|
On August 18 2010 21:14 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 19:49 TyrantPotato wrote:On August 18 2010 19:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's not banelings by themselves that are imbalanced, it's the combination of Fungal Growth (which should require research btw, being the most OP spell in the game) and banelings, which make it impossible to dodge, micro or retreat. ok. so being completely unable to attack a Terrans choke because of 2 siege tanks without spending 3x the resources while the T goes make dinner isnt OP. but a tier 2/2.5 unit that is a spellcaster using a spell that manually requires aim followed by a surge of a one use unit to combat one type of unit (well actually marines and maruder ball) being able to kill COST EFFECTIVELY is OP? 2 siege tanks added to a BIO army can incredibily reduce damage done by banelings. also positioning maruders infront of marines again hugely reduces damage done. ling/bling/infestor is our answer to bio armys. heaven forbid zerg actually have something to counter T. sorry, i feel like im jumping down peoples throats. i mean no offense. The problem is the counter is too good. It requires less micro than storming (no need to predict direction since it's instant) and deals enough damage by itself to the bio to make it cost effective even without the baneling mechanic. Your comment about siege tanks and marauders is simply not true. On creep the speed of baneling/ling is significant enough that you can only get 1 shot from the tanks and the cloud of Z units will get a surround on the bio ball no matter how well you micro. You also seem to forget FG affects every unit in the game and can be used to prevent much more expensive units from moving away until your main army can kill them essentially for free.(viking/medivac) Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 19:54 Aborash wrote:On August 18 2010 19:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's not banelings by themselves that are imbalanced, it's the combination of Fungal Growth (which should require research btw, being the most OP spell in the game) and banelings, which make it impossible to dodge, micro or retreat. Im not sure if you are telling us that its unfair to tech to lvl 2.5 (and research Fungal Growth) to stop Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 unit combination. Did I understand you correctly? If that its correct, then can we have hydras for tier1? Battlecruisers kill hydras like no tomorrow, so its fine. Yes you can, but then protoss players would lose every game vs Z, so it's not an option. Fungal growth isn't "just" effective against tier 1 and tier 1.5, it's effective against everything (vikings medivacs banshees in particular) and it's too good, considering it's a tier 2 ability that doesn't need to be researched. It's a maelstrom that works on every unit type and deals damage and is lower tech than a DA. Yes, it's OP vs bio play. Neural parasite should be the given ability, not the fungal growth. NP is a MUCH worse spell, because it requires for the infestor to remain immobile, whereas with FG you can cast and run away, risking absolutely nothing.
So if I am understanding you right, you complain because Zerg have a good counter to one of Terran's many viable strategies, and that is boring because you only know of one good way to defeat a Zerg opponent. Did you ever wonder why Zerg players get sick of Terran players telling them to L2P? It's annoying on more than one level since it assumes that Zerg have all this flexibility when that is not true, it also assumes that Zerg have this fantastic synergy which is also not true, it also assumes that Zerg are no UP anyway and hence don't need to make use of this so called "OP" units.
Banelings? They are a one time use, compared to a siege thank, the comparison isn't even fair.
* Banelings have to get in your face to be effective, tanks have range 7 or 13 when sieged
* Banelings do a one time 20 damage with a bonus of 15 to light units, tanks do 15 and 50 sieged for as long as they are alive
* You can miss with banelings, you can't miss with tanks due to zero attack animation
* Banelings being melee don't have the high ground advantage like tanks
* Banelings can be teched to sooner thank tanks
* Unupgraded, you'd need 8 banelings to destroy 1 tank (400/200 vs 150/125) that is if you can even get to the tank
I could go on, but take note of the last point because it is something you fail to realise. Although for Zerg, banelings are their AOE damage unit and tanks are Terrans AOE damage unit, this does not mean you'd want to put one up against another. Tanks are meant to decimate large ground armies, Banelings are meant to do the same, but in a different way. If they were not one time use and just rolled around blowing up everything they touched then you could complain.
As for Fungal Growth, it is an active spell, just like EMP is an active spell. Let's compare the two shall we?
