio, if then you build 4x Starports I'm going to assume you're switching, why else build those 4 ports. A zerg can build a roach warren then skip making roaches b.c he scouted you massing Immortals. He doesn't have to commit much to his roach strategy beyond that single warren.
A Bio Terran with few Vikings scouts a Protoss 6+ Colossi. He can't suddenly queue up a bunch of Air units with 1 Starport only. A Zerg who's making hydras who sees a bunch of Colossi can then use his larva buildup to make Mutas or Corrupters instead of Hydras.
|
On April 10 2010 10:37 Daerthalus wrote:Show nested quote +[[EDIT]] If you let the zerg player make thirty roaches in one minute, that means he had 1500 / 750 sitting around. What did you do with your 1500/750? (Or something like 2000 / 750 since your macro mechanic is made of minerals.) If your problem is that both of you are sitting around with 1500 / 750 and you and the zerg start up production at the same time and you get rolled, you shouldn't have stockpiled that money, and it sure as hell does not take eight reactor rax to spend down the income off two bases if you're continuously pumping. The imbalance is not that he can rebuild faster, it's that he can rebuild faster with no effort beyond his spawn larva 1/ 50s, while you have to macro those Barracks to keep unit production up. AND that you have to anticipate what he doing and react in advance, while he can switch production instantly if has the structure and larva. A Terran going from Bio to Mass Banshees has to build more ports, this telegraphs the strategy/unit comp change to the other player. If I see 4x Rax I assume Bio, if then you build 4x Starports I'm going to assume you're switching, why else build those 4 ports. A zerg can build a roach warren then skip making roaches b.c he scouted you massing Immortals. He doesn't have to commit much to his roach strategy beyond that single warren. A Bio Terran with few Vikings scouts a Protoss 6+ Colossi. He can't suddenly queue up a bunch of Air units with 1 Starport only. A Zerg who's making hydras who sees a bunch of Colossi can then use his larva buildup to make Mutas or Corrupters instead of Hydras.
I agree that the flexibility is a large advantage for the Zerg (as well as it being easier to make up for swiss bank macro), but it's always been that way. It may be a bit more of a problem now that counters seem to be harder than they were in Starcraft 1 (at least for the Terran side.) However, this flexibility wasn't what the OP was complaining about.
|
On April 10 2010 09:44 Daerthalus wrote:Show nested quote +Protoss and Terran can stockpile energy to MULE or Chrono boost whenever they get to it. Zerg have to inject larva every time it's available or that energy gets wasted for macro purposes.
Stockpiling larva is like saving energy to chrono boost and MULE later on. Actually if that was the case, the queen would have a non-energy using ability that had a cooldown. You forget to use it, you lose it. As it stands if you have an extra hatch you can easily cover for forgetting to use your queen.
It you have an extra hatch and not an extra queen, then you're already giving up part of your macro potential,
Once again, Mule DO NOT INCREASE unit building times, or unit production. So yeah you don't have to use it on CD.
I never said it speeds up production time.
But it does give you a crapton of extra minerals that you can use on extra production buildings, should you desire. it also allows you to pull more minerals from an already saturated mineral line, since MULEs can work the same patch as SCVs. Typically a zerg or toss player can pull about 850 minerals a minute from a saturated mineral line, while terran can pull 1100 (or MORE, once they mine out their first line, since they'll have multiple command centers working the same line).
WTB 225 free minerals every minute, per Command Center.
Chrono boost does increase production speed, so if you have 1 Nexus and 1 Stargate and you don't CB that Stargate EVERY 20s you're losing out. You can't CD it 4x and have it build 200% faster. 1 Chrono boost per production building every 20s is the optimal way to do it.
You can also chrono boost it back to back, since it takes about 40 seconds to get 25 energy, and CB lasts about 20 seconds. Make spawn larva take 20 seconds to take effect (but have a smaller effect) and you'd have a somewhat analogous ability.
