On July 27 2010 10:02 DuncanIdaho wrote: Well, all you people basing which race is the best on how a few players (just 2?!) do as zerg, don't understand statistics. If I flip a coin three times, there is a chance I'll get heads 3x in a row. OMG!!! The coin's rigged! Imba IMBA!!!! That's as silly as those ID proponents saying that the universe in which we exist is so unlikely to have come to be on its own that it is thus impossible that it wasn't "guided by a divine hand". Perhaps all permutations of the universe are equally unlikely, but some permutation (1 out infinity possibilities?) must be the one to exist... Just as I can roll 10 d10's, and any combination that I roll has a 1:10^10 chance of being rolled, and thus the chances of a roll such as: <1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1> had the probability of 1:10^10 of being rolled, so I must not have rolled it, but rather place it that way... OMG! the dice are IMBA!!
Any statistician will tell you that such a low N (sample size) of 2 Zerg players will not give you accurate results. Get a large number of each, say 1000 terran players, 1000 protoss, and 1000 zerg, and then if the zerg always lose, you might be on to something in crying "IMBA!!!" though there's still a chance you're wrong, yet then I would be inclined to agree, given such evidence. But over just a single KOTB, quit QQ'ing IMBA, Zerg are still awesome.
To further refute this argument, imagine if people were to say that there were more top chess players whom came from a communist country, and thus communism must be OP'd in comparison to a silly capitalist society only capable of making one gem such as, oh, Bobby Fischer... It would just as silly to say that since Fischer beat them all that one time that capitalism is the superior society. Perhaps one group of people happen to play better than the other group, not necessarily due to the group from which they came, but perhaps by sheer luck of where they spawned (or picked as a fave race, in terms of SC2). Perhaps, as in SC2, there just happen to be better skilled players who prefer protoss and terran.
No, perhaps the people at the top who aren't Zerg, at the moment, happen to be better, perhaps Idra and Dimaga were off there game on the replays we saw. (OMG, 2 really good Zerg, but just two players, and keep in mind Idra apparently has a win:loss ratio of games played of 5:4, which is nothing at which to sneeze.)
Your math teacher is very proud of you, I am sure... but exactly how does this relate to the presented ARGUMENTS with regard to the identified issues Zergs face, for instance, against Terran Mech and Biomech in midgame? I, for one, did not see anybody in this thread going "OMG IDRA lost as ZERG ergo Zerg = Shit". Had you used your wits to, for instance, propose viable counters for Zerg, like others did, your line of reasoning might have been more productive.
Alright, well, I came back to this topic, and I have to say: I AM NOT DISAPPOINTED!!
I am throughly convinced now by the brilliant posts on here that the full breadth of strategies and tactics that can be utilized by all the races have been worked out, and obviously Zerg is underpowered.
~6 months of beta play-time and 1 and 1/2 day of retail release is clearly long enough to determine everything about this game, I mean, pro BW wasn't having 1-base play for more than a week, right?
On July 29 2010 01:32 DanielD wrote: Alright, well, I came back to this topic, and I have to say: I AM NOT DISAPPOINTED!!
I am throughly convinced now by the brilliant posts on here that the full breadth of strategies and tactics that can be utilized by all the races have been worked out, and obviously Zerg is underpowered.
~6 months of beta play-time and 1 and 1/2 day of retail release is clearly long enough to determine everything about this game, I mean, pro BW wasn't having 1-base play for more than a week, right?
Who said all is worked out and we know everything about the game (except you)?
Your argument is "There might be tactics out there that noone discovered, thus dont do balance changes"? If I didnt understand correctly, then please explain.
Then why do Blizzard do balance patches at all when there is undiscovered tactics that *might* beat what is thought as unbalanced? For example Blizzard nerfed roaches, but they should not have done that because we have not discovered all the tactics, according to your logic..
On July 29 2010 01:32 DanielD wrote: Alright, well, I came back to this topic, and I have to say: I AM NOT DISAPPOINTED!!
I am throughly convinced now by the brilliant posts on here that the full breadth of strategies and tactics that can be utilized by all the races have been worked out, and obviously Zerg is underpowered.
