EPTOver-nerfed: Why Zerg dominated Korea. - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PhallicAgressor
52 Posts
| ||
Empyrean
17082 Posts
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? No one made Defilers before 2003. EDIT: Or Arbiters. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On May 18 2010 05:48 Synwave wrote: 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. That is exactly what most (all non-zerg) argues: that artosis has build his article on biased counts and a weak statistical foundation. There aren't any difference between the number of units, at least not between the number of actually useful ones, except for perhaps 1 unit, and that is in the favor of the zerg. This "zerg is bland" thing is getting really annoying by now. | ||
|
Scope
Sweden147 Posts
On May 18 2010 06:56 Ghostcom wrote: That is exactly what most (all non-zerg) argues: that artosis has build his article on biased counts and a weak statistical foundation. There aren't any difference between the number of units, at least not between the number of actually useful ones, except for perhaps 1 unit, and that is in the favor of the zerg. This "zerg is bland" thing is getting really annoying by now. Actually, as I've written before Zerg and Protoss are tied at ten useful combat units and Terran is in a slight lead at eleven. These are the damage dealing units.Although if the archon, carrier, mothership or ultralisk suddenly becomes useful, this all changes. | ||
|
RodYan
United States126 Posts
If we assume that zerg players are better because they have fewer units and are thus easily to master, we can also make the argument that a match against a zerg player is easier to understand, and thus easier to counter. | ||
|
terranghost
United States980 Posts
On May 17 2010 14:53 Artosis wrote: [/b]Over-Nerfed: Why Zerg Dominated Korea Many people have wondered why the Asian StarCraft II Beta has been dominated by Zerg, while others have not. There are two reasons for this. Zerg have less than the Protoss and Terran in this game. It's quite a simple concept. The Zerg have much less to work with. Units usable in combat: Zerg: 9 Terran: 12 Protoss: 14 Forgive me if this sounds like a noobish question but I am curious as to where your numbers are coming from. If I count combat units (non-drone/transport/spell castors/units that spawn from a spell) this will disregard the infested terran, oversear, overlord, drone, larvae, infestor, changling, and broodling. subtracting all of these units gives the zerg a count of 9 (coruptor, broolord, hydra, muta, queen, roach, ultra, bling, and zling. Subtracting the ultra brings it back down to 8. The protoss you have at a total of 14 but this includes the probe, warp prism, high templar, observor and the archon. If the probe should not be included in this count. If the warp prism is considered in the count as it does help transport military units (by warp in and transport) However the overlord is the zerg transport when a nydus network is not working. Also the observer is included in the count which its role is matched by the oversear. The infestor is not included while the high templar is although both only have energy attacks. Lastly it is pointed out that the ultra does not see much use but I also dont see the the archon get much use either.(correct me if people dont agree with that) I didnt add up the terran stuff but Im sure the results will be the same. I am not here to rant about how artosis should go back to first grade because he cannot add. This is more so people can explain to me why the numbers are as they are. Remember this is just a count of the units so whether or not they are frequently used is irrelevant the purpose of this thread as I read it is to say why the zerg are dominating and the reason for it is given that they have less combat units overall and I do not see that as the case. Edit: The source for my information is starcraft wiki and from there all I did was count units. I play mainly terran so if there is a unit or 2 that are not listed on the website let me know | ||
|
Fraud
Canada108 Posts
| ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
More often than not, overwhelming the guy with numbers is the best way to win, and trying to pick the right combination of stuff is just thrown out the window. Its very 'Zergy', but its not very fun after a while. I know I have more fun trying to figure out the best way to deal with the swarm, than I do building it. Its not so much the lack of units in general, its the lack of OPTIONS, if that makes sense. I can look at Collossi as Protoss and think "Hmm, I have several ways of dealing with that, depending on what else he's got in his army". Whereas I look at Collossi as Zerg and think "Corruptors or Neural Parasite! Bam!". | ||
|
roark
United States187 Posts
If you look at the strategy threads on this forum alone and observe professional games you often see the following units in play from each race: Terran Marine, Marauder, Medivac, Tank, Viking, Banshee, Thor, Repear, Hellion, Raven, Ghost Protoss Zealot, Sentry, Staker, Phoenix, Colossi, Immortal, Void Ray, High Templar Zerg Zergling, Hydra, Roach, Baneling, Infestor, Broodlord, Muta, Corrupter Total number of units aside, I think Artosis is right in his concept of "stream-lined" learning. Every single game Zerg players are predominately relying on the use of about 6 units, often less. This allows you to learn a lot about a unit and its match-ups quickly. I also think that Terran having many units with specific roles was intended, as is Zerg having much more malleable units situationally. Ex: Zerg's units may not be hard-counters or have lots of bonus damage, but they can be massed and fill a variety of roles. So official unit count aside, the player base has deemed what units they are wililng to use. For Zerg players that is a smaller pool of units. Add a large number of top level players playing this race and you have players learning their fewer units rapidly. Not because the race only has a few units, but because those units are what the player-base decided was worth while. His goal was to show that if many high level players, play a race with a small pool of units (chosen as useful by the community of players), then they will do very well. Meanwhile equal or lesser players will have to attempt to learn how to use their larger pool of units and the accompanying strategies. The smaller pool of units and macro oriented race to which they belonged was likely to succeed. Therfore allowing the other races to gain enough time to catch up is necessary to see what "balance" really is. It is hard to say if it was an over-nerf. And as that one insightful poster said, "the roach nerf may be a ploy to give more players incentive to play the other races." So in making players feel like Zerg got hit with the nerf-bat to hard, they are getting more players working on strategy on the more unit-diverse races. Sorry I could not write a shorter post. My 2 cents. | ||
