|
I don't play Zerg as my main, I play it as my offrace, but this is my opinion
Postioning - Zerg is 90% positioning. A zerg army in a good position can destroy ANY army of ANY race. If you're in a bad position, your army is absolutely doomed. Where as most army's like where they can funnel the enemy forces, zerg wants an open field.
Army Comp - Zerg isn't a 2 man army, or a "ZOMG HYDRA RUSH" army. Zerg has to have almost every type of unit available in its army to create a diverse fighting force that can ensnare, surround, destroy and chase the opponent. An earlier post had said it "Zerg can go from 10 Ultras to 10 Broodlords". Keep it mixing. Vicious Cycle
But...i also may be talking out of my ass =D
|
I think most everyone realizes there is a balance problem with Zerg. You don't have a marine/marauder or stalker-like hefty range unit. The Roach has dismal range and Hydras are incredibly fragile. You also don't have a long-range unit like the Siege Tank or Collosi until very late game and brood lords. This means the zerg cannot turtle up the way Terran or Protoss can.
Terran and Protoss can both 1 A move across the map effectively with their unit composition but Zerg cannot. You must spread creep, send ovies to vomit creep and burrow move with roaches and flank with lings and focus very hard on positioning and you are still at a very large disadvantage.
I don't know why they did this but the Ultra and BL are good but way late game. Playing Zerg at the moment is like playing a survival UMS game and if you get to tier 3 you have a shot.
If you only play T or P, imagine that siege tanks and collosi were late-game tier 3 and Brood Lords were tier 2 and popped out within 6 minutes. For tier 2 purposes, let's just pretend the broodlings are gone, it's just a long-range unit.
So you had to micro your marines/marauders, zealots/stalkers/sentries to survive. That's what it's like currently for Zerg.
|
On August 11 2010 03:30 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:29 Spawkuring wrote:On August 11 2010 03:16 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:09 Ronald_McD wrote:
Zerg is just utterly boring to me in SC2
Me and a few others I know who played Zerg in SC1 felt almost forced to switch to a new race. Zerg just didn't get any of the cool new unit ideas that Protoss and Terran did. I LOVE the sentry for example.
Zerg has 1 single spellcaster. Their gameplay is just so linear, and not the same harass orientated and sneaky gameplay style as it was in SC1. They have very few options for viable openings and transitions, and ZvZ is just such a mess ever since the roach nerf.
I could never be more happy switching over to Protoss (Something I never would have done in SC1) zerg has more than one spellcaster... Queens and Overseers barely count as spellcasters though. Queens are pretty much mobile buildings with one situational spell (transfusion) that is rarely used due to poor speed. The Overseer's Changelings are very lousy scouts compared to the other races, and while building corruption is a great ability, you need multiple Overseers to get any real use out of it, and 100 gas a pop is just way too expensive in SC2. The Infestor is the only real caster, but it lacks the synergy of the Defiler since it doesn't have Dark Swarm. Defilers had an amazing impact on the game due to their abilities making melee units viable, and the Infestor is not nearly as interesting. Neural Parasite is useful but boring, and Infested Terran is an dreadfully dull spell that only exists because Blizzard wanted to shoe-horn in lore about Infestors eating marines. Nothing you posted changes the fact that zerg has more than one spell caster.
you such a troll fyi
|
I was a Zerg Player in BW and I freaking loved being Zerg and wanted to stay Z in SC2 but Z really doesnt have enough interesting units compared to the other two races so I changed to Protoss eventually (also cause ZvZ sucks, I'm terrible at TvT, and PvP didnt suck as much yet as it does now).
Lurker, a different cool fighting unit or one more combat spellcaster would really make them more interesting.
That being said watching top Zerg players can be very fascinating, the first time I saw artosis use burrowed roaches beautifully was really interesting(which surely doesnt happen as often nowadays because of the supply change and the horrible change of them not being able to move below force fields - please fix that blizzard, Protoss player speaking)
Creep spreading is huge indeed, drops can be devastating and whoever says that infestors are super boring hasn't watched TLO play. Also I actually like the roaches better now that all upgrades are available on lair.
