|
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?
I doubt the majority of SC2 players even read forums about balance. Bear in mind just how many players are the casual majority.
I think it's a bit of the earlier post about uncertain macro timings (it's weird as hell playing Z as an off-race; if you've never tried, you should), but also the general "type" of race the Poto/Terran are. Big cute aliens vs the ever-familiar humans... or bugs.
Zerg definitely seems the least straightforward for a new player to pick up.
|
Check zergs win ratio..
they are the same as every other race.. so u cant say they are unpowered
|
Carras, where would you find these stats? I especially don't believe TvZ is 50% among high level players.
|
theyre not underpowered, you just have to work harder to make zerg work. i dunno if that's considered 'imbalance', i guess it could be depending on what your opinions on good game balance are. i personally don't mind the rough learning curve, i'd just like some more options even if it takes until the expansions come out. that blandness of unit choice is a bigger problem imo than the learning curve.
|
On August 13 2010 13:03 Carras wrote:
Check zergs win ratio..
they are the same as every other race.. so u cant say they are unpowered
Even if their w/l ratio is the same as other races I would have to say that it's obvious only gosu's are left playing Zerg.
|
I think it's a bit of the earlier post about uncertain macro timings (it's weird as hell playing Z as an off-race; if you've never tried, you should), but also the general "type" of race the Poto/Terran are. Big cute aliens vs the ever-familiar humans... or bugs.
Protoss units are cute? I would use the term bad ass myself. 
|
On August 13 2010 13:10 Doc Daneeka wrote:
theyre not underpowered, you just have to work harder to make zerg work. i dunno if that's considered 'imbalance', i guess it could be depending on what your opinions on good game balance are. i personally don't mind the rough learning curve, i'd just like some more options even if it takes until the expansions come out. that blandness of unit choice is a bigger problem imo than the learning curve.
"Requiring more work to win" is pretty much the definition of imbalance.
|
how has this gone 19 pages
On August 11 2010 01:06 IdrA wrote:
because its fucking awful
|
well, zerg is honestly kinda underpowered in sc2 i think every1 can agree with me on that (personally i hate how hydralisks r so weak now  its freaking annoying)
after some sorta update hopefully thisll be changed
|
On August 13 2010 13:20 IdrA wrote:how has this gone 19 pages
Just discussing how fucking awful Zerg is.
|
On August 13 2010 13:18 EvaristeGalois wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 13:10 Doc Daneeka wrote:
theyre not underpowered, you just have to work harder to make zerg work. i dunno if that's considered 'imbalance', i guess it could be depending on what your opinions on good game balance are. i personally don't mind the rough learning curve, i'd just like some more options even if it takes until the expansions come out. that blandness of unit choice is a bigger problem imo than the learning curve. "Requiring more work to win" is pretty much the definition of imbalance.
hmm yeah, except that zerg can be really powerful if it's executed well, the 'work harder' part to me means it's less obvious what you need to and there's more to keep track of but in the end if you can do that you can wind up with some pretty big advantages. banelings can be hella unfair but you have to know when and how to use them and execute it perfectly. broodlords are pretty borderline unfair but your macro has to be good enough that when you get to that point you can still afford adequate support. the speed bonus on creep is obscene but it's easy to forget to do it at a certain point. so it ends up being 'hard mode', which is probably not what the competitive community wants, but it's not like zerg can't win.
btw i'm totally on the 'zerg got screwed' train, i'm just playing the devil's advocate here.
|
On August 13 2010 13:27 Doc Daneeka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 13:18 EvaristeGalois wrote:On August 13 2010 13:10 Doc Daneeka wrote:
theyre not underpowered, you just have to work harder to make zerg work. i dunno if that's considered 'imbalance', i guess it could be depending on what your opinions on good game balance are. i personally don't mind the rough learning curve, i'd just like some more options even if it takes until the expansions come out. that blandness of unit choice is a bigger problem imo than the learning curve. "Requiring more work to win" is pretty much the definition of imbalance. except that zerg can be really powerful if it's executed well
Not true.
You have to work much harder to have even close to the same chance as winning as an a-moving Terran.
|
On August 13 2010 13:03 Carras wrote:
Check zergs win ratio..
they are the same as every other race.. so u cant say they are unpowered
Match-up W/L ratios being around 50% does nothing but imply match-making system is doing its job well. It will do its best to get you to around 50 percent W/L.
|
On August 13 2010 13:03 Carras wrote:
Check zergs win ratio..
they are the same as every other race.. so u cant say they are unpowered
It seems no zerg was able to get into top 16 in this week's gosucoaching tourney, starting with 512. I diddnt check top 32 but I diddnt see any that jumped out at me... Even with notables like Slush and Catz entered.
