|
On July 23 2010 07:20 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 07:14 hyouro wrote:
Excuse me deckkie, how can you make conclusions like that when you don't even know the basics of a Zerg? You guys are totally right. I shouldnt assume stuff without knowing. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Guess the first thing for me when the game comes out, wont be playing single player, but training my Zerg.
you are very polite Deckkie 
zerg is cool, i enjoy zerg.
But a good zerg should lose to a good terran. I feel okay about the ZvP matchup. But its true that zerg always feels like you're playing from behind. There are so many weaknesses to the race right now and most of its strengths have been nerfed from BW.
I used to list things out but i kinda decided it's not worth it anymore. eventually zerg will get patched or all competitive people will stop playing zerg. But the game's not even out yet.. And there will be a day1 patch most likely. So we'll see what happens. It's nice to see ultralisks actually turn into a semi-viable unit. But they also feel like something you can only pull off if you were able to macro for the whole game and store up 1200 gas so you can pop out 6 as soon as your ultra den finishes
|
I dont know why everybody points out the mistakes that zerg players do without pointing out the mistakes that the other players have been doing. It seems like theres always ppl grilling zerg players for making a ton of mistakes and providing numerous recommendations that would of clearly win the game for zerg.
Idra obviously made mistakes but hes definately gonna make less mistakes than the typical poster on this forum. You can say that the double hatch was a mistake but it was a surprise attack on tester who was clearly not ready for it. He only had 1 zealot and did not know that Idra had a 2nd hatch to secretly make mass zerglings. Tester also made 2 cybercores and chronoboosted the wrong one. Would that not be a mistake on the protoss' side? Despite making those mistakes though, tester was able to win. Flip the story around where zerg is clearly ahead economically and has food advantage. The zerg player could make any mistake and he'll get crucified and grilled for making that 1 mistake and that is justification for why the zerg shouldnt of won.
Im a biased zerg player and I understand its a reactionary race. I dont know if the game is balanced but I always feel like I have a smaller margin for error than the other races.
|
On July 23 2010 08:11 Fumble wrote:
I dont know why everybody points out the mistakes that zerg players do without pointing out the mistakes that the other players have been doing. It seems like theres always ppl grilling zerg players for making a ton of mistakes and providing numerous recommendations that would of clearly win the game for zerg.
Idra obviously made mistakes but hes definately gonna make less mistakes than the typical poster on this forum. You can say that the double hatch was a mistake but it was a surprise attack on tester who was clearly not ready for it. He only had 1 zealot and did not know that Idra had a 2nd hatch to secretly make mass zerglings. Tester also made 2 cybercores and chronoboosted the wrong one. Would that not be a mistake on the protoss' side? Despite making those mistakes though, tester was able to win. Flip the story around where zerg is clearly ahead economically and has food advantage. The zerg player could make any mistake and he'll get crucified and grilled for making that 1 mistake and that is justification for why the zerg shouldnt of won.
Im a biased zerg player and I understand its a reactionary race. I dont know if the game is balanced but I always feel like I have a smaller margin for error than the other races.
Double cycore = 150 mineral mistake by the guy who was already in the lead b/c he threw Idra off of his game, the chrono boost mistake also pretty marginal, would have mattered more if Idra hadn't GG'd out so early.
The hatch in base was a 300 mineral mistake that compounded itself as he used those larvae for lings, further wasting larvae and minerals on a unit that couldn't do anything for him at that stage of the game.
Idra being better than me or other posters has nothing to do with this discussion fwiw.
|
These are all reasons why I play Zerg.
I actually have no problems with zerg myself. It isn't underpowered, I feel that it's perfectly balanced, people just aren't playing it properly yet. Zerg as of now is only the macro race. You play it if you love having a huge economy, and being able to pump out units at an unrivaled pace. But i feel like that's the only aspect of Zerg that people are paying attention to. Nydus, contaminate, infested terrans, overlord drop harassment, baneling mines, all sorts of potentially useful strategies are being largely ignored because the current attitude towards the race is "I can win with macro and nothing else".
|
On July 23 2010 06:59 Deckkie wrote:
About the Tech switch
I think its a very big advantage.
