|
I'm going to set aside the issue of *whether* there has been over-nerfing for a second, and argue that if the world exists as the OP argues, temporarily over-nerfing makes sense.
Over-nerfing is not a problem in beta per-se. They used a similar strategy of over-buffing during beta testing for the War3 expansion (which, despite being a very very different game in general, is not actually different at all in this regard). When they add new units, they intentionally over-power them to speed up adoption (This came from a Blizz interview, I wish I had a quote for it but since it was several years ago, I don't). Later patches then aim to actually balance the unit properly, and these efforts benefit from having the unit in widespread use by players of all skill levels.
If, as the OP argues, the overwhelming majority of top players are choosing Zerg, then the quality of balance testing is being reduced. It makes sense then to try and entice some of these players to switch to the other races. The OP's argument applies here - if the other races are more complex, and take more time and effort to learn, then it stands to reason that Blizzard would want more top players working on this problem. The current state of Zerg dominance may be entirely temporary, but it makes sense for them to test this before release.
The goal of balance testing is to *discover* what balance issues truly exist - it is not to maintain a balanced game at all points in time. The faster these problems can be discovered, the faster they can be fixed. If there's some uber build/playstyle for T that dominates Zerg but it hasn't been discoveved yet because of T's relative complexity and the lack of attention its getting from top players, then it makes sense to get some top players working to figure it out. And it may take some artificial incentives to get them to do it.
|
On May 18 2010 03:55 zomgzergrush wrote:
Not to mention the queen does barely more damage than a ling and can't handle any air unit 1v1.
Ah, but they do have transfusion, and can be massed quite quickly. I prefer to rush for hydras if there is any indication that my opponent goes for air, but that is only because my micro sucks.
|
On May 18 2010 03:57 Bey wrote:
I'm going to set aside the issue of *whether* there has been over-nerfing for a second, and argue that if the world exists as the OP argues, temporarily over-nerfing makes sense.
Over-nerfing is not a problem in beta per-se. They used a similar strategy of over-buffing during beta testing for the War3 expansion (which, despite being a very very different game in general, is not actually different at all in this regard). When they add new units, they intentionally over-power them to speed up adoption. Later patches then aim to actually balance the unit properly, and these efforts benefit from having the unit in widespread use by players of all skill levels.
If, as the OP argues, the overwhelming majority of top players are choosing Zerg, then the quality of balance testing is being reduced. It makes sense then to try and entice some of these players to switch to the other races. The OP's argument applies here - if the other races are more complex, and take more time and effort to learn, then it stands to reason that Blizzard would want more top players working on this problem. The current state of Zerg dominance may be entirely temporary, but it makes sense for them to test this before release.
The goal of balance testing is to *discover* what balance issues truly exist - it is not to maintain a balanced game at all points in time. The faster these problems can be discovered, the faster they can be fixed. If there's some uber build/playstyle for T that dominates Zerg but it hasn't been discoveved yet because of T's relative complexity and the lack of attention its getting from top players, then it makes sense to get some top players working to figure it out. And it may take some artificial incentives to get them to do it.
A very well written statement. I hope more people get to read this.
|
On May 18 2010 03:57 Scope wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2010 03:55 zomgzergrush wrote:
Not to mention the queen does barely more damage than a ling and can't handle any air unit 1v1. Ah, but they do have transfusion, and can be massed quite quickly. I prefer to rush for hydras if there is any indication that my opponent goes for air, but that is only because my micro sucks.
Generally I find that I have no transfusions available because I am keeping on top of my injections. Also, queens are the LEAST easy to mass unit...I'm not sure how many hatcheries you're working with early on....Let's not bring up an antpile discussion again....
Like i said previously, though,
Zerg is the only race that has no core unit that deals bonus towards armor, while P and T do. I feel that zerg were already being forced out of a roach centered army to begin with pre-patch.
ZvZ had moved towards bling/ling/muta/roach.
ZvT most notably had begun skipping roaches and going straight into hydra more often due to the popularity of massing nothing but mauraders.
ZvP had the deterrent from the very beginning of the beta with that immortal push.
|
I find your premise odd. Are we to believe that if the beta had launched with no ravens or medivacs that terrans would have won more often earlier on?
I am not saying the game is perfeclty balanced but simply having less units doesnt make it easier to win at all...
|
It took 10 years for sc1 players to dominate as protoss. Terran was dominating the sc1 scene FOR A LONG TIME. and yet no one said nerf m&m!. Artosis is right and has a good point here. Zerg has MUCH less to work with and can't get as creative, while as T and P you almost know what to expect from the zerg. The Roach nerf is ridiculous renders that unit close to being useless to join the ultralisk in the benches. leaving the zerg with 8 combat ready units from which 2 of them require you to morph them into another unit for it to count as a different one. Zerg is probably the easiest race to learn, and if you can macro it somewhat properly , you can be the king of copper, bronze and silver basically, because T and P's macro mechanics seem a bit more dificult to learn... so yeah it is a mistake for blizzard to keep listening to the masses rather than just auditing high platinum. Even Tester said T's the strongest race if played correctly... I don't know if i agree, but i definitely think that T and P have a creative edge that hasnt been developed yet. There are just so many possibilities it is really hard for a zerg to prepare for EVERYTHING, while T and P pretty much will know what's coming from "The Swarm"
|
This is a really interesting, thought provoking post about the reasons why Zerg is "it" for all the nerfs.