* EMP costs 75 energy, FG costs 75 energy
* EMP depletes all energy, FG does not
* EMP removes 100 shield, FG does 36 damage that does not stack
* EMP cast range of 10, FG cast range of 9
* EMP can be cast while cloaked, FG cannot be cast while burrowed
* EMP can remove cloak, FG can also remove cloak
* EMP cast by a small Ghost which can blend in with your regular army if not cloaked
* FG cast by big unsightly investor with slow move speed thus requiring more micro to move out of the way
So given the benefits of EMP vs FG can you not see why in order to balance it out you need to give FG another small advantage, that of imobilisation for 8 game seconds? Seriously think about how Protoss feel about having the EMP be such a potent weapon against their army that has a very high chance of execution and a very immediate outcome.
Also, you cannot seriously be asking for a unit that is exactly the same on both sides now can you? You are already complaining about "boring" gameplay and here you are complaining that a different race has this unit that forces you to have to "be wary of them?"
You also need to remind yourself that you also have Ravens with HSM and PDD (which acts like a semi dark swarm) and I for one would gladly take Auto-Turret over Infested Terrans. Don't forget that you have medivac for fast heal on the field of battle allowing for more agression, mobility as well as sight up a cliff.
Honestly with all these options at your disposal you would go and complain about having to snipe infestors and micro your armies?
|
Another thing that strikes me after watched countless replays in top diamond palyers that both spending and unit lost are way higher for toss and zeg than terrans.
so not only u have the strongest army but also the most efficient which is hilarious.
It also nulifies the claims that zerg can mass cheap armies and other bs like that when clearly its much more costly for zerg to build an army than a terran .
|
Sadistx, About you first reply:
Its true, banelings + zerglings + Infestors kill marines + marauders. But you need to make pool + upgrade hatch to lair + infestation pit, spawn some infestors and wait to get 75 energy. Right?
Terran needs to build 3 barracks (60 secs) and make tech labs/reactor (25/50 secs) = 85/110 sec
Zerg needs to build Spawning pool (65 secs) + Lair (80 secs) + infestation pit (50 secs) + spawn some infestors (50 secs) + wait till they got 75 energy= 245 sec minimum (I didnt take into consideration 50 sec that takes to spawn a queen)
So I thinks its totally fine, if a mix that takes 110 secs to be available get punished by a 245 secs tech.
So again, Whats your point? None said that if u make bioball it cant be stopped, the problem is at what time can be properly stopped.
Your second reply. To make a fair comparation, dont add medivacs, add thors.
Thors + marines + marauders vs Zerglings + Banelings + Mutas.
I consider Mutas tier2.5 cause it takes 3 buildings to get em.
Thors need 3 buildings too, so Thors are Tier 2?
Dente:
Marauders usually takes most of the dmg of banelings, thats why lings + banelings usually fails vs marauders + marines, unless you bring a huge amount of banelings and make a perfect surround.
The point is that u can build 3 rax at the same time, right? I mean you dont need to wait till first get done to start a 2nd or 3rd one. To get Infestors, u need first pool, then lair, then infestor pit, you cant build them at the same time.
|
On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
This guy is a good player. Even if you don't like what he's saying or disagree with it, at least respect him because he's significantly better than anyone else who's posted in this thread so far. The problem is exactly what MasterAsia stated in the OP: at lower levels, he can still win ZvT no problem. But once he players better and better players, it becomes harder and harder to win. At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." People like Sheth can hardly take any games off of their Terran teammates in practice, even versus ghost/hellion/marauder strategies. Do you really think that's because Qxc/drewbie/CauthonLuck are just so much better than Sheth? You can argue all you like about the matchup in your mid-level 500 point Diamond ranks, but the truth is it's really different at the top.
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable?
