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
This is a huge difference, especially when you consider that one of the Zerg units, the Ultralisk, is completely inferior to any other choice the Zerg have. This brings us down to eight units. Why does this make the Zerg better on the Asian server?
Streamlined learning. This is all that the Zerg has to work with. That means, the best units, ideas and strategies boil down much faster. There is simply less to test. StarCraft II is a very complex game, with many, many factors contributing to any situation. The Zerg have less of these factors. You have a very limited number of options. This doesn't make playing the Zerg easier, per sey, it just makes figuring out how to player the Zerg right easier. While other races are still around with three to five extra units, the Zerg already know what combination work and don't work. This makes every practice game a Zerg player plays worth more, as they are already past the testing phase.
There is one other reason, one which may weigh into it even more than the simplicity behind the previous reason. It is in the players who chose Zerg on the Asian server. First, let's state some things that should be obvious and accepted.
1) Korea is better at RTS games than any other nation in the world.
2) StarCraft is by far the most competitive RTS game in the world, especially in Korea.
3) The absurd majority of skilled gamers in Korea play or have played StarCraft professionally, both because of the competition and rewards of the game.
4) Going back in time in professional StarCraft I, you will find, on average, more free-styled and free-thinking players, due to the game being less developed.
5) This is StarCraft II. See #3.
So with these facts in mind, we will now go over which StarCraft I professional gamers are playing StarCraft II.
EDIT: so are u saying that the constant nerfing of the zerg race is in parts a unrewarded change to the overall balance of sc2 as a game.
and i also gather that you agree with tester that the major reason that zerg seems so strong in korea is that not much other sc korean pros have took the time and effort into learning sc2 and becoming top players themselves?
also what is your personal opioin on the patch toward the zerg race, do you think it is over done or do you think it was justified. you seemed to not talk about the patch to much in the write-up
also love how the only toss you mentioned to be playing the games alot is regarded as the best in korea ^^
I like the write-up so far... I hope the rest is just as good
edit: the rest really consolidates the statement made by the OP... makes you wonder why Blizzard balances based on Asia servers at all (assuming this is true)
LMAO - "What have the top Korean Zerg players been doing since the last Zerg nerf in Patch 12? Well, I can't speak for all of them, but two of the very top players, Cool[fOu] and TheWinD, have both been practicing Terran on the Asian Ladder."
No no it was a good patch, you know just make one essential unit not very viable anymore and give no buff to other already un-viable units. LOVE U BLIZZARD <3
>
I guess to be fair it is a beta and the balance has been great consedering, just annoying how the Zerg race will be very very hard to play correctly for about a week.
Never looked at it from that perspective. Thanks for the brief but always insightful writeups. I would have to agree with you, since I guess the ease of figuring out Zerg has always been with me on a subconscious level.
well, to be honest I agree to some degree. The reason for Zerg domination in my opinion is that Zerg (race itself) is very macro intensive race and that over time caused Zerg to be stronger meta game wise. Because of that very fact people make more solid builds over time (repetition like you said, though IMO it is combination of lack of diversity and the way zerg works) it becomes more effective. A cheesing player will be better (much much better matter of fact) in short term but in long run macro oriented play will prevail over others. Once Protoss and Terran become macro heavy (roughly 30% of T&P player currently tends to be) then you will see Zerg get crushed even more~ ^_____^
Beyond the pointing out of an issue, though, what recommendations or changes do you have? While you've (hopefully, and I certainly think so) helped identify a problem, what do you think would help solve it?
Doesn't the fact that there are so many great players in Korea who take it seriously (which you stated) mitigate the fact that more "prof" players play Zerg? Those progamers all lose plenty of games and I'd bet money there are plenty of non-famous players who are doing as good if not better than people on that list.
I guess my point is I really don't think any arguments saying "better players play this race" is really valid nor can it be proven unless you had a tournament with all the good players in. However this doesn't necessarily mean the players are better but rather that the race perhaps WAS better before the nerf which means that wouldn't of solved anything anyway.
As that is the jux of your argument I must kindly disagree with Artosis (who is awesome and helps the community so much) on this.
I also think it's really sad that people are jumping ship just because their race got nerfed. + Show Spoiler [HDH results] +
Idra just proved that Zerg (the one with least usable units) can ravage protoss (which has the most so should be the hardest to prepare for by Artosis' logic) in HDH.
While I agree, I also have to say it isn't like T is hard to figure out... make Maruaders... give them medivacs and enough AA and yeah, walk over the opposing force with stim. This works unless Z makes Broodlords, then you go on forums and whine.
I agree with your conclusion but I don't think it's necessarily because Zerg has less units to work with. Most Terran players are only aware of one unit: the Marauder, but that doesn't make Terran a dominant race because they limit themselves to a single unit.
Zerg initially performed better for two reasons. One is that base management is much easier as Zerg. All the races have to add tech buildings, but only Protoss and Terran have to look at their base in order to add supply depots and pylons as well as look at their base in order to add production facilities. Zerg doesn't have to look at its base to create Overlords and as long as the Zerg remembers to Larva inject, it shouldn't need to create additional hatcheries aside from expansions.
The second major factor is that the rate of growth of an uncontrolled Zerg economy is ridiculous. With larva injection you can essentially saturate an entire expansion in a single round of production. Neither Protoss or Terran can compare to that. They can only stifle the economy's growth.
The third, somewhat lesser factor in Zerg's initial stellar performance is that Zerg units are all simple. Aside from the Infestor, there's no real micro management necessary. You just 1a and possibly try to work up some flanks, but otherwise there's really no micro in the Zerg game. There are no unit abilities like Stim, Siege, Viking Transform, Force Field, Guardian Shield, Blink, etc that Zerg players need to manage. Plus, Zerg units all move insanely fast on creep which complements factor #2 (Zerg's insane econ growth) in that Zerg really only needed to concern itself with defensive play while the insane Zerg macro kicked in and raped everything.
What's changed is that more and more timing attacks and more and more deception have become standard for Terran and Protoss when facing Zerg. Now Zerg is much less able to expand wildly and take advantage of the unchecked Zerg economy's growth speed. I think all of this essentially agrees with your conclusion that Zerg has been over-nerfed. Between the development of better play for the other races (which certainly did take longer) and Blizzard's ridiculous balancing, Zerg is fucked.
But can you really blame Blizzard? The guys trying to balance this game and making the big decisions probably don't understand SC2 any more than say your average D+ BW player understood BW.
Take a good, honest, unbiased look at the Korean SC2 scene as I have just described it.
Sorry but i personally find it hard to believe that your look at it is unbiased. I mean, you even say at the bottom you have likely missed out on some of the top players and the fact you are infact a zerg player yourself also makes this questionable.
Also, i personally think this roach change is also to pave the way for ultras to become a big part of zerg late game just like they were in broodwar zvt and zvp... I would be very surprised if things are left the way they are currently.
ps: you can no longer call any other race, the easy race. hah. :p
edit: also people are overreacting so bad to this roach change. It changes the late game maxxed out armies dynamic (which again, i think will be counter-acted by ultralisk changes in future patches) and changes the early game timings slightly, but its not any worse than the roach increasing from 75minerals 25gas to 87 minerals 25gas in cost for mid-game, which is where most standard games are won and lost anyway.
I believe it is do to zerglings + speed effectiveness and queens ability to defend + macro capabilities. Zerg are able to just sit there and defend quite well early mid game. No air rushes work anymore because people learned to use queens properly, and its amazing seeing zerglings fend off drops for any type of harassment.
The article seems to imply streamlined learning would effect asia and not effect europe / north america.. which doesnt really make sense. I think that zerg plays the most like a starcraft 1 race is the best explanation. I absolutely agree zerg have been over-nerfed.
Take a good, honest, unbiased look at the Korean SC2 scene as I have just described it.
Sorry but i personally find it hard to believe that your look at it is unbiased. I mean, you even say at the bottom you have likely missed out on some of the top players and the fact you are infact a zerg player yourself also makes this questionable.
Also, i personally think this roach change is also to pave the way for ultras to become a big part of zerg late game just like they were in broodwar zvt and zvp... I would be very surprised if things are left the way they are currently.
ps: you can no longer call any other race, the easy race. hah. :p
the ultras would need some insaine buff to make them even come across the mind for lategame units instead of broodlords since they die pretty damn ez in every fight they are put in
I think he's saying there's a lot of ex-pro gamers playing zerg right now which is why they are dominating. It has nothing to do with the race but rather the players. Because zerg has the most pros playing it they have the best representation of success. If those same pros would have chosen different races to play we would see a different race dominating the top ranks of Asia.
Not saying Artosis' 2nd point is weak, but I found it surprising if the entire impression of Zerg being overwhelming in Asia was because of those 6 ex SC1 progamers listed. They must have been either so far ahead of everyone, or being so influential to the entire Zerg player base (by writing Zerg playing guides, commentaries, 1st person VODs etc...)?
The first point about Zerg being overall easier to figure out was not convincing IMO, as if it is, it would be the same case outside of Asia.
No but seriously. This makes sense. Easier and faster to figure out. I honestly think their macro mechanic is too strong- coupled with the slightly cheaper hatcheries and "simplicity" you point out. I have said it before, Zerg wil catch some form of Macro nerf once it becomes apparent what they to do other races in the hands of Professionals. Again, it's only a guess. But from what I've gathered it seems likely.
On May 17 2010 15:22 Attica wrote: I think he's saying there's a lot of ex-pro gamers playing zerg right now which is why they are dominating. It has nothing to do with the race but rather the players. Because zerg has the most pros playing it they have the best representation of success. If those same pros would have chosen different races to play we would see a different race dominating the top ranks of Asia.
Except there is no foundation for this and you can't prove it without questioning the race they play. There are plenty of amazing players who aren't famous.
Btw I'm quite sure Blizzard is aware of a chicken or egg dilemma that they are having - to decide whether it's good players picked Zerg and made it so strong, or it's already strong (i.e imba) which made good people (who were smart enough to realize that) decided to pick it.
Or, maybe the strongest players picked the overpowered race, the race that allowed them to win most easily. Artosis and Idra switching to zerg is no coincidence, perhaps?
On May 17 2010 15:30 Geo.Rion wrote: WOW, thank you Artosis, finally someone with a name points out that Z is overnerfed
Couldn't agree more. I stopped playing zerg after this patch. I was getting tired of seeing zerg get nerfed every single goddamn patch despite not being glaringly overpowered and watching (for the most part) terran get buffed. Guess what race I play now. =P
From the comments I was expecting an in depth article, but the second just lists some known players. It doesn't explain why Zerg dominates in Korea at all.
It's all too apparent, IMO, that Zerg isn't going to develop tactically in SC2 like they did in SC1. The years will pass- but I would imagine this Zerg- as it is now, would scarcely be able to change its play. Agreeing with Artosis- the paths through the build orders and possible tactics are indeed seeming far more limited than the original Zerg. Who's biggest problem, from what I observed, was becoming proficient in using all of their variety and possibilities to their maximum impact. Opposite is the case this time- optimal build orders and unit compositions seem to be crystallizing and you're punished if you deviate.
They're bound to overshoot so they can correct it after acquiring enough data. It is unreasonable to assume that they can simply go from zerg being favored to perfectly balanced. If they nerf the zerg with very, very small changes, the subtle difference doesn't really show up all that much.
On May 17 2010 15:22 zomgzergrush wrote: And queue a flood of "unbiased" opinions of non-zerg users....
now.
And queue a flood of "unbiased" opinions of zerg users....
now.
I don't think people realise that one of the reasons zerg has so few units is because of spawn larvae. If zerg could tech switch immediately to an extremely diverse range of units, zerg would be horribly OP Zerg's few attack units are all very "general" for a reason.
Also, Artosis, I think you're going overboard with the extreme "korea is god" bias. No offense or anything, it just seems like every defense you have includes the words "korea" and "better"
On May 17 2010 15:25 mrdx wrote: Not saying Artosis' 2nd point is weak, but I found it surprising if the entire impression of Zerg being overwhelming in Asia was because of those 6 ex SC1 progamers listed. They must have been either so far ahead of everyone, or being so influential to the entire Zerg player base (by writing Zerg playing guides, commentaries, 1st person VODs etc...)?
The first point about Zerg being overall easier to figure out was not convincing IMO, as if it is, it would be the same case outside of Asia.
Actually that's one of his strongest points, though Artosis failed to articulate. He's talking about Metagame. Metagame works like this. Some does a build, it works. It's good. Solid. People follow it.
It takes one good player to make a solid build not 1000's 100's not even 10's. Having 6 ex sc1 progamers... well don't know what to say to that. Even in EU server, after nazgul's performance in Zotac Cup, everyone in EU shifted to his build (not saying he created the whole build but the shift in metagame was definitely visible). Even looking into ZvZ, we want to believe that Roach v Roach shift to Zergling v Zergling was shifted by 100's and 1000's of Zergs experimenting. However it is more likely that only handful of people experimented and got the build working and everyone else followed suit (this was even before roach armor reduction nerf). I could name other examples of metagame shift by good players but you get the picture. It only takes one person to change the metagame forever.
On May 17 2010 15:33 nodule wrote: Or, maybe the strongest players picked the overpowered race, the race that allowed them to win most easily. Artosis and Idra switching to zerg is no coincidence, perhaps?
Exactly.
It's good that some of the Zerg ex-pro players have moved to other races. You can even say that by heavily nerfing Zerg, Blizzard (either intentionally or not) did a great move of forcing the best Zerg players to try out other races. Their performance with Terran/Protoss will provide invaluable information on the balance of the Zerg.
I'm sure Blizzard is closely monitoring the shift among races in Korea. As always, it's not the end of the world because it's still beta and nothing is final.
I think it's more likely that Korea simply developed a myth that zerg was the strongest race, which caused all the really competitive players to pick zerg, which meant that zerg won all the tourneys, which reinforced the myth.
I feel absolutely ridiculous questioning you considering a) the vast difference in our respective skill levels, and b) you're in fucking Korea. I dunno, maybe it just shows how dead wrong I am, and if so you can go ahead and smack me. If you or someone else could respond to my questions and tell me what I'm missing, please do.
So you're making the case that Zerg has been doing better because 1) they have less units to work with and are thus dominant because of streamlined learning, and 2) there are simply more top Zerg players than any other race, thus it's obvious why Zerg would be doing better overall.
Well, for point one. The new patch has only been out for a few days, and the reason for that patch was to make other Zerg units useful mid/late game; to promote Ultralisks and so on. I'm not arguing the usefulness of Ultras; if there's a problem now with Zerg lategame weakness then that, too, should be fixed in the next patch. On the whole, I agree with Blizzard's goal: To not have one or two dominant units, and to promote variety. If they can increase the number of viable units Zerg can use, then hopefully mastering them would no longer be streamlined, as you said, and they'd have as many useful units as Terran/Zerg. In this regard, isn't the overall goal of Blizzard - to make other units equally viable - a good thing?
As for point two, I only have a question: Is it coincidence that the majority of the top Koreans players are Zerg, or is it because it was genuinely better/easier to learn and master, see point 1? This is where I'm not quite on board.
I dunno. You might be totally right and I'm just questioning irrelevancies. I thought Blizzard was specifically looking to Korean progamers for balancing SC2, though? Don't they have some kind of meaningful dialogue with them? That's the kind of feedback I'd be looking for if I was balancing the game; I wouldn't just be peripherally looking at the Korean pro scene and seeing what race is dominant, I'd be asking them why.
But, I guess, that's what you're saying: that Blizzard hasn't done this. Something which, if true, they really need to start.
On May 17 2010 15:41 mrdx wrote: ...As always, it's not the end of the world because it's still beta and nothing is final.
Hell, even after release it won't be "Final". I sincerely hope that SC2 won't require the constant patching and baby sitting that WC3 gets. That thing needs more patches than it gets, and they are STILL patching it. A really bad sign will be regular patches and bitching 4 years into release. I could easily see that happening
I see a general assumption that every plat player in some way or the other follows a top player's playstyle and all plat players are in plat cos they want to play sc2 competitively. I disagree with this. I met some very good players on the ladder who never even heard of TL.net but they are up there massing games, probably figuring the game by themselves and don't really care about playing in tournaments, etc. They are just in it for the fun and don't give a damn if 9 overlord is more effective than 10 overlord. yet, when Blizz bases their balance changes on server statistics, these people who are not connected to the community are in Blizz's statistics as well. Just something to keep in mind.
Other than that good article and am glad that a pro speaks openly about the over-nerf
@artosis how come players like thewind and cool[fou] and other top players in this article dont play in zotac and esl like Sen and idra do, wouldnt it be free money for them? and with battle ping there is no lag for them, everyone and their dog has multiple keys by now so that shouldnt be a problem either...
unless there are bigger tournaments taking up their time that we dont hear about? or they dont want to noob bash/give away their strats?
Well, for point one. The new patch has only been out for a few days, and the reason for that patch was to make other Zerg units useful mid/late game; to promote Ultralisks and so on. I'm not arguing the usefulness of Ultras; if there's a problem now with Zerg lategame weakness then that, too, should be fixed in the next patch. On the whole, I agree with Blizzard's goal: To not have one or two dominant units, and to promote variety. If they can increase the number of viable units Zerg can use, then hopefully mastering them would no longer be streamlined, as you said, and they'd have as many useful units as Terran/Zerg. In this regard, isn't the overall goal of Blizzard - to make other units equally viable - a good thing?
Well, I think the argument is Ultras are no more useful now than they were pre-nerf to roaches. Maybe they gain a small bump in relative usefulness, but they are still unusable unless you are trying to embarrass someone.
This is beta, however, so we can't get too upset over a change. Blizz certainly need this change to better gauge what buff Ults needs to make them more useful then mass roaches end-game.
Edit: I hope they give hydra their damn speed back. It sucks trying to co-ordinate flanks when half your army is lazy.
If you cant stop masshydras as protoss, playing at equal skilllevel, then you really should be to ashamed about it to brag about it in the TL-forums. You got outplayed by a better player, not a better race.
Its good that the best zerg players are moving over to terran; 1. Its a statement. 2. Since, in my mind, terran is the best race, pros changing over will prove that in a few weeks time. Then see #1.
Edit: Once good players start play terran, we can look forward to some serious buffs for Z, since its seriously underpowered atm.
What have the top Korean Zerg players been doing since the last Zerg nerf in Patch 12? Well, I can't speak for all of them, but two of the very top players, Cool[fOu] and TheWinD, have both been practicing Terran on the Asian Ladder.
This is the most depressing thing I've read all week. Though I smell an OVERBUFF incoming in patch 13 to the ultralisk.
Let me first say that I really appreciate this insightful look at the Korean SC 2 pro scene. Certainly, there is no one better at conveying this information to the foreigner community than Artosis.
Having said that, I don't see any argument as to why Zerg is "overnerfed," only an explanation for why Zerg might have been perceived as being "overpowered." Shouldn't an article that argues for why Zerg is "overnerfed" talk about the actual gameplay balance, including discussions of the units, abilities, mechanics, meta-game, tournament results, and the like?
A race in a RTS game can be completely fine without having a great diversity of units, so long as what it does have gets the job done. Zerg players are clearly getting the job done, currently, with a combination of zerglings, banelings, and hydras, while transitioning into broodlords for the end game. Ultralisks are still a work in progress, while roaches will most likely receive some tweaks since I doubt Blizzard will leave them completely useless given that they are one of Justin Browder's "favorite units."
To this end, I think it's too early to talk about gameplay balance, especially since the meta-game has yet to settle over patch 12. It took years for the SC 1 meta-game to develop in Korea and for people to figure out what they needed to do. That, too, is something widely accepted.
For this reason, I think people should just play the game and let the results speak for themselves. If, right now, there is an overwhelming number of Korean ex-SC 1 pros playing Zerg, then the prospect of them switching to Terran or Protoss should be something to be celebrated, as it would counter this trend of Zerg dominating in Korea and lead to a more balanced representation of the races - which would lead to a more balanced representation of the gameplay - which is to be desired.
Wish people would stop saying they nerfed roaches to "make way" for an ultralisk buff. Please, don't touch my tier 1 units just so you can make tier 3 better. Tier 1 is just so pivotal every game.
Besides Bliz just said that the roach was "too mighty" for one supply.
