|
On August 26 2010 18:26 GreatestThreat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 17:39 Disastorm wrote:On August 26 2010 16:28 GreatestThreat wrote:I agree, this build seems like that sweet middle ground between early aggression and economy zerg has needed but no one was looking for because they just assumed it didn't exist due to all the whining. I fully support Blizzard in taking their time and being patient with balance changes, because the metagame is still developing drastically. If anyone remembers a month ago what the main gripe was about Terran, it was mech builds. Now, zero balance patches later, pure mech is pretty much unheard of and USELESS versus mass mutalisks. If there's anything that needs to change soon, it's the map pool. That might be the one and only major problem with ZvT balance. I disagree, mech is still as OP as it was before its just overshadowed by the new reaper build which is even more OP. Terran can basically choose whether to go OP or Mega OP or probably even God Mode Instant Win if they want. I can't believe you even remotely suggest the possibility that they don't need nerfs. Are you serious? Did you watch the same IEM tournament that I did? Pure mech got shut down, HARD. Biomech seems to be on pretty even ground with muta/ling/bling compositions with some infestor support once the zerg player manages to make it into the midgame. Even the pro players who are of the opinion that Terran is OP don't think mech is the problem - IdrA himself has said it's their early timing pushes that are broken, and TLO who plays both T and Z has said he doesn't believe the matchup is imbalanced at all, and he has a very strong ZvT win record and two day9 dailies to back it up. If the maps were made a good 50% larger and had less abusable cliffs and chokes I can't actually think of anything terran has that definitely needs to be nerfed. Maybe auto-repair. And full salvage on bunkers.
Pure mech got shut down in one match -> Tarson vs Idra and if you are honest with yourself, you can then see Tarson lost that match for more reasons than just mutas owning thors.
Plus, why is it that whenever a Zerg player has a breakthrough vs. a Terran play that all of a sudden we are at parity? Did you ever stop to consider that Thor + Raven could possibly counter muta? Especially given the lower mineral/gas cost of the thor army. A few ravens in the mix would definitely put a damper on Muta shutting it down. Just because a Terran player has not encountered a particular Zerg play does not in anyway make the situation balanced. Because once that play is put out for that Terran player to see, he has ways to counter it - especially given the ease with which Terran can scout and the difficulty with which Zerg have to hide their strategy whilst Terran buildings can remain ambigious until the units pop.
As for TLO, there is a reason he went TvT against MorroW whom he said had the better TvT play. Why would you play TvT knowing that your opponent is better than you at it? Because MorroW said his TvZ is even more deadly... but wait, that was said before he embraced the Reaper harrass so his TvZ is even more powerful now. So if you put the bits of information together. That TLO admits MorroW's TvT is stronger than his, that MorroW believes his TvZ is stronger than his TvT and that now MorroW has mastered an even stronger TvZ strategy it seems very unlikely that TLO will be winning many matches against MorroW anytime soon. It also matters zero what TLO says since his Zerg play is likely not as refined as either Dimaga's or IdrA's, sure a few cooky strategies here or there might work against certain Terran openings, but it is highly unlikely that they would be solid openings that could deal with the multitude of Terran openings in play.
Let's not also forget that for every new Zerg strategy that is worked on, there is likely to be another 10 Terran strats. The main thing holding Terran back now is "if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality". I assure you if Zerg were to be buffed and started causing trouble for certain Terran builds, it would be much easier for Terran to find a counter or an even more devastating opening.
Having a greater variety of units that punch above their weight --> stronger overall race. Protoss need a helping hand in the design department as well... but Zerg definitely needs a bigger hand at this stage. If for nothing else but to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
The true balance in an RTS deals with risks and rewards.
If I cause a great deal of damage to an opponents economy, all else equal, it should come at some expense to my economy (e.g. drones vs attacking units).
If I am not the agressor, I should have home base advantage. Therefore for a person to defeat me in my home base, they would have to outplay me or outbuild me.
Units which deal damage in a greater variety of scenarios should not be equaly potent compared to more specialised units. e.g. two ranged units, if one has more range than the other, all else equal, the one with more range should have lower DPS since they can engage sooner.
The above are general guides only, it would be boring if they were followed to the T.
|
Problem I see is that in bw there is 2 hatch muta build as highly offensive strategy, here is similar build to it as 1 hatch qeen muta, but I am only playing it as defensive strategy so I can save expand, because I can do almoust no preasure to capable terran with them. Actualy for me it's only viable save build to all milion terrans opening which can scrue you. Any other opening has big vunerability to some terrans openings so I consider tham as very risky like 5 pool or fast 2nd expansion in bw against terran.
|
On August 26 2010 21:10 Sid wrote: Actualy for me it's only viable save build to all milion terrans opening which can scrue you. Any other opening has big vunerability to some terrans openings
That's my problem with the match up. I don't want to talk balance (I'm not that good), but this makes it not fun. There are so many possible terran openings, and if I guess the wrong one I am screwed. I'd prefer not to guess, but scouting difficulties force a little of it. If I guess right, I can win. Hell, let's say even 50% of the time (of course AMM ensures this regardless, ignoring that for now). So it's balanced, right? It just bugs me that it comes down to whether I happen to correctly divine which way the terran is going.
To repeat, I don't have a problem with balance vis a vis win rates. Just that whether I win or lose seems to come down to me guessing the terran's build or not. I am completely reactive, but thanks to scouting suck I have nothing to react to other than coin flips.
