|
Zerg is the most underrepresented of the three races taking players from all leagues into account, globally. If you are willing to presume that the 8.65% of players who play random either have no race preference or just enjoy playing random for the challenge, that leaves you with what should be ~30.45% for each of the three races if they were all played equally. However, only ~20.26% of players play Zerg, across all leagues and regions.
These statistics are of course for the 1v1 bracket. Surprisingly, they get even worse in the team brackets! For instance, in the 4v4 Random bracket, Zerg is played by 15.49% of players! That is less than those who play Random, and less than half of those who play Terran or Protoss each!!
So, the question is, why do less players prefer Zerg as their race, and why is this magnified in team games? Is Zerg harder to learn? less interesting to play? underpowered? Thoughts? How does this inform current Zerg players in terms of strategy?
1v1 Stats: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/us/1/all
2v2 Stats: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/us/2R/all
3v3 Stats: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/us/3R/all
4v4 Stats: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/us/4R/all
|
Zerg can be difficult race to play if you don't have game sense. Even in Brood War, the idea of when to make attacking units and when to make drones was always a difficult concept. Too much of either can wreck you.
Compare that to Terran or Protoss when you can always make workers and attacking units at the same time.
|
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?
|
In my experience with the typical gamer it is that too much effort is not worth the reward. A lot of players like Zerg but are quickly put off by the higher learning curve (in my opinion). As a result they simply just race switch and go on their way.
The other thing I notice (and it tends to be more prevalent with Blizzard's games) is that a lot of people are wagon-jumpers or FotM players. They go to online forums, see the pages of QQ posts about ZvT balance and go queue up as Terran. Its the OP thing to do and you'll get instant wins! Mark my words, after Terran gets a balance patch all these players will jump ship to the next FotM race be it Zerg or Protoss. I saw it in WoW, and I'll see it here.
Fortunately these are the players that tend to leave games after the next big thing is released. Diablo III should provide some relief after they jump on that wagon too.
|
this is the same with SC1
i started out playing toss because it was the 1a2a3a race, building cannon d was also very intuitive. you control fewer units in total because each fighting unit was at least 2 supplies. so protoss was the noob race.
terran on the other hand, almost every unit has a manually activated skill, like stim, siege, etc. you cant just 1a to victory.
zerg is the hardest to play for beginners. from the get go, when to get overlord and when to get 2nd hatch is not a simple decision for a beginner.
so ya, the population breakdown seems to make sense.
|
On August 11 2010 00:11 kajeus wrote:
Could it be because everywhere you go, every time a silver English-speaking zerg player opens his mouth, people float the completely unproven claim that zerg is underpowered?
fixed
|
I don't find it surprising, Zerg is the harder race to play because they units were given low health overall so it isn't advantageous for many zerg players to attack head on which seems to be the trend everyone likes so far, however I think once people learn to work around this slight set back the numbers will begin to favor zerg more then the other races but don't take my word for it.
|
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? Then why is Zerg the worst represented in Korea and Latin America?
|
Because people make threads about Zerg being:
- played less
- or weak
- or hard to master
Which one is true?
I dont want to know.
|
1. When to make drones vs attacking units
2. Low health units, not forgiving on mistakes when you micro
3. Need to have a good macro and continously expand
|
On August 11 2010 00:14 SpaceYeti 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? Then why is Zerg the worst represented in Korea and Latin America?
Beats me! I'm only talking about what I know.
If you can link me CheckPrime or Cool saying zerg sucks, I'd love to see that.
|
So? maybe ppl just dont wana play zerg + there are A LOT of new players that played terran and a little bit of toss in the campaign so most of them are going to choose one of these
also if each race got 1/3 of all players chances for that are very slim.
after HotS its probably gona tip towards zerg and then later after the toss add on (cant remember what it was called) we'll see more toss and after some time this number will even out.
so in maybe 2 years or more you can look at the race statistics again then we will actually gain something from it imo 
|
Seems obvious to me...
Zerg simply has less units, which makes it less interesting to play. That being said I may not be the average player since I like playing random. In my experience playing terran and protoss it just feels like I can do more openings where with zerg its somewhat limited.
Please don't flame me I'm not saying zerg is one-dimensional I'm saying they simply have less attacking units. It's a fact..
|
IMO Zerg is much harder to play than other races. Micro is good to have, but perfect macro is necessary as Zerg because there's just so much damn stuff to do. You need to constantly be injecting larvae. You need to constantly be spreading creep. You usually have more expansions to control than your opponent. You need to know what to make drones and when to make units. You need to control your overlords. It's just a pain in the ass to play Zerg, in my opinion, when you can just cookie cutter MMM or 4gate, either of those you can pull off with 30 APM and be fine, seriously.
|
1. Zerg is the only race you don't play as in the campaign.
2. Zerg is the least standard and intuitive race. Anyone who has played an RTS before knows how to make production buildings and train units out of them but Zerg works in a different, unique and fairly confusing way.
3. Zerg has the least combat units and the least variety. Even back when Zerg was considered strong, there were many complaints that they were bland and underdeveloped.
4. Zerg is widely considered the hardest race to play.
5. Zerg is widely considered the weakest race in the game.
|
Because this is the 3rd or 4th topic made this morning on zerg having problems.
|
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?
This is probably one reason. Alot of my friends who have never played RTS before picked up a copy of SC2 as it is the "next big thing". They all asked me which race to play and which was the easiest and I told them Terran and Protoss are much easier than Zerg imo. Only one guy out of about 15 now plays Zerg and he is in bronze when the rest of my friends are in gold or higher now.
The other reasons I would suggest as to why Zerg are less played are:
1. Zerg really has a reactive style of play as opposed to Terran and Protoss, what I mean by that is, what you do is Zerg is really governed by what your opponent is doing. E.g. he makes Zealots you make Roaches, he makes Banshee you make Hydra. Where as Terran and Protoss have more opportunities to choose the direction of the game. Noobs find it difficult to play well in a reactive style and simply don't do it. Hence don't play Zerg.
2. Zerg require much more macro tasks like spawning larva and spreading creep than Terran and Protoss. Terran is one click every 65 seconds, Zerg requires a bunch of actions every 30 seconds + creep spread. Noobs don't like this.
3. The campaign race is Terran. You also play as Protoss in the campaign too. I would be surprised if this wasn't a reason behind a lot of players not choosing Zerg.
4. Zerg is underpowered. Not sure if this is really true after seeing some recent games of Zerg. At high level they might be competitive I don't know. At general level it does take much more skill to play Zerg than it does to play another race. This might change over time as players get better but at the moment you can play another race and get the same results with much less effort.
|
I think PaterSin hit the nail on the head. You don't get to play zerg during the campaign.
|
i'm winning 64% of the time as zerg...
|
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?
zvt imbalance Is widely accepted aside from the noobs who dont know any better.
|
Zerg isn't as easy or fun to me personally.
I know Terran and Toss players will say "Zerg is just as easy, just as fun, there are zero problems please divert your attention elsewhere, L2P" but for me personally i find them harder to play and less fun overall.
|
I think zerg is considered to be underpowered, or at least that is the general vibe here. So maybe they are and people don't like to play them or maybe they are just afraid to even try playing them as there is so much complaining about them being up.
|
I like zerg, but don't have the patience to get decent with them when I can play terran/protoss and not have that learning curve factor in. Almost every time I get owned by a zerg I'm impressed by the creativity of their tactics, it's just too much for a new player (High plat) like myself to play zerg well.
|
I like all of the races in Multiplayer, I play random whenever I can but I am not going to lie my timing for Protoss is way off and needs work.
I think Zerg is a fun race to play since I like to macro with them the most. In BW I liked them a lot as well. Used to do Mutalisk rushing with a decent build for the day(1999). Their mechanics are awesome and the fact you can spread creep and give your units a speed bonus is awesome.
|
Because the Zerg QQ'ers out there ...
Don't realize the strength of Zerg is their ability to change tech nearly instantly, and to and equal degree to overwhelm the 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 then be combined with a tech switch.
Unfortunately the Zerg tech switch doesn't seem to be used by many players. 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 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. This problem diminishes the tech change strength of the Zerg. Adding a new Zerg unit with a unique role would go far in helping to correct 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 needs more diversity options.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts. Take of it what you will.
|
I'm not going to speak for higher level players but I think at the lower levels people struggle with not being able to wall in to avoid rushes, and the thing I found most difficult, learning when to make drones and when to make fighting units.
Also, maybe people just find the protoss and terrans more visually appealing.
|
well part of the reason why i chose protoss was because i didn't want to hear: BWARRR, AHWRRRRR: AHAAAAAA every time i click on something but i still want to hear things like we are under attack!
|
They just aren't that fun, its a whole lot of massing units, not a lot of casters, tedious macro mechanic, and a high learning curve to boot
|
|
|
On August 11 2010 00:14 SpaceYeti 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? Then why is Zerg the worst represented in Korea and Latin America?
Not among the good players, go to the site and filter for top 100 korean 1v1 and you will see that zerg has the highest % in top 100 diamond
|
How are there so many experts on how to play zerg on the forum but not one of these people have used their own supposed mastery of zerg tactics to dominate the ladder or win tournaments? You have the answers, why aren't you a top zerg?
The fact is, the game suffers from zerg being unpopular. I don't care what race you play and what you think is balanced or unbalanced. The game is less interesting when people only play two races, when we rarely see ever see anything but TvT finals and the odd TvP
That should concern you as a fan of the game. The fact that it doesn't is really alarming. I want to attribute it to this new generation of fans from WoW or something, where it's not uncommon to bash other classes to try to get yours raised up.
|
Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro.
Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg.
There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works.
Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the game works.
|
Quote your own, stupid, already thousands of times nullified shitposts.
Win percentage as well as the quote of Zerg playing Diamond say exactly NOTHING about balance.
Either you are dumb as fuck or a troll
User was warned for this post
|
On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks.
On August 11 2010 00:32 ahwala wrote:Quote your own, stupid, already thousands of times nullified shitposts. Win percentage as well as the quote of Zerg playing Diamond say exactly NOTHING about balance. Either you are dumb as fuck or a troll
You are so angarrry. 
This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players.
P.S. If you would like to "nullify" my "shitpost" somewhere, feel free? Actually, most of the time nobody responds.
|
@tacrats,
but top player, i hope u dont mean the idralisk.
|
On August 11 2010 00:32 ahwala wrote:Quote your own, stupid, already thousands of times nullified shitposts. Win percentage as well as the quote of Zerg playing Diamond say exactly NOTHING about balance. Either you are dumb as fuck or a troll
This just in: statistical evidence now trolling!
What exactly determines balance, if not the results of games, dipshit? Anecdotal evidence from a few venting players? The Idra Zerg Sycophants are out in full force today, I see.
|
On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players.
Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical.
You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance.
The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that.
|
On August 11 2010 00:15 papaz wrote:
1. When to make drones vs attacking units
2. Low health units, not forgiving on mistakes when you micro
3. Need to have a good macro and continously expand
These reasons are frequently cited, but this is also observable in brood war, yet the discrepancy seems magnified in sc2.
On top of the factors you listed, I'd add terrible design, underpowered, "FOTMness", and alsoimportantly the pace of play is different. Remember that a lot of sc2 players are former war3 players and wow players. In sc2, more so than in sc, zerg does better in long high econ games. Most players from those games aren't used to managing long high econ games and prefer to 4-gate and have the game decided in 10 minutes rather than deal with messy multitasking, positioning, and macro management. It also rewards the exact opposite skills as t and p, you need patience above all to play zerg and I can see why most people won't play the race just based on that. In sc one could play zerg with some aggression and have it pay off, so weaker and newer players weren't immediately put off. In sc2 you can't really do this and you're in a purely reactive position in every matchup early game.
On August 11 2010 00:31 floor exercise wrote:
How are there so many experts on how to play zerg on the forum but not one of these people have used their own supposed mastery of zerg tactics to dominate the ladder or win tournaments? You have the answers, why aren't you a top zerg?
The fact is, the game suffers from zerg being unpopular. I don't care what race you play and what you think is balanced or unbalanced. The game is less interesting when people only play two races, when we rarely see ever see anything but TvT finals and the odd TvP
That should concern you as a fan of the game. The fact that it doesn't is really alarming. I want to attribute it to this new generation of fans from WoW or something, where it's not uncommon to bash other classes to try to get yours raised up.
+1, reminds me of war3 ROC with ne vs ne all the god damn time with the occasional human.
They really just kind of dropped the ball on zerg design. They took out the most pivotal and interesting units from broodwar and the units they added are pretty lackluster. Somebody ought to make a custom map with the lurker added in at tier2 that morphs from a hydralisk, just to see what happens.
Also the evidence cited by Kajeus is pretty legit. Zerg's probably not as underpowered as perceived, but the fact that so few people find it interesting to play is it's own problem independent of the balance itself and blizzard should probably do something about it (next expansion for $60).
|
On August 11 2010 00:35 dybydx wrote:
@tacrats,
but top player, i hope u dont mean the idralisk.
Notice i mentioned that dont play zerg. ;-]
|
I stopped playing them because I just didn't find them fun. They have some really annoying sound effects. They also don't have a wide range of interesting units and I find most of them boring. They have the least fun macro mechanics with spawn larva and creep tumors which I feel I have to use every cycle. With Protoss at my level I don't mind much if I forget and then it's like "I have a chrono boost, cool lets make my Collosus build faster!".
|
Maybe Zergs just look bad.
They are like pulsating, deviant biology, like a virus or something.
When you look at aliens movies, do you want to encourage humans or aliens ? 
|
Zerg is boring. I don't think they're underpowered, they're just pathetic. It feels like Blizzard put no effort into them.
|
On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that.
Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere?
I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven".
Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you?
On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered.
|
I would assume it is played the least because all I hear is people crying about how bad zerg sucks. But the real issue is that it's not so noob friendly. Basically people try it, don't understand how to play it and come cry here.
|
Not going to lie... having to press S -> D is a little more annoying than just pressing E or S. Zerg is probably my favorite race though.
|
On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered.
People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics".
Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT.
|
Don't underestimate the impact of people thinking zerg are ugly.
|
I'd also say it's because it is the hardest race for new players and even for experienced players. Forgetting to spawn larvae with Queens can be so ridiculously important that you've lost already. -_-;;
|
On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that.
uh..the statistics alone aren't complete evidence for balance... but it's definitely good for building a case that the races are in fact pretty balanced.
What is your evidence for imbalance and how is ZvT imbalance a widely accepted fact?
I honestly don't want to claim balance or imbalance yet since the players still need time to evolve the game more, but balance seems pretty solid at the moment. Terran may have more options for opening then the other races but it is balanced in that P and Z can react accordingly and be fine.
|
On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered.
You are so ignorant its amazing.
Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers.
Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right? Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins?
But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does.
Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments?
|
On August 11 2010 00:36 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:15 papaz wrote:
1. When to make drones vs attacking units
2. Low health units, not forgiving on mistakes when you micro
3. Need to have a good macro and continously expand
These reasons are frequently cited, but this is also observable in brood war, yet the discrepancy seems magnified in sc2. On top of the factors you listed, I'd add terrible design, underpowered, "FOTMness", and most importantly the pace of play is different. Remember that a lot of sc2 players are former war3 players and wow players. In sc2, more so than in sc, zerg does better in long high econ games. Most players from those games aren't used to managing long high econ games and prefer to 4-gate and have the game decided in 10 minutes rather than deal with messy multitasking, positioning, and macro management. It also rewards the exact opposite skills as t and p, you need patience above all to play zerg and I can see why most people won't play the race just based on that. In sc one could play zerg with some aggression and have it pay off, so weaker and newer players weren't immediately put off. In sc2 you can't really do this and you're in a purely reactive position in every matchup early game. They really just kind of dropped the ball on zerg design. They took out the most pivotal and interesting units from broodwar and the units they added are pretty lackluster. I think we'd be looking at a much different picture if there was a GOD DAMN LURKER.
Lurkers are incredibly defensive units meant to hold down positions though, I don't think that would solve it. Big issue is that most races can really easily deal with any sort of ling rush, which was Zerg's most dangerous early pressure (fast pool builds were always a terror on BNet)
|
On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics". Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT.
ok, I guess I'm clueless. Where are all these threads/posts/interviews or w/e saying the ZvT is terribly imbalanced?
edit:
On August 11 2010 00:46 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. You are so ignorant its amazing. Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers. Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right? Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins? But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does. Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments?
ok but if there were such a large imbalance, you would still see numbers in favor of Terran. Your MMR is affected by your wins/losses overall, not a specific race. So in the scenario of this imbalance you are talking about, a Top Diamond zerg would have to have a good W/L ratio against Z and P, and a not so great one against T.
This is because he wouldn't be playing bad terrans because to be top diamond he would have to be winning his other matchups by a favorable margin
|
On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics".
Your argument is that good zergs are playing worse terrans. This would imply that a good matchmaker and equal win percentages will leave proportionally FEWER zergs in the top 200 and diamond league. Under your scenario, a zerg with top-200-level mechanics will be stuck at 300th place because he can't beat top terrans, who are worse than him. Yet zergs are as well represented in the top levels of the ladder as they are in the general population.
Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT.
I'm sorry, but you genuinely don't seem to understand the logic of the statistical argument.
|
On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered.
Im angry about your ignorance. The AMM is designed to provide a WLR about 50%, which 10 people tried to explain to you in the other thread, and still you are holding on to your wrong argument. It's just not worth having a discussion with you, because it's useless due to your dullness.
|
They aren't underpowered. They are slapped together. They have stupid powers like infested terrans and their upgrades are all poorly though out and I'm sure the race as a whole is confusing to newbies.
God I hope blizzard takes a real hard look at what they've done now that the game is released.
|
On August 11 2010 00:46 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. You are so ignorant its amazing. Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers. Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right? Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins? But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does. Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments?
He's done the data with the top 200s for regions also, and the same holds true. In Korea, Zerg is underplayed but overrepresented in the very top ranks of ELO. There's probably a slight, slight imbalance, but probably not enough that it should be blamed for every Zerg loss like Idra does.
|
On August 11 2010 00:47 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics". Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT. ok, I guess I'm clueless. Where are all these threads/posts/interviews or w/e saying the ZvT is terribly imbalanced?
Where you been bro?
Most recent ive seen was cauthonluck said in an interview after beating sheth on the weekend in the finals of a small tournament that zerg needs help vs terrans huge amount of openings.
|
In 1V1, zergs are less played ok.
But in 2V2 I feel like it's just false. It's like there is a zerg in every team.
I think a lot of player switch to zerg in 2V2 but they appear as T or P because of their main race in 1V1.
|
On August 11 2010 00:46 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. You are so ignorant its amazing. Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers. Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right? Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins? But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does. Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments?
Diamond players are the top 5% of their respective ladders. A 50/50 win ratio is meaningless by itself, but if players are attaining 50% win-ratios and are well-represented at the top of the ladder ranking (e.g., zergs are 24% of the top 200 of the NA ladder [one of many easy examples]), then everything seems to be ok. This is strong evidence.
|
The whining of Idra and Artosis is like a poison that spreads to every other user on here, breeding groupthink and complaining instead of any objective solution. Leads to bashing of people just because they play Terran or want to look at something critical
|
On August 11 2010 00:50 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:47 OverTheUnder wrote:On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics". Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT. ok, I guess I'm clueless. Where are all these threads/posts/interviews or w/e saying the ZvT is terribly imbalanced? Where you been bro? Most recent ive seen was cauthonluck said in an interview after beating sheth on the weekend in the finals of a small tournament that zerg needs help vs terrans huge amount of openings.
They do, but I don't even know what they can do without sabotaging Terran race identity or wildly buffing Zerg.
|
On August 11 2010 00:49 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:46 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. You are so ignorant its amazing. Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers. Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right? Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins? But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does. Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments? He's done the data with the top 200s for regions also, and the same holds true. In Korea, Zerg is underplayed but overrepresented in the very top ranks of ELO. There's probably a slight, slight imbalance, but probably not enough that it should be blamed for every Zerg loss like Idra does.
Sorry but i saw the same data and you saying they are underplayed is true when you take into account all levels (bronze to diamond). However overrepresented in the top 200 is not true if you look at the total diamond races translated into the top 200. in fact it shows zerg is underrepresented.
It only makes sense to use diamond races and not plat and below as the top 200 are made up of diamond players...
|
On August 11 2010 00:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:50 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:47 OverTheUnder wrote:On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics". Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT. ok, I guess I'm clueless. Where are all these threads/posts/interviews or w/e saying the ZvT is terribly imbalanced? Where you been bro? Most recent ive seen was cauthonluck said in an interview after beating sheth on the weekend in the finals of a small tournament that zerg needs help vs terrans huge amount of openings. They do, but I don't even know what they can do without sabotaging Terran race identity or wildly buffing Zerg.
I agree. So there is imbalance. While the solution is unknown, we first have to conclude that there IS imbalance.
it seems people cant get over step #1 yet.
|
On August 11 2010 00:38 Soulthirsty wrote:Maybe Zergs just look bad. They are like pulsating, deviant biology, like a virus or something. When you look at aliens movies, do you want to encourage humans or aliens ?
Then why isn't this true in broodwar too?
On August 11 2010 00:38 CScythe wrote:
Zerg is boring. I don't think they're underpowered, they're just pathetic. It feels like Blizzard put no effort into them.
oh that's why.
|
Zerg is pretty tedious and difficult to play. Especially for newer players who will have bad mechanical skill. Apart from that, it is a very bland race with very limited options. Mostly a-move units that don't have any special ability or trait. So you don't even get rewarded with interesting stuff if you manage to go through the effort of upping your mechanics.
To add insult to the injury, they're pretty weak against Terran.
I'm a Terran player btw, having tried some of all races before picking. Although I do want to mention that I picked Terran pretty early in beta, when Thors were still big and tanks would still shoot the edge, rather then the center of a units, aka mech wasn't very popular and zerg was pretty strong.
|
On August 11 2010 00:48 ahwala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. Im angry about your ignorance. The AMM is designed to provide a WLR about 50%, which 10 people tried to explain to you in the other thread, and still you are holding on to your wrong argument. It's just not worth having a discussion with you, because it's useless due to your dullness.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand that, if zerg is underpowered, the matchmaker will provide a 50% WLR and zergs will be underrepresented in the higher sections of the leagues.
|
On August 11 2010 00:53 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:49 PanzerDragoon wrote:On August 11 2010 00:46 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. You are so ignorant its amazing. Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers. Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right? Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins? But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does. Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments? He's done the data with the top 200s for regions also, and the same holds true. In Korea, Zerg is underplayed but overrepresented in the very top ranks of ELO. There's probably a slight, slight imbalance, but probably not enough that it should be blamed for every Zerg loss like Idra does. Sorry but i saw the same data and you saying they are underplayed is true when you take into account all levels (bronze to diamond). However overrepresented in the top 200 is not true if you look at the total diamond races translated into the top 200. in fact it shows zerg is underrepresented. It only makes sense to use diamond races and not plat and below as the top 200 are made up of diamond players...
No, 24% of the top 200 is zerg. 24% of diamond league is also zerg.
|
Bottom line for me at least is that blizzard owes us Zerg users big time.
They better come up in HofS with something badass and extraordinary that would change this bad perception of Zerg..
|
On August 11 2010 00:48 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics". Your argument is that good zergs are playing worse terrans. This would imply that a good matchmaker and equal win percentages will leave proportionally FEWER zergs in the top 200 and diamond league. Under your scenario, a zerg with top-200-level mechanics will be stuck at 300th place because he can't beat top terrans, who are worse than him. Yet zergs are as well represented in the top levels of the ladder as they are in the general population.
You do realize the ladder has more than just Terran players? If Zerg players are winning against other good Zerg and Protoss players, it doesn't matter if they lose to a few good Terrans, their win % will still even out due to the AMM and their ELL will still climb. Also, Diamond league practically is the general population, since anyone who has even an inkling of understanding of the game can reach diamond if they play enough games.