EDIT
Also I was curious about the mention of Ghosts in the OP, and he subsequently stated that he is getting nuked on a regular basis. I was just wondering on what build/composition enables a Terran to do this? I've never done or seen it before. Is there a replay demonstrating it?
|
On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
This guy is a good player. Even if you don't like what he's saying or disagree with it, at least respect him because he's significantly better than anyone else who's posted in this thread so far. The problem is exactly what MasterAsia stated in the OP: at lower levels, he can still win ZvT no problem. But once he players better and better players, it becomes harder and harder to win. At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." People like Sheth can hardly take any games off of their Terran teammates in practice, even versus ghost/hellion/marauder strategies. Do you really think that's because Qxc/drewbie/CauthonLuck are just so much better than Sheth? You can argue all you like about the matchup in your mid-level 500 point Diamond ranks, but the truth is it's really different at the top. I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? EDIT Also I was curious about the mention of Ghosts in the OP, and he subsequently stated that he is getting nuked on a regular basis. I was just wondering on what build/composition enables a Terran to do this? I've never done or seen it before. Is there a replay demonstrating it?
I think the argument is that at any ZvT matchup, a Terran usually beats an equally skilled Zerg if he plays solidly. Even if the Zerg has solid play, he still loses due to unit matchups and map layouts. Sure I suck and I'm a plat Zerg and I can roll Gold/Silver Terrans, but a Plat Terran I have trouble against, even if I macro properly, spread creep, or try drops.
|
On August 18 2010 22:23 hdkhang wrote:
* Banelings can be teched to sooner thank tanks
Well, you can build a tech lab at your barrack at the same time youre building your Factory and then "lift and swap" so tanks can be teched like banelings.
On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
EDIT
Also I was curious about the mention of Ghosts in the OP, and he subsequently stated that he is getting nuked on a regular basis. I was just wondering on what build/composition enables a Terran to do this? I've never done or seen it before. Is there a replay demonstrating it?
May be he should replace "nukes" with "snipe".
Qcx vs machine?
|
On August 18 2010 22:23 hdkhang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 21:14 Sadistx wrote:On August 18 2010 19:49 TyrantPotato wrote:On August 18 2010 19:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's not banelings by themselves that are imbalanced, it's the combination of Fungal Growth (which should require research btw, being the most OP spell in the game) and banelings, which make it impossible to dodge, micro or retreat. ok. so being completely unable to attack a Terrans choke because of 2 siege tanks without spending 3x the resources while the T goes make dinner isnt OP. but a tier 2/2.5 unit that is a spellcaster using a spell that manually requires aim followed by a surge of a one use unit to combat one type of unit (well actually marines and maruder ball) being able to kill COST EFFECTIVELY is OP? 2 siege tanks added to a BIO army can incredibily reduce damage done by banelings. also positioning maruders infront of marines again hugely reduces damage done. ling/bling/infestor is our answer to bio armys. heaven forbid zerg actually have something to counter T. sorry, i feel like im jumping down peoples throats. i mean no offense. The problem is the counter is too good. It requires less micro than storming (no need to predict direction since it's instant) and deals enough damage by itself to the bio to make it cost effective even without the baneling mechanic. Your comment about siege tanks and marauders is simply not true. On creep the speed of baneling/ling is significant enough that you can only get 1 shot from the tanks and the cloud of Z units will get a surround on the bio ball no matter how well you micro. You also seem to forget FG affects every unit in the game and can be used to prevent much more expensive units from moving away until your main army can kill them essentially for free.(viking/medivac) On August 18 2010 19:54 Aborash wrote:On August 18 2010 19:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's not banelings by themselves that are imbalanced, it's the combination of Fungal Growth (which should require research btw, being the most OP spell in the game) and banelings, which make it impossible to dodge, micro or retreat. Im not sure if you are telling us that its unfair to tech to lvl 2.5 (and research Fungal Growth) to stop Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 unit combination. Did I understand you correctly? If that its correct, then can we have hydras for tier1? Battlecruisers kill hydras like no tomorrow, so its fine. Yes you can, but then protoss players would lose every game vs Z, so it's not an option. Fungal growth isn't "just" effective against tier 1 and tier 1.5, it's effective against everything (vikings medivacs banshees in particular) and it's too good, considering it's a tier 2 ability that doesn't need to be researched. It's a maelstrom that works on every unit type and deals damage and is lower tech than a DA. Yes, it's OP vs bio play. Neural parasite should be the given ability, not the fungal growth. NP is a MUCH worse spell, because it requires for the infestor to remain immobile, whereas with FG you can cast and run away, risking absolutely nothing. + Show Spoiler +
So if I am understanding you right, you complain because Zerg have a good counter to one of Terran's many viable strategies, and that is boring because you only know of one good way to defeat a Zerg opponent. Did you ever wonder why Zerg players get sick of Terran players telling them to L2P? It's annoying on more than one level since it assumes that Zerg have all this flexibility when that is not true, it also assumes that Zerg have this fantastic synergy which is also not true, it also assumes that Zerg are no UP anyway and hence don't need to make use of this so called "OP" units.