I'll never win a tournament. Balance doesn't bother me that much (again, AMM will be there to hold my hand) but zerg isn't fun at all at my level, and it makes me QQ because I can't imagine what Blizzard could do to fix it. It would require an overhaul of a lot of things, when I doubt they are going to do anything other than adjust some stats and maybe spells, which could fix balance even more (assuming it is needed) but will never change the fundamentally unfun slog I experience as ZvT
|
On August 26 2010 19:45 Ghad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 18:50 Rabiator wrote:
Full salvage on bunkers is the equivalent to the Spine Crawlers ability to uproot and plant itself somewhere else. If Terrans are made to pay for moving their static defenses the Zerg should be made to pay as well,
Except that money gained from salvaging bunkers can be used to build offensive units, and a spine crawler will always be a spine crawler. :p
Yeah, but an empty bunker has a defensive value of zero.
|
On August 26 2010 23:11 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 19:45 Ghad wrote:On August 26 2010 18:50 Rabiator wrote:
Full salvage on bunkers is the equivalent to the Spine Crawlers ability to uproot and plant itself somewhere else. If Terrans are made to pay for moving their static defenses the Zerg should be made to pay as well,
Except that money gained from salvaging bunkers can be used to build offensive units, and a spine crawler will always be a spine crawler. :p Yeah, but an empty bunker has a defensive value of zero.
Because Z has easy ways of transporting spine crawlers and can add creep anywhere to make crawler perfectly translatable to full cash refund. Are you just trolling?
|
ZOMG THE RACES ARE DIFFERENT STOP THE PRESSES
Bunkers, especially early game, have a lot of opportunity cost that goes with them, in addition to needing units to occupy them.
And to hdkhang: check out the 5RR build thread. Lots of tinkering/optimization for different styles going on with it already, and it's already showing itself to be VERY strong against a lot of Terran openers that give zergs problems.
|
On August 26 2010 18:13 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 17:39 Disastorm wrote:On August 26 2010 16:28 GreatestThreat wrote:I agree, this build seems like that sweet middle ground between early aggression and economy zerg has needed but no one was looking for because they just assumed it didn't exist due to all the whining. I fully support Blizzard in taking their time and being patient with balance changes, because the metagame is still developing drastically. If anyone remembers a month ago what the main gripe was about Terran, it was mech builds. Now, zero balance patches later, pure mech is pretty much unheard of and USELESS versus mass mutalisks. If there's anything that needs to change soon, it's the map pool. That might be the one and only major problem with ZvT balance. I disagree, mech is still as OP as it was before its just overshadowed by the new reaper build which is even more OP. Terran can basically choose whether to go OP or Mega OP or probably even God Mode Instant Win if they want. I can't believe you even remotely suggest the possibility that they don't need nerfs. If Terrans were REALLY as OP as you suggest there would never ever be a Zerg winning against Terrans. If you had watched the IEM for example you might have noticed that the Zerg actually had won quite a few matches against Terrans ... even with the new "Mega OP" build. I would suggest thinking before posting and to try to be objective. There are two things which hamper Zerg atm: 1. The negative propaganda which Zerg are subjecting themselves to. This prevents them from thinking anything creative and puts them in the endles "Terran is overpowered, Terran is overpowered, Terran is overpowered" mantra. 2. The "tiny" Blizzard maps which make super fast rushing strategies possible. So please stop whining about Terrans being overpowered and complain about the REAL issues. Btw., no one has ever said that an RTS is supposed to be easy, so if you play Zerg and have trouble defending against Terran you simply need to practice more until you learn what to do.
It's not like Zerg came up with a persecution complex before anyone played the game. Creative thinking is not rewarded in SC2 because of two facts:
- No zerg unit is VERY good against any other type of unit. It's either hard countered or relatively even.
- The only zerg unit with relevant special abilities is the Infestor. Terran can build units that handle many many things - for instance, rushing to vikings on Kulas. It can shoot down spotting overlords so ground units can't attack, land to kill drones, fly around to hunt overlords and scout, and if it gets in danger just fly home.
Every zerg unit (except infestor) only has the ability to engage the enemy head-on and try to win.
Regarding the second point, we HAVE to engage the Terran army. It's a necessity - our buildings are very limited where they can be built and they have less HP and cannot lift off. If the enemy army is approaching, you MUST intercept it with your army.
Every single unit just gets thrown at the enemy army. You don't get an advantage by getting a perfect flank or surround - you need one or else you die. You don't get an advantage by being on creep, you need to be on creep or you die. You don't get an advantage by sending in roaches first and hydras behind, or going around back with your zerglings - you just have to do everything right with equal army values or you lose. If you fail on any of these points, even your superior army will be crushed.
On top of that, you need the RIGHT army composition. Not one that counters the opponent, but one the opponent's doesn't counter. That's what the whole TvZ matchup feels like, trying to keep the opponent from having a huge advantage and instead bring it down to 'relatively even'.
=
Terran hasn't explored many creative strats either, and they sure aren't getting punished for it. What if a Terran hid the Armory, built a siege tank when the Zerg scouted, but then switched up to thors? Or uses a nuke during a battle, or drops reapers as someone said?
Terran players generally don't do this because they have the advantage while 1-a'ing their army across the map.
Zerg just has no advantage they can make use of. It's like an ant trying not to get stepped on.
|
In fact I feel that those reaper builds into mass bio are like only viable options vs. zerg. Hellions are bad and dont do enough damage, if you go 14 racks for fast hellions you dont have any defense at ramp. But still its kinda sad that T would be hardly able to outmuscle Z without reapers and with reapers its no problem to win. If they nerf reapers hard there would be only one option left and that is some all in bio-hellion rush or some cheese with proxy and bunkers.
