|
On August 15 2010 13:49 Battle wrote:
3 - Infestors die super quick and NP is uneffective and too costly, i dont mind only 10 seconds of NP if it costed 50 energy, but 100 energy for having 1 unit 10 secs AT MOST (because most of the time they die) its insane.
If Faster is at 1.5x speed and NP lasts 12 seconds, wouldn't that mean it's only 8 seconds real time of actual mind controlling? And if they kill it earlier you can shave a second or so off those 8 seconds. Seems pretty lame for something you have to research and spend a bunch of energy on.
It's as if the Infestor is a shittier version of the Dark Archon that people don't dismiss like they dismiss the Dark Archon.
|
- Z player here
I agree completely with the OP.
The only thing that needs to change for zerg is Creep. Zerg are a swarm and are unable to swarm without creep. I've begun having overlords follow my units into battle recently, but even then, the creep generation takes a damn long time. If my units could get to the tanks of the terran army a little faster, I'd be so fucking happy. Taking 2-3 tank volleys before my units land the first shot is a joke. Also, people might say "hit the terran when they are unsieged" - Fuck you people. By the time my army gets to you, you can siege back up because I lack the creep.
My 2 cents.
Also, fuck reapers :D!
|
On August 15 2010 13:32 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." Wow, I completely disagree. I've played players higher-ranked than MasterAsia and they have told me they think TvZ is fine. I played a very good Z player named EnvY last night who I talked to about TvZ balance. EnvY's ranked 84th on Blizzard's top 200 (which is more accurate than ladder rating - masterasia is 120th or something). The thing is just that the players who don't think it's imbalanced don't come and complain, so their voices aren't heard. EnvY explained that TvZ appears to be imbalanced because Terran's initial mid-game push is so hard to fight off (which it really is). The initial mech or bio push, before Z's options really start to open up, is challenging to fight off and not many people have fleshed out how to beat it. However, once that is over (and it will get increasingly easy as time goes on and methods have been developed), Z has a big advantage. I'm paraphrasing here, so if you read these forums, please clarify for me. He does think that ZvP is actually imbalanced though - but not ZvT. The mod edit and your post turned the entire argument into a big appeal to authority. Not to mention that not even whine threads get closed, so the mod edit isn't really saying anything. This post just set a tone for people to shut down arguments based on perceived authority bestowed by you/the moderating staff.
Get your facts straight. MasterAsia is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Sheth is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Bubba is higher than EnvY on the ladder. SLush is higher than EnvY on the ladder. CatZ is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Machine is higher than EnvY on the ladder I don't know what "higher-ranked" players you've been talking to, but it's certainly not them or IdrA (or Dimaga). And by top Zergs, I mean Zergs that are winning things. Not random Zergs that beat you in a TvZ on the ladder that you ask for practice games and opinions for after. I have a feeling that the "higher-ranked" players you are talking about are this EnvY guy and maybe another Terran player or two, unless you can prove me wrong.
And the point is authority matters. If your EnvY can take down Qxc Terran in a Bo5, I'll shut up. But things are different at top levels of play. And by "top" I mean the actual top, not the top 100 in the US ladder. The point is that Zergs like Sheth consistently lose versus Qxc/CauthonLuck/Drewbie. Maybe this is just a US server phenomenon, but I'm pretty sure (now that Dimaga switched to T), it's similar on the EU server as well. But it's not just that they lose. It's that they don't know how to win anymore. Because of these problems brought up in the OP exactly. You think they aren't constantly switching their playstyle? You think they aren't always trying new things and thinking of new strategies? You'd be kidding yourself.
|
On August 15 2010 14:04 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 13:32 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." Wow, I completely disagree. I've played players higher-ranked than MasterAsia and they have told me they think TvZ is fine. I played a very good Z player named EnvY last night who I talked to about TvZ balance. EnvY's ranked 84th on Blizzard's top 200 (which is more accurate than ladder rating - masterasia is 120th or something). The thing is just that the players who don't think it's imbalanced don't come and complain, so their voices aren't heard. EnvY explained that TvZ appears to be imbalanced because Terran's initial mid-game push is so hard to fight off (which it really is). The initial mech or bio push, before Z's options really start to open up, is challenging to fight off and not many people have fleshed out how to beat it. However, once that is over (and it will get increasingly easy as time goes on and methods have been developed), Z has a big advantage. I'm paraphrasing here, so if you read these forums, please clarify for me. He does think that ZvP is actually imbalanced though - but not ZvT. The mod edit and your post turned the entire argument into a big appeal to authority. Not to mention that not even whine threads get closed, so the mod edit isn't really saying anything. This post just set a tone for people to shut down arguments based on perceived authority bestowed by you/the moderating staff. Get your facts straight. MasterAsia is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Sheth is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Bubba is higher than EnvY on the ladder. SLush is higher than EnvY on the ladder. CatZ is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Machine is higher than EnvY on the ladder I don't know what "higher-ranked" players you've been talking to, but it's certainly not them or IdrA (or Dimaga). And by top Zergs, I mean Zergs that are winning things. Not random Zergs that beat you in a TvZ on the ladder that you ask for practice games and opinions for after. I have a feeling that the "higher-ranked" players you are talking about are this EnvY guy and maybe another Terran player or two, unless you can prove me wrong. And the point is authority matters. If your EnvY can take down Qxc Terran in a Bo5, I'll shut up. But things are different at top levels of play. And by "top" I mean the actual top, not the top 100 in the US ladder. The point is that Zergs like Sheth consistently lose versus Qxc/CauthonLuck/Drewbie. Maybe this is just a US server phenomenon, but I'm pretty sure (now that Dimaga switched to T), it's similar on the EU server as well. But it's not just that they lose. It's that they don't know how to win anymore. Because of these problems brought up in the OP exactly. You think they aren't constantly switching their playstyle? You think they aren't always trying new things and thinking of new strategies? You'd be kidding yourself.
