|
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. 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.
Yes it does, come on think about this for more then 2 seconds. If players of equal skill face Terran wins (more then 50%) because zerg is harder according to you. That is the very definition of imbalance, that an equal matchup does not end in 50/50 due to some factor.
I've read this entire thread and these kinds of reasoning pop up time and time again, people saying they do not agree with zerg being underpowered, just harder. How does that work, imbalance means one must play better to overcome this uneven playing field. People are saying there is no uneven playing field but in the very next sentence say that one must play better / that it is harder for zerg which consitutes imbalance.
|
On July 23 2010 10:07 gerundium 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. 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. Yes it does, come on think about this for more then 2 seconds. If players of equal skill face Terran wins (more then 50%) because zerg is harder. That is very definition of imbalance, that an equal matchup does not end in 50/50 due to some factor.
Do you have stats that it doesn't end 50/50?
The highest level tourney we've had so far, the 17173 world cup or whatever, had 3 zergs in the semis and one Terran, ZvZ finals. No one gives a shit that low level zergs lose a lot of games. Pros are doing fine with Zerg and that's that.
|
On July 23 2010 10:05 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:02 iNdEMAND wrote: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. 
Don't know if I should laugh or cry about this comment. If you can't see how that is imbalance, then you don't want to see it. Or just slightly mentally challenged. I hope for the first one though.
|
I love how Zerg is becoming the elitist race more and more. Love them or hate them, compared to a well executed game as Zerg, Toss and Terran feel cheap and cheesy at the moment.
|
On July 23 2010 10:09 hyouro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:05 jalstar wrote:On July 23 2010 10:02 iNdEMAND wrote: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. Don't know if I should laugh or cry about this comment. If you can't see how that is imbalance, then you don't want to see it. Or just slightly mentally challenged. I hope for the first one though.
So you think Protoss is a better race than Terran in SC1 simply because it's easier to play.
hahahahahahahahaha
|
The thing is, all this is true.
The problem is that Zerg units suck. You can tech switch fast to any of them, but they suck Okay, mutalisks and infestors are good, but most of them just aren't as good as they should be.
The problem with zerg is that they need complex creative strategies to beat simple ones. Like Terran a-moving with mech.
|
On July 23 2010 10:09 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:07 gerundium wrote: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. 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. Yes it does, come on think about this for more then 2 seconds. If players of equal skill face Terran wins (more then 50%) because zerg is harder. That is very definition of imbalance, that an equal matchup does not end in 50/50 due to some factor. Do you have stats that it doesn't end 50/50? The highest level tourney we've had so far, the 17173 world cup or whatever, had 3 zergs in the semis and one Terran, ZvZ finals. No one gives a shit that low level zergs lose a lot of games. Pros are doing fine with Zerg and that's that.
Do you want to take 2-3 months old statistics while we are it? ^^
Yes the zerg was overpowered when it first came out (or didn't people know how to play against it?, I am starting to wonder???) It is kinda the same thing happening now. If we can't take a look at what is happening right in front of our eyes and just go....It will probably work out. I don't see any problem, I still lose to Zerg, it might have something to do with me being in bronze league.
And seriously, how can people say, when they haven't played a single game with Zerg, that everything is fine. You just need to learn how to play it.
Yeah please go ahead and tell that to dimaga and idra. I am sure they will agree with you ^^
|
On July 23 2010 10:10 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:09 hyouro wrote:On July 23 2010 10:05 jalstar wrote:On July 23 2010 10:02 iNdEMAND wrote: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. Don't know if I should laugh or cry about this comment. If you can't see how that is imbalance, then you don't want to see it. Or just slightly mentally challenged. I hope for the first one though. So you think Protoss is a better race than Terran in SC1 simply because it's easier to play at the lower levels. hahahahahahahahaha
I think Protoss at least deserves that much considering the current state of professional Protoss players.
Personally I think that we need time to tell. The difficulty or mechanics of the game may need time to develop and for people to learn how to use them effectively in the different races. At least Raelcun has hit upon some excellent points that make me like Zerg in SC2.
|
The only thing I dislike about zerg is that it seems their armies are too two-dimensional. When you see Protoss armies and Terran armies they are one big ball and often have several layers of firing units. In Zerg armies, you are lucky if you can get two rows of units (usually roach and hydra). It may have to do with the 'massability' of Zerg, but then again both roaches and hydras cost 2 supply same as stalkers.
|
On July 23 2010 10:09 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:07 gerundium wrote: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. 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. Yes it does, come on think about this for more then 2 seconds. If players of equal skill face Terran wins (more then 50%) because zerg is harder. That is very definition of imbalance, that an equal matchup does not end in 50/50 due to some factor. Do you have stats that it doesn't end 50/50? The highest level tourney we've had so far, the 17173 world cup or whatever, had 3 zergs in the semis and one Terran, ZvZ finals. No one gives a shit that low level zergs lose a lot of games. Pros are doing fine with Zerg and that's that.