Think about the ZvP game from the King of the Beta (think it was IdrA vs Huk ... not sure)
toss came with mass Collosis, and the Zerg could counter it relatively easy with Corrupters, because Zerg can tech-switch super fast. A terran or Protoss would have had much more problems with it.
Also When a Zerg player looses drones, he can make ten new ones in a blink. Terran and Toss need to make them one by one.
Conclusion Tech switch big advantage
You really haven't thought through anything in your post.
If you're Terran, you likely have a Starport regardless of strategy...if it's MMM, fast banshee, Ravens in Mech, etc. Terran see a Colossus, immediately swap their Starport to a Reactor and start pumping out double Vikings. Zerg, oppositely, can't get all their tech buildings in advance (for obvious reasons), so when Zerg sees a Colossus, they have to build a Spire, which takes roughly 17 minutes, and then change all their unit production into Corrupters, which are completely useless against the rest of the Protoss army and twice the cost of a Viking (the only reason Zerg players make Corrupters is lack of alternatives...they're a terrible unit). That you think Zerg can react and counter a Colossus faster than Terran is ridiculous. And that doesn't even include the point that Colossus don't hard counter all Terran ground like they do with Zerg, meaning unlike Zerg, Terran have several options of response.
You're point about replacing Drones ten at a time isn't an inherent advantage as it costs larvae, meaning that you can't be fortifying your army. I find it amazing how Non-Zerg players view Zerg through rose-colored glasses in nearly every discussion.
|
On July 23 2010 08:43 tfmdjeff wrote:
Nydus, contaminate, infested terrans, overlord drop harassment, baneling mines, all sorts of potentially useful strategies are being largely ignored because the current attitude towards the race is "I can win with macro and nothing else".
Those aren't strategies; they're tactical gimmicks...like Reapers and DT's...they might win you a game here and there, but you can never go into a game with the intention of winning using one of those gimmicks (well, you can, but you won't be a very strong player). If you don't see the fallacy in your logic, you haven't taken a far enough step back. Terran sit in their base, massing tanks, making them impenetrable in the mid-game, and still have the option of harassing with Banshee's, Hellions, Raven's, Dropships, etc. with complete immunity.
Your response is that Zerg should waste money on Nydus, which is fuking terrible. I'm so god damn tired of non-Zerg players telling Zerg players to use Nydus Networks...they're god awful...they take an hour to build and poop out units one at a time to die...you don't see them in high level play because you can't beat a high level player with them!
I'm not going to go through every other gimmick you suggest because they all miss the point...you can't revolve every win around tricks. Imagine someone telling you: "Of course you can't win with a Mech army in a straight fight, you noob! Use Dropships and Cloaked Banshee's instead!! Stop complaining that you can't win in a straight fight...you're not supposed to, noob!!@"
|
On July 22 2010 07:11 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Tech Switches
Unlike other races where you need to build a whole new production facility to make a new set of units such as a factory a stargate, the zerg only needs to wait on a single tech building and then every single hatch/lair/hive can produce that unit.
I can't agree with this. Terrans generally have at least 1 of each of their unit producers already down. This allows them extreme versatility in army make up. If terran decides to tech switch all they need is to simultaneously throw down a couple more unit producers or to build a reactor or two depending on what they are switching to. This can be done just as quickly as a zerg tech switch.
I think zerg tech switches better than protoss, but protoss balances this with a very strong set of gateway units that can defend against almost any threat that they can spawn anywhere and reinforce very quickly.
Zerg has many mechanics that still have not been used to their fullest: - Larva Injection (yes pros still mess this up)
- Transfusion strategies
- Contamination
- Nydus Networks both offensively and defensively
So until this game is released and players get the time to REALLY get their hands on zerg and play with it and experiment then I don't think it's right to really be commenting on how zerg is broken it doesn't work yada yada.
This argument isn't logical. If the problem with Zerg is that people haven't gotten enough time with them yet to perfect Zerg play, then the same point goes for the other races. Following that logic, as players get the time to improve their zerg play, Terran and 'Toss play will improve right along with it leaving them all in the same place they are now at any point along the timeline.
Also, if any race requires "much more focus and apm" to compete than the other 2, that race is by definition underpowered. Even Blizzard states that they consider a certain build or strategy over powered when it easier to perform than it is to counter.
