Contributing Factors: Why Zerg is the weakest race

On August 10 2010 15:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Zerg units are just not cost efficient since Protoss and Terran all have hard counters to Zerg units. The whole point of Zerg was to have weak, cost efficient units that can overwhelm the opponent, but now you have the same number of units, except your units die 10x as fast as his.

On August 10 2010 15:41 Havenomind wrote:
Another issue with the queen is that you must use spawn larva right on cooldown, otherwise you lose time and missed opportunities later on. Protoss can chain cronoboost and terran can chain mule if you let your macro falter, but zerg cannot burn off excess energy this way. if you let your queen obtain enough energy you can't use spawn larva twice on a hatchery until the hatchery has spawned its first set, thus wasted time and energy. Sure you can power creep with the energy but you already lost some of your ability to macro because you weren't perfect.

there are other balance issues, but since your talking about macro abilities between races, zerg is much more punishing to those less skilled.

On August 10 2010 15:44 MythicalMage wrote:

I think that's balanced by being able to stockpile up to 19 larvae per hatchery. You killed my 200/200 army? Well I have another one within one production cycle.

On August 10 2010 15:41 Havenomind wrote:
Another issue with the queen is that you must use spawn larva right on cooldown, otherwise you lose time and missed opportunities later on. Protoss can chain cronoboost and terran can chain mule if you let your macro falter, but zerg cannot burn off excess energy this way. if you let your queen obtain enough energy you can't use spawn larva twice on a hatchery until the hatchery has spawned its first set, thus wasted time and energy. Sure you can power creep with the energy but you already lost some of your ability to macro because you weren't perfect.

there are other balance issues, but since your talking about macro abilities between races, zerg is much more punishing to those less skilled.

On August 10 2010 15:16 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
However, Zerg is a race with plenty of options . . .

On August 10 2010 16:08 Ryuu314 wrote:
Unfortunately, ZvP is pretty balanced, probably the most balanced non-mirror matchup. Any changes to Zerg to compensate for it's "weakness" in ZvT would heavily impact ZvP (badly). This really makes it tough for anything to really be done, at least until the expansions with new units.

On August 10 2010 16:00 T0fuuu wrote:


you get transfuse ? or was it just another ability that the qq zergs dont use.
watch madfrog double the use of his mutas cos he had bad macro. its pretty good value imo, since many zergs know how to micro their units into red but cbb to heal them.

not that im saying the race doesnt entirely suck. it does. i think zerg units arent cost effective in fighting T or P and really struggle to kill stuff. too many gas heavy critical upgrades and no easy answer to fight P/T unit mixes.

On August 10 2010 16:00 T0fuuu wrote:

you get transfuse ? or was it just another ability that the qq zergs dont use.
watch madfrog double the use of his mutas cos he had bad macro. its pretty good value imo, since many zergs know how to micro their units into red but cbb to heal them.

not that im saying the race doesnt entirely suck. it does. i think zerg units arent cost effective in fighting T or P and really struggle to kill stuff. too many gas heavy critical upgrades and no easy answer to fight P/T unit mixes.

On August 10 2010 15:55 Havenomind wrote:


The issue I'm talking about is when your not supply capped/blocked, if you miss the timing of spawn larva by say 3 seconds, you cannot recover those 3 seconds. If you are constantly missing spawn larva by 1-5 seconds, over the course of 6 minutes you would have lost 4 larva, people from diamond and platinum can miss these timings, but it becomes much more apparent with gold players and below if they are missing 10 seconds or more, losing 4 larva every 2 minutes. In your case the Zerg macro actually pulls ahead of the other races due to the ability to reinforce and recover from a 200v200 battle, but you still need to continue macroing and still try to get spawn larva right on cooldown

On August 10 2010 15:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Zerg units are just not cost efficient since Protoss and Terran all have hard counters to Zerg units. The whole point of Zerg was to have weak, cost efficient units that can overwhelm the opponent, but now you have the same number of units, except your units die 10x as fast as his.

On August 10 2010 16:25 MythicalMage wrote:

Sure. But look at it in a comparison to Brood War for the sake of argument. You effectively get a free hatchery and a third for every time you get to inject. You can make anything with those larvae. Terrans get minerals. Also Terrans missing MULES, early game at least, literally breaks builds. If you stockpile energy, you have a very unsteady income, and it leads to bad macro over all. Sure it seems a tad harder for zergs, but it's a racial difference just like creep and so on.
EDIT: So terran is more accessible. As a low level player (Probably gold or so when I get around to doing placement on my main account, playing on a guest pass now), I'd MUCH rather the game be balanced for professional play than for low level play.

On August 10 2010 15:16 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
Slight differences like these do not significantly contribute to a weakness in the Zerg race. It's actually a very characteristic quality of the Zerg race. StarCraft was never designed to be three races that play exactly the same with different skins. Each race has its own cons; it is up to the player to overcome these cons and to take advantage of those of the enemy.

Zerg is a more difficult race to play at lower levels, I think most can agree with that. Larva management plays a huge role, and Zerg is possibly the most mechanically demanding race out of the three. However, Zerg is a race with plenty of options and significantly greater mobility than that of the other races. StarCraft 2 is still in a very young state. Although we have discovered what we believe to be very solid, universal strategies, this may not even be the case a few months from now. The game will evolve, and the dominance will shift.

On August 10 2010 15:41 Havenomind wrote:
Another issue with the queen is that you must use spawn larva right on cooldown, otherwise you lose time and missed opportunities later on. Protoss can chain cronoboost and terran can chain mule if you let your macro falter, but zerg cannot burn off excess energy this way. if you let your queen obtain enough energy you can't use spawn larva twice on a hatchery until the hatchery has spawned its first set, thus wasted time and energy. Sure you can power creep with the energy but you already lost some of your ability to macro because you weren't perfect.

there are other balance issues, but since your talking about macro abilities between races, zerg is much more punishing to those less skilled.

On August 10 2010 17:29 Zerksys wrote:
Another thing that might be contributing to this feeling of imbalance of the game in tvz among zerg players like myself is due to the lackthereof ability to punish the terran for not scouting. This also has to do with zerg not having as many options in terms of tech. Back in the good old days of brood war terran had to consistently rely on scouting information from comsat to at least somewhat react to what the zerg was doing. In brood war after the lair finished the zerg player had a choice of getting mutalisks out or getting lurkers out first. Terran players would be punished immensely if they didn't gather this information. This allowed for the zerg to abuse the terran's lack of intel. Terran players back in BW didn't mind this so much because there was only 2 choices terran players could go: lurkers or mutalisks, and also terran players had many different tools in their bag of tricks to combat this.

