| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tropics
United Kingdom1132 Posts
On August 15 2010 20:13 Argoneus wrote: Yeah let's give terran no defence against mass muta. apart from sitting in mineral lines backed up by turrets thors suck against mass muta fyi you need marines to deal with mutas | ||
|
Shika
Sweden1711 Posts
As a side note I was watching Sen's stream and he's reading this thread. | ||
|
FuryX
Australia495 Posts
 | ||
|
ecdN
United States94 Posts
On August 15 2010 21:10 FuryX wrote: i am watching Sen's channel...he is playing Terran He's obsing someone playing Terran, genius. | ||
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
lol | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
Hang in there dimaga  | ||
|
Art_of_Kill
Zaire1232 Posts
funny that some people are argueing that zerg is fine ... goood luck to dimaga with terran | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On August 15 2010 20:27 Baarn wrote: There are so many options already to stop muta push without Thor. With current units comp you don't need more than 1 of those clunky things positioned in natural and expo to defend against mass mutas. In BW you can't make one goliath to hold off a base against muta attack. some key points to show your bias: -in bw you dont need more then one vessel -one thor does nothing at all and can easily be killed by 5 mutas - without the thor the only anti muta unit would be the rine. rines get WTFBBQ raped by banelings and infestors to a point that bio is not viable at all and evry single zvt would end up in T getting 1a owned by muta/ling/baneling + mabye infestors stop ignoring things in your memory and maybe think about stuff from different sides before you judge things. thats still the mainproblem with all the people that go"OMG TIS IMBA! CHANGE THAT!" they have no freakin idea how it is for the otherside and just demand changes/claim stuff without thinking a sec about it. | ||
|
Dream-
United States20 Posts
Tanks over shooting: Self-explanatory, just a horrible mechanic that needs to be fixed, and I think that would make the match-up about 30% more balanced. Marauder Damage/Cost out put: I am a terran and zerg player, both in high diamond, and I will openly admit that Marauder's damage is... simply retarded. It doesn't matter what unit comp you get, if its on the ground, Marauders are always the power house to go to. They are a terran bread and butter unit now (More than the marine it seems), and they are very accessible very early in the game, they need a slight damage nerf, or a cost increase. However, Thors and Battlecruisers don't need a nerf anymore than the other tier 3 units do. Anyone who argues accessibility of Thors against Zerg needs to think of it this way. If you tech to Thors, your army consists of... well.. a Thor, or 2, a few marines, and a few marauders. Zerg does need a few things changed though. An early accessible Anti-Air: Thats basically it, Terran can get a banshee out while helion/marine harassing you before you as a zerg player can even make it to tier 2. Which leaves... Queens as your AA. I had an interesting idea about an early AA. They should bring a unit like the Scourge back, with a few differences. Its linked to your spawning pool instead of your spire, the cost needs to be rather high somewhere like 100 Minerals 100 Gas 2 supply (and you get 2 of them like BW, work the same way as well.). Basically a unit just like the Reaper, whereas the reaper is used to harass early, the Scourge would be used to fight of early air attacks, but really not have a spot in the late game. Another Tier 1-1.5 unit: Well thats it, Zerg mid game is HARD to fight Terran mid game, to fight this, Zerg needs another unit along with another form of AA. If you look at it this way, at Tier 1.5, terran can have Marauders/Marines, and into the mid game have a quick helion, while zerg if only on tier 1.5 (I consider Helions tier 1.5 units), can only have zerglings and roaches. Terran has both of those countered very heavily, very early, and very cheaply. I have no idea for this new unit like the Scourge, but they need another back bone unit since Roaches are kind of garbage anyway. I'm sure there is other things that people need to see changed, but these in my opinion would make the matchup more balanced, as well as contributing to helping the TvP and ZvP matchups, since its really not much of a nerf for Terran, and just a few units buffs for Zerg. Nothing game breaking, just making it more balanced in my opinion. | ||
|
Juaks
United States384 Posts
| ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
Voyager I
United States260 Posts
| ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