~6 months of beta play-time and 1 and 1/2 day of retail release is clearly long enough to determine everything about this game, I mean, pro BW wasn't having 1-base play for more than a week, right?
annoying post... so we cant discuss balance until sc2 is ten years old? dont you think people in scbw discussed balance ? >.< how do you think the game got balanced?
Any statistician will tell you that such a low N (sample size) of 2 Zerg players will not give you accurate results. Get a large number of each, say 1000 terran players, 1000 protoss, and 1000 zerg, and then if the zerg always lose, you might be on to something in crying "IMBA!!!" though there's still a chance you're wrong, yet then I would be inclined to agree, given such evidence.
The one thing I don't dig about Zerg atm is the lack of T1 air that you can build in order to react to a play. It's almost impossible to react to a banshee or void that you aren't prepared for since queens take so long to be produced.
Any statistician will tell you that such a low N (sample size) of 2 Zerg players will not give you accurate results. Get a large number of each, say 1000 terran players, 1000 protoss, and 1000 zerg, and then if the zerg always lose, you might be on to something in crying "IMBA!!!" though there's still a chance you're wrong, yet then I would be inclined to agree, given such evidence.
But remember: Stats are like bikinis. They reveal interesting stuff, but think about what they hide.
Very nice link there, thank you. It appears there are less Zerg, but 20% is nothing too small.
However, stats are awesome, of course, and you can't fool another statistician easily, just because the media and marketing misuses it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the philosophy as a whole. As a Statistician (and yes, whoever in the hell said my "math teacher" is proud of me((I'm too lazy to go back and quote you, nor do you deserve my effort in doing so)), I'll have you know that I teach statistics at a Big 12 University to undergraduates, while attending grad school there, majoring in, oh, statistics, so perhaps I am in my realm of expertise and have the right to speak about it (the major is quantitative psychology to be exact).
But anyways, I apologize for my anti-nerd rage, nerd-rage, but I've made posts in several topics refuting those on here complaining about terran mech and bio balls and how supposedly Zerg have nothing, that we should be able to blindly sit at our base, queue up 200 food (minus drone count) worth of hydralisks, <a> click on the map, and then when they all fall due to horrid micro and choice of unit mix, they qq all over tl.net that there's an imba. You just have to make good surrounds, harrass, and so forth. For what it's worth, I do rather well against other Zerg and Terran, it's Protoss that I have issues with, oddly enough. But mutas rape terran air, they're super fast for map control, and brood lords and ultralisks take out terran mech very efficiently, and infestor fungal growth micro with bling bombing and roach/hydra/zergling support have worked just fine for me. My big issue is the wargate tech of toss, and I just seem to be lacking in my game there, but you don't see me crying imba...
Very nice link there, thank you. It appears there are less Zerg, but 20% is nothing too small.
NP. I tried finding matchup stats (I think I remember reading someone saying Blizz released them and TvZ was like a 80% win) but couldn't.
On July 29 2010 05:06 DuncanIdaho wrote: I'll have you know that I teach statistics at a Big 12 University to undergraduates, while attending grad school there, majoring in, oh, statistics, so perhaps I am in my realm of expertise and have the right to speak about it (the major is quantitative psychology to be exact).
Careful where you're pointing that tail. You're head's getting platykurtic.
On July 29 2010 05:06 DuncanIdaho wrote: For what it's worth, I do rather well against other Zerg and Terran, it's Protoss that I have issues with, oddly enough.
Same.
As to your other points: you're right. Players are getting better and better at dealing with Terran mech. It'll all work out in the end. I'm optimist.
Zerg has many mechanics that still have not been used to their fullest
Agree with that statement, and it goes for the other 2 races aswell. The game has been out for 1 day and we've yet to see loads of units be used to their fullest potential.
Zerg has many mechanics that still have not been used to their fullest
Agree with that statement, and it goes for the other 2 races aswell. The game has been out for 1 day and we've yet to see loads of units be used to their fullest potential.