Now I feel as if the situation has been reversed. Zerg must react to what the terran does. Now I don't mind this at all. I actually prefer to be the one doing the reacting, but what makes this situation so painful for zerg players is that terran, in addition to being the ones you have to react to, also have more tricks than you. Roaches, banelings, zerglings, and mutalisks are all zerg has to work with in midgame. All of which are countered by a good mech ball. There's just no way to solidly react to it! Also, another reason why tvz seems so imba for the zerg player is because even though the terran player has been harassing your economy the entire game, there seems to be no way to get back at him for it and punish his mistakes. I mean even tech switches are often done because the terran's army is hardcountering yours. There's no way to abuse terran's lack of intel whereas there's SOOOO many ways he can abuse yours.

On August 10 2010 17:37 Baarn wrote:


It's the same shit sandwich dude. Flash doesn't even have to attack and armies just crumble to mech. Same goes for a bunch of other terran that have good tank line.

On August 10 2010 15:16 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
Slight differences like these do not significantly contribute to a weakness in the Zerg race. It's actually a very characteristic quality of the Zerg race. StarCraft was never designed to be three races that play exactly the same with different skins. Each race has its own cons; it is up to the player to overcome these cons and to take advantage of those of the enemy.

Zerg is a more difficult race to play at lower levels, I think most can agree with that. Larva management plays a huge role, and Zerg is possibly the most mechanically demanding race out of the three. However, Zerg is a race with plenty of options and significantly greater mobility than that of the other races. StarCraft 2 is still in a very young state. Although we have discovered what we believe to be very solid, universal strategies, this may not even be the case a few months from now. The game will evolve, and the dominance will shift.

On August 10 2010 18:57 ghettohobbit2 wrote:
I may be crying over spilt milk here, but I honestly think that just making spawn larvae autocast would remove about 93% of Zerg tears over things like unstoppable unit compositions, 2 supply roaches, few ways to deal with early pressure, and just about everything else we complain about.

On August 10 2010 19:26 Jameser wrote:
imo the one thing that would help zerg feel more dynamic is reduce the HUGE viability difference of hydras on/off creep, like seriously that shit is stupid

would help zerg ground army feel less contained to the base and toss and terran (in particular terran perhaps) would feel a lot less secure being able to throw reckless attacks against hydra armies with little(or no) fear of being outmaneuvered or counterattacked before being able to rebuild siege D

edit: maybe make it a hydra den upgrade to have hydras move like un-upgraded roaches off creep or something

On August 10 2010 19:31 Osmoses wrote:

Spread yer creep! Expanding your creep is just as much a part of a well played zerg as anything else, and the opponent should have to spend time pushing it back.

On August 10 2010 19:31 Osmoses wrote:

Spread yer creep! Expanding your creep is just as much a part of a well played zerg as anything else, and the opponent should have to spend time pushing it back.

On August 10 2010 19:42 Yuka wrote:
Isn't the more obvious reason that zerg 'seems weak' simply tied to the fact that its player base is currently small? In SC2's current state, zerg is the only race which the player never gets to play in campaign so it should be no surprise that the vast majority of SC2 multiplayer attempts are with/against terran and protoss players.

As SC2 matures, more players will try zerg out and the player base will expand ~ THEN we can consider using "the number of zerg players at the top/lower divisions" and other such nonsense stats.

On August 10 2010 16:51 Havenomind wrote:
comparing capabilities of both races, terran mule allows for between 5-7 more marines per usage with no decrease in build time while spawn larva allows for 8 more zerglings with a decrease in build time by way of simultaneous build. looking at it this way you would think it is roughly balanced only if macro is utilized near perfectly.

On August 10 2010 19:45 Jameser wrote:

I think you have it backwards, zerg playerbase is small because it's a weak race to play (unattractive),zerg's not weak because it has a small playerbase...

On August 10 2010 20:08 Everlong wrote:
No, sorry, you have it wrong.. The game is too young. Hell, there will be two more expansions, its impossible to compare player base so fast after release, seriously, think about it..

On August 10 2010 20:11 HubertFelix wrote:


I agree with the fact that the game is too young.
But i'm not sure the other guy will agree with "hey your race is not weak because of the future expansions"

On August 10 2010 15:16 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
Slight differences like these do not significantly contribute to a weakness in the Zerg race. It's actually a very characteristic quality of the Zerg race. StarCraft was never designed to be three races that play exactly the same with different skins. Each race has its own cons; it is up to the player to overcome these cons and to take advantage of those of the enemy.

Zerg is a more difficult race to play at lower levels, I think most can agree with that. Larva management plays a huge role, and Zerg is possibly the most mechanically demanding race out of the three. However, Zerg is a race with plenty of options and significantly greater mobility than that of the other races. StarCraft 2 is still in a very young state. Although we have discovered what we believe to be very solid, universal strategies, this may not even be the case a few months from now. The game will evolve, and the dominance will shift.

On August 10 2010 19:46 TheYango wrote:

This is overvaluing the MULE. For one, the MULE takes 2 SCV build cycles to make, and has the mining of 3 SCVs (meaning that it's only a net gain of 1 SCV's mining).

If you MULE every time, the MULE amounts to the value having built 1 SCV with no build time. Comparatively, the Queen gives you the larva production of another hatchery, without having to spend a Drone to make it. They both net you 1 worker's worth of mining, but the Queen also saves you 150 minerals, since a Hatchery costs 300 minerals in comparison to the 150 for a Queen.

The obvious problem of course, is that the MULE outvalues the hatchery the moment you miss one Spawn Larva cycle. Again, putting MULE on a cooldown fixes this issue.

On August 10 2010 20:29 Luckbox wrote:


Except you can also mine off an extra hatch and every hatch you put down needs a queen.

Set Max energy on command centers/nexus to 75 and problem is solved.

On August 10 2010 20:34 tarsier wrote:


use burrow and he can't mule because he needs scan, problem solved.

On August 10 2010 20:08 Everlong wrote:

....Also, not only BW players are switching to SC2, so for a lot of people it takes time to understeand Zerg race, all that Larva management, etc.. You cant just make statements like this without any backing....

On August 10 2010 20:43 Kvz wrote:
1 mule returns 7 times the minerals, how is that the value of 3 scvs?

On August 10 2010 20:48 Jameser wrote:

that's exactly what it means for the race to be weak, it's much harder to play in comparison to the other races

or maybe you have another definition of how a race would be qualified as weak

On August 10 2010 20:54 Everlong wrote:


I dont think you get it.. Its too early to "qualify" race as weak as you suppose no matter what the definition would be.