Your entire argument is based on in-game diamond ladder ranking. You mentioned CauthonLuck, and by your metric, he's a platinum noob. I was referring to Blizzard's list which uses the real MMR rating. My facts are straight, you just didn't read my post.
|
On August 15 2010 14:10 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 14:04 Saracen wrote:On August 15 2010 13:32 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." Wow, I completely disagree. I've played players higher-ranked than MasterAsia and they have told me they think TvZ is fine. I played a very good Z player named EnvY last night who I talked to about TvZ balance. EnvY's ranked 84th on Blizzard's top 200 (which is more accurate than ladder rating - masterasia is 120th or something). The thing is just that the players who don't think it's imbalanced don't come and complain, so their voices aren't heard. EnvY explained that TvZ appears to be imbalanced because Terran's initial mid-game push is so hard to fight off (which it really is). The initial mech or bio push, before Z's options really start to open up, is challenging to fight off and not many people have fleshed out how to beat it. However, once that is over (and it will get increasingly easy as time goes on and methods have been developed), Z has a big advantage. I'm paraphrasing here, so if you read these forums, please clarify for me. He does think that ZvP is actually imbalanced though - but not ZvT. The mod edit and your post turned the entire argument into a big appeal to authority. Not to mention that not even whine threads get closed, so the mod edit isn't really saying anything. This post just set a tone for people to shut down arguments based on perceived authority bestowed by you/the moderating staff. Get your facts straight. MasterAsia is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Sheth is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Bubba is higher than EnvY on the ladder. SLush is higher than EnvY on the ladder. CatZ is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Machine is higher than EnvY on the ladder I don't know what "higher-ranked" players you've been talking to, but it's certainly not them or IdrA (or Dimaga). And by top Zergs, I mean Zergs that are winning things. Not random Zergs that beat you in a TvZ on the ladder that you ask for practice games and opinions for after. I have a feeling that the "higher-ranked" players you are talking about are this EnvY guy and maybe another Terran player or two, unless you can prove me wrong. And the point is authority matters. If your EnvY can take down Qxc Terran in a Bo5, I'll shut up. But things are different at top levels of play. And by "top" I mean the actual top, not the top 100 in the US ladder. The point is that Zergs like Sheth consistently lose versus Qxc/CauthonLuck/Drewbie. Maybe this is just a US server phenomenon, but I'm pretty sure (now that Dimaga switched to T), it's similar on the EU server as well. But it's not just that they lose. It's that they don't know how to win anymore. Because of these problems brought up in the OP exactly. You think they aren't constantly switching their playstyle? You think they aren't always trying new things and thinking of new strategies? You'd be kidding yourself. Your entire argument is based on in-game diamond ladder ranking. You mentioned CauthonLuck, and by your metric, he's a platinum noob. I was referring to Blizzard's list which uses the real MMR rating. My facts are straight, you just didn't read my post.
You're wrong, he's right.
He's saying that the people who consistently do well in tournaments (Sheth, Dimaga,Idra, actual progamers who get paid to play) disagree with your random in-game encounter with a (completely unknown to me) zerg player. If we're going by pure word-of-mouth testimony, I'll tend to agree with the people who get paid money to be good at the game. These people say that zerg is broken.
|
On August 15 2010 14:18 SlowBlink wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 14:10 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 14:04 Saracen wrote:On August 15 2010 13:32 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." Wow, I completely disagree. I've played players higher-ranked than MasterAsia and they have told me they think TvZ is fine. I played a very good Z player named EnvY last night who I talked to about TvZ balance. EnvY's ranked 84th on Blizzard's top 200 (which is more accurate than ladder rating - masterasia is 120th or something). The thing is just that the players who don't think it's imbalanced don't come and complain, so their voices aren't heard. EnvY explained that TvZ appears to be imbalanced because Terran's initial mid-game push is so hard to fight off (which it really is). The initial mech or bio push, before Z's options really start to open up, is challenging to fight off and not many people have fleshed out how to beat it. However, once that is over (and it will get increasingly easy as time goes on and methods have been developed), Z has a big advantage. I'm paraphrasing here, so if you read these forums, please clarify for me. He does think that ZvP is actually imbalanced though - but not ZvT. The mod edit and your post turned the entire argument into a big appeal to authority. Not to mention that not even whine threads get closed, so the mod edit isn't really saying anything. This post just set a tone for people to shut down arguments based on perceived authority bestowed by you/the moderating staff. Get your facts straight. MasterAsia is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Sheth is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Bubba is higher than EnvY on the ladder. SLush is higher than EnvY on the ladder. CatZ is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Machine is higher than EnvY on the ladder I don't know what "higher-ranked" players you've been talking to, but it's certainly not them or IdrA (or Dimaga). And by top Zergs, I mean Zergs that are winning things. Not random Zergs that beat you in a TvZ on the ladder that you ask for practice games and opinions for after. I have a feeling that the "higher-ranked" players you are talking about are this EnvY guy and maybe another Terran player or two, unless you can prove me wrong. And the point is authority matters. If your EnvY can take down Qxc Terran in a Bo5, I'll shut up. But things are different at top levels of play. And by "top" I mean the actual top, not the top 100 in the US ladder. The point is that Zergs like Sheth consistently lose versus Qxc/CauthonLuck/Drewbie. Maybe this is just a US server phenomenon, but I'm pretty sure (now that Dimaga switched to T), it's similar on the EU server as well. But it's not just that they lose. It's that they don't know how to win anymore. Because of these problems brought up in the OP exactly. You think they aren't constantly switching their playstyle? You think they aren't always trying new things and thinking of new strategies? You'd be kidding yourself. Your entire argument is based on in-game diamond ladder ranking. You mentioned CauthonLuck, and by your metric, he's a platinum noob. I was referring to Blizzard's list which uses the real MMR rating. My facts are straight, you just didn't read my post. You're wrong, he's right. He's saying that the people who consistently do well in tournaments (Sheth, Dimaga,Idra, actual progamers who get paid to play) disagree with your random in-game encounter with a (completely unknown to me) zerg player. If we're going by pure word-of-mouth testimony, I'll tend to agree with the people who get paid money to be good at the game. These people say that zerg is broken.