It's not identical, but very similar mechanics except Zerg can stock pile their macro mechanics. A Protoss with no Robo Bay can't CB his Robo Fac a few times and then later once his Robo Bay is done build Colossi super fast. A zerg w/o a spire can stock pile larva then make a bunch of mutas once his spire is up.
A protoss without a stargate can stockpile energy and then chain chrono boost as soon as the stargate is up.
Not to mention that hatcheries are less efficient, cost for cost and production for production, than gateways, barracks, Nexus, Command center, etc. net cost for a hatchery is 325 (300 + 50 for the drone, minus 25 for the 2 supply you gain). Net cost for a nexus is 275 (400 - 125 for the 10 supply you gain). On top of that you've got chrono boost, which allows that nexus to produce 4.4 probes per minute vs 4 for a hatchery. So a building that's effectively 16% cheaper also produces probes 10% faster. That early game efficiency alone means that you can mass probes and have a stronger economy sooner, allowing you to afford those multiple gateways that you can then chrono boost.
We can play this game until the end of eternity because the reality is that different races are different, and they are not balanced ability vs ability but race vs race. Zerg gas advantages (cheap queens, ability to rapidly tech swap) and disadvantages (inefficient hatcheries, lower supply cap because of queens, more limited unit selection, etc)
It's not even challenging to point out ways in which one race has an advantage vs another, because they're intended to be that way. The entire crux of this argument is and has been "Zerg are different, FIX" but there's nothing broken, unless you trying to play protoss like they're zerg, or vice versa.
|
A protoss without a stargate can stockpile energy and then chain chrono boost as soon as the stargate is up.
True, but 1 gate even with an infinite # of CBs cannot beat a Hatch with 12 Larva in production when it comes to producing 12 units ASAP.
Still I agree we could go back and forth all day long. I'm not asking for a nerf to your spawn larva, just saying people issue shouldn't be with the spawn rate of larva but more with the accumulation of larva. Either way the larva mechanic is what make zerg zerg.
I still think increasing the need to manage and use larva rather than just pile em up would inject some more player skill into the zerg macro. Thoughts on that?
|
On April 10 2010 04:22 HTX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 01:23 BeJe77 wrote:
You all do realize that the larva are about the only way to keep up with the other races, especially when you put in chrono boost/mule's....
You also have to figure out that the ZERG units are weak compared to Protoss/Terran units. In a for instance 100v100 or whatever equal fight there is, zerg will always lose, why? because their units are weak.
They depend on mass production and constant reinforcements to win not unit strength. Thats how it's always been.
If a Zerg player is out doing you in macro, he has no units because he spent everything on drones.
If a Zerg player keeps expanding, ask yourself, what are you doing??? Why are you letting him expand?
I think its just that too many terrible players here are complaining because they don't know how to play or counter....
Patch after patch zerg are getting harder and harder to play to win, even before it was difficult if your opponent actually knew how to fight.
BTW am always hovering between 1-15 in Plat 1v1 division as Zerg. Thats all clear and fine so far. Compared to mule and chrono the larva inject is the zerg macro way to keep up. Think what most people dont like is the stockpiling abillity whats get you further away than just keeping up(lategame situations). Think about lategame where you dont need to spend your money on hatches for more larva but you can spend your money all at once on units.
|
Very good post, Floop, I agree completely. I've seen tons of games where armies have clashed, zerg's opponent barely wins, but then gets crushed literally 30s later by another 40+ roach army.
To those who claim that more larvae doesn't give you resources, I say this: good macro in starcraft involves maximizes two things: the rate at which you acquire resources, and the rate at which you spend those resources to productive ends. Ideally, these should be high, and balanced. The second value is limited by the investment in unit producing structures coupled with player skill.
With spam^H^H^H^Hspawn larvae, zerg is essentially barely has to worry about the second factor. They don't have to invest much resources in unit producing infra, they can "save up" to spike to very high rates of production, and they have very little penalty for not macroing well.