Show nested quote +Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT. I'm sorry, but you genuinely don't seem to understand the logic of the statistical argument.
I'm sorry, but you are genuinely an idiot. It's like talking to a brick wall.
|
On August 11 2010 00:57 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:53 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:49 PanzerDragoon wrote:On August 11 2010 00:46 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. You are so ignorant its amazing. Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers. Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right? Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins? But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does. Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments? He's done the data with the top 200s for regions also, and the same holds true. In Korea, Zerg is underplayed but overrepresented in the very top ranks of ELO. There's probably a slight, slight imbalance, but probably not enough that it should be blamed for every Zerg loss like Idra does. Sorry but i saw the same data and you saying they are underplayed is true when you take into account all levels (bronze to diamond). However overrepresented in the top 200 is not true if you look at the total diamond races translated into the top 200. in fact it shows zerg is underrepresented. It only makes sense to use diamond races and not plat and below as the top 200 are made up of diamond players... No, 24% of the top 200 is zerg. 24% of diamond league is also zerg.
24% of the top 200 is 48.
in the top 200 there is 35 zergs.
Redo your math.
edit: dude on the first page of that thread had wrong count
|
On August 11 2010 00:46 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. You are so ignorant its amazing. Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers. Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. [b]But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right?[/b[Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins? But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does. Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments?
if you were a top zerg player, the data might show 50% overall but across the board the stats would favor terran for the TvZ matchup, either you don't understand that or I am the one that is really confused;/
|
On August 11 2010 00:59 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:46 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. You are so ignorant its amazing. Sorry i cannot provide the statistical evidence required to prove it as i do not have access to blizzards servers. Do you know how easy it is to get into diamond? Do you know how many diamond players play platinum players often? Do you know that within diamond there are noob diamonds and top diamond? Do you not understand how these things skew the data? I beat noob terrans all the time, but good ones i lose to almost all the time. [b]But your 'data' would show i have a 50/50 win ratio which is perfect right?[/b[Which is exactly what we would expect right? Oh wait isnt that what matchmaking tries to do? Get me to 50% wins? But wait, does that fuck up your argument as you cant rely on a statistic of my win ratios vs terran since bnet matches me against lower skilled people to compensate for losing against better players? But i am still in diamond? Yeah, i think it does. Damn, you just dont get it do you? Do you even play this game? Do you see how matchmaking works? Do you know anything outside of your 'stats 101 divide this number by this number to get a percent' arguments? if you were a top zerg player, the data might show 50% overall but across the board the stats would favor terran for the TvZ matchup, either you don't understand that or I am the one that is really confused;/
Exactly. People are not basing their statistics on the matchups. They are doing it on overall statistics.
Plus you cant just break it down by matchup, have to do diamond vs diamond matchups. etc. We dont have that type of detail to work with.
|
The campaign also introduces the majority of people to terran...
|
On August 11 2010 00:59 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:48 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics". Your argument is that good zergs are playing worse terrans. This would imply that a good matchmaker and equal win percentages will leave proportionally FEWER zergs in the top 200 and diamond league. Under your scenario, a zerg with top-200-level mechanics will be stuck at 300th place because he can't beat top terrans, who are worse than him. Yet zergs are as well represented in the top levels of the ladder as they are in the general population. You do realize the ladder has more than just Terran players? If Zerg players are winning against other good Zerg and Protoss players, it doesn't matter if they lose to a few good Terrans, their win % will still even out due to the AMM. Also, Diamond league practically is the general population, since anyone who has even an inkling of understanding of the game can reach diamond if they play enough games. Show nested quote +Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT. I'm sorry, but you genuinely don't seem to understand the logic of the statistical argument.
I'm sorry, but you are genuinely an idiot. It's like talking to a brick wall.
Ideally a look at the W/L rations in ZvT for all top zergs would be better. It wouldn't be conclusive evidence either way, but it is still strong evidence for something wrong with the MU, be it an unevolved zerg meta game, imbalance, or unknown reason X.
Accepting imbalance so quickly is a very bad habit to get into.
edit: ok I thought there were MU specific statistics on the site...my bad;p
|
kajeus I'm not gonna waste time arguing or debating your "statistical" evidence because it seems you are too hot-headed to change your mind about it. There are 37 or 18.5% Zergs in NA top 200, I don't think that's well represented. In Korea the story might be different, but 18.5% doesn't sound like a good number to me.
|
because its fucking awful
|
On August 11 2010 01:05 OverTheUnder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:59 teamsolid wrote:On August 11 2010 00:48 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics". Your argument is that good zergs are playing worse terrans. This would imply that a good matchmaker and equal win percentages will leave proportionally FEWER zergs in the top 200 and diamond league. Under your scenario, a zerg with top-200-level mechanics will be stuck at 300th place because he can't beat top terrans, who are worse than him. Yet zergs are as well represented in the top levels of the ladder as they are in the general population. You do realize the ladder has more than just Terran players? If Zerg players are winning against other good Zerg and Protoss players, it doesn't matter if they lose to a few good Terrans, their win % will still even out due to the AMM. Also, Diamond league practically is the general population, since anyone who has even an inkling of understanding of the game can reach diamond if they play enough games. Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT. I'm sorry, but you genuinely don't seem to understand the logic of the statistical argument. I'm sorry, but you are genuinely an idiot. It's like talking to a brick wall. holy shit guys, this seems so obvious to me. So don't look at overall W/L ratio, look at TvZ specific ratio. Ideally a look at the W/L rations in ZvT for all top zergs would be better. It wouldn't be conclusive evidence either way, but it is still strong evidence for something wrong with the MU, be it an unevolved zerg meta game, imbalance, or unknown reason X. Accepting imbalance so quickly is a very bad habit to get into.
So tell that to the blabbering idiot who think his statistics mean something? It's pretty obvious to me as well that you need individual matchup statistics to glean any kind of useful information.
|
My opinion is that beside it being the hardest and maybe the weakest, less people like bugs/monsters than shiny golden armors/pew pew lazers or nukes/mech.
|
On August 11 2010 00:52 PanzerDragoon wrote:
The whining of Idra and Artosis is like a poison that spreads to every other user on here, breeding groupthink and complaining instead of any objective solution. Leads to bashing of people just because they play Terran or want to look at something critical
this
|
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?
|
On August 11 2010 01:06 IdrA wrote:
because its fucking awful
This is basically it, it's not much of a mystery. It doesnt require pages of statistical evidence.
If you have played zerg at all in the higher point level of diamond, you'd know it is tedious and frustrating compared to the other races
|
Because Zerg is the hardest to play yet the most underpowered and also the least fun race with the most limited options. Well.. at least the most overpowered race isn't the easiest to play right.
|
On August 11 2010 00:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:
They do, but I don't even know what they can do without sabotaging Terran race identity or wildly buffing Zerg.
Blizzard can redo the Zerg macro mechanic and add another low supply unit or reduce the supply of an existing unit while debuffing said unit.
The Zerg macro mechanic is the most painful one in the system and keeps many people from playing Zerg. You have to stay on top of spawn larva, and if you miss one you are punished. This is not the same with the other races macro mechanics. I'd suggest the fix to be that hatcheries have a stacked spawn larva timer which allows for X spawn larva casts in Y time. That is to say, if you miss spawn larva on a hatchery for 2 minutes, you could use spawn larva on said hatchery 2 or 3 times at once.
As for adding another unit, Zerg max army really doesn't feel like a swarm. They need more low supply units to allow them to mass up. They took away scourge, which was a 2 for 1 supply units, and bumped the roach to 2 unit. They need another 1 supply ground or air unit. Something also with a unique ability or mold to compliment the Zerg arsenal. Maybe an upgrade to allow the queen to fly plus give her an offensive spell like a cloaking cloud.
|
On August 11 2010 00:08 SpaceYeti wrote:Zerg is the most underrepresented of the three races taking players from all leagues into account, globally. If you are willing to presume that the 8.65% of players who play random either have no race preference or just enjoy playing random for the challenge, that leaves you with what should be ~30.45% for each of the three races if they were all played equally. However, only ~20.26% of players play Zerg, across all leagues and regions. These statistics are of course for the 1v1 bracket. Surprisingly, they get even worse in the team brackets! For instance, in the 4v4 Random bracket, Zerg is played by 15.49% of players! That is less than those who play Random, and less than half of those who play Terran or Protoss each!! So, the question is, why do less players prefer Zerg as their race, and why is this magnified in team games? Is Zerg harder to learn? less interesting to play? underpowered? Thoughts? How does this inform current Zerg players in terms of strategy? 1v1 Stats: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/us/1/all 2v2 Stats: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/us/2R/all 3v3 Stats: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/us/3R/all 4v4 Stats: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/us/4R/all
Im a diamond lvl zerg player and I think that zerg is underplayed because they simply have no game changing units, Zerg needs mass and the opening build orders are extremely limited atm. I have played zerg since phase 1 and you can either go hydra or muta mid game. Those are really your only two viable options for mid game zerg to keep you from being over run.
~MORE DIVERSITY FOR ZERG UNITS~ is what zerg needs. Just the addition of one more plausible tier 2 unit would be extremely helpful for the zerg race. For the moment zerg is boring and need something else simply put, I like playing the underdog race and that is why I choose zerg. And Vs protoss high level, protoss just needs to get pheonixs..block ramp...rush pheonix...lift and kill queens and any hydras then kill ovvies. GG everytime.
|
On August 11 2010 00:54 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:38 Soulthirsty wrote:Maybe Zergs just look bad. They are like pulsating, deviant biology, like a virus or something. When you look at aliens movies, do you want to encourage humans or aliens ? Then why isn't this true in broodwar too? Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:38 CScythe wrote:
Zerg is boring. I don't think they're underpowered, they're just pathetic. It feels like Blizzard put no effort into them. oh that's why.
couldn't agree more
|
I don't understand the statistical misrepresentation in this thread. There are such major flawed arguments made that i can't even comprehend how someone in here can genuinely think they are in a position to conclude something out of statistical evidence.
Number of zerg / terran / protoss in top X of Diamond.
Completely and utterly useless statistic when you are talking about game balance. You are wrongfully assuming people choose the race they play solely on OP / UP. That in itself is a huge mistake, because people will play zerg because they played zerg in BW or because they think it's cool that the race is different from normal RTS games. Thus anyone who has said that a race is or is not imbalanced based on this is discredited in my opinion.
Win percentages.
Win percentages are useless for determining matchup balance. This is completely obvious, because it encompasses ZvP, ZvZ and ZvT. Don't talk about the perceived imbalance of the ZvT matchup and drag in general winpercentages please.
Third party statistics.
Do not rely on third party statistics blindly, they don't have to be 100% accurate.
EDIT: Before someone comes in and tries to be clever about preferences evening out in large groups of subjects let me tell you that is not true and also a false assumption. Things like campaign and who is perceived as bad (or social implications that exist outside of the game) have influences on which race is played. Terran might for example be overrepresented at the top because it is perceived as cooler then those ugly zergs.
|
I played zerg in beta phase 1 and 2 and a few days after release..
Then i switched to protoss and found it to be a lot "easier".
Not easy as in , omgwtfowned , just more forgiving then zerg..
If you mess up your larva production just once you can easily lose a game. I think a lot of new players are scared of this mechanic and choose another "easier" to play race.. Again , not easy as in omgwtfownedyou without skill.. More forgiving 
|
It's no surprise that z isn't played much considering it's no fun.
|
On August 11 2010 00:49 onmach wrote:
They aren't underpowered. They are slapped together. They have stupid powers like infested terrans and their upgrades are all poorly though out and I'm sure the race as a whole is confusing to newbies.
God I hope blizzard takes a real hard look at what they've done now that the game is released.
Sorry, but who cares about newbies? If someone keeps playing a game he stops being a newbie after a month or so and it would be a stupid decision to make a race easily accessible for every idiot who cant be bothered to spend time to get in shape, read a manual or play through tutorial missions. Instant win buttons are boring and dont make a great game, but a challenging game that is hard to master does ...
|
Would like to clarify, since there seems to be dispute:
Global diamond leaguers:
Random: 10.14%
Protoss: 35.43%
Terran: 29.98%
Zerg: 24.45%
Global Top 250 Players:
Random: 2.00%
Protoss: 34.80%
Terran: 38.80%
Zerg: 24.40%
|
I'm sticking with zerg now so when they eventually get buffed I will be prepared
|
On August 11 2010 00:43 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:39 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 tacrats wrote:On August 11 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 11 2010 00:31 tacrats wrote:Thats not evidence. Keep thinking that bro. Top players (who dont play zerg) have stated many times that there is imbalance in map design as well inherent ability of zerg. There is no statistic that is going to prove imbalance, you need to understand how the game works. Unfortunately it is evident that you do not understand how the gameworks. You are so angarrry. This has got to be the only field in which solid statistical facts and reasoning are dismissed in favour of some anecdotal venting from frustrated players. Angry? Im actually laughing at the fact you think your 'statistics' prove anything at all. And the fact that you continue to link back to them as if they were actually informative at one point is hysterical. You are ignorant to believe that the data you link to supports balance. The only data that would prove balance is unavailable. But you dont seem to understand that. Would you like to debunk my arguments somewhere? I have explained time and time again how this is very reliable evidence. Nothing is "proven". Diamond-level win-ratios are equal across all races. Zergs are as well-represented in diamond as they are in the general population. What does this evidence seem to say to you? On the other hand, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that zerg is underpowered. People have debunked your arguments countless times, you just choose to ignore them so you can flaunt them in multiple threads like this one like an idiot. The ONLY thing equal win %'s mean is that the MM is doing its job and matching every player with an opponent near his skill level. Get that through your thick skull and stop trolling with your so called "statistics". Also, statistics are not needed when there are plenty of high level Terran and Protoss players who agree that something needs to be changed in ZvT.
I completely agree with you. people getting those raw data to say its balanced have no idea about data analysis.
first, there is a matchmaking system to make people face someone at their level. secondly, there are way lesser zerg players which means they results in raw data won't be equal of the other races. lastly we don't know the margin of results that can be considered a draw.
everything we say about raw data is intuitive, with no background to support anything. it's a total guess, it's BS.
so, please, stop using raw data to justify something you have no idea about.
artosis even made a statement in his twitter calling SC2 the most imbalanced game he ever played.
everyone, specially top players, are calling zerg the weakest race. zerg is not weak, it's strong, but still weaker than the other races.
|
They're the most unforgiving race and therefore really hard to play... or to put it better; it's really easy to play them wrong and loose a game.
There is no Build-x that works everytime. Every game is different.
All this make them seem a little imbalanced.
|
Because zerg has less units less spellcasters and it isn't as fun to play compared to other races . The zerg in BW was more interesting then what we have now . I hope they have some interesting new units in HOTS ...
|
Using statistics is useless. If you base it off of even global ladders or such, the game has only been out two weeks. Also other things to note, what if zerg players are just better/worse than the other races. There's so many variables in between these statistics nullifying their use.
Just because race distribution is saturated towards terran/toss, doesn't automatically mean that the race sucks. For now I admit it does seem bleak for zerg, but there are a lot of factors like learning curve and proactive creep spreading that take a lot of apm, and understanding. Most people would rather have more given options like mule/scan/supply or chronobooost, to use, rather than using larva spawn proactively and spreading creep.
Another thing to note, I rarely see much zerg air, maybe they could use another unit or some buffing imo.
|
I play zerg so I can blame imbalance when I lose
|
Balance has nothing to do with it. Zerg isn't as appealing to enough people in look and style. I know I picked my race because it felt right. Not because it was easy or because of TvZ or whatever other garbage.
|
I wanted to play zerg, but finding out that I lost most game while playing them and won most playing terran, I didn't feel like becoming one of those raging people who complain on imbalance every time they lose, which I no doubt would've become. I would've prefered playing Zerg, but seriously, the way things are now it's just not worth it.
|
1) zerg units look very weak after you play the campaign with the super upgraded terran units killing everything, this perception gets reinforced when you lose to your first few thor/tank attacks
2) No SP missions to introduce zerg (you'd think they could throw in a few bonus Kerrigan missions or something), and queen mechanics are generally badly designed and unfriendly to new players
3) lots of vocal community complaints about TvZ
|
Im Zerg and i 14pool in every matchup
|
While this is indeed statistical data, the use you make of said data is highly questionable.
There is at least one other explanation for that data spread. "Casual players, who generally have a lower skill level than hardcore gamers, will be more strongly driven towards the races that they've played in the campaign. The higher leagues will therefore have a more even race spread than the lower ones, where terran and protoss are going to be more represented." Mind, there could be other additional explanations; I'm just choosing a plausible one.
Point is, if the data could be explained by two wildly different reasons, it is a logical fallacy to call it strong evidence for anything.
|
zerg is plenty of fun
much more fun than rolling some dice to pick what build you're going to win with this game
its just really really weak
|
I'm pretty sure it's just because zerg has a high learning curve. I'm not implying it takes more skill, just that it takes longer to learn. (But it does take more skill! )
Also, zerg is really hard in the beginning of a match, as they are vulnerable to so many rushes/harasses.
But for newb-zergs it doesn't get any easier late-game, as they don't know that they should have 3-4 bases up and creep all over the map. Instead you see them 2-basing.
regarding 'imbalance'... Terran players aren't nearly as good in lower tiers, so it's not a huge deal. I don't think that's what's keeping people away.
|
Zerg requires most skill due to it being the race that has the toughest mechanics to master. Also due to the fact that 99% of Zerg players don't inject larvae correctly.
|
The expansion is terran, so new players will most likely play terran as that race is the only one they've gotten their hands held to learn. When heart of the swarm comes out, (and legacy of the viod ^^) I'm sure people will switch.
|
Zerg is poorly designed as far as gameplay goes compared to Protoss and especially Terran. Combine that with the hardest macro mechanic and zerg being the hardest race to defend against rushes with, the hardest race to rush with, the hardest race to play late game with, the hardest race to harass with and the race with the least possible options in terms of strategy. It's not hard to understand why people prefer Terran and Protoss, Terran being the best designed race of course.
|
cutting all the fun units caused me to chose terran over zerg.
|
The system requirements were much higher than I expected for sc2. My computer is a little low in most of the requirements. Luckily, I have more ram than is required so my computer is running it at a barely playable level. At least when I play protoss (or terran). The problem is, all that creep animation makes playing zerg not an option for me. The game slows so much and gets so choppy when I've tried zerg. There should be a setting to turn that off! Thing is, I load the game faster then about 70% of my opponents, which shows that many people's systems do not meet the requirements specified for SC2. I'd be willing to bet that for anyone who's computer is loading slower than mine in matchmaking, Zerg is simply not an option for them either. I'll be getting a new computer in a few months with a quad core and 4 gb ram and a 1 gb video card. So maybe than I'll check zerg out.
|
i love it when the matchmaking system ques me against a zerg! haha
in fact when i play co operative i always make the computer zerg!
|
On August 11 2010 01:53 Reborn8u wrote:
The system requirements were much higher than I expected for sc2. My computer is a little low in most of the requirements. Luckily, I have more ram than is required so my computer is running it at a barely playable level. At least when I play protoss (or terran). The problem is, all that creep animation makes playing zerg not an option for me. The game slows so much and gets so choppy when I've tried zerg. There should be a setting to turn that off! Thing is, I load the game faster then about 70% of my opponents, which shows that many people's systems do not meet the requirements specified for SC2. I'd be willing to bet that for anyone who's computer is loading slower than mine in matchmaking, Zerg is simply not an option for them either. I'll be getting a new computer in a few months with a quad core and 4 gb ram and a 1 gb video card. So maybe than I'll check zerg out.
Do you have shaders on medium or on low? Low shaders make a huge difference in graphics.
|
Many new players don't like to loose, so they go to the race that is easier for them and can get hem more wins.
|
On August 11 2010 01:50 Grebliv wrote:
cutting all the fun units caused me to chose terran over zerg.
But who cares about lurkers and defilers when you got BANELINGS (which die and then do nothing) and INFESTORS (and their super awesome 12 second, 100 mana research-required NP. or the amazing Infested Terran...)
Zerg is just boring, has very little viable openings due to being pigeonholed into at least relatively fast lair (no t1 AA save for the queen which is not exactly ideal as it doesn't really step outside of creep), also lair morph takes about a year (I'm always amazed at the speed your average T or P build can get up to starport/stargate compared to how Zerg is lagging behind for just making some units to avoid getting rolled over) and t3 is unimpressive. Some people are QQing about Ultras being unstunnable, give me a break, if you actually get 250mm, 1-1 ratio of thors to ultras will still roll ultras and stay alive with most of their HP. And if there's any other units on the field, no you won't surround the thors because your shit will get ruined before it can.
Doesn't help that T seems to be DESIGNED to kill zerg super efficiently, that Z basically has to sac overlords to get any scouting done before overseers, or that a couple of Thors basically shutdown muta harass because they are so cost-efficient, or just the higher apm requirement in general because of larva inject/tumor/overlord creeping mechanics and constant need for flanking if you want to have a hope of winning a fight... etc etc etc...
It's pretty obvious watching high level games that top Zerg players are putting a lot more effort into winning this MU than Terran players who can pretty much sit around in their base not worrying about much then moving out with a timing push that is super hard to resist.
Even in ZvP, 2 gate pressure into early void ray is such BS to defend, due to Zerg's awesome AA options. No, you can't make queens while your lair is morphing FYI.
Oh and T is just completely retarded with the amount of viable harass openings while simultaneously being the best turtling race and all the noob risk-free bunker salvage, lolspam10mulesallofasuddencauseyoucantotallyforgetaboutitanditdoesntmatter, rofltary fortress, 1-1-1 style being viable because every unit is so cost efficient it doesnt matter if you just sprinkle a little bit of everything, etcetc.
You guys can keep debating all you want, it's pretty obvious to anyone without an agenda for their one favorite race here that Zerg is at least slightly UP and T is at least slightly OP.
And I don't care if many people shift to Zerg for HotS. Are the idiots here saying we're gonna have a FotM race for each release and that's a-ok? That's not what I'd call a good competitive game, but whatever floats your scrubby boat.
|
I don't think it has much to do with the difficulty, bur rather the appeal of the race.
If you show the game to someone knew, 7 out of 10 will like Protoss better, 2 of them will enjoy Terran and one twisted fuck will dig the Swarm and Aliens. Plus, since there's the Terran campaign so people are kind of inclined towards the race they adquired some experience with. I wouldn't be surprised if Zerg numbers went up with the next expansion.
PS: I'm one of those twisted fucks.
|
well part of the reason why i chose protoss was because i didn't want to hear: BWARRR, AHWRRRRR: AHAAAAAA every time i click on something but i still want to hear things like we are under attack!
This combined with all of the (yes, probably deserved) whining about imbalance, along with a non-intuitive design are huge factors for players to pick something else. I've wandered my way from Bronze to Platinum, and would now love to try out these creepy monstrosities, but since I don't want to lose 30-40 games in a row before I get the hang of them/get demoted I think I'll need to stick to Protoss. This is why people stick with their initial pick, and is another reason for the whole "1 ranking per race" idea.
|
Because "we require more mineralszszszszszszsz" is still burned into people's minds, and so they never turned back.
|
I don't understand why everyone says that "zerg has a higher learning curve". It isn't that much difficult, and micro is almost non-existant. The only difficult thing is when to build drones or army and when to inject larve...not too hard...
|
Reading through the statistical "analysis" posts in this thread makes me want to stab myself in the eye with a fork.
% of Zergs in Diamond (or the top 200) relative to T/P could mean a lot of things. Until I see a "TvZ Win% for T/Z Players With The Same ELO" number I'm not prepared to conclude anything about racial (im)balance from the data.
Anecdotally, as a Zerg player, do I struggle with T? Yes. Do a lot of Zerg players struggle with similarly skilled T players? Yes. Does all the QQing on the forums prevent Zerg players from getting better/coming up with better timings in-game because they're obsessed with racial imbalance? Yes.