When Starcraft 1 first came out was zerg the most dominant there too? Because they had less units than terran or protoss as well in SC1, and I feel like everyone is neglecting that fact for some reason on TL lately when they talk about zerg lacking unit diversity.
By this logic, since zerg now have even fewer units than they had before they should be back to dominating terran and protoss with their limited unit selection in no time! Blizzard should continue to nerf zerg units until only the hydra remains so that pro zergs can master this unit and continue to rape everything!
When Starcraft 1 first came out was zerg the most dominant there too?
The early SC1 patches were basically a series of Zerg nerfs. A larva spawn time nerf was, I think, a day-1 patch for StarCraft.
On May 17 2010 16:18 Weasel- wrote: By this logic, since zerg now have even fewer units than they had before they should be back to dominating terran and protoss with their limited unit selection in no time! Blizzard should continue to nerf zerg units until only the hydra remains so that pro zergs can master this unit and continue to rape everything!
Learning a race does not mean winning with a race. If a race is OP and you've learned it, you'll win. If a race is underpowered, and you've learned it, you'll lose.
This Overnerf whine is a little disappointing Artosis, there is no question that zerg has been the most easiest/popular race to play so far in the beta, and that is not only due to their lack of unit diversity, but also due to how easy it is to mass one or two types of unit to win because the units are so strong. Some zerg units were just too good for what they cost, and the changes are bringing them more in line with the other races. The fact that zergs require only one specific building to change or add tech makes them even more versatile and efficient, coupled with their great expanding ability. In any case I still think the Ultralisks need to be changed to be more usable still.
The old SC Korean vets that you mentioned should be giving feedback to blizzard directly, but then again the lack of former progamers playing Terran and Protoss right now makes it difficult to judge how balanced the game is at the top level, and that is nobody's fault.
Other races were struggling because of they have to used different unit compositions to compete against zerg, while having to worry about tech switches by the zerg at the same time. After these patches, now Terran at least they do not have to worry about getting 5 different types of units and having a good number of every army production facility to compete. The roach change was a fair one, and one that will also benefit in making ZvZ more diverse in my opinion. Hydras are still great, and they are still being used regularly even after they were nerfed, so are Roaches.
On May 17 2010 16:18 Weasel- wrote: By this logic, since zerg now have even fewer units than they had before they should be back to dominating terran and protoss with their limited unit selection in no time! Blizzard should continue to nerf zerg units until only the hydra remains so that pro zergs can master this unit and continue to rape everything!
That's not by his logic at all
Fewer units doesn't mean stronger it means simpler basic play.
eg. Most Terrans and Protoss have spent at least half their time working out coo-key builds, cheeses, and weird timings, but Zerg doesn't really have a Thor/Collosus, Banshee/Viking/Phoenix/Voidray to experiment with.
Therefore more time spent working on solid, simple play.
On May 17 2010 15:41 mrdx wrote: ...As always, it's not the end of the world because it's still beta and nothing is final.
Hell, even after release it won't be "Final". I sincerely hope that SC2 won't require the constant patching and baby sitting that WC3 gets. That thing needs more patches than it gets, and they are STILL patching it. A really bad sign will be regular patches and bitching 4 years into release. I could easily see that happening
Brood War took at the very least 4 years to be what it is right now regarding balance. Before that we had 150 minerals spawning pools.
So Artosis arguments that the reason for Zergs dominating in Korea is the lack of complexity in Zerg builds, making it easy to master. To support his argument he lists several conditions that he thinks differentiates Korea from the rest of the world.
The strong points of this theory is that it explains the two phenomena that have been difficult to explain about race dominance in the beta:
-Zergs in Korea dominate -Other Zerg players from around the world do not
It is a compelling argument, as it explains alot, without being complex. Perhaps the strongest counter arguments are:
-Artosis plays Zerg himself (biased) -Is lack of unit diversity really an advantage? -Other theories that can explain the high level of play in Korea and Zerg dominance there
That Artosis at least to some degree is biased seems probable, but the argument he has presented seems to hold its own even if someone else would have posted it, so it does not seem that relevant here.
Whether the small amount of viable units really can explain the dominance is debatable. In a highly competitive envirionment like the Korean scene, it seems strange that something that really is a disadvantage, has enabled Zerg to dominate for an extended amount of time, simply due to Zerg having a knowledge advantage. One would think that as patch 11 moved on, Zergs would constantly lose ground then, since the other races would be gaining on them, learning more about their own races, which by Artosis`s argument would be better races, only that they hadn`t been mastered yet. I do not know whether this is what happened, but if it did it would strengthen Artosis`s argument considerably.
The last and perhaps most important counter argument is the viability of competing explanations for Zerg dominance. For example Zergs are considered to have very powerful macro mechanics that are very unforgiving. This means that the skill cap for Zerg may be higher than for the other races, making exceptional players able to accomplish things others cannot. This explanation also explains why Korean Zerg have been dominating (They are simply better at the game, and it shows because Zerg rewards good players more), and why other zerg have not.
In conclusion I find Artosis to have brought an interesting argument to the table, and it may have some clout to it, perhaps explaining a bit, but I do not think it can single-handedly explain what is going on. It does not have that good backing in empirical evidence, nor does it really have any reason as to why it is better than other explanations.
In TL arguments often seem to be based on player experience and veteranship (Kind of like other institutions really), rather than other perhaps more fair ways of discussing things (it has its merits though, by all means!) so noone will probably care what I wrote here. But that`s okay, it was fun to write.
I think it's also important to note that Zerg's macro mechanic as well as their nature are simplified. All units come from hatcheries and the queen mainly spawns larvae which can build any unit.
The truth is that no one knows yet whether the game is balanced or not, Zerg might be totally OP, Zerg might be weak, people's micro and timings are too bad to really know it at this point. The point of the BETA is to correct the most obvious and outrageous imbalances, you can't balance it perfectly when no one knows all the different counters and timings... in other words how to play it well. Some people play it boringly, mass a bunch of so called "standard units", macro and believe they play the game "right" but these fools have no idea.
It's really true. It's all about finding the best play in every situation. The less variations there are, the faster best play is reached. Connect-four is solved because it is simple. Checkers has also been solved. Chess has not been solved because it has more possible variations.
Imagine a game of chess with nothing but pawns and kings. Best play could be calculated by a computer in moments. Now add knights and all of a sudden the amount of time it takes to find best play explodes exponentially. Further up in complexity, a player with minimal practice can beat the strongest of computers in a game of Go.
If all of the races are balanced, then it makes perfect sense that Zerg would peak play faster than Protoss or Terran, simply because the gameplay is simpler and less diverse. It's not different then asking the same computer to try and play Checker, Chess, and Go.
i'll probably reply to a bunch of things said in here later when i feel like it, but i'd really like to point out guys, that i didn't actually complain or say zerg has been overnerfed. maybe they have, maybe they haven't. i'm honestly not biased, its still in beta, i can easily switch back to terran if i like. this article is more about why the korean zergs are the best, and what SEEMS to be happening (over-nerfing due to not understanding WHY zergs are doing so well).
Wow. There are a lot of people misunderstanding the OP here. Why not take the time to fully understand the point that's being made here, before making snap judgements.
I said units usable in combat. overlord, overseer, queen, broodling, changeling, and infested terran do not count. don't bother responding. im not arguing this point.
Artosis, if my understanding is correct as I posted just a minute ago...
As balance changes are made to level the races as they are currently, then Terran and Protos should begin to outperform Zerg as all 3 races reach best play. Then, Zerg will be changed again and we should have a balanced game.
On May 17 2010 16:36 Artosis wrote: TeWy, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I said units usable in combat. overlord, overseer, queen, broodling, changeling, and infested terran do not count. don't bother responding. im not arguing this point.
Truth is that you removed the overlord/overseer of the Zerg while keeping the observer/warp prism of the Protoss in order to make your point look better. You don't want to argue because there's nothing to argue.
On May 17 2010 16:33 Artosis wrote: i'll probably reply to a bunch of things said in here later when i feel like it, but i'd really like to point out guys, that i didn't actually complain or say zerg has been overnerfed. maybe they have, maybe they haven't. i'm honestly not biased, its still in beta, i can easily switch back to terran if i like. this article is more about why the korean zergs are the best, and what SEEMS to be happening (over-nerfing due to not understanding WHY zergs are doing so well).
On May 17 2010 16:33 Artosis wrote: i'll probably reply to a bunch of things said in here later when i feel like it, but i'd really like to point out guys, that i didn't actually complain or say zerg has been overnerfed. maybe they have, maybe they haven't. i'm honestly not biased, its still in beta, i can easily switch back to terran if i like. this article is more about why the korean zergs are the best, and what SEEMS to be happening (over-nerfing due to not understanding WHY zergs are doing so well).
I presumed that "over-nerfed" is what you were arguing based on the thread title, but if that was not your intention then I apologize for the misinterpretation. Your main point, that Korean Zergs are likely overpowered for reasons unrelated to gameplay balance is, of course, salient, though I have the feeling Blizzard intended to change the roach all-along, and was simply looking for an opportunity to do it.
TeWy, you are ignorant and rude. dont know why the hell im wasting time responding to you, but the warp prism GETS USED IN BATTLES. i dont know if i mistakenly put in the observer or not.
Well, you might argue about the other units but the queen has the potential to be a very important defensive combat unit in the early stages of the game. Maybe this will change and maybe its different on the Korean servers but they are used to defend rushes quite often and in significant numbers (like 4 or so).
On May 17 2010 16:36 Artosis wrote: TeWy, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I said units usable in combat. overlord, overseer, queen, broodling, changeling, and infested terran do not count. don't bother responding. im not arguing this point.
Truth is that you removed the overlord/overseer of the Zerg while keeping the observer/warp prism of the Protoss in order to make your point look better. You don't want to argue because there's nothing to argue, you made a dishonest claim and that's it.
^ Thank you, I'm adding the reaper.
No, the point he's making is about the number of build paths and strategies available. Overlords and Overseers are already there, the same way pylons and depots are. Overlords aren't an option. You could probably put Overseer and Observer together, but it's not like you're really making much of a choice with Overseer as you are when you decide to be late or early with observers, or skip them.
On May 17 2010 16:47 Artosis wrote: TeWy, you are ignorant and rude. dont know why the hell im wasting time responding to you, but the warp prism GETS USED IN BATTLES. i dont know if i mistakenly put in the observer or not.
thanks for showing everyone how crooked i am guy.
^ The Mothership is in.
If you count the warp prism you have to count the overseer as well, you mistakenly put the oberver in. It's down to 10 Zerg units and 12 Protoss/Terran Units.
It wasn't my intention to be rude, english is not my 1st language.
On May 17 2010 16:47 Artosis wrote: TeWy, you are ignorant and rude. dont know why the hell im wasting time responding to you, but the warp prism GETS USED IN BATTLES. i dont know if i mistakenly put in the observer or not.
thanks for showing everyone how crooked i am guy.
^ The Mothership is in.
If you count the warp prism you have to count the overseer as well, you mistakenly put the oberver in. It's down to 10 Zerg units and 12 Protoss/Terran Units.
It wasn't my intention to be rude, english is not my 1st language.
You are just arguing useless specifics when the intention of the numbers is to show that Zerg is based off fewer types of units and less diverse compositions than the other races.
On May 17 2010 16:52 Shatter wrote: You are just arguing useless specifics when the intention of the numbers is to show that Zerg is based off fewer types of units and less diverse compositions than the other races.
I am not too sure about that. If the difference actually ist not 14 to 9 but 12 to 10 than that is not just "useless specifics". There still ist less diversity in possible compositions but the race difference is less severe than artosis pointed out. Then again, this doesn't say that the initial argument wasn't good.
If you count warp prism you have to count overlord as some players bring them with army to crap creep as a speed bonus for the army same as others bring prism for warping.. Seems biased.. counting everything in other races and selective about zerg.. And zerg "static" defence could be counted as half-units.. Kinda like how you move and siege tanks you move and root crawlers..
On May 17 2010 16:47 Artosis wrote: TeWy, you are ignorant and rude. dont know why the hell im wasting time responding to you, but the warp prism GETS USED IN BATTLES. i dont know if i mistakenly put in the observer or not.
thanks for showing everyone how crooked i am guy.
I'm sorry but couldn't you say the same about overlords and overseers? Overlords for drops and creep spewing and overseers as detectors?
To go off on that point, Zerg units are also simpler than those of other races.
Let's compare the different air forces for a preliminary example.
Zerg air force:
Mutalisks are simple attack units. They attack air and ground, do the same damage to both, and are rather straight-forward in their usage. Unlike BW, there is no special skill associated with Mutalisks. They are a generic air attack unit.
Corrupters are also simple attack units. They are anti-massive and specifically anti-colossus. Their present ability is simply an extra buff on top of the existing anti-massive role. They can also be used against phoenixes because of their range and armored type, but can't chase down phoenixes and are so usually used in an only passive manner as part of the composition.
Broodlords are slightly more complicated, but again, what you have is a unit designed for a single role: anti-ground. How to use Broodlords is straight-forward. The only thing you have to worry about is positioning.
Now let's look at Protoss air:
Phoenixes are primarily air-attackers, but can also harass ground. Most people did not understand the potential of phoenixes until Nony demonstrated it. Phoenixes require micro skill in order to perform well, more so than Mutalisks ever did in SC 2.
Void Rays are an odd unit. Their charge system requires both micro and planning to reach optimal usage. Their fragility means that they are not a fire-and-forget unit. There are numerous tricks associated with Void Rays that you never see with Corrupters.
Carriers are basically never used, but even then they are harder to use compared to Broodlords because of the need to keep track of interceptors and the ability to kite.
Motherships require careful timing of their abilities, especially in combo with other abilities, for effective use. They are definitely not a fire-and-forget unit.
Terran air:
Vikings are dual-purpose units. They are anti-air, but can also harass ground and spot for tanks. This makes them similar to the phoenix, except that the lift-and-land mechanic requires even more planning to not end up disastrously.
Banshees are quintessential harassers but can also play a role as anti-ground. They have a special ability that entire builds are designed around. They require a lot of micro for effective usage.
Ravens are spellcasters. All their abilities require careful planning to use effectively.
Battlecruiers are almost never used. But even they have a special ability that needs to be timed and micro'd correctly for optimal usage.
From this it's pretty obvious that Zerg air units, at least, should be easier in the learning curve. Similar arguments can probably be made for ground though there are some interesting units there that do require a lot of skill to use correctly (ie infestors, banelings).
I believe many other zerg players are THIS close to changing their race as well. If blizzard doesn't make some drastic changes with zerg, then I'm jumping on the terran wagon, just like Cool[fOu] and TheWinD.
I think the point is that you can almost always expect to see Terran and Protoss use their variety of units with MMM+hellions, valks, ravens, maybe banshees and ravens or zealots, sentry, stalker, HT, colossus, immortals and maybe some voids or phoenixes. While Zerg is almost always going to be a few zerglings to Hydra/Roach with some mutas/corrupters, with a smaller chance of seeing the other stuff. The hard numbers themselves don't explain it fully, the frequency of usage must be factored in as well. Zerg easily has the least diversity in making a standard build and that when accompanied by the smaller amount of units is what makes the Zerg more restricted to limited strategies and hence people being able to master them faster.
On May 17 2010 17:11 bendez wrote: I believe many other zerg players are THIS close to changing their race as well. If blizzard doesn't make some drastic changes with zerg, then I'm jumping on the terran wagon, just like Cool[fOu] and TheWinD.
I know many players who have already made the change; zerg ==> terran after patch 12. But for some reason some people are moving from protoss ==> zerg aswell, I have no idea why, maybe they are tired of mirror mirror-MUs since everyone and his mother is going protoss. Mayby they think Z is a strong race? They are in for a suprise.
I just listened to a streamer who started going protoss after patch 12, he went 20:3 win ratio and got so bored that he turned back to Z where he gets more of a fight. Just saying. To many people calling Z OP when in reallity, its probably the other way around, the macro intensity of Z attracts good players.
I can understand Blizzard changing the roach from 1 food to 2 as an idea. The problem is they nerfed roaches as a unit instead of the food cost rout, for a so many patches that it makes no sense for them to go around the other way and just plop this change on. Unless they are going to revert all(or most) of the old changes and maybe give roaches + 1 range, or keep them at one food but do something else to make other zerg units more enticing as a late game unit maybe by nerfing the roaches damage output :\, I dunno.
The roach at one food per unit was probably the most powerful unit in the game for its cost so much so that they skewed zerg late game compositions way in that direction, something like 60% of the army made up of roaches and everything else as support, because why wouldn't you? In almost all situations food for food the roach would be stronger than any other zerg unit. So much so that there was basically no reason to use them unless they were good support for the roach. This also ended up with a weird situation where zerg in some situations had the strongest 200/200 army of any of the races, at least in an area of open ground where you could clamp down with your roaches with a good surround you could overwhelm basically any opposing army without even the need to replenish, which maybe is fine I suppose zerg armies don't have to work the same way they did in SC1 using like 2 armies to crush equal sized protoss or terran(mech) force.
I can still understand why Blizzard thought there was something weird about 1 roach taking up the same amount of food as 1 marine or 2 zerglings or maybe more to the point 70 roaches lategame taking up only 70 food. The funny thing is blizzard wants to diversify the units zergs are using, but now they've pretty much just removed the usefulness of one of them heh . Oh well betas are betas for a reason.
TLDR: Blizzard should have admitted their mistake and made roaches 2 food from the get go instead of pussyfooting around with other nerfs, because now all those small nerfs combined with this huge one have made roaches un-desirable as a unit :/.
Edit: My major issue with this patch is that I play Terran and TvZ is my favorite match-up, I don't mind TvP, but if the only other race around for me to play is other Terrans than I can't even be bothered, because honestly those guys are fags.
God DAMMIT TeWy, no one cares about you and your retarded arguing chased artosis away. I want to hear what HE has to say so dont fucking be rude to him and chase him off. Just listen and be grateful that he bothered to aim his brain farts in our direction. idiot! Please artosis, dont abandon this thread because of trolls...
I hardly think a food increase to roach is an over-nerf to Zerg, and Zerg seems to be doing fine after the patch as well, many Zerg before the nerf went straight to Hydralisk anyway :o
On May 17 2010 16:33 Artosis wrote: i'll probably reply to a bunch of things said in here later when i feel like it, but i'd really like to point out guys, that i didn't actually complain or say zerg has been overnerfed.
I think that the title you chose is a source of much of this confusion then. It pretty clearly implies that you think zerg have been over-nerfed.
the roach nerf actually made zerg stronger because people have realised that speedlings and hydralisks are godlike... and people altered their builds to compete against roach armies, which is now less effective.
Given that all the big-name players are playing Zerg, might this over-nerf be intentional in order to push more famous/skilled players into the other two races to get their builds and strategies a little more developed? Even if it isn't intentional, isn't that a potential positive outcome anyway? It seems like in Korea there's definitely an interest imbalance in favour of Zerg, and causing (in whatever way) Koreans to better develop all three races seems like it would be good for everyone and for SC2.
On May 17 2010 16:36 Artosis wrote: TeWy, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I said units usable in combat. overlord, overseer, queen, broodling, changeling, and infested terran do not count. don't bother responding. im not arguing this point.
So, when someone builds extra Queens for anti-air defense, this is not "usable in combat"? So when a Brood Lord's Broodlings stop your GtA units from getting into range with them, this is not "usable in combat?"
Perhaps you need a more clear definition of this term, because it seems very nebulous.
And this is not a minor point of contention; it is not a semantic point. It is the fundamental structure of his first argument: that the Zerg have far fewer options than Terran/Protoss and therefore are easier to master. If it is indeed found that the Zerg do not have far fewer options as Artosis indicated, then this part of his argument fails.
So a consistent definition of "usable in combat" is important. Overlords can drop units, and so can Warp Prisms. So it is very hard to justify having one of these considered "usable in combat" and not the other. Same goes with Overseers and Observers; if Overseers don't count, then Observers can't count either.
On May 17 2010 17:25 trueg0x wrote: God DAMMIT TeWy, no one cares about you and your retarded arguing chased artosis away. I want to hear what HE has to say so dont fucking be rude to him and chase him off. Just listen and be grateful that he bothered to aim his brain farts in our direction. idiot! Please artosis, dont abandon this thread because of trolls...