All in all Z is still fine if you dont have high standards but nonetheless it just doesnt have as interesting fighting units in comparison to T and P.
It almost feels like Blizzard took out lurkers to make sure we'll buy Heart Of The Swarm.
Also whenever I play Z my head hurts, after each game I'm so exhausted, it's way more strenuous than playing Protoss.
|
On August 11 2010 04:08 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 04:00 Yurie wrote:On August 11 2010 03:58 Ronald_McD wrote:
Okay it was a little stupid of me to say that
But really, I don't see the queen being very useful with it's spells in combat, at least anywhere other than early game. And don't even try to tell me the Overseer counts as a spellcaster. The queen actually shines the most in the late game. Where you have spread creep, queens and ultras, four transfuses on an ultra isn't funny... This is basically a bronze league gimmick lol. Its too big of an investment in terms of time and hatchs (queens take a long time to build and its 1 only) for something that can be easily countered (detectors), and it slows down zergs main strength-Mobility. Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:55 Fumble wrote:
How easy is it to seige up or micro collosus? Its pretty damn easy. When looking at replays, yes I could of done many things that would of won me the game instead of losing. However looking at my opponent though, it looks like he was probably eating potato chips and scratching his ass too while making ton more mistakes than me yet still won.
That's the problem here.
Zerg loses lots of games where their opponent is 10x sloppier but the faceroll can and will still beat you if you don't execute perfectly. I mean lol, dropping hellions. It happens pretty fast (esp 1-1-1), it's dirt easy to do, and even if the hellions die relatively fast because you react ok, they can STILL do assloads of damage. No risk, high return. Go Terran. Have you ever played terran? Playing random, the roles seem to reverse lategame. Once you get to 4 base t fighting a 5-6 base Z (pretty natural once you get to this point), the zerg literally can come out with a 200/200 army after just suiciding his old one in a matter of seconds, while their is no way you can efficiently match that kind of production capability. A single poor position, just force your tanks out of position once, and its gg. If zerg played a smooth early game, lategame, terran is 100% going to be at a heavy disadvantage. This is especially bad, because by this point the zerg can go from 10 ultras to 10 brolords in 4 minutes. Why more don't, is beyond me.
In late game u can have 10 bcs out in less than 4 minutes as terran with 3-4 bases whats ur point rly
also which is harder to defend a planetary fortrees that use mules and gathers huge amounts of minerals iterally free or a zerg hatchery.
Terran with money cant loose
again like many aid u can have 200 lavra , you cant have 10k gas to spawn like 20 ultras in one time and massing zerglings hardly counts for anythin .
If ur terran with 3+ full bases in late game loosing from a zerg u just been heavily outplayed
ps not to mention w e dont have mules , that means we need almost twice as much workers to have equally amount of minerals thus much lower amry count in the lon g run , hardly a swarm feeling
|
On August 11 2010 04:52 st3roids wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:30 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:29 Spawkuring wrote:On August 11 2010 03:16 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:09 Ronald_McD wrote:
Zerg is just utterly boring to me in SC2
Me and a few others I know who played Zerg in SC1 felt almost forced to switch to a new race. Zerg just didn't get any of the cool new unit ideas that Protoss and Terran did. I LOVE the sentry for example.
Zerg has 1 single spellcaster. Their gameplay is just so linear, and not the same harass orientated and sneaky gameplay style as it was in SC1. They have very few options for viable openings and transitions, and ZvZ is just such a mess ever since the roach nerf.
I could never be more happy switching over to Protoss (Something I never would have done in SC1) zerg has more than one spellcaster... Queens and Overseers barely count as spellcasters though. Queens are pretty much mobile buildings with one situational spell (transfusion) that is rarely used due to poor speed. The Overseer's Changelings are very lousy scouts compared to the other races, and while building corruption is a great ability, you need multiple Overseers to get any real use out of it, and 100 gas a pop is just way too expensive in SC2. The Infestor is the only real caster, but it lacks the synergy of the Defiler since it doesn't have Dark Swarm. Defilers had an amazing impact on the game due to their abilities making melee units viable, and the Infestor is not nearly as interesting. Neural Parasite is useful but boring, and Infested Terran is an dreadfully dull spell that only exists because Blizzard wanted to shoe-horn in lore about Infestors eating marines. Nothing you posted changes the fact that zerg has more than one spell caster. you such a troll fyi
How do you report a post?