I guess zerg would then just make tons of spine crawlers and happily tech to high tier crap while harassing with mutas(which should probably kill towers and even thors even easier than now). But honestly TvZ is crap matchup and zerg should probably have more units to choose from.
And try making creative strat against zerg... he will just pump tons of drones and soon overrun you with many many units. Vs zerg you have to pressure and then kill asap, in long run T tends to loose to both P/Z if played well.
|
On August 27 2010 00:36 fdsdfg wrote:
It's not like Zerg came up with a persecution complex before anyone played the game. Creative thinking is not rewarded in SC2 because of two facts:
- No zerg unit is VERY good against any other type of unit. It's either hard countered or relatively even.
- The only zerg unit with relevant special abilities is the Infestor. Terran can build units that handle many many things - for instance, rushing to vikings on Kulas. It can shoot down spotting overlords so ground units can't attack, land to kill drones, fly around to hunt overlords and scout, and if it gets in danger just fly home.
Every zerg unit (except infestor) only has the ability to engage the enemy head-on and try to win.
Regarding the second point, we HAVE to engage the Terran army. It's a necessity - our buildings are very limited where they can be built and they have less HP and cannot lift off. If the enemy army is approaching, you MUST intercept it with your army.
Every single unit just gets thrown at the enemy army. You don't get an advantage by getting a perfect flank or surround - you need one or else you die. You don't get an advantage by being on creep, you need to be on creep or you die. You don't get an advantage by sending in roaches first and hydras behind, or going around back with your zerglings - you just have to do everything right with equal army values or you lose. If you fail on any of these points, even your superior army will be crushed.
On top of that, you need the RIGHT army composition. Not one that counters the opponent, but one the opponent's doesn't counter. That's what the whole TvZ matchup feels like, trying to keep the opponent from having a huge advantage and instead bring it down to 'relatively even'.
=
Terran hasn't explored many creative strats either, and they sure aren't getting punished for it. What if a Terran hid the Armory, built a siege tank when the Zerg scouted, but then switched up to thors? Or uses a nuke during a battle, or drops reapers as someone said?
Terran players generally don't do this because they have the advantage while 1-a'ing their army across the map.
Zerg just has no advantage they can make use of. It's like an ant trying not to get stepped on.
The hell? Banelings > bio, lings > marines until you hit crit mass, lings > marauders, roaches > marines, sieged tanks. Ultras > tanks, armored units, Corrupters > Terran air. Broodlords > anything ground.
What are you on?
-Yeah Mutas can do the exact same thing, except they don't have a 3 second window where they just die doing nothing. Also Mutas are ridiculously fast, while Vikings has the same speed as unstimmed marines.
It was like this in BW as well, you had two casters for Zerg, Queen and Defiler, the rest of the units didn't have any abilities or gimmicks, it was pure micro. Terran back then was harder to play cause you had to use abilities as well as micro at the same time in order to make the most out of the units, spider mines, stim, and siege.
Do you really think that having to add a bunch of extra keystrokes in order to maximize a zerg armies capabilities is going to placate the hordes of zerg shitters who can't micro or macro out of a paper bag? Is this going to fix the actual problem zerg has with their early game?
As for your last point, terran isn't the race that can make a 100 food army in about 2 minutes. Try and read up on how retarded it was when roaches were one food and zerg would just s r r r r r r r r their way to victory mid game.
Also lol reaper drop.
|
On August 26 2010 18:13 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 17:39 Disastorm wrote:On August 26 2010 16:28 GreatestThreat wrote:I agree, this build seems like that sweet middle ground between early aggression and economy zerg has needed but no one was looking for because they just assumed it didn't exist due to all the whining. I fully support Blizzard in taking their time and being patient with balance changes, because the metagame is still developing drastically. If anyone remembers a month ago what the main gripe was about Terran, it was mech builds. Now, zero balance patches later, pure mech is pretty much unheard of and USELESS versus mass mutalisks. If there's anything that needs to change soon, it's the map pool. That might be the one and only major problem with ZvT balance. I disagree, mech is still as OP as it was before its just overshadowed by the new reaper build which is even more OP. Terran can basically choose whether to go OP or Mega OP or probably even God Mode Instant Win if they want. I can't believe you even remotely suggest the possibility that they don't need nerfs. If Terrans were REALLY as OP as you suggest there would never ever be a Zerg winning against Terrans. If you had watched the IEM for example you might have noticed that the Zerg actually had won quite a few matches against Terrans ... even with the new "Mega OP" build. I would suggest thinking before posting and to try to be objective. There are two things which hamper Zerg atm: 1. The negative propaganda which Zerg are subjecting themselves to. This prevents them from thinking anything creative and puts them in the endles "Terran is overpowered, Terran is overpowered, Terran is overpowered" mantra. 2. The "tiny" Blizzard maps which make super fast rushing strategies possible. So please stop whining about Terrans being overpowered and complain about the REAL issues. Btw., no one has ever said that an RTS is supposed to be easy, so if you play Zerg and have trouble defending against Terran you simply need to practice more until you learn what to do.
In fighting games, matchups are graded in "out of 10 games."
When someone says Sagat beats Fei Long 7-3 in Street Fighter 4, that means that in a game of two high level players of equal skill, Sagat will win 7 games out of 10 against Fei Long. This is a bad Matchup and Sagat is Definitely OP against Fei.
In BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger, Arakune vs Hakumen is an 8-2 matchup. Out of 10 games, Arakune will win 8 of them. in the fighting game community, 8-2 matchups are unplayable in tournaments.