Banelings? They are a one time use, compared to a siege thank, the comparison isn't even fair.
* Banelings have to get in your face to be effective, tanks have range 7 or 13 when sieged
* Banelings do a one time 20 damage with a bonus of 15 to light units, tanks do 15 and 50 sieged for as long as they are alive
* You can miss with banelings, you can't miss with tanks due to zero attack animation
* Banelings being melee don't have the high ground advantage like tanks
* Banelings can be teched to sooner thank tanks
* Unupgraded, you'd need 8 banelings to destroy 1 tank (400/200 vs 150/125) that is if you can even get to the tank
I could go on, but take note of the last point because it is something you fail to realise. Although for Zerg, banelings are their AOE damage unit and tanks are Terrans AOE damage unit, this does not mean you'd want to put one up against another. Tanks are meant to decimate large ground armies, Banelings are meant to do the same, but in a different way. If they were not one time use and just rolled around blowing up everything they touched then you could complain.
As for Fungal Growth, it is an active spell, just like EMP is an active spell. Let's compare the two shall we?
* EMP costs 75 energy, FG costs 75 energy
* EMP depletes all energy, FG does not
* EMP removes 100 shield, FG does 36 damage that does not stack
* EMP cast range of 10, FG cast range of 9
* EMP can be cast while cloaked, FG cannot be cast while burrowed
* EMP can remove cloak, FG can also remove cloak
* EMP cast by a small Ghost which can blend in with your regular army if not cloaked
* FG cast by big unsightly investor with slow move speed thus requiring more micro to move out of the way
So given the benefits of EMP vs FG can you not see why in order to balance it out you need to give FG another small advantage, that of imobilisation for 8 game seconds? Seriously think about how Protoss feel about having the EMP be such a potent weapon against their army that has a very high chance of execution and a very immediate outcome.
Also, you cannot seriously be asking for a unit that is exactly the same on both sides now can you? You are already complaining about "boring" gameplay and here you are complaining that a different race has this unit that forces you to have to "be wary of them?"
You also need to remind yourself that you also have Ravens with HSM and PDD (which acts like a semi dark swarm) and I for one would gladly take Auto-Turret over Infested Terrans. Don't forget that you have medivac for fast heal on the field of battle allowing for more agression, mobility as well as sight up a cliff.
Honestly with all these options at your disposal you would go and complain about having to snipe infestors and micro your armies?
The first part of your post you're comparing tanks to banelings, then saying they shouldn't be compared directly.
The second part of your post you're comparing EMP, to FG, which isn't relevant because EMP is primarily used TvP.
I'm not sure how either of that is relevant.