What do I mean by that? Well, obviously the ideal in SC1 is to not queue units, because they you are spending resources before it is absolutely necessary to no productive end. So good macro consisted of queue'ing at the last possible second. Being late meant you were wasting the value of the structure; it is lost permanently. SC2 toss makes this even more severe by disallowing any queueing. This is an explicit and heavy disadvantage, and often you need more warpgates as a consequence. SCBW zerg had some leniency here: their structures didn't "waste" time until three larvae were queued. Still, it was tension-filled.
This tension doesn't exist in SC2, or does so to a laughably low amount. If not the rate of larvae production which destroys this, it is the ability to save ridiculous quantities of larvae.
To those who don't think this has much of an impact, consider PvT in SCBW. Factories with addons are very expensive, and tanks build slowly. Gateways are cheap. Consequently, the protoss has a much easier time rebuilding their army after the 200/200 armies clash, and that matters to the matchup. The whole matchup revolved around the rate of tank production, which often had to be produced over a longer period of time due to constraints on the rate of resource spending (unit producing structure cost + unit build time are the main determiners of this).
This doesn't mean that zerg is imbalanced in SC2. As Floop as pointed out, zerg has been nerfed repeatedly to compensate for this advantage. However, I'm convinced that larvae inject is too powerful, especially the larvae stockpiling. It should be nerfed and coupled with a buff to other zerg units.
|
On April 09 2010 02:33 Jugan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 01:57 IcMp wrote:
I'm kind of neutral on this. I mean yes spawn larva seems broken, but on the other hand, zerg really does need this. A good example is Thors 1 shotting hydras. I guess maybe make it so they spawn alittle less larvae? Yeah, let's ignore that the thor is 1) Ridiculously overcosted 2) Has a slow attack speed 3) Cost a million food 4) Takes forever to build If the reason why you're losing ZvT is because of the Thor, you're doing something wrong buddy.
those reasons you listed are far too specific, could you be more vague plz?
+ Show Spoiler +hyperbole is an ineffective way to prove a point.. I know a lot of great terran players who love using thor in TvZ
|
4 larvas for 40 seconds = 1 larva every 10 seconds.
A hatchery produces 1 larva for 15 seconds. But when it has 3 or more larva, it doesn't produce more.
So 1 hatchery+queen produce nearly the same larva count as 2 hatcheries without queen.
Yes, it gives slight boost to the zerg (don't forget, that a zerg loses 2 drones for extractor, instead 1), but protoss has chrono boost (it doesn't cost minerals) and terran - MULE, which gathers at the same speed as 3 SCVs.
|
Spawn larva is not broken at all. Just have a look at what it does. If you assume then 1hatch+1queen = 2 hatches, than it only saves you 150 per queen. On average you save maybe 450 minerals per game on it. That is what it does. Now compare this to terran mule. The OC beats it after the second mule has harvested minerals.
The only other point that might be important is that zerg now can save up a ton of larvae if he is maxed to be able to produce once he loses some stuff. This seems good, but for this little extra, you get something to worry every 40 seconds about and queens to protect etc. Also, the zerg propably the weakest maxed army.
|
reduce max larva to 12 per hatch and make roaches deal +10 to armored units ;P.
|
What about max larva 8 per hatch?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
If zerg is allowed to drone, they can make more units in a shorter timeframe than either of the other races. Protoss can somewhat compensate because warpgates and chronoboost pump out units very very quickly. Terran is screwed because reactors only work for 4 units.
Therefore, to balance the game, protoss and terran are given the ability to keep zerg down completely: terran has reapers which on some maps actually keep a zerg from expanding ever. Protoss has proxygates which are virtually unstoppable, and chronoboost to get those zealots out ridiculously fast. In addition, terran has viking/banshee play, which if not scouted can end the game very quickly. Protoss has voidrays which do the same thing effectively.