Bottom line: ZvT is hard, it's true, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. So keep practicing and, if Blizzard concludes there's an issue, they'll fix it.
|
On August 11 2010 01:15 sysrpl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:
They do, but I don't even know what they can do without sabotaging Terran race identity or wildly buffing Zerg. Blizzard can redo the Zerg macro mechanic and add another low supply unit or reduce the supply of an existing unit while debuffing said unit. The Zerg macro mechanic is the most painful one in the system and keeps many people from playing Zerg. You have to stay on top of spawn larva, and if you miss one you are punished. This is not the same with the other races macro mechanics. I'd suggest the fix to be that hatcheries have a stacked spawn larva timer which allows for X spawn larva casts in Y time. That is to say, if you miss spawn larva on a hatchery for 2 minutes, you could use spawn larva on said hatchery 2 or 3 times at once. As for adding another unit, Zerg max army really doesn't feel like a swarm. They need more low supply units to allow them to mass up. They took away scourge, which was a 2 for 1 supply units, and bumped the roach to 2 unit. They need another 1 supply ground or air unit. Something also with a unique ability or mold to compliment the Zerg arsenal. Maybe an upgrade to allow the queen to fly plus give her an offensive spell like a cloaking cloud.
Doing this will probably imbalance ZvP, which is almost perfect right now.
The larva mechanic is tough because its by far the most powerful. Terrans mine out their base faster and protoss gets a unit or an upgrade faster. Zerg gets 7 units at once.
|
On August 11 2010 02:13 silencesc wrote:
I don't understand why everyone says that "zerg has a higher learning curve". It isn't that much difficult, and micro is almost non-existant.
Lol, when you play Zerg and realize how quick zerglings melt to ANYTHING.
Or how quick mutas melt to Thors or stimmed marines,
You may understand why micro actually IS involved.
I guess if you play Zerg in silver league maybe micro is non existant.
Mid to high diamond, Zerg means one mistake = gg.
|
On August 11 2010 01:47 IdrA wrote:
zerg is plenty of fun
much more fun than rolling some dice to pick what build you're going to win with this game
its just really really weak
zerg isn't fun because the units are boring and you are limited to almost exclusively many-base macro games unless you go some sorta 1 base muta play. I mean, you basically go 14 pool/15 hatch every game man. I can see why these long macro games are fun to you, and they can be, but not when its basically your only legit standard option against both P and T.
Also the Zerg mirror is absolutely horrific, you of all people should know that
|
i play random if i get zerg vs terran i am always forced to do some mad stratagy like mass infested marines or early ultras, zerg's units are hard countered to much, u really have to out macro a terran player to have a chance. terran is too good, in my opinion.
|
I don't think zerg is weak I just think blizzard underestimated the creativity of Terran players. Players like Silver should never beat a player like IdrA. But you could dispute that was just bad luck or having a bad day. But I know a lot of zerg players (me included) who have fought Terran and you watch on the replay you out macro/play him but his units will kill you and not him due to the OP of tanks smart firing. If you need any proof look up the game ZvT of IdrA vs Drewbie. Idc who you are but if you think 4 base terran should have equal footing with a 7 base zerg you should just quit. I personally think the match up is imbalanced due to the face that a good Terran can conceal his early push so well since zerg doesn't get a mobile scout till lair and good Terran tend to abuse the only way we have to scout is trying to run lings up a ramp seeing how any good Terran, will have marines on the sides killing off any slow overlord trying to make his way to their base.
You can look at statistics or even finals at tourneys If you think zerg is doing just fine atm ask your self when is the last time you seen a tourney game of ZvZ in the finals?
|
On August 11 2010 02:10 shlomo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 01:50 Grebliv wrote:
cutting all the fun units caused me to chose terran over zerg. But who cares about lurkers and defilers when you got BANELINGS (which die and then do nothing) and INFESTORS (and their super awesome 12 second, 100 mana research-required NP. or the amazing Infested Terran...) Zerg is just boring, has very little viable openings due to being pigeonholed into at least relatively fast lair (no t1 AA save for the queen which is not exactly ideal as it doesn't really step outside of creep), also lair morph takes about a year (I'm always amazed at the speed your average T or P build can get up to starport/stargate compared to how Zerg is lagging behind for just making some units to avoid getting rolled over) and t3 is unimpressive. Some people are QQing about Ultras being unstunnable, give me a break, if you actually get 250mm, 1-1 ratio of thors to ultras will still roll ultras and stay alive with most of their HP. And if there's any other units on the field, no you won't surround the thors because your shit will get ruined before it can. Doesn't help that T seems to be DESIGNED to kill zerg super efficiently, that Z basically has to sac overlords to get any scouting done before overseers, or that a couple of Thors basically shutdown muta harass because they are so cost-efficient, or just the higher apm requirement in general because of larva inject/tumor/overlord creeping mechanics and constant need for flanking if you want to have a hope of winning a fight... etc etc etc... It's pretty obvious watching high level games that top Zerg players are putting a lot more effort into winning this MU than Terran players who can pretty much sit around in their base not worrying about much then moving out with a timing push that is super hard to resist. Even in ZvP, 2 gate pressure into early void ray is such BS to defend, due to Zerg's awesome AA options. No, you can't make queens while your lair is morphing FYI. Oh and T is just completely retarded with the amount of viable harass openings while simultaneously being the best turtling race and all the noob risk-free bunker salvage, lolspam10mulesallofasuddencauseyoucantotallyforgetaboutitanditdoesntmatter, rofltary fortress, 1-1-1 style being viable because every unit is so cost efficient it doesnt matter if you just sprinkle a little bit of everything, etcetc. You guys can keep debating all you want, it's pretty obvious to anyone without an agenda for their one favorite race here that Zerg is at least slightly UP and T is at least slightly OP. And I don't care if many people shift to Zerg for HotS. Are the idiots here saying we're gonna have a FotM race for each release and that's a-ok? That's not what I'd call a good competitive game, but whatever floats your scrubby boat.
*ahem*
we have a winner.
|
idk, maybe becasue z its more difficult to master at this moment of the game... i really love playing zerg. I play random all beta and now i swith for the swarm (in sc:bw i hate zerg and played many years with toss and the terran).
I having lot of fun, but its difficult because the macro mechanics and multitasking requirements.
|
it's not that Z is more difficult to master.
It's that Z is weaker than the other races, making them twice as difficult to net wins with.
|
You guys can keep debating all you want, it's pretty obvious to anyone without an agenda for their one favorite race here that Zerg is at least slightly UP and T is at least slightly OP.
Playing random, with Z as my fav race...i'd like to rephrase this.
"That the ZvT match up slightly favors terran", is how I would put it. Terran is not imbalanced because the TvP matchup slightly favors protoss (not as much though), while ZvP is almost dead even.
The ZvT matchup favored terran in BW too.
Idc who you are but if you think 4 base terran should have equal footing with a 7 base zerg you should just quit.
This is more or less how it was in BW...
|
United States20661 Posts
On August 11 2010 02:15 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 01:15 sysrpl wrote:On August 11 2010 00:53 PanzerDragoon wrote:
They do, but I don't even know what they can do without sabotaging Terran race identity or wildly buffing Zerg. Blizzard can redo the Zerg macro mechanic and add another low supply unit or reduce the supply of an existing unit while debuffing said unit. The Zerg macro mechanic is the most painful one in the system and keeps many people from playing Zerg. You have to stay on top of spawn larva, and if you miss one you are punished. This is not the same with the other races macro mechanics. I'd suggest the fix to be that hatcheries have a stacked spawn larva timer which allows for X spawn larva casts in Y time. That is to say, if you miss spawn larva on a hatchery for 2 minutes, you could use spawn larva on said hatchery 2 or 3 times at once. As for adding another unit, Zerg max army really doesn't feel like a swarm. They need more low supply units to allow them to mass up. They took away scourge, which was a 2 for 1 supply units, and bumped the roach to 2 unit. They need another 1 supply ground or air unit. Something also with a unique ability or mold to compliment the Zerg arsenal. Maybe an upgrade to allow the queen to fly plus give her an offensive spell like a cloaking cloud. Doing this will probably imbalance ZvP, which is almost perfect right now. The larva mechanic is tough because its by far the most powerful. Terrans mine out their base faster and protoss gets a unit or an upgrade faster. Zerg gets 7 units at once.
You realize Terran and Protoss can just build 7 barracks or stargates or factories or what have you, right? The Zerg macro mechanic just puts the swarm at parity with the other two races.
I think the main issue is just excitement - Zerg has no fun units besides baneling IMHO. Mutalisk can't be controlled (whoops, Blizzard) and is thus a boring unit, especially with all its hard counters. No swarm, no plague, weak zerglings, delayed tech tiers, no lurker, no scourge - all the fun units to control are just gone. Their replacements fail to inspire (roach? infestor? corruptor? lol)
Compare that to banshee, thor, hellion, reaper - all very fun toys, sentry, colossus, phoenix, voidray - also very entertaining.
When I first went to Blizz HQ to try out the alpha, Zerg was clearly the most underdeveloped and lacking in polish. I am sad to see that this hasn't changed.
|
1) IdrA is a badass and understands the game much better than myself or anyone who has posted thus far. He thinks zerg is weak.
2) Weak doesn't mean unwinnable. Look at IdrA. He is the best and he still wins with a weak race.
3) I am ranked 40 something in my diamond division. I ONLY play zerg. I am not good (D+ on iccup SC1). But zerg can win games if the zerg user walks a RAZOR's edge between drone production and units. Because you have to play soooo risky to gain an economic advantage as zerg, that means you lose a lot of games to cheese and strong pushes. When you do walk the razor's edge successfully, you end up on top econ wise and win late game. The first pushes may be scary, but not auto-lose.
4) this type of play is deep, beautiful to watch, and fun to play. Just a little more subtly awesome.
5) I still get mad when I am cheesed
|
its because terran and protoss are more fun to play and they have better units.
like for terran you can: reaper harass, helion harass, banshee rush, thor drop, expand to island, proxy, abuse map like lost temple and drop tanks and rines on cliff all the while u can defend ur base with a few siege tanks, turrets, scv with auto repair,rines and medivac and zerg cant do shit.
for protoss you can proxy hidden pylons, cannon rush, win with just 3 void rays if they cant get anti air in time, have collosi which smokes the entire ground and abuse them on workers with map that has high ground next to expansion, immortals, stalkers harass with blink, dt rush, harass with phoenix gravitational lift ability all the while u can defend ur base with a few units and sentry that has force field to block off chokes
zerg? um mass units,expand, inject larve, and put creep over the places.. then u have ultralisk and broodlords which u wont get b4 they have fun with u and weak ass infesters after u tech to lairs. and if u fail to do a lot of damage with banelings, then ur economically way behind as well as low larve count. for zerg the only fun thing would be burrowing ur units and flanking ur opponent with lots of units, but that shit is hard to pull off and u need to position correctly. multalisk is no fun anymore lol. not to mention that ur whole army can get own in seconds and the game is over by a big terran or toss push.
this is the reason why i use terran, soo fun harassing.
Edit: i totally agree with shlomo, i started off as zerg during beta and got to rank 10 plat, but then blizzard buff the other races too much and it was extremely difficult to play as zerg so i got frustrated and changed race. what pisses me off the most is that i have to constantly worry about what units they are going and if they are going to harass/rush while trying to go for an expansion. you adapt to them as zerg, they dont have to.
|
The impact of aesthetics shouldn't be discounted at the lower levels. Zerg are insectoid and very much alien, which turns off a large proportion of casual players - the ones that constitute a large portion of the bronze and silver leagues. Power has nothing to do with decisions made at that level. When WoW first released, for example, Alliance was far more popular than Horde across almost all servers (with a few majority-Horde outliers), even though nobody was perceiving Alliance as particularly overpowered. It did turn out ultimately that Alliance was overpowered, but nobody had any idea of this for at least a year after release, well after faction choices had already been made.
This has absolutely no balance implications at all, of course. But it probably explains why many lower-level players don't play zerg and why larger-team formats have even fewer zerg, since many players new to multiplayer prefer larger teams to 1v1.
|
On August 11 2010 02:17 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 01:47 IdrA wrote:
zerg is plenty of fun
much more fun than rolling some dice to pick what build you're going to win with this game
its just really really weak zerg isn't fun because the units are boring and you are limited to almost exclusively many-base macro games unless you go some sorta 1 base muta play. I mean, you basically go 14 pool/15 hatch every game man. I can see why these long macro games are fun to you, and they can be, but not when its basically your only legit standard option against both P and T. Also the Zerg mirror is absolutely horrific, you of all people should know that
you only see my games from us server, its not possible to play micro oriented in 1+ second latency, games like vs zelniq from iem happen.
theres massive potential in zerg. mutas can be great, they are microable and unlimited selection makes up for the less than perfect stacking. banelings are very unique and powerful. infestors are good, could be awesome if neural were still useful. even the basic units, roaches have burrow move and hp regen, hydras emphasize how valuable creep is and introduce decision making based around that, zerglings incredible speed. "easiest" mass transport options. broodlords introduce positioning and siege tactics.
all the tools are there, its just some key ones arent strong enough, or zerg's shit early game makes it seem that way.
|
United States20661 Posts
On August 11 2010 02:29 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
You guys can keep debating all you want, it's pretty obvious to anyone without an agenda for their one favorite race here that Zerg is at least slightly UP and T is at least slightly OP.
Playing random, with Z as my fav race...i'd like to rephrase this. "That the ZvT match up slightly favors terran", is how I would put it. Terran is not imbalanced because the TvP matchup slightly favors protoss (not as much though), while ZvP is almost dead even. The ZvT matchup favored terran in BW too.
The ZvT matchup might have favored Terran but map control & reaction changed. This is another issue in ZvT in SC2.
SC1:
marine > ling
speedling > marine
mnm > speedling
mutal = mnm
lurker > mnm
tank > lurker
defiler > tank
scivess > defiler
so at all these tech tiers you had the players swapping initiative. Compare this to SC2 where Terran has 10+ viable units to open with, and Zerg has to counter. Zerg has two openings where Terran is forced to react, but they are so all-in that they can hardly be considered viable. This is what makes it both an imbalanced and boring matchup for Z.
|
I've always picked the faction/character/etc by how morally upright and noble they are. The Terran are greedy and evil for the most part, the Zerg are just evil, and the Protoss (at least some) are very noble and moral. So thats why I have liked Protoss the most.
I think most people go for whats familiar to them (Terran) and stick with that. This could be b/c humans pick humans, or b/c they played the Terran campaigns first.
Zerg is just mindless hunger bent on killing everything. Their units are cool but they are "gross" with squishy noises, bodily fluids, and ickyness. I remember I was playing as zerg and some kids I knew were saying how disgusting they sound. The diarrhea creep from overlord sound is pretty bad too.
I don't know if mechanics has to do with race selection, I picked protoss in BW. I think all the noobs pick Terran so they can turtle and build tanks so they can see a big fight or get BattleCruisers and A move. Zerg doesn't really have that and Protoss does have Carriers.
So i have no idea.
|
Compare that to banshee, thor, hellion, reaper - all very fun toys, sentry, colossus, phoenix, voidray - also very entertaining.
When I first went to Blizz HQ to try out the alpha, Zerg was clearly the most underdeveloped and lacking in polish. I am sad to see that this hasn't changed.
Personally I think Zerg is the best developed, while the other races suffer from "overdevelopment". Zerg has no redundant units, every unit has a very clear role, and most important, plays and feels fundamentally different from each other. The other races suffer from an issue where a lot of units, while having different states, function basically identical to each other. Stalkers are completely different units from Immortals, but in practice, can be a-moved with each other.
|
Is there really a rationale behind crawlers taking 30 minutes to burrow btw?
Or is that just Blizzard topping Zerg with some additional suck sauce?
|
Let me tell you about the team brackets. The problem with teaming with Zerg is that you generally need to expand to do well. This is hard when everyone says 'Look guise, LOL a Zerg! Git him Pa!' Then the poor Zerg gets bum rushed every game and dies.
Long story short, I got tired of losing team games as Zerg, I switched to Terran and my record with Terran since the change has been 8 wins 1 loss (And that's with random teams where I literally carried the team half the time). I'm not even a Terran player but let me tell you it's a hell of a lot easier to kick butt with Terran when they can wall - in build dirt cheap units and then roll out with a Death Ball and RoflStomp everything on the map.
I'll add a replay later tonight. It shows me saying on just 1 base in 3v3 while our Zerg buddy gets owned. I build a ball of upgraded marines with medivacs. My other teammate gets killed by Muta because he had no anti-air afterwhich he laughs at me for only having marines and says 'GG'. I literally roll out and destroy all 3 enemy bases solo with 1 army built off 1 base. And we win. Could Zerg do that off 1 base?
Terran own.
|
This may not be right, and someone may have already said it, but Zerg is essentially the villains in the story line and most people don't want to play as the villain. Sure, you can argue about other villains and stuff in the story but without getting too deep into it, of the three races Zerg is easiest to see as the villain and most people don't like to play as the bad guy.
I don't personally think it's the hardest race to play, I think that everyone is very different when it comes to ease of play with races. One of my friends thinks Protoss is the hardest race to play and started out playing Zerg before switching to Terran. According to him he still thinks that Zerg was the easiest race to start out as and swears that he's awful at Protoss and that it's super hard to play. Just saying, I feel like people discredit P as super easy and consider Z to be crazy difficult when I couldn't disagree more.
People pick their races, and I don't know what the balance was in Brood War but I think it's definitely more of a popularity vote rather than a "Zerg is too hard/Zerg is underpowered QQ/Zerg takes moar skill" issue. As a Protoss player I can say that while it's painful to admit I imagine that a lot of the younger kids who are getting into StarCraft probably prefer Terran/Protoss simply because they're "cooler" than Zerg.
|
On August 11 2010 02:32 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 02:17 PanzerDragoon wrote:On August 11 2010 01:47 IdrA wrote:
zerg is plenty of fun
much more fun than rolling some dice to pick what build you're going to win with this game
its just really really weak zerg isn't fun because the units are boring and you are limited to almost exclusively many-base macro games unless you go some sorta 1 base muta play. I mean, you basically go 14 pool/15 hatch every game man. I can see why these long macro games are fun to you, and they can be, but not when its basically your only legit standard option against both P and T. Also the Zerg mirror is absolutely horrific, you of all people should know that you only see my games from us server, its not possible to play micro oriented in 1+ second latency, games like vs zelniq from iem happen. theres massive potential in zerg. mutas can be great, they are microable and unlimited selection makes up for the less than perfect stacking. banelings are very unique and powerful. infestors are good, could be awesome if neural were still useful. even the basic units, roaches have burrow move and hp regen, hydras emphasize how valuable creep is and introduce decision making based around that, zerglings incredible speed. "easiest" mass transport options. broodlords introduce positioning and siege tactics. all the tools are there, its just some key ones arent strong enough, or zerg's shit early game makes it seem that way.
by all means, upload some replays of you on the Korean server
wasn't you versus Tester on the Korean server anyways?
|
Zerg is boring to play and you have to play significantly better to win. Maybe at the top levels with it starts to even out but I feel so much more relaxed when I play tvz tvz than vice versa.
|
On August 11 2010 02:35 shlomo wrote:
Is there really a rationale behind crawlers taking 30 minutes to burrow btw?
From an interview with Dustin he was "surprised" to find zerg relying on spine crawlers to defend while they teched to tier 2. How this type of play can come as a shock to him I don't know, I guess he has never seen a game of Starcraft before in his life.
They didn't like it, so they increased the burrow time, and I think they changed something about the damage and attack speed too.
|
Personally, I find all of this hysteria about imbalanced slightly amusing. I think even TL feels the same way, considering all the articles they've written about it (I still remember cracking up uncontrollably when an article stated Zerg as Blizzard's bastard kid XD)
I would have to go with adding a new unit to in order to solve this issue. It'd help diversity the race as well as give an edge, but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.
|
Mostly everyone you will find disagreeing with ZvT imbalance, and this isn't always the case, will be Terran players themselves. Why would you agree to an imbalance when you're race is the good one?
|
On top of what everyone else has said, this could be a good guy/bad guy thing. For instance, in WoW everyone knows there is a lot more alliance then horde, because alliance is seen more as the good guys, and they have the humans. In the campaign, you play as terran and protoss, and fight against the zerg quite a bit. Zerg are definitely the "bad guys" in the campaign, and you dont get to play them at all in the campaign and have no experience
|
no wonder every game i have is pvp..god i hate pvp
|
Well Terrans don't want to hear: "You suck. I only lost because my race is imbalanced."
At the same time, I hate losing to a 50 apm terran when I am 2 bases up, dropped his main, killed most of his buildings, but 5 thors with a few marines and repairing scvs bust my nat and win. I'll end the game with way better economy and sometimes with even a higher score (not that score matters), but I still lost to someone I know was worse than me.
Its also really hard to prove someone is worse than you if you lost. So I just look like a complaining tool. lol
|
On August 11 2010 02:38 floor exercise wrote:
From an interview with Dustin he was "surprised" to find zerg relying on spine crawlers to defend while they teched to tier 2.
It must have been truly unacceptable that Zerg should use spinecrawlers seeing as they have the most amazing wall-in ability as well as totally baller t1, and it's not like you'd want to rush to t2 anyway when you have the AMAZING queen for AA (which totally helps when you need to move out of your base). I now understand and fully support Dustin.
Yeah no.
|
On August 11 2010 02:10 shlomo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 01:50 Grebliv wrote:
cutting all the fun units caused me to chose terran over zerg. But who cares about lurkers and defilers when you got BANELINGS (which die and then do nothing) and INFESTORS (and their super awesome 12 second, 100 mana research-required NP. or the amazing Infested Terran...) Zerg is just boring, has very little viable openings due to being pigeonholed into at least relatively fast lair (no t1 AA save for the queen which is not exactly ideal as it doesn't really step outside of creep), also lair morph takes about a year (I'm always amazed at the speed your average T or P build can get up to starport/stargate compared to how Zerg is lagging behind for just making some units to avoid getting rolled over) and t3 is unimpressive. Some people are QQing about Ultras being unstunnable, give me a break, if you actually get 250mm, 1-1 ratio of thors to ultras will still roll ultras and stay alive with most of their HP. And if there's any other units on the field, no you won't surround the thors because your shit will get ruined before it can. Doesn't help that T seems to be DESIGNED to kill zerg super efficiently, that Z basically has to sac overlords to get any scouting done before overseers, or that a couple of Thors basically shutdown muta harass because they are so cost-efficient, or just the higher apm requirement in general because of larva inject/tumor/overlord creeping mechanics and constant need for flanking if you want to have a hope of winning a fight... etc etc etc... It's pretty obvious watching high level games that top Zerg players are putting a lot more effort into winning this MU than Terran players who can pretty much sit around in their base not worrying about much then moving out with a timing push that is super hard to resist. Even in ZvP, 2 gate pressure into early void ray is such BS to defend, due to Zerg's awesome AA options. No, you can't make queens while your lair is morphing FYI. Oh and T is just completely retarded with the amount of viable harass openings while simultaneously being the best turtling race and all the noob risk-free bunker salvage, lolspam10mulesallofasuddencauseyoucantotallyforgetaboutitanditdoesntmatter, rofltary fortress, 1-1-1 style being viable because every unit is so cost efficient it doesnt matter if you just sprinkle a little bit of everything, etcetc. You guys can keep debating all you want, it's pretty obvious to anyone without an agenda for their one favorite race here that Zerg is at least slightly UP and T is at least slightly OP. And I don't care if many people shift to Zerg for HotS. Are the idiots here saying we're gonna have a FotM race for each release and that's a-ok? That's not what I'd call a good competitive game, but whatever floats your scrubby boat.
win. very well put.
|
I'm a more macro player than micro so I thought I'd play zerg. But it's getting really frustrating so I might switch race. I'm back to random currently. The difference between BW and SC2 is how potent Terran defense is and how bad Zerg has become in attacking.