|
On August 18 2010 23:29 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 22:23 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 21:14 Sadistx wrote:On August 18 2010 19:49 TyrantPotato wrote:On August 18 2010 19:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's not banelings by themselves that are imbalanced, it's the combination of Fungal Growth (which should require research btw, being the most OP spell in the game) and banelings, which make it impossible to dodge, micro or retreat. ok. so being completely unable to attack a Terrans choke because of 2 siege tanks without spending 3x the resources while the T goes make dinner isnt OP. but a tier 2/2.5 unit that is a spellcaster using a spell that manually requires aim followed by a surge of a one use unit to combat one type of unit (well actually marines and maruder ball) being able to kill COST EFFECTIVELY is OP? 2 siege tanks added to a BIO army can incredibily reduce damage done by banelings. also positioning maruders infront of marines again hugely reduces damage done. ling/bling/infestor is our answer to bio armys. heaven forbid zerg actually have something to counter T. sorry, i feel like im jumping down peoples throats. i mean no offense. The problem is the counter is too good. It requires less micro than storming (no need to predict direction since it's instant) and deals enough damage by itself to the bio to make it cost effective even without the baneling mechanic. Your comment about siege tanks and marauders is simply not true. On creep the speed of baneling/ling is significant enough that you can only get 1 shot from the tanks and the cloud of Z units will get a surround on the bio ball no matter how well you micro. You also seem to forget FG affects every unit in the game and can be used to prevent much more expensive units from moving away until your main army can kill them essentially for free.(viking/medivac) On August 18 2010 19:54 Aborash wrote:On August 18 2010 19:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's not banelings by themselves that are imbalanced, it's the combination of Fungal Growth (which should require research btw, being the most OP spell in the game) and banelings, which make it impossible to dodge, micro or retreat. Im not sure if you are telling us that its unfair to tech to lvl 2.5 (and research Fungal Growth) to stop Tier 1 and Tier 1.5 unit combination. Did I understand you correctly? If that its correct, then can we have hydras for tier1? Battlecruisers kill hydras like no tomorrow, so its fine. Yes you can, but then protoss players would lose every game vs Z, so it's not an option. Fungal growth isn't "just" effective against tier 1 and tier 1.5, it's effective against everything (vikings medivacs banshees in particular) and it's too good, considering it's a tier 2 ability that doesn't need to be researched. It's a maelstrom that works on every unit type and deals damage and is lower tech than a DA. Yes, it's OP vs bio play. Neural parasite should be the given ability, not the fungal growth. NP is a MUCH worse spell, because it requires for the infestor to remain immobile, whereas with FG you can cast and run away, risking absolutely nothing. + Show Spoiler +
So if I am understanding you right, you complain because Zerg have a good counter to one of Terran's many viable strategies, and that is boring because you only know of one good way to defeat a Zerg opponent. Did you ever wonder why Zerg players get sick of Terran players telling them to L2P? It's annoying on more than one level since it assumes that Zerg have all this flexibility when that is not true, it also assumes that Zerg have this fantastic synergy which is also not true, it also assumes that Zerg are no UP anyway and hence don't need to make use of this so called "OP" units.
Banelings? They are a one time use, compared to a siege thank, the comparison isn't even fair.
* Banelings have to get in your face to be effective, tanks have range 7 or 13 when sieged
* Banelings do a one time 20 damage with a bonus of 15 to light units, tanks do 15 and 50 sieged for as long as they are alive
* You can miss with banelings, you can't miss with tanks due to zero attack animation
* Banelings being melee don't have the high ground advantage like tanks
* Banelings can be teched to sooner thank tanks
* Unupgraded, you'd need 8 banelings to destroy 1 tank (400/200 vs 150/125) that is if you can even get to the tank
I could go on, but take note of the last point because it is something you fail to realise. Although for Zerg, banelings are their AOE damage unit and tanks are Terrans AOE damage unit, this does not mean you'd want to put one up against another. Tanks are meant to decimate large ground armies, Banelings are meant to do the same, but in a different way. If they were not one time use and just rolled around blowing up everything they touched then you could complain.
As for Fungal Growth, it is an active spell, just like EMP is an active spell. Let's compare the two shall we?
* EMP costs 75 energy, FG costs 75 energy
* EMP depletes all energy, FG does not
* EMP removes 100 shield, FG does 36 damage that does not stack
* EMP cast range of 10, FG cast range of 9
* EMP can be cast while cloaked, FG cannot be cast while burrowed
* EMP can remove cloak, FG can also remove cloak
* EMP cast by a small Ghost which can blend in with your regular army if not cloaked
* FG cast by big unsightly investor with slow move speed thus requiring more micro to move out of the way
So given the benefits of EMP vs FG can you not see why in order to balance it out you need to give FG another small advantage, that of imobilisation for 8 game seconds? Seriously think about how Protoss feel about having the EMP be such a potent weapon against their army that has a very high chance of execution and a very immediate outcome.
