EPTZ v T: Current situation and comparison to BW - Page 43
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Calidus
150 Posts
| ||
|
mutant
United States31 Posts
1. The ability to have your army positions be less predictable. 2. The ability to retreat when you want to. We can see that, due to the mechanics of creep, the first strength does not come into play until the late-game (assuming the other player doesn't kill the creep tumors). Early game, the creep acts like a huge beacon saying "HERE I AM, COME AND FIGHT ME." So simply put, the zerg wants to spread creep to become mobile, but cannot take advantage of it as much. The ability to retreat properly is a huge strength, one which currently can only be used on creep. This a big problem too, and is (imo) one of the biggest contributors to 200/200 syndrome. Simply put, if they want to attack the opponent and be able to pull out, they either have to spread the creep right up to the other player's front door, or attack without creep and be unable to retreat. If the Zerg player wants to have creep at the opponent's base, it takes a long time to spread (and defend) the creep to the opponent, so you might as well get a max army while you do so. If you don't, you'll want as large an army as possible so that you minimize your chances of losing. Additionally, you'll want to stockpile larva so you can quickly make a new army. A subtle consequence of these two problems is that they make the zerg army less able to react quickly, which is supposed to be their strength in SC2 (and is, to an extent). Specifically, say the zerg has been spreading creep towards the middle and macroing, and they scout a Terran expo on the far side of the map. How do they react? You can't send your army, as your army is not as strong if they get caught off the creep in the middle of nowhere, and you could lose a battle, be unable to retreat, get your army killed, and lose to a 1a2a3a into your main (or, less drastically, have your creep spread lessened). Pretty much the only unit worth sending is speedlings, and hellions laugh at those. So, it becomes difficult to punish an expansion that you scout. Having a creep carpet works counter to the design of the zerg (the game design, not lore design), at least in it's current form. Personally, I'd up the speed of all zerg units, remove speed bonus on creep, make the creep increase the HP regen of zerg units. While not precisely related, I'd love to let Zerg have more of an ability to keep the Terran player honest, so perhaps removing the armor value on Supply depots would make early pools more viable. But regardless, as a game designer, I view the creep as a tool which, on the surface, seems to work with the strengths of the zerg, but actaully only hinders it. I love the idea of it, but the current implementation is poor. EDIT: This thread brings up some issues with the creep, worth at least a glance imo. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=144836¤tpage=All | ||
|
Kpyolysis32
553 Posts
On August 19 2010 03:22 Calidus wrote: Is it really that Tanks and Thors (mech in general) are so good or is it really that you can have tanks and Thors and a ton of MARINES baby sitting them. Marines synergize (is that even a word?) better with late game units better than any of the other T1 units(and mineral only units) in the game. The Marines are amazing as a mineral sink, but I'd say it's mostly the Tanks and Thors. Chargelots are also crazy strong, and also go really well with most Protoss lategame units. The reason that Tanks and Thors so good together is that they both do splash at an incredible range and increase exponentially in power as their numbers increase, which allows to essentially shut out most Air and Ground units as the Terran army grows in size. They also can get great positional advantages, so they're incredibly difficult to engage oftentimes. The Marines help as well, but I don't think that they are a problem in themselves. | ||
|
Aborash
65 Posts