He's not talking about Sheth, Dimaga, and IdrA, he's talking about MasterAsia. Stop mentioning them. He's saying that MasterAsia is a 'top zerg' opinion whereas the person I mentioned is not. He has provided no tournaments to prove so, just diamond numerical ranking which was not the metric I was using in the first place. When I mentioned this, he hid behind the names of pro zerg players.
|
On August 15 2010 09:34 MasterAsia wrote: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.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.
Hey there. I know this thread may look similar to many of the others. But I did not see a ZvT comparison of SC2 and BW. I did not want to conclude that Z v T is totally worse than it was in BW, but I think this comparison will at least show why Z v T is so hard now in SC2. Sure of course I admit Zerg has some advantage from BW to SC2, so it is not totally worse. The most serious problem is I have very little fun playing Z v T. ---- I just checked the sc2ranks and I am now no.5 Zerg in the US server. The first 4 Zergs are SLush, ostojiy, IdrA and Sheth (who plays Terran now). They are totally beasts, definitely a lot better than me. BTW they are the only Zergs in top 40. Here I just want to present what I observed and thought of. Sorry for my poor English writing. ---- First I want to state my opinion of the current situation of Z v T. It is totaly broken. Some may argue two facts: (1) Idra has a very decent win ratio; (2) Koreans are doing fine with zerg. Those two facts lead to total misunderstandings. I have two points to mention. One, Idra is definitely playing in a pro scene, while the terran players around his points are all ameteurs. Two, Idra got those win-ratio very early in the release, when Terrans are not so imba. Terrans are improving very fast, while Zergs improvement is very slow. During the first week of release, I have no problem playing with the Terrans who now rank at top 50 US and won a decent amount of games. During the second week, my win ratio against Terran drops, still not so bad. Now in the third week, it becomes a nightmare to play against Terran (I don't even want to mention that 70% of my opponents are Terrans since I got my position in ladder now). They are almost the same players, but now they are definitely more aware of how to abuse the Terran advantages. I did not say the race Terran has changed since the release. I just say when it was first released, Terran players were not so abusive. They were not so aware of what they can do.For the Korean scene, I noticed that the number of top Zergs rapidly droped as well, which confirms my statement about Terrans getting better. ------ To sum up the reasons why Terran has this huge advantage. I would compare it to BW, in 6 different aspects. 1, As Sheth mentioned, Zerg has no ability to defend against sieging or to siege.http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=140800Thanks to Sheth, quite well stated post. 2, The Terran is very flexible with strategies, but Zerg is not. In Z v T, Terran has at least 10 openning strategies that are considered effective against good Zergs. I just list some here: reapers, hellions, banshees, fast expand, mass bio/marines, ghosts/nukes, tank rush, pure mech, dropships, vikings... What do Zergs have? They have speedlings or roaches. Basically we have to choose one of this. (don't mention baneling bust please. It is not effective against good Terrans) Neither of those two method is a threat to Terran. They are only defensive (that means the Terran can open as whatever he likes). And roaches are badly countered by nearly every strategy of Terran even when those strategies are not designed to counter roaches. So speedlings becomes nearly the only solution. Too few choices of Zerg, versus too many choices of Terran. We only have 1 base or 2 base openings, usually as a reaction to the Terran strategy rather than a choice by ourselves. While in BW, things are different. Lurker is possible, muta is possible, speedling is possible, hydra is possible as well. Also 1 hatch is possible, 2 hatch is possible, 3 hatch is possible, fast upgrade is possible... Those are nearlly all possible against most of the Terran strategies, and they all lead to different mid-games. 3, The Terran mobility is too good comparing to the Zerg ground army.I did not say Terran has a better mobility, which is obviously false. But Zerg needs a much better mobility in SC2. In BW, the slowest unit of zerg army is the upgraded hydralisk, which can outrun any terran army very easily. That means, if you are in bad position, you can choose to retreat and hold a better position. In SC2, the hydras and roaches are relatively slow off creep, and you can not have creep everywhere to attack at your desired directions. That makes Zerg extremely difficult to surround the Terran army and attack from several directions (which is common in BW). This point is very critical. Now terran has reapers and helions as very fast units, and they counter the fast units of Zerg (Zerglings and Banelings), so the Terran army is usually guarrenteed a moderate position when the fight begins. It is very different from that in BW, where T is always surrounded by Zerg units. edit: I think he made it more clear than what I saidShow nested quote +On August 15 2010 12:36 Neverhood wrote:
Finally, the other noticeable thing I feel like zerg is missing from BW is the mobility. OP makes an excellent point in that zerg players can no longer be as selective about where to engage the terran army. A decent terran will be very diligent at clearing out creep once it reaches the center of the map and the only zerg ground unit thats actually good off creep are lings....which got significantly worse since BW. 4, Zerg army is hard-countered, and Terran army is slightly-countered. For each unit or unit combination of Zerg, Terran can find a very effective unit or unit combo to counter it hard. Ex. Muta - Thors/Ghosts, Broodlords - Vikings, Roaches - Marauders/Tanks, Hydra - Bio/Tanks/Thors, lings - Helions... unit combo: Muta&lings - bio/Thors&Helions, Roaches&Hydras - Marader&Tanks/Mech, Zerg everything together - Mech... The only unit that is not hard-countered is the ultralisks, but it comes too late, and you can't use it along. Ultra&lings is slightly countered by mech. On the other side, if you see terran goes hard marauders/mech, you don't have anything really counter them. Zerglings might be good against Marauders, Banelings good against marine, but the combo is only slightly good (or even) against Marau & Marines with good control due to the fact that Marauders consume all the damage and marines are really good DPS. That raises the problem, that even if the Zerg knows exactly what the terran is going to do, it can not find a good counter to the Terran army. Recall in BW, the mech consists of two major units: Goliaths and tanks. If the T goes heavy on Goliath, the zerg will make more hydras. If the T goes heavy tanks, the zerg can make all mutas. Switch between those two units is very effective in Z v mech games. The reason is Hydras totally own goliaths and Mutalisks kill tanks free. But in SC2, I can't see any switch that is so effective. Changing from Muta to Roaches or Hydras does not help so much with killing Thors... 5, Zerg units are too weak compared to BW when they are in small number.In BW, zerg is the race that uses the smallest food and fewest resource to generate a single effective unit. 2 hydras kill 1 dragoon or 1 tank, 4 zerglings kill 2marines or 1 zealot, 4 hydras kill 1 battlecruiser, etc... The zerg units only get beaten when the number of army is large. That is a perfect balance: when army is small, zerg is more resources effective, but it will sacrafice the economy to make army early game for zerg (not that bad for T and P!). When army is large, P/T is more resources effective, but Z has a better economy then. edit: a good pointShow nested quote +On August 15 2010 12:36 Elite00fm wrote:
OP your point 5 needs revision, zerg is stronger at low unit counts because of how T armies become exponentially stronger as they get larger, and since the majority of z units are melee/close range, T units standing in a ball protect each other from being attacked individually by z units, greatly diminishing the dps of a zerg army. Now in SC2, Zerg units are really weak. 5 Hydras < 1 battlecruiser or 1 thor, 5 roaches < 1 thor. That means hydras and roaches are really resource ineffective against big things (In BW, those big things are ineffective because they have the ultimate power when you get more of them). Even facing small things their behavior is not as good as in BW. Zerglings are much weaker as well. This will make the zerg very difficult to survive after a big battle. In BW, if after a big battle, there are 5 marines left on the battle field, the newly-made zerg units will crash them + the newly-made terran units because in small number zerg dominates (also tanks are not in good position, medics and marines are not perfectly matched, etc). Now in SC2, if after a big battle, there are 5 marines left, with both side has the similar volume of reinforcement coming, Zerg dies. 6, The new AI helps Terran too much.(1) In SC2 unit turn to get into a ball - good for tanks, ravens to kill zerg, also good for marauders to consume damage for marines, good for thors to block the tanks, etc.. Also good for Terran to reposition their reinforcement very quickly. It used to be a pain to let the newly-made Terran units to cooperate perfectly with the attacking army in BW. (2) The auto-repair thing is terrible. Zerglings do not attack the repairing scv, so if a thor is being surrounded and auto-repaired, no zergling will do any damage to it unless you force them to attack scvs one by one. Not to mention that the scvs around a thor is very difficult to catch. (3) Tanks do not waste DPS.. They are too smart to avoid self-damage now. If you spawn infested terran in the middle of a ball of Terran tanks, only one tank will fire, and it is not a big deal. In BW the tanks around the infested terran will all die instantly. ---- I do not enjoy playing Z v T now. Too few strategies, too long time of defending and reacting, getting destroyed so easily. It seems like I am a machine just sitting there defending all those reapers hellions banshees vikings dropships thors .... finally I have the freedom to choose to do something, then 2 minutes later I get owned. ............ It is not fun. Really not fun. I will not switch race to terran like someone said, but I will keep complainting. We Zerg users choose Zerg for a reason, and all of us want Zerg to be playable again. EDITED: TYPOS, FORMATS, added two quotes
Hi,
i am terran player playing in the 750~ range in diamond and i agree to some point but i think one aspect of the tvz issue did not appear in your post. I think maps play a role too on how a matchup is played and a lot of maps allow terran to play gimmick stuff (for example cliffdrop on lt) which is easy and can give u simple wins as terran that doesnt mean that terran is too strong but the map is shit.
i ve to agree on the AI, tanks not overkilling is a huge factor. The AI regarding the auto repair is stupid too. The thing with the clamping of units isnt much of a problem i think and different maps with wider opens where u can actually flank stuff will make it a lot better for zerg.