Also, you cannot seriously be asking for a unit that is exactly the same on both sides now can you? You are already complaining about "boring" gameplay and here you are complaining that a different race has this unit that forces you to have to "be wary of them?"
You also need to remind yourself that you also have Ravens with HSM and PDD (which acts like a semi dark swarm) and I for one would gladly take Auto-Turret over Infested Terrans. Don't forget that you have medivac for fast heal on the field of battle allowing for more agression, mobility as well as sight up a cliff.
Honestly with all these options at your disposal you would go and complain about having to snipe infestors and micro your armies?
The first part of your post you're comparing tanks to banelings, then saying they shouldn't be compared directly. The second part of your post you're comparing EMP, to FG, which isn't relevant because EMP is primarily used TvP. So you actually defeated your own argument and then brought up an irrelevant one. Once you can have a conversation with real arguments without being condescending and putting words in my mouth I'd be glad to come back to this thread..
So? You compare in this one FG with Storm, does that means that you cant have a real conversation too? Just Wondering
On August 18 2010 21:14 Sadistx wrote:
The problem is the counter is too good. It requires less micro than storming (no need to predict direction since it's instant) and deals enough damage by itself to the bio to make it cost effective even without the baneling mechanic.
BTW, nice ninja edit.
|
Ghosts also happen to have snipe, and as QXC has demonstrated, is apparently perfectly viable in TvZ. So while Z has to figure out yet more ways to deal with something with bonus damage against light and can kill your detector from ummm 11 range or something? T just has a tool that is, atm, underutilized.
and if I am reading his post right, he is pointing out the differences of Blings and Tanks, suggest that they serve a similar function by a completely different mechanism, and concluding that the two are not comparable and in fact, Z could use a comparable unit.
|
It may have been already mentioned in this post but I cant read through 40+ pages...but why is it that the Zerg players in Korea are so successful to the point that people are shouting that Zerg needs to be nerfed? It is the same game. How are they able to be so good while the Zerg players in America are saying that they are UP.
I think that is why Blizz is going to have such a hard time balancing the game because if one group of people are saying that a race is UP and another group is saying that it is OP...who do they listen to?
|
On August 18 2010 23:44 RagingPwner wrote:
It may have been already mentioned in this post but I cant read through 40+ pages...but why is it that the Zerg players in Korea are so successful to the point that people are shouting that Zerg needs to be nerfed? It is the same game. How are they able to be so good while the Zerg players in America are saying that they are UP.
I think that is why Blizz is going to have such a hard time balancing the game because if one group of people are saying that a race is UP and another group is saying that it is OP...who do they listen to?
I think this was more the case back in the beta, if even there. From what I've heard, Terran also dominate in Korea
|
This was probably mentioned in this very long post, but one of the biggest problem with zerg is the lack of aoe unit and that sc2 engine makes units clump up into a ball automatically. In sc1, you can more easily spread the units out and if you drag and give attack command, they all moved out still spread out. In sc2, even if you go through the trouble of spreading them out, once you drag then and give attack command, they will clump in to a ball as they move forward. This make splash damage very very good. Terran and toss have long ranged splash units in tank and colossus, but zerg has only baneling, which is melee and thus splashes in the front of the big ball of army, not in the middle like tank and colossus, effectively reducing its power in half. Baneling also gets used up and when the reinforcements come in, they are no longer supplying the aoe damage while tanks and colossi still sit in the back firing away. Fungal growth really isn't aoe damage. It's more of an aoe short duration immobilizer. Plague worked so effectively because it dealt very large damage over longer duration (and it had bigger aoe), and also helped cripple medic's energy.