Even against inferior Terran players, I'm finding it almost impossible to do any type of break. The only way to punish Terran mistakes seem to be to expand more. It's just really boring having to wait for the Terran to mine out his main base and usually the natural as well every game.
|
Probably because people are sheep and it's the popular thing right now to consider Z as VASTLY UNDERPOWERED... even if they aren't.
|
This is more or less how it was in BW...
I understand this but when you go you are Terran getting out econed for 20 in game minutes, out macro-ed, and out micro-ed. and having you opponent throwing away 20,000 worth of resources trying to break your front with no progression because the guy knows how to make ONE control group of everything and a move Something feels broke just sayin
|
This rebuttal genuinely made me laugh out loud. And coming from a Terran player, lol.
|
my theory for why zerg is under represented is that the sc2 playerbase in both north america and EU consists of either
A. WoW players who got sucked in by the 'follow blizzard' trail
B. ex-halo/CoD hate-kiddies
C. actualy RTS players
out of these 3 categories only C. has a remote likelihood to appreciate zerg
(notice group A. and B. might have casually played RTS games like wc3 (A.) or "RTS games" like halo wars (B.))
result:
1. zerg is under represented
2. zerg players are in general at a higher RTS skill level (C.)
3. zerg players are more or less the archetypical nerd/geek who will most definetly rage on forums (myself included)
edit: I realize this has the intellectual merit of saying 'americans are fat and stupid' but I still believe the model fits the vast majority of the sc2 player base
|
More difficult to play for less fun and reward in general.
Why people would want to play a race like that ? :/
|
More difficult to play but certainly rewarding. I believe you cant make an accurate statement at this point in time. The game is fresh and people are still learning to play.
|
On August 11 2010 01:06 IdrA wrote:
because its fucking awful
IdrA has arrived!
|
On August 11 2010 00:11 Animostas wrote:
Zerg can be difficult race to play if you don't have game sense. Even in Brood War, the idea of when to make attacking units and when to make drones was always a difficult concept. Too much of either can wreck you.
Compare that to Terran or Protoss when you can always make workers and attacking units at the same time.
This is probably the most important thing. That and that zerg seems to require a lot more speed all around to work properly. Zerg units are only strong if you attack properly, and you can't realize their awesome macro potential without being really damn good at it. I'm sure someone will eventually crack it, but it's still early.
Really, it's not much different than BW zerg. The biggest thing is the increased macro demands/potential. Zerg units have always been worth shit if you can't micro.
I played beta as zerg and switched. I played bw zerg, so I always had pretty good macro, but I found toss' to be more suited towards my liking. You can macro like a machine if you know what you'e doing and still have strong units. I'd eventually like to get into zerg, but my apm usually doesn't push 70-75avg so I need to get better. There's no way I can efficently creep push and larve inject while playing at a high level.
|
On August 11 2010 02:35 shlomo wrote:
Is there really a rationale behind crawlers taking 30 minutes to burrow btw?
Or is that just Blizzard topping Zerg with some additional suck sauce?
It takes 12 seconds which is like 9 real seconds. The point of this is so zerg cant spinecrawler push/rush. The fact that you can move them (and HEAL them) is good and I wouldn't contest the problems of zerg on "my static defense moves too slow".
I think more along the lines of the accessability of broodlords to defeat tanks and how hard vikings counter BL and corrupter not being that useful. Goliaths were at least land based so you could cliff kite, and devourer + muta was good to defend it. Maybe a little better synergy between muta and corrupters would help. But it would have to be something that wouldn't affect PvZ as much. Maybe corrupters can reduce range/vision temporarily so vikings aren't as good, iono.
|
many people i know think the zerg is a boring race, they've got no special units except for the infestor and the broodlord which they never get cause they never get that far in a game as zerg.
big reason as to why many people favour protoss and terran, they've got hellions with freaking splash fires that you can massacre workers with, big ass thors who's got freaking cannons as hands, blinking ranged stalkers and chargealots that swipe with their freaking laser knives WOOO
and what does zerg have? really slow hydras, roaches with a useless burrow movement and lings.
what's special about them? well... the lings are fast i guess.
it's not an underpowered thing
it's not the constant threads about zerg being bad
it's cause they are boring
|
On August 11 2010 03:02 Ploppytheman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 02:35 shlomo wrote:
Is there really a rationale behind crawlers taking 30 minutes to burrow btw?
Or is that just Blizzard topping Zerg with some additional suck sauce? It takes 12 seconds which is like 9 real seconds. The point of this is so zerg cant spinecrawler push/rush.
Spinecrawler rush?
Offensive crawlers are still very common in ZvZ.
As for the other MU's, if you can't scout proxy creep next to your base (takes either a proxy hatch or a canceled hatch + queen across the map to spawn a tumor lolol), why does Blizzard have to dive in to rescue you? T and P can still proxy very well. Funny another thing Z can't do just because they're Zerg I guess.
I don't see anything wrong with crawler pushes. Scout better, put some work into killing tumors. Holy shit then Terran players would actually have to try to win lol yeah we can't have that, let's just keep it on a faceroll level.
|
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)
|
On August 11 2010 03:02 Ploppytheman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 02:35 shlomo wrote:
Is there really a rationale behind crawlers taking 30 minutes to burrow btw?
Or is that just Blizzard topping Zerg with some additional suck sauce? It takes 12 seconds which is like 9 real seconds. The point of this is so zerg cant spinecrawler push/rush. The fact that you can move them (and HEAL them) is good and I wouldn't contest the problems of zerg on "my static defense moves too slow". I think more along the lines of the accessability of broodlords to defeat tanks and how hard vikings counter BL and corrupter not being that useful. Goliaths were at least land based so you could cliff kite, and devourer + muta was good to defend it. Maybe a little better synergy between muta and corrupters would help. But it would have to be something that wouldn't affect PvZ as much. Maybe corrupters can reduce range/vision temporarily so vikings aren't as good, iono.
Can't heal spine crawlers. Queens can't use their healing spell in buildings. they only have a regeneration in HP, but even with a tumor creep is slow and it's still not a healing.
Healing is that thing medivacs have to make marines/marauders immortals.
|
Zerg requires more mechanics. This is why when zerg players get in diamond and defend a first and second push, they generally win. No 50 apm zerg will defeat a 50 apm terran or protoss.
Protoss is generally easier and more forgiving. I can forget a chronoboost, I can forget to make probes because my buildings don't require me losing one. Most of my units come from one production facility which I can easily acces by pressing w. I played this race during phase 2 and I found it WAY more relaxing and rewarding than zerg.
Then there' s terran. I won't even start on that one. A wall to protect from 100% of the ground units early game. All of the units have amazing synergy. I could pick two random units and they would work together. Marine tank? Good you're protected against air and ground. Viking Marauder? Good you can now harrass his overlords while maintaining a great GtG unit. Banshee scv, you can cloak and build turrets to kill detection, and repair to boot. Terran players haven't even been using all their units yet. Ghosts are still underused while their are amazing harrasment units. Ravens are hardly used because zerg doesn't have a cloaked attacking unit. Battlecruisers are never teched to because the other units kill stuff just as fast.
The only reason I play zerg is because I hate myself and I get off on losing 40 drones because 3 hellions were able to be dropped in my main ( Dude is so skilled omg <3 ). When I win I genuinly feel like I played better than the opponent, and when I rewatch the replay and often having twice the APM than my opponent, that only reaffirms this statement.
TL;DR. People play zerg because 1) they hate themselves, 2) don't want to be winning because their race is powerful, 3) Have too much apm to sink into terran or protoss.
|
I think it's simple to say that 1-base play is pretty weak for zerg. You often have to play passive aggressive aka take over the map with expansions and creep and take advantage of stocked up larva for that second army to overwhelm your opponent. The game is completely dictated by what your opponent does.
|
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...
|
On August 11 2010 03:16 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +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...
f.ck yeah changelings.
Also queens are an awesome spellcaster because they are always on the frontline for you to take advantage of. Totally worth taking to the frontline too, because they are cheap and quick to make, lol.
|
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?
Thank you zerg is a very powerful race once you figure out what it is your doing. In no way are they weak, if you cant beat something .....mech then try something new and if you cant figure out a way to beat the same thing being thrown at you then an rts just isn't for you
|
On August 11 2010 03:11 ilbh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:02 Ploppytheman wrote:On August 11 2010 02:35 shlomo wrote:
Is there really a rationale behind crawlers taking 30 minutes to burrow btw?
Or is that just Blizzard topping Zerg with some additional suck sauce? It takes 12 seconds which is like 9 real seconds. The point of this is so zerg cant spinecrawler push/rush. The fact that you can move them (and HEAL them) is good and I wouldn't contest the problems of zerg on "my static defense moves too slow". I think more along the lines of the accessability of broodlords to defeat tanks and how hard vikings counter BL and corrupter not being that useful. Goliaths were at least land based so you could cliff kite, and devourer + muta was good to defend it. Maybe a little better synergy between muta and corrupters would help. But it would have to be something that wouldn't affect PvZ as much. Maybe corrupters can reduce range/vision temporarily so vikings aren't as good, iono. Can't heal spine crawlers. Queens can't use their healing spell in buildings. they only have a regeneration in HP, but even with a tumor creep is slow and it's still not a healing. Healing is that thing medivacs have to make marines/marauders immortals.
Transfusion can be use on building.
|
On August 11 2010 03:16 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +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...
Yeah, like the queen who is able to spread creep and spawn larva' s you need anyway, or the overseer that has that imba changeling with 5 hp, or that ability which shuts down a building for 20 ingame seconds while not actually hurting it. Oh! How could I forget the corruption ability that makes your units' attacks hit 25% harder thats 75 energy but doesn't actually damage the unit it was cast on.
Most zerg's spell casters are about as useful as a sentry who is only able to cast hallucination.
|
On August 11 2010 03:17 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:11 ilbh wrote:On August 11 2010 03:02 Ploppytheman wrote:On August 11 2010 02:35 shlomo wrote:
Is there really a rationale behind crawlers taking 30 minutes to burrow btw?
Or is that just Blizzard topping Zerg with some additional suck sauce? It takes 12 seconds which is like 9 real seconds. The point of this is so zerg cant spinecrawler push/rush. The fact that you can move them (and HEAL them) is good and I wouldn't contest the problems of zerg on "my static defense moves too slow". I think more along the lines of the accessability of broodlords to defeat tanks and how hard vikings counter BL and corrupter not being that useful. Goliaths were at least land based so you could cliff kite, and devourer + muta was good to defend it. Maybe a little better synergy between muta and corrupters would help. But it would have to be something that wouldn't affect PvZ as much. Maybe corrupters can reduce range/vision temporarily so vikings aren't as good, iono. Can't heal spine crawlers. Queens can't use their healing spell in buildings. they only have a regeneration in HP, but even with a tumor creep is slow and it's still not a healing. Healing is that thing medivacs have to make marines/marauders immortals. Transfusion can be use on building.
Not that it matters because if you've been keeping up with larva inject and using tumors (which are needed for mobility), you will rarely have the mana to transfuse in the stages of the game where it matters most (early).
I'd say give transfusion a long-ish cooldown and make it dirt cheap mana-wise so it can actually be used frequently to help fend off early and midgame timing pushes. Then the queen becomes a little more interesting.
|
On August 11 2010 03:20 Chaosvuistje wrote:Show nested quote +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... Yeah, like the queen who is able to spread creep and spawn larva' s you need anyway, or the overseer that has that imba changeling with 5 hp, or that ability which shuts down a building for 20 ingame seconds while not actually hurting it. Oh! How could I forget the corruption ability that makes your units' attacks hit 25% harder thats 75 energy but doesn't actually damage the unit it was cast on. Most zerg's spell casters are about as useful as a sentry who is only able to cast hallucination.
The usefulness of a spellcaster doesn't determine if it's a spellcaster. I thought that would be apparent to even the most brainless peon. All I can say is l2p because I enjoy playing zerg. Because really if you can't keep up with transfusion you might as well switch race because you will get killed every time. I bet most of the cry babies have the worst transfusion macro ever.
your logic: that zerg sucks, he's not zerg
rename thread to: place for crybabies to gather and flame non-crybabies
|
On August 11 2010 03:17 Parodoxx 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? Thank you zerg is a very powerful race once you figure out what it is your doing. In no way are they weak, if you cant beat something .....mech then try something new and if you cant figure out a way to beat the same thing being thrown at you then an rts just isn't for you
Have to love Terran trolls like you who show up in a Zerg discussion about genuine issues that are frustrating to us and having no experience or understanding of what we are saying or going through tell us that "rts just isn't for us". Troll somewhere else.
|
On August 11 2010 03:20 shlomo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:17 Noocta wrote:On August 11 2010 03:11 ilbh wrote:On August 11 2010 03:02 Ploppytheman wrote:On August 11 2010 02:35 shlomo wrote:
Is there really a rationale behind crawlers taking 30 minutes to burrow btw?
Or is that just Blizzard topping Zerg with some additional suck sauce? It takes 12 seconds which is like 9 real seconds. The point of this is so zerg cant spinecrawler push/rush. The fact that you can move them (and HEAL them) is good and I wouldn't contest the problems of zerg on "my static defense moves too slow". I think more along the lines of the accessability of broodlords to defeat tanks and how hard vikings counter BL and corrupter not being that useful. Goliaths were at least land based so you could cliff kite, and devourer + muta was good to defend it. Maybe a little better synergy between muta and corrupters would help. But it would have to be something that wouldn't affect PvZ as much. Maybe corrupters can reduce range/vision temporarily so vikings aren't as good, iono. Can't heal spine crawlers. Queens can't use their healing spell in buildings. they only have a regeneration in HP, but even with a tumor creep is slow and it's still not a healing. Healing is that thing medivacs have to make marines/marauders immortals. Transfusion can be use on building. Not that it matters because if you've been keeping up with larva inject and using tumors (which are needed for mobility), you will rarely have the mana to transfuse in the stages of the game where it matters most (early). I'd say give transfusion a long-ish cooldown and make it dirt cheap mana-wise so it can actually be used frequently to help fend off early and midgame timing pushes. Then the queen becomes a little more interesting.
Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true.
Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair
|
On August 11 2010 03:16 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On August 11 2010 03:29 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair
Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Golly, why didn't I think of how awesome that is before you posted! Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg.
I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool.
There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for transfusion (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability).
|
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.
How does the number of spellcasters impact the game when none of them actually does anything significant?
|
On August 11 2010 03:30 shlomo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg. I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool. There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for inject (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability).
Oh really? What brought you to that intelligent conclusion?
|
On August 11 2010 03:32 Chaosvuistje 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. How does the number of spellcasters impact the game when none of them actually does anything significant?
Where did I say it changes the game? I see that you read what you want to see. I simply stated zerg has more than one spell caster, and if you disagree you're obviously wrong.
|
On August 11 2010 03:32 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:30 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg. I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool. There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for transfusion (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability). Oh really? What brought you to that intelligent conclusion?
Actually playing the game above silver league.
|
On August 11 2010 03:33 shlomo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:32 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:30 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg. I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool. There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for inject (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability). Oh really? What brought you to that intelligent conclusion? Actually playing the game above silver league.
YES! Having a fraction of the larva you can have to get some creep is always the best choice, no wonder you are here crying about zerg! The fact is inject should most def. be prioritized above creep tumor, and if you don't understand why then you need to seriously re think your game.
|
Most zerg's spell casters are about as useful as a sentry who is only able to cast hallucination. Damn, right about now I'd take a sentry who can only cast hallucination for zerg....
But srsly, the presence of only 1 combat-centric specialist unit for Zerg is pretty damning. Infested Terrans are nice for getting tanks to splash friendlies, and maybe for cute mineral line harass, but beyond that it's not super useful given the time it takes for them to hatch. Fungal Growth is pretty awesome.
Neural Parasite used to be worth the research cost, but now I only get it if in very particular situations, like a tank line with no detection (rare), or mass thors. It's not very useful vs collosi as these are usually surrounded by stalkers, which devastate infestors. It's not even worth it against BCs or lolcarriers because corruptors work better and last time I checked, and MC'd carrier's interceptors remain hostile. WTF?
Compare that to Snipe, Cloak, Nuke, EMP, Hunter-Seeker Missle, PDD, Autoturrets, Psi Storm, Feedback, Forcefield, Guardian Shield, etc. Yikes.
|
On August 11 2010 03:32 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:30 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg. I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool. There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for transfusion (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability). Oh really? What brought you to that intelligent conclusion?
Creep tumor, 25 energy, gives all zerg ground units a movement speed bonus.
Transfusion, 50 energy, gives ONE zerg unit/structure around 100 hp.
Meanwhile, the only zerg unit in the early game that has over 100 hp is the roach and the queen. The only time you need transfuse is in the early game because I can just remake that ultralisk in a whiff if I wanted to.
|
On August 11 2010 03:33 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:32 Chaosvuistje wrote: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. How does the number of spellcasters impact the game when none of them actually does anything significant? Where did I say it changes the game? I see that you read what you want to see. I simply stated zerg has more than one spell caster, and if you disagree you're obviously wrong.
So in other words all you care about is getting the semantic victory? How does that help this discussion or the quality of the game in any way?
|
On August 11 2010 03:35 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:33 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:32 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:30 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg. I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool. There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for transfusion (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability). Oh really? What brought you to that intelligent conclusion? Actually playing the game above silver league. YES! Having a fraction of the larva you can have to get some creep is always the best choice, no wonder you are here crying about zerg! The fact is inject should most def. be prioritized above creep tumor...
? I said tumors were better than saving up for transfusion 99% of the time, not inject larva.
Can you not read? Why are you even posting here?
But thanks for the protips really.
|
On August 11 2010 03:36 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:33 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:32 Chaosvuistje wrote: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. How does the number of spellcasters impact the game when none of them actually does anything significant? Where did I say it changes the game? I see that you read what you want to see. I simply stated zerg has more than one spell caster, and if you disagree you're obviously wrong. So in other words all you care about is getting the semantic victory? How does that help this discussion or the quality of the game in any way?
No all I care about is people not putting words in my mouth for no reason other than to "prove me wrong".
|
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.
"Zerg needs to have more then one combat spell caster"
now stfu ok?
|
On August 11 2010 03:37 shlomo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:35 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:33 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:32 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:30 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg. I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool. There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for transfusion (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability). Oh really? What brought you to that intelligent conclusion? Actually playing the game above silver league. YES! Having a fraction of the larva you can have to get some creep is always the best choice, no wonder you are here crying about zerg! The fact is inject should most def. be prioritized above creep tumor... ? I said tumors were better than saving up for transfusion 99% of the time, not inject larva. Can you not read? Why are you even posting here? But thanks for the protips really.
lol it says transfussion after you edited it...
|
On August 11 2010 03:37 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:36 Spawkuring wrote:On August 11 2010 03:33 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:32 Chaosvuistje wrote: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. How does the number of spellcasters impact the game when none of them actually does anything significant? Where did I say it changes the game? I see that you read what you want to see. I simply stated zerg has more than one spell caster, and if you disagree you're obviously wrong. So in other words all you care about is getting the semantic victory? How does that help this discussion or the quality of the game in any way? No all I care about is people not putting words in my mouth for no reason other than to "prove me wrong".
I think everybody else understood what they really meant by "zerg has only one spellcaster" without you trying to nitpick it like Johnny Cochran.
|
To quote Day9:
"There is no value in being right in an argument on the internet."
Just wanted to throw that out there.
BTW, Day[9] is basically Jesus and you should hang on every word he says......and pray to him.
|
On August 11 2010 03:40 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:37 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:36 Spawkuring wrote:On August 11 2010 03:33 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:32 Chaosvuistje wrote: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. How does the number of spellcasters impact the game when none of them actually does anything significant? Where did I say it changes the game? I see that you read what you want to see. I simply stated zerg has more than one spell caster, and if you disagree you're obviously wrong. So in other words all you care about is getting the semantic victory? How does that help this discussion or the quality of the game in any way? No all I care about is people not putting words in my mouth for no reason other than to "prove me wrong". I think everybody else understood what they really meant by "zerg has only one spellcaster" without you trying to nitpick it like Johnny Cochran.
jeez the crybabies like to gangbang. You say one thing about zerg being fun and its like a swarm of zerglings.
|
Rofl muse actually went back to edit his posts to claim I was talking about inject (mods can check).
Pro troll..
|
On August 11 2010 03:37 shlomo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:35 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:33 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:32 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:30 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg. I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool. There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for transfusion (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability). Oh really? What brought you to that intelligent conclusion? Actually playing the game above silver league. YES! Having a fraction of the larva you can have to get some creep is always the best choice, no wonder you are here crying about zerg! The fact is inject should most def. be prioritized above creep tumor... ? I said tumors were better than saving up for transfusion 99% of the time, not inject larva. Can you not read? Why are you even posting here? But thanks for the protips really.
Okay I have no idea who is trolling who.
|
On August 11 2010 03:44 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 03:37 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:35 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:33 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:32 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 03:30 shlomo wrote:On August 11 2010 03:25 sikyon wrote:Maybe if you built more than 1 queen to help fight off early agression or spawn those creep tumors or defeat air harass you'd know this is true. Queens are dirt cheap and outstanding at defense for their price. The only downside to making them is that you can't go offensive with them (not like you can be that offensive with roaches without speed, and if you're just making lings you have surplus minerals) and they delay the lair Oh so the only downside is that they keep you in the stone age longer? Thanks for your fantastic insight, I really needed your bronze league tips to playing Zerg. I still think my suggestion slightly alleviates Zerg early game issues and makes the Queen a more interesting unit. But hey, you're just interesting in spamming "its fine l2p", so have fun with that, you are cool. There are plenty of downsides to making more queens. Namely, they don't help you when you need to fight outside of your base (woo for more defensive/reactionary play!), they delay your expo and/or lair, and 99% of the time more tumors is still better than "saving up" mana for transfusion (which makes it a rather uninteresting ability). Oh really? What brought you to that intelligent conclusion? Actually playing the game above silver league. YES! Having a fraction of the larva you can have to get some creep is always the best choice, no wonder you are here crying about zerg! The fact is inject should most def. be prioritized above creep tumor... ? I said tumors were better than saving up for transfusion 99% of the time, not inject larva. Can you not read? Why are you even posting here? But thanks for the protips really. lolol, ninja edit and then being a smart ass about it
Yup cept he did the ninja edit. lol.
Edit: read Chaosvuistje's post a little above. You have the original version there, quoted by Muse himself. ROFL.
|
The same harass and sneak attack style is how Zerg wins games in SC2. The only idiots that complain about Z are the ones that try to trade armies and get smashed by Colossi or Tanks.
They aren't trying to "gangbang" you. You can't just throw shit out of your ass and expect to not have anyone disagree. Opinions, contrary to popular belief, are not sacred.
|
On August 11 2010 00:08 SpaceYeti wrote:
So, the question is, why do less players prefer Zerg as their race, and why is this magnified in team games? Is Zerg harder to learn? less interesting to play? underpowered? Thoughts? How does this inform current Zerg players in terms of strategy?
My experience is as follows, it is a highly subjective point of view.
It is easy why it is magnified in team battles. Consider the problems a zerg has in a 200/200 battle in 1v1 prior to tier 3. They have to flank, they have to ambush and so on. Now in a 2v2 you have a twice as large ball, which means more fire when you are coming in and twice the detection of your flanking. You also have to guard any possible expansions against more variants of harass units.
