|
On August 15 2010 09:34 MasterAsia wrote:
1, As Sheth mentioned, Zerg has no ability to defend against sieging or to siege.
Due to the "spawn larvae" ability of the queen the Zerg units had to be made a bit more squishy. I think it is time the Zerg players woke up and realized that no advantage comes without a cost and in this case the cost is not being able to rush a sieged position without heavy casualties. Zerg also got one additional trick and that is the ability to move while burrowed. Assaulting sieged tanks should still be possible if the Terran is a slacker on his detection. If he isnt it is equally fine, because he had to spend resources on detection, which might have been spent for additional tanks. The big question is: Should Zerg be able to assault a sieged up defensive position? IMO the answer is no, because the same wouldnt work for Protoss either. Immortals can get EMPed and you have loads of Marines at the front anyways and the whole bunch of Gateway units gets eaten by splash.
On August 15 2010 09:34 MasterAsia wrote:
2, The Terran is very flexible with strategies, but Zerg is not.
What do Zergs have? They have speedlings or roaches.
There are more ways to open than Roaches and Speedlings, because the Terran also has to build more buildings to be able to build mech or air for example. Sometimes they even need two additional buildings if they want to go for a high tech unit and need a tech lab. So this argument of Zerg not having options doesnt really count IMO. Terrans being very flexible is correct, however, because their assault methods can look VERY different. I havent seen Zerg harrass a base with 4 burrowed Roaches yet though, so some Zerg abilities are definetely underused. I feel that many times the Zerg are hindered by the mantra of "you do not want to build static defenses", which Day[9] and other commentators spread around. At 300 hit points and a range of 7 the Spine Crawler is MUCH cheaper to defend a base from harrassing Hellions than six Zerglings are AND you even save larvae on that. Just build 4-5 Spine Crawlers and only a handful of Zerglings and you should be fine against Hellions and early infantry aggression. Adding a third queen to your two bases should make the defense against air complete (plus more energy for Transfusion and Creep Tumors) and you didnt even need any gas to do it.
The point where Zerg is at a total advantage is the mid- to late-game, when they have several tech buildings and the option to do a complete tech switch in one production cycle. The real crunch is getting to that point.
On August 15 2010 09:34 MasterAsia wrote:
3, The Terran mobility is too good comparing to the Zerg ground army.
I agree with you here, but I would phrase it a little differently:
The mobility disadvantage of Terrans does not come into play that much due to the horribly small size of the maps. If the maps were larger the Terrans would have to build bunkers and turrets as defensive structures when they advance on an enemy, simply because it takes a long time to reinforce and replace any lost units. This is not the case atm and there is no map - except for Desert Oasis (!!!!) maybe - where the Zerg could choose to go around the Terran army to attack his base instead. The small size of the maps also guarantee that the Zerg players do NOT use the Nydus Network as a simple mobility advantage to "teleport" from their base to a spot near the opponents base; it is only used as an "assault method" directly into the enemies base atm. All of this is due to the size of the maps.
On August 15 2010 09:34 MasterAsia wrote:
4, Zerg army is hard-countered, and Terran army is slightly-countered.
For each unit or unit combination of Zerg, Terran can find a very effective unit or unit combo to counter it hard.
This can easily be abused by a Zerg by making tech switches. The thing is that Zerg players seem to think that "stuff is only effective in a swarm of units" and thus complain about the cost, but that is not entirely true. Many times the Terrans do drops with a Medivac or two full of Marine/Marauders. Some even master the art of dropping at several places at once. I dont think I have seen a Zerg do that yet and especially the burrowed movement of Roaches and Infestors will make it hard to catch the culprits if they dont get greedy. The need to build A LOT of defensive structures (Turrets and Cannons for detection) will rise and those are resources lost to their offensive capability.
On August 15 2010 09:34 MasterAsia wrote:
5, Zerg units are too weak compared to BW when they are in small number.
This has been done to offset the increased larva production capability due to the queen. If the spawn larva ability is reworked (changed to 2 additional larvae and no "unlimited stacking") then it would be reasonable to make Zerg units tougher. Simply buffing the Zerg units durability would make them much too powerful in the late game where the stacked larvae simply allows for "instant" reproduction of a 200/200 army.
On August 15 2010 09:34 MasterAsia wrote:
6, The new AI helps Terran too much.
(1) In SC2 unit turn to get into a ball - good for tanks, ravens to kill zerg, also good for marauders to consume damage for marines, good for thors to block the tanks, etc.. Also good for Terran to reposition their reinforcement very quickly. It used to be a pain to let the newly-made Terran units to cooperate perfectly with the attacking army in BW.