I feel like Zerg vs Terran is about a 7-3 matchup. So, saying that Terrans aren't OP because Zerg occaionally wins, is a bad argument. If two professional level players of equal skill sit down and play the TvZ matchup, and the T wins 7 games out of 10, is Terran not OP against zerg? (I would say so.)
Your entire argument boils down to "L2P" and provides no real substance or insight into the actual matchup. you cite one game, where one terran player lost, particularly to decided more skilled player.
|
On August 27 2010 01:14 Mensab wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2010 00:36 fdsdfg wrote:
It's not like Zerg came up with a persecution complex before anyone played the game. Creative thinking is not rewarded in SC2 because of two facts:
- No zerg unit is VERY good against any other type of unit. It's either hard countered or relatively even.
- The only zerg unit with relevant special abilities is the Infestor. Terran can build units that handle many many things - for instance, rushing to vikings on Kulas. It can shoot down spotting overlords so ground units can't attack, land to kill drones, fly around to hunt overlords and scout, and if it gets in danger just fly home.
Every zerg unit (except infestor) only has the ability to engage the enemy head-on and try to win.
Regarding the second point, we HAVE to engage the Terran army. It's a necessity - our buildings are very limited where they can be built and they have less HP and cannot lift off. If the enemy army is approaching, you MUST intercept it with your army.
Every single unit just gets thrown at the enemy army. You don't get an advantage by getting a perfect flank or surround - you need one or else you die. You don't get an advantage by being on creep, you need to be on creep or you die. You don't get an advantage by sending in roaches first and hydras behind, or going around back with your zerglings - you just have to do everything right with equal army values or you lose. If you fail on any of these points, even your superior army will be crushed.
On top of that, you need the RIGHT army composition. Not one that counters the opponent, but one the opponent's doesn't counter. That's what the whole TvZ matchup feels like, trying to keep the opponent from having a huge advantage and instead bring it down to 'relatively even'.
=
Terran hasn't explored many creative strats either, and they sure aren't getting punished for it. What if a Terran hid the Armory, built a siege tank when the Zerg scouted, but then switched up to thors? Or uses a nuke during a battle, or drops reapers as someone said?
Terran players generally don't do this because they have the advantage while 1-a'ing their army across the map.
Zerg just has no advantage they can make use of. It's like an ant trying not to get stepped on. The hell? Banelings > bio, lings > marines until you hit crit mass, lings > marauders, roaches > marines, sieged tanks. Ultras > tanks, armored units, Corrupters > Terran air. Broodlords > anything ground. What are you on? -Yeah Mutas can do the exact same thing, except they don't have a 3 second window where they just die doing nothing. Also Mutas are ridiculously fast, while Vikings has the same speed as unstimmed marines. It was like this in BW as well, you had two casters for Zerg, Queen and Defiler, the rest of the units didn't have any abilities or gimmicks, it was pure micro. Terran back then was harder to play cause you had to use abilities as well as micro at the same time in order to make the most out of the units, spider mines, stim, and siege. Do you really think that having to add a bunch of extra keystrokes in order to maximize a zerg armies capabilities is going to placate the hordes of zerg shitters who can't micro or macro out of a paper bag? Is this going to fix the actual problem zerg has with their early game? As for your last point, terran isn't the race that can make a 100 food army in about 2 minutes. Try and read up on how retarded it was when roaches were one food and zerg would just s r r r r r r r r their way to victory mid game. Also lol reaper drop.
Banelings isn't > bio. Banelings > marines undefended from a non-macroing terran, but otherwise it's not a SUPER-counter (you have to flank, meet non-stim-marines, have speed and so on).
Lings isn't > marines until critical mass. It's Lings = marines until 10 marines, then it's lings < marines.
Lings is > marauders without concussive shells/stim and without support when the zerg player has speed. Otherwise it's not a superior counter (since nobody will push with marauders, they will add hellions or marines which both counters lings really hard)
Roaches > marines (without stim off creep without roach speed until critical mass).
Roaches < siege tanks. It can be kinda even IF the T player is caught off guard without support. But if the Z player is caught off guard without support = steamroll.
Ultras are slightly > mech until you add more tanks and marauders, then it won't be a counter anymore.
Corruptors < vikings. Corruptors are more expensive, shorter range and can't land like vikings. They are also slower.
Broodlords are really good. But hard to defend from vikings since vikings>corruptors.
So this is the counters Z has? Well think about the T counters to Z:
Marauders > roaches (steamroll)
Hellions > zerglings (seriously lol)
Stimmed marines+thor > mutas
Siege tanks > hydras (this is ridiculous)
Mutas do not have a 3second window where they don't die. They are killed by thors with their ridiculous range if you clump them up even without engaging the thor. The Viking speed isn't important because of their range. And then it's not a muta-counter.
I just wonder if you seriously think that Z can make 100 units in 2 minutes? If you save up larva in an end-game situation with 200/200 and a LOT of minerals/gas you can make units faster than T yes. But then a 200/200 T army will totally steamroll a 200/200 Z army so I really doubt that T is slower at reinforcing (since they don't have a lot to reinforce).
|
On August 27 2010 01:44 skirmisheR wrote:
Banelings isn't > bio. Banelings > marines undefended from a non-macroing terran, but otherwise it's not a SUPER-counter (you have to flank, meet non-stim-marines, have speed and so on).
Lings isn't > marines until critical mass. It's Lings = marines until 10 marines, then it's lings < marines.