This gets worse as you go up to 4v4, what unit does zerg have that can reach and fire upon a dual person siege line? Air units, which the other two counter since air to ground prior to tier 3 can be pretty cheaply countered. You now have no viable tier 2 units while you are getting pushed. Zerg also lacks the truly cheesy units that can turn a game (if you exclude mutalisks), things like reapers, void rays, dts, motherships (very good in larger games due to vortex, even if it dies almost directly) siege tanks. Things like banelings will most often not reach the balls due to the amount of firepower on the field.
I honestly don't see any viable strategy for zerg in a team game that doesn't involve a fast pool, fast baneling for a bust or mutalisks. The problems in a straight up fight they have just get worse as you increase the size of the balls and lines.
Terran is probably the best race in team games, provided you play on a fortress map, which most are. They can wall, they have a cheap anti air unit, they have built in detection, somebody should have energy when you have multiple people, the balls reach critical size easily, siege tanks are just not funny with their splash as amount of units go up. They can cheese with early reapers and bunkers, banshees and harass with hellions or medivac drops if they go mmm. They have BC if things go too far and it is hard to break a siege line on a fortress map since there is so much anti air from the team mates that one doing siege doesn't make it as weak against air as is normal.
Protoss has their colossus and storm for team battles along with some nice tech rushes they can do. Zerg doesn't even bring that, infestor has a nice aoe damage, but they lack the means to back that up prior to tier 3.
|
The trolling and finger pointing needs to end.
Another poster brought up a good point about Zerg having to deal with an additional resource: Larva. This makes it less noob friendly because it's not as readily apparent that it's something you need to manage and it does make or break a Zerg players' builds.
EDIT: Like the points in post above me. Hadn't considered the effects that more players in the game has on trying to flank, etc.
|
On August 11 2010 03:47 Klamity wrote:
The same harass and sneak attack style is how Zerg wins games in SC2. The only idiots that complain about Z are the ones that try to trade armies and get smashed by Colossi or Tanks.
^^ has never played zerg.
|
Just sayin, the on thing that would go a long way towards fixing zerg right now is larger maps. Twilight council sized rush distances. Suddenly it goes from zerg being passive to terran playing find the nydus worm every time he tries to move out.
If larger maps were introduced to the map pool, I think z win percentages would raise drastically. Maybe P too with their warp prisms/gates.
|
I tried to play zerg. The reasons why I quit were:
The spawn larva ability on a 30 second cooldown was annoying. You can't save it up so you have to be right on time. Being late makes you feel all bad inside.
Spreading creep reminds me of vacuuming--it sure isn't fun to do.
So basically, you have two "chore-like" macro duties. Meanwhile, mules and chronoboost are fun--woot more minerals, woot faster fast stuff! Talk about immediate reinforcement. Not to mention scans and unsupply blocking yourself. Again immediate reward.
--
So you live with the tedium and what do you get? A race that has to be on the ball all of the time. If you don't scout properly you have the wrong units or the wrong amount at the wrong time. And because you can't wall--off a small mistake is very unforgiving. Like if your roaches don't block your ramp right and 2 hellions wheel on through. When you're learning you get a lot of bad loses. As a terran you can avoid a lot of these with a wall and more robust basic builds.
--
So why would I return to zerg? If you play them perfectly, they can control an opponent and give you the greatest sense of satisfaction. They are not a weak race they just require a higher degree of flawless play which is then rewarded.
Its too bad the two macro mechanics are so annoying, or I'd give it another go.
|
Im a low-mid zerg diamond player. Im gonna stick with the race regardless of the bad perception on zerg because im a 1 character/class/race type of guy for all games. Im not even gonna speak of imbalance since I dont play at a level that should be considered for balance. Maybe its because I was a SF4 player and I dont care that rufus is suppose to be a top tier character in high level play because majority of players online play him at a low level. SF4 doesnt cater to low level players.
However as a low-mid diamond player, I feel like zerg is not only lacking diversity which is a major turnoff. They lack the game changing units like collosus or thor/seige tanks that can completely change the tide of the battle if used correctly.
As a Zerg player, it can be extremely frustrating watching replays where you lose when you feel like you deserved to win. Zerg as a race feels like poker where the better player wins majority of the time but sometimes you just get a bad beat. Its like the other 2 races are bad players who go all in with 2-7 and your holding AA and you still lose. You'll scout your opponent, do impressive macroing, do everything right for the first 15 min. Then in the last 2 min of the game, he comes in with tier 2.5/3 units b4 you reach tier 3 and just destroys you. 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.
Every moment as a zerg player Im at the edge, whether it be a 4 rax early mass marine to 2 gate into voidray or robo. Every push could end the game for me yet each time I defend I only get a slight advantage because I have no defender's advantage and had to sacrifice my own tech and econ to defend.
|
On August 11 2010 03:16 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +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...
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.
|
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...
|
Conclusion: Blizzard fucked up on Zerg and must deliver at all cost in expansions.
|
On August 11 2010 00:47 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:36 Drowsy wrote:On August 11 2010 00:15 papaz wrote:
1. When to make drones vs attacking units
2. Low health units, not forgiving on mistakes when you micro
3. Need to have a good macro and continously expand
These reasons are frequently cited, but this is also observable in brood war, yet the discrepancy seems magnified in sc2. On top of the factors you listed, I'd add terrible design, underpowered, "FOTMness", and most importantly the pace of play is different. Remember that a lot of sc2 players are former war3 players and wow players. In sc2, more so than in sc, zerg does better in long high econ games. Most players from those games aren't used to managing long high econ games and prefer to 4-gate and have the game decided in 10 minutes rather than deal with messy multitasking, positioning, and macro management. It also rewards the exact opposite skills as t and p, you need patience above all to play zerg and I can see why most people won't play the race just based on that. In sc one could play zerg with some aggression and have it pay off, so weaker and newer players weren't immediately put off. In sc2 you can't really do this and you're in a purely reactive position in every matchup early game. They really just kind of dropped the ball on zerg design. They took out the most pivotal and interesting units from broodwar and the units they added are pretty lackluster. I think we'd be looking at a much different picture if there was a GOD DAMN LURKER. Lurkers are incredibly defensive units meant to hold down positions though, I don't think that would solve it. Big issue is that most races can really easily deal with any sort of ling rush, which was Zerg's most dangerous early pressure (fast pool builds were always a terror on BNet)
THat's exactly what Zerg needs. As a zerg player, i lose half the time because I pulled off a successful nydus/drop only to be owned by the T army rolling my base faster and hiding his CC somewhere. The lurker would help delay the time it takes a T army to advance.
Zerg doesn't have any "zone control" like siege tanks and FF atm where it makes it difficult to advance for opponent.
|
Oh! Interesting new stats on sc2ranks.com!
Average Points per race!
All Diamond Players (Global):
Random: 357
Protoss: 376
Terran: 376
Zerg: 373
Top 250 Diamond Players (Global):
Random: 879
Protoss: 846
Terran: 855
Zerg: 858
Cool stuff. Discuss!
EDIT: Oh wow! You can see average ratings by region now too! And Korea is surprisingly low (Top 250). Interesting.
EDIT 2: If you look at Top 250 average ratings by race across regions, you see that Diamond Zergs in NA are the lowest easily, but in Korea for example, Zergs are the highest. Definitely suggests that we NA Zerg players either need to learn something from the Koreans or that the Korean Terrans and Protoss players need to learn from the NA players. Probably the former, AMIRITE?
|
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.
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
zerg is definitely underpowered in 2v2/3v3. no reason not to play protoss/terran who have much stronger rushes which is what team play revolves around. They turned zerg into a more selfish macro/defensive race with queens and such.
not too sure about 1v1 though, guess they are just different/hard to play
|
On August 11 2010 04:00 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Very interesting. If you look at the average ratings by race across leagues, Zerg is ahead in the Gold and Silver leagues, suggesting that it is perhaps not so noob unfriendly as we would like to believe. That or noobs of equivalent skill suck more at the other races for some reason.
Perhaps because Zerg macro is somewhat forgiving as long as you are spawning larva most of the time?
|
On August 11 2010 04:03 SpaceYeti wrote:
EDIT: Oh wow! You can see average ratings by region now too! And Korea is surprisingly low (Top 250). Interesting.
I'll admit I'm completely talking out of my ass here, but it probably has something to do with the competition on the korean servers being much more fierce than what it is on the US serveres
|
On August 11 2010 04:11 [wh]_ForAlways wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 04:03 SpaceYeti wrote:
EDIT: Oh wow! You can see average ratings by region now too! And Korea is surprisingly low (Top 250). Interesting. I'll admit I'm completely talking out of my ass here, but it probably has something to do with the competition on the korean servers being much more fierce than what it is on the US serveres
You might be talking from your ass, but that logic makes some sense. This is why the site needs to report standard errors as well. My guess is that the distribution is much more spread on NA servers than in Korea.
Standard errors would also allow individuals to better assess where they stand in relation to the average.
|
lol problem is, after you've successfully defended a push, you usually should macro/expand as a Zerg. You don't usually push back. That might not be so intuitive to newer players where one good push from the other race can kill zerg.
Oh and the push can come at anytime with varying strength at each time.
Playing Zerg is like being a newborn infant that gets beat on by T and P till later on where you learn 'The Force" and just pwns every1 like yoda. Problem is, You'd probably get raped too many times as a child that you'd rather sue for child abuse than continue to play Z.
|
Just wanted to pop in, I enjoy playing 3v3 with some of my friends. I try going Zerg from time to time but always change due to 2 major reasons that don't plaguuuuu 1v1s
1. Bad secondaries: Zerg has the weakest one base play of the three races it seems, so when you are in a game and there are 2000hp worth of rocks that keep you from expanding it makes it hard to keep up. Also often they are horribly positioned so that they can not be easily defended.
2. Creep: I need creep to keep competitive, but it keeps my allies from building. My hydras can't get to my teammates fast enough without it, but then that means I now have to creep to there bases. Doing so keeps them from building in that area. and worse some of the secondaries are so close that if I take one first trying fast expand I make it so my ally can never expand without killing my hatchery.
3. The lack of early mobile antiair : you get rushed early by two opponents and fend it off, you figure they may be going for some fast air (banshee, voidray) so you get some anti-air out. Terran has marines, Protoss has stalkers, you have Queens. all three will do ok, but guess which is the only one that can't help your team mate. Yeah the queens because they are so slow they can never assist your teammates in time, same thing applies to spore colonies and spine crawlers.
4. integrating and realestate: This relates to the creep but deserves its own point, your allies can't build in your base and you can't do so it theres. If you lose your base, and try to rebuild in an allies then you consume there build-able land. If they lose theirs they can't build near you at all. This hurts your nydus worms a lot, trying to use it to connect your bases actually end up taking too much space
|
On August 11 2010 00:08 SpaceYeti wrote:
For instance, in the 4v4 Random bracket, Zerg is played by 15.49% of players! That is less than those who play Random, and less than half of those who play Terran or Protoss each!!
Amusing, because Zerg is potentially the strongest race in 4v4 (having one heavily macro-oriented Zerg is ridiculous in a 4v4, at least on the map that they had in the beta).
|
On August 11 2010 04:03 me_viet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:47 PanzerDragoon wrote:On August 11 2010 00:36 Drowsy wrote:On August 11 2010 00:15 papaz wrote:
1. When to make drones vs attacking units
2. Low health units, not forgiving on mistakes when you micro
3. Need to have a good macro and continously expand
These reasons are frequently cited, but this is also observable in brood war, yet the discrepancy seems magnified in sc2. On top of the factors you listed, I'd add terrible design, underpowered, "FOTMness", and most importantly the pace of play is different. Remember that a lot of sc2 players are former war3 players and wow players. In sc2, more so than in sc, zerg does better in long high econ games. Most players from those games aren't used to managing long high econ games and prefer to 4-gate and have the game decided in 10 minutes rather than deal with messy multitasking, positioning, and macro management. It also rewards the exact opposite skills as t and p, you need patience above all to play zerg and I can see why most people won't play the race just based on that. In sc one could play zerg with some aggression and have it pay off, so weaker and newer players weren't immediately put off. In sc2 you can't really do this and you're in a purely reactive position in every matchup early game. They really just kind of dropped the ball on zerg design. They took out the most pivotal and interesting units from broodwar and the units they added are pretty lackluster. I think we'd be looking at a much different picture if there was a GOD DAMN LURKER. Lurkers are incredibly defensive units meant to hold down positions though, I don't think that would solve it. Big issue is that most races can really easily deal with any sort of ling rush, which was Zerg's most dangerous early pressure (fast pool builds were always a terror on BNet) THat's exactly what Zerg needs. As a zerg player, i lose half the time because I pulled off a successful nydus/drop only to be owned by the T army rolling my base faster and hiding his CC somewhere. The lurker would help delay the time it takes a T army to advance. Zerg doesn't have any "zone control" like siege tanks and FF atm where it makes it difficult to advance for opponent.
In Day 9s latest, he showcases two or three of zergs very important and powerful tools to slow down / whittle down an advancing terran even on a very small map (the map was Delta quadrant)
None of these are "easy" to master, which further suggests why most players would play T or P, but it's hard to teach someone things like : abuse his immobility.
|
Lithuania1861 Posts
It's being played less because it requires the REAL Skill, not like that, how we, protoss or terran do. Just 1a. GG. It's hard to play zerg, it scares people 
|
i think a small part may be people still do not want to expand. there are tons of one base strats especially gold or below. it's very difficult to deal with one base strats as zerg so maybe they were getting turned off and decided to do it themselves?
|
On August 11 2010 04:03 SpaceYeti wrote:Oh! Interesting new stats on sc2ranks.com! Average Points per race! All Diamond Players (Global): Random: 357 Protoss: 376 Terran: 376 Zerg: 373 Top 250 Diamond Players (Global): Random: 879 Protoss: 846 Terran: 855 Zerg: 858 Cool stuff. Discuss! EDIT: Oh wow! You can see average ratings by region now too! And Korea is surprisingly low (Top 250). Interesting. EDIT 2: If you look at Top 250 average ratings by race across regions, you see that Diamond Zergs in NA are the lowest easily, but in Korea for example, Zergs are the highest. Definitely suggests that we NA Zerg players either need to learn something from the Koreans or that the Korean Terrans and Protoss players need to learn from the NA players. Probably the former, AMIRITE?
and put this on the front page asap
|
Having experience with both Z and T in gold I have to admid that Terran simply feels easier and stronger than Zerg. A victory with Z does feel better though
Zerg still feels unpolished. Mechanics that aren't perfect yet and could be improved a lot. Inject larvae doesn't even compare to T and P mechanics. I'll simply say that there's nothing against injecting multiple times if you have the spare energy..the current system merely punishes the player that doesn't have the timing down perfectly. Perhaps make it have diminishing returns (1st inject is 4 larvae, additional injects give 3, 2, 1 larvae)..
Transfusion should be a lot more useful as an AoE heal that heals in the target area. Queens would suddenly be useful at the front.
Corruptors are the only air unit that cannot attack ground. Both the phoenix and viking can attack ground units. And corruption is about as stupid as frenzy was. An average single-target non damaging spell.. make it AoE with a shorter duration also affecting buildings and you have something worth it, the corruptor would be useful in any type of fight.
Tech to broodlords is way too slow. Zerg already has the least units in the game, so please make them count. Brood Lords are generally seen as the equal of the Collossus and Siege tank yet they take way longer to tech to.
When you see all the suggestions flying around left and right in this thread, it's clear that Zerg was in fact not finished when Sc2 came out.
Still I like Zerg the most, always did and always will. I take some type of preference for the 'non FotM-race" but feeling a bit stronger like when I have a MMM ball with Terran would be insanely welcome.. looking forward to the next big patch..
|
In Day 9s latest, he showcases two or three of zergs very important and powerful tools to slow down / whittle down an advancing terran even on a very small map (the map was Delta quadrant)
None of these are "easy" to master, which further suggests why most players would play T or P, but it's hard to teach someone things like : abuse his immobility.
Have to say, every time I watch TLO play as Zerg I wonder why he doesn't play it all the time. That match was freaking awesome. I totally dig TLO's Zerg style of play.
Back on topic, and related to the TLO vs BratOK match, another thing that works against new players picking up Zerg is managing creep. While it's not an extra resource in the same way larva is, spreading creep is a huge game changer that I have been trying to be better about and finding great success with. That speed bonus and extra scouting from creep tumors is godly!
|
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"
|
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?
Yeah, that's probably it.
|
On August 11 2010 06:22 Ghoro wrote:Show nested quote +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 you"
He has said what he thinks in depth, actually. Do a search for IdrA's posts in the search bar. He thinks that terrans have too many early-game rush options and zergs have no way to scout for them, basically. That's what I took away as his major gripe.
Look it up to see for yourself, though.
|
On August 11 2010 06:24 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 06:22 Ghoro wrote: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 you" He has said what he thinks in depth, actually. Do a search for IdrA's posts in the search bar. He thinks that terrans have too many early-game rush options and zergs have no way to scout for it, basically. That's what I took away as his major gripe. Look it up to see for yourself, though.
Oh ok thanks, I just wasn't sure.
|
EDIT: removed since somebody else already made the same point.
|
On August 11 2010 05:03 SpaceYeti wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 04:52 st3roids wrote: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.
How do I report your post? Seriously, it needs to end.
If you disagree with ZvT being imba, dont post here. ZvT imba has a number of valid arguments based on solid facts. I don't want to hear whinning about whinning; whinning is what gets Blizzard to balance the game out.
|
About statistics and sc2 rnaks
League Random Protoss Terran Zerg
Diamond 56.08% (223,037) 56.42% (925,858) 56.74% (746,866) 56.24% (629,948)
you understand that these stats are wrong now do u , unless somehow we can measure 224% out of 100
next time find a better site cause this is bs rly
fyi terran is like 30% more than zerg but that site gives 56% to both
|
On August 11 2010 06:45 st3roids wrote:
About statistics and sc2 rnaks
League Random Protoss Terran Zerg
Diamond 56.08% (223,037) 56.42% (925,858) 56.74% (746,866) 56.24% (629,948)
you understand that these stats are wrong now do u , unless somehow we can measure 224% out of 100
next time find a better site cause this is bs rly
fyi terran is like 30% more than zerg but that site gives 56% to both
you know those are win rates right?
|
I play exclusively team games at the moment, and most 3v3 and 4v4 maps are really just awful for zerg. Natural expansions are either wide open or delayed by destructible rocks, and everyone knows a two gas zerg is pretty much a dead zerg. I find my only real contribution to be through speedling expo harass, or if left alone, producing enough mutas to clear an enemy mineral line in a few short seconds. If they decide to push back against my main though, those speedlings and mutas won't have a chance of keeping it alive. I try to make myself a "hard target" with enough spore and spine crawlers, but at that point I'm barely even playing a team game any more, just trying to survive and hope my teammates win. I don't care though, I'm sticking with it at least till the heart of the swarm so if there are balance changes I'll already have all the mechanics down pat.
|
On August 11 2010 06:45 st3roids wrote:
About statistics and sc2 rnaks
League Random Protoss Terran Zerg
Diamond 56.08% (223,037) 56.42% (925,858) 56.74% (746,866) 56.24% (629,948)
you understand that these stats are wrong now do u , unless somehow we can measure 224% out of 100
next time find a better site cause this is bs rly
fyi terran is like 30% more than zerg but that site gives 56% to both
... what? You do realize that those are the average race win ratios, right?
So if I have 60% win in the ladder and you have 60%, that can't be right because it adds up to over 100%? I hope you're going for some weird sarcasm I don't quite get.
On topic, I actually think the supposed imbalance only counts for a tiny portion of the Zerg deficit. People play Terran because of the campaign, Protoss because they like tidy and shiny things. This along with the different mechanics (that you don't learn at all in the campaign) the Zerg have make people play them less.
|
On August 11 2010 00:14 Icks wrote:
Because people make threads about Zerg being:
- played less
- or weak
- or hard to master
Which one is true?
I dont want to know.
But the vast majority of sc2 players don't read threads in TL forums, or even Battle.net forums. The mechanics of zerg play are just a little harder to grasp than the other 2 races. During placement matches I've seen zergs neglect building workers to focus more on troop build-up, which is disastrous in the long run.
|
It's because Blizzard overreacted to Korean zerg dominance. Now even THEY don't play zerg as much anymore.
And I do not believe it was because of weird mechanics or anything like that. Zerg were very popular during phase 1 of beta.
|
Win rates or not if u use % scale it needs to be @ 100 fyi else is statistically bs
|
I think it's partly because Zerg has lost its appeal from BW. It used to be the most offensive of the races. You mass a huge number of units and attempt to break your opponent's defense with your numbers.
Watching replays from some of the top players and reading advice on these forums, Zerg nowadays is spread creep, run around your creep, wait for opponent to push and attack him when he makes a mistake. It's a defensive playstyle without all the turtling advantages of terran and protoss. Not to mention having to wait too often for your contained opponent to mine out his bases before being able to finish him off.
|
I'll say this in idiot speak.
1. Gaems R 4 Fun.
2. Zerg not as Fun!
Ok, enough of that.
Whether or not this "lack of fun" is simply player opinion, lack of unit diversity, Imbalance, difficulty, learning curve, Illuminati conspiracy, Blizzard sadism, race misunderstanding or coincidental mass hysteria IS IRRELEVANT.
If could be all of these and more, there is no limit to what could be causing this fun imbalance.
For some reason players enjoy playing Terran and Protoss and have little to complain about, while those who play Zerg feel cheated and shat upon.
This lack of evenly distributed enjoyment is a problem in and of itself.
If all 3 races are not evenly played and enjoyed you can bet Blizzard will make changes. I'd bet my left nipple that Blizzard fully intends for all 3 races to be loved by those who play them.
TLDR: Zerg is not having as much fun, Games are for fun, trouble is brewing.
|
On August 11 2010 07:12 Opinion wrote:
I'll say this in idiot speak.
1. Gaems R 4 Fun.
2. Zerg not as Fun!
Ok, enough of that.
Whether or not this "lack of fun" is simply player opinion, lack of unit diversity, Imbalance, difficulty, learning curve, Illuminati conspiracy, Blizzard sadism, race misunderstanding or coincidental mass hysteria IS IRRELEVANT.
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. It's interesting to debate what might make Zerg less fun.
|
This thread has become a shit storm of flaming kids that don't know crap.
BTW this isn't the blizzard forums go bitch there, theres about 50million threads about this and you all repeat the same thing like a god damn broken record.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Because zerg have stupid voice (but Overmind's voice can fix this problem), in other things - they're very strong and funny race. You can create a lot units VERY fast, cheap Hatcheries, best defence (move'able turrets) with fast units, that can run to any part of map, where zergs have been atacked.
|
On August 11 2010 07:19 muse5187 wrote:
This thread has become a shit storm of flaming kids that don't know crap.
BTW this isn't the blizzard forums go bitch there, theres about 50million threads about this and you all repeat the same thing like a god damn broken record.
Thanks for your brilliant input. There's so many topics because there's a problem.
|
On August 11 2010 07:28 pieisamazing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 07:19 muse5187 wrote:
This thread has become a shit storm of flaming kids that don't know crap.
BTW this isn't the blizzard forums go bitch there, theres about 50million threads about this and you all repeat the same thing like a god damn broken record. Thanks for your brilliant input. There's so many topics because there's a problem.
Yes, I agree users don't know how to play zerg.
|
On August 11 2010 07:30 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 07:28 pieisamazing wrote:On August 11 2010 07:19 muse5187 wrote:
This thread has become a shit storm of flaming kids that don't know crap.
BTW this isn't the blizzard forums go bitch there, theres about 50million threads about this and you all repeat the same thing like a god damn broken record. Thanks for your brilliant input. There's so many topics because there's a problem. Yes, I agree users don't know how to play zerg.
This thread is essentially not about zerg being underpowered. It's about why zerg is played less.
|
Why everybody is talking about win rates on ladder? The matchmaking system gives you opponents with your "level". So, the average player will have 50% ratio after many games.