(2) The auto-repair thing is terrible. Zerglings do not attack the repairing scv, so if a thor is being surrounded and auto-repaired, no zergling will do any damage to it unless you force them to attack scvs one by one. Not to mention that the scvs around a thor is very difficult to catch.
(3) Tanks do not waste DPS.. They are too smart to avoid self-damage now. If you spawn infested terran in the middle of a ball of Terran tanks, only one tank will fire, and it is not a big deal. In BW the tanks around the infested terran will all die instantly.
I dont think your points are really valid and offer only a one-sided view on the matter ...
(1) Bio-balls are great for Zerg too: Fungal Growth and if the Terran has tanks and you fire a few Broodlings into it (or sacrifice a few of your own units) they get punished for it by their own army.
(2) This doesnt have anything to do with AUTO-repair. The thing you mention happens in an early push, where the SCVs are told to repair by the player most of the time. Auto-repair can make it easier, but the thing you mention doesnt really change for a good Terran who micros his stuff.
(3) Tanks also got considerably more expensive compared to BW ... most notably 3 food instead of 2.
The thing is that the movement AI from BW was crap and technology has improved. It isnt only the defense that has been improved by this, but the offense as well or would you prefer advancing in a single-file-line with your attacking units as was the case in BW? Especially Zerg gain from being able to move in a tight formation, because it means more of their units reach the target at the same time.
As a whole I think the one factor which makes the game so hard for Zerg is the map size. The possibility for harrass is just so great and the Terran units (Reaper, Hellion) are so efficient at it that it is frequently used. The Zerg race needs the longest time to "get into gear" and this makes it vulnerable to harrass. On a larger map there is at least the option to simply go around an enemy to harrass where his troops are not.
|
Dente, I'm pretty sure the balance concerns are aimed at the top players, the ones who are competing and playing for money. No offense.
|
I'd love to play on some of those korean maps especially the Boxer vs that guy who was protoss
It was a lava map and boxer like mass goliaths and theres was only 4 expansions.
Such a fun map.
Also you needed drop ships to get everywhere XD.
|
problems that need to be changed.
1. big problem turrets too effective.
2. overseers too expensive and fragile/slow.
3. queens too slow off creep.. either make them a bit faster(nah) OR spawn with 50 energy ( please blizz please)
4. creep spreading is hard. and absolutely necessary ( see solution 3)
5. NP now Useless and expensive.
6. Lair too long... ( make lair time shorter. but i really think this would imba ZvP too much so just make spire time shorter instead. would really help in all those games when u realize OH shit i need to make a spire!,,,... still not done in 5 minutes !!... o well gg
7. 70 drones = weak army... so at least give us quicker building sunken crawlers or make something about them decent. and also more creep ( see 3 and 4 )
8. tank fire rate too fast. slower it please.. bump the damage back up to 70 or whatever even... i think the AI is fine.. i dont see why to dumb down the game engine ( but i guess blizz did when they removed spawn larva wirecasting)
9. auto repair... this is a joke should be removed.. i dont think repairing scvs should be high priority thats dumb. but auto repair is a joke... he who cant click to repair deserves to die.. My queens dont auto transfuse.
10.. overlord speed back to 50 gas. we need more creep! and scouting! if you wont give our units the speed.. then give us the creep already!!
|
On August 15 2010 17:57 Sadistx wrote:You may be the 5th best zerg, but I disagree entirely with your description of "viable" strategies Show nested quote +Zergs. I just list some here:
reapers,
hellions,
banshees,
fast expand,
mass bio/marines,
ghosts/nukes,
tank rush,
pure mech,
dropships,
vikings... 1. Yes, reapers are a definite problem on some maps, but on maps with large mains Z can adapt rather quickly by spreading creep and chasing away with speedlings. Maybe it's very different at the top levels. 2. Fast expand is rarely viable simply because Z will get his natural faster than T with the larva mechanic, T cannot afford to let Z get away with a free 14-15 hatch. 3. Mass bio/marines is countered extremely easily by banelings and lings. It is a terrible opener. 4. Ghosts/nukes - Not sure if a 500 gas investment into a ghost with a nuke is worth dealing basically some damage to a hatchery, since you can just pull drones. If scouted by Z, it's an autoloss for T, so it's another terrible opener. Ghosts late game however are another story. 5. Tank rush - another terrible opener. Early tank is nothing but a marauder with slightly higher damage and slighty higher HP, but at the cost of 225 gas at the minimum. Maybe I don't understand what this build is, but then please explain. 6. Pure Mech - Hellions should be merged with this build, to transition into mech, you need to have 2 bases, for which you need to do some damage vs Z's economy. 7. Dropships - really part of the bio play, can be countered relatively easily with queen and ling surrounds, also becomes terrible mid game after banelings and infestors come out. 8. Vikings - this really isn't much of an opener, quick viking to snipe overlords can be gotten with any build, so it doesn't deserve a separate entry. Out of all 10 builds you listed, Hellions and Banshee are the only 2 really good builds that can be considered OP, especially since you almost can't tell which one is coming.