Blind worship of where information comes from, rather than critical thinking about the information itself, will never allow you to find the truth.
On May 17 2010 17:25 trueg0x wrote: God DAMMIT TeWy, no one cares about you and your retarded arguing chased artosis away. I want to hear what HE has to say so dont fucking be rude to him and chase him off. Just listen and be grateful that he bothered to aim his brain farts in our direction. idiot! Please artosis, dont abandon this thread because of trolls...
being argumentative is fine. it's the way someone argues that can be bad. i believe he was clearly on the fair side of the line.
If balance stays the way that it is I will be playing Terran and I'd bet my house that Terran will dominate all future tournaments and all of the pros will switch to Terran.
I think at the moment alot of people expecting a big Zerg buff in the next patch or a huge Terran nerf. If that doesn't happen though then I think we will see a big transfer of pros from Zerg switching to Terran.
On May 17 2010 17:25 trueg0x wrote: God DAMMIT TeWy, no one cares about you and your retarded arguing chased artosis away. I want to hear what HE has to say so dont fucking be rude to him and chase him off. Just listen and be grateful that he bothered to aim his brain farts in our direction. idiot! Please artosis, dont abandon this thread because of trolls...
omg you are very insulting o_o
TeWy is not trolling he have some interesting points.
On May 17 2010 16:36 Artosis wrote: TeWy, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I said units usable in combat. overlord, overseer, queen, broodling, changeling, and infested terran do not count. don't bother responding. im not arguing this point.
So, when someone builds extra Queens for anti-air defense, this is not "usable in combat"? So when a Brood Lord's Broodlings stop your GtA units from getting into range with them, this is not "usable in combat?"
Perhaps you need a more clear definition of this term, because it seems very nebulous.
And this is not a minor point of contention; it is not a semantic point. It is the fundamental structure of his first argument: that the Zerg have far fewer options than Terran/Protoss and therefore are easier to master. If it is indeed found that the Zerg do not have far fewer options as Artosis indicated, then this part of his argument fails.
So a consistent definition of "usable in combat" is important. Overlords can drop units, and so can Warp Prisms. So it is very hard to justify having one of these considered "usable in combat" and not the other. Same goes with Overseers and Observers; if Overseers don't count, then Observers can't count either.
On May 17 2010 17:25 trueg0x wrote: God DAMMIT TeWy, no one cares about you and your retarded arguing chased artosis away. I want to hear what HE has to say so dont fucking be rude to him and chase him off. Just listen and be grateful that he bothered to aim his brain farts in our direction. idiot! Please artosis, dont abandon this thread because of trolls...
Blind worship of where information comes from, rather than critical thinking about the information itself, will never allow you to find the truth.
@ point #1: Broodlords and broodlings go together... you don't make broodlings without broodlords... its the same way infested terran don't count as infestors make them. You cannot just make them at your hatch... they are part of the broodlord.
As for Queens, you do not march a queen across the map and attack with them... You cannot mass like 6 - 7 queens and then attack with them like you can roaches, they are more like static defenses than anything else.
Now for overlords vs warp prisms. Warp prisms allow the P to warp in more units into a battle, the overlord is a supply depot... The warp prism actively influences a battle, the best an overlord can do is drop down a tiny spot of creep and allow Z's 1a'ed units to move a bit faster....
Not to mention, the OL creep was going down anyways, the warprism is not activated unless needed for a battle...
This is why the Broodling, Queen, and over lord don't count where the warp prism does.
As such, Z does have less units... as we cannot center a strat around: Queens, Broodlings, Overlords.
Where P and T can use every unit at their command to win a battle, from HT storms, to medivac heals, to calling in reinforcements... Z just has a blob of units that 1a.
On May 17 2010 16:36 Artosis wrote: TeWy, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I said units usable in combat. overlord, overseer, queen, broodling, changeling, and infested terran do not count. don't bother responding. im not arguing this point.
So, when someone builds extra Queens for anti-air defense, this is not "usable in combat"? So when a Brood Lord's Broodlings stop your GtA units from getting into range with them, this is not "usable in combat?"
Perhaps you need a more clear definition of this term, because it seems very nebulous.
And this is not a minor point of contention; it is not a semantic point. It is the fundamental structure of his first argument: that the Zerg have far fewer options than Terran/Protoss and therefore are easier to master. If it is indeed found that the Zerg do not have far fewer options as Artosis indicated, then this part of his argument fails.
So a consistent definition of "usable in combat" is important. Overlords can drop units, and so can Warp Prisms. So it is very hard to justify having one of these considered "usable in combat" and not the other. Same goes with Overseers and Observers; if Overseers don't count, then Observers can't count either.
On May 17 2010 17:25 trueg0x wrote: God DAMMIT TeWy, no one cares about you and your retarded arguing chased artosis away. I want to hear what HE has to say so dont fucking be rude to him and chase him off. Just listen and be grateful that he bothered to aim his brain farts in our direction. idiot! Please artosis, dont abandon this thread because of trolls...
Blind worship of where information comes from, rather than critical thinking about the information itself, will never allow you to find the truth.
@ point #1: Broodlords and broodlings go together... you don't make broodlings without broodlords... its the same way infested terran don't count as infestors make them. You cannot just make them at your hatch... they are part of the broodlord.
As for Queens, you do not march a queen across the map and attack with them... You cannot mass like 6 - 7 queens and then attack with them like you can roaches, they are more like static defenses than anything else.
Now for overlords vs warp prisms. Warp prisms allow the P to warp in more units into a battle, the overlord is a supply depot... The warp prism actively influences a battle, the best an overlord can do is drop down a tiny spot of creep and allow Z's 1a'ed units to move a bit faster....
Not to mention, the OL creep was going down anyways, the warprism is not activated unless needed for a battle...
This is why the Broodling, Queen, and over lord don't count where the warp prism does.
As such, Z does have less units... as we cannot center a strat around: Queens, Broodlings, Overlords.
Where P and T can use every unit at their command to win a battle, from HT storms, to medivac heals, to calling in reinforcements... Z just has a blob of units that 1a.
On May 17 2010 16:36 Artosis wrote: TeWy, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I said units usable in combat. overlord, overseer, queen, broodling, changeling, and infested terran do not count. don't bother responding. im not arguing this point.
So, when someone builds extra Queens for anti-air defense, this is not "usable in combat"? So when a Brood Lord's Broodlings stop your GtA units from getting into range with them, this is not "usable in combat?"
Perhaps you need a more clear definition of this term, because it seems very nebulous.
And this is not a minor point of contention; it is not a semantic point. It is the fundamental structure of his first argument: that the Zerg have far fewer options than Terran/Protoss and therefore are easier to master. If it is indeed found that the Zerg do not have far fewer options as Artosis indicated, then this part of his argument fails.
So a consistent definition of "usable in combat" is important. Overlords can drop units, and so can Warp Prisms. So it is very hard to justify having one of these considered "usable in combat" and not the other. Same goes with Overseers and Observers; if Overseers don't count, then Observers can't count either.
On May 17 2010 17:25 trueg0x wrote: God DAMMIT TeWy, no one cares about you and your retarded arguing chased artosis away. I want to hear what HE has to say so dont fucking be rude to him and chase him off. Just listen and be grateful that he bothered to aim his brain farts in our direction. idiot! Please artosis, dont abandon this thread because of trolls...
Blind worship of where information comes from, rather than critical thinking about the information itself, will never allow you to find the truth.
He was talking about choices in terms of army compositions, way to totally miss Artosis's point. Gee i guess next time i should go that common queen into brooding strat >.< and furthermore Overlord drop is not the same as a warp prism, have you not played starcrft2, do you seriously not understand the difference between being able to drop units and warp them in? And you call this critical thinking?
I think the concern expressed is that Blizzard is nerfing zerg b/c there is a prevalence of high level zerg players on the asia server. This prevalence however may have little to do with how powerful zerg is as a race and have everything to do with gameplay complexity i.e. zerg is just easier to master (a sick production mechanic doesn't hurt their appeal either).
Since none of us are privy to Blizzard's actual intent regarding long term balance adjustments it is really hard to say. The recent roach nerf was done to weaken the combined HP of 200/200 zerg armies filled with roaches and is a prelude to an ultralisk buff + other possible zerg changes (as per Blizzard's patch statement). Switching races simply b/c you feel your race is underpowered for the current patch in the beta (no offense anyone) is really stupid. What are you going to keep switching races every patch? Lol how silly. If you want to be an serious competitor you will eventually have to pick a race and stick with it.
Blizzard doesn't always immediately patch the biggest imbalance as perceived by the players. This is a good thing.
Player perception is often biased and anecdotal evidence doesn't always confirm the underlying data. Since we don't have access to the data Blizzard is collecting so we rely almost entirely on our own experience and tournament results to judge balance. However actual gameplay statistics are superior towards making qualitative assessments regarding game balance especially from the perspective of a large corporation.
For example, lots of terran players whine about void ray imbalance (I play terran btw) but the truth of the matter might be more subtle. Assuming Blizzard has complete gameplay data (unit usage rates etc.) you could calculate things like the probability a terran who opens with X build will win if a protoss player opens with void rays.
These kinds of calculations are what you would want to do if you are multi-million dollar corporation with millions of dollar invested in a game that you want to become an e-sport standard for years to come. The more dependencies you incorporate into your analysis (timings, rank, map, other units numbers etc.) the better you are able to assess match-up balances. We don't have access to any of this information. And sometimes as players we don't need to in order to see something isn't right. However we should be necessarily suspicious of our immediate reactions to balance changes and withhold judgement until we've more thoroughly tested whatever new (or seemingly ridiculous) changes Blizzard has made.
Of course Blizzard could be full of newbs who don't collect any meaningful data from the games and can't do math but somehow I doubt it. This game may take years to balance thoroughly. The best we can do as players is provide intelligent feedback and try our best to abuse everything so that nothing slips through the cracks.
Artosis has a good point, I think the "over-nerf" was perhaps something of a misnomer for a lot of people. Blizzard wants to see more racial diversity amongst high level players but the lack of diversity (specifically on the Asia server which Blizzard likes to focus on) may have little to do with game balance and more to do with other factors.
so according to you zerg wasant imbalanced in patch 11? because all top zergs including sen etc claimed zerg is somewhat overpowered imo blizzard should do something with ridiculous larva incjection before they make any nerfs but they decided to choose other route ... (in sc1 u could easily compete in macro war with zerg but now its just impossible, he will run you over)
This is a huge difference, especially when you consider that one of the Zerg units, the Ultralisk, is completely inferior to any other choice the Zerg have. This brings us down to eight units. Why does this make the Zerg better on the Asian server?
Streamlined learning. This is all that the Zerg has to work with. That means, the best units, ideas and strategies boil down much faster. There is simply less to test. StarCraft II is a very complex game, with many, many factors contributing to any situation. The Zerg have less of these factors. You have a very limited number of options. This doesn't make playing the Zerg easier, per sey, it just makes figuring out how to player the Zerg right easier. While other races are still around with three to five extra units, the Zerg already know what combination work and don't work. This makes every practice game a Zerg player plays worth more, as they are already past the testing phase.
[/b]
Agreed, Zerg after the initial larvae / macro knowhow have a very easy learning curve and very few viable strategies with very awesome and cheap mobility tricks like nydus worms and overlord doom drops.
On May 17 2010 16:36 Artosis wrote: TeWy, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I said units usable in combat. overlord, overseer, queen, broodling, changeling, and infested terran do not count. don't bother responding. im not arguing this point.
So, when someone builds extra Queens for anti-air defense, this is not "usable in combat"? So when a Brood Lord's Broodlings stop your GtA units from getting into range with them, this is not "usable in combat?"
Perhaps you need a more clear definition of this term, because it seems very nebulous.
And this is not a minor point of contention; it is not a semantic point. It is the fundamental structure of his first argument: that the Zerg have far fewer options than Terran/Protoss and therefore are easier to master. If it is indeed found that the Zerg do not have far fewer options as Artosis indicated, then this part of his argument fails.
So a consistent definition of "usable in combat" is important. Overlords can drop units, and so can Warp Prisms. So it is very hard to justify having one of these considered "usable in combat" and not the other. Same goes with Overseers and Observers; if Overseers don't count, then Observers can't count either.
On May 17 2010 17:25 trueg0x wrote: God DAMMIT TeWy, no one cares about you and your retarded arguing chased artosis away. I want to hear what HE has to say so dont fucking be rude to him and chase him off. Just listen and be grateful that he bothered to aim his brain farts in our direction. idiot! Please artosis, dont abandon this thread because of trolls...
Blind worship of where information comes from, rather than critical thinking about the information itself, will never allow you to find the truth.
He was talking about choices in terms of army compositions, way to totally miss Artosis's point. Gee i guess next time i should go that common queen into brooding strat >.< and furthermore Overlord drop is not the same as a warp prism, have you not played starcrft2, do you seriously not understand the difference between being able to drop units and warp them in? And you call this critical thinking?
Didn't TheLittleOne just win a game against Protoss by going almost entirely Queen?
Yes. He did.
And you're just mincing words on the difference between Warp in and Drop units. There is a difference without a distinction since in both cases a unit has to go all the way to the location where the drop will be. The only difference is one carries the units in it (prism can too) and the other just allows them to "appear" there.
Idra pretty much won a game against Nony by spending money on drop tech and doom dropping. This is clearly a strat one can take which includes accounting for possible lost Ovies, getting 2 upgrades (speed), and positioning.
I doubt blizzard nerfed roaches just because the top asian zerg players dominate the scene. The argument about the number of units seem to be flawed as TeWy pointed out (I guess its personal preference on how you count). However, I think Zerg have more streamlined build mechanics and units which makes transitions easier to execute. In the end I think the roach nerf was good even though I had my doubts at first. I love how muta/ling combinations are more viable in ZvZ now. And I actually used to suicide harass my late game hydras/mutas just to be able to make 200/200 roach in many games.
Of the top 18 players on the asian server, only one is protoss. If zerg was overnerfed, then protoss got destroyed. Should mention that in your article Artosis.
Didn't TheLittleOne just win a game against Protoss by going almost entirely Queen?
Yes. He did.
Morrow just won a game by defending with like 20 scv's and a tank as well so he won a game by going almost entirely SCV, maybe they should be considered a combat unit.
Seriously though, neither a dropship or a pylon is a combat unit, so the warp prism isn't either. And even if you do consider the queen a combat unit, zerg is still behind in the number of units so the main point of Artosis still stands even though I don't agree with everything he said or the way he said it. (Oh, and Broodlings doesn't count, just like interceptors doesn't count.)
On May 17 2010 19:02 Duelist wrote: Of the top 18 players on the asian server, only one is protoss. If zerg was overnerfed, then protoss got destroyed. Should mention that in your article Artosis.
You're reasoning may be correct about balance (although I'm not sure, we don't even have proper maps yet) but certainly this change doesn't warrant a giant post or any concern beyond what we already had about Blizzards flawed design system.
You said yourself the vast majority of good players are playing Zerg. That's exactly what Blizzard doesn't want in a Beta; so they make them worse and some top players switch to other races. At least they're making changes and learning things.
Basically this thread like so many others just sounds like more needless whining. TL is dieing a slow death.
On May 17 2010 19:09 Klive5ive wrote: You're reasoning may be correct about balance (although I'm not sure, we don't even have proper maps yet) but certainly this change doesn't warrant a giant post or any concern beyond what we already had about Blizzards flawed design system.
You said yourself the vast majority of good players are playing Zerg. That's exactly what Blizzard doesn't want in a Beta; so they make them worse and some top players switch to other races. At least they're making changes and learning things.
Basically this thread like so many others just sounds like more needless whining. TL is dieing a slow death.
there is no dying going on ;-)
so they get proper results for balance issues with nerfing zerg? that doesnt make any sense in my opinion.
They should reconsider there changes or alter them with adding some 1 supply zerg unit in T1 or T1,5.
Its a fact they didnt take the players playing the races into account, obviously.
On May 17 2010 19:02 Duelist wrote: Of the top 18 players on the asian server, only one is protoss. If zerg was overnerfed, then protoss got destroyed. Should mention that in your article Artosis.
these stats are still pre-patch12 based
:O i didn't know that, but in that case, that supports my point, considering that so far protoss has been by far the most nerfed class out of the 3.
On May 17 2010 15:45 Luddite wrote: I think it's more likely that Korea simply developed a myth that zerg was the strongest race, which caused all the really competitive players to pick zerg, which meant that zerg won all the tourneys, which reinforced the myth.
If you had paid any attention to what Artosis told you, the reason zerg was so strong in the begining was it was so easy to learn and figure out. There is no myth involved.
Try go from zerg to terran, your head will explode.
I'm not sure why Asians prefer zerg but I don't think it's mainly to do with the number of different types of units. I play toss but I like zerg the most because they are the most easily adaptable you can completely change your strategy much faster and cheaper because you don't need 4 starports or 4 factories. That suggests that zerg would be a better race once you understand the game very well and is counter to your argument and zerg just feel kool they are stealthy deadly bugs which imo is kooler than crazy futuristic templar which of course are kooler than playing some dumb human race.
It's not that I disagree with Artossis, I'm in no place to comment as I've not met any korean player. Actually his points sound very sound.
What I want to speak to is the expectation of 'fair' patchs. No one should expect 'fair' patches with nerfs balanced by buffs
Blizzard most likely has plans to balance out the roach at 2 food supply - and also backup plans to keep them at 1. And that almost certianly have more changes planned for the Ultra. So why didn't they put them all into patch 12?
Simply if you put down 3-4 changes to a unit in one patch, and it doesn't go exactly as planned... you can't tell which of the changes went wrong, or even what does what.
It's standard practice to make as few changes at a time as possible to see the impact. It's part of testing of any system.
This is a testing process... in many cases it's refinment and and you see fair changes... but that can only happen the unit(s) involved are not broken in the first place. If you are making serious changes you make them slowly.
Based on what I'm seeing I fully expect balance patches to continue into the live game as well.
Though Artosis is obviously correct to point out a pattern of zerg nerfs
Artosis makes the mistake of thinking that only old BW pros are destined to comprise the SC2 bonjwa. I think the process of shaking the top players out of SC2 is going to be a real challenge to this type of elitism.
I think Artosis' argument might be valid if Blizzard were actually balancing the game based on the top 10 players in the world. However Blizzard seems to be looking at game results and statistics across all servers and all leagues (at least plat and gold anyways). The impression I get from Blizzard's own posts are that they care much more about achieving a 50% win ratio for all matchups at gold/platinum than the specific results of a few ex SC1 pros.
I think it's pretty clear that Zerg has the simplest macro. They have the fewest viable combat units, and the simplest production requirements, which pretty much by definition makes it easier to distill effective unit combinations and timings. I agree with Artosis that Zerg is basically just easier to figure out than the other races. It should be obvious that if that's the case, zerg players are going to have an advantage this early in the game's life cycle. For that reason, I think blizzard is making a mistake by overcompensating for the early ease of learning imparted by the race's innate simplicity. I think they're going to end up doing a lot of backpedaling as the metagame evolves.
I agree with the basics of the argument that learning curves in SC2 are largely unknown and are most likely entirely dependent on race. Having less units is an indication Zergs learning curve will rise much faster but will also get stuck after that. Not a fact though, just an indication.
Who plays which race is definitely important to the argument as well. As you can see from the whole EU community is that pretty much every single guy on top is an ex-top-gamer in some other game. The whole top 10 of the gosugamers ranking are guys that are known for their accomplishments in other games. Be it BW, War3, Supreme Commander (TLO) or WoW (Orly). It's pretty clear that out of all these games on average BW will give you the best preparation for SC2 and thus the argument that Zerg has got more ex-pros than the other races and therefor played better is totally valid.
I don't really agree with claiming overnerf based on that though, because just like we can't determine the exact learning curve of the races we also can't determine exactly how much the nerfs will do. It's very possible Zergs will continue being on top in Asia making the whole argument of overnerf invalid because no one is capable of judging exactly by how much ahead they should be. Anyway articles need strong opinions so this conclusion added to the above mentioned theories makes sense from a writers perspective.