Zerg "feels" different from bw as there is this 70 drone count and the zerg army just feels so small, roach on 2 supply arent helping in that matter.
I dont feel that Terran mobility is "too good". I thought it was common sense that the "op" mech built which seems the big issue is _not_ mobile and rather stationary at times.
Terran has currently a lot of options in his openings which is true but when a zerg dealt with some openings and got more experience at least half of them will be no more option as it will put you behind....(i hope)^^
The Question is. what is needed to get the Matchup where it should be? I would start with tank overkill as for a terran nerf and different maps overall. As i ve no real clue bout Zerg, the idea that i like the most is the 1,5 supply roach with 1 egg = 2 roaches = 3 supply and maybe a 125/25 hydra cost as they ve gas issues it seems.
|
No. My entire argument is based on Zerg players who have actually won something. What has EnvY won, and why should he be considered a top Zerg? Who are your other "higher-ranked" players that you previously mentioned? And you think Blizzard's list is any more accurate than ladder ranking? Response #28 and yet I consistently beat him in practice games? Machine #144? Worse than Copperhead, WeaponX, and you? Really?
|
On August 15 2010 14:20 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 14:18 SlowBlink wrote:On August 15 2010 14:10 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 14:04 Saracen wrote:On August 15 2010 13:32 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." Wow, I completely disagree. I've played players higher-ranked than MasterAsia and they have told me they think TvZ is fine. I played a very good Z player named EnvY last night who I talked to about TvZ balance. EnvY's ranked 84th on Blizzard's top 200 (which is more accurate than ladder rating - masterasia is 120th or something). The thing is just that the players who don't think it's imbalanced don't come and complain, so their voices aren't heard. EnvY explained that TvZ appears to be imbalanced because Terran's initial mid-game push is so hard to fight off (which it really is). The initial mech or bio push, before Z's options really start to open up, is challenging to fight off and not many people have fleshed out how to beat it. However, once that is over (and it will get increasingly easy as time goes on and methods have been developed), Z has a big advantage. I'm paraphrasing here, so if you read these forums, please clarify for me. He does think that ZvP is actually imbalanced though - but not ZvT. The mod edit and your post turned the entire argument into a big appeal to authority. Not to mention that not even whine threads get closed, so the mod edit isn't really saying anything. This post just set a tone for people to shut down arguments based on perceived authority bestowed by you/the moderating staff. Get your facts straight. MasterAsia is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Sheth is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Bubba is higher than EnvY on the ladder. SLush is higher than EnvY on the ladder. CatZ is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Machine is higher than EnvY on the ladder I don't know what "higher-ranked" players you've been talking to, but it's certainly not them or IdrA (or Dimaga). And by top Zergs, I mean Zergs that are winning things. Not random Zergs that beat you in a TvZ on the ladder that you ask for practice games and opinions for after. I have a feeling that the "higher-ranked" players you are talking about are this EnvY guy and maybe another Terran player or two, unless you can prove me wrong. And the point is authority matters. If your EnvY can take down Qxc Terran in a Bo5, I'll shut up. But things are different at top levels of play. And by "top" I mean the actual top, not the top 100 in the US ladder. The point is that Zergs like Sheth consistently lose versus Qxc/CauthonLuck/Drewbie. Maybe this is just a US server phenomenon, but I'm pretty sure (now that Dimaga switched to T), it's similar on the EU server as well. But it's not just that they lose. It's that they don't know how to win anymore. Because of these problems brought up in the OP exactly. You think they aren't constantly switching their playstyle? You think they aren't always trying new things and thinking of new strategies? You'd be kidding yourself. Your entire argument is based on in-game diamond ladder ranking. You mentioned CauthonLuck, and by your metric, he's a platinum noob. I was referring to Blizzard's list which uses the real MMR rating. My facts are straight, you just didn't read my post. You're wrong, he's right. He's saying that the people who consistently do well in tournaments (Sheth, Dimaga,Idra, actual progamers who get paid to play) disagree with your random in-game encounter with a (completely unknown to me) zerg player. If we're going by pure word-of-mouth testimony, I'll tend to agree with the people who get paid money to be good at the game. These people say that zerg is broken. He's not talking about Sheth, Dimaga, and IdrA, he's talking about MasterAsia. Stop mentioning them. He's saying that MasterAsia is a 'top zerg' opinion whereas the person I mentioned is not. He has provided no tournaments to prove so, just diamond numerical ranking which was not the metric I was using in the first place. When I mentioned this, he hid behind the names of pro zerg players.
No, you're absolutely wrong. I'm talking about all of them.
EDIT: Like, I don't know how you can honestly even start to complain about my reading comprehension when pretty much the entirety of my post talks about Zergs besides MasterAsia while you still insist that I'm only talking about him.
|
On August 15 2010 14:22 Saracen wrote:
No. My entire argument is based on Zerg players who have actually won something.