Srsly, this needs to end.
Anyway, after seeing a bunch of new stats, I am no longer convinced that Zerg is underpowered. At least not to the point where it is not feasible for competent players to succeed as Zerg just as well as with other races. This is largely based on the the fact the in upper echelon of players in Korea and Europe seem to be doing pretty well with Zerg, and for some reason the NA server just isn't. Globally, Zerg may be underplayed, but those who are playing Zerg seem to be doing pretty well.
I think we'll have to wait it out a few more months for anything to be more conclusive. That being said, I still would jump for joy if the first balance patch Blizzard releases included mostly Zerg buffs! :D Also, I want my chat rooms. B-net still feels so lonely. 
|
i think besides the possible imbalance concerning zerg vs x matchups, zerg are the most difficult race to master. i play mainly protoss, during beta i tested terran and zerg, and i must admit that i had the most problems playing zerg.
i think for many people playing sc2 since the release, it is just easier to play the other races, because of the flat learning curves of toss and terrans.
|
On August 11 2010 00:11 kajeus wrote:
Could it be because everywhere you go, every time a prominent English-speaking zerg player opens his mouth, people float the completely unproven claim that zerg is underpowered?
Generalizations like this promote discourse and constructive conversation. Furthermore, even the evidence that you claim "proves" Zerg isn't underpowered is inconclusive at best. And that's on top of ignoring anecdotal evidence from a myriad of players, some much worse and others much better than yourself.
The OP is asking a good question. I personally find the excuse of "Zerg is boring" to be rather stale and unsatisfying. Everything in Starcraft 2 becomes boring when played to excess regardless of what race you started with.
I'd say that it's more likely that "playing Zerg isn't (as) fun." That's an entirely different problem since it includes "flavor" (whether or not Zerg is boring) as well as playability (whether Zerg is too confusing or too hard to win with, despite the fact that you like the race's "flavor").
|
Zerg is different from the other races, thus I propose the biggest part of less zerg players is because zerg is a lot different and thus harder to pick up. I feel Zerg is much better suited in the hands of a more experienced player in SC2, such as play Terran for a bit, get the hang of the game, then move to zerg.
|
On August 11 2010 04:38 epik640x wrote:
I think most everyone realizes there is a balance problem with Zerg. You don't have a marine/marauder or stalker-like hefty range unit. The Roach has dismal range and Hydras are incredibly fragile. You also don't have a long-range unit like the Siege Tank or Collosi until very late game and brood lords. This means the zerg cannot turtle up the way Terran or Protoss can.
Terran and Protoss can both 1 A move across the map effectively with their unit composition but Zerg cannot. You must spread creep, send ovies to vomit creep and burrow move with roaches and flank with lings and focus very hard on positioning and you are still at a very large disadvantage.
I don't know why they did this but the Ultra and BL are good but way late game. Playing Zerg at the moment is like playing a survival UMS game and if you get to tier 3 you have a shot.
If you only play T or P, imagine that siege tanks and collosi were late-game tier 3 and Brood Lords were tier 2 and popped out within 6 minutes. For tier 2 purposes, let's just pretend the broodlings are gone, it's just a long-range unit.
So you had to micro your marines/marauders, zealots/stalkers/sentries to survive. That's what it's like currently for Zerg.
Most everyone don't play at the level to know what would be considerable imbalanced. While those that are getting to that point, still have likely a bazzillion more things they can try before they can claim that they know everything, and likely by the time they will "start" feeling like they are at that point, new maps or the beta for heart of the swarm will be starting.