Also Spunky is an ex-pro and plays Protoss I feel he deserves a little bit of love.
If some race, and i'm not talking about zerg in specific, or units end up being a little unbalanced for better or for worse, can't they just release a patch to fix that? Lots of games do that kind of balancing long after the game is for sale.
Two top Zergs are playing different races now... makes you think a little bit.
I would have switched to Terran if it weren't so hard. It is hard for me to understand the balance between more production buildings and more units, tech/reactor, expanding. A hatchery that makes everything is just so much easier.
On May 17 2010 20:54 Duelist wrote: If some race, and i'm not talking about zerg in specific, or units end up being a little unbalanced for better or for worse, can't they just release a patch to fix that? Lots of games do that kind of balancing long after the game is for sale.
It's a minor point but I gotta agree with the people arguing that if you include warp prism you have to include overlord.
There are some pretty sick strategies out there with OLs such as the baneling carpet bomb that are every bit as technical as similar warp prism based tactics.
I have no idea how he counts 14 usable units for P, and only 9 for Z.
If I include all P units I have to include the Z's supportunits aswell?
Edit: Example: Warp prism. Used to drop units and bring units quicker into battle (with warp in function) Overlord: Used to drop units and bring units quicker into battle (with creep function).
Of course the Warp prism is better but the overlord is used about the same amount, if not more often than the warp prism. Usable unit imo.
You could also say terran got over-nerfed in the patch that nerfed SCVs, marines and reactors. As is evidenced by a continuous string of terran buffs lateron. But blizz nerfed a particular aspect that they didn't like (those early marine+SCV power rushes).
The same can probably be said about 1 supply roaches. It allowed zerg to macro and get enormous armies. Blizz didn't like that and made them 2 supply. Whether it's an overnerf or not will remain to be seen. But if it is, then buffs should be coming to other units to encourage a more diverse playstyle. Maybe the roach itself will receive some buffs (or stronger upgrades) again.
i think they should add more zerg fighters. i dont think lurkers would fit in since baneling fills their role beautifully without any weaknesses they have 3 air fighters but i wouldnt mind if they added in scourges just for the heck of it they could probably add some kind of hive spellcaster too
On May 17 2010 21:15 StarStruck wrote: Almost everything coming out of Artosis' mouth is biased. Most of us know that already. Take it with a grain of salt.
I mean, I understand the argument but don't agree. There's 3 fundamental arguments here that I just don't think there's any direct evidence for:
1) The skill level of Zerg players is significantly higher than that of Protoss and Terran. This was also at the heart of the previous argument during the Tester thread that "no good players play Terran or they'd never lose." It's certainly possible that there is a skew of experience towards Zerg at the very top of the Korean ladder. So what? I don't think that Blizzard is looking directly at the results of 6 Korean former pro-gamers and saying "wow, those progamers just keep beating everyone, let's nerf everyone so they're not so good." Blizzard has said they do balance around the top of the ladder, but not necessarily the top 10, or the top 5, or even the top 50. So, there is no logical direct link between an incomplete list of top players in Korea of the 3 races and the state of balance in the game. It's as if, now that these Zerg players are switching to Terran, you could somehow surmise that now Terran will be nerfed heavily simply because good players are now playing them. It's a total red herring. One of those correlation does not imply causality things.
2) The simple quantity of units is solely what makes a race hard to learn. Zerg has slightly less units (though I think you have to include the Overlord [creep spreading during battle], Overseer [scouting and detection], and Queen [defense, transfusion, creep], especially if you include the Observer and Reaper) but is that the sole indication of difficulty curve? It's not like any Protoss players on the ladder are rushing to Carrier or Mothership, either. Maybe that's because they're useless. Maybe that's because they haven't learned them because there are too many units. So, even if the other races' units count higher, the working set is almost the same, meaning the gradient of difficulty shouldn't be so ridiculously wide as to think that the Zerg players have somehow capped potential sooner, while the Terran and Protoss players are still learning so much more. Besides, so many other things make a race complicated, especially with SC2's macro mechanics. The notion of keeping multiple Queens' energy low, while spreading creep, and deciding how to split larva between Drones and units is a whole lot harder than Muling/Scanning or Chrono Boosting. There are a great number of things that go into the complexity of a race, but unit count is not nearly the sole determinant.
3) Blizzard has the potential to be happy with the current state of Zerg. It's just clearly and factually untrue. There is a 0% chance that this current state of balance preservers beyond the next patch. They want to see what this patch does, then they'll make the additional changes they have in the pipe. This patch very likely was an overnerf (I don't want to speak in absolutes about state of balance), but it's not the last patch in this sequence, and Blizzard wants to see what affect it has on the game. So, Zerg is not at an endpoint, or even a point that Blizzard is perfectly asserting that they're "balanced." They want to see what affect the roach nerf has so they can re-evaluate.
Please keep in mind that we are continuing to keep a close eye on many of these changes to better gauge their effects and may not apply all of our planned changes into any one patch. This allows us to track the effects a bit better and layer in our planned changes to better set the pace of how they affect balance overall.
From post "Just a Reminder on Beta":
We're going to shake things up from time to time to see where the chips fall and know that this process is neither perfect nor precise, but in no way is the development team operating in a vacuum or taking balance changes lightly.
So, I think it's a decent post, but I don't think the evidence matches the claim. There is no reasonable person that thinks the last patch balanced Zerg. I'm not saying the Roach change won't stand, but I do not think that Zerg is going to stay the same or get worse off. I'll bet they compensate the Roach a bit perhaps in armor again or add the strength elsewhere.
PS: For people shushing people away because they think they're scaring of artosis: He's a big boy and can handle himself. He's done a lot for the community and he's an exceptional player, but this isn't his first rodeo, he doesn't need handlers chasing people away so they can hear his decrees without interruption. His opinions carry a ton of weight, and he can defend them himself. He made a post for discussion, let the discussion happen.
I think there can be a different side to this story if you look away from pro gaming. I don't know on what grounds blizzard nerfs or buffs, plat division, pro tournamnets or over all win %.
But the play of protoss and terran is so vastly different between pro players and silver/gold league players which I am playing against.
For Zerg to win in silver+ and even in bronze you MUST expand pretty quickly most times. Terran out macros you on one base and its very hard to get a big enough army to handle protoss and terran on one base (one hatchery). Successful Zerg play boils down to expanding and defending 2 bases pretty early in the game. You could make an in base 2nd hatch, but if you can def NE why not place it there to get the NE in the process. What every protoss and terran player does in bronze -> lower gold gold to counter this is a timing push of one base. If that fails they generally loose, if it succeeds they generally win. They put all their hopes in this one push, even if zerg has perfect counters for their army they still push and hope to win. Instead of using that force to secure an expansion and possibly another shortly after. If they had constant SCV production during this time I see no problem getting that expo saturated really quickly and getting on even terms with zergs in income. Watching pro replays it does take a fairly long time for Zerg to get economic advantage even with FE, especially if pressured a bit early on, forced to make units.
I think the "fear" of allowing Zerg to FE is a bit unjust. If you do not pressure sure he can drone up. But simple fear of pressure is enough to make Zerg start spam units and spines. Allowing toss and terran to expand and move workers their without fear of having lower eco.
I see different tactics in pro tournaments. Some expo really fast as protoss against zerg as an example. But still there are a lot of timing pushes, committing their whole game into one push to beat Zerg against their wall of spines. If Zerg plays super defense I think toss and terrans only answer is not to play super offense, they can also choose defense along with faking attacks (I think) but you almost never see this.
If terran and toss muster up a nice force instead of actually attacking with it just make Zerg believe you are attacking. If Zerg has 8 spines (common answer to attack) going thats 1200! minerals he does not have in a army, its 8 drones less. Toss terran should be able to take expo at this point with superior ground army not having to fear Zergs army in an assault on their own base as Zerg now spent 1.2k mins on static defense. Maybe take middle and set it up with cannons and turrets/bunkers, before Zerg gets his ground army there. As long as you can defend against muta in your base it should be ok, and Zerg is not alone to be able to harass worker lines anyway. If you have middle of map (on those maps where there is a middle choke) Zerg is forced to either harass or attack your army backed up with static defense as you can freely expand. And Zerg cannot afford to let opponent be on equal bases most of the times. This would shift the game from toss terran being forced to attack Zerg to the other way around
I don't know if I'm convinced, but the points are definitely valid if that's the completely story. That aside, I love the writing style, straight to the point, no wall of text, very clear lists; well spoken.
If those dominant zerg players are really pros they will have no problem adapting to other races, should they be stronger overall. But they stick with zerg, so either they're not pro enough or more likely, zerg is a really solid race which pays off in competitive gaming. I don't know if they've been overnerfed, but if a few pros switched to terran that's good news in terms of balance. It also will provide us terran players with some new strategies from korea, really good news. Protoss needs some love, i'd like to play some protoss again and right now i feel it's just suicide I don't look too much at stats for balance (well i'm against that practice) but the distribution on the asia server is Race distribution, 2000+ rating Zerg ---------- 11 ----- 45.8% Protoss ----- 3 ------- 12.5% Terran ------- 10 ------ 41.7%
Which is a little indication that protoss is totally unplayable.
On May 17 2010 21:26 MorroW wrote: i dont think lurkers would fit in since baneling fills their role beautifully without any weaknesses
Other than the fact that they're one time use only? Lololol...
ur not analysing it good enough
lurkers would only rape mnm on a ramp or by protection would lose hard against them on a flank or vs mech would absolutely demolish anything under swarm lurkers had so many strengths and weaknesses its ridiculous how complex that unit was
the baneling can hunt, run. does well on ramp or outside ramp. flank doesnt matter split is impossible (yes it is impossible now move on with ur life plz). it totally rapes bio and its still alot stronger vs hellions than most think. i laff every time a commentator says a guy should make hellion vs banes
my point is the lurker was very difficult to use the baneling is very very simple to use and it does everything the lurker does, only better
but i guess they needed to make banelings this ridiculous since defiler is gone and muta stack wont give u mapcontrol for shit in the midgame vs t
I believe that the second part of Artosis' point is the one we should be looking at. At this point in time, Its irrelevant for the state of the game whether Zerg are OP or UP. Roaches can be taken back to 1 food, Spine Crawlers burrow can be sped up with just 1 switch of a button (a change of a number in a text file more likely).
The part I find essential is the one about the learning curve. Let's face it. Zerg have the fewest units. Its not even about counting them. Its more about their role and specific niche, and their ability to be incorporated into builds. With a really mediocre corruptor, a bad ultralisk, the zerg suffer even more. The roach nerf shows exactly what I mean. Right now, with roaches rendered useless, the units one has to play with are: Zergling, Baneling, Hydra, Infestor, Mutalisk, Broodlord. That's it: 6 units. The rest are just gimmick units, pigeon-holed into countering a specific unit combo. (Corruptor against Collosus/BC, Ultralisk against massmarineslol)
If Starcraft II is going to become the next popular e-sport, it must maintain the most important quality of a sport, in general: which is appealing to the masses to watch. If people dont like watching matches between the pros, there will be no pros, and the game won't be an e-sport. So each race must be able to contain spectacular play: which means unit diversity and complex units.
We've already seen army compositions and transitions for the different races. Protoss end-game ground armies are very diversified: Zealot, Sentry, Stalker, Immortal, Collosus. Terran as well: Marine, Marrauder, Medivac, Ghost, as well as Hellion, Marrauder, Thor, Tank, Viking. Zerg end-game army: Hydras lol.
While great players, with their fine touch can turn mass hydras (or anything else for that matter) into something enjoyable, after some time, it will get extremely boring, not to mention counterable. The learning curve it simply about this. Mass <Insert unit here> is easily conterable. And the pros will learn eventually how to manage their transitions to conter this simple, but effective play. A race this simple, will become boring
Zerg needs more units. Either by introducing some new units into the mix (Lurkers etc), either by spicing up the existant ones (more spells for overseers/infestor, other utility for corruptors, changing the role of the roach, making ultralisks usable)
I disagree. I feel that the zerg have much more mobility than the terran or protoss. It would be extremely easy to mass up some roaches and lings and send them into an enemy's base while doing a quick tech over to mutalisks to clean up any workers, marauders, and siege tanks they may have.
Has increasing Roach supply count from one to two really had that huge of an impact? I only started playing Zerg a week ago (my main race is Protoss), and that seems like a trivial change to me. You have so many larvae to produce from, so it's not as if you're getting screwed on build time, and the double supply means that your Roaches cost, on average, a STAGGERING eleven minerals more now? Does this cripple some specific, timing-intensive build that I wasn't aware of, or is this just the final straw in a long series of Z nerfs? (I started playing around Patch 9).
Also, I count 12 "usable" units for Zerg (11 if we're realistic and eschew the Ultra). If the Observer and the Warp Prism are "usable", then the Overseer and Overlord, which provide similar functionality, are certainly so; and while we're making fun of the Ultra, we should also note that the Carrier, Mothership, and Archon are all completely laughable units, which would pull Protoss down to only 11 usable units. Gee, look at that, one of your premises makes no sense. This is a long, subjective QQ based on some seriously dubious grounds.
lurkers would only rape mnm on a ramp or by protection would lose hard against them on a flank or vs mech would absolutely demolish anything under swarm lurkers had so many strengths and weaknesses its ridiculous how complex that unit was
the baneling can hunt, run. does well on ramp or outside ramp. flank doesnt matter split is impossible (yes it is impossible now move on with ur life plz). it totally rapes bio and its still alot stronger vs hellions than most think. i laff every time a commentator says a guy should make hellion vs banes
my point is the lurker was very difficult to use the baneling is very very simple to use and it does everything the lurker does, only better
but i guess they needed to make banelings this ridiculous since defiler is gone and muta stack wont give u mapcontrol for shit in the midgame vs t
Do you think it is strong or TOO strong? Because I feel alarmed when players use the word "ridiculous".
To add something to the Lurker comparison: I am playing out of MorroWs competition but my experiences with the Baneling are even more "lurker-ish". When playing against a Terran Friend of mine I play burrowed Banelings and pretty much contain the Terran exactly the same way a lurker would. At least the Terran has to start scanning...which is always a good thing. It works very well with nydus and is even little Banelingdrops can be SO annoying to Terran and Protoss players (only that i normally won't get the Banelingnest vs Toss because they do shit against any other unit besides zealots and i still rape those with my nerfed roach)
However, if more terran players played Mech as safe as MorroW did against HayprO on Metalpolis the other day..... Banelings will see pretty much no light (no light units nor daylight) in the game.
I'm not sure what this article is about. It seems to say that the reason Zergs are winning in Korea is because it's much easier to find good army combinations due to the smaller number of fighting units. It goes on to "prove" this point by showing the number of Zerg pros is larger than the number of T and P (but the numbers are small enough that this is hardly definitive. But then the title says that Zerg is over-nerfed. If it's over-nerfed, shouldn't the pros be bailing and playing other races? I fail to see the connection. Please help me if I'm confused.
Koreans are not the best RTS gamers, I believe other countries is just as good, its just that Starcraft is dominated by Korea because of their culture and superstar status that makes ppl want to be better.
On May 17 2010 22:36 Nitron wrote: Koreans are not the best RTS gamers, I believe other countries is just as good, its just that Starcraft is dominated by Korea because of their culture and superstar status that makes ppl want to be better.
On May 17 2010 22:36 Nitron wrote: Koreans are not the best RTS gamers, I believe other countries is just as good, its just that Starcraft is dominated by Korea because of their culture and superstar status that makes ppl want to be better.
I don't disagree, but there's a danger with this argument. It's precisely because of the culture that makes them perhaps the best SC players. I don't think there's a Korean gene that somehow causes them to be predisposed to being good SC players, but because the culture exists, they likely have a wider and deeper talent pool compared to the US/EU. There are no absolutes, and over time other regions could take the mantle away, but for now, they just started ahead of the other regions.
Similarly to how in US we have American Football, and we claim to be the best at it, but we're really the only ones that play it. Give people enough time and interest and they could rival us at that as well. Just ask the NBA. But that doesn't stop the fact that if you looked at it now, we're the best at American Football in the world.
The reason Zerg dominated Asia is because their macro mechanic is flat-out better than both the other races and Koreans are much more accomplished at macro than the rest of the world. It's quite as simple as that, using the "less to learn" argument seems like you're backing yourself in a corner as there are very easy counter arguments (leading to Protoss being the most "underpowered" race due to them having so many builds/strats to learn). I think slowing down Zerg macro a bit might be essential for game balance because they get such a huge macro advantage without constant early game pressure no matter how good your macro is as the other race.
On May 17 2010 22:48 deth2munkies wrote: The reason Zerg dominated Asia is because their macro mechanic is flat-out better than both the other races and Koreans are much more accomplished at macro than the rest of the world. It's quite as simple as that, using the "less to learn" argument seems like you're backing yourself in a corner as there are very easy counter arguments (leading to Protoss being the most "underpowered" race due to them having so many builds/strats to learn).
And those counter arguments dont prove anything if you actually understood what the "has less to learn" implies.
I am surprised by this post.. I don't think that the change (the roach, which I believe this is all about) is a bad thing for zerg. Imo it brings more variety to and more styles to zerg. Ofcource I can agree that they might have made a bigger step than needed, but I don't see any massive drop in zerg win percentage. I as a person who plays all the races like the change. The list of reasons kinda bothers me, I didn't expect you to be so dismissive. It is my belief that 2) and 3) explain why exactly 1) is not true.Koreans are not best at RTSes just y being koreans, it is so because everyone plays starcraft and exchange knowledge. I completely agree for the diversity point, but I don't really think that zerg has been maimed in any way.
Zerg has the best macro mechanic but it is the most unforgiving one. If you have 100 energy on your command center instead of 50 that's ok because you can just use 2 mules, if you don't inject larva for 10 seconds it's a 'huge' difference.
Everyone only says 'zerg has op macro mechanics' which is true if the zerg player is really good at it, which is more likely for the top asian players than for the top EU/US players, since those spend more time playing this game.
On May 17 2010 23:01 heishe wrote: well, koreans certainly aren't inherently better in RTS-s (or games in general) than the rest of the world, they just play more
I don't think anyone is claiming them to be inherently superior. Americans are the best at American football and basketball, because those are their games. I doubt anyone will challenge this or inform me they aren't inherently better at those sports, they just play them more. If other nations took an interest outside of the olympics as far as basketball and developed their play, they would likely compete. Same with any other sport that is played more in one region than another.
Starcraft is Korea's game because there was huge competition there. SC2 is already more competitive other there was a result. Definitely more so than the NA server. Right now the numbers are skewed in Korea's favor. Will it always be that way for SC2? I don't know. But let's not try to refute the fact that Korea is at present better SC2 players on the whole, they are.
I think Zerg is too easy to play, which is why more players in Korea are playing z. Same reason why Artosis and Idra switched from Protoss/random to Zerg. Not because it was more fun, but because it was the better performing race. Maybe it is because of the lack of units and therefore lack of creative thought that goes into the play, making it reward mechanical play more than the other races.
What really makes me sad about zerg in sc2 is that larvae is no longer that extra resource and in many cases the most precious one, above gas and minerals. For a huge part of the game you had to be aware of your larva and what you were doing with them. SC2 removed a lot of that complexity with queens. It still exists but to a very small degree compared to SC.
They should have just nerfed spawn larva a long time ago, like maybe one larva less. It seems like the simplest solution. The game would have been much easier to balance from there, most of the units could have been left alone. Zerg was fundamentally overpowered in the beginning, and it didn't have much to do with specific units. Oh well...
People are saying the zerg aren't easier to learn strategically just because they have fewer units...
Uh what?
Look at the zerg army...
9 combat units, overlords, and queens
Ultralisks - proven time and time again to be useless Corruptors - Strategically uninteresting, if you don't immediately know what you use them for you fail.
So that brings us down to 7 units for our composition already
Broodlords - Also strategically uninteresting really. You get late game, you make broodlords, you kill stuff from a safe distance. They're too slow to do anything cute and too powerful to be a bad choice.