When I beat a zerg, it's because I gain some massive advantage earlygame with harass, outeco, and then push while he's trying to catch up in economy. I have to be winning all game to beat zerg. Completely disagree with your problem here. A trademark of Zerg is being able to produce a lot of units very quickly and be able to switch tech very quickly. With weaker units, you'd expect that Zerg would be able to churn out more units than other races since they need greater numbers to win battles. Furthermore, if you simply let a Zerg drone up then you deserve to lose because they're powering away at the economy without being kept in check.
While I can't talk for TvZ, for PvZ pressure is a vital part of the game - and was a part of the game in SC1 before the forge fast expand. Indeed, all Protoss builds in SC1 (including the FFE) have provisions built in to be able to punish a Zerg for being greedy - in SC1 this was taking more bases than you should be able to take. Indeed, Bisu was able to exploit Savior's 2nd expo timing with his Corsair play and defeat him 3-0 - a perfect example of zergs being too greedy and being punished. Jump back to SC2 and if you're not playing 10pylon10gate you're playing an inferior build (generally) since you need that scouting information and pressure to avoid the Zerg from massing up too big. And no, Protoss don't have proxy gates as a legitimate counter - 10/10 is and it's a fairly even game from there.
-Spawn larva makes for ridiculously easy macro. Zerg players I've talked to agree. Zerg is easy. There's no larva management anymore. Just get your spawn larvas on time and you'll never have an issue. In BW managing larva was huge. Why ruin one of the biggest aspects of skilled zerg play? Disagree. Larvae management is still a large part of the game, just in a different way. It may not be as elaborate as SC1, but then again, many aspects of SC1 are watered down in SC2 and this is just one of them. There are other things for Zerg players to worry about to compensate.
-Lategame zerg is unbeatable. I have never seen a zerg lose lategame. Ever. The only time I was able to beat lategame zerg was as protoss and that involved denying expansions with mass colossi all game and required a mothership to end it, BEFORE mothership nerfs. That's 1 time out of hundreds of games. The reason behind it is this: Lategame is all about smashing armies together nonstop. Whoever can widdle down the opponent faster will win. This can be done through harass or winning repeated battles or out expanding. Zerg does this by rebuilding their army in 1 second. With spawn larva you can simply save up larva (up to 19 per hatch wtf) and then when your army dies you have 80 more roach or 160 more speedling at your disposal. How can anyone expect to win vs that when zerg units already do fine cost for cost. Yes and if a Protoss has 30 Warp gates (equally outrageous as 19 larvae per hatch) then a Protoss can instantly warp in 30 Zealots, or Templar, or whatever and then by the time the Zerg units hatch they can warp in another round of units. I have zero issues with this. Again, I can't speak for TvZ.
In summary, I'm not convinced you've isolated a real problem here and your arguments are pretty flimsy.
|
On April 10 2010 23:55 guitarizt wrote:
What about max larva 8 per hatch?
I was thinking 7 is reasonable, since it forces you to macro between spawn larvas. If spawn larva is nerfed in the number of larva made, just make it 1 spawn larva + 3 as the max. Basically, people should be forced to use their larva.
@plexa: I know that zerg has its identity infused with the larva mechanic. It's a very fine line and the problem is very difficult to actually pinpoint. In addition because of the broken maps and undefendable cheeses zerg is really screwed in terms of actually winning games, so people naturally won't see this as an issue. In BW you didn't necessarily have to constantly pressure all the time. You didn't have to open with a strategy that automatically put zerg on the back foot. Forge FE, 1 rax FE, 1 fact vulture FE - all strategies which proved to be the standard because they provided you a macro advantage. Sure zerg could power drones like crazy too, but each race had timing attacks that were effective. Protoss had 4 gate 2 archon. Terran has 2 rax pressure after expo, which zerg had to respond to with sunkens. Terran then had the 9 minute 3 tank 1 vessel push.
All these strategies relied on one thing - it was okay to let zerg power their economy for a while, as long as you did the same.