Well the game is out for 1 day but beta has been played for 4 months, With what you wrote, the other 2 races having underused mechanics as well, this means that nobody can say wether a race is weak/strong. Many things have been said about starcraft1 units/strategies, and then were proven false. Learn from history and don't repeat it.
On July 29 2010 01:32 DanielD wrote: Alright, well, I came back to this topic, and I have to say: I AM NOT DISAPPOINTED!!
I am throughly convinced now by the brilliant posts on here that the full breadth of strategies and tactics that can be utilized by all the races have been worked out, and obviously Zerg is underpowered.
~6 months of beta play-time and 1 and 1/2 day of retail release is clearly long enough to determine everything about this game, I mean, pro BW wasn't having 1-base play for more than a week, right?
annoying post... so we cant discuss balance until sc2 is ten years old? dont you think people in scbw discussed balance ? >.< how do you think the game got balanced?
duuuerp think before post please
There is a big difference between discussing balance and complaining about imba tanks. There is also a big difference between glaring imbalances and stuff that may or may not be meta-game related, and I think that distinction is pretty clear.
But my post is more related to the repetitiveness of the balance "discussion" (I use that term very loosely), in that it isn't saying anything new and isn't helpful to people interested in finding a solution since it's mostly people agreeing with how much it sucks for Zerg. Obviously not everyone, but most.
On July 29 2010 01:32 DanielD wrote: Alright, well, I came back to this topic, and I have to say: I AM NOT DISAPPOINTED!!
I am throughly convinced now by the brilliant posts on here that the full breadth of strategies and tactics that can be utilized by all the races have been worked out, and obviously Zerg is underpowered.
~6 months of beta play-time and 1 and 1/2 day of retail release is clearly long enough to determine everything about this game, I mean, pro BW wasn't having 1-base play for more than a week, right?
Who said all is worked out and we know everything about the game (except you)?
Your argument is "There might be tactics out there that noone discovered, thus dont do balance changes"? If I didnt understand correctly, then please explain.
Then why do Blizzard do balance patches at all when there is undiscovered tactics that *might* beat what is thought as unbalanced? For example Blizzard nerfed roaches, but they should not have done that because we have not discovered all the tactics, according to your logic..
Actually, yes. I would much prefer waiting for balance changes and dealing with potentially unfair things than have Blizzard patch things ASAP before really exploring all of the possible tactics/solutions to a certain issue. I see people being way too quick to complain and ask for nerfs/buffs rather than trying to find in-game solutions.
But anyways, I apologize for my anti-nerd rage, nerd-rage, but I've made posts in several topics refuting those on here complaining about terran mech and bio balls and how supposedly Zerg have nothing, that we should be able to blindly sit at our base, queue up 200 food (minus drone count) worth of hydralisks, <a> click on the map, and then when they all fall due to horrid micro and choice of unit mix, they qq all over tl.net that there's an imba. You just have to make good surrounds, harrass, and so forth. For what it's worth, I do rather well against other Zerg and Terran, it's Protoss that I have issues with, oddly enough. But mutas rape terran air, they're super fast for map control, and brood lords and ultralisks take out terran mech very efficiently, and infestor fungal growth micro with bling bombing and roach/hydra/zergling support have worked just fine for me. My big issue is the wargate tech of toss, and I just seem to be lacking in my game there, but you don't see me crying imba...
Again, you're simply not paying attention. People claiming imbalance because of KOTB are in the far minority, and people saying Zerg can't compete with Terran mech end game with BL/Ultra are ALSO in the minority. The issue people are having is in the period before they can get tier 3 units out because it's so time and resource intensive to get there. Once Zerg gets to tier 3 they have a far more viable solution.
The excuse that all Zerg players are just subpar and only a-move is tiring. Did we all miss the memo that only clueless players are allowed to play Zerg and only good players play Terran? You keep focusing on issues that the majority of people are not complaining about and acting like they're Zerg's primary concern. It's the 8-15 minute mark that is so difficult and Terran mech centers around units that hard counter every zerg unit before tier 3.
Regardless, we'll see what tactics and balance comes in the next couple weeks/months and people will figure it out. Balance is really good right now, and with a couple minor tweaks I'm sure everything will be sitting really well.