The major points:
1) Skill level is higher in RTS games (aka Brood War )is undeniable in Korea.
2) Also that Zerg has less permutations on discovering strong builds due to fewer unit combinations is also undeniable.
The core of the matter why Koreans are "better" can be debated at many levels but at this time their Culture promotes excellence.They have better mechanisms in place in their society that allow passionate / dedicated individuals to combine the best learning methods of East and West in both assisted and non assisted learning both at home and outside for all education levels pre k-12 to University.
However, the reason why zerg is getting hit hardest time and time again is pretty simple. As Bill Clinton put it , "its the economics ,economics,economics". Unlike Protoss or Terran, the Zerg have the unique ability that the other races do not have. They can produce workers based on a geometric progression rather than arithmetic. Where terran or protoss can create workers one at a time the zerg can do so in multiples of 3. For example a one base protoss can speed production of one probe by a chrono boost and the Terran can call down mules. These are just simple "additions" to the economy. Whereas the Zerg can with one base /one hatch create as many as 6 workers at a time which is a "geometric" addition to their economy. Now lets look at this math In the hands of skilled player.
What does this superior economic mechanism for zerg do in respect to : (1) there are more skilled gamers learning collectively /faster in korea, (2) Korean culture has an environement that speeds learning, and (3) that the combinations for testing viable strategies are fewer for zerg?
This means that when u consider the design principles of the Zerg race (one of my previous posts) the highest skilled gamers will find a way to max/min the best abilities of Zerg to delay and survive and make full utilization of the economic advantage in order to out macro and dominate the other races in Starcraft2. This brings us to post patch 12.
// Heres the previous post to allow for easier reading
Zerg -
Mobility/speed
Fragility (low tech )
Numerically superior (numerical power)
Low Cost
Terran -
Teamwork between unit types
Specialization of roles
superior Endurance (defensive power)
Medium Cost
Protoss
Strong individual units with higher damage output
Technologically superior (offensive power )
High Cost units
|
On May 18 2010 04:42 Persev wrote:
However, the reason why zerg is getting hit hardest time and time again is pretty simple. As Bill Clinton put it , "its the economics ,economics,economics". Unlike Protoss or Terran, the Zerg have the unique ability that the other races do not have. They can produce workers based on a geometric progression rather than arithmetic. Where terran or protoss can create workers one at a time the zerg can do so in multiples of 3. For example a one base protoss can speed production of one probe by a chrono boost and the Terran can call down mules. These are just simple "additions" to the economy. Whereas the Zerg can with one base /one hatch create as many as 6 workers at a time which is a "geometric" addition to their economy. Now lets look at this math In the hands of skilled player.
What does this superior economic mechanism for zerg do in respect to : (1) there are more skilled gamers learning collectively /faster in korea, (2) Korean culture has an environement that speeds learning, and (3) that the combinations for testing viable strategies are fewer for zerg?
This means that when u consider the design principles of the Zerg race (one of my previous posts) the highest skilled gamers will find a way to max/min the best abilities of Zerg to delay and survive and make full utilization of the economic advantage in order to out macro and dominate the other races in Starcraft2. This brings us to post patch 12.
Funny, In broodwar, zerg were able to do the EXACT same thing, in fact thats always been a core thing for all zerg players and is what made them so strong, just the fact that they can swarm very fast (thus sacrificing quality), and can power shortly after. Yet this didnt make zerg imba in anyway, so why is it then that in sc2, zerg units seemed to be more "buffed" with a much higher food count?
It is as if your saying that because zerg can manipulate their larva based upon situations, it makes it warranted enough for the nerf, despite the amount of challenges a zerg faces which is enhanced early on that a zerg player NEEDS to have +1 base to stay even as no single zerg unit can really 1v1 another race's and come out on top (alright, A roach vs A marine ill give you that one, but still, a roach costs 25/25 more).
|
On May 18 2010 05:12 Energizer wrote:
Funny, In broodwar, zerg were able to do the EXACT same thing, in fact thats always been a core thing for all zerg players and is what made them so strong, just the fact that they can swarm very fast (thus sacrificing quality), and can power shortly after. Yet this didnt make zerg imba in anyway, so why is it then that in sc2, zerg units seemed to be more "buffed" with a much higher food count?
It is as if your saying that because zerg can manipulate their larva based upon situations, it makes it warranted enough for the nerf, despite the amount of challenges a zerg faces which is enhanced early on that a zerg player NEEDS to have +1 base to stay even as no single zerg unit can really 1v1 another race's and come out on top (alright, A roach vs A marine ill give you that one, but still, a roach costs 25/25 more).
