|
On May 06 2011 23:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 23:09 Yaotzin wrote:On May 06 2011 22:52 redux46 wrote:
Getting an observer is far faster than a zerg getting OL speed or an overseer. The fact that anti-air units come later for zerg also means banshee all-ins are far more effective against zerg than protoss. Lair after speed & queen is a similar timing to Protoss rushing straight to obs. That may or may not be viable, but it's certainly not far slower than obs rushing.
When zergs were complaining about these issues most simply deemed it as whining, yet here we are and the fact is they were right.
Uh, no. People have been calling Terran on steppes and close positions bullshit since forever. They're just as bullshit there for Protoss FYI. Lair = 80 seconds + OL speed = 60 => 140 seconds Robo = 65 seconds + Obs = 45 => 110 seconds + distance of map (cause overlords would probably already be in place) So it seems pretty comparable I suppose. Though if you're rushing the robo I don't think you can reasonably get the lair that quickly. I'm not sure though. I was also under the impression that Protoss can stall the Terran player with forcefields and the like. I dunno, it always seems like Protoss units are overall better while Zerg units are kind of shitty unless its the proper counter. I don't know, I'm not a Protoss player so I don't know PvT.
They're referring to overseers (I think), not OL speed. Overseers only take 17 seconds to morph, so you slice 43 seconds off.
Edit: And from a Terran player who used to play Protoss, core P units are pretty bad unless you hit the upgrade stages (both charge/blink and at least 1/1). Zealots tend to do nothing in large battles and stalkers have lackluster DPS and melt to many different T units (even banshees fare pretty well against them).
|
On May 06 2011 18:33 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 17:05 PHILtheTANK wrote:On May 06 2011 16:47 MattTBK wrote:On May 06 2011 16:35 WillyReturnStroke wrote:
I think Tyler had reason to be upset. IdrA said that both sides weren't explained, not just Team Liquid. This is true, EG's side wasn't explained either, but it should have be obvious that the statement made Team Liquid look bad. I think that Tyler may have gotten a little to heated but I'd be upset as well. Leaving out information is as bad as lying when it negatively portrays one side. How is Colbi saying, TL was invited but they declined trying to make TL look bad? That is about as neutral as you can be. That was like 15 minutes of the argument was that Tyler was saying he shouldn't be neutral. Now what Tyler says actually has a negative approach to it, Saying that TL showed interest but EG wouldn't accommodate them. I don't see how anyone could interpret what Colbi said as an attempt to make TL look bad. I don't think you understand the point tyler was trying to make. Think about it like if you were at a birthday party, and you don't see your friend John there. You ask the host "John isn't coming?". He responds "Oh i invited John but he decided not to come." Wouldn't it be better if host said "John can't make it because his car broke down" if he knew the information why he wasn't coming? It makes TL seem like dicks when you just say "we invited them but theyre not coming" without explaining why when you know the reason. "John can't make it because he is in hospital being treated for an STI after his wife cheated on him" Basically, its up to TL to share the reasons, not EG. If EG had given the reasons, and it had turned out that TL didn't want them shared then the shitstorm would have been much more massive than the current one.
^^ I love this
|
On May 06 2011 23:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 22:57 redux46 wrote:
"And I hate how he talked about "I'm supposed to beat these players". Right, that's why you were complaining about race imbalance when you were making it to the round of 8 in the GSL Code S, the tournament with the best players in the world lol Fact of the matter is, Idra is a good player, but he's not as good as he thinks he is. He thinks that he's so good that a balanced game = he never loses unless he makes a huge mistake. Grow up please."
Based on the matchup against Jinro, his complaints were validated. Even blizzard has acknowledged Jungle Basin was an unfair map. Close spawn positions on a map like metalopolis has also been disabled by every serious tournament.
When zergs were complaining about these issues most simply deemed it as whining, yet here we are and the fact is they were right. His showmatch versus Jinro (if that's what you're discussing) also happened at a time when IdrA himself admitted that he wasn't actually practicing all that hard in general, and especially for that matchup, and hated the place the game was at. If your opponent practices more, then they deserve to win, don't they?
I'm actually referring to their GSL meeting
|
On May 06 2011 23:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 23:09 Yaotzin wrote:On May 06 2011 22:52 redux46 wrote:
Getting an observer is far faster than a zerg getting OL speed or an overseer. The fact that anti-air units come later for zerg also means banshee all-ins are far more effective against zerg than protoss. Lair after speed & queen is a similar timing to Protoss rushing straight to obs. That may or may not be viable, but it's certainly not far slower than obs rushing.