On August 15 2010 21:32 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: some key points to show your bias: -in bw you dont need more then one vessel -one thor does nothing at all and can easily be killed by 5 mutas - without the thor the only anti muta unit would be the rine. rines get WTFBBQ raped by banelings and infestors to a point that bio is not viable at all and evry single zvt would end up in T getting 1a owned by muta/ling/baneling + mabye infestors stop ignoring things in your memory and maybe think about stuff from different sides before you judge things. thats still the mainproblem with all the people that go"OMG TIS IMBA! CHANGE THAT!" they have no freakin idea how it is for the otherside and just demand changes/claim stuff without thinking a sec about it. -In BW, vessels came way later. - In BW, 1 vessel could be killed by 5 mutas too. Marine support is key. - Without the thor, you still have turrents and vikings which own mutas. Stop ignoring the overpoweredness of Terran counters. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
So he can see how it's done for his inevitable switch! | ||
|
HowardRoark
1146 Posts
On August 15 2010 13:11 Macavity wrote: I played Zerg in beta and switched to Terran in retail. Dimaga will be smart if he switches to Terran. Ditto for Idra. The issue isn't that Terran is overpowered. The issue is that Zerg is a poorly designed race. What forced me to switch was when I realized that all my wins with Zerg ended up being long games like 30 min. But ALL my losses with Zerg would be like 10 min or so. Playing Zerg became so frustrating since Zerg is not in any position to be too aggressive at the beginning. People say, "You must macro!" OK, I have five bases with 100 drones. Because Zerg needs more bases, he needs more drones, which means he has less of a food count to make fun usual units. And this is just 'one' of the frustrations of playing Zerg. I find Terran to be the most 'complete' of the races. I have many options and playstyles available. Protoss I find to be less developed than Terran, but still OK. Zerg is just a complete mess. Zerg has some good core units like zerglings, mutalisks, hydralisks, but that is all. These units are also very two dimensional. All the Zerg can do is just make a ton of those two dimensional units. No, the problem with the Zerg race cannot be fixed with a simple 'balance' patch. The problem of the Zerg stems from Blizzard pinning the design philosophy on an incorrect definition, i.e. "swarmy". The "swarmy" definition is the cause of why Zerg units are all two dimensional. The 'swarmy' definition is why Zerg is meant to just make tons of the same units and 'attack move' somewhere. 'Swarmy' is why Zerg has problems with Terran mech because Zerg units are so weak in comparison because they were designed to be made in mass numbers. The biggest issue is that Blizzard's "Zerg swarmy" philosophy is not fun to play. I do not enjoy making tons of drones, defending against constant harassment, so I can make fifty hydralisks/roaches/mutalisks and attack move to victory. Of course, I am simplifying the matter, but not really. Blizzard was so relentless in their 'differentiation of races' that they made the Zerg into something they were not. In Brood War, Zerg were aggressive and to be feared. In Starcraft 2, Zerg are docile and considered weak. To "Zerg" became a definition in itself. Today, to "Zerg" will alter the definition into an opposite way (in the future, RTS gamers will talk about 'zerging' a race as to mean they neutered it). There is enough of an essential skeleton of the Zerg so they can win games. But it is the player who wins games, not the race. Zerg players tend to be cranky in general because the race is not fun to play (despite the cool biological aesthetic). My suggestion to Blizzard is to scale back the 'philosophy' of 'swarmy' and make Zerg more like Brood War Zerg. This will require some major changes however than a simple 'balance' tweak. Macavity, this post is a really good example of what is wrong with Zerg, I applaud you. The design of SC2 zerg is (bluntly speaking) a disaster and not something that can be fixed with a patch or two. We all know that Blizzard/Activision made Zerg last, and somehow somewhere their lead designer did not blow the whissle until it was too late (actually he never blew it as of yet). The fundamental flaws are among others: Corruptors, Roaches, and the need of going to tier 2.5 to get "decent" antiair. I guess the problem could be that Activision made the queen spawn larvae ability too strong and did not realize it, and then had to move every unit high up in the tiers, and the build times insanely long to compensate for the spawn larvae flaws. Perhaps if they made the queen only spawn 2 or 3 larvae instead of 4 while redesigning the race, Zerg could atleast close in to the perfect design z had in BW. | ||