So you would make some balance changes ony because it takes more time to learn some race to play correctly and effectively? What happens when people actually start playing Zerg properly? They would win every single tournament and than Blizzard comes and makes some nerfs for Zerg.. This is absolutely contraproductive..

On August 10 2010 21:01 ooni wrote:
My Opinion Why Zerg isn't the weakest Race using statistics
Just look at the statistics
http://sc2ranks.com/stats
56.17% (212,622) 56.50% (880,884) 56.82% (705,525) 56.32% (595,742)
Look zerg win ratio is 0.2% lower than Protoss. I mean it must be the weakest. Whole 0.2%!
0.2%! I can definately tell the difference win and losing when it's 0.2%!
That's the statistics for Zergs in Diamond league, top 1000 in fact. I reckon -+1% error give or take.

Wait maybe Zerg is weaker at lower level of play.
At Silver level:
49.74% (254,037) 49.38% (1,257,351) 49.41% (1,056,340) 49.44% (719,253)
Okay... Nope just nope.

I will believe Zerg is the weakest race when the statistics says so. Not just Zerg players' subjective view.

On August 10 2010 20:59 Jameser wrote:

it's been like this for a very long while and the argument 'it will be different in an expansion' is completely invalid, this is the game that's out and it should be balanced as is without having to wait for an expansion, if changes are needed again when the expansion comes out then yes those changes should be made even if it's just a reversal of the changes made earlier.


I think checkprime, ogscool,dimaga, and idra all play the race 'properly' and they all lose fairly regularly to clearly inferior terran players

On August 10 2010 21:01 ooni wrote:
My Opinion Why Zerg isn't the weakest Race using statistics
Just look at the statistics
http://sc2ranks.com/stats
56.17% (212,622) 56.50% (880,884) 56.82% (705,525) 56.32% (595,742)
Look zerg win ratio is 0.2% lower than Protoss. I mean it must be the weakest. Whole 0.2%!
0.2%! I can definately tell the difference win and losing when it's 0.2%!
That's the statistics for Zergs in Diamond league, top 1000 in fact. I reckon -+1% error give or take.

Wait maybe Zerg is weaker at lower level of play.
At Silver level:
49.74% (254,037) 49.38% (1,257,351) 49.41% (1,056,340) 49.44% (719,253)
Okay... Nope just nope.

I will believe Zerg is the weakest race when the statistics says so. Not just Zerg players' subjective view.

On August 10 2010 15:16 geno.thebluedoll wrote:
Good point on the extra distance drones must travel depending on your starting location. I can see that having a slight disadvantage in a pro game.

On August 10 2010 21:14 MindRush wrote:

....there is also the "cat and mouse" aspect of the game, where you make your opponet spawn unit X, thinking it counters your unit Y.
But you just show him unit Y and mass unit Z which owns unit Y.
....

On August 10 2010 21:16 xJaCEx wrote:
Oh there was something I wanted to bring up and I think this might be a good thread to do it. In the current map pool or at least almost every map iv seen so far every base comes with a tight ramp. I wish there was like one map at least that did not have a ramp with a ledge that you can gank units on as they are attacking. Anyhow mby it's not that big of an issue but I really think the map pool could use some work. I brought this up because it seems to me the maps favor tanks more then they do zerglings ya know.

On August 10 2010 21:16 xJaCEx wrote:
Oh there was something I wanted to bring up and I think this might be a good thread to do it. In the current map pool or at least almost every map iv seen so far every base comes with a tight ramp. I wish there was like one map at least that did not have a ramp with a ledge that you can gank units on as they are attacking. Anyhow mby it's not that big of an issue but I really think the map pool could use some work. I brought this up because it seems to me the maps favor tanks more then they do zerglings ya know.

On August 10 2010 21:01 ooni wrote:
My Opinion Why Zerg isn't the weakest Race using statistics
Just look at the statistics
http://sc2ranks.com/stats
56.17% (212,622) 56.50% (880,884) 56.82% (705,525) 56.32% (595,742)
Look zerg win ratio is 0.2% lower than Protoss. I mean it must be the weakest. Whole 0.2%!
0.2%! I can definately tell the difference win and losing when it's 0.2%!
That's the statistics for Zergs in Diamond league, top 1000 in fact. I reckon -+1% error give or take.

Wait maybe Zerg is weaker at lower level of play.
At Silver level:
49.74% (254,037) 49.38% (1,257,351) 49.41% (1,056,340) 49.44% (719,253)
Okay... Nope just nope.

I will believe Zerg is the weakest race when the statistics says so. Not just Zerg players' subjective view.

On August 10 2010 21:13 btlyger wrote:
Its funny how much of a 180 Zerg has "taken" since beta.

On beta it was always people crying about zerg being overpowered. Nerf broodlords, nerf queen larvae inject, nerf roaches to the ground! Now that its live, people are freaking out saying that Zerg can't beat the almighty terrans!

Personally, I don't think much has changed. Sure tanks are a bit stronger and roaches are a bit weaker, but overall its not DRASTICALLY different. Strategies just evolve with time, all it's going to take is one zerg player finding out an awesome build order that terran mech can't stop before people start saying Zerg is OP again.

TLDR; Zerg isn't underpowered, Terran isn't overpowered, and still no one is talking about protoss. Except void rays, screw those things.

On August 10 2010 21:24 floor exercise wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Do you people who constantly try to use these numbers understand those aren't win statistics of races, but of the players who are identified as choosing that race more than another?

There aren't actually any win rates for races available to us. All those players have to do to qualify as a protoss, terran or zerg player is choose one race one game more than they've chosen the others. That's it. No one is locked into a race, it is presumptuous to think no player has ever experimented with more than one race. Those numbers prove nothing, and you should feel bad for using them

Your numbers are flawed, the most accurate numbers we'd have is the win rates of races in the various tournaments and qualifiers. It would be a small sample but also the most relevant sample, as they are typically high level players. We don't even really have to do that to show the pure terran dominance of almost every tournament since phase 2, but if someone actually went through the brackets of all these tournaments, I'd imagine you'd have at least 1000 games played. It would be a fun experiement.

On August 10 2010 21:06 cuppatea wrote:


You do realise the whole idea of the AMM is to give people evenly matched games, thus ensuring all but the very best have a win ratio hovering around the 50% mark, right?

If they nerfed Terran into oblivion next patch, the Terran guy with a 50% win ratio in gold would just be winning 50% of his games in silver instead.

The above stats say nothing about the balance of the game.