Lings is > marauders without concussive shells/stim and without support when the zerg player has speed. Otherwise it's not a superior counter (since nobody will push with marauders, they will add hellions or marines which both counters lings really hard)
Roaches > marines (without stim off creep without roach speed until critical mass).
Roaches < siege tanks. It can be kinda even IF the T player is caught off guard without support. But if the Z player is caught off guard without support = steamroll.
Ultras are slightly > mech until you add more tanks and marauders, then it won't be a counter anymore.
Corruptors < vikings. Corruptors are more expensive, shorter range and can't land like vikings. They are also slower.
Broodlords are really good. But hard to defend from vikings since vikings>corruptors.
So this is the counters Z has? Well think about the T counters to Z:
Marauders > roaches (steamroll)
Hellions > zerglings (seriously lol)
Stimmed marines+thor > mutas
Siege tanks > hydras (this is ridiculous)
Mutas do not have a 3second window where they don't die. They are killed by thors with their ridiculous range if you clump them up even without engaging the thor. The Viking speed isn't important because of their range. And then it's not a muta-counter.
I just wonder if you seriously think that Z can make 100 units in 2 minutes? If you save up larva in an end-game situation with 200/200 and a LOT of minerals/gas you can make units faster than T yes. But then a 200/200 T army will totally steamroll a 200/200 Z army so I really doubt that T is slower at reinforcing (since they don't have a lot to reinforce).
Banelings > bio period. if the marines, even with stim, stop to fire on the blings, the amount of time it takes for them to fire and move off is more than enough for banelings to get close enough and blow up. And thats to say nothing of a mix speedlings, blings.
Lings > Marines, Marauders, speedling surround will mean that you need more than 10, more like 16, and depending on choke/terrain sometimes even 24. Also if you want to go the "but but he'll get this which counters that", then ill add burrow roaches.
Roaches > tanks if you unborrow ontop of them, the only time where this isn't the case, is when you are late game with a retarded amount of tanks, in which case the T ends up with maybe a handful of tanks left.
Enough ultras eat any number of mech units, marauders and tanks are paper to their attacks. And they have enough of a hp buffer to get to the front lines. You need to drop buildings infront of your tank line in order for them not to get instantly raped from a strong ultra push. You literally need to have a 200/200 army of just marauders and tanks for them to be able to ignore ultras. Then you lol as a handful of broodlords kill them all.
Corrupters have a move speed 2.95, vikings have a move speed of 2.25. Corrupters eat vikings , bcs and the other T air units have limited or no defense against them. They cost a whopping 25 more gas than vikings.
Also how the fuck are thors hitting your mutas in that scenario? We are talking about raiding, Thors have a fuckawesome speed of a snail. If he is parked in a the mineral, lol as you snipe everything else. Marines with their lol awesome 5 range means that only a few can actually hit you depending on your position. A T player without any supply depots is a proper fucked T player.
Also, if the T is turtling up with mech, why aren't you inundated with the gas and minerals from the multiple expansions you should be taking?
Do Zerg have problems? fuck yes. But it isn't as dire as the OMFG THE SKY IS FALLING, as some people make it out to be.
If and when Blizzard fixes Z early game, you are gonna start hearing QQ from T about Z T3, as it seems like it totally buttfucks T.
|
On August 27 2010 01:43 TrickyCat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 18:13 Rabiator wrote:On August 26 2010 17:39 Disastorm wrote:On August 26 2010 16:28 GreatestThreat wrote:I agree, this build seems like that sweet middle ground between early aggression and economy zerg has needed but no one was looking for because they just assumed it didn't exist due to all the whining. I fully support Blizzard in taking their time and being patient with balance changes, because the metagame is still developing drastically. If anyone remembers a month ago what the main gripe was about Terran, it was mech builds. Now, zero balance patches later, pure mech is pretty much unheard of and USELESS versus mass mutalisks. If there's anything that needs to change soon, it's the map pool. That might be the one and only major problem with ZvT balance. I disagree, mech is still as OP as it was before its just overshadowed by the new reaper build which is even more OP. Terran can basically choose whether to go OP or Mega OP or probably even God Mode Instant Win if they want. I can't believe you even remotely suggest the possibility that they don't need nerfs. If Terrans were REALLY as OP as you suggest there would never ever be a Zerg winning against Terrans. If you had watched the IEM for example you might have noticed that the Zerg actually had won quite a few matches against Terrans ... even with the new "Mega OP" build. I would suggest thinking before posting and to try to be objective. There are two things which hamper Zerg atm: 1. The negative propaganda which Zerg are subjecting themselves to. This prevents them from thinking anything creative and puts them in the endles "Terran is overpowered, Terran is overpowered, Terran is overpowered" mantra. 2. The "tiny" Blizzard maps which make super fast rushing strategies possible. So please stop whining about Terrans being overpowered and complain about the REAL issues. Btw., no one has ever said that an RTS is supposed to be easy, so if you play Zerg and have trouble defending against Terran you simply need to practice more until you learn what to do. In fighting games, matchups are graded in "out of 10 games." When someone says Sagat beats Fei Long 7-3 in Street Fighter 4, that means that in a game of two high level players of equal skill, Sagat will win 7 games out of 10 against Fei Long. This is a bad Matchup and Sagat is Definitely OP against Fei. In BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger, Arakune vs Hakumen is an 8-2 matchup. Out of 10 games, Arakune will win 8 of them. in the fighting game community, 8-2 matchups are unplayable in tournaments. I feel like Zerg vs Terran is about a 7-3 matchup. So, saying that Terrans aren't OP because Zerg occaionally wins, is a bad argument. If two professional level players of equal skill sit down and play the TvZ matchup, and the T wins 7 games out of 10, is Terran not OP against zerg? (I would say so.) Your entire argument boils down to "L2P" and provides no real substance or insight into the actual matchup. you cite one game, where one terran player lost, particularly to decided more skilled player.