Sooooooo wrong.
Reapers prevent FE if it's a dedicated reaper build or a cheese reaper opening. The only way to stop this is going fast 1 base speedling.
Ignitor hellions automatically beat a speedling open because you can't hold off hellions without investing into an uneconomical amount of speedlings.
Marine/tank rushes are basically unbeatable without speedlings, and you need like 50. That's what's meant by tank rush.
Ignitor hellions can also be dropped (which is the best early drop play). It's unstoppable and virtually unscoutable. This build is so strong it's sick.
Banshees are actually the worst opening vs Z. It's fairly easy to scout and respond to. It's very allin to go banshees.
Honestly, there's also stim bio pushes, marauder hellion pushes, early thor/hellion pushes, along with any sort of ridiculous cheese.
FE strats are even MORE problematic, since you can often expo off of an early aggression build to force them to not sit back and drone. Ignitor hellions, reapers, and even viking are excellent openers to expo off of.
Zerg has to worry about 10 different openings all the time, especially because they all can look the same til that push is out of Ts base. It's totally insane.
|
What I feel when I play TvZ / ZvT:
- All-in 1 base terran timing push super easy to do and hard to counter if unscouted
- bio is very weak (using bio against zerg ling/bling/muta is like running with hydra in a 15 sieged tank line).
- tanks are super strong in large number if the zerg is still t2
- terran can NOT win lategame so you have to rely on 1 base (or maybe 2 bases) all-in otherwise you loose to ultra (and broodlords).
|
On August 15 2010 19:06 ganil wrote:
What I feel when I play TvZ / ZvT:
- All-in 1 base terran timing push super easy to do and hard to counter if unscouted
- bio is very weak (using bio against zerg ling/bling/muta is like running with hydra in a 15 sieged tank line).
- tanks are super strong in large number if the zerg is still t2
- terran can NOT win lategame so you have to rely on 1 base (or maybe 2 bases) all-in otherwise you loose to ultra (and broodlords).
i hear a lot that Zerg lategame is too strong, however when i'm playing competent terrans or watching pro reps, Terran lategame armies just wipe out 200/200 Zerg hive-tech armies. I think the problem is at low levels, as if the game progresses into lategame for some reason the bad Zerg player just makes a tone of BLs or Ultras and a-moves while the bad Terran player, having no need so far to learn good unit mixes and positioning just dies to them as his a-moved normal army isnt strong enough to counter it.
I believe BLs are only viable if you were going heavy mutas in midgame and got upgrades and kept mutas alive, if you just get 6-7 BLs out in addition to your ground army, the T can switch his starport to a reactor and start making vikings. Vikings are really easy to micro against BLs, as they can hit em from long range, and can retreat befor low ranged mutas/ slow corruptors could engage them. Repeat this a couple of times, and you took out all the broodlords 1 by 1. And when you give up on Broodlords he'll just use the vikings to kill your ovies or harass expos , abuse cliffs if possible, etc...
Many ppl underestimate viking play, they shouldnt. As a diamond zerg, i probably hate viknigs more then tanks, although it's a close call
|
Ultra counters every ground unit terran has so yeah, once the game reach this stage the terran loses most of the time.
Thors spell doesn't work at all because it doesn't stun ultra anymore and they do the same damage over time using their regular attack.
BL are more a threat if they're "suprise broodlord" when T lack of viking. Otherwise the main problem are ultra.
Viking are always good. 4 can kill overlord in 2 volley and they can harass mineral lines but they won't help you after you somehow survived to the 1st late game zerg attack, and are completely overwhelmed by the 2nd :p.
|
On August 15 2010 19:23 Geo.Rion wrote:
I believe BLs are only viable if you were going heavy mutas in midgame and got upgrades and kept mutas alive, if you just get 6-7 BLs out in addition to your ground army, the T can switch his starport to a reactor and start making vikings. Vikings are really easy to micro against BLs, as they can hit em from long range, and can retreat befor low ranged mutas/ slow corruptors could engage them.