The only statistics I would like to see are win rates by map.
|
On August 11 2010 07:32 Glufs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 07:30 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 07:28 pieisamazing wrote:On August 11 2010 07:19 muse5187 wrote:
This thread has become a shit storm of flaming kids that don't know crap.
BTW this isn't the blizzard forums go bitch there, theres about 50million threads about this and you all repeat the same thing like a god damn broken record. Thanks for your brilliant input. There's so many topics because there's a problem. Yes, I agree users don't know how to play zerg. This thread is essentially not about zerg being underpowered. It's about why zerg is played less.
If you read the last 10 pages it's apparent its de-railed into why zerg sucks. Any thread opened about zerg turns into this bullshit.
|
On August 11 2010 06:10 kajeus wrote:It is inconclusive, but it is powerful evidence.
Oi!
Statistical analysis does not work that way. Inconclusive data is not evidence of anything, much less "powerful" evidence.
|
What race do you prefer to play in multiplayer games?
Protoss 34%
Terran 27%
Zerg 26%
Random 13%
this is the current poll at us.battle.net
|
I personally play zerg less because I've still not mastered larva control. I tend to end up over-droning and getting stomped by a mid game push. It's a fault that lies with me more then the race.
I'd like to see some more time go by before I jump on the "Zerg is UP" bandwagon. Game's only been out a few weeks, there's bound to be stuff nobody's thought of yet. Heck, how many years did it take for vultures to be used in BW Terran play?
|
Honestly i don't think there is going to be a hop on the zerg bandwagon alot of people like to do timed all ins and end the game in 10 min or quit cause they lack the skill to actually play a macro game this is why i play zerg cause i love macro and long games. I just think zvt needs to be adjusted a bit not all of zerg is UP atm.
|
On August 11 2010 00:13 dybydx wrote:
this is the same with SC1
i started out playing toss because it was the 1a2a3a race, building cannon d was also very intuitive. you control fewer units in total because each fighting unit was at least 2 supplies. so protoss was the noob race.
terran on the other hand, almost every unit has a manually activated skill, like stim, siege, etc. you cant just 1a to victory.
zerg is the hardest to play for beginners. from the get go, when to get overlord and when to get 2nd hatch is not a simple decision for a beginner.
so ya, the population breakdown seems to make sense.
ya thats pretty smart.
I mean protoss just 1a sentry 1 a immortal 1 a collosus 1 a high templars
terran has to stim and emp and siege .. no wonder so many people playing terran, it must be the most challenging race.
|
holy crap it never occured to me that such a low % of the population is diamond.
|
On August 11 2010 07:41 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 06:10 kajeus wrote:It is inconclusive, but it is powerful evidence. Oi! Statistical analysis does not work that way. Inconclusive data is not evidence of anything, much less "powerful" evidence.
No, you misunderstand; I was just trying to phrase things accurately.
It is powerful evidence. It is simply not perfect. Few datasets are perfect.
On August 11 2010 07:33 HubertFelix wrote:
Why everybody is talking about win rates on ladder? The matchmaking system gives you opponents with your "level". So, the average player will have 50% ratio after many games.
The only statistics I would like to see are win rates by map.
Some things you may not know about win rates...
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140724¤tpage=54#1075
|
In my opinion, people play the race they think is cool (looks lore style of play etc.)
I play zerg because they are awesome, and I will always play zerg.
They look cool and have a pretty fun playstyle, evendough currently I think it's a bit dry before you hit lair.
|
On August 11 2010 08:15 Ksyper wrote:
In my opinion, people play the race they think is cool (looks lore style of play etc.)
I play zerg because they are awesome, and I will always play zerg.
They look cool and have a pretty fun playstyle, evendough currently I think it's a bit dry before you hit lair.
If that was the case, then everyone would play Zerg. I assume everyone think Zerg are the coolest, because I can't see how anyone could argue against that.
Maybe they don't find themselves cool enough to be worthy of playing zerg, though. I think that is the real problem. Less than 33% are cool enough to play zerg, and they know it.
Problem solved?
|
On August 11 2010 08:12 kajeus wrote:
No, you misunderstand; I was just trying to phrase things accurately.
It is powerful evidence. It is simply not perfect. Few datasets are perfect.
I would actually have to disagree, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Which null hypothesis did you formulate? What test did you run? How did you take into account the possibility of a correlation between starting skill level and race choice?
|
On August 11 2010 08:44 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 08:12 kajeus wrote:
No, you misunderstand; I was just trying to phrase things accurately.
It is powerful evidence. It is simply not perfect. Few datasets are perfect. I would actually have to disagree, but I can be persuaded otherwise. Which null hypothesis did you formulate? What test did you run? How did you take into account the possibility of a correlation between starting skill level and race choice?
He didnt do any of these things, just another person on the internet with no background in statistics pretending like they have thier phd
|
If a mod sees this reply, would you consider creating a subforum or even just a thread that we can ragepost in without fear of getting warned/banned? ^__^
e-- aw hell yeah im a Marine, I think I was an scv before this
|
Choo choo! All aboard the denial train! Next station: "ZvT isn't imbalanced!"
|
A lot of people in this thread stated that they don't play Zerg because they find them less interesting or fun. This has nothing to do with balance or how "strong" Zerg is as a race.
Take terran and remove the option to build hellions, reapers, banshees, ravens and siegetanks. To make up for terrans lack of defenses, increase the damage marines and marauders do per shot by X. What you get is a very one-dimensional race that still poses an even match for the other two.
You got Zerg.
|
United States1566 Posts
Let's not forget that the game is new, and a lot of people will gravitate towards protoss (the "cool" new race) or terran (lots of people played the campaign first, myself included, and they will feel comfortable with terran already).
Zerg was played 0 times in the campaign, and has a weird feel to it. over time, it will balance out. Of course, people will take a bunch of random numbers and claim those numbers indicate anything from something being underpowered to it giving you cancer.
|
On August 11 2010 09:49 Yeld wrote:
A lot of people in this thread stated that they don't play Zerg because they find them less interesting or fun. This has nothing to do with balance or how "strong" Zerg is as a race.
Take terran and remove the option to build hellions, reapers, banshees, ravens and siegetanks. To make up for terrans lack of defenses, increase the damage marines and marauders do per shot by X. What you get is a very one-dimensional race that still poses an even match for the other two.
You got Zerg.
This is what I've been trying to say elsewhere. A 50/50 win-rate in ZvT means nothing. Zerg could have one unit that wins the game half the time and no one would dare say the game is balanced beyond win-rates.
Balance needs to be looked at holistically, taking into account things like playstyle, unit diversity and versatility etc. If Terran can play aggressively or defensively, but Zerg can only play defensively, the game is not balanced.
|
One of the biggest problem with Zerg is that they don't have any "I wana use that" units other than the ultra. When I started playing SC I would tech to siege tanks and Batlecruisers because they are awesome. Protoss has colisi and to a lesser extent either templar. The big draw for zerg is that they can make a bunch of stuff. Why the cool units aren't alwayse the focus of the better builds they do draw you into the race. If zerg was cool they might not seem quite so UP.
|
There's one unit in BW that make Zerg fun and balanced vs the other 2 races: The defiler. There's been so many posts about not bringing back the defiler but really swarm is the only thing that zerg can do to counter terran mech, just as in BW once vessels came out. To even it up a little, making hellion fire effective in a swarm is a good option. With no more reavers and nerfed storms, the protoss are a little more vulnerable but zlots and archons as well as possibly collossi damage in swarm make them capable of fighting off dark swarm. And even though Blizzard are trying to not make SC2 like BW, there are undoubtably things that made it a mainstay for 12 years after release. I'm a Zerg player in both SC1 and SC2 and I think with just a few tweaks in HotS that SC2 will be another mainstay.
I just hope everyone will stop listening to Idra bitch about the race he plays very well, and play it for themselves. If pressing a hotkey and "V" every 30 seconds is too hard for you,, and you dont like being able to see to the edge of creep that you can mass expand if you miss a spawn larvae and you don't like having tons of units and you hate being able to tech-switch instantly then this is the wrong race for you.
|
zerg is the hardest race and the skill ceiling is pretty low atm ergo less zergs
|
at lower league it might just be peoples perception of the zerg as the evil slimey bugs. little story, i showed my brother the beta and he had never had any rts experience at all. i let him load up a game vs the ai and he asked me what race to be. and i said well i play protoss. and he said terran looked pretty cool, so i said well you could play a game as each and see what you like, his exact words were "im not playin as the bugs"
|
On August 11 2010 07:00 st3roids wrote:
Win rates or not if u use % scale it needs to be @ 100 fyi else is statistically bs
no... no, it doesn't.
if you need an example to understand - look at the starting 5 players for any basketball team. let's say their free throw shooting percentages are 75%, 81%, 82%, 68%, and 71%.
or an example comparable directly to the diamond league - look at the winning percentage of NFL playoff teams. 94%, 68%, 77%, 85%, etc.
get it now?
|
On August 11 2010 07:02 andrewlt wrote:
I think it's partly because Zerg has lost its appeal from BW. It used to be the most offensive of the races. You mass a huge number of units and attempt to break your opponent's defense with your numbers.
That's partly it... but putting aside whether you found zerg fun to play as, the fact is that those strategies were effective. Winning is appealing.
But now, you don't have muta harrass, you don't have lurkers, and your early map control doesn't count for much. Unless you can find a way to do early damage and press your advantage, your midgame is just like everyone else's... a ball of units to ram into their ball of units, but if your opponent is terran yours are far inferior.
Then later... you used to be able to fight the effectiveness of a huge mass of ranged units with swarm and plague. No such counter anymore. You can make ultras or a frontline of roaches, but both are slowed AND take double damage from marauders. The only real effective option is broodlords, but they take forrrreevvvvvver to make and cost a lot, and you're stuck with useless corruptors (as opposed to mutas in SC1) if they attacked before you're ready.
Is Zerg terribly imbalanced? No. (they could use some boost, how much is debatable).
But IMO it's the extra effort required that makes zerg so unappealing. Maybe the game is perfectly balanced at pro levels where you can manage everything perfectly and always fight from effective angles. But at sub-pro levels, a very busy strategic zerg can have real trouble with a 40 apm terran who just makes his giant ball of MMM and presses forward.
And if skill and APM are a limited resource for you (as it is for all non Koreans), you're just crippling yourself by choosing Zerg when the same effort could produce more wins with another race.
|
Because Zerg is less attractive than other races.
Because it's harder to win as Zerg than with other races.
|
cos it's a frustrating pain in the ass race to play. also people don't want the bad guys to win i guess.
|
I think I know why, I main 'toss and offrace Terran occasionally, but I have been playing Zerg lately and it is _hard_. Much more difficult that toss and miles harder than Terran.
I find I have to play faster with Zerg than my opponent and that's why I'm going to stick with Zerg for a bit - it'll make me a better 'toss player.
I think the other issue with Zerg is they are just less fun to play. They feel like (and are) hard work!
|
Learning zerg is the hardest imo. Its really difficult to gauge how many drones to make, when to expo.
|
On August 11 2010 00:15 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 00:14 SpaceYeti wrote: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? Then why is Zerg the worst represented in Korea and Latin America? Beats me! I'm only talking about what I know. If you can link me CheckPrime or Cool saying zerg sucks, I'd love to see that.
cool isnt even playing zerg anymore, same as freedom
zerg is underpowered but i think thats not the biggest reason
its probably just random what race you choose
|
I used to main zerg, but I switch to random because it got less fun. It just got really bland after a while. Sure you can do a few drops, build a few extra queens one game, burrow something or nydus (which kinda sucks in practice), but after watching a lot of people (TLO) pull of amazingly fun plays with terran and protoss I had to switch to random.
I still really like zerg, I'm a hard scifi fan and I hate how the protoss are humanoid and love how the zerg are not, but I really want some more units/abilities even if they do suck.
|
The reason less people play zerg is because zerg in SC2 is incredibly straightforward and has no interesting units. You make drones and units. Sometimes you try to get a flank or surround. Maybe tumor to make the map look more purple. Big whoop.
I'd rather be rolling around with my airdropped tanks on cliffs, stealth ninja snipers or instant forcefield walls and war of the world laser robots, thank you very much.
You add that to the fact that their macro was made horrendously tedious by the spawn larva change, and the majority of people cba to play them.
|
I like how in the first page only one person mentions that perhaps Zerg is played least because...well they simply aren't liked.
I don't play Protoss because hurr durr it's OP or derp it's easy to play, I play Protoss because everything about them as a race is so much cooler than the other two.
The concept of a powerful and highly intelligent warrior fighting insurmountable numbers using great discipline, technological advances, and psionic power appeals to me, and I would assume it does for many others.
Also, they die in the coolest fashion. I mean, come on, they puff up into blue smoke. How bad ass is that?
|
I think its mostly related to how god damn awful the inject larva system is implemented, I still prefer to off-race zerg than terran but until I get used to it I end up playing 1 game and im already pissed at how annoying it is to keep macro up.
On some maps its also really annoying having hatcheries rallying units from different directions, protoss doesn't have this issue mostly due to warp gates and your important unit producing structures are usually clustered in a safe area, same for terran.
|
the fact that many of the korean pros have swapped off zerg is justification enough for large imbalence. They make anything work.
|
im pretty sure blizzard notices that zerg is not played as much and they will look into whats going on and try to find a way to balance them or w.e..or maybe so many kids are bad at zerg and think there race is underpowered..but they just dont know how to use them..like idra
|
It's only UP in higher brackets The only thing that is wrong with zerg imo atm is the vast amout of terran openings you just can't scout due to wall off and marines on the sides so you can slowly float a overlord there in the early game. Even if you rush hive tech he can have a decent push at your base at 30 supply alot of the time it's like a coin flip if you're even going to live.
|
Wow. I wish I could read all fifteen pages but I really need to be going to sleep and I'm just dieing to make a post it this thread so here it goes.
First of all, I think a lot of people argue against zerg being underpowered just for the sake of arguing. Please stop that as it's not really helping at all.
Secondly, I think posts from anyone, who's not in diamond league, should not even be considered. I mean, face it, if you're not in diamond - you really... REALLY suck! Getting to diamond is the easiest thing in the world, so even posts from a lot of diamond players shouldn't be taken seriously.
The whole: "Blizzard introduced Terran in this campaign, therefore a lot of people play Terran" is irrelevant, as well, since those players aren't skilled enough to determine whether they lost because of true imbalance or because they have 4K minerals in the bank after 10 minutes into the game and are still sitting at ~90 supply with 0-0 upgrades.
Yes, it is harder to play zerg at lower levels. Yes it might turn a lot of newer people off... but what about experienced Brood War players? I mean they know the basics of each race so it shouldn't be as hard... right? Right.
Let's think back to BW. Can you imagine zerg winning without Dark Swarm, occasional well placed plagues, crackling/ultra/lurkers all mixed together? Obviously there were games where Terran either pulled some risky moves or totally got caught off guard by something, therefore losing the game early... but really Zerg couldn't survive without dark swarm and once the game got to that stage it was up to Terran to make something happen. Do you remember how zerg was able to hold off until Hive/Dark Swarm/Ultras? Mutalisk harass keeping terran in his base, delaying his push and forcing him to make turrets while zerg is getting lurkers... the lurkers forcing terran to get siege tanks (unless he has some amazing M&M micro...) vessels, and forcing scans, etc. (Obviously people that just picked up the game wouldn't know anything about it but still would like to "prove" to others that everything is balanced and everyone just needs to "QQ moar/less")
Attacking Terran's third(fourth?) is such a pain in the ass since it's, most likely defended by a PF. What about cannons? Cannons were such a pain in the ass in BW but ling/swarm made it a lot easier to take down. In SC2 there is no Dark Swarm.
In SC2 Muta harass is nearly nonexistent... not by BW standards, at least. Turrets do like 75% more damage to mutas and mutas just feel a lot slower. In BW you could get 11 mutas with +1 and 2 shot turrets and pick off stray marines without too much of a threat (other than mismicro/awesome micro on opponent's part). With improved pathing of SC2 it's basically impossible to pick off marines since they always stay in a tight ball. (Improved pathing also allows siege tanks to kill a shitload of units with a couple of shots! But that's beside the point.) It's also A LOT harder to snipe high templar, etc...
Lurkers. Lurkers had the longest range out of all zerg ground units in BW and also did splash (duuhhrrr, right?). They also posed a threat! You could contain a protoss in his base until he had observers. Contained terran, to a degree, until vessels. Lurkers were an overall great support unit, looked badass and were very fun to use! (Whether in a straight up game or a 2-hatch lurker drop.) Obviously there are no lurkers in SC2... we have a poor excuse of a "splash-dealer" that's called Baneling... which is useless at anything other than busting walls or killing marine balls. Not, zerg has only one unit that has range over 3... which is slow ass hydra... (hydras in ZvT anyone?) XD
Then people use this against the zerg and say: "All these noob zergs mass roaches all game then QQ that they're underpowered..." What should I mass, tell me please!
SC2 zerg are FORCED to spread creep, which I feel should give you a bonus instead of being a requirement to have ANY mobility... (shit like drops/nydus is very situational when compared to other races... I mean medics don't even take spots in dropships anymore... THEY ARE the dropships...) Also, as someone mentioned, zerg macro "abilities/mechanics" don't stact... so it's far more punishing if you forget to spawn larva, than if you forget mule/chrono boost.
Sunken colonies... I mean do you remember how hard it used to be to break like 6 sunken colonies? It used to be Lings+Sunks/Muta/Lurker/Hive tech... Now-a-days, with units like Marauder, "sunken breaks" are so much easier! T_T
Zerg also lack detection... I mean having overlords detect was kind of cheap... but not having overlords detect is horrible too! I mean if all overlords turned into overseers after lair, I guess it would be ok... but meh, who am I to make balance suggestions?
Spells...
Lol zerg spells...... first of all, how easy is it to spot an infestor in a zerg ball? You have to be blind to not see one... How easy is it to see a High Templar or a Ghost in P/T balls? Easy? Oh, go ahead and cloak those ghosts, please! ^^
How is this relevant? How hard is it to snipe a unit that's immobile while it's casting one of its spells? (When it looks like the Infestor, not too hard, I'd imagine...)
Fungal Growth? What's with the poor excuse of plague? It doesn't help when all of the units can be healed and most still have the range to attack your units.
Infested Terrans? Well if you can get those infestors in your opponents main undetected and throw some eggs all over his mineral line - awesome! Other than that, they're pretty shitty tbh.
I'm not going to get into the whole autocast thing and 20 storms/forcefields at the same time.... let's pretend that those are balanced for now...
Zerg is really lacking something... something big! Whether it's lurker/dark swarm or something totally new... but work needs to be done and you just can't deny it.
The fact that you lose to zerg with your mid-diamond skills because you didn't wall off or massed nothing but hellions for 10 minutes doesn't prove the fact that they're not underpowered... it just proves the fact that terran can lose to zerg... lol
When Top-Tier players tell you that the races are imbalanced, I'm pretty sure they're right. We should make a list of all top players who think Z are underpowered. I know a bunch (a lot of them are terran/protoss players).
Saying: "Fuck IdrA/Artosis! Go ask Cool or Gerrard how they feel about zerg!" Doesn't solve anything/make you sound intelligent, because first of all:
-IdrA >> Cool/Gerrard based on his performance in KingOfBeta tourney, where he slayed Tester, who, afaik >>> the whole Prime clan/team... (Cool lost, in GGI, to an unknown Canadian protoss with 60% winrate)
-We also don't know how Cool or Gerrard or Sen or, whoever else is a badass Zerg player out there, feel! They could, as well, complain about imbalance.
PS: I used to love posts during beta that went something like this: "Stop QQ'n noob! It's not the race, it's the player! Zerg are fine!" Then on another post they try to convince someone that: "It's BETA! Obviously the can't be perfectly balanced right now! BW took 10 years to be balanced!"
So.... which one is it?
PSS: I think Zerg are sexy. I love the way they look/feel. I love the challenge but sometimes it's just too much. It's like playing MW2 against a wall-hacker... yeah you feel good after killing him "Hacker owned!!!" but you still do get annoyed eventually!
PSSS: I'm like falling asleep so if anything didn't make sense, please point it out and I'll fix it. I'll definitely add more when I come back to this thread.
|
^ I agree with all statements in the previous post and hope that it is considered by blizzard in its entirety. (gogo blizzard reps read it)
|
On August 11 2010 00:19 cuppatea wrote:
1. Zerg is the only race you don't play as in the campaign.
2. Zerg is the least standard and intuitive race. Anyone who has played an RTS before knows how to make production buildings and train units out of them but Zerg works in a different, unique and fairly confusing way.
3. Zerg has the least combat units and the least variety. Even back when Zerg was considered strong, there were many complaints that they were bland and underdeveloped.
4. Zerg is widely considered the hardest race to play.
5. Zerg is widely considered the weakest race in the game.
agreed.
|
On August 11 2010 18:02 Darkn3ss wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Wow. I wish I could read all fifteen pages but I really need to be going to sleep and I'm just dieing to make a post it this thread so here it goes.
First of all, I think a lot of people argue against zerg being underpowered just for the sake of arguing. Please stop that as it's not really helping at all.
Secondly, I think posts from anyone, who's not in diamond league, should not even be considered. I mean, face it, if you're not in diamond - you really... REALLY suck! Getting to diamond is the easiest thing in the world, so even posts from a lot of diamond players shouldn't be taken seriously.
The whole: "Blizzard introduced Terran in this campaign, therefore a lot of people play Terran" is irrelevant, as well, since those players aren't skilled enough to determine whether they lost because of true imbalance or because they have 4K minerals in the bank after 10 minutes into the game and are still sitting at ~90 supply with 0-0 upgrades.
Yes, it is harder to play zerg at lower levels. Yes it might turn a lot of newer people off... but what about experienced Brood War players? I mean they know the basics of each race so it shouldn't be as hard... right? Right.
Let's think back to BW. Can you imagine zerg winning without Dark Swarm, occasional well placed plagues, crackling/ultra/lurkers all mixed together? Obviously there were games where Terran either pulled some risky moves or totally got caught off guard by something, therefore losing the game early... but really Zerg couldn't survive without dark swarm and once the game got to that stage it was up to Terran to make something happen. Do you remember how zerg was able to hold off until Hive/Dark Swarm/Ultras? Mutalisk harass keeping terran in his base, delaying his push and forcing him to make turrets while zerg is getting lurkers... the lurkers forcing terran to get siege tanks (unless he has some amazing M&M micro...) vessels, and forcing scans, etc. (Obviously people that just picked up the game wouldn't know anything about it but still would like to "prove" to others that everything is balanced and everyone just needs to "QQ moar/less")
Attacking Terran's third(fourth?) is such a pain in the ass since it's, most likely defended by a PF. What about cannons? Cannons were such a pain in the ass in BW but ling/swarm made it a lot easier to take down. In SC2 there is no Dark Swarm.
In SC2 Muta harass is nearly nonexistent... not by BW standards, at least. Turrets do like 75% more damage to mutas and mutas just feel a lot slower. In BW you could get 11 mutas with +1 and 2 shot turrets and pick off stray marines without too much of a threat (other than mismicro/awesome micro on opponent's part). With improved pathing of SC2 it's basically impossible to pick off marines since they always stay in a tight ball. (Improved pathing also allows siege tanks to kill a shitload of units with a couple of shots! But that's beside the point.) It's also A LOT harder to snipe high templar, etc...
Lurkers. Lurkers had the longest range out of all zerg ground units in BW and also did splash (duuhhrrr, right?). They also posed a threat! You could contain a protoss in his base until he had observers. Contained terran, to a degree, until vessels. Lurkers were an overall great support unit, looked badass and were very fun to use! (Whether in a straight up game or a 2-hatch lurker drop.) Obviously there are no lurkers in SC2... we have a poor excuse of a "splash-dealer" that's called Baneling... which is useless at anything other than busting walls or killing marine balls. Not, zerg has only one unit that has range over 3... which is slow ass hydra... (hydras in ZvT anyone?) XD
Then people use this against the zerg and say: "All these noob zergs mass roaches all game then QQ that they're underpowered..." What should I mass, tell me please!