A big ball of army also makes melee and short ranged units less effective. One of the reasons why zergling was so effective in sc1 is because you can overrun the opposing army with large quantity. Even though they have low hp, they had great mobility and with large quantity, they get in the middle of the opposing army and most of the time, almost all zerglings will be damaging something. This cannot happen in sc2. Even if you have overwhelming number of zerglings, they can't get in between the units. Against a big bio ball, whatever zerglings that can surround it will do some damage, but majority of the lings will just circle around it doing nothing. Marines were great dps in sc1, but their weak hp was exposed when all these zerglings were right there attacking it. In sc2, they are nicely tucked away at the center of a ball, completely protected from harm. Same problem applies to zealots (on top of how bad charge really is), but it's not as crippling because yo u don't really have overwhelming number of zealots like you have zerglings. Terran doesn't have this problem since all their units are ranged, with shortest on being reaper at 4.5.
One last thing. Siege tank has 1 longer range that sc1. At such range, every one range gives substantially larger fire power (just consider range 2 vs 3 as opposed to 12 vs 13, which is tank range), especially against melee or short ranged units.
Sorry for long rant.
P.S. yes terran dominates in korea as well. they've been qq'ing about things since long ago
|
On August 18 2010 23:44 RagingPwner wrote:
It may have been already mentioned in this post but I cant read through 40+ pages...but why is it that the Zerg players in Korea are so successful to the point that people are shouting that Zerg needs to be nerfed? It is the same game. How are they able to be so good while the Zerg players in America are saying that they are UP.
I think that is why Blizz is going to have such a hard time balancing the game because if one group of people are saying that a race is UP and another group is saying that it is OP...who do they listen to?
Ok, first part of beta, Zerg and Protoss were terrible terrible imbalance, remember those void rays, those imba roaches, etc. And they were quite successful in Korea, right, but nowadays, thats not true, you can check it at http://sc2ranks.com/ranks/kr/diamond/1
Top 10
4 terrans
3 Protoss
3 Zergs
Also, I recomend you to read this post:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=144731
After that, come again and tell me If you think that Zergs still dominating on Korea.
|
On August 18 2010 23:44 RagingPwner wrote:
It may have been already mentioned in this post but I cant read through 40+ pages...but why is it that the Zerg players in Korea are so successful to the point that people are shouting that Zerg needs to be nerfed? It is the same game. How are they able to be so good while the Zerg players in America are saying that they are UP.
I think that is why Blizz is going to have such a hard time balancing the game because if one group of people are saying that a race is UP and another group is saying that it is OP...who do they listen to?
They're not.
According to the top 200 lists there are...
41 US Zergs
51 KR Zergs
49 EU Zergs
In the top 100 there are...
19 US Zergs
28 KR Zergs
25 EU Zergs
In the top 20 there are
4 US Zergs
9 KR Zergs
2 EU Zergs
In the top 100 or top 200 zerg is still underrepresented from the norm. There's also not much in the way of significant improvements in Zerg between EU and KR. The lack of Zerg in US may point to other issues (people more willing to abandon zerg?). As for the top 20... well the zergs are almost all ogs and prime and what not. Where do you expect them to end up in the ladder?
|
On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable?
StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless.
Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us.
Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time.
Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football.
So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible?
|
On August 18 2010 23:58 hdkhang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless. Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us. Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time. Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football. So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible?
I'm not denying that we want a balanced game, only musing that according to one school of thought apparently held by some notable players, the "goal" in your example is only wider for top level Terrans. Ergo unless you play against those Terrans, you don't have any basis for blaming your losses on imbalance.
|
People keep referring back to these sites with the average win % with all the races to argue that everything is balanced (http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/500).