So really you're left with Mutalisks, Hydras, Roaches, Zerglings, Banelings, and Infestors. These 6 units make up the majority of your army (until broodlords). So that's 6 or 7 units zerg have to mix with. Even further some units like banelings have clear uses as do Infestors. They're great 'mix ins', but they don't make an army in and of itself. Even more Mutalisks are weakish air units (great at harass of course) and we generally know they don't hold up in a full on battle if it involves units like marines or thors. The range of mutalisks is such that they can't partake in a battle and be safe from their counters (range 3 and all that). So really our main force is down to Hydra, Roach, and Zergling. It's no surprise that this is what you see the majority of zerg go. Zerg have the three main units to base their army off of, 4 if you think mutas are viable as a combat force, very specific uses of corruptors, broodlords to add in later, and a few other situational units we can pump in to help.
Meanwhile look at Protoss. Stalker/Zealot usually make the core of a zerg army but look at all the additions they can add on. Sentries, Colossi, Immortals, Phoenixes, Void Rays, and High Templars can all be mixed in (and in different compositions) to create an army. All of those choices bring a good amount of utility to any army with phoenixes are probably the choice that fills the most situational role. So for a race like Protoss you're looking at double or triple the choices in what units to add to your core, and that's even after excluding units like DTs or carrier for perceptually having less battle utility.
I think it's absurd to say that it's harder to learn ideal compositions for something like Protoss compared to Zerg. There are just so many more choices and viable compositions. Zerg have the largest set of 'core' units, but the smallest set of additional units. I think it's a lot easier to figure out how to model the core of your army than it is to figure out the right time and right uses of the additional units. That's why zerg are easier to understand strategically.
What really makes me sad about zerg in sc2 is that larvae is no longer that extra resource and in many cases the most precious one, above gas and minerals. For a huge part of the game you had to be aware of your larva and what you were doing with them. SC2 removed a lot of that complexity with queens. It still exists but to a very small degree compared to SC.
That is just plainly wrong! A lot of people argue that the Queen destroyed the Zergs constant problem of chosing between units and drones. Droning is still a thing you have to decide on and you are still limited to larvae. The only diffrence is that you now have more larvae to chose from. But it is wrong to say: hey, zerg has more larvae and therefore you don't have to chose between drones and units because to keep up with the buffed macro of Protoss and Terran (which also got abilitys to speed up their econ) you HAVE to be droning massively to keep up with their economy.
That is another reason why the Roach change is a pain in the butt for Zergs that most Toss and Terran players do not see. More overlords to support Roaches means less spare larvae --> less droning
What really makes me sad about zerg in sc2 is that larvae is no longer that extra resource and in many cases the most precious one, above gas and minerals. For a huge part of the game you had to be aware of your larva and what you were doing with them. SC2 removed a lot of that complexity with queens. It still exists but to a very small degree compared to SC.
That is just plainly wrong! A lot of people argue that the Queen destroyed the Zergs constant problem of chosing between units and drones. Droning is still a thing you have to decide on and you are still limited to larvae. The only diffrence is that you now have more larvae to chose from. But it is wrong to say: hey, zerg has more larvae and therefore you don't have to chose between drones and units because to keep up with the buffed macro of Protoss and Terran (which also got abilitys to speed up their econ) you HAVE to be droning massively to keep up with their economy.
That is another reason why the Roach change is a pain in the butt for Zergs that most Toss and Terran players do not see. More overlords to support Roaches means less spare larvae --> less droning
I can't speak for top level play, but in my games (1350 plat) I still live and die by my larvae. Almost all of my losses can be traced back to me mismanaging larvae at some point.
Artosis is bias and his lack of logical reasonining in this article pretty much solidifies it. And if I'm being really honest, he's not a good player either. If he played half as well as he cried, he might actually be able to be a legit pro one day. Instead, since he's garbage, he's doomed to always be the guy who commentates and observes and not the guy who plays. Most of the Beta has already caught up to him now that there's a ton more people in the game and he will drift into obscurity upon release.
Artosis is bias and his lack of logical reasonining in this article pretty much solidifies it. And if I'm being really honest, he's not a good player either. If he played half as well as he cried, he might actually be able to be a legit pro one day. Instead, since he's garbage, he's doomed to always be the guy who commentates and observes and not the guy who plays. Most of the Beta has already caught up to him now that there's a ton more people in the game and he will drift into obscurity upon release.
Like I said it exists, but if you think larva management is anywhere near as insanely important as it was in SC you are really wrong. Scouting and awareness can usually indicate whether you should have just sddddddddddddddddddddddddd'd or not in sc2.
Just because zerg players are greedy as fuck and try to power drone to 60+ every game even when their opponent is clearly still on one base doesn't mean larva management is as important a skill as it was in SC. It just isn't, by virtue of there being so much more of it whenever you want. If you have near perfect inject timing you will often times be waiting for minerals early-mid game, not larva.. It's a thousand times less punishing than in SC. It's more in line with the same way all other production management is important.
On May 17 2010 23:42 Tray wrote: Artosis is bias and his lack of logical reasonining in this article pretty much solidifies it. And if I'm being really honest, he's not a good player either. If he played half as well as he cried, he might actually be able to be a legit pro one day. Instead, since he's garbage, he's doomed to always be the guy who commentates and observes and not the guy who plays. Most of the Beta has already caught up to him now that there's a ton more people in the game and he will drift into obscurity upon release.
I have a feeling you're "garbage" in both starcraft and life in general.
On May 17 2010 21:38 Takkara wrote: 1) The skill level of Zerg players is significantly higher than that of Protoss and Terran. This was also at the heart of the previous argument during the Tester thread that "no good players play Terran or they'd never lose." It's certainly possible that there is a skew of experience towards Zerg at the very top of the Korean ladder. So what? I don't think that Blizzard is looking directly at the results of 6 Korean former pro-gamers and saying "wow, those progamers just keep beating everyone, let's nerf everyone so they're not so good." Blizzard has said they do balance around the top of the ladder, but not necessarily the top 10, or the top 5, or even the top 50. So, there is no logical direct link between an incomplete list of top players in Korea of the 3 races and the state of balance in the game. It's as if, now that these Zerg players are switching to Terran, you could somehow surmise that now Terran will be nerfed heavily simply because good players are now playing them. It's a total red herring. One of those correlation does not imply causality things.
I think they do balance around the very top players and not top 100. When blizzard was posting how zerg was dominating Asia server someone posted a race % of the top 100 of Asia. It was almost 10% in favor of protoss. In fact protoss was ahead until the very very top 10 of the server like the 2200+ guys where it was mostly zerg players. Those zerg players also had very good win percentages. So I'm pretty sure blizzard is looking at the very top players to balance the game.
On May 17 2010 22:14 Kratisto wrote: Has increasing Roach supply count from one to two really had that huge of an impact? I only started playing Zerg a week ago (my main race is Protoss), and that seems like a trivial change to me. You have so many larvae to produce from, so it's not as if you're getting screwed on build time, and the double supply means that your Roaches cost, on average, a STAGGERING eleven minerals more now? Does this cripple some specific, timing-intensive build that I wasn't aware of, or is this just the final straw in a long series of Z nerfs? (I started playing around Patch 9).
Also, I count 12 "usable" units for Zerg (11 if we're realistic and eschew the Ultra). If the Observer and the Warp Prism are "usable", then the Overseer and Overlord, which provide similar functionality, are certainly so; and while we're making fun of the Ultra, we should also note that the Carrier, Mothership, and Archon are all completely laughable units, which would pull Protoss down to only 11 usable units. Gee, look at that, one of your premises makes no sense. This is a long, subjective QQ based on some seriously dubious grounds.
Uh yes.
You would be shocked at how pathetic a maxed zerg army looks now that one of their main supplemental units takes up twice as much space on the supply chart.
Doubling supply hurts A LOT OF THINGS. Your maxed out army, your early/mid game because you have to build more overlords earlier. These things chew up larvae and resources.
And yes, it doesn't help that the Roaches have been nerfed since the game started. They used to be a unit that had a certain flare and could be microed to be amazing...now their upgrades are laughable and as a unit they are pretty bland. They needed a nerf, but they are going on nerf 9 or 10 if you take double supply into account.
Wow, very hindsightful I gotta admit I completly agree. I wish zerg has more units or more variety in them, but I feel zerg will become more complex only when the 2 expansions will be out, sad.
ps: by the way, it's per se, not "per sey". It's latin.
Like I said it exists, but if you think larva management is anywhere near as insanely important as it was in SC you are really wrong. Scouting and awareness can usually indicate whether you should have just sddddddddddddddddddddddddd'd or not in sc2.
I guess you are right about SC. My experience as Zerg in Broodwar is limited because i switched to terran when it really started mattering.
However, I still think it is an extra resource that you have to manage and is more complex than the other races macro management, which I like. That is also the reason why so many Zerg players are as greedy as you said. You can make huge diffrence with good larvae decisions i.e. sddddddddddddddddd when the terran is too dumb to pressure you efficiently.
I can only speak for myself and I am still experimenting with Queen Hotkeys because my inject timing is not close to beeing perfect and this is were you see how painful the zerg macroability can be. As stated above you can just spam mules and Chronoboost if you missed one... with inject larvae you can't and another creep tumor will not get you an edge over it.
When I see replays of good zerg players losing, you can also redirect it to missed larva injections or bad decisions considering droning over units or vice versa. The problem is that you won't have that much of an insight while playing.
Maybe (and i don't follow them enough to be certain) Korean players are playing more predictable / standart builds relying on mechanics, therefore making the Zergs decision "Drone vs Units" easier and giving them an edge.
I don't know if I agree entirely with you. I play on all 3 servers at 1900+ and I've had more close games and lost more games on the EU server than the other two. I play all races and I think the roach nerf wasn't needed. I really didn't mind playing vs roaches when they had 2 armor to be honest, but so far the nerfing of the roach has made zerg a million times more dynamic. Instead of 9999 roaches you actually see ling/banling micro as well as rushing infestor in the same manner people rushed defilers in bw.
Maybe nerfing roaches again hurts them to a point where they are no longer viable, but I think there will be additional tweaks if that'st he case. All i know if that playing as zerg and against zerg since the armor change was a break of fresh air and even witht he latest nerf I don't realy notice it too much. I still use roaches. I still have a tough time vs some people who use them. I lost a game to check last night ZvZ where i failed to scout his roach den and lost because of it. I was up 4-0 vs him before that happened using just ling/baneling micro.
took em years to balance BW, while they're doing exceptionally well to have the game this balanced already in the beta, theres always gonna be a player somewhere down the track in the years to come who will discover something that blizzard will need to take a look at.
The only thing I'd make, as maybe an alternative way of looking at the starting point.
Excluding movement micro and what parts of your army are where, Zerg have the following significant effects requiring army micro: - Burrow, probably only significantly useful on roaches for most fights. - Mind control - Fungal growth - Corruption - Infested Terran #
# = Things that are pretty much non-event abilities in most large army fights. I also judge them based on the assumption you have that unit. (Yes, you can contest me on any of those, I'm just talking general)
Take from that, what you will.
Personally, I see it meaning that T and P must use these extra abilities to the best to pull to equality in a situation of equal army/equal counter etc. Hence Zerg players are generally more macro orientated players. Yes, there are micro elements also involved in movement (ie. microing phoenix and vikings to get the best damage ratio out of them vs another air unit, or voidray micro abusing landscape or surrounding buildings to charge up on, or flanking/surrounding units). But presuming them all equal, I would see the Zerg having an inherant built-in easier time using armies, and definately not getting penalised for NOT using these abilities to their fullest.
EDIT: Also the other point with zerg is that their major counter units are one of 4 of their main units. Either hydra/roach/muta/ling. That's it. If you are up against an army, almost always (excluding a few specific combinations) using a heavy composition of one of those, with light combinations of the others mixed in, and 1-4 of the other support units thrown in. It's a lot harder to make a hard counter of a zerg army, as undoubtedly they cover each others weaknesses so well. (Note: I did not say impossible, just harder than Protoss or Zerg)
I kinda agree with Artosis' points here. The first one is pretty much undebateable: if you have fewer stuff, it takes a lot less time to figure it out. Each unit less is pretty much an order of degree less possible combinations. So it gets streamlined a lot more quickly. This is even amplified by the fact, that Zerg have a lot fewer combinations of buildings and builds. There is one production building, the supply comes from units. And it is even more amplified by the fact that Zerg games are shorter on average. And even more amplified that Zerg are very limited in their openings, the big variatins only kicking in after Lair.
So you not only need fewer iterations to find a workable build, the iterations are shorter. All this translates into Zerg being streamlined a lot faster than the other races (And also is amjor factor in them appearing stale).
The second point about Zerg being dominant in Korea because more former pros play it (maybe also because they can be streamlined faster) also sounds valid. But unlike the first point, which can be deduced about pretty much with pure logic based on the axioms of the rules of the game itself, it needs some real life data to test the theory. And as has been mentioned, deciding whether Zerg is dominant in Korea because of the players or the other way around can't really be done with his examples.
So you need to look at the Random players and compare their win rates when playing different races. That should expose the weaker races. Don't think that data is really available for the public though. All I know is that Day9 is worst with Zerg. Which would back up the original claim that Zerg is overnerfed, but also is just anecdotal evidence.
On May 17 2010 23:42 Tray wrote: Artosis is bias and his lack of logical reasonining in this article pretty much solidifies it. And if I'm being really honest, he's not a good player either. If he played half as well as he cried, he might actually be able to be a legit pro one day. Instead, since he's garbage, he's doomed to always be the guy who commentates and observes and not the guy who plays. Most of the Beta has already caught up to him now that there's a ton more people in the game and he will drift into obscurity upon release.
Artosis has a point, and while I'm not 100% with him on this one, I have the same sort of vague feeling that there are problems with Zerg and Blizzard hasn't been fixing the right ones.
The most elucidating point about the Blizzard balance/unit creation process was when I heard, I think it was Browder but I could be wrong, say of the roach that while they were playing they just 'felt' like the roach 'wanted to be' a tank. That's exactly the opposite of how you should be designing/balancing a game. And since then, nearly every patch has included some balance change to make the roach less of a tank. Funny thing is, it still is, but now Zerg really really really need a tank because TvZ mech is extremely powerful and the only Zerg unit that can handle a tank shot without crying out in terror is the roach. It's all rather fucked up imo.
On May 18 2010 00:19 LionsFist wrote: The only thing I'd make, as maybe an alternative way of looking at the starting point.
Excluding movement micro and what parts of your army are where, Zerg have the following significant effects requiring army micro: - Burrow, probably only significantly useful on roaches for most fights. - Mind control - Fungal growth - Corruption - Infested Terran #
# = Things that are pretty much non-event abilities in most large army fights. I also judge them based on the assumption you have that unit. (Yes, you can contest me on any of those, I'm just talking general)
Take from that, what you will.
Personally, I see it meaning that T and P must use these extra abilities to the best to pull to equality in a situation of equal army/equal counter etc. Hence Zerg players are generally more macro orientated players. Yes, there are micro elements also involved in movement (ie. microing phoenix and vikings to get the best damage ratio out of them vs another air unit, or voidray micro abusing landscape or surrounding buildings to charge up on, or flanking/surrounding units). But presuming them all equal, I would see the Zerg having an inherant built-in easier time using armies, and definately not getting penalised for NOT using these abilities to their fullest.
EDIT: Also the other point with zerg is that their major counter units are one of 4 of their main units. Either hydra/roach/muta/ling. That's it. If you are up against an army, almost always (excluding a few specific combinations) using a heavy composition of one of those, with light combinations of the others mixed in, and 1-4 of the other support units thrown in. It's a lot harder to make a hard counter of a zerg army, as undoubtedly they cover each others weaknesses so well. (Note: I did not say impossible, just harder than Protoss or Zerg)
you've basically got it. the issue is a lot more to do with the ease of zerg macro (doesn't have to build depots / pylons and doesn't have to build barracks, fact, starport / gateway, robo, stargate) and the lack of zerg unit abilities than it does with anything else
Funny thing is, it still is, but now Zerg really really really need a tank because TvZ mech is extremely powerful and the only Zerg unit that can handle a tank shot without crying out in terror is the roach. It's all rather fucked up imo.
Yeah that is exactly what i experience against mech. My response right now is to rush for upgrades and to delay the thor/tank/hellion push with infestors as much as i can before flooding roaches. So far semi successful :D
On May 18 2010 00:23 imbecile wrote: So you need to look at the Random players and compare their win rates when playing different races. That should expose the weaker races. Don't think that data is really available for the public though. All I know is that Day9 is worst with Zerg. Which would back up the original claim that Zerg is overnerfed, but also is just anecdotal evidence.
The problem with something like this is that each race has a distinctive playstyle. Different strategies are supported by different playstyles or personalities. Hence a Terran defensive playstyle might work well against certain MU's, but the Zerg defensive playstyle may not.
This means that if you are a person that enjoys the defensive style more, you might appear stronger using Terran than Zerg.
Example: TLO has a playstyle that likes to keep your opponent always on his toes, throwing back and forth between different ideas to confuse them. You see this with firstly his use of Random, secondly with him changing strategies with each game, from proxy cheese, to solid defensive, to speed tech, etc. When he gets put into a MU like his recent PvP failing, against a very strong Protoss player that knows how to counter all the strange Protoss strategies, he fails in the fact that he doesn't know the small details as well as a seasoned Protoss player. Going into this game knowing this as TLO is a very hard situation to deal with. He knew that trying out-there things in a mirror match would not work for him, and he was unlucky to get P those last 3 games. White-ra danced TLO's dance, while allowing his expertise on specifying Protoss to capitalise for him.
TL;DR version: I feel that the Random players personality reflects more in the variation of stats with each race vs. their skill level.
It's not a finished process by any means. A blue poster on EU forums posted today in response to Zerg being boring as in less abilities+units:
It is actually a little bit off-topic, but as mentioned in the recent DevChat and Situation Reports the developers are looking into that and we are going to introduce some changes to the Zerg and give them some more abilities. We are really looking forward to the reactions of players on this one and continue to monitor your feedback
On May 18 2010 00:40 Powda wrote: This Roach nerf has killed zerg.
Still too early. There are more changes in the line after all. Making roaches a little stronger again, especially the burrow mechanic is all that is needed for them right now IMHO.
But the overseer will get more options, the Ultralisk will get a buff, and the infestor will see some changes too. So Zerg overall will catch up again, and end up being more diverse, which is a good thing.
Blizzard didn't nerf Roaches because Korean Zergs were dominating too much...they nerfed them primarily because they didn't like how strong Roach/Hydra turned out to be in pretty much every matchup, and they wanted to make this option less strong before they gave Zerg more abilities and stuff.
I actually agree with you that moving the Roach to two supply was definitely the wrong move to make, and a severe over-nerf to both the Roach and Zerg as a whole...but I do think that a slight nerf to the Roach at one supply was probably needed. I'm very interested to see what Blizzard has in mind for the Zerg in the weeks ahead.
I usually take artosis seriously however this time I had to stop reading after:
Zerg: 9 Terran: 12 Protoss: 14
If artosis feels that his case isn't strong enough to stand this time around without recklessly exaggerating facts then I don't really see any point to consider the rest of it. We all trust you well enough to count to 14 properly, why not extend us the same credit?
Anyway stop doing that so intelligent people can go back to agreeing with you.
ya preaty much agree with the whole unit compesition. took me like a day to figure out what worked and what didn't. i failed in Bw cause i hated deffilers but now i just mass some hydras and gg.
Wouldnt this also mean that once the game has been out for a year, zerg will be GREATLY inferior, due to the fact that well, we will have the same core strategies, as the Ultralisk is probably never going to be used mainstream so long as it dies to units that get + to armor so easily in my opinion anyways.
Zerg only has 9 units. If you nerf a zerg unit, you have effectively nerfed 11.1% of the zerg race. Terran has 14 units, so a nerf to a terran unit is only a 7.14% effective nerf rate to the race. Meanwhile, Protoss has a whopping 27 units so often times a single unit nerf goes completely unnoticed for weeks because it represents a paltry 3.7% nerf rate.
On May 18 2010 01:26 BigDates wrote: Wouldnt this also mean that once the game has been out for a year, zerg will be GREATLY inferior, due to the fact that well, we will have the same core strategies, as the Ultralisk is probably never going to be used mainstream so long as it dies to units that get + to armor so easily in my opinion anyways.