It seems like Zerg is only figuring out how to get screwed over more, not less.
|
On August 13 2010 13:30 ]Grey[ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 13:03 Carras wrote:
Check zergs win ratio..
they are the same as every other race.. so u cant say they are unpowered Match-up W/L ratios being around 50% does nothing but imply match-making system is doing its job well. It will do its best to get you to around 50 percent W/L.
I couldn't have said it better. Win % doesn't mean much in terms of race balance, it can be seen better by watching custom games or tournament games between the best players in a region.
|
On August 13 2010 08:24 SpicyCrab wrote:
Spiciest (Great name by the way)
I play random and I do! Although they are def my worst race and it's because they are just flat out harder to play.
yes! awesome. and I'm a random-Zerg btw
|
A 50% winrate only means that the matchmaking system works perfectly, nothing more, nothing less. You can't take those kind of stats and derive any useful information from it, if you want to take something like that you have to look at static competition like tournaments, leagues etc. Where the opponents who play against eachother aren't decided by a dynamic matchmaking system but simply by who wins and who loses.
|
On August 13 2010 14:10 heishe wrote:
A 50% winrate only means that the matchmaking system works perfectly, nothing more, nothing less. You can't take those kind of stats and derive any useful information from it, if you want to take something like that you have to look at static competition like tournaments, leagues etc. Where the opponents who play against eachother aren't decided by a dynamic matchmaking system but simply by who wins and who loses.
This.
Remember how Ultras had 18(?) damage? And blizzard said the win/loss ratio was pretty even. Now, after nice buffs to ultras they do 40 damage to armored and a lot of people using them vs. terran mech with success but the win/loss ratio is absolutely the same.
Imo tournament results say much more than ladder statistics.
|
On August 13 2010 16:01 Alpina wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 14:10 heishe wrote:
A 50% winrate only means that the matchmaking system works perfectly, nothing more, nothing less. You can't take those kind of stats and derive any useful information from it, if you want to take something like that you have to look at static competition like tournaments, leagues etc. Where the opponents who play against eachother aren't decided by a dynamic matchmaking system but simply by who wins and who loses. This. Remember how Ultras had 18(?) damage? And blizzard said the win/loss ratio was pretty even. Now, after nice buffs to ultras they do 40 damage to armored and a lot of people using them vs. terran mech with success but the win/loss ratio is absolutely the same. Imo tournament results say much more than ladder statistics.
I agree and I want to further expand on this.
A game company balancing a huge game like starcraft usually looks alot at statistics. I'm always afraid they overcommit to looking at statistics.
I have alot of experience playing alot of different games. Usually there's characters/races that are more complex and unappealing to the more casual player. Say you play a roleplaying game and you get the choice of an alchemist-thunder-brewer-lord who uses a complex system of fighting and a straight up WARRIOR which bashes in skulls with his broad-axe. Hardcore players usually go for the complex choice which has a higher skill cap rather than the pretty straightforward warrior which usually is more appealing to the not so hardcore crowd.
What this does is that the hardcore crowd who is usually better players play the obscure class/race and win alot with it because they're simply better players, while the "warrior crowd" struggles. The game company looks at the statistics and see, well that class sure wins alot! So they nerf it and/or buff the other class. Now the warrior is overpowered, but still wins only 50% of the games because it has not so good players playing it. Well that's balanced?!? No it's not..
|
On August 13 2010 09:51 zomgzergrush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 08:34 Meff wrote:On August 13 2010 07:22 zomgzergrush wrote:
Furthermore, it is not possible to create an army composition that has no weakness as zerg, compared to P and T. T mech especially is a prime example. tank/rauder/hellion/thor has 0 hard counter possibility. Actually... brood lords or battlecruisers or carriers or void rays, sticking to a single-unit compositions. In fact, hydra/broodlord (with a side of corruptors) against P would actually qualify for something that has no single-unit hard counter. When P has enough stalkers + a few colossus, broodlords + hydra are both countered. The broodlords still don't do a ton of damage against the stalkers when the broodlings vaporize instantly and hydras get toasted by the row against the colossus. At least the broodlords actually do some sort of damage in this matchup, though, and that corruptors are actually viable against the colossus.
It has to do with the incredible range of broodlords. If you position your hydras behind your air ball and the stalkers blink in, the hydras will roast them hard. Meanwhile, corruptor/broodlord is extremely strong against colossi.
Broodlord-hydra is definitely one of the strongest late-game zerg compositions versus protoss.
(Of course, if the protoss has exclusively stalkers and colossi, you should be making ultras instead. But you'll still win with broodlord-hydra.)
EDIT: The main thing that makes this so strong for zerg is that the colossus can't shoot the brood lords but the brood lords can shoot the colossus. Both have range 9 (assuming the protoss got the lance upgrade), and hydras and stalkers both have range 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