On August 10 2010 21:33 ooni wrote:

It's the third table, not the first one... Look at it. Gosh ppl are ignorant and blind.

On August 10 2010 21:37 floor exercise wrote:

Again, you don't understand at all.

All that data is derived from profile pages. A player is a "zerg" because that is their most played race.

At no point does it ever look at the actual match and tell you "a terran beat a zerg" it will tell you "a player with the profile that says most played: terran, beat a player with a profile that says most played: zerg" regardless of what actual races they played.

None of that information is accurate. Do you understand now?

On August 10 2010 21:41 ooni wrote:

Rofl. These are top 1000 players. Just think for a second. Do you think as a top players you would constantly switch races? Let's say for a second, they did, 'imagine'. They played Zerg here and there. How would the statistics differ? Can't a Zerg player play Terran here and there? Or a Protoss player play Terran here and there. That factor you are talking about will have no or little impact to the statistics itself. I mean really?

On August 10 2010 21:43 floor exercise wrote:


Because you say it doesn't? I am pointing out where the numbers are derived from and why they are not match up win percentages. I have cast actual, real doubt on the numbers you are deriving statistical evidence of game balance from. It doesn't really matter whether you personally think no one has ever thought to switch race or try other races. The data is flawed, accept it and move on to your next theory on why zerg is balanced

On August 10 2010 21:53 ooni wrote:

That's why I am asking you to think.
Think... How many games of your matches 'in ladder' are off race.
How significant is that? I am guessing you are a zerg player. And Blizzard has labeled you as "Zerg". So how many of your games are off race compared to your non-off race games?
^Come on bro think.

Let's even consider in another factor, just in case. There are people who player Zerg and Protoss 50:50. However, how many of them are there? Are there enough of them in Diamond league top 1000 to deter the winning percentage completely?
Yes, I'm trying to explain to you how statistics work.

It must be a mere coincedence these statistics say that all races have similar win ratio. That's what you are saying right?

On August 10 2010 21:43 sysrpl wrote:
I think a lot of people don't know or realize that the the strength of zerg is their ability to change tech nearly instantly, and also to overwhelm/swarm your opponent with superior numbers.

Their tech change is possible because all their units come from the same building, the hatchery. They don't need to build 5 spires, 5 spawning pools, 5 ultralisk caverns, ect. If a zerg player sees strong anti air, they can switch to hydras or zerglings quickly. I believe the new larva mechanic can really help out here quite a bit, in they zerg can a store up a heck of a lot of larva for one of these switches.

I haven't seen the tech switch used much in high level replays though. When Idra played drewbie he stupidly kept making the same units over and over again (ling, ultra, with nearly zero micro) trying to force a win, all the while raging about imbalance. When he finally made a tech switch to broodlords, he turned a 30 minute stalemate into a win in less than a minute.

The lesson, switching tech is a key element to playing zerg correctly, and the QQers should learn this.

Having said this, yes there are a few problems with zerg. Their marco mechanic is more difficult to use than the other races, and they are punished if they don't keep on top of spawn larva, whereas the other races have no such penalty.

The zerg also have supply cap and unit composition problems. Due to the supply cost of most of their units, their maxed army doesn't currently constitute a large swarm. They either need to lower the supply cost of something, or introduce some other low supply cost unit.

And on the subject of new zerg units, yes I believe the zerg needs at least one more unit. I have no idea what it should be, but the zerg army currently is not diverse enough, which goes to the tech change strength of the zerg. Adding some other unit with a unique role should really help the zerg out. Possibly Blizzard should bring back the lurker, make it available as a tier two upgrade. I dunno here, but yes zerg needs more diversity.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts.

On August 10 2010 22:00 floor exercise wrote:


The ladder is designed to put players where they get a 50% win ratio, so no, it is not by mere coincidence that it aligns like that.

And it does not matter in the slightest what you or I think the number of people who "offrace" (even that is not an accurate term, someone playing 51% zerg and 49% terran is not "offracing" he has two races) that is the point of statistics, they will speak for themselves.

These numbers are not accurate. All the post-analysis conjecture in the world will not change that. Only Blizzard can tell us true win percents for the match ups. You are welcome to continue speculating using your flawed data all you want, and you very well might be wearing a lab coat while sitting at your computer, but there's nothing that is going to make these numbers right, because they aren't.

On August 10 2010 22:06 ooni wrote:

Statistics are not meant to be exact. That's the point (if you don't understand statistics). It's to get an idea of what a sample is like.
For example, Do you like Icecream?
There will be people who will say no though they really like icecream.
Thus if you ask 10 people, it will not be accurate. Even though there will be people who will say yes thought they don't like icecream.
When you ask 100 people, it will be closer to being accurate.
When you ask 300 people, you got the general idea.
Good statistics ask around 500~2000 people. More people you ask more error you remove because of insignificance of the "faults" in large numbers.

No matter how many people you ask it won't be exact. However, it becomes closer.

Statistics bro~

On August 10 2010 22:16 floor exercise wrote:


This entire time I thought you were just confused, not flat out retarded. None of what you just said has any relevance at all. The fact is the data you are trying to draw a conclusion from is wrong. It is not representative of what you thought it was. That's it. I have explained why it is wrong. Your sophomoric explanation of sample size has literally nothing to do with anything at this point.

On August 10 2010 22:05 Jayme wrote:

There is a reason for this.

Every zerg unit requires a lot of gas in upgrades to be useful in the later stages of the game. This tech switching thing you speak of isn't nearly as grand as you claim. Sure they don't need to build 5 hydralisk dens but they need to use 5 hydralisk dens worth of upgrades to make the units useful.

Spot on about the supply cap BS zerg have to deal with. The fact that the Zerg do not have a 1 supply unit is fundamentally wrong and goes against their entire racial identity.

On August 10 2010 22:35 floor exercise wrote:
I feel like I'm getting dumber talking to you.

On August 10 2010 21:36 Jameser wrote:
also

this, league win% says nothing besides whether the match making system is working, and as pointed out by mr.terran, it does.

On August 10 2010 20:45 Mr.Tinkles wrote:
re-balancing spawn larvae to be a more forgiving mechanic (ie, no need to execute it perfectly every 30 seconds) would make playing zerg about 9000 times easier. it is the literal need to set a timer that beeps every 30 seconds to remind you to spawn larvae that makes zerg macro such a mission.

On August 10 2010 15:34 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Zerg units are just not cost efficient since Protoss and Terran all have hard counters to Zerg units. The whole point of Zerg was to have weak, cost efficient units that can overwhelm the opponent, but now you have the same number of units, except your units die 10x as fast as his.