I don't like comparing competitive FGs against competitive RTS because your mindset is totally different.
In a fighting game, you're exploring each others' minds and habits. This guy always tries to score kara tiger uppercuts during fireball wars, and he's been trying to bait me with f+hk every time I hadoken. Based on his playstyle so far, do I think he will jump after I throw two fireballs? Etc. There's a lot of guessing - educated guessing where you have to explore each others' psychology, but still guessing.
RTS tries to eliminate guessing as much as possible. Sometimes there's build order rock paper scissors, which is generally disliked, but most of the time you have your 'standard' play against his 'standard' play. You try to get what intel you can, prepare for it, attack spots that are undefended based off intel, etc. You just try to craft the 'perfect' game through habit and execution. If I see a Robo Support Bay, I will always put down a spire - this is just what my playstyle has reinforced as the 'correct' play.
There are no 'always's in fighting games. You can't say things like "If your opponent FA dashes a hadoken, always shoryuken right after." Sure, it might work often - but what about the opponent who expects the shoryuken? He gets a huge reward for knowing what you're going to do.
That being said, matchups work differently. Sagat vs Fei in your example is weighted toward Sagat because Fei has so few ways to deal with fireballs, he can't rely on chicken wing to get in because of the fast recovery of tiger shots, and his jumpins are very susceptible to AA. A lot of his normal options are now unusable, and he is forced into a much less optimal style of play - he has to play very carefully to work his way inside and rely on high-risk options to score reward. Sounds a lot like ZvT, doesn't it?
The difference, IMO, is that in a fighting game, you always get to use your tools. Even if I'm playing Hawk vs Guile and Hawk dive is much less likely to work, and backfist makes it nearly impossible to bulldog, then I still have those options. The opponent is less likely to expect them and be prepared for them. No option is ever fully 'shut down', merely discouraged.
In SC2, options ARE 'shut down'. I can't scout a wall in ZvT and then still try to attack with 20 speedlings at the 5 minute mark. He simply has tailored his game to shut down this option. The same can be said for many options in any game of SC2 - not just matchup dependent. If T has a few towers at key points, you're not going to be able to make dark templars work. If P has his natural choke blocked off, you can't run hellions in there until you get dropships.
Basically defending against X doesn't have to be a choice. If in a fighting game, even if I'm waiting for a jumpin so I can shoryuken it, and I'm pretty much immune to jumpins, then if I want to sweep or poke or throw a fireball, I'm susceptible to jumpins for a moment. I can still be hit by the unexpected if the opponent reads me properly.
I'm not sure if this was too rambly, but it's an interesting thought on how matchups work between the two genres.
|
On August 27 2010 02:08 Mensab wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2010 01:44 skirmisheR wrote:
Banelings isn't > bio. Banelings > marines undefended from a non-macroing terran, but otherwise it's not a SUPER-counter (you have to flank, meet non-stim-marines, have speed and so on).
Lings isn't > marines until critical mass. It's Lings = marines until 10 marines, then it's lings < marines.
Lings is > marauders without concussive shells/stim and without support when the zerg player has speed. Otherwise it's not a superior counter (since nobody will push with marauders, they will add hellions or marines which both counters lings really hard)
Roaches > marines (without stim off creep without roach speed until critical mass).
Roaches < siege tanks. It can be kinda even IF the T player is caught off guard without support. But if the Z player is caught off guard without support = steamroll.
Ultras are slightly > mech until you add more tanks and marauders, then it won't be a counter anymore.
Corruptors < vikings. Corruptors are more expensive, shorter range and can't land like vikings. They are also slower.
Broodlords are really good. But hard to defend from vikings since vikings>corruptors.
So this is the counters Z has? Well think about the T counters to Z:
Marauders > roaches (steamroll)
Hellions > zerglings (seriously lol)
Stimmed marines+thor > mutas
Siege tanks > hydras (this is ridiculous)
Mutas do not have a 3second window where they don't die. They are killed by thors with their ridiculous range if you clump them up even without engaging the thor. The Viking speed isn't important because of their range. And then it's not a muta-counter.
I just wonder if you seriously think that Z can make 100 units in 2 minutes? If you save up larva in an end-game situation with 200/200 and a LOT of minerals/gas you can make units faster than T yes. But then a 200/200 T army will totally steamroll a 200/200 Z army so I really doubt that T is slower at reinforcing (since they don't have a lot to reinforce).