How does one explain every single race in every single league including random across all leagues have higher then 50% win rate? wtf is that? Am I missing something? For every win there should be a loser, should these sites not have their % equal out to 50? I might be tired but, can someone enlighten me?
|
On August 19 2010 00:08 SoFFacet wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 23:58 hdkhang wrote:On August 18 2010 23:12 SoFFacet wrote:
I do agree that Zerg is currently too weak vs Terran in some respects. Anyways, I felt like responding to this which was edited into the OP. Doesn't this claim that Terran is only imba at higher levels mean that 99% of Zerg players complaining (not the OP but basically everyone else bandwagoning on what he says) have no basis for complaint since at their level, ZvT is still winnable? StarCraft is a sport, an eSport to be exact, but a sport nonetheless. Imagine if you played football and one team had wider goal spacing than the other, or if one team had to always play a man down regardless. Do you really want to tell me that you would be OK with this since it doesn't matter anyway unless you are competing at the tip top of the World Cup? I mean just L2P right? In high school I played a bit of football, and there are some schools that have such fantastic teams in comparison to ours that even if they gave us the advantage of having a man up on them and having their goal posts be spaced further apart, they could probably still defeat us. Think about the scenario I described above and imagine the responses you would get if the things that were mentioned in these forums were to take place on the field... doesn't look pretty now does it. You also wouldn't feel to good about yourself if you won knowing you had the upper hand the whole time. Of course my above example works only if there is a clearly defined way of determining if an imbalance exists and since this is a game with so many variables, not to mention 3 different races with vastly different abilities, it is a tough task indeed to quantify. Not so clean cut like a game of football. So rather than say anything about imbalance, let's just say that imbalance affects everyone at every level. Let's not allow this absurdity about lower level players having no right to ask for balance to perpetuate. Instead we should only discuss whether their reasoning holds merit for discussion, but obviously contain it to a smaller number of threads, and limiting this to productive posts. Can't we all just be civil about this? Don't we all just want the game to be as balanced, enjoyable to play, and rewarding as possible? I'm not denying that we want a balanced game, only musing that according to one school of thought apparently held by some notable players, the "goal" in your example is only wider for top level Terrans. Ergo unless you play against those Terrans, you don't have any basis for blaming your losses on imbalance.
Just for continue with the previous sport example, and just to clarify.
Are you telling that if you dont play on a major basketball league, such as NBA, you cant play 5 vs 5 and need to stick 5 vs 4 cause imbalance excels only at high levels?
Does that makes any sense?
|
I know this is mostly about 1v1 pro gaming balance, but one thing that seems overlooked is how zerg has no unit/composition that can make them 200/200 1a to victory like toss and terrans.
For example in a long FFA or even team games, you'll see Terran or Toss mass air units. A more passive and low-profile player will eventually mass 200/200 worth of Carriers+VRs or BC+Ravens or Thors, 1a one corner of the map and shift click the 3 other corners and win the game as he focuses on his macro while his army auto-wins.
What is Zerg's option here?Zerg are missing the critical "massive flyer that hits both air and ground". So what does a Zerg do here? Mass infestors to MC and fungal all those big punchers while crapping infested terrans all over the place?
With Zerg there's too often this situation where you go "ok we're both at 200/200 I guess I'm done" and you basically have to make sure to time your attack when you got dozens of larvaes and 3k min/gas banked hoping to rebuild fast enough after your 200vs200 becomes 90vs160 in 10seconds, just because their army is versatile enough to deal with anything you throw at them, and yours have to be way too specialized, specifically tailored to counter his army.
|
On August 19 2010 00:15 Toosneaky wrote:
People keep referring back to these sites with the average win % with all the races to argue that everything is balanced (http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/500).
How does one explain every single race in every single league including random across all leagues have higher then 50% win rate? wtf is that? Am I missing something? For every win there should be a loser, should these sites not have their % equal out to 50? I might be tired but, can someone enlighten me?
Yes, let me try to enlight you.
That only prove that game is perfectly balance, only if:
1st- every three games, 1 you play against Terran, 1 against Protoss, and 1 against Zerg.
2nd- If all your games are played against same level people.
1st one can be easyly tracked, as you can review your history, and clearly see that urent facing a 33,33% against Terran, 33,33% against Protoss, and 33,33% against Zerg.
2nd one is easy to track it too, did you see in the loading screen words like "Sightly Favored" , or "Favored" ? Then you arent facing same lvl skill people.
Are you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