What I see in sc2 is that if you simply play economy and maybe do a little harass with hellions or warp prisms or something, you are way behind. The only option vs zerg is to open with cheesy fast pressure, and keep up that pressure the whole game so zerg never gets to make drones. That just doesn't feel like starcraft to me. Something is VERY wrong with the metagame right now, and you can just look around at posts and talk to top players and you'll hear the same thing. Something is wrong.
I believe the problem lies within spawn larva and the game cannot be fixed until spawn larva is fixed. I know it's not the only problem. It may end up making zerg really weak even. However, zerg can be rebalanced around a more reasonable spawn larva, which will lead to a better metagame than "attack zerg all the time or lose."
|
U would have to rebalance the whole game if you do 7 larvas per hatchery. Wont happen so live with it.
|
On April 11 2010 02:56 Floophead_III wrote:I was thinking 7 is reasonable, since it forces you to macro between spawn larvas. If spawn larva is nerfed in the number of larva made, just make it 1 spawn larva + 3 as the max. Basically, people should be forced to use their larva. @plexa: I know that zerg has its identity infused with the larva mechanic. It's a very fine line and the problem is very difficult to actually pinpoint. In addition because of the broken maps and undefendable cheeses zerg is really screwed in terms of actually winning games, so people naturally won't see this as an issue. In BW you didn't necessarily have to constantly pressure all the time. You didn't have to open with a strategy that automatically put zerg on the back foot. Forge FE, 1 rax FE, 1 fact vulture FE - all strategies which proved to be the standard because they provided you a macro advantage. Sure zerg could power drones like crazy too, but each race had timing attacks that were effective. Protoss had 4 gate 2 archon. Terran has 2 rax pressure after expo, which zerg had to respond to with sunkens. Terran then had the 9 minute 3 tank 1 vessel push. All these strategies relied on one thing - it was okay to let zerg power their economy for a while, as long as you did the same. What I see in sc2 is that if you simply play economy and maybe do a little harass with hellions or warp prisms or something, you are way behind. The only option vs zerg is to open with cheesy fast pressure, and keep up that pressure the whole game so zerg never gets to make drones. That just doesn't feel like starcraft to me. Something is VERY wrong with the metagame right now, and you can just look around at posts and talk to top players and you'll hear the same thing. Something is wrong. I believe the problem lies within spawn larva and the game cannot be fixed until spawn larva is fixed. I know it's not the only problem. It may end up making zerg really weak even. However, zerg can be rebalanced around a more reasonable spawn larva, which will lead to a better metagame than "attack zerg all the time or lose."
/agree
|
The initial concept of having this important hero style unit as Queen was probably more balanced if we consider how many larva pop from Spawn Larva. I'm pretty sure we'll at least see the queen go up in cost and stats (to battle ever evolving cheeze). Right now its like 3-6 hatcheries worth of larva production for 150, yey for zerg.
|
On April 11 2010 07:31 Black Octopi wrote:
The initial concept of having this important hero style unit as Queen was probably more balanced if we consider how many larva pop from Spawn Larva. I'm pretty sure we'll at least see the queen go up in cost and stats (to battle ever evolving cheeze). Right now its like 3-6 hatcheries worth of larva production for 150, yey for zerg.
If you're going to look at it that way, it's 2.5 hatcheries. So for 150 minerals, you save 2.5 drones and 750 minerals. If you stay on 2 base the entire game, that's 5 drones and 1500 minerals. Compare this to Terran, who gets ~300 minerals per MULE. Terran only needs to MULE 5-7 times to equalize the macro mechanic benefits in terms of resources. And, this is assuming Zerg never misses a single spawn larva. yey for terran.
...?
|
Yes but the mule still is limited because you only get the benefit of more minerals, which equates to more CCs, supply depots, scvs, marines, hellions, and barracks. That's it. Zerg's extra larva allows them to make more of any unit they want. If terran is making gas heavy units, they could care less about mules. You could argue that means they can expand more with the minerals, but not when they can't hold them.