Slow corruptors? Do you know that they are faster then a viking?
|
ultralisk get torn apart by marauder tank thor I don't know what you are talking about (in equal supply,)
the reason you probably die to ultra charge is you've been 1 basing or 2basing an entire game whereas zerg is on 3 or 4, sometimes 5 or 6 or 4+gold or as I've seen on steppes of war 4base +2 gold vs 2base terran, natrually he can (and should) crank up a ton more supply (in case you were wondering, 4base+2gold vs 2base terran was actually a pretty even match...)
|
Hello, this is my first post on TL and I wish to speak my mind about this balance matter.
I am a platinum player ranked 20 currently so my oppinion about balance isn't valid so I won't go into that. I have a more general question to ask and see what your opinions are about it.
What is most important in a game such as starcraft 2, to balance the game for the intense pro level which represents a very low player base, or to balance the game for the other 99,9% ?
If they balance the game according to how the pro players play it, how will it affect the other big chunk? Will it affect the others in the same way?
I don't have the experience or anything to see the answeres for this myself and perhaps they are silly questions, and if they are just plainly ignore them and I will have my answere there and still live happily ever after. 
edit: It can seem to be off-topic, but I find it to be very related to all these balance posts.
|
A problem I see is that the no matter what a Terran player does he is always in a good position, because of the fact that he can always continuously build workers, it's usually possible to invest in an expansion with the abundance of minerals you get from mules and his base will be well defended due to building placement and siege tanks and thors.
Zerg has to make a trade-off for either units or economy, which is non-existent with Terran; they're balanced for always being able to get maximum economy, and I personally think this limits the potential of the match-up because there is no real tension between economy and army.
A change I think that would help is the following: Orbital Command costs 50 gas.
This will make it an actual decision and allow the Terran to go for some quick tech units and delay his economy or delay his tech.
|
On August 15 2010 19:33 Dente wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 19:23 Geo.Rion wrote:
I believe BLs are only viable if you were going heavy mutas in midgame and got upgrades and kept mutas alive, if you just get 6-7 BLs out in addition to your ground army, the T can switch his starport to a reactor and start making vikings. Vikings are really easy to micro against BLs, as they can hit em from long range, and can retreat befor low ranged mutas/ slow corruptors could engage them. Slow corruptors? Do you know that they are faster then a viking?
i mean they arent fast enough to kill the vikings. Mutas could catch up to vikings but they dont have enough time if T has his army in position, corruptors have about the same speed, so when they move towars you you pull back and escape just as easely.
I think there was a day9daily about a ZvT on steppes of war, where the Z tried to assault with BLs the Ts gold and support them with air, but the T had vikings and just microed back and forth as i described and held it off easely. I think it was Mardow playing against some terran i never heard about, i could be wrong.
|
On August 15 2010 19:43 RedX1277 wrote:Hello, this is my first post on TL and I wish to speak my mind about this balance matter. I am a platinum player ranked 20 currently so my oppinion about balance isn't valid so I won't go into that. I have a more general question to ask and see what your opinions are about it. What is most important in a game such as starcraft 2, to balance the game for the intense pro level which represents a very low player base, or to balance the game for the other 99,9% ? If they balance the game according to how the pro players play it, how will it affect the other big chunk? Will it affect the others in the same way? I don't have the experience or anything to see the answeres for this myself and perhaps they are silly questions, and if they are just plainly ignore them and I will have my answere there and still live happily ever after. edit: It can seem to be off-topic, but I find it to be very related to all these balance posts.
basically what I think this comes down to, is do they balance it around future community-made maps (that will be balanced on pro level) or do they balance it around their own (crappy) ladder map pool (which will mean balance on casual level)
right now it's unbalanced on casual level at a time when there exists no pro-level maps, which makes for a clusterfuck of suck.
|
On August 15 2010 19:29 ganil wrote:
Ultra counters every ground unit terran has so yeah, once the game reach this stage the terran loses most of the time.
Thors spell doesn't work at all because it doesn't stun ultra anymore and they do the same damage over time using their regular attack.
BL are more a threat if they're "suprise broodlord" when T lack of viking. Otherwise the main problem are ultra.