When zergs were complaining about these issues most simply deemed it as whining, yet here we are and the fact is they were right.
Uh, no. People have been calling Terran on steppes and close positions bullshit since forever. They're just as bullshit there for Protoss FYI. Lair = 80 seconds + OL speed = 60 => 140 seconds Robo = 65 seconds + Obs = 45 => 110 seconds + distance of map (cause overlords would probably already be in place)
We also need a core :0 Lair only requires a pool, which is same buildtime as gate. Tends to even out cos you want a queen first, but yeah.
So it seems pretty comparable I suppose. Though if you're rushing the robo I don't think you can reasonably get the lair that quickly. I'm not sure though.
I'm pretty sure a hard overseer build (lair immediately after pool) would be faster than anything toss can do, due to the core requirement.
I was also under the impression that Protoss can stall the Terran player with forcefields and the like. I dunno, it always seems like Protoss units are overall better while Zerg units are kind of shitty unless its the proper counter. I don't know, I'm not a Protoss player so I don't know PvT.
FFing the ramp has actually mostly disappeared. In this macro oriented time, denying the natural as good as kills your opponent, so most Terran builds - eg tank contain - simply aim to do that. No point busting the ramp. And that feeling of Zerg units being kinda shitty, that you get against Toss? That's how we feel against Terran. Zealots getting kited left and right, stalkers melting to marauders..sigh.
|
Well at least we both agree that Terran early game is ridiculous :D
|
On May 06 2011 23:09 bmn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 22:56 Thrombozyt wrote:On May 06 2011 22:42 Drteeth wrote:On May 06 2011 22:01 gnutz wrote:
It's funny how you all ride on the small detail-mistakes he made, but no one of you gets the real message, the message which is actually very very true. which is ...? OK.. I wasn't clear enough it seems. Idra in his "discussion" with day[9] complained that Zergs cannot scout in a fashion that tells them 100% what their opponent is doing. He claimed that this is an ability needed for Zerg to be played properly. Alternatively, he demanded a build, that keeps him safe from all the allins a Terran can do, while still being economic enough to keep up with a potential terran FE. Personally I think that the existence of such a build (no matter the race) would be detrimental to the game and thank god noone has found such a build so far. Yet the Idra fanclub here in the thread acts as if such a build existed for Terran and Protoss, but not for Zerg. So I asked them to enlighten me by giving me a build that keeps me safe from every potential bullshit Zerg might throw at me while still keeping me up economically with the most greedy Zerg eco opening there is. If you don't see a zerg expanding well after ~20 food, you *know* he's not going for a greedy macro build. If you see a very early pool, you *know* he's not going for a greedy macro build; if you see a pool first and early gas, you *know* he's not going for a greedy macro build. Zerg can't build a hatchery in-base and float it, so you can always scout hatch first or even 13p15h. [...] If you think 14g14p is enough to compete in a macro game with nexus first or forge FE protoss, that would be an answer to Idra's question. But from what I've heard, most pros do not believe that this is the case -- 14g14p is safe, but you're *really* behind against nexus first if you can't do immediate early damage.
14 gas 14 pool reminds me of BW's 12 pool - a very safe defensive build that usually puts you at a disadvantage, and which therefore sees almost no competitive use. But 14 gas 14 pool is standard...?
The standard ZvP opening in Broodwar was the overpool, which should be stronger in SC2 than it was in BW, because it allows a faster Queen, and because speedless Zerglings can kill probes much more easily in SC2 than in BW.
11 Overpool has more production than 14 gas 14 pool and can deny scouting sooner. It should also have lings out in time to force cannons from a forge-first player, and then he's in the dark, wondering if you're going for a bust or continuing with economic play.
If you go 11 Overpool 18 Gas 18 Hatchery, you can deny the scout early and have extreme flexibility in followup.
|
The standard ZvP opening in Broodwar was the overpool, which should be stronger in SC2 than it was in BW, because it allows a faster Queen, and because speedless Zerglings can kill probes much more easily in SC2 than in BW.
Well, Overpool was good in ZvP in BW because it forced Protoss to get cannons+forge before nexus, so even though overpool wasn't as economical as 12 hatch, it also hurt the Protoss' economy (if the map distances were too long for this, then 9pool is used instead). 12 hatch was much better than overpool against 1 base plays by protoss.
|
love the show. finally got around to seeing the last one. and it was def hilarious! lol
|
So why not use it on Tal'darim/Shakuras type maps to deny the nexus first and force cannons from FFE?
|
On May 06 2011 21:01 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 19:00 WhiteDog wrote:On May 06 2011 18:55 Jakkerr wrote:On May 06 2011 17:08 DND_Enkil wrote:
I usually zones out when Idra starts ventiong about zerg imbalance and has been a great follower of the Day9 model but i was really impressed by Idra in the last show. He put forward real arguments and issues and Day9 could not really give any coherent answer.