It's comparing apples to oranges is my point. They work so differently that it's rather meaningless to compare them.
|
I'm gonna point everyone to this replay in hopes to clear this issue up a little.
http://www.sc2win.com/starcraft-2-replays/zvp-pvz/dimaga-vs-hasuobs-2/
The reason I like this one to prove a point is because of the late late game battles they have going on. The only reason DIMAGAs army stood a chance is because he could reinforce it very quickly. Which was needed because the Toss army absolutely stomped DIMAGAs at nearly every conflict.
I honestly believe if larva were capped at a low number, DIMAGA would've lost that match. I mean, he had hasuOBs completely cornered into his base nearly the whole game. AND he had like 75% map control. And losing a match with that much in your favor would be absolutely stupid.
|
On April 11 2010 14:03 Johoseph wrote:I'm gonna point everyone to this replay in hopes to clear this issue up a little. http://www.sc2win.com/starcraft-2-replays/zvp-pvz/dimaga-vs-hasuobs-2/The reason I like this one to prove a point is because of the late late game battles they have going on. The only reason DIMAGAs army stood a chance is because he could reinforce it very quickly. Which was needed because the Toss army absolutely stomped DIMAGAs at nearly every conflict. I honestly believe if larva were capped at a low number, DIMAGA would've lost that match. I mean, he had hasuOBs completely cornered into his base nearly the whole game. AND he had like 75% map control. And losing a match with that much in your favor would be absolutely stupid.
In my mind, this really just reinforces what I've been saying. Zerg don't need a low Spawn Larvae cap because the way it is now is essential to us being competitive. What they really need are more microable units so we can use that instead of spamming out units and winning with macro. There simple are not very many microable units at all for Zerg. Hydras may be the worst because they are such a pathetic shell when it comes to control... sure, they have decent stats, but they are so absurdly slow off creep that it's sad.
|
On April 11 2010 07:45 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2010 07:31 Black Octopi wrote:
The initial concept of having this important hero style unit as Queen was probably more balanced if we consider how many larva pop from Spawn Larva. I'm pretty sure we'll at least see the queen go up in cost and stats (to battle ever evolving cheeze). Right now its like 3-6 hatcheries worth of larva production for 150, yey for zerg.
If you're going to look at it that way, it's 2.5 hatcheries. So for 150 minerals, you save 2.5 drones and 750 minerals. If you stay on 2 base the entire game, that's 5 drones and 1500 minerals. Compare this to Terran, who gets ~300 minerals per MULE. Terran only needs to MULE 5-7 times to equalize the macro mechanic benefits in terms of resources. And, this is assuming Zerg never misses a single spawn larva. yey for terran. ...?
I'd like to see your queens producing like 2.5 hatcheries. It's actually more like 1.3. So every queen saves you a drone and ~180 minerals.
Comparing the macro mechanics, I would say spawn larvae is by far the weakest.
I mean, look at chrono boost. You can use it for everything. It speeds up the build time of key units, gets you a faster economy production or lets you get your upgrades really fast. Especially early game profits a lot from it because of all the funny stuff like early agression you can do with it.
For the terran it is the same with all the early game stuff. You can cut workers and build an early barracks and still get economically ahead by getting the OC instantly. Also it is sooo easy to use unlike chronoboost.
And what does zerg get? A boost on the third resouce. I dont think zerg would be much worse if you start building hatcheries instead of queens again. Yeah, it is okay to crap out drones like crazy, but remember BW ZvP. Pumping drones from three bases and 5 hatches didn't seem to be any different.