Viking are always good. 4 can kill overlord in 2 volley and they can harass mineral lines but they won't help you after you somehow survived to the 1st late game zerg attack, and are completely overwhelmed by the 2nd :p.
ultras can't break a turtling terran. rax/eng bay walloff with tanks behind it is ridiculous.
zerg has a lot of ways to delay and engage on their own terms, but this is hard to pull off against a really slow push from the terran, and means that they still can't break a turtle terran very easily, without losing ridiculous amounts of resources. so they must be way ahead economically for this to be viable, unless they can cripple the terrans ability to push. I think that if a zerg hopes to win by simply out expanding and defending with the bare minimum, until they get a 4-5 base economy like Idra does, they must be as good as Idra. imo, they should be much more aggressive off of 1 base up, to ensure that they can stay 1 base up.
but what do I know? I can't beat a zerg that doesn't try to mass ling, 1 base roach all-in, or baneling bust me
|
On August 15 2010 10:05 Perkins1752 wrote:
Dude it has been said so many times no:
1.Zerg players are worse then the average Terran player
2. Zerg is fine l2p
3. If you are still losing, just use nydus
4. It's the player, not the race
5. Just mass Mutas/Roaches and it's gg
6. Broodlords are awesome just quicktech to Blords and it's gg
7. Just sac an Overlord
Others than that, Zerg has superior early-midgame strategies themselves:
1. Banelingbust!
2. Roaches!
3. Alot of other strategies, i don't remember exactly but they are completely awesome
4. Nydus! (It has not been mentioned often, but nydus totally owns)
Others than that, Zerg is fine l2p
User was temp banned for this post.
why did the user get temp banned for this? he has a point. tl admins need to chill out and stop banning people for their honest opinion... yes, ban me for say this.
|
On August 15 2010 10:13 Kare wrote:
Im gonna say something now because I think it needs to be said, stop making these ridiculous threads and learn to play instead.
User was temp banned for this post.
another temp ban for an honest opinion.. tl admins grow some balls.. here comes the ban
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 15 2010 19:55 aznhockeyboy16 wrote:
ultras can't break a turtling terran. rax/eng bay walloff with tanks behind it is ridiculous.
zerg has a lot of ways to delay and engage on their own terms, but this is hard to pull off against a really slow push from the terran, and means that they still can't break a turtle terran very easily, without losing ridiculous amounts of resources. so they must be way ahead economically for this to be viable, unless they can cripple the terrans ability to push. I think that if a zerg hopes to win by simply out expanding and defending with the bare minimum, until they get a 4-5 base economy like Idra does, they must be as good as Idra. imo, they should be much more aggressive off of 1 base up, to ensure that they can stay 1 base up.
but what do I know? I can't beat a zerg that doesn't try to mass ling, 1 base roach all-in, or baneling bust me
Yeah, ultra won't work well against super turtling terran but I guess you watched the same game than me (mardow vs inuh).
It was steppes of war. Very small map and turtling like this isn't possible on a bigger/more open map
Moreover you won't win while being passive and waiting the zerg. You have to move out one day or an other to go for the kill.
At then end, inuh didn't win. He somehow survived but never scaried mardow at all.
|
On August 15 2010 19:45 Mothxal wrote:
A problem I see is that the no matter what a Terran player does he is always in a good position, because of the fact that he can always continuously build workers, it's usually possible to invest in an expansion with the abundance of minerals you get from mules and his base will be well defended due to building placement and siege tanks and thors.
Zerg has to make a trade-off for either units or economy, which is non-existent with Terran; they're balanced for always being able to get maximum economy, and I personally think this limits the potential of the match-up because there is no real tension between economy and army.
A change I think that would help is the following: Orbital Command costs 50 gas.
This will make it an actual decision and allow the Terran to go for some quick tech units and delay his economy or delay his tech.
This is a great idea. orbital at 50 gas isnt so bad for terran. but it would be a huge help for us zerg.
The logic behind it also makes perfect sense.
Also i think we should push the queens spawning with 50 energy. I dont remember who came up with it... But it would help Zerg drastically in all matchups.
These are the simple changes that i think blizzard should look into.
Also turrets are just too strong... what are they for? void rays carriers phoenixes? no theyre just for mutas so why do they need to be that strong.
On the other hand as Z we have weak ass spores to defend against air units that practically outrange them and can 2v1 them.
The air and anti air aspects of this game were poorly poorly designed its quite easy to tell.
|
read the first page and after that post your honest opinion again...
its not about whine but more about a problem in the game. the comments with all the "learn to play i dont play zerg myself durgh" are bs
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