If zerg requires more focus and apm to compete than the other two races, then they are by definition underpowered.
By stating that zerg takes more work to come out victorious is the exact same thing as saying: when two players of equal skill meet, the zerg will always lose.
|
On July 22 2010 07:15 Takkara wrote:
In my humble opinion,
Zerg is fine as a race, they're just unpolished. Their casters are just not finished, spells are added and removed constantly, and they get swapped a bunch. Roaches aren't finished and need some additional tweaks. Corruptors also seems to fall into that unfinished range.
Compare that to Terran where Blizzard has done such an amazing job. I don't think T is overpowered, I think T is the model. Terran is where the races should be when things are "balanced." Every unit is viable (worst is the Reaper), and almost any tech tree has valid strategies around it.
People mistakenly say "lack of diversity" for Zerg. That's not it. They don't necessarily need any more units, they just need the units they all have to be indispensable in some context. Once all the units have a clear and well-defined niche and an appropriate synergy amongst themselves, the race will feel like T and P.
This won't make them any stronger or weaker. It will just make them have more polish. They're the race that's changed the most probably in the beta and still don't feel settled.
I can agree with this
I think T gets the attention first, but they are trying to make it balanced.
|
Your response is that Zerg should waste money on Nydus, which is fuking terrible. I'm so god damn tired of non-Zerg players telling Zerg players to use Nydus Networks...they're god awful...they take an hour to build and poop out units one at a time to die...you don't see them in high level play because you can't beat a high level player with them!
This is true most of the time. Nydus being the main or one of the main elements in a win are very few and far between. I've done some cute things like use it to flank, but i still lost the majority of my army in beating back my opponent's push. I can reinforce quickly with zerglings, but T and P both have reinforcements that decimate lings. Games where you see nydus winning the game are mostly because the zerg is ahead econ anyway and the T or P refuses to leave a few units in his base to defend. It's easily killed before it pops by stimmed marines or a few zealots/stalkers.
|
On July 23 2010 08:43 tfmdjeff wrote:
These are all reasons why I play Zerg.
I actually have no problems with zerg myself. It isn't underpowered, I feel that it's perfectly balanced, people just aren't playing it properly yet. Zerg as of now is only the macro race. You play it if you love having a huge economy, and being able to pump out units at an unrivaled pace. But i feel like that's the only aspect of Zerg that people are paying attention to. Nydus, contaminate, infested terrans, overlord drop harassment, baneling mines, all sorts of potentially useful strategies are being largely ignored because the current attitude towards the race is "I can win with macro and nothing else".
You are actually very wrong - 1 base zerg can be very powerful you just have to know what dop to with it, and how to transition out if it if you need to.
PS: Nydus is the most OP thing in the game that no one ever exploits.
|
On July 23 2010 09:08 Bob300 wrote:
PS: Nydus is the most OP thing in the game that no one ever exploits.
I invite you to go abuse it; but you won't because you're wrong.
Your post reminded me though...during the last round table (with Day9, Idra, TLO, etc.), TLO claimed that Zerg was not underpowered and Idra challenged him to some matches where Idra said he'd go Terran. I'm patently waiting for those games to be played.
|
The way Zerg can tech Switche makes them so freaking hard to counter one sec they have a ton of roch then from out of now were they have a ton of zerglings/hyrda/mutas... Zerg in the hands of a progamer is gonna spell murda in a year after the release
|
On July 23 2010 08:56 Antpile wrote:
If zerg requires more focus and apm to compete than the other two races, then they are by definition underpowered.
Terran requires more focus and APM to compete than the other two races in Brood War, and they've been more successful than Protoss or Zerg by far.