On August 10 2010 22:38 ooni wrote:

Yep. Thx for the insult once again.
However, the data still stands sorry to say. You would have to prove to me there are large proportion of mixed race, non-random players to change the data significantly for me to believe the data is wrong. It is you who is looking at this wrongly. Sorry to say.

On August 10 2010 21:06 cuppatea wrote:


You do realise the whole idea of the AMM is to give people evenly matched games, thus ensuring all but the very best have a win ratio hovering around the 50% mark, right?

If they nerfed Terran into oblivion next patch, the Terran guy with a 50% win ratio in gold would just be winning 50% of his games in silver instead.

The above stats say nothing about the balance of the game.

On August 10 2010 23:30 Boona wrote:

But floor exercise is right, you are misinterpreting the data. Just the fact that a match making algorithm tries to match you against equal foes means that no simple "intuitive" statistical analysis is going to cut it, in the end it might just mean that zerg is beating on noobs in low diamond while terran and toss are playing PvT and mirrors in the upper echelon. My own experience is that I met a lot more zergs at high plat/low diamond than I am now in mid diamond (500-600), but the difference is that there's an actual point to be made about sample sizes in this case.

On August 10 2010 23:30 PanzerDragoon wrote:

And you can replace your whole army 7x as fast as they can

On August 10 2010 15:18 McCain wrote:
Zerg are on slightly lower footing with the other races on one base, but by far exceed the other races' macro ability when the base numbers start going up. No other race can make 14 workers simultaneously. Zerg may be weak (to Terran) but macro strength isn't the reason.

On August 10 2010 23:23 kajeus wrote:


Ok, whatever. But combine some of what he says -- zerg players in diamond have identical win ratios to protoss and terran players in diamond -- with the fact that zergs are as well represented in diamond, at all levels, as they are in the general population. This is true even AFTER you adjust for the unexpectedly high rate (by 1.15%) at which zergs make it to diamond.

Now, if zergs are getting identical win rates in diamond AND are as well-represented at all levels of diamond as you would expect them to be going by their overall proportion of the overall population, there is STRONG EVIDENCE that there is no balance problem.

Some have suggested that the overall distribution data is useless because people can race-switch a lot and still say labelled as one or the other. Yeah, maybe tons of people do that. Maybe they don't. Diamond players probably don't. Everything lines up so well with prediction that it seems like a minor issue, but no data set is ever perfect.

The more important thing is that there is exactly ZERO statistical evidence for an underpowered zerg.

On August 10 2010 23:37 Numy wrote:


This doesn't really matter when you are losing far far far far more than they are. It's rather pointless to use 200 supply to only kill 20 supply. So no matter what you still losing the battle because he only has to resupply that 20 instead of your 100 odd. I don't see how this argument of faster replacing of army is a valid one.

On August 10 2010 23:42 Opinion wrote:
Well the players who do not play Zerg have made an excellent case as to why Zerg is fine.

I also do not play Zerg, therefore i consider my opinion about Zerg balance to be slightly more credible than someone who plays Zerg.

My verdict:

Zerg is fine, L2P.

On August 10 2010 23:41 floor exercise wrote:


My point is that no conclusions on balance can be drawn on the limited, flawed, second hand data available to us.

I am not trying to prove, based on those stat sites, that zerg is underpowered. Under represented, sure. Draw from that what you will.

On the other hand, just about every thread has people citing these numbers like they actually mean something to the contrary. They don't work either way. Interpretation of this data is an exercise is futility, there is nothing to be learned from it.

Any conclusions made from these stat sites can be debunked very easily, because they all rely on very convenient assumptions. We have secondary data mined from profile pages and interpreted in whatever manner suits the person looking at it. To put it bluntly, anyone who thinks its reliable data is stupid, on either side of the balance arguments.

Blizzard are the only ones with the real statistics, it doesn't matter which way you look at what we have, it's not what they have and only by pure happenstance could it reflect what they have. Why people want to continue formulating these opinions on incomplete data is beyond me. Conjecture with random numbers is still just conjecture.

On the other hand, we are more than capable, with a little leg work, of compiling the outcome of every tournament and show match game which could act as a fairly reliable snapshot of high level balance. From the first round to the finals, of every zotac since phase 2, every craft cup, every IEM, every Wolf cup, etc. There's real data from at least 1000 games right there, not incomplete secondary data gleaned from a ladder designed to keep people at 50% win rate.

On August 10 2010 23:42 Opinion wrote:
Well the players who do not play Zerg have made an excellent case as to why Zerg is fine.

I also do not play Zerg, therefore i consider my opinion about Zerg balance to be slightly more credible than someone who plays Zerg.

My verdict:

Zerg is fine, L2P.

On August 10 2010 23:50 cuppatea wrote:
New players are more likely to gravitate towards Terran and Protoss because those are the races you play as in the campaign. New players, however, are not the ones hitting the top of the ladder at this point in time.

Zerg was previously well represented at the top of the ladders and now they're not. In April there were 67 Zergs in the top 200 of the European ladder; now there are 48. In April there were 68 Zergs in the top 200 of the Korean ladder; now there are 50. I don't have the stats for the US ladder in April but I'm going to guess there were a lot more than the paltry 37 Zergs that sit in the top 200 now.

Why have Zerg numbers at the top of the ladder dwindled?

Why have Zerg results in tournament play nosedived?

Why is just about every Zerg out there convinced that the ZvT matchup is stacked in Terran's favour?

Why are top Terrans like Morrow and Demuslim agreeing with the above assessment?

On August 10 2010 23:53 Hawk wrote:


history teaches you shit, namely in this case, that the people complaining are babiess who haven't adapted yet.

seach all the fun pvz imbalance threads from 2006. Those tears went away as soon as someone with talent and a little creativity conjured up the bisu build and changed gameplay forever with the exact same game build as the year before....

this happens all the time with every little 'imbalance'. It happened in BW. It will happen in SC2.

On August 11 2010 00:00 RxN wrote:


There were mountains of terran tears a few months ago when toss was stomping their heads in. Those tears went away when blizzard *gasp* changed the balance!

What's your point?

On August 11 2010 00:06 Hawk wrote:


So you mean to tell me that in just three months, people have figured out everything about SC2? When Broodwar is still evolving to this very day??

Or perhaps it's a new game filled with a bunch of people who have an inflated sense of skill. And those people just sit and copy pro strats without having the slightest clue why. Innovation is only happening at the tippy top of diamond and it's just a few months in.