By that time blizzard will be toting that they are fixing imbalances in the next expansion.
I like how since Ultras are not used Zerg just gets to subtract that unit. Welp, it's not like Protoss use Carriers, hardly ever do you see a Mothership, and I wouldn't really count an Observer as a fighting unit, and Archons? Right...
Zerg definitely could use some more units but lets no over exaggerate other races. All this Roach nerf did was turn Zerg into ling/hydra spammers instead of roach/hydra spammers.
Though I do agree with the rest of what Artosis has to say.
As cool as Artosis is, the logic in this one is full of holes.
Quantity of units has no direct relation to game balance. Artosis blindly throws three numbers into the air without accounting for the niches each unit has for each race. I also find it hard to justify that a race with fewer units is simpler by nature.
Or perhaps floor exercise said it best:
On May 18 2010 01:31 floor exercise wrote: Why zerg gets over nerfed:
Zerg only has 9 units. If you nerf a zerg unit, you have effectively nerfed 11.1% of the zerg race. Terran has 14 units, so a nerf to a terran unit is only a 7.14% effective nerf rate to the race. Meanwhile, Protoss has a whopping 27 units so often times a single unit nerf goes completely unnoticed for weeks because it represents a paltry 3.7% nerf rate.
On May 18 2010 00:19 LionsFist wrote: The only thing I'd make, as maybe an alternative way of looking at the starting point.
Excluding movement micro and what parts of your army are where, Zerg have the following significant effects requiring army micro: - Burrow, probably only significantly useful on roaches for most fights. - Mind control - Fungal growth - Corruption - Infested Terran #
# = Things that are pretty much non-event abilities in most large army fights. I also judge them based on the assumption you have that unit. (Yes, you can contest me on any of those, I'm just talking general)
Take from that, what you will.
Personally, I see it meaning that T and P must use these extra abilities to the best to pull to equality in a situation of equal army/equal counter etc. Hence Zerg players are generally more macro orientated players. Yes, there are micro elements also involved in movement (ie. microing phoenix and vikings to get the best damage ratio out of them vs another air unit, or voidray micro abusing landscape or surrounding buildings to charge up on, or flanking/surrounding units). But presuming them all equal, I would see the Zerg having an inherant built-in easier time using armies, and definately not getting penalised for NOT using these abilities to their fullest.
EDIT: Also the other point with zerg is that their major counter units are one of 4 of their main units. Either hydra/roach/muta/ling. That's it. If you are up against an army, almost always (excluding a few specific combinations) using a heavy composition of one of those, with light combinations of the others mixed in, and 1-4 of the other support units thrown in. It's a lot harder to make a hard counter of a zerg army, as undoubtedly they cover each others weaknesses so well. (Note: I did not say impossible, just harder than Protoss or Zerg)
This is an interesting argument. Let's compare SC2 Zerg micro options to SC1 Zerg micro options:
- Burrow. Primarily used for Lurkers, who get it for free. - Dark Swarm - Plague - Consume - Mutalisk micro *
* Not technically an ability, but it is an important micro option in SC1.
I didn't list Queen abilities, as those are simply not used in competitive play.
While it is easy to argue that the Zerg options in SC2 are not as strong as the SC1 ones (though this is primarily due to these abilities being Tier 2 rather than Tier 3 as in SC1), it is clear that the Zerg have about the same number of micro options in SC2 as SC1.
Something similar goes for the main units. In SC1, you had Ling/Hydra/Muta as your main units that you mass up lots of, with a few Lurkers, Defilers, and Ultralisks thrown in for support. It's Hydra/Lurk or Lurker/Ling or Ultra/Ling or Muta/Ling, etc.
On May 18 2010 01:41 Hapahauli wrote: Quantity of units has no direct relation to game balance..
Number of units doesn't effect final balance. But it greatly affects the speed at which the optimal builds are found for a race. So Zerg are quite a bit ahead of the curve. But not much more. Once there are not so many changes anymore, the other races will catch up and overtake them pretty fast.
What have the top Korean Zerg players been doing since the last Zerg nerf in Patch 12? Well, I can't speak for all of them, but two of the very top players, Cool[fOu] and TheWinD, have both been practicing Terran on the Asian Ladder.
Great article Artosis. And that quote sums up what I'm doing also. Also, do you have any more replay packs laying around. It is so hard if not impossible to find good Korean replays in SC2.
On May 18 2010 01:16 No_Roo wrote: I usually take artosis seriously however this time I had to stop reading after:
Zerg: 9 Terran: 12 Protoss: 14
If artosis feels that his case isn't strong enough to stand this time around without recklessly exaggerating facts then I don't really see any point to consider the rest of it. We all trust you well enough to count to 14 properly, why not extend us the same credit?
Anyway stop doing that so intelligent people can go back to agreeing with you.
He said usable units not units that can shoot. If anything he underestimated toss since the probe has the ability to build forward pylons which are very offensive.
On May 18 2010 02:03 roemy wrote: so... following the same logic:
with neural parasite, zerg has 35 possible units
Yes let me mind control your 50 mineral 1 supply marine with my 2 supply 150 gas 100 mineral infestor. You cant simply state that zerg has 35 units they can make, because only a VERY FEW units are worth it to mind control, not to mention once the infestor dies you get your unit back and i lose mine (this isnt the case for other units is it)
I could see how you could raise this number a little bit with mind control, but 35 is just rediculous of a number to state, as it is useless to use mind control on ALOT of strategies (against ling/baneling/muta, against roach hydra, against any terran with tanks, or an MMM ball, against non collosus / mothership builds)
And we all know pretty much all terrans get tanks now-adays, so fungal growth on the army that is trying to bait me to his tanks are a much better idea, that or base dropping, o burrow roaching.
On May 18 2010 01:16 No_Roo wrote: I usually take artosis seriously however this time I had to stop reading after:
Zerg: 9 Terran: 12 Protoss: 14
If artosis feels that his case isn't strong enough to stand this time around without recklessly exaggerating facts then I don't really see any point to consider the rest of it. We all trust you well enough to count to 14 properly, why not extend us the same credit?
Anyway stop doing that so intelligent people can go back to agreeing with you.
He said usable units not units that can shoot. If anything he underestimated toss since the probe has the ability to build forward pylons which are very offensive.
If you want to count the warp prism and lolmothership you better be counting the nydus worm, overlords, overseers and queens as well.... Biased counting is biased - if you count one transport ship you have to count them all.
EDIT: and you should also count in the changeling as it is the equivalent of an observer.
On May 18 2010 00:19 LionsFist wrote: The only thing I'd make, as maybe an alternative way of looking at the starting point.
Excluding movement micro and what parts of your army are where, Zerg have the following significant effects requiring army micro: - Burrow, probably only significantly useful on roaches for most fights. - Mind control - Fungal growth - Corruption - Infested Terran #
# = Things that are pretty much non-event abilities in most large army fights. I also judge them based on the assumption you have that unit. (Yes, you can contest me on any of those, I'm just talking general)
Take from that, what you will.
Personally, I see it meaning that T and P must use these extra abilities to the best to pull to equality in a situation of equal army/equal counter etc. Hence Zerg players are generally more macro orientated players. Yes, there are micro elements also involved in movement (ie. microing phoenix and vikings to get the best damage ratio out of them vs another air unit, or voidray micro abusing landscape or surrounding buildings to charge up on, or flanking/surrounding units). But presuming them all equal, I would see the Zerg having an inherant built-in easier time using armies, and definately not getting penalised for NOT using these abilities to their fullest.
EDIT: Also the other point with zerg is that their major counter units are one of 4 of their main units. Either hydra/roach/muta/ling. That's it. If you are up against an army, almost always (excluding a few specific combinations) using a heavy composition of one of those, with light combinations of the others mixed in, and 1-4 of the other support units thrown in. It's a lot harder to make a hard counter of a zerg army, as undoubtedly they cover each others weaknesses so well. (Note: I did not say impossible, just harder than Protoss or Zerg)
This is an interesting argument. Let's compare SC2 Zerg micro options to SC1 Zerg micro options:
- Burrow. Primarily used for Lurkers, who get it for free. - Dark Swarm - Plague - Consume - Mutalisk micro *
* Not technically an ability, but it is an important micro option in SC1.
I didn't list Queen abilities, as those are simply not used in competitive play.
While it is easy to argue that the Zerg options in SC2 are not as strong as the SC1 ones (though this is primarily due to these abilities being Tier 2 rather than Tier 3 as in SC1), it is clear that the Zerg have about the same number of micro options in SC2 as SC1.
Something similar goes for the main units. In SC1, you had Ling/Hydra/Muta as your main units that you mass up lots of, with a few Lurkers, Defilers, and Ultralisks thrown in for support. It's Hydra/Lurk or Lurker/Ling or Ultra/Ling or Muta/Ling, etc.
Exactly. This alone is the reason I feel that high level Korean players go for Zerg.
With less things to focus on (not to mention the argueably longer time they can spend on doing it, as it's more supported there), they can master these abilites to a much higher level than a Protoss or Terran player.
The strategic possibilities might be more limited, but because of that they're perfected and taken to deeper levels.
eg. T might choose to go mech, bio or air. Pumping based on what he scouts. They have practiced each, understand the build timings, what windows of attack it gives them, and how to best use these units. By this point, the training Z has done all those things for their builds, and worked out the slight nuances of weakness in the T positioning, worked on issues of which maps allow for the best fake attacks that make the T weak to backdoor harass or drops, knows which exact combinations of units provide his best chances, and has perfected it to the point where he can sense when the T army is slightly out of position and weak, allowing for a quick muta snipe, etc. etc. etc.
On May 18 2010 02:03 roemy wrote: so... following the same logic:
with neural parasite, zerg has 35 possible units
Yes let me mind control your 50 mineral 1 supply marine with my 2 supply 150 gas 100 mineral infestor. You cant simply state that zerg has 35 units they can make, because only a VERY FEW units are worth it to mind control, not to mention once the infestor dies you get your unit back and i lose mine (this isnt the case for other units is it)
I could see how you could raise this number a little bit with mind control, but 35 is just rediculous of a number to state, as it is useless to use mind control on ALOT of strategies (against ling/baneling/muta, against roach hydra, against any terran with tanks, or an MMM ball, against non collosus / mothership builds)
And we all know pretty much all terrans get tanks now-adays, so fungal growth on the army that is trying to bait me to his tanks are a much better idea, that or base dropping, o burrow roaching.
If you want to count the warp prism and lolmothership you better be counting the nydus worm, overlords, overseers and queens as well.... Biased counting is biased - if you count one transport ship you have to count them all.
EDIT: and you should also count in the changeling as it is the equivalent of an observer.
I would count the OL but not the nydus since it's not a unit. But only once it's tech is researched. And no, the changeling is a spell not a unit. And a pretty useless spell at that.
He's just saying dyanmics wise, it's faster to test zerg over the other races since their complexities with unit compositiions is much less massive than the other races. Hence zergs are able to learn their races faster and their builds tighter, as opposed to the other races.
So blizzard is patching based on a the results not taking into account the learning curve of learning efficient builds at top levels, thereby nerfing a race drastically that didn't need to be nerfed.
Its a decent point that could be true. The thing is, we can't just assume the untapped possibilities of T and P are going to be stronger, though its a possibility. Its also a possibility that some of those units just arent useful,or not combo-able, or that the combos are not strong enough still to compete with basic ones. The other issue is, how useful is it if it cant materialize due to early game balance/other issues etc. But I do kind of think you're onto something with respect to early beta zerg domination.
The thought then is, how should blizzard act in the short term while these hypothetical strong/finesse combos dont exist, or atleast arent being used yet.
I don't think this is intended to be the final state of the game. They're experimenting a bit, seeing how this will work, and if they don't like it they will change something. Even if it is now worse balanced (whatever that means) than on last patch before it, doesn't mean it was a bad change if it gives valuable information to help in making the final balance scheme.
On May 18 2010 01:16 No_Roo wrote: I usually take artosis seriously however this time I had to stop reading after:
Zerg: 9 Terran: 12 Protoss: 14
If artosis feels that his case isn't strong enough to stand this time around without recklessly exaggerating facts then I don't really see any point to consider the rest of it. We all trust you well enough to count to 14 properly, why not extend us the same credit?
Anyway stop doing that so intelligent people can go back to agreeing with you.
He said usable units not units that can shoot. If anything he underestimated toss since the probe has the ability to build forward pylons which are very offensive.
I am talking about him counting only 9 zerg units. and ignoring the overlord/overseer while including the observer and warp prism.
Okay, how about an unbiased count. Included are units that can be built, deal damage (either regularly or with an ability) and that take up supply. No utility units, no units with timed life like the broodling or the infested terran.
Units in italics are rarely used. I think it's a valid point that zerg has fewer choices, Now I think they are fun as hell to play, and I'm not sad about the roach nerf. But I am really hoping for another unit, or at least some more combatty abilities for the overseer.
On May 18 2010 03:02 Scope wrote: Okay, how about an unbiased count. Included are units that can be built, deal damage (either regularly or with an ability) and that take up supply. No utility units, no units with timed life like the broodling or the infested terran.
Units in italics are rarely used. I think it's a valid point that zerg has fewer choices, Now I think they are fun as hell to play, and I'm not sad about the roach nerf. But I am really hoping for another unit, or at least some more combatty abilities for the overseer.
So if we a take a look at it, in fact protoss has the fewest often used units.... Don't really know what I want to say about this, except that I find it sorta funny
On May 18 2010 03:02 Scope wrote: Okay, how about an unbiased count. Included are units that can be built, deal damage (either regularly or with an ability) and that take up supply. No utility units, no units with timed life like the broodling or the infested terran.
Units in italics are rarely used. I think it's a valid point that zerg has fewer choices, Now I think they are fun as hell to play, and I'm not sad about the roach nerf. But I am really hoping for another unit, or at least some more combatty abilities for the overseer.
Workers are usable units? Queen are usable units? Queen are just mobile addons to hatcheries. If queens are usable then so are Planetary Fortresses. Also you forgot to put Roaches in italics.
On May 18 2010 03:02 Scope wrote: Okay, how about an unbiased count. Included are units that can be built, deal damage (either regularly or with an ability) and that take up supply. No utility units, no units with timed life like the broodling or the infested terran.
Units in italics are rarely used. I think it's a valid point that zerg has fewer choices, Now I think they are fun as hell to play, and I'm not sad about the roach nerf. But I am really hoping for another unit, or at least some more combatty abilities for the overseer.
So if we a take a look at it, in fact protoss has the fewest often used units.... Don't really know what I want to say about this, except that I find it sorta funny
If you count only often used ground units, zerg with seven is behind terran and protoss with eight each. And if I had 13 units to choose between, I'd be likely to skip a few as well. Besides, the unused status on the mothership is doubtful, and I do see archons every once in a while. I saw ultras for two days after the latest buff, otherwise I have never encountered them.
I agree that Queens are doubtful, but I have seen them being pretty much spammed in high level games. (check out TLO vs White-Ra in HDH) They are anti-air defensive units. TLO even took out a nexus with a queen and some drones using a nydus worm, vs Nazgul if I remember correctly. And don't try to tell me you have never used workers to fight off rushes. Besides, counting workers doesn't really affect the count since it's equal for all three races.
On May 18 2010 03:02 Scope wrote: Okay, how about an unbiased count. Included are units that can be built, deal damage (either regularly or with an ability) and that take up supply. No utility units, no units with timed life like the broodling or the infested terran.
Units in italics are rarely used. I think it's a valid point that zerg has fewer choices, Now I think they are fun as hell to play, and I'm not sad about the roach nerf. But I am really hoping for another unit, or at least some more combatty abilities for the overseer.
Workers are usable units? Queen are usable units? Queen are just mobile addons to hatcheries. If queens are usable then so are Planetary Fortresses. Also you forgot to put Roaches in italics.
Do you happen to lose to VRs often? Queens are VERY useful units and could be used for a very strong push with lings before they got their speed nerfed to slower than slow. And stop your pointless whining. Artosis made a biased count, this count is at least not biased.
Definitive proof Protoss is the hardest race to figure out. They have more units!
more seriously though I'd like to wait for more data on how top tier zerg plays out now before jumping to conclusions about how awful the recent nerfs have been for zerg.
On May 18 2010 03:02 Scope wrote: Okay, how about an unbiased count. Included are units that can be built, deal damage (either regularly or with an ability) and that take up supply. No utility units, no units with timed life like the broodling or the infested terran.
Units in italics are rarely used. I think it's a valid point that zerg has fewer choices, Now I think they are fun as hell to play, and I'm not sad about the roach nerf. But I am really hoping for another unit, or at least some more combatty abilities for the overseer.
Workers are usable units? Queen are usable units? Queen are just mobile addons to hatcheries. If queens are usable then so are Planetary Fortresses. Also you forgot to put Roaches in italics.
Okay, so it's subjective but close enough to show there isn't a massive disparity.
I agree that Queens are doubtful, but I have seen them being pretty much spammed in high level games. (check out TLO vs White-Ra in HDH) They are anti-air defensive units.
Which illustrates how weak zerg is vs air. And why are queens not in italics then? And if queens are counted because they fend off air then why isn't planetary fortresses there since they negate zerling CC snipe completely?
On May 18 2010 03:30 Scope wrote: And don't try to tell me you have never used workers to fight off rushes. Besides, counting workers doesn't really affect the count since it's equal for all three races.
Fair enough but then where are mules? I thought this was an unbiased list?
Besides the fact that you can be braindead and use the zerg army. 1a ( 1a2a3a surround if you want to get fancy) and then you can just select your whole army and spam F everywhere. Damn do i miss micro =/
I agree that Queens are doubtful, but I have seen them being pretty much spammed in high level games. (check out TLO vs White-Ra in HDH) They are anti-air defensive units.
Which illustrates how weak zerg is vs air. And why are queens not in italics then? And if queens are counted because they fend off air then why isn't planetary fortresses there since they negate zerling CC snipe completely?
On May 18 2010 03:30 Scope wrote: And don't try to tell me you have never used workers to fight off rushes. Besides, counting workers doesn't really affect the count since it's equal for all three races.
Fair enough but then where are mules? I thought this was an unbiased list?
You haven't properly read my post, so I only reluctantly respond. I only included units that can do damage, therefore the MULE goes since it can't attack. I also haven't included static defenses, therefore you dont see missile turrets, spine and spore crawlers, photon cannons or planetary fortresses. Queens are not in italics since they are not rarely used, and they are included because they can move and do damage. Before you even try to say that so do spine and spore crawlers, I wrote in the inital post that I only included units that take up supply. Please read posts before responding. Idiot.
Okay, so it's subjective but close enough to show there isn't a massive disparity.
I think that's what it shows is that there are many way to count effective units. I actually don't like the way Artosis counted units at all. I think a better example would be that zerg has fewer effective strategies/options. Just look at how many openings Terran has. Branching off a single fast tech lab build they can reaper rush, helion rush, thor drop, banshee rush, viking rush, marauder push, or even rush ghosts. And they all have the same B/O up to the first tech lab.
Vs Terran all Zerg can open with is F/E into macro, fast muta, ling harrass, baneling bust, and ummmm. Hmm I can't think of any other's of the top of my head. I am sure I am missing some, but the underlining point is less options regardless of how you count units.
You haven't properly read my post, so I only reluctantly respond. I only included units that can do damage, therefore the MULE goes since it can't attack. I also haven't included static defenses, therefore you dont see missile turrets, spine and spore crawlers, photon cannons or planetary fortresses. Queens are not in italics since they are not rarely used, and they are included because they can move and do damage. Before you even try to say that so do spine and spore crawlers, I wrote in the inital post that I only included units that take up supply. Please read posts before responding. Idiot.
That's fine but then that's not what Artosis is talking about. He said usable units (which to me implies a unit that is not meant to just sit in base, but used for map control, or scouting, or combat, or spells) not units that do damage. I can't get on you for misunderstanding you (which I did) but you can't do the same to Artosis.
Also calling Queen non static is a little unfair. True they technically are non static but I wouldn't call them mobile either.
please stop counting the units. in germany wed call this "Haarspalterei". Bring in any numbers u want that doesnt take down the facts described.. as zerg is kinda easier to figure out.
Okay, so it's subjective but close enough to show there isn't a massive disparity.