SC2 zerg are FORCED to spread creep, which I feel should give you a bonus instead of being a requirement to have ANY mobility... (shit like drops/nydus is very situational when compared to other races... I mean medics don't even take spots in dropships anymore... THEY ARE the dropships...) Also, as someone mentioned, zerg macro "abilities/mechanics" don't stact... so it's far more punishing if you forget to spawn larva, than if you forget mule/chrono boost.
Sunken colonies... I mean do you remember how hard it used to be to break like 6 sunken colonies? It used to be Lings+Sunks/Muta/Lurker/Hive tech... Now-a-days, with units like Marauder, "sunken breaks" are so much easier! T_T
Zerg also lack detection... I mean having overlords detect was kind of cheap... but not having overlords detect is horrible too! I mean if all overlords turned into overseers after lair, I guess it would be ok... but meh, who am I to make balance suggestions?
Spells...
Lol zerg spells...... first of all, how easy is it to spot an infestor in a zerg ball? You have to be blind to not see one... How easy is it to see a High Templar or a Ghost in P/T balls? Easy? Oh, go ahead and cloak those ghosts, please! ^^
How is this relevant? How hard is it to snipe a unit that's immobile while it's casting one of its spells? (When it looks like the Infestor, not too hard, I'd imagine...)
Fungal Growth? What's with the poor excuse of plague? It doesn't help when all of the units can be healed and most still have the range to attack your units.
Infested Terrans? Well if you can get those infestors in your opponents main undetected and throw some eggs all over his mineral line - awesome! Other than that, they're pretty shitty tbh.
I'm not going to get into the whole autocast thing and 20 storms/forcefields at the same time.... let's pretend that those are balanced for now...
Zerg is really lacking something... something big! Whether it's lurker/dark swarm or something totally new... but work needs to be done and you just can't deny it.
The fact that you lose to zerg with your mid-diamond skills because you didn't wall off or massed nothing but hellions for 10 minutes doesn't prove the fact that they're not underpowered... it just proves the fact that terran can lose to zerg... lol
When Top-Tier players tell you that the races are imbalanced, I'm pretty sure they're right. We should make a list of all top players who think Z are underpowered. I know a bunch (a lot of them are terran/protoss players).
Saying: "Fuck IdrA/Artosis! Go ask Cool or Gerrard how they feel about zerg!" Doesn't solve anything/make you sound intelligent, because first of all:
-IdrA >> Cool/Gerrard based on his performance in KingOfBeta tourney, where he slayed Tester, who, afaik >>> the whole Prime clan/team... (Cool lost, in GGI, to an unknown Canadian protoss with 60% winrate)
-We also don't know how Cool or Gerrard or Sen or, whoever else is a badass Zerg player out there, feel! They could, as well, complain about imbalance.
PS: I used to love posts during beta that went something like this: "Stop QQ'n noob! It's not the race, it's the player! Zerg are fine!" Then on another post they try to convince someone that: "It's BETA! Obviously the can't be perfectly balanced right now! BW took 10 years to be balanced!"
So.... which one is it?
PSS: I think Zerg are sexy. I love the way they look/feel. I love the challenge but sometimes it's just too much. It's like playing MW2 against a wall-hacker... yeah you feel good after killing him "Hacker owned!!!" but you still do get annoyed eventually!
PSSS: I'm like falling asleep so if anything didn't make sense, please point it out and I'll fix it. I'll definitely add more when I come back to this thread.
This is why people hate people going on about Zerg being underpowered. This is just a whinge fest with hardly any evidence or constructive feedback.
Most people think Zerg is underpowered and just needs a few (significant) buffs here and there, or the addition of another unit. What you are asking for is an entire rehaul of the whole race.
Be reasonable if you're going to talk about Zerg being underpowered. You make the rest of us with actual arguments look bad.
As to diamond players being the only ones allowed to post on balance... Your post is the reason why I disagree. You might be diamond, but I have seen far more sensible and better thought out posts from bronze players. Understanding of the game and skill are not the same thing. If you have a good argument, you have a good argument. Skill has nothing to do with it.
Edit: Ok, your post isn't THAT bad. I exaggerated. But it's messy. We're all angry that Zerg is pretty fucked up right now, but please don't rant about it here. It doesn't actually help the situation at all.
|
As a platinum (not pro nor totally retarded) random player I cringe every time I draw zerg.
Their macro game is fine, but it seems that their counter units are just worst than what other races can bring, is significantly harder to pull off, or is too high in the tech tree.
As Terran or Protoss you can generally have a generic game plan and stick to it. Be it bio or mech ball, or Stalkers+Sentry+Colossus or quick VRs. On the flip side of the coin, Zerg is IMO way too reactionary in sc2. I have the feeling that zerg units are so easily hard-countered that I end out not having any idea what to do.
Zerg units also feel WAY overpriced, like the game is balanced around the idea that zerg automatically has better macro. For instance a Brood Lord costs almost as much as a carrier, yet is much more situational than its Protoss counterpart.
Finally, the biggest problem I face when I draw zerg is the lack of versatility. This is especially true in large scale games like FFA when it can end out being your 200/200 vs their 200/200. In SC2, Zerg has no "I can mass XXXXX and be fine". In SC1 it was the hydra, but in sc2 they're much too slow, clostly and squishy to fill this role. This is why it's hard to have a mid-game plan that is isn't entirely tied to what the other guy is making, whereas both other races can make armies that are good all-around.
|
On August 12 2010 01:54 Phrencys wrote:
As a platinum (not pro nor totally retarded) random player I cringe every time I draw zerg.
Their macro game is fine, but it seems that their counter units are just worst than what other races can bring, is significantly harder to pull off, or is too high in the tech tree.
As Terran or Protoss you can generally have a generic game plan and stick to it. Be it bio or mech ball, or Stalkers+Sentry+Colossus or quick VRs. On the flip side of the coin, Zerg is IMO way too reactionary in sc2. I have the feeling that zerg units are so easily hard-countered that I end out not having any idea what to do.
Zerg units also feel WAY overpriced, like the game is balanced around the idea that zerg automatically has better macro. For instance a Brood Lord costs almost as much as a carrier, yet is much more situational than its Protoss counterpart.
Finally, the biggest problem I face when I draw zerg is the lack of versatility. This is especially true in large scale games like FFA when it can end out being your 200/200 vs their 200/200. In SC2, Zerg has no "I can mass XXXXX and be fine". In SC1 it was the hydra, but in sc2 they're much too slow, clostly and squishy to fill this role. This is why it's hard to have a mid-game plan that is isn't entirely tied to what the other guy is making, whereas both other races can make armies that are good all-around.
Personally, I think that reactivity is pretty cool. It's a very unique flavour for the race, and can encourage gameplay deviations like... sometimes it's a good idea to save minerals and larvae, rather than spend them as fast as possible! (Completely counter to conventional gameplay wisdom -- and certainly counter to Starcraft 1 zerg playstyles.)
For instance, you can mass larvae knowing you're going to make an army soon, but not be sure what exactly you want it to be. You scout and scout and scout. And it looks like the terran is not going to be able to build tons of anti-air very quickly. So you quickly make 10-15 mutas from saved resources and larvae. Devastatingly effective -- and really, damn near impossible to scout.
CheckPrime does this in several of his games, btw. Feel free to check them out.
|
On August 11 2010 07:40 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 07:32 Glufs wrote:On August 11 2010 07:30 muse5187 wrote:On August 11 2010 07:28 pieisamazing wrote:On August 11 2010 07:19 muse5187 wrote:
This thread has become a shit storm of flaming kids that don't know crap.
BTW this isn't the blizzard forums go bitch there, theres about 50million threads about this and you all repeat the same thing like a god damn broken record. Thanks for your brilliant input. There's so many topics because there's a problem. Yes, I agree users don't know how to play zerg. This thread is essentially not about zerg being underpowered. It's about why zerg is played less. If you read the last 10 pages it's apparent its de-railed into why zerg sucks. Any thread opened about zerg turns into this bullshit.
The biggest bullshit is your ninja edit troll.
|
I think if they decreased the Lair/Hive morph time, put roaches back to 2 armor, and give Hydras the speed upgrade they had in BW, then we'll see a bit more balance, especially VS Terran. I'm a Terran player right now and I would love to play Zerg full time, but my lack of skill and the units themselves make it very tedious and very frustrating to play. I think the stated changes would help, but my ideas may be flawed.
|
I love how Terran goes up and all the races go down as you go from Diamond to Bronze. Hehehe
|
On August 11 2010 19:55 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 18:02 Darkn3ss wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Wow. I wish I could read all fifteen pages but I really need to be going to sleep and I'm just dieing to make a post it this thread so here it goes.
First of all, I think a lot of people argue against zerg being underpowered just for the sake of arguing. Please stop that as it's not really helping at all.
Secondly, I think posts from anyone, who's not in diamond league, should not even be considered. I mean, face it, if you're not in diamond - you really... REALLY suck! Getting to diamond is the easiest thing in the world, so even posts from a lot of diamond players shouldn't be taken seriously.
The whole: "Blizzard introduced Terran in this campaign, therefore a lot of people play Terran" is irrelevant, as well, since those players aren't skilled enough to determine whether they lost because of true imbalance or because they have 4K minerals in the bank after 10 minutes into the game and are still sitting at ~90 supply with 0-0 upgrades.
Yes, it is harder to play zerg at lower levels. Yes it might turn a lot of newer people off... but what about experienced Brood War players? I mean they know the basics of each race so it shouldn't be as hard... right? Right.
Let's think back to BW. Can you imagine zerg winning without Dark Swarm, occasional well placed plagues, crackling/ultra/lurkers all mixed together? Obviously there were games where Terran either pulled some risky moves or totally got caught off guard by something, therefore losing the game early... but really Zerg couldn't survive without dark swarm and once the game got to that stage it was up to Terran to make something happen. Do you remember how zerg was able to hold off until Hive/Dark Swarm/Ultras? Mutalisk harass keeping terran in his base, delaying his push and forcing him to make turrets while zerg is getting lurkers... the lurkers forcing terran to get siege tanks (unless he has some amazing M&M micro...) vessels, and forcing scans, etc. (Obviously people that just picked up the game wouldn't know anything about it but still would like to "prove" to others that everything is balanced and everyone just needs to "QQ moar/less")
Attacking Terran's third(fourth?) is such a pain in the ass since it's, most likely defended by a PF. What about cannons? Cannons were such a pain in the ass in BW but ling/swarm made it a lot easier to take down. In SC2 there is no Dark Swarm.
In SC2 Muta harass is nearly nonexistent... not by BW standards, at least. Turrets do like 75% more damage to mutas and mutas just feel a lot slower. In BW you could get 11 mutas with +1 and 2 shot turrets and pick off stray marines without too much of a threat (other than mismicro/awesome micro on opponent's part). With improved pathing of SC2 it's basically impossible to pick off marines since they always stay in a tight ball. (Improved pathing also allows siege tanks to kill a shitload of units with a couple of shots! But that's beside the point.) It's also A LOT harder to snipe high templar, etc...
Lurkers. Lurkers had the longest range out of all zerg ground units in BW and also did splash (duuhhrrr, right?). They also posed a threat! You could contain a protoss in his base until he had observers. Contained terran, to a degree, until vessels. Lurkers were an overall great support unit, looked badass and were very fun to use! (Whether in a straight up game or a 2-hatch lurker drop.) Obviously there are no lurkers in SC2... we have a poor excuse of a "splash-dealer" that's called Baneling... which is useless at anything other than busting walls or killing marine balls. Not, zerg has only one unit that has range over 3... which is slow ass hydra... (hydras in ZvT anyone?) XD
Then people use this against the zerg and say: "All these noob zergs mass roaches all game then QQ that they're underpowered..." What should I mass, tell me please!
SC2 zerg are FORCED to spread creep, which I feel should give you a bonus instead of being a requirement to have ANY mobility... (shit like drops/nydus is very situational when compared to other races... I mean medics don't even take spots in dropships anymore... THEY ARE the dropships...) Also, as someone mentioned, zerg macro "abilities/mechanics" don't stact... so it's far more punishing if you forget to spawn larva, than if you forget mule/chrono boost.
Sunken colonies... I mean do you remember how hard it used to be to break like 6 sunken colonies? It used to be Lings+Sunks/Muta/Lurker/Hive tech... Now-a-days, with units like Marauder, "sunken breaks" are so much easier! T_T
Zerg also lack detection... I mean having overlords detect was kind of cheap... but not having overlords detect is horrible too! I mean if all overlords turned into overseers after lair, I guess it would be ok... but meh, who am I to make balance suggestions?
Spells...
Lol zerg spells...... first of all, how easy is it to spot an infestor in a zerg ball? You have to be blind to not see one... How easy is it to see a High Templar or a Ghost in P/T balls? Easy? Oh, go ahead and cloak those ghosts, please! ^^
How is this relevant? How hard is it to snipe a unit that's immobile while it's casting one of its spells? (When it looks like the Infestor, not too hard, I'd imagine...)
Fungal Growth? What's with the poor excuse of plague? It doesn't help when all of the units can be healed and most still have the range to attack your units.
Infested Terrans? Well if you can get those infestors in your opponents main undetected and throw some eggs all over his mineral line - awesome! Other than that, they're pretty shitty tbh.
I'm not going to get into the whole autocast thing and 20 storms/forcefields at the same time.... let's pretend that those are balanced for now...
Zerg is really lacking something... something big! Whether it's lurker/dark swarm or something totally new... but work needs to be done and you just can't deny it.
The fact that you lose to zerg with your mid-diamond skills because you didn't wall off or massed nothing but hellions for 10 minutes doesn't prove the fact that they're not underpowered... it just proves the fact that terran can lose to zerg... lol
When Top-Tier players tell you that the races are imbalanced, I'm pretty sure they're right. We should make a list of all top players who think Z are underpowered. I know a bunch (a lot of them are terran/protoss players).
Saying: "Fuck IdrA/Artosis! Go ask Cool or Gerrard how they feel about zerg!" Doesn't solve anything/make you sound intelligent, because first of all:
-IdrA >> Cool/Gerrard based on his performance in KingOfBeta tourney, where he slayed Tester, who, afaik >>> the whole Prime clan/team... (Cool lost, in GGI, to an unknown Canadian protoss with 60% winrate)
-We also don't know how Cool or Gerrard or Sen or, whoever else is a badass Zerg player out there, feel! They could, as well, complain about imbalance.
PS: I used to love posts during beta that went something like this: "Stop QQ'n noob! It's not the race, it's the player! Zerg are fine!" Then on another post they try to convince someone that: "It's BETA! Obviously the can't be perfectly balanced right now! BW took 10 years to be balanced!"
So.... which one is it?
PSS: I think Zerg are sexy. I love the way they look/feel. I love the challenge but sometimes it's just too much. It's like playing MW2 against a wall-hacker... yeah you feel good after killing him "Hacker owned!!!" but you still do get annoyed eventually!
PSSS: I'm like falling asleep so if anything didn't make sense, please point it out and I'll fix it. I'll definitely add more when I come back to this thread.
This is why people hate people going on about Zerg being underpowered. This is just a whinge fest with hardly any evidence or constructive feedback.Most people think Zerg is underpowered and just needs a few (significant) buffs here and there, or the addition of another unit. What you are asking for is an entire rehaul of the whole race. Be reasonable if you're going to talk about Zerg being underpowered. You make the rest of us with actual arguments look bad. As to diamond players being the only ones allowed to post on balance... Your post is the reason why I disagree. You might be diamond, but I have seen far more sensible and better thought out posts from bronze players. Understanding of the game and skill are not the same thing. If you have a good argument, you have a good argument. Skill has nothing to do with it. Edit: Ok, your post isn't THAT bad. I exaggerated. But it's messy. We're all angry that Zerg is pretty fucked up right now but please don't rant about it here. It doesn't actually help the situation at all.
I'm confused. I thought I had some good arguments... and in the end you admit that Zerg ARE, in fact, "pretty fucked up right now"...
...so what's your point? Lol
I'd appreciate if, instead of straight up bashing with generalized statements, you took my post apart and told me what exactly was bad about it and what lacks "good evidence/actual arguments" =)
|
the funny thing is, this Zerg = weak/underrepresented trend is really only in US/EU. In KR, at least according to data of the top players in KR ladder, Protoss is the weak race, while Zerg is doing okay and Terran still more or less dominates. x\
EDIT: don't believe me? search it.
|
On August 12 2010 01:58 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 01:54 Phrencys wrote:
As a platinum (not pro nor totally retarded) random player I cringe every time I draw zerg.
Their macro game is fine, but it seems that their counter units are just worst than what other races can bring, is significantly harder to pull off, or is too high in the tech tree.
As Terran or Protoss you can generally have a generic game plan and stick to it. Be it bio or mech ball, or Stalkers+Sentry+Colossus or quick VRs. On the flip side of the coin, Zerg is IMO way too reactionary in sc2. I have the feeling that zerg units are so easily hard-countered that I end out not having any idea what to do.
Zerg units also feel WAY overpriced, like the game is balanced around the idea that zerg automatically has better macro. For instance a Brood Lord costs almost as much as a carrier, yet is much more situational than its Protoss counterpart.
Finally, the biggest problem I face when I draw zerg is the lack of versatility. This is especially true in large scale games like FFA when it can end out being your 200/200 vs their 200/200. In SC2, Zerg has no "I can mass XXXXX and be fine". In SC1 it was the hydra, but in sc2 they're much too slow, clostly and squishy to fill this role. This is why it's hard to have a mid-game plan that is isn't entirely tied to what the other guy is making, whereas both other races can make armies that are good all-around. Personally, I think that reactivity is pretty cool. It's a very unique flavour for the race, and can encourage gameplay deviations like... sometimes it's a good idea to save minerals and larvae, rather than spend them as fast as possible! (Completely counter to conventional gameplay wisdom -- and certainly counter to Starcraft 1 zerg playstyles.) For instance, you can mass larvae knowing you're going to make an army soon, but not be sure what exactly you want it to be. You scout and scout and scout. And it looks like the terran is not going to be able to build tons of anti-air very quickly. So you quickly make 10-15 mutas from saved resources and larvae. Devastatingly effective -- and really, damn near impossible to scout. CheckPrime does this in several of his games, btw. Feel free to check them out.
A fast tech switch is one of the most devastating things I feel like I can do as Z to cement my lead, but the map pools (and to a degree, the gas intensive nature of Z) makes it hard to do when the two sides are equal, barring some awesome TLO-like infestor usage and a magical gas reserve building up from nowhere, it is hard to to actually transition into something. About the only thing we can more or less tech switch into unconditionally is lings, and to an extent, roaches. Dunno, I honestly feel like Z's army variety is too low and the econ requirement too high for this racial advantage to play out. We invariably see some kind of a Roach-Mute thing, seldom do we see the transition to say, hydras, and infestors aren't even an option. It does come in handy a bit late game where the power of broodlords and ultras demand pretty different kind of units.
|
On August 11 2010 00:13 dybydx wrote:
this is the same with SC1
i started out playing toss because it was the 1a2a3a race, building cannon d was also very intuitive. you control fewer units in total because each fighting unit was at least 2 supplies. so protoss was the noob race.
terran on the other hand, almost every unit has a manually activated skill, like stim, siege, etc. you cant just 1a to victory.
zerg is the hardest to play for beginners. from the get go, when to get overlord and when to get 2nd hatch is not a simple decision for a beginner.
so ya, the population breakdown seems to make sense.
i main terran and i 've always thought that protoss was more micro intensive than terran, unless you are going something like thor/marauder/tank/hellion with scvs to repair the thors on the go
|
Zerg isn't played as much because they're horrible. Cmon, Idra says that time and time again and nobody listens. Zerg is terrible and that's just fact.
|
They're bugs, you kill bugs dont toy with them.
|
Well...
- They are considered the weakest race (be it right or wrong, it decreases its popularity, many play fotm)
- Their design may be considered ugly and not appaling, their is no voice acting too (like in a mmo people prefer human to orcs).
- They feel very different than terran and protoss to play, less straightforward and therefore may be considered far harder for a newcomer
- Other reasons I'm not thinking about...
|
can we have more threads like this please, original threads are just awesome !
|
I have just switched T->Z. T became very boring for me. I was playing in top diamond for awhile, and some of my victories seem to be undeserved. Its always turtling and moving out. Zerg is more fun, there is always action going on. Although I had to sacrifice my good stats and move to somewhere in the mid of diamond league. But I get more satisfaction from the game and thats what is important.
|
Good post by darkness on page 15. I won't go on and mention everything I find UP with zerg but I can tell you right now that I would bet real money on a terran nerf next patch at 1.25 decimal odds. I would put down my own money on it.
|
|
|
at team i totally think zerg is worse than all because most team games are based of early game and thats when zerg is real bad.
In 1v1 its probably because people (including myself) find more enjoyable playing p and t, not because its worse or ZvT is imbalanced (l2p)
|
I'm sure someone has already mentioned the campaign, where you play Terran, and occasionally Protoss, and kill Zerg. Secondly, they are presumed to be underpowered in the community. Thirdly, they have the least units. And finally, they have the most odd mechanics. Terran and Protoss make units from a variety of unit producing structures. Zerg just use larvae.
|
Nothing to do with the campaign.
Zerg gets bitch slapped left and right by the other two races, is forced to only respond to what the opponent is doing, and is incapable of doing any meaningful early game aggression. Furthermore, by late game, it is not possible to squander enough forces to overrun the enemy forces. Reinforcing has nothing to do with it. ZvMech especially, your maxed Z army is just a joke.
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. Every zerg unit in the game gets hard countered so hard by any one of those components. For P, the colossus/stalker/sentry/zealot but at the very least it's possible to snipe colossus with some corruptor here.
|
Yeah, could you please? I actually want quotes from top Korean zerg players, though -- normal people whine in every game about everything.
|
On August 13 2010 07:22 zomgzergrush wrote:
Nothing to do with the campaign.
Zerg gets bitch slapped left and right by the other two races, is forced to only respond to what the opponent is doing, and is incapable of doing any meaningful early game aggression. Furthermore, by late game, it is not possible to squander enough forces to overrun the enemy forces. Reinforcing has nothing to do with it. ZvMech especially, your maxed Z army is just a joke.
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. Every zerg unit in the game gets hard countered so hard by any one of those components. For P, the colossus/stalker/sentry/zealot but at the very least it's possible to snipe colossus with some corruptor here.
Because before I pick up a new game, I read strategy forums. . .No. When I buy a game, I don't go out and read, "This is op, This is UP" forums. I may read a build order or two or something, but I sure as hell don't go out and read everything. Maybe once I'm playing, but I have had numerous friends pick up the game and the few that play zerg only complain about Void Rays.
Also of note: Tank/rauder/hellion is not mech. It's bio mech. And who the HELL cares about hard counters. Marine medic tank vessel had zero hard counters too.
|
zerg is awesome, no one is giving them a chance though. And when people do play them they play like how they play terran and toss and that is not how to play them. you really have to wear people down and out produce and scout the enemy at all times. terran mech is not impossible to break, it just takes a different approach. remember mech is slow as beans, zerg is not slow. if you let them get a 200 200 army you are doing zerg wrong. They rarely will win against 200 200 in a straight fight.
I dont know why people hating on the lovable zerg so much.
|
People should stop making threads like this.
People don't play zerg because they want to play terran or protoss, it's not the balance or the difficulty of the races, it's just preference.
|
On August 13 2010 07:29 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 07:22 zomgzergrush wrote:
Nothing to do with the campaign.
Zerg gets bitch slapped left and right by the other two races, is forced to only respond to what the opponent is doing, and is incapable of doing any meaningful early game aggression. Furthermore, by late game, it is not possible to squander enough forces to overrun the enemy forces. Reinforcing has nothing to do with it. ZvMech especially, your maxed Z army is just a joke.