Im not the best player in the world but now that i switch to full time zerg loosing from 1 base terran pushes because of the imba siege tank ai isnt the best u know - when i have 3 bases but im unable to break the defence - tester vs tlo or idra vs defending tlo any1 ?
Yea i can do drops if he hasnt got many marines or thors or hes total noob to counter it i can do more harass blah blah.
point is for a zerg player to win vs a toss or vs a terran needs to be twice as good esp under pro categories which 99% of us are.
and no balance isnt that good , every1 knows how imba terran are compare to other 2 races and zerg are in the bottom atm cause they need better players to master and even then theyr not on par.
Terms of mechanics only zerg use this outtade upgrade hatchery thing wheras the other 2 races can build any unit asap and try different builds.
Zerg cannot do a ultra or broodlord rush its just aint happening but terran can do thor rush.
also their top tier units dont justify their worth - apart maybe broodlords - due to the ai mess but is so hard to build them esp when u get constantly harass from a toss or a terran player.
I can go on and on like this but stats will show that terran and toss are like easy 90% of the fights i almost never see a zerg player in europe and thats for a good reason.
REM.ca, thanks for the warning, I'll be careful not skew my distributions and I'll be sure to keep the central tendency more leptokurtic
And Disp,
I see now, what you're homing in upon. So you're not concerned about the other arguments about why Zerg are imba, such as KOTB, or end-game competition, but the argument about hard counters in the mid-game. Well, I apologize for not paying attention to that, but there's a reason for my selective hearing, since I no longer believe in the existence of counters. I refer you to watch this video, which I will admit, I was guilty of being one of the few requesting it of Trebis:
However, pretending that there were such a thing as a "hard counter" (What makes it hard, that it's <a> + map-click w/o micro needed?) , I'd say a decent counter to midgame stuff in the 8-15 min period, while teching to "the only thing that works, b-lords and ultras" would be to keep expanding and harrassing terran everytime their army leaves their base. I find that blings are great at taking out bio balls, roaches with burrow tech are great at seige (or of course, mutas), and if all else fails, put blings burrowed (with autocast unburrow, perhaps) in advance, or hiding in grass near seige tank prefered locations. And if the terran sends hellions, roaches are great. And of course for tanks, mutas are always top notch. Thors are really the only threat to mutas (which fall to mass roaches quite well, about 5 roaches/thor usually works for me, though if they reach a critical mass of several thors, hopefully you can tech to b-lords/ultras ((now immune to stun from thor cannon! )) by then), other than bio balls, which are dispatched by a big zerg mix of the roach/bling/zergling, and hydralisks especially with range upgrade, are always nice if you can tech to it. Infestors (protect them by burrowing, and remember you can spam infested terrans while staying burrowed) with fungal growth also help deal with bio balls by rooting them in place for blings and surrounds, or for retreats. Notice all of these are mostly accessible early onward, none of which require hive tech, just lair plus their building, save for roaches, lings and blings.
Again, remember zerg are great at tech switching, but just have eyes around and see what's coming. Lings are great scouts, and so are olords/seers. And pump out about 2-3 queens at every hatch just to be safe, and spread the creep as well. And remember, you don't have to face them head on, flank them, base trade, harrass, out econ while teching. Not that you can't face them head on... But people seem to have trouble and cry imba apparently...
And for what it's worth, spawning pool=65sec,lair-upgrade=80,infestor=50(meanwhile, start spire=100, but it will finish during hive), hive=100,gspire=100. 65+80+50+100+100=395seconds. That's 6min 36 seconds, not counting drone time to getup to afford stuff, though once you slap down a spawning pool you should be able to time things such that you can get upgrades as soon as the previous is done being made. So, this 8-15minutes which Zerg suck, until they have t3? Bah, good scouting and preparation shouldn't let that period be long.
So, in short, I stick to my case, Zerg are not imba. They're highly mobile, great at pumping out massive armies on short notice, and awesome at map takeovers. They're not so great at 1 on 1 unit fighting (Hello, they're a swarm race, safety in numbers!), their scouting is arguably the worst of the 3 races, but otherwise a great race and equivalent in gamability/winability. And don't forget, everything can "cloak", perhaps not run, but burrow is definitely a staple meant to be abused.