On August 11 2010 00:00 RxN wrote:


There were mountains of terran tears a few months ago when toss was stomping their heads in. Those tears went away when blizzard *gasp* changed the balance!

What's your point?

On August 11 2010 00:13 floor exercise wrote:


I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting the numerous Protoss nerfs throughout beta, and the significant zerg nerfs at the end of beta shouldn't have happened? Since the game evolves, I mean how do we know it wasn't perfectly balanced to begin with?

I'm not really sure where the line is drawn between "lol u gotta l2p" and "there is a balance issue" or specifically why you seem to be so sure that there is no balance issue now but I don't see you demanding we revert the game to pre-phase 1. What has changed to signify that turning point between "balanced" and "u gotta to innovate, use ur mobility, bisu build"

On August 11 2010 00:13 floor exercise wrote:


I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting the numerous Protoss nerfs throughout beta, and the significant zerg nerfs at the end of beta shouldn't have happened? Since the game evolves, I mean how do we know it wasn't perfectly balanced to begin with?

I'm not really sure where the line is drawn between "lol u gotta l2p" and "there is a balance issue" or specifically why you seem to be so sure that there is no balance issue now but I don't see you demanding we revert the game to pre-phase 1. What has changed to signify that turning point between "balanced" and "u gotta to innovate, use ur mobility, bisu build"

On August 10 2010 22:27 sysrpl wrote:

And about the tech switch, yes it is important. It's one of the main strengths. Nothings says you must get all upgrades. Make a tech switch, flank the enemy, surprise him. Hydras still counter air without getting all their upgrades. Lings still counter immortals and stalkers without upgrades.

If you scout the enemy army composition heavy in one area, switch tech and gain and advantage. Use spawn larva and your hatcheries to store up a ton of larva. Don't be like Idra and throw away all your units to some something which wont work (muta+ling versus thor+hellion). That is just stupid. Switch tech.

On August 10 2010 21:43 sysrpl wrote:
To all the Zerg QQ'ers out there ...

Many of you don't realize the strength of your Zerg is their ability to change tech nearly instantly, and to and equal degree to overwhelm your opponent with superior numbers.

Their Zerg tech change is made possible because all their units are produced at the same building, the hatchery. You don't need to build 5 spires, 5 spawning pools, 5 ultralisk caverns, ect. If a Zerg player scouts strong anti air, he can immediately switch to hydras or zerglings. The spawn larva abiliy nicely compliments this Zerg strength. If used correctly it allows Zerg players to store up lots and lots of larva which can be combined with a tech switche.

The tech switch doesn't seem to be used much though. Recently when Idra played drewbie he kept making the same units over and over again (ling, ultra, with nearly zero micro) trying to force a win, all the while lamenting about his perceived Terran imbalance. When Idra finally made a tech switch to broodlords, he turned a 30 minute stalemate into a win in less than a minute.

The lesson, switching tech is a key element to playing Zerg correctly. The Zerg QQ'ers would do well to learn this fact.

Having said that, yes there are a few problems with Zerg. Their marco mechanic is more difficult to use than the other races, and they are punished if they don't keep on top of spawn larva. The other races have no such penalty and can catch up with their macro if they forget to drop mules or hit some building with chrono boost.

The Zerg also have supply cap and unit composition problems. Due to the supply cost of most of their units, their maxed army doesn't currently constitute "a large swarm". Blizzard either needs to lower the supply cost of some Zerg unit, or introduce another other low supply cost unit.

And on the subject of new Zerg units, yes I believe the Zerg needs at least one more unit. I have no idea what it should be, but the Zerg army currently is not diverse enough. This problem diminishes the tech change strength of the Zerg. Adding some new Zerg unit with a unique role would greatly help fix this problem. Possibly Blizzard should bring back the lurker, and make it available as a tier two upgrade (in their prior builds lurker was tier a three upgrade). I don't know what new Zerg unit is needed, but I do believe Zerg more diversity options.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Take of it what you will.

On August 10 2010 23:30 PanzerDragoon wrote:

And you can replace your whole army 7x as fast as they can

On August 11 2010 00:13 floor exercise wrote:


I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting the numerous Protoss nerfs throughout beta, and the significant zerg nerfs at the end of beta shouldn't have happened? Since the game evolves, I mean how do we know it wasn't perfectly balanced to begin with?

I'm not really sure where the line is drawn between "lol u gotta l2p" and "there is a balance issue" or specifically why you seem to be so sure that there is no balance issue now but I don't see you demanding we revert the game to pre-phase 1. What has changed to signify that turning point between "balanced" and "u gotta to innovate, use ur mobility, bisu build"

On August 11 2010 00:36 Hawk wrote:


No, patches are sometimes necessary. But they aren't the first option, and certainly not something you turn to just two weeks after a release in a knee jerk reaction because a bunch of dumb, low level zergs are whining. And that's what this thread is: Filled with newb zergs who are complaining.

Seriously, everyone after this link to your bnet profile. Probably 70% of the people posting fall under plat, and really, if you're anything besides diamond/very high plat (and even then), you shouldn't be talking about balance.

You've been here a while. Historically, do 90% of these 'imbalances' not work themselves out over time when people evolve and adapt? I remember cycles where zerg was imbalanced, then toss cried for months on end about zerg, blah blah blah.... none of this shit changed in bw due to patching.

It's completely a knee jerk reaction to patch balance two weeks into the full release. Ignore the dumb players, analyze the top diamonds and if there's still a balance issue, then it gets addressed. There's hardly an issue now at all.

On August 11 2010 00:36 Hawk wrote:


No, patches are sometimes necessary. But they aren't the first option, and certainly not something you turn to just two weeks after a release in a knee jerk reaction because a bunch of dumb, low level zergs are whining. And that's what this thread is: Filled with newb zergs who are complaining.

Seriously, everyone after this link to your bnet profile. Probably 70% of the people posting fall under plat, and really, if you're anything besides diamond/very high plat (and even then), you shouldn't be talking about balance.

You've been here a while. Historically, do 90% of these 'imbalances' not work themselves out over time when people evolve and adapt? I remember cycles where zerg was imbalanced, then toss cried for months on end about zerg, blah blah blah.... none of this shit changed in bw due to patching.

It's completely a knee jerk reaction to patch balance two weeks into the full release. Ignore the dumb players, analyze the top diamonds and if there's still a balance issue, then it gets addressed. There's hardly an issue now at all.

On August 11 2010 00:43 Opinion wrote:
The ARROGANCE of these non-Zerg players is astounding.

I personally don't play Zerg, i don't find them fun and i find their mechanics annoying and cumbersome, BUT i'm not sitting on my high horse claiming that those who do play Zerg suffer from delusions...