|
so much blabla, from player who lacks any skill
larva injection, have nothing imba in it, ZERG IS THE RACE WHO EXPANDS FASTER AND BUILD FASTER THE MASS
it was in bw that way and it is in sc2 that way and it will stay that way
when i read bullshit like "he build in 1min 50units", good newb learn how to play, my opponents never build somany unit in 1min, why? because i play the game and dont sit afk in my base 20min and think one attack gg
comeon dont waste your time with useless post, go and play once you reach 1500+ in platin, then you have a little understanding of the game and can start talk about balances
but even at this point some poeple oppinion is nothing worth (morrow best example, crys about every crap like TvZ is so fucking imba (then one day later demuslim wins zotac, right a Terran who raped dimaga in final))
instead of crying about not imbalanced stuff, just use your brain while gaming
from my experiance lucifron is the best player (lost 0-3 to him in ladder, and nobody else who i didnt beat atleast once when played) and he is not zerg player
and if zerg is so fucking imba with its larva injection, then why i have 80% winrating in pvz?
i am 1670protoss in platin
now waiting for some bronze player to reply ^__^
|
well the sad part is that exactly that @Art_of_Kill forces terran to be the offender against zerg and toss while they always just have to defend.
because once u strike 200 psi and both have many expoes, zerg can remkae 50 roaches in 30 seconnds and toss can warpin units in 5 second while terran must build their units
in sc1 terran 200 psi was stronger than toss 200 psi but toss rebuilt faster, so after a battle toss had to rebuild and then wipe out terran
but in sc2 terran 200 psi is weaker and they rebuild alot slower in comparison to production facilities costs
thats why i hope they do something about this because in theory zerg and toss never has to attack the terran because they know they have an easy ride later game. so they can put larva max to half and that wouldnt change alot except for later game where u actually stop make units as z
its very shallow match up if u know lategame terran always lose. maybe u can balance it and say ok terran have to attack and that is balanced, sure but its not so interesting if we always see terran be the attacker. all races should be able to camp, timing attack and be somewhat equal in the late game, but its not like that at all with sc2
|
terran has plenty of lategame advantage's other races don't have that weighs up against this 'faster rebuilding' advantage of toss & zerg.
T can float over mined out bases for free new expansion's. T has a lot of economy in orbital commands freeing up space for army. T can mine out particular bases much faster then Z or P because of Mules, lategame quite an advantage if you manage to secure one (gold) expansion and can instantly mass Mule on it.
Overall the orbital command stays much more usefull then spawn larvae and chrono boost lategame which compensates more then enough for the slower rebuild time of terran.
Terran 200 psi is still the strongest because of the OC.
|
On April 11 2010 14:47 w_Ender_w wrote:
In my mind, this really just reinforces what I've been saying. Zerg don't need a low Spawn Larvae cap because the way it is now is essential to us being competitive. What they really need are more microable units so we can use that instead of spamming out units and winning with macro. There simple are not very many microable units at all for Zerg. Hydras may be the worst because they are such a pathetic shell when it comes to control... sure, they have decent stats, but they are so absurdly slow off creep that it's sad.
Good post, and I agree 100%. I would definitely sacrifice some of our production possibility for some units with more micro-ability. Seems now the only things to micro are things like infestors, and burrowing your roaches to heal.
I would honestly like to see Queen's heal ability more useful, or moved off of the queen entirely. That heal being useful in the field would make units like Ultras better.
|
On April 11 2010 13:35 Floophead_III wrote:
Yes but the mule still is limited because you only get the benefit of more minerals, which equates to more CCs, supply depots, scvs, marines, hellions, and barracks. That's it. Zerg's extra larva allows them to make more of any unit they want. If terran is making gas heavy units, they could care less about mules. You could argue that means they can expand more with the minerals, but not when they can't hold them.
It's comparing apples to oranges is my point. They work so differently that it's rather meaningless to compare them.
Terran MULE is limited by gas, but spawn larva is also limited by gas, and in fact it's also limited by minerals as well because you can't make tons of every unit if you don't have the resources for it, no matter how many larva you have.
|
Make the roach NOT a super-unit and trust me spawn larva won't seem nearly as broken.
|
On April 13 2010 02:48 Lollersauce wrote:
Make the roach NOT a super-unit and trust me spawn larva won't seem nearly as broken.