Energizer your correct in your comparison to Brood War. The difference from before is the inject larvae. Balancing a geometric ability isn't easy the further along in the game you go. This is especially clear when you hear so many people say "end game zerg is a headache".
Im not really justifying anything. As a Z user these nerfs "bug me"... anyway the OP made me think and there was a reset on us beta so I just gave some verbal diahrea while waiting. no more no less.
|
What I dislike about you Artosis is that you always speak in absolutes. Whatever you say is always true without much backing up (effectively). Typical folie de grandeur.
|
I must be a bit simple in the head today because I didn't understand the point of this article.
It uses odd comparisons between the races to justify a point. For example why is a troop carrier for terran and zerg counted as a combat unit yet an upgraded overlord isn't? Why is an observer a combat unit but an overseer isn't? So the justification of the point goes flying out the window for me.
It makes statements that don't follow, ie there are more good koreans playing rts therefor the implication that the top players are better is somehow assumed. Umm ok this is just random conjecture at this point. It may be true, it may not be and it can't be argued or defined right now so it adds nothing.
Nothing is really said about overnerfing despite that being part of the title topic. Oh and the intro about Artosis at the start of the linked to article is just pointless yet it takes up a 1/3 of the article length.
Might be missing a lot here but thats just how the article hits me, not even sure it can be counted as an article though. More of a random mental blog opinion in my eyes.
|
SC2 zerg is different from SC1 zerg in inject larvae.
The following numbers are all estimates. Every 40 seconds you can make 5-6 drones (overlords). I believe chrono boost only allows for 3(?) probes in that time and only 2 SCV's can be made.
Everytime you spend 450 minerals (another hatchery + queen and not including drone cost) you can make another 6 drones every 40 seconds. Compared to P or T which has to spend 400 minerals for their much slower worker creation rate.
As far as worker production is concerned, Zerg is by far the best at it, and even better at it in SC2 than in SC1.
|
I really don't think the amount of pros using Zerg overrepresented Zerg in Korea.
Zerg is obviously the best macro race.
The best players tend to play macro games
So they play Zerg because it plays to their strengths.
|
On May 18 2010 05:54 tathecat563 wrote:
SC2 zerg is different from SC1 zerg in inject larvae.
The following numbers are all estimates. Every 40 seconds you can make 5-6 drones (overlords). I believe chrono boost only allows for 3(?) probes in that time and only 2 SCV's can be made.
Everytime you spend 450 minerals (another hatchery + queen and not including drone cost) you can make another 6 drones every 40 seconds. Compared to P or T which has to spend 400 minerals for their much slower worker creation rate.
As far as worker production is concerned, Zerg is by far the best at it, and even better at it in SC2 than in SC1.
Yeah every 40 seconds you can make 5-6 drones, if you dont make overlords or any army units ...
If you compare the worker production at the start before the queen (and where you start to make an army as well) the workers are created pretty much in equal quantities.
|
On May 18 2010 06:07 PanzerDragoon wrote:
I really don't think the amount of pros using Zerg overrepresented Zerg in Korea.
Zerg is obviously the best macro race.
The best players tend to play macro games
So they play Zerg because it plays to their strengths.
Like someone else said earlier in this thread, Idra and Artosis didn't switch to zerg because they like the sound of the zerg AI or because zerg was gimp. There is a reason for this and other "famous" players picking zerg.
|
Streamlined learning is fake. Yes there are less units but people dont mess around with the units which suck, and you can identify those straight up. They experiment with the competent ones. And the ammount of competent units in matchups is far more equal.
And how can something be overnerfed if it is perfectly fine now? I missed some zerg buffs?
|
On May 18 2010 06:18 Cheerio wrote:
Streamlined learning is fake. Yes there are less units but people dont mess around with the units which suck, and you can identify those straight up. They experiment with the competent ones. And the ammount of competent units in matchups is far more equal.
And how can something be overnerfed if it is perfectly fine now? I missed some zerg buffs?
I think NonY and his phoenixes would like a word with you.
|
Zerg is the Protoss of SC:BW
couple base units (roaches/lings/hydras v Zeal/Goon/Ht)
with strong support units (Queen/Broodlords v Reavers/Archons)
|
On May 18 2010 06:26 DreaM)XeRO wrote:
Zerg is the Protoss of SC:BW
couple base units (roaches/lings/hydras v Zeal/Goon/Ht)
with strong support units (Queen/Broodlords v Reavers/Archons)
would be nice if that 'strong' support units weren't nerved to the bone. as previously stated the Queen isnt much better as a zergling vs ground and can't win any 1v1 air battle. Broodlord had been nerved a while ago and you have to make a pretty useless anti air unit to get them.
|
Really good read. I can't Blizzard to not make the same number of unite for each race. It's quite disturbing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