When Terran has problems, Terrans players complain and those problems eventually get fixed.
When Toss has problems, Toss players complain and those problems eventually get fixed.
When Zerg has problems... OMG ZERG PLAYERS SHUT UP AND L2P YOU ARE FINE LOL.

All 3 races are important, under representation is a problem, i don't want this to be Terran vs Protoss game with a side of Zerg. I want ALL 3 RACES to be present and accounted for.

There are still problems to be worked out, 2 more expansions on the way, tweaks and changes in the works and continuous player feedback is GOOD.

Zerg players are obviously not happy. This is enough for me to accept something needs to change. Happiness and comfort are important, this is a game.

Whether or not their happiness is a direct result in imbalance or simply an unknown gameplay tweak is yet to be seen and irrelevant but in the mean time, please understand that all 3 races are important and all 3 races have equal right to speak their minds about imbalances and request fixes.

Keep complaining Zerg, keep QQing, keep whining.

When Terran and Toss develop problems in the future they will do the same.

On August 10 2010 16:41 Aberu wrote:How larva works is the strength of zerg. While you are attacking you can pump 50 units instantly potentially. Not saying you will, but having the ability to fight at 200/200 food and then reinforce very shortly from 150/200 back up to 200/200 is something the other races just don't have.

On August 11 2010 00:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:



patches changed way less about that then a huge change in playstyle. back then evryone did mostly bio , tanks were considered weak, no one harrassed. inshort evryone was playing shit. gameplay evolved and much of the problems disappeared.

sc2 forum on tl is sadly almost as bad as bnet today. evryone is highfiving eachother over how terrible their race is. its sad ,stupid and incredibly annoying. switch race or spam blizzard with your tears. no one here wants to read the angry rants of silver players and it def wont change anything.



and thank you hawk for bringing some sense into this thread. always nice to see that im not the only one whos pissed off by the endless QQ bandwagon that the sc2 forum has become.



dont think anyone can state the game is balanced or not right now. the difference is good/smart guys try to get better and find ways to win. while 99% of the guys that constantly bitch about their race do nothing but .. well bitch about their race. and when evry single thread is filled with tears now it gets annoying to a point where after 7 years of tl think twice about visiting the forums now.

On August 11 2010 00:43 Opinion wrote:
The ARROGANCE of these non-Zerg players is astounding.

I personally don't play Zerg, i don't find them fun and i find their mechanics annoying and cumbersome, BUT i'm not sitting on my high horse claiming that those who do play Zerg suffer from delusions...

When Terran has problems, Terrans players complain and those problems eventually get fixed.
When Toss has problems, Toss players complain and those problems eventually get fixed.
When Zerg has problems... OMG ZERG PLAYERS SHUT UP AND L2P YOU ARE FINE LOL.

All 3 races are important, under representation is a problem, i don't want this to be Terran vs Protoss game with a side of Zerg. I want ALL 3 RACES to be present and accounted for.

There are still problems to be worked out, 2 more expansions on the way, tweaks and changes in the works and continuous player feedback is GOOD.

Zerg players are obviously not happy. This is enough for me to accept something needs to change. Happiness and comfort are important, this is a game.

Whether or not their happiness is a direct result in imbalance or simply an unknown gameplay tweak is yet to be seen and irrelevant but in the mean time, please understand that all 3 races are important and all 3 races have equal right to speak their minds about imbalances and request fixes.

Keep complaining Zerg, keep QQing, keep whining.

When Terran and Toss develop problems in the future they will do the same.

On August 11 2010 00:57 PanzerDragoon wrote:

The Terran and Protoss complaints were far less annoying than all the ZvT ones, and pro players weren't BMing in games saying how "they have self-respect" because they don't play terran and other utter garbage from idra and all his sycophants.

On August 11 2010 00:59 RxN wrote:


Ahh, so now there are varying levels of crying and was OK for terran and toss to do it because you perceived it to be less annoying. Sounds logical.

On August 10 2010 21:06 cuppatea wrote:


You do realise the whole idea of the AMM is to give people evenly matched games, thus ensuring all but the very best have a win ratio hovering around the 50% mark, right?

If they nerfed Terran into oblivion next patch, the Terran guy with a 50% win ratio in gold would just be winning 50% of his games in silver instead.

The above stats say nothing about the balance of the game.

On August 10 2010 23:31 DTown wrote:
@ Ooni. You can argue all you want about your statistics and confidence intervals and data relevance, but I love how you completely ignore the several other posters who brought up this completely valid argument that invalidates the conclusion you have reached. Is it because you know you are wrong, but just want to keep arguing about something to save face? Or are you just a troll?

On August 11 2010 01:19 Pedo.Bear wrote:
a hatch is 300 min... actually: EACH hatch is 300 min... each queen is 150... the point of more hatchs (not on the min line) is for more larva to pump more drone and units.... queen takes over that job. pump pump pump

I think that's balanced by being able to stockpile up to 19 larvae per hatchery. You killed my 200/200 army? Well I have another one within one production cycle

On August 11 2010 01:10 ooni wrote:

Nope? Diamond players have to have higher win ratio because they win more when they are not matched against Diamond players (lower level players, not all the time but probablity wise yes). Conversely Bronze players should have lower win ratio because they are likely to lose when faced with higher level players. So it can't nor it should be 50% with the current match making system. Umm... Duh?

On August 10 2010 15:24 Geo.Rion wrote:
When you set a rally point for the Command Center/Nexus, the SCV/Probe pop out on the closest spot to the rally point (most of the time the minerals).
However, for Zerg, sometimes the larvae are positioned on the opposite side of the Hatchery, and thus the Drones have to travel a slightly longer distance to the minerals.


Yes, i noticed this too, it s a minor thing, but still, no reason not to be fixed

Why i believe Zerg is "weak"or harder to play is that Zerg does not have natural response to many builds or unit composition, and in many case you are not allowed to face his army even if the composition of your army is the best your tech allows. So there are cases when a T moves out with a ball of units and atacks towards you.
1. You got to have map control, 2. Avoid the army, backstab him. 3. pay attention that defensive or reinforcing tanks or other units do not rape half of your army, 4. produce from hatcheries which arent in the way of the attack. 5. try to save your woerkers/units/overlords stuck behind, but this is impossible in most of the cases so no big worries. 6. try to chip away from his army 7. when you ve both done enoguh demage try to win the fight, preferably with more units then before.
What terran has to do 1. A move into your natural-main. 2 try and crush your army after that
So it's not imbalanced if you want that way, cuz both have chances to win it, but the Zerg has to do a lot more stuff and if 2 not that good players play and just send their armies against each otehr the Terran will win most of the times.
That's just my perspective though, i'm sure all the terran think their race is very hard.