IdrA boiled down the zergs weakness really well, lack of scouting early game and no all-around defense build always leaves you weak to all-ins. Sean was showing his absolute unwillingness to discuss balance and criticize Blizzard. Constantly saying he disagreed but not being able to repsond to the arguments made his case look really weak.
Interesting to see someone challenging Sean for once, he prefers to preach alone in his dailies and i got the feeling in this show he was mostly concerned with being politicly correct rather than discussing balance. No race has an all-around defense build if you ask me, an all around defense build without scouting is something like: drop 5+ spinecrawlers at ur natural and get a quick Evo chamber + 2 spore crawlers, obviously Idra doesn't want to do that but then he also shouldn't complain there isn't such a build :p. Although I do agree zerg has a hard time scouting terran. but I don't really see how zerg has a hard time scouting protoss. If you flie in an overlord at the right time the protoss has a zealot and a sentry, around this time the protoss is gonna drop down his next buildings, 1 sentry does like nothing to an overlord. Even if you don't trust the situation and drop down a bunch of spine crawlers because you aren't feeling safe ur still infront since ur opponent didn't expand at all yet. Too quote MC: he drone, drone,drone > me all in > he drone,drone,drone > me win There are units / mechanics in the terran and protoss arsenal that give them a edge on defense. Tanks / sentries are units that are most cost efficient in defense than in attack. (well on most maps for force field) For zerg, there are no defensive units. All units you have are as good attacking than defensive units. That is a fact, not to mention we have no wall in. You can arguably defend anything with a 3 gate expand. For the zerg to survive any kind of early all in, we need to scout it and react to it by producing enough units to crush our opponent, but not too much because counter attack is not an option in most of the games. That's why I think buffing zerg is such a bad idea: they would become just overpower. The problem is not zerg being underpower, but zerg lacking a defensive unit. Dear WhiteDog, I ask you as the poster child of an Idra fan, but other Zergs can join: What is the safe build for Terran? Idra demands either perfect scouting or a build that is safe against every all-in and won't fall behind in economy. As a Terran, I want that, too. Please note, that scanning is not a feasable scouting method, as it won't give you all the details you need, because the radius is too small and my worker is killed faster by 2 lings than your drone. That means my early game scouting is comparable to the Zergs, so I feel I'm also entitled to the 'safe build that lets me enter the mid game on even terms'. Please tell me how to be safe against 6 pool, 7RR, baneling bust and fast mutas while keeping up with the Zerg economy of a spanishiwa style opening. I thank you for your time in advance. 'Sincerely' Thrombozyt
First thing first, I'm no IdrA's #1 fan, I respect him as one of the top tier zerg out there, but if you look at my history, I was having the same argument about zerg lack of defensive units since ages now.
Well to answer your question, it's not only about having an "all purpose build" as IdrA said, but just to sums up what terran have that makes them good defense wise :
Cheap bunker, cost effective T1 units in addition to wall in and Tanks. Those three things are way better in defense than in attack, there is no arguing to that, it's a fact. A t1 units with 5 range and t1.5 with 6 range (marine & marauder), cheap bunker to use them, easy wall in and tanks, which is the greatest positionnal unit in the game (with colossi obviously).
Just to fix something: no what I said does not mean that the zerg should play agressiv because that's not what the zerg have been designed to. The zerg is a defensive / maccro race, period. Larva mechanics additionnal ressource kicks in AFTER mules or chrono. The first 3 zerg units need an upgrade to be fully usefull in offense, and two of those upgrades are T2. The zerg units are designed to be weak because of the larva mechanics: what makes them good is the production of zergs and not the sheer power of each units, unlike other races. Zerg units are better on creep and have the easiest time to expand.
Almost every early attempt to be agressiv with zerg is a reactiv play or a all inish play, there are no basic agressiv / harassment style like hellion / marine drop.