On August 19 2010 01:56 Kpyolysis32 wrote: Slightly favored and favored don't actually mean that people are of a different skill level than you. Those are determined by comparing their hidden rating to your normal rating, I believe, and because almost everybody has a hidden rating higher than their normal rating because almost everybody slowly improves, it's expected that almost everybody you play will be slightly favored or favored. They'll also probably see you as favored or slightly favored unless you're on a losing streak or your rating is dipping for some other reason. Also, no, you don't have to play 33% of each race for it to prove whether or not the game is balanced. If the game is well balanced, each race should have approximately 50% win rate regardless of what mixture of opponents they play. Whatever word that means the match up is favored (a bit or a lot) no mater what, means the game isnt balanced. That doesnt mean you cant win. Your rating drops if you lost, and become better if you win. If you win a lot, you soon be paired agaisnt more skillfull people, and game will move to the other side. If all zergs are facing 80% of their matches against terran, and their whole win rate stays nearly 50% that means that Zergs are over. Noway the game is balance if you only consider the 50% win rate. In fact what does it means is that the matching algorithm its working, keeping people at 50%. Check the numbers, they dont lie. | ||
|
cive
Canada370 Posts
On August 19 2010 03:16 explicit wrote: Let's do an analogy thats actually fair here that captures when people wrongfully claim that only top tier players have a right to whine. If you have two people competing at a sport none of them trained for, the one with the genetics for said sport will win. The other person can chose to start training to beat the genetically favored person - but once this person starts training he will keep beating the disadvantaged person given equal training. At one point training levels out and cannot do anymore for either party, and we are left with the genetically favored person winning if they both perform to the best of their abilities. In real life we can take the example of a European 100m sprint runner vs one from Jamaica, scientists have tried to uncover any variance in the training that could explain the phenomena but are left with just a genetics. So in relation to what we are discussing here, if terrans are favored in the MU - a zerg can keep beating terrans with less training all the way up the ladder. The disadvantage is there but can be overcome with training. At some point individual training peaks, and the other players catches up to you with the slight edge of an advantage he has had all along. To conclude, the disadvantage in the matchup would be there all along but you can only objectively conclude there is a disadvantage if it is experienced in a level of play where individual skill cannot improve any further to nullify it. That's a very complicated way of saying "shut up and learn to play." Look. T > Z > P > T is the design. Terran is designed to have an advantage over zerg, and they do. But the advantage is so solid that it does not leave much room for zerg to do anything. Looking at other match-ups, the favored race has a few advantages with a few more windows of timing and a bit easier map control. But the weaker race have a lot better chance than Zerg does right now against Terran. | ||
|
st3roids
Greece538 Posts
Lower marine dps there u go , | ||
|
Node
United States2159 Posts
All right, it goes like this: One of zerg's biggest complaints seems to revolve around the ability to attack a fortified position. Simply, turtling seems to be a much larger issue here than it was in Brood War. On the other end of the mobility spectrum, with the elimination of the lurker, zerg lacks the ability to punish players who get a bit careless with their more mobile armies. They have a lot more difficulty delaying pushes and forcing map control in their favor the way mutas and lurkers did in Brood War. Keeping the above points in mind, I propose that: 1) The baneling nest now requires the Lair to be built. 2) Banelings start with the speed upgrade (they're more awesome when they're rolling, anyways). 2a) If that's too easy, have it so zergling speed also upgrades baneling speed. This deals with the potential issue of everybody always dodging zergling speed because the Lair will be so ridiculously important. 3) The Centrifugal Hook research is replaced with an ability (identical cost) that allows banelings to move while burrowed (at the same speed as all the other move-while-burrowed units). Pros: -In a broad sense, it fulfills a role similar to that of the lurker in Brood War. It gives zerg more potential for map control at key points of the game and makes enemies think twice about their army position at any given moment, while also potentially delaying devastating pushes. Light, mobile armies become a much more dangerous choice, and slow siege pushes will become that much slower. -As far as I can tell, people weren't using banelings much at the hatchery level anyways, unless they're either a) cheesing or b) playing ZvZ, which handily segues into the next "pro"... -It (possibly) fixes the ridiculousness of bling/ling vs. bling/ling in ZvZ, while still letting the baneling be potentially useful later in the game. -Will make for awesome spectating. Cons: -Almost every useful midgame zerg unit is now at the Lair level. -Ravens make it kinda obsolete. Then again, it's not like observers ruined lurkers in Brood War. How many Protoss pushes have you seen delayed because a clever zerg sniped the observer? Same thing here. -I have no freaking idea how it might affect ZvP. I don't think there's much more to it. Just throwing it out there. Discuss if you think it's interesting, ignore otherwise. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 19 2010 03:55 st3roids wrote: Make marauders cost 150-50 + 3 supply , having same supply and cost with roaches stalkers and zealots is laughable Lower marine dps there u go , How does nerfing 2 units that have minimal relevance to ZvT actually solve any of its problems? | ||
|
SoFFacet
United States101 Posts
On August 19 2010 03:16 explicit wrote: Let's do an analogy thats actually fair here that captures when people wrongfully claim that only top tier players have a right to whine. If you have two people competing at a sport none of them trained for, the one with the genetics for said sport will win. The other person can chose to start training to beat the genetically favored person - but once this person starts training he will keep beating the disadvantaged person given equal training. At one point training levels out and cannot do anymore for either party, and we are left with the genetically favored person winning if they both perform to the best of their abilities. In real life we can take the example of a European 100m sprint runner vs one from Jamaica, scientists have tried to uncover any variance in the training that could explain the phenomena but are left with just a genetics. So in relation to what we are discussing here, if terrans are favored in the MU - a zerg can keep beating terrans with less training all the way up the ladder. The disadvantage is there but can be overcome with training. At some point individual training peaks, and the other players catches up to you with the slight edge of an advantage he has had all along. To conclude, the disadvantage in the matchup would be there all along but you can only objectively conclude there is a disadvantage if it is experienced in a level of play where individual skill cannot improve any further to nullify it. This attitude shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on. It sounds like a smart explanation, and if it were true it makes one feel better about losses, which is why non-top-Zergs cling to it. But it is simply not the case. In the analogy, one side has an innate advantage that can be overcome by playing better. Anyways, if this were true then if we were to imagine arbitrary scales of of player skill and player effectiveness, a Zerg of Skill 1/10 would have Effectiveness 1, but a Terran with Skill 1/10 has effectiveness 2. Lets say that skill and effectiveness rise by a 1:1 ratio on these scales. This means that while the innate disadvantage can be overcome by the Zerg improving to have skill 3/10 (effectiveness 3), this is undone when the Terran also improves, achieving skill 3/10 (effectiveness 4). And so on and so forth until both players are achieve maximum skill but the Terran retains his natural advantage. I contend this is not actually what is going on. Instead, both a 1/10 Terran and 1/10 Zerg have effectiveness 1, 2/10 have effectiveness 2, etc. Only at very high levels is imbalance noticable, as the Terran players finally become aware and capable of all the unfair things they can do. So a 9/10 Terran has effectiveness 10 and a 10/10 has effectiveness 11. Unless you are a 9/10 or 10/10 Zerg, balance has very little to do with whether you win or lose. | ||
|
SoFFacet
United States101 Posts
On August 19 2010 03:03 MasterAsia wrote: Well the nuke is not the point. Sometimes they nuke sometimes they don't. It doesn't matter nuke or not as long as they have ghosts I think. Before Tier 3, ghosts are most good against every Zerg unit unless you go heavy on roaches. So yes, I was defeated by ghosts in a regular basis sebsequently. Totally not because of nuke, just sometimes they nuke me because I built too many spin crawlers in early defence. I see. Ghosts are pretty expensive, they are good against units for sure but it seems like you could just overwhelm them with numbers. Why is this not the case? I watched the Machine vs qxc replay and qxc lost every battle in exactly that way (won later on by nuking mineral lines during fights when Machine was distracted). | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Calidus
150 Posts