Your original post was a reference to MasterAsia being a top zerg and therefore his opinion is valid and he deserves respect. You followed by saying that only players who win tournaments are top players, and said the person I mentioned is not a top zerg player because he has not won tournaments.
You keep bullshitting around this and changing the conditions based on who you're talking about. What tournaments has MasterAsia won? If none, why is he qualified to talk but nobody else is? Is he a top player or not?
People in this thread are disqualifying other peoples' opinions because of your post that put MasterAsia on a pedestal that you won't even put him on now. It's frustrating because almost every post after yours has been a variation of "masterasia is awesome, saracen said so, that means he's right lol".
|
I think that the OP has some good points, but the real issues are these:
1) Zerg has no safe BO earlygame. They cannot expand vs early reapers or they will either lose or spend all their money on lings and be behind. They cannot open speedling vs ignitor hellion opening. They cannot open 1 base muta vs anything not hellion/marauder. There's too many coinflips in the first 5 minutes.
2) Zerg's T2 options are all garbage vs terran. You might think that zerg has some of the coolest stuff in T2, with nydus, mutas, infestors, burrow roaches, and hydras, but the truth is they are all useless. In BW Zerg had lurkers and mutalisks, and to a lesser extent queens (which had some niche use but only recently are important in ZvZ). However, with only 2 options they were stronger than they are now in SC2.
Why is this? The mutalisk is SO useless vs turrets now. Turrets are retardedly strong for no reason. Thors are just too strong vs harass as well. 10 range + splash + bonus to light makes poking around defenses impossible. Mutas now exist only to scare a terran but honestly the 800/800 for 6 mutas is almost never worth it. They're just too easily countered.
Infestors are amazing vs bio and hellions with fungal, allowing your banelings and other units to get close and crush them. However, the other use for infestors, locking down big targets, is now meaningless. NP is the most useless ability in the game now. It should be back to 50 energy, not researched, no time limit, and 9 range. The fact that it's channeling makes it already really difficult to use vs a player who can micro decently. I used to use infestor/ling back when it was viable and I have to say it was SO fun vs T. Infestors were a great opening and a viable counter to everything T had in midgame. Now they're useless vs thors, the one unit you HAD to get them vs.
Roach burrow move is also completely worthless. A total of 250/250 for a gimmicky, one-time-use attack, is rarely worth it, and they're so slow that you can't really use them offensively. Combine that with taking up research time for roach speed and you have a condition where roach burrow move is totally useless. It should be made standard at lair for roach. You already need T2 to get burrow, which is 100/100 and a lot of time. Let it be standard on the roach!
3) Zerg has no good defense that isn't mass units. Part of this is due to maps being nearly impossible to defend with static defense. Part of it is reapers, drops, and tanks bypassing static d. A large part is due to static defense for zerg being impossible to build as reactionary defense.
Crawlers take wayyyyy too long to build for them to be a viable response to early pressure or allins. You see a mara/hellion push move out, which can only really be stopped by mass crawler. You plop down 5 crawlers, but bam they're only 2/3rds done by the time the push reaches you and you lose instantly. In BW it was possible to get caught off guard and lose to unscouted pushes, but if you scouted them you almost always had time to get sunks up, especially if you made creep colonies earlier. Crawlers need to take 30 or so seconds to build. They just don't build fast enough to use reactively. In addition they should root in 6 seconds again, because you need to reposition them to deal with different harasses. Hellions and reapers are dealt with very differently. You can't be waiting 12 seconds for crawlers to get down, so you might as well have them be immobile.
There are other smaller issues, but those are the big ones. I'll sum up the changes that have to happen:
-Crawler build time lowered to around 30 seconds. Root time to 6 seconds.
-Turret damage reduced (either to light or period) by a lot, probably half or less. In addition build time on turrets increased to 30+ seconds.
-Infestor NP brought back to 50 energy, range 9, no time limit and preferably no research.
-Reapers honestly should be removed, but since that won't happen, reaper speed needs to go back to 100/100.
-Lastly, Roaches should not need to research burrow move, but should be able to do so as soon as burrow is done.
|
On August 15 2010 13:56 Jinsin5 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 13:49 Battle wrote:
3 - Infestors die super quick and NP is uneffective and too costly, i dont mind only 10 seconds of NP if it costed 50 energy, but 100 energy for having 1 unit 10 secs AT MOST (because most of the time they die) its insane. If Faster is at 1.5x speed and NP lasts 12 seconds, wouldn't that mean it's only 8 seconds real time of actual mind controlling? And if they kill it earlier you can shave a second or so off those 8 seconds. Seems pretty lame for something you have to research and spend a bunch of energy on. It's as if the Infestor is a shittier version of the Dark Archon that people don't dismiss like they dismiss the Dark Archon.
Hey now. Don't diss the Infestor. Neural Parasite might be a crappy ability, but fungal growth and popping infested terrans from underground into a mineral line are two of the very few reasons I still ever play Zerg. Fungal Growth = Maelstorm + Plague rolled into a very satisfying combo.