Banelings > bio period. if the marines, even with stim, stop to fire on the blings, the amount of time it takes for them to fire and move off is more than enough for banelings to get close enough and blow up. And thats to say nothing of a mix speedlings, blings. Lings > Marines, Marauders, speedling surround will mean that you need more than 10, more like 16, and depending on choke/terrain sometimes even 24. Also if you want to go the "but but he'll get this which counters that", then ill add burrow roaches. Roaches > tanks if you unborrow ontop of them, the only time where this isn't the case, is when you are late game with a retarded amount of tanks, in which case the T ends up with maybe a handful of tanks left. Enough ultras eat any number of mech units, marauders and tanks are paper to their attacks. And they have enough of a hp buffer to get to the front lines. You need to drop buildings infront of your tank line in order for them not to get instantly raped from a strong ultra push. You literally need to have a 200/200 army of just marauders and tanks for them to be able to ignore ultras. Then you lol as a handful of broodlords kill them all. Corrupters have a move speed 2.95, vikings have a move speed of 2.25. Corrupters eat vikings , bcs and the other T air units have limited or no defense against them. They cost a whopping 25 more gas than vikings. Also how the fuck are thors hitting your mutas in that scenario? We are talking about raiding, Thors have a fuckawesome speed of a snail. If he is parked in a the mineral, lol as you snipe everything else. Marines with their lol awesome 5 range means that only a few can actually hit you depending on your position. A T player without any supply depots is a proper fucked T player. Also, if the T is turtling up with mech, why aren't you inundated with the gas and minerals from the multiple expansions you should be taking? Do Zerg have problems? fuck yes. But it isn't as dire as the OMFG THE SKY IS FALLING, as some people make it out to be. If and when Blizzard fixes Z early game, you are gonna start hearing QQ from T about Z T3, as it seems like it totally buttfucks T.
sorry dude but you have no clue. none of the things you mentioned are cost-effective counters.
|
On August 27 2010 00:18 RampancyTW wrote:
ZOMG THE RACES ARE DIFFERENT STOP THE PRESSES
Bunkers, especially early game, have a lot of opportunity cost that goes with them, in addition to needing units to occupy them.
And to hdkhang: check out the 5RR build thread. Lots of tinkering/optimization for different styles going on with it already, and it's already showing itself to be VERY strong against a lot of Terran openers that give zergs problems.
Opportunity cost is a pointless concept when you lose the game without bunkers, so basically, you get a structure that will prevent you from losing, then you get a 100% refund for it when the possibility of losing is gone. Units to garrison? It isn't like you just build an empty bunker and expect to hold off attacks - you make a bunker knowing that you have units to use.
I don't mean to say that bunkers are imba or anything, but Rabinator's comparison of uproot and reroot for sunks to bunker salvage is pretty absurd. I really hope he didn't seriously think that the utility of 100min's worth of units is the same as the ability to walk my sunks around and plant them on creep.
About what Heishe mentioned about cost effective counters, I actually think that's kind of pointless. As long as you can counter the enemy, the cost effectiveness doesn't matter - then we consider the differences in the two economies. I am perfectly fine with Z being not cost efficient if the economy side actually has things to make up for such inefficiency. This comes back to a point that was made in one of these threads. The parity in mining efficiency across races is actually brutally crippling to Z as the cost efficiency of units are not comparable, especially early on.
|
2 out of the top 3 in the IEM were zerg, despite the fact there were half as many zergs as terrans in the tournament. People are always acting as if zerg being imbalanced is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow and that anyone who disagrees is just an ignorant terran who's afraid of their easy mode being nerfed. This sort of blind certainty without any particularly compelling evidence does noone any favours, especially with all the whining driving players away from zerg.
If you really think terran is so easy to play, why don't you try it. Reaper micro against roaches or queens, or even mass speedlings is not easy to pull off well. Moving out of your base with thors at the same time mutalisks move in means you're going to lose some shit. Getting your siege tanks in the right position at the right time is not really not easy. The only terran strategy that could accurately be described as "a move to win" is MMM, and if any zerg players doesn't know how to deal with that at this stage, you might want to try playing as protoss(the actual easy mode).
I play random at a low diamond level and ZvT is my favourite matchup on both sides. Sure, the first 10 minutes as zerg are a struggle for survival where you can die at any time if you're not super aware and careful, but once I get my mutas out the pendulum swings totally in the other direction, and I can easily contain and outmacro the terran. The midgame push is always going to be difficult to deal with, but it is by no means insurmountable.
I'm not telling anyone to L2P, especially not top diamond players who know all the timings for everything to a tee - as these are the only people whose opinions can actually be considered valid, and that's before factoring in bias - all I'm hoping for is rather than just constantly complaining about everything terran being OP, just accept that this may be the case and try your best to come up with strategies to deal with it(1 hatch muta and 5RR are great examples) until such a time as blizzard manages to get a patch through QA, which I have to imagine is always going to take some time.
|
On August 27 2010 03:05 brad drac wrote:
2 out of the top 3 in the IEM were zerg, despite the fact there were half as many zergs as terrans in the tournament. People are always acting as if zerg being imbalanced is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow and that anyone who disagrees is just an ignorant terran who's afraid of their easy mode being nerfed. This sort of blind certainty without any particularly compelling evidence does noone any favours, especially with all the whining driving players away from zerg.
If you really think terran is so easy to play, why don't you try it. Reaper micro against roaches or queens, or even mass speedlings is not easy to pull off well. Moving out of your base with thors at the same time mutalisks move in means you're going to lose some shit. Getting your siege tanks in the right position at the right time is not really not easy. The only terran strategy that could accurately be described as "a move to win" is MMM, and if any zerg players doesn't know how to deal with that at this stage, you might want to try playing as protoss(the actual easy mode).
I play random at a low diamond level and ZvT is my favourite matchup on both sides. Sure, the first 10 minutes as zerg are a struggle for survival where you can die at any time if you're not super aware and careful, but once I get my mutas out the pendulum swings totally in the other direction, and I can easily contain and outmacro the terran. The midgame push is always going to be difficult to deal with, but it is by no means insurmountable.
