Z v T: Current situation and comparison to BW - Page 61

On August 30 2010 22:37 Shikyo wrote:
Some of Zerg's problems are that they're the only race without a unit that can attack while cloaked or a cliffwalking unit. Both other races have one. Oh right, but the real problem is Hydralisk, partially because they're light Light. It'd fit the Zerg a lot better if it was tier 1, 1 supply instead of 2, was slightly faster, had 60 hp, wasn't light, and only had 7-8 damage.

On August 30 2010 23:08 dybydx wrote:
i disagree with OP on alot of things. many things he claims are exaggerated or simply untrue.

1. Z DO have the ability to break siege or siege. we frequently observe forward siege positions broken by flanking Z. Z has poor sieging ability, yes, but they already have superior mobility to compensate.

2. he claim terran has like 10+ ez openings, including rare ones like banshee but meanwhile excludes muta as a viable opening for Z. not saying muta counter banshee/airport build but to say banshee is viable opening but muta is not is simply untrue.

3. he claims T mobility is too good and cites reaper/hellions as problems. This is like saying SC1 is imba cause Vultures are the fastest unit in game and easily counter lings. In reality, we observe that hellions, and especially reapers, are not very effective in large battles. they give some map control but do not improve T army mobility.

4. pt number 4 is flawed in that it only takes into consideration of 1v1 battle head on and fails to consider the mobility factor. ie the muta vs thor argument.

5. pt number 5 is demonstrably false. all Z units continue to be more effective in small numbers, as it were in BW. also the complaint on thor is only theorycraft. in fact thors are not very effective in large numbers.

6. the new AI also help Z with auto surround and the clumped Terran ball increase effectiveness of banelings, plaguuu and ultralisks. all of these have been observed and used effectively in high level play by Z players.

8. this pt is demonstrably false. majority of the high level ZvT games have shown Z macro > T macro and Z map control > T map control.

not trying to claim the OP is newb or saying i know better, but simply put his claims are not well supported.

On August 30 2010 23:08 dybydx wrote:
i disagree with OP on alot of things. many things he claims are exaggerated or simply untrue.

1. Z DO have the ability to break siege or siege. we frequently observe forward siege positions broken by flanking Z. Z has poor sieging ability, yes, but they already have superior mobility to compensate.

2. he claim terran has like 10+ ez openings, including rare ones like banshee but meanwhile excludes muta as a viable opening for Z. not saying muta counter banshee/airport build but to say banshee is viable opening but muta is not is simply untrue.

3. he claims T mobility is too good and cites reaper/hellions as problems. This is like saying SC1 is imba cause Vultures are the fastest unit in game and easily counter lings. In reality, we observe that hellions, and especially reapers, are not very effective in large battles. they give some map control but do not improve T army mobility.

4. pt number 4 is flawed in that it only takes into consideration of 1v1 battle head on and fails to consider the mobility factor. ie the muta vs thor argument.

5. pt number 5 is demonstrably false. all Z units continue to be more effective in small numbers, as it were in BW. also the complaint on thor is only theorycraft. in fact thors are not very effective in large numbers.

6. the new AI also help Z with auto surround and the clumped Terran ball increase effectiveness of banelings, plaguuu and ultralisks. all of these have been observed and used effectively in high level play by Z players.

8. this pt is demonstrably false. majority of the high level ZvT games have shown Z macro > T macro and Z map control > T map control.

not trying to claim the OP is newb or saying i know better, but simply put his claims are not well supported.

On August 31 2010 00:36 Quizzms wrote:
I play Zerg in diamond and I say just bring roach speed back to tier1. Problem solved.

Also maybe reduce the range of the reaper's attack on buildings. On some maps it seems really hard to get decent spinecrawler position where they can't be picked off individually or they can just focus your hatchery outside of crawler range.

On August 31 2010 00:59 Sleight wrote:
Why is this thread still going on?

Tanks now do 15 less damage to non-armored units. Congratulations Hydras and +1 Lings, you get to do stuff now. Roaches and Ultras are the only relevant units that receive the same damage and Tanks were only okay vs them anyways.