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. Every zerg unit in the game gets hard countered so hard by any one of those components. For P, the colossus/stalker/sentry/zealot but at the very least it's possible to snipe colossus with some corruptor here. Because before I pick up a new game, I read strategy forums. . .No. When I buy a game, I don't go out and read, "This is op, This is UP" forums. I may read a build order or two or something, but I sure as hell don't go out and read everything. Maybe once I'm playing, but I have had numerous friends pick up the game and the few that play zerg only complain about Void Rays. Also of note: Tank/rauder/hellion is not mech. It's bio mech. And who the HELL cares about hard counters. Marine medic tank vessel had zero hard counters too.
1. I played starting from beta week 2. I did not JUST pick up this game like many new TL registers.
2. rine tank vessel DID have a hard counter for those of us who actually played BW. It was called plague, swarm, and lurkers. Once swarm and plague finished up at hive tech, the game was completely flipped in ZvT. FG does not compare to plague/swarm AT ALL.
3. Play ALL the races before saying anything.
Also of note: tank/rauder/hellion does have a hard counter; there is no AA in that combination.
Also of note: play other races first before you make such statements.
|
The very reality of 'zerg being played less' is constantly making people switch races so that they can play the 'underpowered' race and be part of the proud minority. Things will balance themselves out soon enough.
|
I haven't played since beta (since I went on holiday a few hours after i got the game).
But what always struck me as the main issue for seeing less Zerg was:
a) It has a harder to get into. Once you face people who have somewhat of a brain you have to make sure your macro is good. This includes using spawn larva on cooldown and making the right choice between making drones and offensive units
b) The Zerg seem to have less diversity.
Take a Terran, not only do they benefit a lot from mixed unit compositions. They also have a lot of diverse strategies you can use. Go with infantry (MMM style), go for mech, or go with air. Each is often a viable way to go and you can also go funky with say a reaper or helion rush or a thor drop.
Somewhat the same for protoss. They probably benefit even more from mixed unit compositions, and again there are multiple ways to go. You can go 4 gate; you can go fast robo; you can go for a stargate. Again lots of diversions within these and you can again do some funky things.
Zerg on the other hand seem more restricted. 9/10 games result in mass hydralisks because in the end its just the zergs strongest unit really. Not that the zerg can't play funky or mix units up a lot; but the risk/reward always seemed higher for me than for the other 2 races.
c) Zerg have a reactive playstyle
Since the roach nerfes (which were good, dont get me wrong) Zerg have been pretty much a reactive race from start till end. It can be really hard and very risky to be the agressor as zerg sometimes. For multiple reasons, some obvious others less (Like the fact that easy wall ins for T and P make it really hard to do a zergling rush these days).
Being a reactive race isn't bad by default, the zerg are rather good with it and you can switch unit composition so incredibly fast that the zerg probably even plays best in that role. But it can be dull and hard for newer players
d) Zerg lack more fun units.
The Terran and Protoss seem to have gotten the better pick of fun units. This goes from simply fun to use units (like reapers that can do some fun stuff with their ledge jumping, to blinking stalkers, from deathray collussi with ledgewalking to transforming Vikings), to caster units that make the whole playstyle more fun.
A good example is sentries. Forcefield must be one of the most entertaining and rewarding (with good micro) spells in the game.
Zerg seems to lack some of these. The infestor can be good fun, but is only really valuable against certain builds; same for banelings.
Those are just a few reasons i can think of. I haven't played recently so things might have changed a lot; if so excuses. But that's how I felt during beta. It's not that I dislike zerg or think they are underpowered. They just seem to miss "something". That's the feeling i had all throughout beta.
|
I mained Zerg in SC1 but they're too difficult for my lack of playing time in SC2. The creep spread and queen mechanics are just something that really do require practice to really optimize. Zerg has a lot more potential than a majority of players give it simply because a majority of players don't have the mechanics yet to take advantage of it IMO. If you can get perfect creep spread and perfect queen usage with drone/unit comp, I think zerg is fine. But for the most of it, monitoring every single overlord, queen, creep tumor is just @_@.
Whenever I play as Zerg, I've never actually felt "OMG th is is so op I don't have a chance", it's more of a "fuuucckkk how do I have so many minerals and so little units ..." because I'm always trying to max the other factors.
|
I like to think the reason is because every random player actually prefers Zerg.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
It takes a lot of micro to make Zerg do what it should be capable of without it. Zerg is also a little UP at this point.
|
cause they dont have blink stalkers or reapers =)
|
Personally, I would've picked Zerg as my main race if only the ZvZ matchup didn't make me want to throttle someone.
|
Just a suggestion to this thread...
Stop Theorycrafting because yes, it's possible to find a unit composition that will counter something...but that isn't the main problem. Half the time, the main problem is getting to that point (sizable armies fighting each other). People can say whatever they want and yes, there are builds for that (like some 5 minute bcs build i read once), however for me, the problem is actually staying alive and having the time to find the right unit comp to fight against other races.
|
The likely reasons are:
1: Zerg have less unit types
2: As a result Zerg have less strategic options
3: Zerg units have very few unique abilities
4. Most units don't even have any kind of bonus damage.
>>> They are very bland.
I used to play Zerg, but I switched to Terrans now, not because there is so much "T is OP", but because there are much more options on how I want to play when going T.
I would probably be more happy about Zerg, if they would have more unit types.
|
On the subject of team games, I am a Zerg player and have actually thought about switching for 3v3 and 4v4. For me it's not a question of units or fun or balance or any of the usual discussions. It's because Zerg depend heavily on creep, but it's a little more difficult to creep in some 3v3 and 4v4 maps when your allies are not zerg. A prime example is maps with a single choke for your team, where your allies are trying to wall off and you are trying to spread creep tumors. Obviously you can use overlords to generate beyond the wall, but think about wall defense where you want your hydras/banelings/roaches to have high speed.
I tend to favor muta harass play on maps like that because of this, but I have also considered just switching to a different race which doesn't depend on creep to make their units able to stand up to others.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Because they have crap voice-announcer.
|
I'd say zerg is played less because there is no more plague ability. I mean, what's the fun in playing zerg if you can't look forward to yelling "PLAYGOOOOOOOOOOOO" in the late game. "Fungal growth" just isn't as fun to say.
To be honest for a moment though, I think it's just because the game is still new, and the metagame isn't as developed yet. As of right now, a large chunk of scII players are either people from WC3, Dota, or people who just picked up the game with no rts experience. After playing through the campaign, the people newer to the game are going to be more comfortable with what they already know (terran and protoss).
As time goes by, people are either going to get bored, and switch races, or the metagame will evolve and zerg players will start creating more adventurous strategies that are stronger and more appealing.
|
On August 13 2010 08:34 Meff wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I can only speak for myself. I switched form Z to P 5 days ago and tbh, I'm already doing as well with P as I ever did with Z. They're just in kind of a rough spot now imo. Especially ZvT is hard (newsflash!!!), you just feel like it's an uphill struggle constantly with tons and tons of pressure
But I like toss so it's ok :D wanna be able to play both races tho, but right now I don't feel like playing Z because TvZ is just too frustrating
|
I don't really know how or why this got to 18 pages. The reason is simple and has nothing to do with balance.
People don't play zerg because you need to be able to think to play zerg. To play Protoss or Terran you can follow a playbook and a-move your way to victory all the way up to mid diamond (or mech crawl if that's your thing). Zerg can't do this and even as low as vs plat players zerg needs to actually have good game sense and be able to run their production and expansions properly. Any zerg build advice past an opening + general unit mix concepts is worthless. Meanwhile you can really follow a Protoss or Terran gameplan from start to finish up to 200 food and still have a good success rate.
Think about it, one of the hardest things for Zerg to stop in save ZvP are 2gate and 4 gate pushes. All the way up to mid/high diamond a well executed by the book 2gate or 4gate push can beat many zergs as they're likely to over-drone or under-drone in response.
A lot of players don't want to have to think, they just want to win so they play T or P so they don't have to think.
Builds, push timings, expansion timings, these are all things T and P players can copy from better players to win games. Zerg doesn't have this option and it takes a lot of trial and error + dedicated work to properly figure out on each map, matchup, and strategy how to properly defend + econ.
On top of that without defense unit(s) or strong aoe damage units Zerg's ability to win underdog fights relies on positioning and other harder to pick up on tactics.
So players switch because they don't want to do the work.
|
On August 13 2010 10:01 Logo wrote:
I don't really know how or why this got to 18 pages. The reason is simple and has nothing to do with balance.
People don't play zerg because you need to be able to think to play zerg. To play Protoss or Terran you can follow a playbook and a-move your way to victory all the way up to mid diamond (or mech crawl if that's your thing). Zerg can't do this and even as low as vs plat players zerg needs to actually have good game sense and be able to run their production and expansions properly. Any zerg build advice past an opening + general unit mix concepts is worthless. Meanwhile you can really follow a Protoss or Terran gameplan from start to finish up to 200 food and still have a good success rate.
Think about it, one of the hardest things for Zerg to stop in save ZvP are 2gate and 4 gate pushes. All the way up to mid/high diamond a well executed by the book 2gate or 4gate push can beat many zergs as they're likely to over-drone or under-drone in response.
A lot of players don't want to have to think, they just want to win so they play T or P so they don't have to think.
Builds, push timings, expansion timings, these are all things T and P players can copy from better players to win games. Zerg doesn't have this option and it takes a lot of trial and error + dedicated work to properly figure out on each map, matchup, and strategy how to properly defend + econ.
So what you're saying is, it's not harder for zerg players to win, it's just easier for protoss and terran players to win.
I understand completely...
|
I'm playing random right now and zerg is definitely my least favorite race. It's not really because of balance at all, they just aren't fun. In BW they were so different from protoss and terran because of how their economy worked and how fragile they were at lots of points in the game (needing defiler/lurker play to defend), but now in SC2 they're just like the other two races: make a bunch of shit and you'll probably win.
|
On August 13 2010 10:01 Logo wrote:
I don't really know how or why this got to 18 pages. The reason is simple and has nothing to do with balance.
People don't play zerg because you need to be able to think to play zerg. To play Protoss or Terran you can follow a playbook and a-move your way to victory all the way up to mid diamond (or mech crawl if that's your thing). Zerg can't do this and even as low as vs plat players zerg needs to actually have good game sense and be able to run their production and expansions properly. Any zerg build advice past an opening + general unit mix concepts is worthless. Meanwhile you can really follow a Protoss or Terran gameplan from start to finish up to 200 food and still have a good success rate.
Think about it, one of the hardest things for Zerg to stop in save ZvP are 2gate and 4 gate pushes. All the way up to mid/high diamond a well executed by the book 2gate or 4gate push can beat many zergs as they're likely to over-drone or under-drone in response.
A lot of players don't want to have to think, they just want to win so they play T or P so they don't have to think.
Builds, push timings, expansion timings, these are all things T and P players can copy from better players to win games. Zerg doesn't have this option and it takes a lot of trial and error + dedicated work to properly figure out on each map, matchup, and strategy how to properly defend + econ.
On top of that without defense unit(s) or strong aoe damage units Zerg's ability to win underdog fights relies on positioning and other harder to pick up on tactics.
So players switch because they don't want to do the work.
I very much disagree. I liked the whole analytical aspect of Z where you have to balance workers/attack units very delicately to win. I liked that the race worked so differently from the two other races.
What I did not like was being very limited in the beginning of the game, having to play very reactively and forced to defend harrass instead of going on the offensive.
That being said, I think you have a very good point saying that Z players just cannot follow a simple build order all the way to dimaond
|
Zerg is played less because it's missing some units.
Zerg has 9 while the other two races have 12. Missing 3 units is kind of a big problem with Zerg. (Unless you intend to bring your queens into battle, lol)
That's all I'm going to say.
|
On August 13 2010 10:07 Angra wrote:
I'm playing random right now and zerg is definitely my least favorite race. It's not really because of balance at all, they just aren't fun. In BW they were so different from protoss and terran because of how their economy worked and how fragile they were at lots of points in the game (needing defiler/lurker play to defend), but now in SC2 they're just like the other two races: make a bunch of shit and you'll probably win.
Yeah, they're missing that climax that hive tech brought that made things much more intense especially at late game with cracklings ultra and filer. Now in sc2, cracklings are much weaker, even though they have the AI. Ultra are a joke, and the infestors spells are rather unimpressive.
On August 13 2010 09:55 Jenslyn87 wrote:I can only speak for myself. I switched form Z to P 5 days ago and tbh, I'm already doing as well with P as I ever did with Z. They're just in kind of a rough spot now imo. Especially ZvT is hard (newsflash!!!), you just feel like it's an uphill struggle constantly with tons and tons of pressure But I like toss so it's ok :D wanna be able to play both races tho, but right now I don't feel like playing Z because TvZ is just too frustrating
My sentiments exactly. Even though ZvP can sometimes be rough if they commit to all warpgate plays, it doesn't compare to being 2-3 bases ahead and trying to break a T ball using a 200/200 Z army that works about as good as flies on a windshield.
|
On August 13 2010 10:05 SlowBlink wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 10:01 Logo wrote:
I don't really know how or why this got to 18 pages. The reason is simple and has nothing to do with balance.
People don't play zerg because you need to be able to think to play zerg. To play Protoss or Terran you can follow a playbook and a-move your way to victory all the way up to mid diamond (or mech crawl if that's your thing). Zerg can't do this and even as low as vs plat players zerg needs to actually have good game sense and be able to run their production and expansions properly. Any zerg build advice past an opening + general unit mix concepts is worthless. Meanwhile you can really follow a Protoss or Terran gameplan from start to finish up to 200 food and still have a good success rate.
Think about it, one of the hardest things for Zerg to stop in save ZvP are 2gate and 4 gate pushes. All the way up to mid/high diamond a well executed by the book 2gate or 4gate push can beat many zergs as they're likely to over-drone or under-drone in response.
A lot of players don't want to have to think, they just want to win so they play T or P so they don't have to think.
Builds, push timings, expansion timings, these are all things T and P players can copy from better players to win games. Zerg doesn't have this option and it takes a lot of trial and error + dedicated work to properly figure out on each map, matchup, and strategy how to properly defend + econ. So what you're saying is, it's not harder for zerg players to win, it's just easier for protoss and terran players to win. I understand completely...
No not really. I don't think it's necessarily harder or easier for either side in the absolute sense, it's just that with T & P someone else has done the hard work for you. If you 2-gate zealot push and have all of your timings down crisp and decent unit control you'll be able to gain the advantage in ZvP by 5-6 minutes probably all the way up to 400-500 diamond.
@Jenslyn87
The people who play zerg, like me and you, are the people who do like this aspect of the race. It's just that people like us don't make up the 30% of the SC2 population that would make zerg properly represented. Of course our numbers should probably be higher than they are due to balance perception, but I think even if Zerg was accepted as well balanced they'd still be a lower played %.
|
The reason is pretty much balance in my opinion, however it's not completely that. In general ZvT is pretty hard I personally consider it imbalanced. We have discussed in numerous thread why Zerg general structure of units makes them weaker vs strong army to a point where it's hard to make up for it with creativity and intelligent response. If the terran where smarter it would become even much harder, I think Zerg will get a boost or terran will get a nerf soon enough, not necessarily major but there will be one for sure.
|
why is zerg played less?
because the massive amounts of people who bought the game on release and didn't play beta are more familiar with terran and protoss, and as a result will favour races they feel more comfortable with.
|
On August 13 2010 10:21 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 10:05 SlowBlink wrote:On August 13 2010 10:01 Logo wrote:
I don't really know how or why this got to 18 pages. The reason is simple and has nothing to do with balance.
People don't play zerg because you need to be able to think to play zerg. To play Protoss or Terran you can follow a playbook and a-move your way to victory all the way up to mid diamond (or mech crawl if that's your thing). Zerg can't do this and even as low as vs plat players zerg needs to actually have good game sense and be able to run their production and expansions properly. Any zerg build advice past an opening + general unit mix concepts is worthless. Meanwhile you can really follow a Protoss or Terran gameplan from start to finish up to 200 food and still have a good success rate.
Think about it, one of the hardest things for Zerg to stop in save ZvP are 2gate and 4 gate pushes. All the way up to mid/high diamond a well executed by the book 2gate or 4gate push can beat many zergs as they're likely to over-drone or under-drone in response.
A lot of players don't want to have to think, they just want to win so they play T or P so they don't have to think.
Builds, push timings, expansion timings, these are all things T and P players can copy from better players to win games. Zerg doesn't have this option and it takes a lot of trial and error + dedicated work to properly figure out on each map, matchup, and strategy how to properly defend + econ. So what you're saying is, it's not harder for zerg players to win, it's just easier for protoss and terran players to win. I understand completely... No not really. I don't think it's necessarily harder or easier for either side in the absolute sense, it's just that with T & P someone else has done the hard work for you. If you 2-gate zealot push and have all of your timings down crisp and decent unit control you'll be able to gain the advantage in ZvP by 5-6 minutes probably all the way up to 400-500 diamond. @Jenslyn87 The people who play zerg, like me and you, are the people who do like this aspect of the race. It's just that people like us don't make up the 30% of the SC2 population that would make zerg properly represented. Of course our numbers should probably be higher than they are due to balance perception, but I think even if Zerg was accepted as well balanced they'd still be a lower played %.
As a general rule, I (and most people) find thinking to be harder than not thinking. If your argument is that you have to think to play as zerg (and you don't for other races), then it's going to be harder to play as zerg. I don't agree with either point to be honest, I just thought I'd let you know what I thought of your argument.
|
On August 13 2010 10:11 blindsniper wrote:
Zerg is played less because it's missing some units.
Zerg has 9 while the other two races have 12. Missing 3 units is kind of a big problem with Zerg. (Unless you intend to bring your queens into battle, lol)
That's all I'm going to say.
protoss minus warp prism?, archon, carrier, mothership
|
Because Zerg is not "attractive" race like the others special Protoss.
New players like the bling bling bling
|
On August 13 2010 10:27 SlowBlink wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 10:21 Logo wrote:On August 13 2010 10:05 SlowBlink wrote:On August 13 2010 10:01 Logo wrote:
I don't really know how or why this got to 18 pages. The reason is simple and has nothing to do with balance.
People don't play zerg because you need to be able to think to play zerg. To play Protoss or Terran you can follow a playbook and a-move your way to victory all the way up to mid diamond (or mech crawl if that's your thing). Zerg can't do this and even as low as vs plat players zerg needs to actually have good game sense and be able to run their production and expansions properly. Any zerg build advice past an opening + general unit mix concepts is worthless. Meanwhile you can really follow a Protoss or Terran gameplan from start to finish up to 200 food and still have a good success rate.
Think about it, one of the hardest things for Zerg to stop in save ZvP are 2gate and 4 gate pushes. All the way up to mid/high diamond a well executed by the book 2gate or 4gate push can beat many zergs as they're likely to over-drone or under-drone in response.
A lot of players don't want to have to think, they just want to win so they play T or P so they don't have to think.
Builds, push timings, expansion timings, these are all things T and P players can copy from better players to win games. Zerg doesn't have this option and it takes a lot of trial and error + dedicated work to properly figure out on each map, matchup, and strategy how to properly defend + econ. So what you're saying is, it's not harder for zerg players to win, it's just easier for protoss and terran players to win. I understand completely... No not really. I don't think it's necessarily harder or easier for either side in the absolute sense, it's just that with T & P someone else has done the hard work for you. If you 2-gate zealot push and have all of your timings down crisp and decent unit control you'll be able to gain the advantage in ZvP by 5-6 minutes probably all the way up to 400-500 diamond. @Jenslyn87 The people who play zerg, like me and you, are the people who do like this aspect of the race. It's just that people like us don't make up the 30% of the SC2 population that would make zerg properly represented. Of course our numbers should probably be higher than they are due to balance perception, but I think even if Zerg was accepted as well balanced they'd still be a lower played %. As a general rule, I (and most people) find thinking to be harder than not thinking. If your argument is that you have to think to play as zerg (and you don't for other races), then it's going to be harder to play as zerg. I don't agree with either point to be honest, I just thought I'd let you know what I thought of your argument.
Well fair enough, but either way it's not really a counter to my argument. If you're trying to say that Zerg can follow a preset build as well as Protoss or Terran than well, you're kinda delusional. It's perfectly clear from watching or playing any reasonable amount of zerg games that they have to constantly adapt and bend their builds after seeing key points in their opponent's plan while a by the books 2-gate is going to be reasonably effective all the way up through diamond.
@Lucius just because people haven't found a use YET for those units doesn't make them useless. You can find plenty of replays as is where those units actually do get used and to good effect. Though queens should count as a unit.
|
Ok I'm taking a page out of baller's book because he is so awesome.
Let's say you get into this fist fight with one of your friends. He has absolutely no training in fighting but is naturally more athletic then you due to his genetic superiority. He has jabs, uppercuts, kicks, and all sorts of other attacking abilities up his sleeve. You on the other hand are meek and require tons of training to match your friends physical prowess. Ok the fight starts and he starts throwing punches and kicks all over the place. If a single one of these hit, you instantly fall over and lose the fight. You keep blocking and blocking with the utmost precision that you have learned through your hours and hours of physical training. A single misread on one of his attacks and you are out for the count. Over time he tires out and you can finally deliver a single blow for the win. Pray that you don't tire out before he does or you also lose.
Ok now imagine your friend is the terran race and you are the zerg. His jabs and kicks are 1 base all-ins and your blocking is all the required defenss you must learn. You fuck up once and you lose. Your friend fucks up once and he continues to throw more shit at you until he wins.
Now which position would you rather be in?
|
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.
Actually, from my experience stalkers+colossi don't work well at all against that unit combination. Simply put, colossi cannot shoot both hydras and broodlings at the same time and, since focusing hydras while also focusing brood lords and mantaining proper ranges is not that simple, most of the time they end up wasting firepower on the broodlings while the hydras demolish the stalkers. At any rate, they're certainly not a hard counter to that composition.
|
There's a lot of balance issues, but in my opinion I hesitate to play Zerg just because it's not much fun. They don't have fun units. They have the zergling, the big zergling, the hydra that only attacks ground, the hydra, and a single caster whose spells are decent but not really important in the big scheme of things. Compare that to BW with lurker micro, dark swarm and plague, muta harass (when one single missile tower couldn't hold half of them off), and so on. The macro mechanics of Zerg are also the least fun, creep tumor micromanagement is obnoxious and so is having to inject larva on three or four diff positions on the map all the time.
edit-
People don't play zerg because you need to be able to think to play zerg
Yeah right, being successful at Zerg just means you're smarter than everyone. That's rather self-serving, and not true.
|
for me.. its just plain boring..
i played zerg in sc1, then made a switch to sc2 and zerg is nothing like it was before.
except now zvz even worse.
|
On August 13 2010 12:40 Mobius wrote:
for me.. its just plain boring..
i played zerg in sc1, then made a switch to sc2 and zerg is nothing like it was before.
except now zvz even worse.
I agree
It's just attack attack attack attack, the only caster they have right now the infestor who is a meh in that department.
I also think that terran is really well thought out since this is their expansion.you'll have a gazillion upgrades/researches. lol
but with regards to balance, I don't think it's that underbalanced.. you just need to do some gimmicky stuff like burrowed roaches/infestors/m, roach/ling/muta (stop making hydra's in TvZ for fucksake people) then you are off to a good start
|
They're ugly, they have less unit diversity, less interesting units (in my opinion) and their learning curve is significantly steeper than Terran or Toss. I don't really think balance issues or the perception that there are a balance issues would really skew the numbers radically.
I just kind of fear Zerg is always going to be under-represented, these don't seem like things they could change.
|
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.
|
You guys are ought to check out this thread... Then this one...
When so many pros complain... something has to be wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