Not saying there "might" not be some imbalances. Zerg is definitively harder to master at first which heavily skews the popularity. However people need to stop jumping on the X is Imba train.
|
I always thought it was strange that Zerg doesn't have a unit that can abuse the cliff mechanic like the Reaper and Colossus. Zerg also doesn't have a unit that can force your enemy to get detection. Sure there is burrow, but how often do you see that used, which may very well be part of the problem. I think a unit to help Zerg abuse the cliff mechanic would help a lot, especially since mobility is one of Zerg's strong points. I personally like the idea of a centipede like unit that can climb up a cliff and act as a ramp for the "smaller" Zerg units like lings/blings, roaches, and hydras. Combined with Nydus worms and drops it could be really powerful. Plus Zerg needs something to make them less dull and boring, imo at least.
|
On August 11 2010 05:13 Toxigen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:11 kajeus wrote:
Could it be because everywhere you go, every time a prominent English-speaking zerg player opens his mouth, people float the completely unproven claim that zerg is underpowered? Generalizations like this promote discourse and constructive conversation. Furthermore, even the evidence that you claim "proves" Zerg isn't underpowered is inconclusive at best. And that's on top of ignoring anecdotal evidence from a myriad of players, some much worse and others much better than yourself. The OP is asking a good question. I personally find the excuse of "Zerg is boring" to be rather stale and unsatisfying. Everything in Starcraft 2 becomes boring when played to excess regardless of what race you started with. I'd say that it's more likely that "playing Zerg isn't (as) fun." That's an entirely different problem since it includes "flavor" (whether or not Zerg is boring) as well as playability (whether Zerg is too confusing or too hard to win with, despite the fact that you like the race's "flavor").
The argument that Zerg is 'boring' does have ground however, because of the limited openings Zerg has. Compared with other races. I don't think this is why Zerg is leastplayed, Zerg has the most unforgiving macro mechanisms of all three races, that's why. Maybe in time when people have more experience with the game, people will move back to Zerg again, when they've become better at their multitasking abilities. I do hope this will be the case, though I lack good multitasking skills, I will stick to Zerg, because it'd feel like betraying them.
|
I'm a little confused how some people still talk about an imbalance between races when the link in the very first post clearly shows that the win% of all the races are very close. At diamond, there's less than a 0.5% difference between zerg and terran (and less than 0.4% between zerg and toss). I don't think that's significant enough to call zergs unbalanced.
(sorry if that was already pointed out, I skipped a few pages)
|
On August 11 2010 05:47 Filobel wrote:
I'm a little confused how some people still talk about an imbalance between races when the link in the very first post clearly shows that the win% of all the races are very close. At diamond, there's less than a 0.5% difference between zerg and terran (and less than 0.4% between zerg and toss). I don't think that's significant enough to call zergs unbalanced.
(sorry if that was already pointed out, I skipped a few pages)
It's been mentioned a couple times, but what you are looking at is the win percent of players, which is evidence of the ladder match making working effectively. Not the win percent of races or match ups, which we don't have available to us and could only speculate. Two very different things
|
Didn't read the whole thread. Several reasons, 1) it's not the race that is played in the campaign 2) It's a lot different from the race in the campaign 3) Zerg is boring compared to the other races (Less options, passive) and last and least 4) balance
In my expirience, the more i play as zerg, the more frustrated i get with the race. Recently i've started to loathe it, and have considered changing from random (i'm top 5 random in europe, like that matters) to Terran. The biggest reason is that Terran is in complete control of the game and have the most options in the game atm, and Zerg seems like the polar opposite, very passive.
EDIT: Oh and i played zerg as my main race in SC1 and in the beta
|
On August 11 2010 05:13 Toxigen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:11 kajeus wrote:
Could it be because everywhere you go, every time a prominent English-speaking zerg player opens his mouth, people float the completely unproven claim that zerg is underpowered? Generalizations like this promote discourse and constructive conversation. Furthermore, even the evidence that you claim "proves" Zerg isn't underpowered is inconclusive at best. And that's on top of ignoring anecdotal evidence from a myriad of players, some much worse and others much better than yourself. The OP is asking a good question. I personally find the excuse of "Zerg is boring" to be rather stale and unsatisfying. Everything in Starcraft 2 becomes boring when played to excess regardless of what race you started with. I'd say that it's more likely that "playing Zerg isn't (as) fun." That's an entirely different problem since it includes "flavor" (whether or not Zerg is boring) as well as playability (whether Zerg is too confusing or too hard to win with, despite the fact that you like the race's "flavor").
