Z v T: Current situation and comparison to BW - Page 29

On August 16 2010 07:44 mahnini wrote:
i think the biggest problem might be worker ai. if i'm not mistaken all workers mine at the same speed now which wasn't the case in sc1. it takes 50 workers to fully saturate 2 bases no matter what race you are so even if you are on 4 base as a zerg if you don't have 100 drones you aren't fully utilizing them all.

that's a significant difference from sc1 where 4 bases began showing larger returns due to less efficient worker ai. to counteract terran cost efficiency scvs were probably the worst miners with extremely long acceleration and deceleration, that meant to fully utilize 2 base in sc1 you needed a ton more workers because of scv travel time.

in sc1 it was a common occurence to have ~12 drones per base mid game because it made mining that much more efficient. in sc2 having 12 drones per base makes no sense because you're just spreading yourself thin and not actually improving your economy.

i think an easy fix for this would be to lower the number of mineral patches per base, this way zerg expansions will actually give them a strong advantage over 2 base terran without having to have 100 supply of drones. in addition, this also makes MULEs more effective which means missing a MULE hurts even more.

i also have to say as a zerg player in sc1 that i hate the creep mechanic. it forces zergs to slow push with creep which makes no sense to me and when you think about it, even if we makes maps larger zergs will still have to spread creep in order to effectively use the space. i wouldn't mind seeing speed on creep nerfed in order to see speed off creep buffed (at least the hydra!). requiring a zerg to have nearly complete map control in order to have their backbone damage dealer be anywhere near mobile kind of sucks.

On August 15 2010 18:16 Rabiator wrote:

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

On August 16 2010 20:06 Velr wrote:
What has burrow move (which btw. costs tons of gas to get) with Forcefields to do?
And lol at "Corruptor = the best AA unit)... Thats the Viking, by F A R.