On August 19 2010 04:13 OneFierceZealot wrote: i dont think master asia is a game designer or blizzard employee so why chill is this thread not closed? see the OP Mod Edit: There is a reason this thread remains opens while other "whine" threads have been closed - that's because this isn't a whine thread. This is a serious discussion detailing many of the issues that Zerg are currently facing. The OP is the 5th best Zerg in the USA, this isn't some Bronze newbie, he knows his shit - so listen to him. | ||
|
EppE
United States221 Posts
On August 19 2010 03:56 SoFFacet wrote: This attitude shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on. It sounds like a smart explanation, and if it were true it makes one feel better about losses, which is why non-top-Zergs cling to it. But it is simply not the case. In the analogy, one side has an innate advantage that can be overcome by playing better. Anyways, if this were true then if we were to imagine arbitrary scales of of player skill and player effectiveness, a Zerg of Skill 1/10 would have Effectiveness 1, but a Terran with Skill 1/10 has effectiveness 2. Lets say that skill and effectiveness rise by a 1:1 ratio on these scales. This means that while the innate disadvantage can be overcome by the Zerg improving to have skill 3/10 (effectiveness 3), this is undone when the Terran also improves, achieving skill 3/10 (effectiveness 4). And so on and so forth until both players are achieve maximum skill but the Terran retains his natural advantage. I contend this is not actually what is going on. Instead, both a 1/10 Terran and 1/10 Zerg have effectiveness 1, 2/10 have effectiveness 2, etc. Only at very high levels is imbalance noticable, as the Terran players finally become aware and capable of all the unfair things they can do. So a 9/10 Terran has effectiveness 10 and a 10/10 has effectiveness 11. Unless you are a 9/10 or 10/10 Zerg, balance has very little to do with whether you win or lose. I disagree. I think you are confusing unequally skilled players against each other with a lower level balanced match up. At anything below the top .01% of the players there is always room for improvement and people's skill levels are always fluctuating depending on how their day has gone. So typically rarely play someone of equal skill on Ladder. I think that if anything is percieved to be imbalanced at the highest skill level then it has to be assumed it has a ripple effect of some sort at all the skill levels. I will agree alot of Zerg are using this MU imba as an excuse. That doesn't mean that the imba isn't their though. | ||
|
Konsume
Canada466 Posts
On August 19 2010 03:56 SoFFacet wrote: This attitude shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on. It sounds like a smart explanation, and if it were true it makes one feel better about losses, which is why non-top-Zergs cling to it. But it is simply not the case. In the analogy, one side has an innate advantage that can be overcome by playing better. Anyways, if this were true then if we were to imagine arbitrary scales of of player skill and player effectiveness, a Zerg of Skill 1/10 would have Effectiveness 1, but a Terran with Skill 1/10 has effectiveness 2. Lets say that skill and effectiveness rise by a 1:1 ratio on these scales. This means that while the innate disadvantage can be overcome by the Zerg improving to have skill 3/10 (effectiveness 3), this is undone when the Terran also improves, achieving skill 3/10 (effectiveness 4). And so on and so forth until both players are achieve maximum skill but the Terran retains his natural advantage. I contend this is not actually what is going on. Instead, both a 1/10 Terran and 1/10 Zerg have effectiveness 1, 2/10 have effectiveness 2, etc. Only at very high levels is imbalance noticable, as the Terran players finally become aware and capable of all the unfair things they can do. So a 9/10 Terran has effectiveness 10 and a 10/10 has effectiveness 11. Unless you are a 9/10 or 10/10 Zerg, balance has very little to do with whether you win or lose. Can I disagree with you? btw i'm in the mid higher tier of diamond playing as zerg terran and protoss on different accounts. I have played since day one in the beta as ZERG -- Means that I have around 5months as Zerg -- Over 4000 sum played games -- SLush is one of my IRL friend and share alot of replay with me -- I have basicaly no doupts when playing them -- I feel that the reason I'm not competing at SLush's level is my mechanics/apm/precision since i'm not comming from a SC:BW background. -- I am currently 654 diamond rated I have played several games as protoss in beta -- Means that I have probably played around 500 games as protoss thus