On August 11 2010 01:26 cuppatea wrote:


I'm in diamond and only get matched against diamond level players. Occasionally that will mean a diamond level player who is stil in platinum but hasn't played enough games to get promoted yet but I can't remember the last time I faced someone who was still stuck in plat after more than 50 or so games and I haven't played anybody from below platinum since my placement matches.

I just checked a random silver division and the guy at the top, who is still in silver league after nearly 200 games, has a higher win % than me, yet I'm ranked 400th in Europe and he's 4000th.

Overall win percentages hovering around 50% just means that the AMM is doing it's job and, I repeat, says NOTHING about balance.

Umm... Duh?

On August 11 2010 01:46 ooni wrote:

uh huh... Did you also consider the fact people who lose a lot get demoted to a lower league?
What's important is if the win ratios are similar, not what the win ratios are.

On August 11 2010 01:48 Jameser wrote:

ooni I think it's pretty clear you aren't actually arguing a point of view as much as you refuse to be wrong
I say you would save more face if you just stopped posting right here

On August 11 2010 00:55 PanzerDragoon wrote:

You have no one else to blame but TL celebrities like Idra and Artosis, whose crying in high profile matches make players think its ok to act like they do. Frankly, its embarrassing.

On August 11 2010 02:03 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:


i fully agree on this.

but still its the stupid mind of all the newguys that only playd shit games like wow so far and cry their little eyes out on tl now. 90% of balance QQ comes from guys joined in 2010 that flood the forums with their bnet forums posting style. i just wish there was a "balance tears go here" forum or very strict rules against such behavior.

On August 11 2010 01:53 ooni wrote:

but... am I wrong? That's the thing though. I'm not wrong about the win ratios being higher on Diamond because that's how the system works. Nor is having people who are 'losing players' in lower leagues 'wrong'/

I am not trying to impose my subjective view. I am trying to show people an objective view. I have argued both for and against the statistic. I even said statistics are not exact, however for Zerg to be imbalanced, the statistics must show a significant % difference between the win rates. Which is not the case here.

On August 11 2010 02:07 cuppatea wrote:


There's never going to be a significant diffference between win rates because, as I've said throughout the thread, the AMM is designed to keep players hovering around the 50% mark.

I had a 55% win rate when I was a complete noob in bronze and I have a 55% win rate now I'm near the top of my diamond division. The quality of my opposition has increased as I've improved but my win ratio has remained the same. If I started playing with one hand my rating would drop and I'd possibly get demoted but I'd still be winning around 55% of my games, just against a lower quality of opposition.

All your stats prove is that the AMM works, nothing else.

On August 11 2010 02:07 cuppatea wrote:


There's never going to be a significant diffference between win rates because, as I've said throughout the thread, the AMM is designed to keep players hovering around the 50% mark.

I had a 55% win rate when I was a complete noob in bronze and I have a 55% win rate now I'm near the top of my diamond division. The quality of my opposition has increased as I've improved but my win ratio has remained the same. If I started playing with one hand my rating would drop and I'd possibly get demoted but I'd still be winning around 55% of my games, just against a lower quality of opposition.

All your stats prove is that the AMM works, nothing else.

On August 11 2010 02:09 ooni wrote:

No one said AMM should make everything around 50%. If you lose, you will be demoted. That means it's impossible to make it close to 50% for higher leagues. Vice versa for lower leagues. I guess AMM setting might be if you lose more than 50% you are dropped, but that will make closer to 50% but never 50% especially for the highest league.

Anyways using statistics,
Top 1000 Players who play Zerg as main on diamond ladder have ~56.3% winning ratio.
Top 1000 Players who play Protoss as main on diamond ladder have ~56.5% winning ratio.
Top 1000 Players who play Terran as main on diamond ladder have ~56.8% winning ratio.
Top 1000 Players who play Random as main on diamond ladder have ~56.1% winning ratio.

If Zerg was to be imbalanced, Player who ladders Zerg as main would have much lower than 56% winning ratio no?
Am I wrong?
Doesn't it prove that at least?

On August 10 2010 15:18 McCain wrote:
Zerg are on slightly lower footing with the other races on one base, but by far exceed the other races' macro ability when the base numbers start going up. No other race can make 14 workers simultaneously. Zerg may be weak (to Terran) but macro strength isn't the reason.

On August 11 2010 02:27 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I don't think that most of you realize that I was not trying to discuss the entirety of the imbalance issue. I was just trying to see if the factors I thought of could play a slight role.

On August 11 2010 02:27 marshmallow wrote:
Zerg are the least mobile race. All the interesting units were removed. The units that remained were either nerfed directly or indirectly (e.g. no muta micro). Zerglings are bad. Hydras are slow as sin without creep. Spreading creep around sounds like a good mechanic, and it could be, but it contributes to the mobility problem even more.

On August 11 2010 02:27 MrMotionPicture wrote:
I don't think that most of you realize that I was not trying to discuss the entirety of the imbalance issue. I was just trying to see if the factors I thought of could play a slight role.

On August 11 2010 02:36 sirkyan wrote:
I haven't read every post, but I feel if the food cap is raised to ~300 problems would be solved. What other race can exceed Zerg in swarming? This would be an upper limit that mainly Zerg, seldom other races, would reach.

I might be wrong though, thoughts on this?

On August 10 2010 23:23 kajeus wrote:


Ok, whatever. But combine some of what he says -- zerg players in diamond have identical win ratios to protoss and terran players in diamond -- with the fact that zergs are as well represented in diamond, at all levels, as they are in the general population. This is true even AFTER you adjust for the unexpectedly high rate (by 1.15%) at which zergs make it to diamond.

Now, if zergs are getting identical win rates in diamond AND are as well-represented at all levels of diamond as you would expect them to be going by their overall proportion of the overall population, there is STRONG EVIDENCE that there is no balance problem.

Some have suggested that the overall distribution data is useless because people can race-switch a lot and still stay labelled as one or the other. Yeah, maybe tons of people do that. Maybe they don't. Diamond players probably don't. Everything lines up so well with prediction that it seems like a minor issue, but no data set is ever perfect.

The more important thing is that there is exactly ZERO statistical evidence for an underpowered zerg.

On August 11 2010 02:20 Azile wrote:


Yes, yes you are wrong. But it's very obvious you'll never accept that instead you'll just keep posting anyway so why even ask?