|
Koffiegast
Netherlands346 Posts
On May 18 2010 08:16 RodYan wrote: Ugh, I'm not saying that the Zerg nerf is or is not warranted, but that article has nothing but circular logic. If we assume that zerg players are better because they have fewer units and are thus easily to master, we can also make the argument that a match against a zerg player is easier to understand, and thus easier to counter. It might be easier to understand, but not necessarily easier to counter. Why? Because that relies on the knowledge of protoss/terran, which is exactly argued to be more difficult than Zerg. So not so much of a circular logic. Simply, understanding what the opponent has is 1, but knowing how to respond is 2. | ||
|
FlameSworD
United States414 Posts
 | ||
|
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
Then a protoss thread if Blizzard break Void/Sentry/Immortal. SC2 is such a joke because of the amount of complaining that is actually voiced in this day and age. | ||
|
roark
United States187 Posts
[B]On May 18 2010 09:35 Mania[K]al wrote:[/B SC2 is such a joke because of the amount of complaining that is actually voiced in this day and age. Would'nt that make SC2 still just a game, and the people complaining a joke (in this day and age)? | ||
|
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
On May 18 2010 09:38 roark wrote: Would'nt that make SC2 still just a game, and the people complaining a joke (in this day and age)? Sure, it would also reward a very good game with a very inferior sequel that will continue to plummet because of us. Example- this thread. | ||
|
roark
United States187 Posts
But people will always voice their opinion. And the opinions of a guy who is WAY too in to startcraft to the point: he lives in Korea, plays a lot and speaks to top players.... that holds a bit more sway then a few witty one-liners. Mania[K]al you have a very good point regarding 90% of balance\whine threads. But this wasn't intended to be one of those threads. People are supposed to play the game and voice their opinion, that is a beta, even if it is absurd (imo opinion Artosis' point is not, maybe not perfect but it isn't absurd at all). | ||
|
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
People take a nerf, continue to do what has been working then realize it doesn't work anymore because of the nerf and instantly complain about if en mass before even trying to work around it. | ||
|
Tanatos
United States381 Posts
| ||
|
italiangymnast
United States246 Posts
everyone is focusing on the part about how many units each race has too much. If you look at the strategy threads on this forum alone and observe professional games you often see the following units in play from each race: Terran Marine, Marauder, Medivac, Tank, Viking, Banshee, Thor, Repear, Hellion, Raven, Ghost Protoss Zealot, Sentry, Staker, Phoenix, Colossi, Immortal, Void Ray Zerg Zergling, Hydra, Roach, Baneling, Infestor, Broodlord Total number of units aside, I think Artosis is right in his concept of "stream-lined" learning. Every single game Zerg players are predominately relying on the use of about 6 units, often less. This allows you to learn a lot about a unit and its match-ups quickly. I also think that Terran having many units with specific roles was intended, as is Zerg having much more malleable units situationally. Ex: Zerg's units may not be hard-counters or have lots of bonus damage, but they can be massed and fill a variety of roles. So official unit count aside, the player base has deemed what units they are wililng to use. For Zerg players that is a smaller pool of units. Add a large number of top level players playing this race and you have players learning their fewer units rapidly. Not because the race only has a few units, but because those units are what the player-base decided was worth while. His goal was to show that if many high level players, play a race with a small pool of units (chosen as useful by the community of players), then they will do very well. Meanwhile equal or lesser players will have to attempt to learn how to use their larger pool of units and the accompanying strategies. The smaller pool of units and macro oriented race to which they belonged was likely to succeed. Therfore allowing the other races to gain enough time to catch up is necessary to see what "balance" really is. It is hard to say if it was an over-nerf. And as that one insightful poster said, "the roach nerf may be a ploy to give more players incentive to play the other races." So in making players feel like Zerg got hit with the nerf-bat to hard, they are getting more players working on strategy on the more unit-diverse races. you're right - mutas and corrupters are figments of our immagination all of these types of posts are so obviously biased its retarded | ||
|
Captain Calamity
United Kingdom38 Posts
(Feel free to flame me as this is my first post on these forums.. Kicking puppies is fun) Before i do so I have to say that I agree with Artosis. However I think that Blizzard is probably aware that this is an 'over nerf' That said why are they deliberatley overnerfing a unit? I have a theory that they are just screwing with the numbers to see what happens to their win loss ratio numbers and unit production figures in the various leagues. The reason for this probably because they are basing their playbalance model on what is being used in battles in the platinum league, How much damage /kills each unit achieves in each battle and other similar measures. Given that roaches were a staple.. (I cant think of many good players that weren't making roaches with the exception of HD starcraft. ) Consequently they have taken the ball away for a bit so Zerg have to play with other things. This is fine.. its only a beta. Over time they will gather some useful information.. (For example Roaches are not good enough to justify any place in a 200 supply army) Given that the game does not seem to allow for a 1.5 supply unit then increasing its supply cost is going to hurt, but it has clearly crippled this unit. Hopefully they will restore some of its former abilities. (Hell I am happy for the thing to cost 3 supply if its not dull) | ||
|
roark
United States187 Posts
you're right - mutas and corrupters are figments of our immagination all of these types of posts are so obviously biased its retarded To be honest I just forgot about it. But at high levels you don't see mass muta. And a unit with little ability micro still isn't super hard to figure out. Like much of the Zerg units. I'll edit my first post to include them. The point was again, less about the unit counts overall. And more about how often you get to use the same stuff in each match-up, thereby rapidly enforcing what you already know. But I'm out of this thread. No one wants to discuss anything, just call one another retarded or assume bias. The smartest response was on the third page, seems like the poster's have peaked. | ||
| ||