Roach might actually be a super unit if mauraders and immortals weren't such a hard counter to it.
|
On April 11 2010 19:50 Art_of_Kill wrote:
so much blabla, from player who lacks any skill
larva injection, have nothing imba in it, ZERG IS THE RACE WHO EXPANDS FASTER AND BUILD FASTER THE MASS
it was in bw that way and it is in sc2 that way and it will stay that way
when i read bullshit like "he build in 1min 50units", good newb learn how to play, my opponents never build somany unit in 1min, why? because i play the game and dont sit afk in my base 20min and think one attack gg
comeon dont waste your time with useless post, go and play once you reach 1500+ in platin, then you have a little understanding of the game and can start talk about balances
but even at this point some poeple oppinion is nothing worth (morrow best example, crys about every crap like TvZ is so fucking imba (then one day later demuslim wins zotac, right a Terran who raped dimaga in final))
instead of crying about not imbalanced stuff, just use your brain while gaming
from my experiance lucifron is the best player (lost 0-3 to him in ladder, and nobody else who i didnt beat atleast once when played) and he is not zerg player
and if zerg is so fucking imba with its larva injection, then why i have 80% winrating in pvz?
i am 1670protoss in platin
now waiting for some bronze player to reply ^__^
Hope I can be such a hero one day.
Btw iam not bronze and a lot of the discussion thats going on here is from gold or platin players. Maybe you try to play with T against Z until you get platin and then you are allowed to post again.
|
On April 13 2010 03:49 zomgzergrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2010 02:48 Lollersauce wrote:
Make the roach NOT a super-unit and trust me spawn larva won't seem nearly as broken. Roach might actually be a super unit if mauraders and immortals weren't such a hard counter to it.
So you are saying there are 3 super units.
I agree, and they all suck.
|
So...does a thread like this now require 8 plat reps in order to warrant any kind of game imbalance discussion?
|
Completly stupid reasoning my friend, game is so close to be balanced right now
what unit like thor or helins does the zerg have?
what unit like the banshee? how fast a terran can get banshees harrasing whit hellions?
how you stop a mass marauder + hellion rush ?, dont say mutal cause if you say so your just retarded
the roach nerf was HUGE so pease dont say ridicoulous things and learn how to play
|
On April 13 2010 05:53 CandelaSC2 wrote:
Completly stupid reasoning my friend, game is so close to be balanced right now
what unit like thor or helins does the zerg have?
what unit like the banshee? how fast a terran can get banshees harrasing whit hellions?
how you stop a mass marauder + hellion rush ?, dont say mutal cause if you say so your just retarded
the roach nerf was HUGE so pease dont say ridicoulous things and learn how to play
Do you really think the game is "so close to be balanced?"
Have you ever played PvZ on DO or scrap station? Do it and then tell me the game is balanced.
|
How about if the Queen could spawn a single larva for a small amount of energy each? In addition, the queen can keep spawning more larva even if she has injected the hatchery already.
Seeing SC2's ways on how it handles energy costs, putting 5 energy for each larva would be a buff while putting 10 energy would be a nerf. This revamp would also remove the problem of stockpiling unnecessary energy.
|
On April 09 2010 01:35 Floophead_III wrote:
With the spawn larva fix we'll be able to actually balance the game instead of provide a pseudo balance by making cheese the counter to zerg. Then we can go and fix all the cheese strats that are keeping zerg from winning everything right now. Once all the rushes and cheeses are balanced, and zerg is balanced in the macro game, we'll have a much better game than we started with.
My thoughts exactly. Totally agree.
|
Wow well Floophead_III welcome to Starcraft! It seems you are new to all this stuff so let me explain u a little thing about zerg. Zerg needs to mass units because there single units are more quantity (crap!) instead of quality like protoss! so on they need to MASS units really FAST! I hope for you the editor will come out soon. so u and your friends can make custom maps with custom zergunits/larve spawning times and maybee then u will win a late game against zerg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