Look into statistics first of all because 1 tourney says nothing, hell a 100 tourneys say nothing. Come back when you have a 10K sample size and we can start being a little more serious about these examples. That does not happen and every discussion about topics like these are essentially theory craft except for the developer who can access the large sample sizes from ladder. So random examples don't mean shit.
Now that i have that out of the way, my main point in that post was point out the logical fallacy people make denying imbalance while they touch upon the very definition for it. The situation is merely hypothetical, and i trust in blizzard to take action as they see fit because they unlike us have the statistics, and we are left to theorycraft and post on forums hoping blizzard sees the general consensus.
edit: and to add my thoughts to this, yes i do think zerg needs a slight change. I started playing zerg because i liked that it is a race which has unusual mechanics and innovative gameplay to me. Having played Zerg some time now coming from random, i am fed up with it. I get this helpless feeling every time i play because i feel powerless to do anything. Next to that i feel zerg getting stale already, which might be due to my limited enjoyment i get because i feel helpless to win mostly.
|
On July 23 2010 10:05 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:02 iNdEMAND wrote: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.
Notice how I didnt quote you on that part just on your comment saying "hard to play does not equal imbalanced" which just makes no sense.
|
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.
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.
Actually, if two players played perfect, with no luck involved, the map providing no imbalance to neither race, and one won by a good margin, only then would we have the proof, that the matchup is broken.
One race can be harder, but it could also be that if played perfect, that race is totally overpowered and there's no chance to win, except that it's too hard to perform perfectly, thus making the other seem better.
This being said, i agree all races should have a similar learning curve, skill ceilling, and balance throughout all levels of play, including playing perfectly, which isn't the case, and i agree terran seems to be in favor in most of these aspects. It's indeed very hard to balance this well, but it's blizzard's job to do it, and only time, and tournament results will tell how good of a job they will do.
|
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".
Pretty much this, especially the end there. I sometimes feel that Zerg are focusing a bit too much on macro. If we take the most extreme case of this, suppose as a Zerg you had 6 fully saturated bases. Sounds great right? It is until you realize that you are definitely going to lose that game. It takes like ~30 Drones to fully saturate + a queen per each, so that's 192 food invested into economy and thus your pitiful 8 food "army" is going to get owned.
On a more realistic case, suppose you had 3 fully saturated bases. That's "only" 96 food invested in the economy, but it still puts a limit on your maximum fighting force, one that can be exploited by other races that don't have Zerg's expansion rates. If you were fighting say... a 2 base meching Terran, he will have something around 60 SCV's. If you let him max out, his army will be 140 food of meching death vs your 104 or so food... Suffice to say, unless a lot of that is Broodlords or Ultras you will lose no matter how fast you can reinforce.
The point I'm making here is that "macro" in regards to workers/bases can be a double-edged sword. When people say things like "OMG I totally outmacroed him. I had 4-5 bases to his 2 and he owned me even though we had equal food armies!" Well, you lost because you probably had way too many workers and were deceived by the food counts. As such, your actual fighting force was actually significantly smaller than his. For early game, Zerg needs to decide between workers or units in regards to larva. By mid-late game that choice involves not just larva, but the food cap as well.
A good example of this is the Idra vs Tester Game 2.
Link: http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/3903331/
Idra was at 196 food before the last fight against ~178 of Tester. At the end when he GG's out, his food is at 111 (about 12:47 in the video) despite the fact that all of his units died. Even assuming he had queued up a bunch of units from his hatcheries during the fight, I'd still put his Drone + Queen count somewhere around 90 while Tester probably had ~55-60 Probes for 2 bases. Thus while the food counts would appear to have Idra outnumbering Tester, the actual fight was something like a ~120 food army of Tester vs 106 food from Idra. Add in that Collossi own Hydra/Ling and some excellent Force Field usage, and you have the result of that battle clearly in Tester's favor.