|
Dream-
United States20 Posts
On August 15 2010 21:38 Voyager I wrote: Marauders have a worse damage output than Marines... Uhh... I hope thats a joke.. Marauders do 10 damage (20 vs Armored) and attack 1.5 attack speed. Marines do 6 damage and attack at .86 speed. In short, against light units, or air units, Marines take it, obviously. Against anything else? Marauders do more, not to mention they have almost 3 times as much health as marines without the shield upgrade. | ||
|
Juaks
United States384 Posts
On August 15 2010 21:38 Numy wrote: A patch won't do much. Zerg needs a whole redesign. Yeah right..../facepalm | ||
|
ItsTheFark
United States158 Posts
On August 15 2010 21:50 Dream- wrote: Uhh... I hope thats a joke.. Marauders do 10 damage (20 vs Armored) and attack 1.5 attack speed. Marines do 6 damage and attack at .86 speed. In short, against light units, or air units, Marines take it, obviously. Against anything else? Marauders do more, not to mention they have almost 3 times as much health as marines without the shield upgrade. Yes but you can have two marines per one marauder. Not to mention the 25 gas also for a marauder so if you are doing a 2:1 Mineral:Gas conversion thats actually three marines. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On August 15 2010 21:43 hacpee wrote: -In BW, vessels came way later. - In BW, 1 vessel could be killed by 5 mutas too. Marine support is key. - Without the thor, you still have turrents and vikings which own mutas. Stop ignoring the overpoweredness of Terran counters. read his post and then mine. might help you understand stuff. vikings are horrible vs mutas(and even more horrible against the rest of the Z army) and im sure you would love if T couldnt ever move away from mass turrets if he doesnt want to die from mutas. do you guys see what you write? if you seriously think the Thor should lose its splash and make zvt muta/ling stomps evrygame then really stop playing sc and start playing wow arena. there you can QQ and demand weird stuff based on one sided expirience all day long. | ||
|
Phayze
Canada2029 Posts
63% win rate zerg 580 points, like 70 in 42. Made a trial account, 48: 8 700 point terran. My second account (Not the trial) is a protoss at 800 points with over 80 games played. I have 240 custom games on my main account (zerg 580 points) and all of them were me practicing as zerg vs very good high end practice partners. ZvP is solid, ZvZ is solid, ZvT, I always get a terrible feeling in my stomach. If it's in a clan tourney, and there is some well know terrans, I immediately tell my clan leader to take our zergs off the roster. It's unbearable how much freedom terran gets with their strategies, It's like PvT in broodwar, so many openings that put them even (BUt in SC2 it puts them ahead ALWAYS, it's like your playing vs dt drop every game knowing by defending your just even as terran, but now your behind and you gotta play catchup the entire game). You can never play it safe vs terran or you will cripple your midgame, You're taking a risk by trying to stay even. It's like roll the dice, if its a 2 to a 6 you lose, and if you roll a 1 or a 2 you win. Ive put so much time and effort into fine tuning my zerg strategies. Everything from the smallest thing such as cutting a mutalisk here etc. Then I just make a terran trial and outperform my zerg play signifigantly. Or play on my second retail account (pre order and midnight release >.>) and rape top 200 as protoss. Either way i'm also leaving zerg. terran is so strong to play as. It really is super easy, and I havent even gotten into it. I've played many of the top US players already and won, won vs people who i would always lose too. Thank god for switching to terran. Zerg is so freaking hard, it's just not worth the effort. was top 100 US in beta as zerg, and I just could NOT keep up with the rate in which terran was perfecting their strategies. There timing pushes were suddenly no longer defendable a week after release. Just not worth the pain playing zerg. Blizzard is becoming a joke in my nerd house. three of the four of us were zerg, and we brainstormed everything for ZvT, we were all B iccup players, and we could not come up with a solid solution to many of hte terran strategies. We all felt disgusting. Two of the 3 (me to terran my friend to toss) have swapped races for good. It's really sad to see nothing done, and my good mate, the trooper he is, is staying zerg (I have not lost to him yet as terran despite always getting raped by him in BW) | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