I think that's what it shows is that there are many way to count effective units. I actually don't like the way Artosis counted units at all. I think a better example would be that zerg has fewer effective strategies/options. Just look at how many openings Terran has. Branching off a single fast tech lab build they can reaper rush, helion rush, thor drop, banshee rush, viking rush, marauder push, or even rush ghosts. And they all have the same B/O up to the first tech lab.
Vs Terran all Zerg can open with is F/E into macro, fast muta, ling harrass, baneling bust, and ummmm. Hmm I can't think of any other's of the top of my head. I am sure I am missing some, but the underlining point is less options regardless of how you count units.
Interestingly, many Terrans complain that they absolutely have to harass Zerg or else Zerg macro will utterly destroy them. If this is truly the case it is only logical that Terran have many ways to do so.
Also, you forgot roach rush, which is probably less viable now, and fast tech to mass hydras. Where Zerg lacks, and this is what I think you are hinting at, possibly subconsciously, is in harassment options. Particularly vs a walled in Terran, there are not many ways that zerg can respond to harassment. Overlord drops, nydus worms, mutalisks, possibly some baneling build that isn't all-in. All this while terran have Reapers, Hellions, Banshees and Vikings, all excellent harassment units. But this is a dynamic that changes as the game goes on. Several matchups in brood war had similar dynamics.
Not to mention the queen does barely more damage than a ling and can't handle any air unit 1v1.
Honestly, I don't see what the big issue roaches were. I find that they were actually a huge liability because they get countered so hard so early by everything P/T have in mauraders/immortals. These rendered roaches completely useless.
Z were already being forced to move out of a roach centered army pre-patch...
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 03:55 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
On May 17 2010 14:53 Artosis wrote: 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
[/b]
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
Shutting the beta down soon. Hopefully we see a new Zerg on the other side. The Roach nerf wasn't the only thing that hurt Zerg, it was just a series of blunders in an unimaginative race design.
I think the main cause of Zerg-boredom is they generally only have 1 or 2 units, or spells (Infestor) that are good at defeating any particular unit that Protoss or Terran make. Feels like when you're looking at your opponent's army, if you're Terran or Protoss you have a good number of options to pick. If you're Zerg, there's either 1 unit that designed to beat it, there's an Infestor spell you can use to ruin its day, or you just say to hell with strategy and just overwhelm it with sheer numbers of Roaches/Hydras/Zerglings/Mutas.
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!".
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.
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.
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).
I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
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
(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)
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.
On May 18 2010 09:50 Mania[K]al wrote: I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
i dont like this argument, blizzard has made roaches next to useless once you start nearing 200 / 200 food then every living roach left standing can be considered wasted supply and their tech turns into useless garbage.
and its funny because the ROACH has the most research aviable, burrow movement, high regen while burrowed after hive tech and the extra movement speed.
Every ounce of gas spent on improving them as a unit is gas you could have spent elsewhere while their counter and staple terran army unit, the marauder just gets better and better as you add more and more support, raven point defence drone and medivac healing, the roach just get worse as the game progresses onwards.
Work around Roach nerf? MORE LIKE: Roaches have been hit by the nerfbat so many times that im not going to produce a single one and rather use lings to stay alive, tech past roaches and get hydra.
On May 18 2010 09:50 Mania[K]al wrote: I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
Work around Roach nerf? MORE LIKE: Roaches have been hit by the nerfbat so many times that im not going to produce a single one and rather use lings to stay alive. Is that how you want to play?
You're only proving my point.
EDIT: and to answer your question, i love using ling/bling when i random zerg instead of roaches.
On May 18 2010 09:50 Mania[K]al wrote: I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
Work around Roach nerf? MORE LIKE: Roaches have been hit by the nerfbat so many times that im not going to produce a single one and rather use lings to stay alive. Is that how you want to play?
You're only proving my point.
EDIT: and to answer your question, i love using ling/bling when i random zerg instead of roaches.
I'm not sure what you two are arguing about but you can't possibly think having a unit so useless that its not really worth getting except in special circumstances (helion or mass marines) is that good when your race as a whole already has barely any units. Its fine for maybe someone like Protoss since they have so many different units, but for Zerg if this keeps up, Zerg will have no units from which to actually develop a strategy.
It doesn't neccessarily make zerg underpowered, but it removed one of their already extremely limited number of strategies (makes the diversity issue even worse than it was before)
On May 18 2010 09:50 Mania[K]al wrote: I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
Work around Roach nerf? MORE LIKE: Roaches have been hit by the nerfbat so many times that im not going to produce a single one and rather use lings to stay alive. Is that how you want to play?
You're only proving my point.
EDIT: and to answer your question, i love using ling/bling when i random zerg instead of roaches.
I'm not sure what you two are arguing about but you can't possibly think having a unit so useless that its not really worth getting except in special circumstances (helion or mass marines) is that good when your race as a whole already has barely any units. Its fine for maybe someone like Protoss since they have so many different units, but for Zerg if this keeps up, Zerg will have no units from which to actually develop a strategy.
It doesn't neccessarily make zerg underpowered, but it removed one of their already extremely limited number of strategies (makes the diversity issue even worse than it was before)
And despite this massively gimp Zerg race, according to everyone here, Idra and Sen both eliminated great Protoss players. Without roaches.
what zerg players won't admit or do not realize is that zerg started out completely OP, and where they once dominated players of their own skill they are now even with them, which makes them have an inflated opinion of their own skill level, so they think it MUST be imba if they start losing points on the ladder.
I'm not so sure about the most recent roach nerf (supply 1->2) but all the previous nerfs were completely justified and necessary.
And people stop whining about maruaders being OP. They are not, and high platinum players have known this for weeks. I personally hardly ever make maruaders, only doing so in special situations in TvZ / TvT.
koreans are not know to be the most creative, they like getting a build and practicing it, thus, that is their culture. There are way to many factors to come to such conclusions about zerg so early.
On May 18 2010 10:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: what zerg players won't admit or do not realize is that zerg started out completely OP, and where they once dominated players of their own skill they are now even with them, which makes them have an inflated opinion of their own skill level, so they think it MUST be imba if they start losing points on the ladder. [1]
I'm not so sure about the most recent roach nerf (supply 1->2) but all the previous nerfs were completely justified and necessary. [2]
And people stop whining about maruaders being OP. They are not, and high platinum players have known this for weeks. I personally hardly ever make maruaders, only doing so in special situations in TvZ / TvT. [3]
[1] I don't see what this pointless derogatory conjecture adds to this discussion.
[2] I agree with this, and so do most of the people in this thread. That's what a lot of the complaints are about. The previous nerfs are understandable but not in combination with the current nerfs. Bounds were overstepped so much that now Roaches are a niche unit, not even serving the purpose of supporting a large army (because they take up too much space and do not give enough utility).
So since on this point
a) I agree with you. b) Most people in the thread agree with you.
I don't see why you feel the need to to make your first statement.
[3] Why would you make anything but a handful of marauders in TvZ when there are no roaches? Just enough marauders to wall off banelings and focus down spinecrawlers is all any Terran should ever build now. They don't excel at killing Hydralisks OR Zerglings OR Mutalisks. So now marauders have been reduced to a "you need X marauders to wall off your marines" unit. I think you would agree that it's less interesting than before when you could potentially build lots of marauders to counter a Roach-heavy army.
And still you somehow need to slander top Zerg players with your first statement.
There is a real reason that people complain about this change. Yes, it does affect Zerg's ability to win, and yes all Zerg players are biased in favor of Zerg winning. But having Roaches be a practically worthless "waste" unit makes the game less interesting.
There's a lot of discussion about ultras (as if buffing ultras is gonna make roaches useful?) and other units, but roaches should serve some kind of tangible purpose - and right now they don't.
On May 18 2010 11:00 BlueApex wrote: koreans are not know to be the most creative, they like getting a build and practicing it, thus, that is their culture. There are way to many factors to come to such conclusions about zerg so early.
What part of Korean play in Starcraft has not been creative? They've pretty much pioneered every major build and strategy in the game for the better part of the past decade... What part of that is not creative? It takes creativity to bring the game to new heights. Sure, they practice a lot and try to perfect their mechanics, but so does any athlete or competitor.
Personally, I disagree with the argument presented by Artosis. It doesn't convince me simply because the SC2 community isn't such that the top players have such a massive influence on the strategy and playstyle of the masses yet. Also, if it was simply a matter of less options being easier to figure out, there's no reason to think that the advantage wouldn't have carried over the other servers either, which they obviously haven't. I think it'd be interesting to see stats that show us how often each race is played on a particular server. It could very well just be a coincidence with Asian players playing Zerg a lot more than the other races or at least a lot more than the other servers...
On May 18 2010 09:50 Mania[K]al wrote: I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
Work around Roach nerf? MORE LIKE: Roaches have been hit by the nerfbat so many times that im not going to produce a single one and rather use lings to stay alive. Is that how you want to play?
You're only proving my point.
EDIT: and to answer your question, i love using ling/bling when i random zerg instead of roaches.
I'm not sure what you two are arguing about but you can't possibly think having a unit so useless that its not really worth getting except in special circumstances (helion or mass marines) is that good when your race as a whole already has barely any units. Its fine for maybe someone like Protoss since they have so many different units, but for Zerg if this keeps up, Zerg will have no units from which to actually develop a strategy.
It doesn't neccessarily make zerg underpowered, but it removed one of their already extremely limited number of strategies (makes the diversity issue even worse than it was before)
ehhh on the contrary..? instead of roaches all day every day, you now go (b)lings+roaches vs mass marines, zealots, lings or otherwise lings+hyds vs immortals, stalkers, marauders, roaches.
and if reacting to the opponent isnt your thing, don't fast expand and go 1 base roaches - you'll just need an overlord more that early. instead of 8 roaches and an overlord, you'll have 7 roaches and two overlords... boohoo...
there's still so much stuff, i never see used: - drops are common for terrans. we are familiar with warp prisms and a pair of immortals. but when was the last time you saw a zerg load up? well ok there was this one time on the cynicalbrit stream with the baneling drop... - nydus network: superb mobility. on the asia server it's even used on LT's natural cliffs to harass with spine crawlers as nydus heads also provide creep. and you can go back and forth with that thing. granted, it's not "instant" which is why i'd like the spitting-out duration of units to be dependant on food consumption/shuttle size/ressource value/anything else that scales with the value of a unit. - sneaky roaches: well ok, TLO does it from time to time.... anyone else..? - sneaky infestors... doesn't even need research per se - although i must admit that even with the speed research, they're not exactly comfortable to utilize...
On May 18 2010 11:00 BlueApex wrote: koreans are not know to be the most creative, they like getting a build and practicing it, thus, that is their culture. There are way to many factors to come to such conclusions about zerg so early.
On May 18 2010 11:00 BlueApex wrote: koreans are not know to be the most creative, they like getting a build and practicing it, thus, that is their culture. There are way to many factors to come to such conclusions about zerg so early.
HAHAHA its a joke right!? RIGHT!? HAHAHA
half and half i would say on this one. dismissing it like that is just a pointless post.
Koreans are creative at coming up with new strategies however the ones that are viable and versatile stay and become the building block for every matchup. Once something is good people who can win late game with better mechanics stick to the proper build and are more static about creativity. There will always be people coming up with new tactics from all over the world and based on how much people play, those who play more will think more about the game, therefore, more tactics.
Relax please, nothing Blizzard..oh wait Activison...hmm ((Vivendi does)) is without purpose. Keep in mind there are three, yes three installments of SC2. What you are most likely getting traumatized over isn't that they are having problems balancing the Beta; its how are they balancing the three installments.
It's been clearly demonstrated in the thread that the unit counting is such a subjectively defined method that it can't seriously stand up as any sort of evidence.
But to tackle the second part that's posted on MYM, which is basically: Zerg looks good because the best Asian players have overwhelmingly chosen Zerg.
I would argue that reversing the causal direction is a more compelling story. If they really have all clustered to one race (I haven't seen enough of the Korean scene to examine the accuracy of this), what are the chances that this happened randomly, when in brood war the distribution is not skewed too significantly (thus negating other possible aesthetics/preference explanations like Zerg just is cooler looking or players enjoy their building system more)?
What we do know is that top players are top players because they maximize their chance at winning. So if they identify that Zerg is "stronger" or has more potential in the hands of a skilled player, top players will logically prefer Zerg, no? A more specific statement than the previous sentence (inserting my opinion: more true statement) might be that Zerg is overwhelmingly more likely to win any game that reaches high economic production due to more flexible and higher maximum production capabilities (setting its downsides which diminish as economies grow aside--economies of scale anyone?), and top players see this style as more adaptable with fewer potential limits in the long run of gameplay development.
On May 18 2010 11:00 BlueApex wrote: koreans are not know to be the most creative, they like getting a build and practicing it, thus, that is their culture. There are way to many factors to come to such conclusions about zerg so early.
That is a huge generalization. I have one word for you: Boxer
Not to stray too far from the flaming, but Mymym seems to be having server issues. Is there any chance the full article could be updated in the OP or in a blog post? Being a Zerg player and liking (agreeing with) what I have read, I am anxious to read the rest.
On May 18 2010 10:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: what zerg players won't admit or do not realize is that zerg started out completely OP, and where they once dominated players of their own skill they are now even with them, which makes them have an inflated opinion of their own skill level, so they think it MUST be imba if they start losing points on the ladder.
I'm not so sure about the most recent roach nerf (supply 1->2) but all the previous nerfs were completely justified and necessary.
And people stop whining about maruaders being OP. They are not, and high platinum players have known this for weeks. I personally hardly ever make maruaders, only doing so in special situations in TvZ / TvT.
i dont thing any is agruging the post nerfs to the roach, and are only saying that giving the raoch the +1 supply has made them much more ineffective in late game nearing a 200/200 army, the zerg is supposed to be all about massing and massng amd massing, but with the recent neft, we have to play more like a sc toss :D
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.
I think you are absolutely right, so I'm going to piggy back on your post and say my 2-cents, which I've been thinking about for about a week or so.
so in BW, which I think that everyone can agree on is a much more diverse and complete game than SC2 in it's current state. here's what we have as mainstream units used in pro-matches in BW. Terran Marine, Firebat, Medic, Ghost*, Siege Tank, Vulture, Goliath, Dropship, Wraith, Science Vessel, Valkyrie*, Battlecruiser.
Protoss Zealot, Dragoon, Dark Templar, High Templar, Dark Archon*, Archon, Shuttle, Reaver, Observer, Corsair, Carrier, Arbiter.
*I wanted to make special notes about these units, as they are not "standard" units: Ghost - definitely sees action in proleague, however it is still very strategy specific, and is very unorthodox, but it's still used effectively, so I can't count it out. Valkyrie - Like the ghost, I've only seen the Valkyrie used as an answer to Fast Mutas in Mech style TvZ, other than that, it's never used, + Show Spoiler +
although it's the best unit in the game, from a totally biased standpoint here, at least SC2 has Vikings which may be even more kick-ass ^^
Dark Archon - Again, like the previous two, Dark Archons are only used situationally, such as when Toss goes DT's, get's deflected, and then countered with air, Dark Archons can be morphed for their maelstrom ability on stacked air units. Overlord - Included these guys, because they are invaluable for detection, early scouting, and later drops, yet they I just don't quite feel right including them as a battle ready unit, because they still are the supply source. Queen - I have heard of a build (maybe it was Jaedong?) that incorporated Queens effectively, other than that, queens are rarely, if ever, used.
So, that being said, look at the Unit lists. Notice a theme?
Terran has 11 units, Protoss has 9, and Zerg also has 9, when including the Overseer, which I almost don't want to do, but it is zergs only means of detection besides Spore crawlers. And these a effective battle units.
since I believe, along with many top players, that Terran is the most complete race, here's what i think should be done in terms of balance.
Terran - Everything should be balanced off of Terran. One thing I do think that Blizz needs to look at is the relationship between Vikings and VR's in PvT. right now, the only way Terran can counter Void Rays is to use massive amounts of Marines and Vikings. I think if Vikings became a Light unit, instead of an armoured unit, it would balance this matchup out a little bit. VR rushes won't completely stomp a Terran if they are prepared, but I worry that it will also make vikings stronger vs. everything else toss has, so I don't know here.
Protoss - I think toss is pretty damn close, they need a little something extra. I think if they buff archons, by a) making them cheaper, and b) increasing their splash radius more, they would be better. I honestly don't know how they would fair in a battle, but blizzard's best way to figure this out is to make them OP, see how they are used, and then scale them back as needed for release.
Zerg - Zerg needs the most work. The first thing that Bliz needs to do is reduce the size of Ultralisks, so they don't have as much surface area, and are more practical in battle, or, they need to just make the maps bigger. Either way, the Ultras size is their biggest liability and that needs to get fixed so that they are a viable end-game unit for zerg in all MU's. I may be alone in that I like Blizzards decision to nerf Roaches, if it provides a more diverse gameplay from Zerg.
I think all of these fixes would be a good start, and in addition to addin moving shot + Show Spoiler +
On May 18 2010 09:50 Mania[K]al wrote: I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
Work around Roach nerf? MORE LIKE: Roaches have been hit by the nerfbat so many times that im not going to produce a single one and rather use lings to stay alive. Is that how you want to play?
You're only proving my point.
EDIT: and to answer your question, i love using ling/bling when i random zerg instead of roaches.
I'm not sure what you two are arguing about but you can't possibly think having a unit so useless that its not really worth getting except in special circumstances (helion or mass marines) is that good when your race as a whole already has barely any units. Its fine for maybe someone like Protoss since they have so many different units, but for Zerg if this keeps up, Zerg will have no units from which to actually develop a strategy.
It doesn't neccessarily make zerg underpowered, but it removed one of their already extremely limited number of strategies (makes the diversity issue even worse than it was before)
And despite this massively gimp Zerg race, according to everyone here, Idra and Sen both eliminated great Protoss players. Without roaches.
Your missing the diversity point. If zerg won 50% of the time vs other races, but always had to do the same build every game with the same unit at the same timing... wouldn't that a bad thing?
Same thing with roaches. Sure zergs can win without roaches. But shouldn't roaches be useful for... something? It's not balance, it's gameplay and variety.
This isn't my own point of view (I don't know enough to have a valid opinion on what should be what) but you just seem to be not understanding this particular complaint.
On May 18 2010 10:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: what zerg players won't admit or do not realize is that zerg started out completely OP, and where they once dominated players of their own skill they are now even with them, which makes them have an inflated opinion of their own skill level, so they think it MUST be imba if they start losing points on the ladder.
On May 18 2010 09:50 Mania[K]al wrote: I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
Work around Roach nerf? MORE LIKE: Roaches have been hit by the nerfbat so many times that im not going to produce a single one and rather use lings to stay alive. Is that how you want to play?
You're only proving my point.
EDIT: and to answer your question, i love using ling/bling when i random zerg instead of roaches.
I'm not sure what you two are arguing about but you can't possibly think having a unit so useless that its not really worth getting except in special circumstances (helion or mass marines) is that good when your race as a whole already has barely any units. Its fine for maybe someone like Protoss since they have so many different units, but for Zerg if this keeps up, Zerg will have no units from which to actually develop a strategy.
It doesn't neccessarily make zerg underpowered, but it removed one of their already extremely limited number of strategies (makes the diversity issue even worse than it was before)
And despite this massively gimp Zerg race, according to everyone here, Idra and Sen both eliminated great Protoss players. Without roaches.
Your missing the diversity point. If zerg won 50% of the time vs other races, but always had to do the same build every game with the same unit at the same timing... wouldn't that a bad thing?
Same thing with roaches. Sure zergs can win without roaches. But shouldn't roaches be useful for... something? It's not balance, it's gameplay and variety.
This isn't my own point of view (I don't know enough to have a valid opinion on what should be what) but you just seem to be not understanding this particular complaint.
Everyone also seems to have forgotten that in SC1 races had distinct playstyles. Zerg has less units than the other races because theyre based around the ability to mass their fragile creatures at a very fast pace. If they had the same number of units as another race all playing different roles there would be no way to keep up tech wise to counter whatever zerg felt like massing and throwing at you.