Hard to play does not equal imbalanced, people! Geez.
|
On July 23 2010 09:30 Scorpius wrote:
The way Zerg can tech Switche makes them so freaking hard to counter one sec they have a ton of roch then from out of now were they have a ton of zerglings/hyrda/mutas... Zerg in the hands of a progamer is gonna spell murda in a year after the release
So you are saying that us non pro's have to wait beyond a year in order to have a CHANCE at beating a terran?....Makes sense?...Not really
|
On July 23 2010 09:51 hyouro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 09:30 Scorpius wrote:
The way Zerg can tech Switche makes them so freaking hard to counter one sec they have a ton of roch then from out of now were they have a ton of zerglings/hyrda/mutas... Zerg in the hands of a progamer is gonna spell murda in a year after the release So you are saying that us non pro's have to wait beyond a year in order to have a CHANCE at beating a terran?....Makes sense?...Not really
No, he's saying that he has no idea what it's like to play Zerg, but he thinks they're really cool. Also, he left it out, but he thinks Nydus Worms are awesome.
|
zerg is good. no worries here :D
|
On July 23 2010 08:56 Antpile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 07:11 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Tech Switches
Unlike other races where you need to build a whole new production facility to make a new set of units such as a factory a stargate, the zerg only needs to wait on a single tech building and then every single hatch/lair/hive can produce that unit.
I can't agree with this. Terrans generally have at least 1 of each of their unit producers already down. This allows them extreme versatility in army make up. If terran decides to tech switch all they need is to simultaneously throw down a couple more unit producers or to build a reactor or two depending on what they are switching to. This can be done just as quickly as a zerg tech switch. I think zerg tech switches better than protoss, but protoss balances this with a very strong set of gateway units that can defend against almost any threat that they can spawn anywhere and reinforce very quickly. Show nested quote +Zerg has many mechanics that still have not been used to their fullest: - Larva Injection (yes pros still mess this up)
- Transfusion strategies
- Contamination
- Nydus Networks both offensively and defensively
So until this game is released and players get the time to REALLY get their hands on zerg and play with it and experiment then I don't think it's right to really be commenting on how zerg is broken it doesn't work yada yada. This argument isn't logical. If the problem with Zerg is that people haven't gotten enough time with them yet to perfect Zerg play, then the same point goes for the other races. Following that logic, as players get the time to improve their zerg play, Terran and 'Toss play will improve right along with it leaving them all in the same place they are now at any point along the timeline. Also, if any race requires "much more focus and apm" to compete than the other 2, that race is by definition underpowered. Even Blizzard states that they consider a certain build or strategy over powered when it easier to perform than it is to counter. If zerg requires more focus and apm to compete than the other two races, then they are by definition underpowered. By stating that zerg takes more work to come out victorious is the exact same thing as saying: when two players of equal skill meet, the zerg will always lose.
For tech switching, you need to come up with the right definition for "tech switch" in the first place". If tech switch is being able to make one unit now, then a different one in a few seconds, Terran no doubt great at tech switching. A rax can give you 4 different units to make if you have a tech lab, a factory gives you 3 with a tech lab, and a starport gives you 5 with a tech lab, all of which can trade reactors or tech labs with other unit producing structures.
If tech switching means being able to make one type of units IN MASS, and another different type of unit IN MASS, zerg has the advantage. Just by having the tech structure, a zerg can build a bunch of mutas, then hit you hard with a bunch of lings, then go mass roaches with mutas in late game. Not to mention with this ability, zergs and jump from massing T1, T2, and T3 units if they have the tech structures. If a Terran were to go bio and try to go into mech, he'd have 5 - 6 raxs that would be useless and maybe 1 or 2 factories which build thors and tanks extremely slow.
As for your second point about how zerg players should progress equally with Terran and Protoss players, well if people are getting mad about how mech is OP and how Collosi fry their hydras and lings too quickly, or how Terran is the best race and Zergs suck, less people will play zerg and zerg strategies and tactics will develop slower as well.
But logically, I understand you're point and if two people of equal skill fight, the Zerg and his opponent should have a 50/50 chance of winning. It's no doubt that Starcraft 2 still needs some tweaking. Starcraft: Brood War took about 10 years to to become as balanced as it is now, and a great game.
|
On July 23 2010 09:45 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 08:56 Antpile wrote:
If zerg requires more focus and apm to compete than the other two races, then they are by definition underpowered. Hard to play does not equal imbalanced, people! Geez.
hahahaha. You should think before you post. Let say I set up a tournement to see who can beat a CPU faster SC2. I set one guy's cpu to Easy and set the other guys cpu to insane. How can you not call that unfair or imbalanced? Thats just retarded. One person obviously needs to play significantly better in order to win.
|
On July 23 2010 10:01 Calamity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 08:56 Antpile wrote:On July 22 2010 07:11 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Tech Switches
Unlike other races where you need to build a whole new production facility to make a new set of units such as a factory a stargate, the zerg only needs to wait on a single tech building and then every single hatch/lair/hive can produce that unit.