After reading about 1 million zerg is underpowered whine threads (which may or may not be valid) which complain about the same things, here are a few things to think about.
1)Lack of a zerg wall-off is a huge issue: Not only is this immediately obvious, that hellions force zerg into a certain style of play (defensive until they can get up the correct counters). But for a much deeper reason.
Many of the problems that zerg has to deal with stem from the absurd amount of tech that terran are able to get in the current MU. Absurdly quick hellions, fast siege tanks, thor's and drops etc. When looking at zerg's tech tree, there are plenty of options for harassment as well, nydus, muta, quick B-lords, drops. The problem is, zerg can never get these options in a time that will allow them to be effective. They are always late teching. Why? Because they are forced to build their tech tree around stopping hellions, banshees and thor drops.
The equivalent of the barracks with fast gas, directly into factory, would be a spawning pool with fast gas into lair. This build can never be pulled off because zergling speed is required to defend against hellions. And insanely early hellions are a guarantee due to the wall off eliminating early zergling pressure. This is where the matchup is imbalanced. Due to the wall-off trumping any early zerg pressure, the terran is able to get a harassment tech lead, and always keep it due to forcing the zerg to counter it.
2) Secondly, I feel that there is a strategy that all zerg are sorely missing out on, and that is using the Overseer's corrupt ability. Terran have a very hard time tech switching, because in order to do so effectively they must have alot of production buildings. In order to be able to tech switch quickly to any of the 3 branches, that means they need alot of ALL three types of building. Zerg on the other hand can plop down one building, and tech switch hard.
It is very rare to see terran have more than 3 factories or starports when going a balanced build. Thus, zerg should upon getting to lair, morph 3 overseer's, scout the terran's army comp, then counter while corrupting the terrans buildings which counter the zergs new comp. For instance: if terran is going light on thors (1 or 2 in the mid-game). Zerg goes heavy heavy muta:12+ and corrupts the factories. Take out the thors, and now the terran army is screwed. Because zerg is going mostly all muta, a decent strategy for terran would be to counter into the zerg's main because he has not many ground units, but this is where the terran ball's immobility hits hard.
I'm sure these idea's are a little sketchy around the outsides due to lack of personal play time recently, but they are definitely something to consider.
I played roughly 300 Games as Zerg in Beta and i win about 50% of my Games (more in Mirror and vs Protoss and less in vs Terran).
Now, i switched to Protoss (had perhabs 10 Games in Beta) and won my last 12 Games and it was easy.
Zergs problem is, that they don't have an easymode-uber-Unit like Voidray, Tank, Banshee, DT and all that stuff. They just have standard Units with no big negative aspects, but also no big strenghts or surprise effects.
Every opponent just plays a standard Game VS Zerg and you have very few options to really throw the opponent off his game plan.
@emothugn I've actually seen quite a lot of corruption use lately so that is coming.
As a general statement, it bugs me when people read imbalance as over- or underpowered. A match-up can be imbalanced and still have an equal winning percentage. Lets say blizzard would have made zerg with 10 useless units and 1 uber good one that is the only one people make. Thanks to that 1 uberunit, zerg are able to win about 50 % games against an equal skilled opponent. Is that a balanced game? Of course not. The same applies in the current ZvT imo. It's not that terran is necessarily overpowered rather than there is an imbalanced in how the match-up plays out during the game, especially in mid-game. How to fix it is harder though. That's my two cents anyway.
EPT
)) by then), other than bio balls, which are dispatched by a big zerg mix of the roach/bling/zergling, and hydralisks especially with range upgrade, are always nice if you can tech to it. Infestors (protect them by burrowing, and remember you can spam infested terrans while staying burrowed) with fungal growth also help deal with bio balls by rooting them in place for blings and surrounds, or for retreats. Notice all of these are mostly accessible early onward, none of which require hive tech, just lair plus their building, save for roaches, lings and blings.