However, in SC2 Blizzard has washed out the race distinctions and gave everyone the same general units(Excluding anything high tech here). But, Zerg still has the best macro race in the game, and was awarded a tank unit which it lacked in SC1(till ultras in late tvz, but once again were excluding high tech), and its a tier ONE unit. At 1 food, the capability of being able to quickly mass a large army of purely your tanking unit at tier 1 is ridiculous. That alone hurt your diversity more than just having 7 or 8 combat units total because Zerg feel that if they don't mass roaches they'll fall behind in army strength.
Now with roaches sitting where they are at 2 food, where they belong with all the other tank units, Zerg are forced to explore alternative routes in handling every matchup ultimately HELPING zerg unit diversity.
EDIT: Winning 50% is winning 50%. doesnt matter what units you used. Does anyone complain that SC1 tvt is always the same 3 units? ZvZ the same 3 units? PvP the same 4 units?
zergs only have 9 units: zergling, baneling, roach, hydralisk, infestor, mutalisk, corrupter, broodlord, ultralisk. But technically now it is only 6.
As stated before, ultralisk are currently useless, roaches were recently made worthless as well, corrupters are only for colossus or else it goes straight to broodlord (so maybe a tiny niche unit, like a battlecruiser). So what are you left with? zergling + baneling till liar, add hydralisk and mutalisk.
Infestors were originally a decent choice, but banelings seem to be more effective now, since mmm balls have to run constantly when chased by banelings, allowing zerglings and mutas to safely pick off the army as oppose to getting shot at while fungal growthed. Also banelings kills marines really fast, to the point where medivacs cant heal in time.
So guess what the asians are doing since patch 12? zergling, baneling + muta or hydralisks. While this method can be stale, it works against everything. An hence instead of having to practice different strats, zerg players can just refine 1 strat only.
This is the problem most people are complaining about. Giving zergs more units or diversity does not necessarily have to make zerg stronger, they just want more options. Although I personally like zergs current state (cept for the roach nerf), I am not a big fan for new strats through a whole bunch of different units, Id rather see awesome usage of 1 unit.
For terran, you can fast hellion, fast banshee, fast thor drop, standard mmm, maurauder tank... yay cool build but i think its cooler if I can do/see a simple zergling runby, or zergling harassing multiple places and such (or maybe burrowed banelings), because that is truely a display of good mechanics, timings and awareness, unlike half of the protoss/terran strats which involves just getting the right unit combinations and upgrades followed by a-move.
On May 18 2010 14:12 Triik wrote: zergs only have 9 units: zergling, baneling, roach, hydralisk, infestor, mutalisk, corrupter, broodlord, ultralisk. But technically now it is only 6.
As stated before, ultralisk are currently useless, roaches were recently made worthless as well, corrupters are only for colossus or else it goes straight to broodlord (so maybe a tiny niche unit, like a battlecruiser). So what are you left with? zergling + baneling till liar, add hydralisk and mutalisk.
Infestors were originally a decent choice, but banelings seem to be more effective now, since mmm balls have to run constantly when chased by banelings, allowing zerglings and mutas to safely pick off the army as oppose to getting shot at while fungal growthed. Also banelings kills marines really fast, to the point where medivacs cant heal in time.
So guess what the asians are doing since patch 12? zergling, baneling + muta or hydralisks. While this method can be stale, it works against everything. An hence instead of having to practice different strats, zerg players can just refine 1 strat only.
This is the problem most people are complaining about. Giving zergs more units or diversity does not necessarily have to make zerg stronger, they just want more options. Although I personally like zergs current state (cept for the roach nerf), I am not a big fan for new strats through a whole bunch of different units, Id rather see awesome usage of 1 unit.
For terran, you can fast hellion, fast banshee, fast thor drop, standard mmm, maurauder tank... yay cool build but i think its cooler if I can do/see a simple zergling runby, or zergling harassing multiple places and such (or maybe burrowed banelings), because that is truely a display of good mechanics, timings and awareness, unlike half of the protoss/terran strats which involves just getting the right unit combinations and upgrades followed by a-move.
This is obscenely stupid. You could say the same thing about most units in the game. We KNOW ultras are getting buffed and saying roaches are "usless" is a flat out lie. Maybe if all these zerg supporters would get rid of hyperbole from their arsenal people would take their arguments more seriously.
I really hope you aren't implying that Infestors aren't amazingly great against MMM either.
A difference that should be considered is that korean players or in general anyone that has played SC or other RTS games a lot will not to just mass attacking units into their opponent.
I get the impression that people here seem to think that zerg is the most a-click race of the three races however this only can only slightly holds in early game and if people try to do this with zerg mid game or especially late game they'll get clobbered.
As I see it Zergs' strength is not the ability to overpower an opposing army, its the ability to hit where the opposing army is not. Supply for supply and even cost for cost zerg will not be able to beat the other races' late game in direct confrontation. The entire theme behind zerg is being able to backstab your opponent and ruin their economy when they try to move out.
Zerg is about mobility and harassing capabilities which benifits greatly from previous RTS experience.
On May 18 2010 09:50 Mania[K]al wrote: I wouldn't mind the thread had the nerf been more than a few days old, and had Idra not rolled over Nony or Sen not reverse kill White_Ra.
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.
Work around Roach nerf? MORE LIKE: Roaches have been hit by the nerfbat so many times that im not going to produce a single one and rather use lings to stay alive. Is that how you want to play?
You're only proving my point.
EDIT: and to answer your question, i love using ling/bling when i random zerg instead of roaches.
I'm not sure what you two are arguing about but you can't possibly think having a unit so useless that its not really worth getting except in special circumstances (helion or mass marines) is that good when your race as a whole already has barely any units. Its fine for maybe someone like Protoss since they have so many different units, but for Zerg if this keeps up, Zerg will have no units from which to actually develop a strategy.
It doesn't neccessarily make zerg underpowered, but it removed one of their already extremely limited number of strategies (makes the diversity issue even worse than it was before)
And despite this massively gimp Zerg race, according to everyone here, Idra and Sen both eliminated great Protoss players. Without roaches.
Your missing the diversity point. If zerg won 50% of the time vs other races, but always had to do the same build every game with the same unit at the same timing... wouldn't that a bad thing?
Same thing with roaches. Sure zergs can win without roaches. But shouldn't roaches be useful for... something? It's not balance, it's gameplay and variety.
This isn't my own point of view (I don't know enough to have a valid opinion on what should be what) but you just seem to be not understanding this particular complaint.
You shouldn't argue with him, he's too stupid to realize he's proving our point for us. Roaches aren't useful, the most roach happy mofo on the planet didn't use them... AT ALL in PvZ.
-ling from dps monster to early game unit (filler unit) -hydra from allrounder to glass cannon (simple DD) -lurker from long range stealth splash to short range burst splash (baneling) (simple DD) -ultra from tank to damage dealer against small units (simple DD) -roach --> new basic unit compareable with hyda or ling ins SC1 (tank) -muta --> muta, slightly worse (micro, guardians)
lings are just too weak and roaches don't have AA, while on hive everything except for broodlords is rubbish.post-poning lair tech, or relatively fast hive-tech are no options: there is basically ONLY LAIR TECH. there is no diversity, and no matter how you look at it, it IS to a big part the counter system thats causing it. (not only hard counters)
Blizzard made the roach 2 supply without introducing additional zerg changes to see how a 2 supply roach would affect the unit composition of late game zerg armies and to see statistically how this affects the zerg W/L ratio for each matchup.
It really couldn't be more obvious what Blizzard is doing. The whole thing about people switching races is just melodrama.
Everyone (by everyone I mean select posters in this thread) need to stop complaining and learn to play with a 2 supply roach and wait for more changes. This is what Blizzard wants you to do, and if you play zerg, what you have to do. It IS the beta afterall..
As far as I can see the zerg players are still doing well in the tournament matches that have taken place since patch 12 was released, so is it not a bit early to be proclaiming them overnerfed?
Yeah, I just lost 8 matches in a row after the patch as zerg. I'm tired of playing >.< People beat me with one unit, without expanding, without forethought. It's very encouraging.
I will defend Blizzard's right to balance the game IN BETA the way the see fit...but surely no one here is seriously arguing that a useless unit is a good thing simply because it forces you to find workarounds?
What does this argument even mean? Why not include civilians then? Are the useless units there to make it a little harder, in terms of interface, to get the good ones? Are they there because Blizzard feels that someone will EVENTUALLY find a use for them? Are they there as SURPRISE! units that are underused and therefore no one will expect them when they are used that one in a hundred times?
Aside from the first, these are serious questions. I don't quite understand how useless units can be defensible.
On May 18 2010 18:21 space_yes wrote: Blizzard made the roach 2 supply without introducing additional zerg changes to see how a 2 supply roach would affect the unit composition of late game zerg armies and to see statistically how this affects the zerg W/L ratio for each matchup.
It really couldn't be more obvious what Blizzard is doing. The whole thing about people switching races is just melodrama.
Everyone (by everyone I mean select posters in this thread) need to stop complaining and learn to play with a 2 supply roach and wait for more changes. This is what Blizzard wants you to do, and if you play zerg, what you have to do. It IS the beta afterall..
your being a less than obvious dick, learn to play with supply 2 roach? have you not seen the latest zerg victories in turnaments?
THEY SKIPPED THE ROACH all together.-
so we are just going to follow their example, skip roach all together.
Then you make hydralisks because that unit is 2 supply as well, and has so much more dps that a roach with its 3 range and a tad more hp is worse than just getting another hydralisk.
THE ROACH has the most upgrades and is the most USELESS at 200/200 supply.
Less diversity in every matchup and your saying l2p?
;/ meeh, not to feed the trolls but its bad game design to leave the roach as it currently is.
I don't see a quick fix to Zerg. The fact that they have so few units makes them overpowered because they need fewer buildings to adjust to their opponent. Spawning pool + hydra den + spire can counter pretty much everything and you can pump a perfect combo of counter units 18 at a time with 3 hatcheries.
On May 18 2010 20:13 Psiclone wrote: I don't see a quick fix to Zerg. The fact that they have so few units makes them overpowered because they need fewer buildings to adjust to their opponent. Spawning pool + hydra den + spire can counter pretty much everything and you can pump a perfect combo of counter units 18 at a time with 3 hatcheries.
Lol? What, exactly, does zerg "counter"? First off they have no +dmg to armored unlike both other races. 2nd, zerglings melt to just about everything come midgame. Mutas get STOMPED by thors, and toss has 2 t1 GtA units if you want to discount stargate units. Hydras don't "counter" anything. They are just somewhat efficient and do a lot of damage when massed. Thus they are the mainstay of most Zerg armies post 2 supply roach nerf. Roaches were good specifically because they could be massed to soak up damage, now they can't because you're supply blocked twice as fast. They're really not an attractive option vs an equal supply hydra. (You hear that Blizzard? That cleary means nerf hydras, Dustin "retardo" Browder) So we have the very niche corruptor which I guess does somewhat counter colossi and a couple of large air things (which mostly don't see play). And then the broodlord which at t3 / 3.5 can afford to give Zerg an actual good unit.
On May 18 2010 20:13 Psiclone wrote: I don't see a quick fix to Zerg. The fact that they have so few units makes them overpowered because they need fewer buildings to adjust to their opponent. Spawning pool + hydra den + spire can counter pretty much everything and you can pump a perfect combo of counter units 18 at a time with 3 hatcheries.
Zerg do not counter. Zerg makes lots of units and they respond to the opponents moves but they never outright have a direct counter to anything. Sure Hydralisk can shoot up and do sort of "Counter air." but they are also "simply put the most efficient unit that I will be making regardless of opponents race, build and overall strategy. "
Usually a zerg players response to anything at all is simply THROW MORE STUFF AT IT or my infestation pit, tech to hive, spire into greater spire timing was off.
I feel the need to address this whole Korea > rest of the world sentiment. While this is largely true, and extremely apparent in the case of SC1, I think most people have misconceptions about why this is. Its not as if Korean players have some genetic or cultural edge that gives them a static advantage at gaming. Korean superiority at SC1 is quite easily explained by simple math. The incentive for pro-gaming is much higher, and thus the player pool for potential SC genius is MUCH larger. If you have 800 pro gamers from say Germany, take the top ten of those players..and then run them against the top 10 players from Korea's player pool of 50000, who you think is gonna come out on top? This is what has been going on in SC1 for many years..which is why Korea embarrasses other competition. This point might seem obvious to some, but it was important to clarify to address the Op's argument. In short, SC2 isn't nearly as widely played in Korea yet. If we take a look at games like Warcraft3, you will notice that the top competitors are far from exclusively Korean. While Korea is strongly represented, so is China and much of Europe. If someone were to claim that "night elf is obviously the best because the highest rated Korean players are vast majority Night Elf" the argument would hold much less weight than it would for a SC1 related issue. My point is, unless SC2 achieves much more popularity in Korea than elsewhere, there is no reason to assume the absolute best players will all be exclusively Korean. For example Lucifron (one of the best War3 players in the world) may turn out to be the best Terran for all we know. I guess what it comes down to, is I simply am not as optimistic as some that Korean pro gamers are going to "make the switch," to SC2; or that SC2 will otherwise become as big as SC1 was/is. I really hope it does however.
You're basically skipping the important part of the argument, namely that BW and SC2 are closely related, and that skill is transferable from BW to SC2.
It's not the same, that goes without saying, but that there is a good chance of faster meta game development among skilled BW players is pretty obvious.
I really do not understand why it is so difficult for people to see things from our (Zerg players) point of view. We are not trying to complain that our race is underpowered, because that is not the case, as is clearly evident from Zerg performance in high level play. Our complaint is that Zerg lacks diversity, resulting in fewer options and ultimately contributing Zerg gameplay being boring as hell.
Let me try to illustrate, and I will use TvT since it is the non-Zerg matchup I am most familiar with. In a typical TvT game, the initial stages are almost always the same. One goes banshees, the other counters with Vikings. That part is fairly predictable. After that, the TvT games vary pretty wildly. I've seen them revert to bioballs, I've seen tank crawls, and I've seen them continue the air war. Pretty much the only units that do not get used in a typical TvT are Battlecruisers (hardcountered by the vikings that will already be on the field, and thus useless) and Ghosts. All-in-all, watching a TvT is interesting, dynamic, and considered by many to be the best matchup in terms of player fun and viewer enjoyment.
Now let's look at the Zerg game. Matchup doesn't matter, really, because the Zerg army in its current state is totally predictable. Prior to patch 12, the composition was always Roach/Hydra, with maybe a couple of infestors thrown in. Post patch 12, it is Lings/Blings/Hydra, with maybe a few Mutas or Infestors. If the game goes past 20 minutes, might see a few Brood Lords.
These armies are effective, but they are boring as hell. There is no real thinking that goes into the strategy, because we have no other units to use. It does not matter which of the many possible strategies our opponent picks, because our response will be the same : use the only army we have. The units do not vary, only how many of each we get. Effective, yes. Interesting, no. And this is exactly what Artosis is saying in his post. The strategic thinking, the response to the opponent unit composition, almost does not exist as Zerg.
Go back to SCBW for a minute and look at a high-level matchup there. I'll use the recent Jaedong-Midas matches as an example. Those matches did not involve the Zerg using one strategy for the entire game, as they do in SC2. Jaedong goes through Muta/Ling, Lurker/Defiler, Ultra/Ling, and a couple others, all in response to what his opponent is doing (or to force the opponent to respond to him). They are dynamic matches that have you on the edge of your seat. Compare that to the NonY/IdrA matches in the HdH semifinals. Almost all of the interest in those matches came from what NonY was doing. Watching IdrA was boring, because he did the same thing all game, every game. The only interesting part of IdrA's play was the drop in game 3.
So please, people, stop telling us to L2Play, because we agree with you that Zerg is not underpowered. We want diversity, we want options in our play, WITHOUT making Zerg any more powerful than they are (or maybe even making them a bit weaker). We no longer want to be forced to use the same unit composition every single game, we want the choice that T and P both get. We want the fun back in our race, not this mechanical stuff we have currently, where an optimized robot could probably win most games as Zerg.
I'm not sure what all the hate in this thread for the OP was about, but Artosis has been around for a very long time in SC1, WC3, and SC2. If anyone's opinion should be valid it is his, I firmly agree with his assessment, Zerg dominates Asian servers because its an easier race to learn. And something which Artosis did not touch on in his article but I'll mention here is that Zerg is the least changed race from BW. The style of play for Zerg is more or less very similar to that of BW, as all the units available to you were really available in BW (save of course for Queen and Baneling and Infestor - lets face it Corrupters = Devourers and Broodlords = Guardians). Because of this the learning curve for pros and ex-pros is very small and that is why it seems like Zerg is 'dominating' in reality the people playing Terran and Protoss simply have not refined the play style as concretely.
The complaint I hear most often about the zerg is that they do not have as much diversity. In BW Zerg players would switch up their army composition depending on what their opponent is doing. Whether that was lurker defiler, ling/ultra, or muta/ling or other combos. Prior to patch 12 my terran build was pretty standard because a majority of the time the zerg player would go all in roach and transition into roach hydra (which is not very diverse). Post patch 12, I see zerg players trying more combos and reacting more to what I build. For example will start with the bling bust to which I go ignitor hellion plus a few rines to which he moves to muta which i turn into mass rine plus medivac. then he moves to roach infestor. this game goes back and forth for about an hour both of us reacting to what the other person builds.
Now I dont think the roach needed a nerf in the early game in fact the two supply makes them much less useful in the early game. Possibly a slight increase in their cost would have been a better nerf. However imo I think the roach was overnerfed on purpose to force more zerg players to try out other units. Also with the upcoming ultra buff it wil be easier to transition from ling to ultra as the upgrades will carry over (even though we have no idea what buff the ultra is getting yet)
Also as in BW it was not uncommon for zerg players to get lings then completely skip over the hydra den and get the mutas first then move back to hydras later. What we are seeing here is pretty similiar. I see people ling/bling harass then switch to hydras or mutas then back down to roaches.
On May 20 2010 00:18 s031720 wrote: Edited: Wrong thread, oops.
Roach play worked in that game because of the backdoor on blistering sands. MoMan abused the sole weakness of the terran mech: their limited mobility. With constant movement and backdooring he managed to delay the push and get BL out in time.
On any other map, where the Terran can just camp near his ramp all day until he has a big army, this type of play is less effective.
A lot of ppl seem to be arguing or complaining about lack of diversity for Zergs play, because they don't have that many units? That playing Z in thier matchups is almost boring because they're "forced" to make the same units all the time. Well, Terran could have the same argument, although perhaps without the 'forced' part. Terran makes marauders 90% of the time in all their matchups.. Whereas some of their matchups are changing and people are getting more comfortable/confident to use other units in say, TvT, doesn't mean that they still mainly use 1-2 unit compositions. It's the same for every race pretty much. You see zealot/sentry/immortal used just as much in PvZ as u do in PvP.. There are the chances or options to go fast void ray or soemthing, but it hardly wins a game, out right.. it may open a window of harass which will of course add up through other aspects of the game, like more harass, giving the Protoss player a quicker expand which leads to better macro etc. but just outright going void ray isn't going to kill a Z.
I think the point of this thread and most of the arguments is "where is the diversity" or that "Z doesnt have enough choices".. well c'mon.. Every race does the same build, more-or-less, in all their matchups. It was the same in BW. Zerg may have had 1-2 more units in BW, but they still did the same thing! Jaedongs ZvP? He was a god w/ Zerg but even he, did the same thing, every ZvP.. Muta rush with micro into mass hydra or maybe lurk contain to get economic advantage.
Same as in PvP for BW - reavers/zealots/dragoons always used early game (at least, mostly in pro-games, with a slight chance of DT usage) or Terrans using tank/vult in BW.. every game! I dont think Z is any worse off than the other races.. And its their fault that they don't accept the Ultralisk as their own unit. I actually like using the ultralisk when I play Z.. Is it an awesome unit standard? no. but neither was it from BW. Once u get their armor/speed upgraded, then they become efficient. 0-0 ultra against toss army? may not be the best money u spend, but then again, if u're playing a protoss and get the chance to make ultras, yet haven't made any upgrades, well then.. thats your own fault. Even so, who cares if the ultra isnt used? Zergs like using broodlords anyway - which is totally imbalanced
EPT