Reapers take longer to build. Every 6 reapers is 30 extra seconds. If you really are losing to 1-3 reapers, I don't think it is the reapers fault.

Bunkers take even longer, not that they were relevant anyways.

2 Gates are even slower now, so Zergs have no excuse to lose to them.

The Ultralist 'nerf' is a BUFF. The idiotic ram attack did less DPS if there were more than 1 target within it's AoE slice. Congrats. Everyone got nixed, you got the goods, what else could you want?

On August 31 2010 00:59 Sleight wrote:
Why is this thread still going on?

Tanks now do 15 less damage to non-armored units. Congratulations Hydras and +1 Lings, you get to do stuff now. Roaches and Ultras are the only relevant units that receive the same damage and Tanks were only okay vs them anyways.

Reapers take longer to build. Every 6 reapers is 30 extra seconds. If you really are losing to 1-3 reapers, I don't think it is the reapers fault.

Bunkers take even longer, not that they were relevant anyways.

2 Gates are even slower now, so Zergs have no excuse to lose to them.

The Ultralist 'nerf' is a BUFF. The idiotic ram attack did less DPS if there were more than 1 target within it's AoE slice. Congrats. Everyone got nixed, you got the goods, what else could you want?

On August 31 2010 00:59 Sleight wrote:Tanks now do 15 less damage to non-armored units. Congratulations Hydras and +1 Lings, you get to do stuff now. Roaches and Ultras are the only relevant units that receive the same damage and Tanks were only okay vs them anyways.

On August 31 2010 00:59 Sleight wrote:

Tanks now do 15 less damage to non-armored units. Congratulations Hydras and +1 Lings, you get to do stuff now. Roaches and Ultras are the only relevant units that receive the same damage and Tanks were only okay vs them anyways.

I am pretty sure the lower damanage on lings dont matter because they will die to the splash from 2-3 tanks/hellions anyway.

Hydras will survive more so we might see it more often than never. However hydras are still so slow that tanks completely own them.

this patch adresses nothing really, but you would get that if you read the OP. its not about one unit or one strategy.. it goes deeper than that, the way terran can transition, scout and turtle without fear of any possible attack ..ever.
also lack of punishment from sloppy play with orbital, bunker salvage , plantary fortress scv autorepair any many more :/

On August 31 2010 01:15 Dente wrote:
I think this zerg whine will remain untill some korean pro starts showing the world how extremely strong zerg is. If zerg can hold the early terran gayness without too much suffer then zerg will be ahead. You can not beat a zerg in a macro game and every single zerg actually knows this. Zergs even admit it when I ask them what to do. Their answers are always the same: "harass more early game and try to beat my early game, do not try to macro-war". Zerg timing is the hardest to figure out, but when its figured out I don't see how a toss / terran player can beat a zerg.

I also foresee a lot of "tvz problem-threads" in the future, especially after the september patch.

On August 31 2010 01:33 Wintermute wrote:
Most of what the OP is talking about were problems that were apparent in beta, but which few players wanted to admit.

Lack of T1 hydras means T1 zerg play is extremely one dimensional. Lack of lurkers means no ability to play a true defensive or siege style (banelings are not a replacement for lurkers in any way, shape or form despite the devs contention). The nerf of roaches into slightly more expensive, slightly more effective zealots and the weakening of lings from BW to SC2 means zerg has little ability to dictate or force terrans especially to react.

Zerg are extremely bland, a fact which was masked for parts of beta by the poor anti air ability of stalkers and phoenixes early on, the powerhouse status of roaches, and the period of time when infestors became an OP counter to all mech. Now that there is great balance in these areas, Zerg are back to what they were always: bland melee specialists with no ability to counter or dictate the opponent's army.

In order to truly fix this would require radical changes like putting strong roaches back into the game as a T2 unit, and weak hydras (SC1 style) into T1.5, or introducing lurkers, etc. Obviously this stuff is not going to happen at this point in time, so what will happen instead is a bunch of statistical nerfs and buffs that don't change the fundamentally bland nature of zerg, but simply make them meatier at certain points in the game.