While I do agree with the points listed in the OP, I really doubt that a tank AI nerf (or any AI nerf) will ever be put into effect, not because of a matter of balance but a matter of pride or reputation as a gaming company. SC2 is supposed to be the successor to a game that's over 11 years old and to "dumb down" the AI, even if it meant balancing the game, would probably not fare well with the majority of the people who play SC2 (not people who browse TL) who may look into future blizzard products. Imagine their reaction and their confusion at finding that Blizzard decided to make the AI "dumber." For the first time in video game history, dumber AI might be a good thing, but most people won't understand that.
I also want to look at some other abilities available to Zerg that we rarely see in game or even mentioned. In fact, they are so strange or out of place that not even the nydus screaming "Terran night elves" try to mention it. They are the Corruptor's Corruption ability and the Overseer's Contaminate.
Corruption: Corruptors can only hit air, and they're pretty good at taking down anything that flies. So why does a unit that already does its job so well need a damage multiplying ability? Well, maybe it's not to help its own damage output but to help the damage outputs of other zerg units used with it. Okay, so what if it's used on a ground unit to help take out ground units faster? Unfortunately, a hydralisk hitting a ground unit with the corruption damage multiplier will kill that unit slower than if it were just a hydralisk and instead of spending resources for the Corruptor, a mutalisk was made instead. Plus, once the hydralisk takes out the other unit, the contaminate effect is gone and you must wait on energy recharge. But a mutalisk stays until something shoots it down.
Contaminate: This unusual ability was added to Overseers in a very late beta patch and hasn't seen much use. The ability to stop unit production seems powerful but why isn't it abused more? The answer is the energy cost and the effect itself. Stopping unit production or upgrade creation temporarily doesn't actually take away the opponent's resources and in that sense, it's similar to recycling bunkers. Bunkers are essentially free and only delay the use of resources (100 minerals) a Terran is ensured to get back. However, when mass production is stopped or several bunkers are created, the delay is actually enough to really hurt economy. However, at 75 energy and overseers being moderately expensive in gas, mass contaminate is not viable. Halting production to an efficient extent and having a mass of overseers instead of fighting units would actually hurt the zerg more than could help.
Zerg needs some fixing but all aspects of zerg need to be considered, even these rare and often useless abilities. If we could trade the useless tools for better ones, or give the right units abilities that better fit them, then I think Blizzard could better figure out where to really start the changes (and since I personally doubt Blizzard is ever going to be willing to dumb down their AI).
|
Good post. I don't think the problem is with Terran, because TvP is amazing (as long as you get fast stalker). The problem lies with Zerg. It is hard to defend early reaper harass, or even reaper hellion harass. It's hard to defend overlord harass with vikings (and pheonix too) due to lack of early anti-air.
Zerg needs change.
EDIT:
Terran needs change too. I definitely agree on the tank AI.
|
On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine."
He provided an example top-level zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine". Any arguing you did after that was changing the subject.
|
Good OP, finally a justifiable "Imba" post. I still think famous Zerg's should stop switching and hold out for a patch, since I know if it's "your job" you should play to win, but also an e-sport will not exist if it is only TvT. lol
I guess I'm lucky to be in low diamond still because ZvT is still very easy for me, since I get map control with muta and terran never has the resources to push out. I play random, but primarily Zerg, and TvZ is my hardest matchup (I know WTF.)
Don't give up, for the swarm!
|
On August 15 2010 14:29 iEchoic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 14:22 Saracen wrote:
No. My entire argument is based on Zerg players who have actually won something. Your original post was a reference to MasterAsia being a top zerg and therefore his opinion is valid and he deserves respect. You followed by saying that only players who win tournaments are top players, and said the person I mentioned is not a top zerg player because he has not won tournaments. You keep bullshitting around this and changing the conditions based on who you're talking about. What tournaments has MasterAsia won? If none, why is he qualified to talk but nobody else is? Is he a top player or not? People in this thread are disqualifying other peoples' opinions because of your post that put MasterAsia on a pedestal that you won't even put him on now. It's frustrating because almost every post after yours has been a variation of "masterasia is awesome, saracen said so, that means he's right lol".
I don't understand why you keep grasping at straws. Are you just trying to prove me wrong somehow? Like, you're not even talking about ZvT balance anymore. It seems that you're just trying to save a bit of face by showing some contradiction in my argument? Some flaw in my logic? Please, stop derailing the thread. The point is that there's something wrong with ZvT at higher levels. Are you going to argue with that? Are you even going to respond to my previous questions? If you want to argue semantics, we can take it to PM.
Also, unlike what the modedit says, MasterAsia isn't the 5th best Zerg in the US (how does one even come up with this?), but he was one of the best US Zergs in BW, and is still one of the best in SC2. I think he's plenty qualified to talk about the state of the game, especially in comparison to BW. If EnvY wants to go make a thread about ZvT being balanced, then let him. The problem is that every single Zerg that's better than him thinks otherwise.