far -- I've watched several replays of top players and understand the basics of protoss -- I agree that I'm far from playing protoss at the best and still doupting alot when playing them -- I am currently 467 diamond rated I have played NO GAMES as terran in the beta -- The only practice I had with terran was in the last 1-2 offline weeks where I played some games vs the hard computers (green tea and the such) -- I don't know if I have more than 50 games played as terrans -- I have watched NO replays, only tournaments -- I have no undertanding whatsoever of buildorder besides the obvious get X units vs X races and the block your entrance part. -- I am currently at 704 diamond rated that being said, I can't see why thors or tanks would be less effective in silver than it is in diamond. I can't see why tanks would be less effective in lower leagues. I can't see why clocked banshee or reaper/hellion harass would be less effective in lower leagues. IN FACT, I think that all those are mostly MORE effective. A silver zerg that goes with a swarm of muta with his 20 apm will make their mutas travel over a thor and will end up loosing 4/5 of his force A silver zerg that a+move his roaches on 3 sieged tanks and barely scratch one tank A silver zerg that gets his econ raped by a dude with 20apm that barely micro his hellions and so on..... If I may... it would be reverse what you say. As the zergs gets better... the gap gets thiner (SLush told me he can win around 35-40% of his matches vs terran while I still lose alot vs them) but... the fact that EVEN a top level the MU is imbalanced... means that there is a problem. When both races are played at max level... if there is an imbalance it will go exponentialy the other side | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
Honestly, it makes no sense that a thor is so powerful vs ground when they're always already supported by either hellions, marauders or marines. | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
"Siege tanks are simply too effective with new targeting AI in current meta" vs "Siege tanks always beat me if I choose to do any ground at all". | ||
|
LightYears
39 Posts
Are you competing with him (OP) for a sillier post? You think that Diamond means so much in 100 or how many divisions? Quit thinking that If someone is a DIAMOND he's pro cause I'd laugh at that seriously. If Im not enough, maybe there will be some if already not a real pro Terran to bash him for the 'Terran is easy to play' bs. Basically the only nerfs that could be done are costing more in resources. Coming here, saying - all Terran does is strong, soon will say SCVs are also imba, and saying that all Zerg has is weak is completetly retarded/. I said it, stop at some point. name some 'OP' things terran has cause that's trashtalk all terran has is imba, all zerg has is weak | ||
|
st3roids
Greece538 Posts
On August 19 2010 03:56 TheYango wrote: How does nerfing 2 units that have minimal relevance to ZvT actually solve any of its problems? Good zerg players have demonstrated that they can get away with cheese by simply delay a bit the expansion + fast gas or even in some games fast muta with some speedlings to around 28-30 expand. as terran can start masing tanks ( which is lame to have siege tech and tanks as a tier 1 unit but regardless ) and thors or even tech to bcs. But he cannot do that without marauders and marines guarding the wallins. in fact in later games more and more terran go reaper -hellion harass to mm ghosts pushes and win - with some siege in it-. mm is too strong both in pvt and tvz and is what keeps teraan perma wallin defending till he techs to whatever he wanna tech. By nerfing marine dmg this means mytas can effectively harass more + nerf to turrets. Roach pushes will be effective again -short of - since u will not able to mass marauders at start. Same with toss. sure u can change a thousand more things but nerfing mm changes many things asap. Last is a bladant insult a unit like marauder to have similar supply and cost like roaches stalkers and close to zealots. | ||
|
hadoken5
Canada519 Posts
"In SC2, at first I thought it should work the same way. Terran is powerful and difficult to play." Now a lot of people (Day9 especially) are saying that Zerg is difficult to play, however it is does not offer the same reward as Terran in BW. In SC2 if you master Zerg, then good, instead of being at a 30-70 chance to lose(rough estimate) you are now at a 45-55 chance to lose(assuming the terran player is good). Really don't like the lack of reward from playing zerg. Terran in BW offered this and you phrased it perfectly. | ||
|
hadoken5
Canada519 Posts
| ||
| ||