I can't agree with this. Terrans generally have at least 1 of each of their unit producers already down. This allows them extreme versatility in army make up. If terran decides to tech switch all they need is to simultaneously throw down a couple more unit producers or to build a reactor or two depending on what they are switching to. This can be done just as quickly as a zerg tech switch. I think zerg tech switches better than protoss, but protoss balances this with a very strong set of gateway units that can defend against almost any threat that they can spawn anywhere and reinforce very quickly. Zerg has many mechanics that still have not been used to their fullest: - Larva Injection (yes pros still mess this up)
- Transfusion strategies
- Contamination
- Nydus Networks both offensively and defensively
So until this game is released and players get the time to REALLY get their hands on zerg and play with it and experiment then I don't think it's right to really be commenting on how zerg is broken it doesn't work yada yada. This argument isn't logical. If the problem with Zerg is that people haven't gotten enough time with them yet to perfect Zerg play, then the same point goes for the other races. Following that logic, as players get the time to improve their zerg play, Terran and 'Toss play will improve right along with it leaving them all in the same place they are now at any point along the timeline. Also, if any race requires "much more focus and apm" to compete than the other 2, that race is by definition underpowered. Even Blizzard states that they consider a certain build or strategy over powered when it easier to perform than it is to counter. If zerg requires more focus and apm to compete than the other two races, then they are by definition underpowered. By stating that zerg takes more work to come out victorious is the exact same thing as saying: when two players of equal skill meet, the zerg will always lose. For tech switching, you need to come up with the right definition for "tech switch" in the first place". If tech switch is being able to make one unit now, then a different one in a few seconds, Terran no doubt great at tech switching. A rax can give you 4 different units to make if you have a tech lab, a factory gives you 3 with a tech lab, and a starport gives you 5 with a tech lab, all of which can trade reactors or tech labs with other unit producing structures. If tech switching means being able to make one type of units IN MASS, and another different type of unit IN MASS, zerg has the advantage. Just by having the tech structure, a zerg can build a bunch of mutas, then hit you hard with a bunch of lings, then go mass roaches with mutas in late game. Not to mention with this ability, zergs and jump from massing T1, T2, and T3 units if they have the tech structures. If a Terran were to go bio and try to go into mech, he'd have 5 - 6 raxs that would be useless and maybe 1 or 2 factories which build thors and tanks extremely slow. As for your second point about how zerg players should progress equally with Terran and Protoss players, well if people are getting mad about how mech is OP and how Collosi fry their hydras and lings too quickly, or how Terran is the best race and Zergs suck, less people will play zerg and zerg strategies and tactics will develop slower as well. But logically, I understand you're point and if two people of equal skill fight, the Zerg and his opponent should have a 50/50 chance of winning. It's no doubt that Starcraft 2 still needs some tweaking. Starcraft: Brood War took about 10 years to to become as balanced as it is now, and a great game.
Good post. Zerg players are frustrated mainly because it didn't feel like Blizzard was aggressively tinkering with stuff in the Beta. They spent most of the time on the race buffing Ultra's and tinkering with useless spells. The problems Zerg has now were present months ago, so the idea that SC1 had problems for ten years isn't comforting.
|
On July 23 2010 10:02 iNdEMAND wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 09:45 jalstar wrote:On July 23 2010 08:56 Antpile wrote:
If zerg requires more focus and apm to compete than the other two races, then they are by definition underpowered. Hard to play does not equal imbalanced, people! Geez. hahahaha. You should think before you post. Let say I set up a tournement to see who can beat a CPU faster SC2. I set one guy's cpu to Easy and set the other guys cpu to insane. How can you not call that unfair or imbalanced? Thats just retarded. One person obviously needs to play significantly better in order to win.
Protoss is easy to play in SC1, Terran is ridiculously hard to play.
Oh, silly me, Protoss has won every single SC1 tournament ever! What an imbalanced game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