Now perhaps Idra would have lost anyway even if he had the army size advantage due to the fight location, his unit mix, and Tester's great Force Fields. But we'll never know until next time. The advice most often given to Zergs (often against Meching Terrans...) is to "Macro up and take the whole map! Power drones and win via economy!". While this is certainly solid general advice, IMO people don't adequately counterbalance this by adding on "but remember to keep enough food cap space for a big enough army". I'd urge all Zerg players to consider the possibility that there is such a thing as too much macro and that maybe they are guilty of it at times.
|
On July 23 2010 10:13 hyouro wrote:
Yeah please go ahead and tell that to dimaga and idra. I am sure they will agree with you
DIMAGA and Idra are favorites against any non-Korean. When the 2 best foreigners choose Zerg is that what says "underpowered" to you?
|
Put idra and dimaga up against TLO and see how many games TLO will take. Or put Idra up against demuslim/morrow and all the other T's.
|
Idra at least, has said himself in a recent interview he was thinking of changing to terran, because he felt it's ridiculous how they were (are, since no patches have come out since).
|
I think some of zergs biggest problems is the idea that the game has to end fast. if people would start thinking of how can I set myself up for a win in the late game. There is so many sweet things you can do as zerg, but you must enjoy some of the finer things in life. Since we have a week of nothing I decided to share some of my replays of some practice games zvt. I will admit pound for pound most of terran units devestate zerg, but thats not zergs powerhouse area. I am diamond, but havnt played many ladder matches in 1s. I am just an old sc1 player I pretty much quit around 2000/01, and you know zerg had alot of trouble as well during SC and in the begining of scbw. Its nothing new just have to expand your game and quit thinking you must end it fast. I could explain some of my views, but that means nothing on paper so if you are bored I posted my replays at the P2 replay section. or follow this link. Some really long epic battles these are just a few of the ones we played because of the patching/deletion of replays not being saved =[ we had played prolly around 40-50 1v1s in the last few days of beta. Enjoy!
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=134972¤tpage=17
*note* I have not done many zvp mu's so most of my comments about expanding the game as long as you can might not be true for that mu.
|
United Arab Emirates492 Posts
On July 23 2010 10:09 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:07 gerundium wrote: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. 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. Yes it does, come on think about this for more then 2 seconds. If players of equal skill face Terran wins (more then 50%) because zerg is harder. That is very definition of imbalance, that an equal matchup does not end in 50/50 due to some factor. Do you have stats that it doesn't end 50/50? The highest level tourney we've had so far, the 17173 world cup or whatever, had 3 zergs in the semis and one Terran, ZvZ finals. No one gives a shit that low level zergs lose a lot of games. Pros are doing fine with Zerg and that's that.
http://sc2.vacau.com/sc2/GlobalRanks.php
Use your brain for once. I am tired of reading your idiotic posts. Do you even think before you type? Since the 17173 there has been numerous changes to both races in question. Zergs race has been getting nerfs (Roach/infestor) while terran has been constantly buffs.
Look at the latest zotac results, and other weekly results. Look at the global ladder ranking, Look at the gosumergamers ranking.
|
On July 23 2010 10:42 Gunman_csz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 10:09 jalstar wrote:On July 23 2010 10:07 gerundium wrote: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. 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. Yes it does, come on think about this for more then 2 seconds. If players of equal skill face Terran wins (more then 50%) because zerg is harder. That is very definition of imbalance, that an equal matchup does not end in 50/50 due to some factor. Do you have stats that it doesn't end 50/50? The highest level tourney we've had so far, the 17173 world cup or whatever, had 3 zergs in the semis and one Terran, ZvZ finals. No one gives a shit that low level zergs lose a lot of games. Pros are doing fine with Zerg and that's that. http://sc2.vacau.com/sc2/GlobalRanks.phpUse your brain for once, tired of reading your idiotic posts. Do you even think before you type? Since the 17173 there has been numerous changes to both races in question. Zergs race has been getting nerfs (Roach/infestor) while terran has been constantly buffs.
You think Diamond level right now is anywhere near the skill cap? Again, Terran is a hard race in BW, and D/C terrans fail hard on iccup but the top Terran pros can win tons of games.
Again, you have shown no evidence that Zerg's situation in SC2 is any different from Terran's in SC1. Needing more APM and skill to play does not mean worse.
|
Zerg player here. IMO zerg is the most interesting and most fun to play that if I play other race I just get bored as hell, also PvP and TvT sucks so much to play, while ZvZ is just fine because its fast and intense micro. Zerg is just a little weak in the mid-game. Wish they would increase roach burrow move speed back to what they used to be and move adrenal glands to lair tech and IMO everything would be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