I'm not telling anyone to L2P, especially not top diamond players who know all the timings for everything to a tee - as these are the only people whose opinions can actually be considered valid, and that's before factoring in bias - all I'm hoping for is rather than just constantly complaining about everything terran being OP, just accept that this may be the case and try your best to come up with strategies to deal with it(1 hatch muta and 5RR are great examples) until such a time as blizzard manages to get a patch through QA, which I have to imagine is always going to take some time.
Unfortunately you are trying to tell people to L2P.
The thing is, just because people are taking the time to discuss, hell even if you want to go there, cry about imbalance issues, doesn't mean there not trying to overcome it.
The thing is some Zerg players don't have much trouble with ZvT, but at higher levels it is apparent that it is MUCH harder for the Zerg player to come up on top, at times it's guessing for the Zerg player and relying on his enemies mistakes. This doesn't make things too imbalanced but it's not fun to play.
|
On August 27 2010 01:43 TrickyCat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 18:13 Rabiator wrote:On August 26 2010 17:39 Disastorm wrote:On August 26 2010 16:28 GreatestThreat wrote:I agree, this build seems like that sweet middle ground between early aggression and economy zerg has needed but no one was looking for because they just assumed it didn't exist due to all the whining. I fully support Blizzard in taking their time and being patient with balance changes, because the metagame is still developing drastically. If anyone remembers a month ago what the main gripe was about Terran, it was mech builds. Now, zero balance patches later, pure mech is pretty much unheard of and USELESS versus mass mutalisks. If there's anything that needs to change soon, it's the map pool. That might be the one and only major problem with ZvT balance. I disagree, mech is still as OP as it was before its just overshadowed by the new reaper build which is even more OP. Terran can basically choose whether to go OP or Mega OP or probably even God Mode Instant Win if they want. I can't believe you even remotely suggest the possibility that they don't need nerfs. If Terrans were REALLY as OP as you suggest there would never ever be a Zerg winning against Terrans. If you had watched the IEM for example you might have noticed that the Zerg actually had won quite a few matches against Terrans ... even with the new "Mega OP" build. I would suggest thinking before posting and to try to be objective. There are two things which hamper Zerg atm: 1. The negative propaganda which Zerg are subjecting themselves to. This prevents them from thinking anything creative and puts them in the endles "Terran is overpowered, Terran is overpowered, Terran is overpowered" mantra. 2. The "tiny" Blizzard maps which make super fast rushing strategies possible. So please stop whining about Terrans being overpowered and complain about the REAL issues. Btw., no one has ever said that an RTS is supposed to be easy, so if you play Zerg and have trouble defending against Terran you simply need to practice more until you learn what to do. In fighting games, matchups are graded in "out of 10 games." When someone says Sagat beats Fei Long 7-3 in Street Fighter 4, that means that in a game of two high level players of equal skill, Sagat will win 7 games out of 10 against Fei Long. This is a bad Matchup and Sagat is Definitely OP against Fei. In BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger, Arakune vs Hakumen is an 8-2 matchup. Out of 10 games, Arakune will win 8 of them. in the fighting game community, 8-2 matchups are unplayable in tournaments. I feel like Zerg vs Terran is about a 7-3 matchup. So, saying that Terrans aren't OP because Zerg occaionally wins, is a bad argument. If two professional level players of equal skill sit down and play the TvZ matchup, and the T wins 7 games out of 10, is Terran not OP against zerg? (I would say so.) Your entire argument boils down to "L2P" and provides no real substance or insight into the actual matchup. you cite one game, where one terran player lost, particularly to decided more skilled player.
a) Starcraft 2 is NOT a comparatively simple fighting game
b) You just declared the races as balanced according to your own logic ...
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
Check the win-% of the races and they are ALL around 55% if you take all leagues and if you narrow it down to "top 500 players" its all around 58% ...
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/500
Next time think a little harder on your post, because you yourself are using subjectiveness in a sentence like "I feel like Zerg vs Terran is about a 7-3 matchup." [interesting side-note: I always though Terran was considered to be the OP side and not the Zerg.]
|
On August 27 2010 03:05 brad drac wrote:
2 out of the top 3 in the IEM were zerg,
That is true, but can't you see that it is always these 2 Zerg that score high in tournaments, while literally every tournament a new "pro terran" pops up? It's obvious that at least IdrA is just mile above the Terrans he's losinga gainst, and I'd say the same for Dimaga. You literally see not a SINGLE other Zerg except Dimaga and Idra go deep in major tournaments, while in every tournament you see, there's a new player in the ro8 or even ro4 that nobody expected and guess what? He's Terran. SarenS is a good example. He was a nobody before IEM, and even though he had solid mechanics, imo he solely made it that far because he can abuse the ridiculous amount of Terran strategies very good. Mass reaper into hellion/banshee? lol yeah try to pull something like that off with zerg.
Also, do you know how the German ESL Pro Series looks like (a SC2 league)? Believe me, you don't want to.
|
On August 26 2010 23:15 Ecael wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 23:11 Rabiator wrote:On August 26 2010 19:45 Ghad wrote:On August 26 2010 18:50 Rabiator wrote:
Full salvage on bunkers is the equivalent to the Spine Crawlers ability to uproot and plant itself somewhere else. If Terrans are made to pay for moving their static defenses the Zerg should be made to pay as well,
Except that money gained from salvaging bunkers can be used to build offensive units, and a spine crawler will always be a spine crawler. :p Yeah, but an empty bunker has a defensive value of zero. Because Z has easy ways of transporting spine crawlers and can add creep anywhere to make crawler perfectly translatable to full cash refund. Are you just trolling?
Whenever I uproot my spine crawlers, I get attacked. It's like bad luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