Well, I've been away all day, and I'm glad it's a post from you that I see on the last page of this thread.
I'd like to say that I have never claimed the evidence presented by myself and others "proves" anything. This is essentially a scientific question here, and "proof" is hard to come by. It is inconclusive, but it is powerful evidence. The statistics seem to indicate that zergs perform as well as we would expect if they were perfectly balanced against the other races. The only thing lagging behind is the race's popularity.
Meanwhile, there has been no statistical evidence indicating that zerg is underpowered.
It does ignore anecdotal evidence, you're right. Part of this is because my argument is statistical, not psychological. Maybe their complaining is justified... even if this "unfairness" doesn't show up on the ladder? Maybe. But people like to complain, and actually, it's difficult to assess how many really good players actually think there is a balance problem. TheLittleOne thinks there is no problem. IdrA thinks there is a problem. But IdrA has sworn up and down about imbalance in every game he has played, including Brood War, and he leads a very loud faction. What do the top-of-the-line Koreans think? What does Dimaga think? (IdrA thinks he thinks it's imbalanced, but IdrA has apparently not spoken to Dimaga about it.) I know somebody claimed that SLush thinks balance is mostly fine, although some things are "tough" for zerg...
So how much anecdotal evidence is there, really? It mostly seems like a load of conventional wisdom and, as I said before in a post to you, we know how that works.
|
On August 11 2010 05:51 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 05:47 Filobel wrote:
I'm a little confused how some people still talk about an imbalance between races when the link in the very first post clearly shows that the win% of all the races are very close. At diamond, there's less than a 0.5% difference between zerg and terran (and less than 0.4% between zerg and toss). I don't think that's significant enough to call zergs unbalanced.
(sorry if that was already pointed out, I skipped a few pages) It's been mentioned a couple times, but what you are looking at is the win percent of players, which is evidence of the ladder match making working effectively. Not the win percent of races or match ups, which we don't have available to us and could only speculate. Two very different things
Win percentage of races would be useful. Although it seems safe to assume that diamond players have picked a race and stuck to it for almost all of their games.
|
You keep repeating the same shit about stats, the ones we have they don't indicate anything. We are discussing perceived imbalances, because we don't have empirical evidence. no one does but Blizzard, please stop spamming about statistics we don't have access to. It's pretty much all you've been doing all day. If you don't care about discussing imbalance then don't, but stop regurgitating the same argument about statistics that are completely irrelevant. They don't say anything about balance. Just stop.
|
On August 11 2010 06:19 floor exercise wrote:
You keep repeating the same shit about stats, the ones we have they don't indicate anything. We are discussing perceived imbalances, because we don't have empirical evidence. no one does but Blizzard, please stop spamming about statistics we don't have access to. It's pretty much all you've been doing all day. If you don't care about discussing imbalance then don't, but stop regurgitating the same argument about statistics that are completely irrelevant. They don't say anything about balance. Just stop.
Uh... I've been gone all day. I understand that you don't understand and are very, very angry about it. But it's cool, man. It's cool. Just don't respond to my posts.
|
IdrA thinks there is a problem. But IdrA has sworn up and down about imbalance in every game he has played, including Brood War, and he leads a very loud faction. What do the top-of-the-line Koreans think? What does Dimaga think? (IdrA thinks he thinks it's imbalanced, but IdrA has apparently not spoken to Dimaga about it.)
When it comes to Zerg and an imbalance the one name that always gets brought up is IdrA. Of course we all know he is very very vocal about his opinion when it comes to this, but has he ever said why it is imbalanced for ZvT and why Zerg is underpowered? Has he ever said what he thinks is imbalance and what needs to be changed? Like trying to give his insite in to what may need to be change to help balance this game?
If so it would be very interesting to read what he thinks, so far all I have seen from him is "T SUPER OP, you suck so much, now go kill your self, I'm more special then everyone"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