|
On August 15 2010 14:24 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 14:20 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 14:18 SlowBlink wrote:On August 15 2010 14:10 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 14:04 Saracen wrote:On August 15 2010 13:32 iEchoic wrote:On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." Wow, I completely disagree. I've played players higher-ranked than MasterAsia and they have told me they think TvZ is fine. I played a very good Z player named EnvY last night who I talked to about TvZ balance. EnvY's ranked 84th on Blizzard's top 200 (which is more accurate than ladder rating - masterasia is 120th or something). The thing is just that the players who don't think it's imbalanced don't come and complain, so their voices aren't heard. EnvY explained that TvZ appears to be imbalanced because Terran's initial mid-game push is so hard to fight off (which it really is). The initial mech or bio push, before Z's options really start to open up, is challenging to fight off and not many people have fleshed out how to beat it. However, once that is over (and it will get increasingly easy as time goes on and methods have been developed), Z has a big advantage. I'm paraphrasing here, so if you read these forums, please clarify for me. He does think that ZvP is actually imbalanced though - but not ZvT. The mod edit and your post turned the entire argument into a big appeal to authority. Not to mention that not even whine threads get closed, so the mod edit isn't really saying anything. This post just set a tone for people to shut down arguments based on perceived authority bestowed by you/the moderating staff. . Not to be a douche, but i thought u cant double post (2 connected comments), sry but just coulda. Made my TL life a lot easier lol. Anyways I personally don't agree with the OP 100%, however he has a better point and support than others Get your facts straight. MasterAsia is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Sheth is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Bubba is higher than EnvY on the ladder. SLush is higher than EnvY on the ladder. CatZ is higher than EnvY on the ladder. Machine is higher than EnvY on the ladder I don't know what "higher-ranked" players you've been talking to, but it's certainly not them or IdrA (or Dimaga). And by top Zergs, I mean Zergs that are winning things. Not random Zergs that beat you in a TvZ on the ladder that you ask for practice games and opinions for after. I have a feeling that the "higher-ranked" players you are talking about are this EnvY guy and maybe another Terran player or two, unless you can prove me wrong. And the point is authority matters. If your EnvY can take down Qxc Terran in a Bo5, I'll shut up. But things are different at top levels of play. And by "top" I mean the actual top, not the top 100 in the US ladder. The point is that Zergs like Sheth consistently lose versus Qxc/CauthonLuck/Drewbie. Maybe this is just a US server phenomenon, but I'm pretty sure (now that Dimaga switched to T), it's similar on the EU server as well. But it's not just that they lose. It's that they don't know how to win anymore. Because of these problems brought up in the OP exactly. You think they aren't constantly switching their playstyle? You think they aren't always trying new things and thinking of new strategies? You'd be kidding yourself. Your entire argument is based on in-game diamond ladder ranking. You mentioned CauthonLuck, and by your metric, he's a platinum noob. I was referring to Blizzard's list which uses the real MMR rating. My facts are straight, you just didn't read my post. You're wrong, he's right. He's saying that the people who consistently do well in tournaments (Sheth, Dimaga,Idra, actual progamers who get paid to play) disagree with your random in-game encounter with a (completely unknown to me) zerg player. If we're going by pure word-of-mouth testimony, I'll tend to agree with the people who get paid money to be good at the game. These people say that zerg is broken. He's not talking about Sheth, Dimaga, and IdrA, he's talking about MasterAsia. Stop mentioning them. He's saying that MasterAsia is a 'top zerg' opinion whereas the person I mentioned is not. He has provided no tournaments to prove so, just diamond numerical ranking which was not the metric I was using in the first place. When I mentioned this, he hid behind the names of pro zerg players. No, you're absolutely wrong. I'm talking about all of them. EDIT: Like, I don't know how you can honestly even start to complain about my reading comprehension when pretty much the entirety of my post talks about Zergs besides MasterAsia while you still insist that I'm only talking about him.
|
The korean zergs don't think its that imba, but instead ZvP. The playstyle is very different. US/EU loves roach and zergling spam(floating minerals).
Asians zergs force terran to make turrets and thor, while massing more and more mutas and expanding quickly without full saturation of current hatcheries.
Saracen we all know you play zerg, that's why you are defending it so hard. Your whiny guide to TvZ proves it so. The quality of your posts have been diminishing. No one denies the zerg tech tree is broken, as blizzard officially stated 1.5 years b4 release that they didn't have a working zerg faction that felt right.
Also don't rely on the sc2ranks website because many good players don't actually ladder because of the prevalence of maphack.
Instead many good players play custom games with their connections(friends list duh) more than laddering.
As Dustin browder says:" the zergs in korea are way overpowered, while the US/EU zergs are so underpowered. Who should we listen to?' These are the type of things you have to tread carefully upon, its easy to misinterpret statistics solely based on your assumptions.
|
On August 15 2010 14:40 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." He provided an example top-level zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine". Any arguing you did after that was changing the subject. There are more top-level Zerg that think Zerg is bad than there are top-level Zerg that think Zerg is fine. Tournaments is where your opinions on "top-level players" should stem from.
Players have to win against different opponents to get to the top. If that's not consistency, I don't know what is. If Terran are winning all the tournaments, what else could you possibly conduct? TvP is insane and TvP leaves no room for early aggression. You get a zealot first, you lose.
|
On August 15 2010 15:03 Iggyhopper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 14:40 jalstar wrote:On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine." He provided an example top-level zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine". Any arguing you did after that was changing the subject. There are more top-level Zerg that think Zerg is bad than there are top-level Zerg that think Zerg is fine.
Do I have to quote the original post again?
On August 15 2010 11:03 Saracen wrote:
At the moment, there doesn't exist a single top Zerg player who thinks TvZ is "fine."
Clearly, one exists. Unless Saracen is accusing the person who supposedly talked to him of lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