All those things makes the zerg race a maccro / defensiv race.
|
On May 06 2011 18:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 18:13 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On May 06 2011 18:08 DND_Enkil wrote:On May 06 2011 17:42 cheesemaster wrote:On May 06 2011 16:56 Inky87 wrote:
Seriously can't believe people think Idra was right for that balance discussion with Day9. It was like 45 minutes of "It's this way. Tell me I'm wrong, Day9." And the thing is, Day9 actually cares about being explaining himself clearly. All Idra did was make blanket statements. You can't have a useful discussion with that. I agree idra uses absolutes in his arguments, you cant have a good discussion by using absolutes there arent really many absolutes in the world of starcraft in terms of balance discussion and strategies. saying zerg CANT scout early game, or zerg CANT all in, or zerg Cant be aggressive. Zerg doesnt have a build that counters everything. The argument got really pathetic when idra stated, that zerg either has to have a build thats safe against everything or needs to beable to see constantly what their opponent is doing to counter it. That is not true for any race and thats just not how the game works, as much as he says its true for terran and protoss it just isnt there are always weakness's in every strategy, we have seen how the 3 gate sentry expand is weak against roach ling aggression as of recent as well as early hydra play. Its really disheartening to see that so many people agree with him Its because most people would prefer to just beleive that their race is imbalanced and there is nothign they can do about it then try and work something out to fix it. Its so much easier to blame external factors then your own mistakes. IdrA never said that zergs need to constantly see what thier opponents is doing, he just said that there are to many potential all-ins able to kill zerg that zerg has no way to scout or prepare for, making it a pure guessing game. For IdrA this means the race is "imbalanced". I actually found IdrA to present very valid arguments for once, and seeing how Sean was totally unable to even adress them beyond blankly diasagreeing (while claiming he did want to discuss balance) was refreshing for a chance. I think Tyler even agreed with IdrA (cant remember what he said exactly) but spinning it more like a game design flaw rather than balancing issue. How big a weakness it is is more up for debate i guess, i mean we still see some zerg players performing well. But would have been nice of Sean to either admit to it being a weakness (imbalance if you will) of zerg or presenting arguments that it is not. I feel that Sean would agree to it being a weakness but would be unwilling to call it imbalance, if it proves to be to much of a weakness for zergs to overcome he might even call it a fatal weakness. But even then he would most likely not call it imbalanced, either because he just dislikes the term or because he wants to remain PC and on good terms with Blizzard. i dont think that zerg could scout terran all game long in bw. they also had marines u know The other part of the argument was that, in BW, Terran's way to kill a zerg were limited, and so the zerg could defend to it better, not to mention sunken colonies. In SC2... well it's different.
But that's not a valid comparison. How long have you been playing Brood War? Did you at all? Through the evolution of the game was that explicitly true? No. It wasn't. It took years to boil down a set of defined and optimized strategies that were perceived to be the best, which the Zerg's knew of and understood that those strategies could be dealt with.
You know, that thing that Day9 tried to explain and was constantly cut off by Idra being an antsy pants? In 10 years from now, that will happen, but it's too early. That's all he's saying. You can't bitch and moan about balance and then try and compare a 1 year old game to a 13 year old game where those predefined strategies are already in place--Starcraft 2 has no such strategies, the game on a strategic level is in a constant volatile state while everyone works to figure things out.
It's like people complaining that modern day MMO's aren't as well fleshed out as World of Warcraft--a game that took 6 years to get to the state it's in now. In that same vein, any balance or strategic comparison from SC1 to SC2 is horseshit because the two are incomparable. You can compare the two in 12 years from now when the set of defined and optimized strategies that are perceived to be the best have been figured out.
The game is just too young right now and that was all Day9 was trying to say, that you can't say explicitly that all these things are fundamental flaws of a race when in 2 months from now it is undeniable that builds and strategies will arise to deal with all of these issues.
|
On May 07 2011 00:15 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2011 18:29 WhiteDog wrote:On May 06 2011 18:13 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On May 06 2011 18:08 DND_Enkil wrote:On May 06 2011 17:42 cheesemaster wrote:On May 06 2011 16:56 Inky87 wrote:
Seriously can't believe people think Idra was right for that balance discussion with Day9. It was like 45 minutes of "It's this way. Tell me I'm wrong, Day9." And the thing is, Day9 actually cares about being explaining himself clearly. All Idra did was make blanket statements. You can't have a useful discussion with that. I agree idra uses absolutes in his arguments, you cant have a good discussion by using absolutes there arent really many absolutes in the world of starcraft in terms of balance discussion and strategies. saying zerg CANT scout early game, or zerg CANT all in, or zerg Cant be aggressive. Zerg doesnt have a build that counters everything. The argument got really pathetic when idra stated, that zerg either has to have a build thats safe against everything or needs to beable to see constantly what their opponent is doing to counter it. That is not true for any race and thats just not how the game works, as much as he says its true for terran and protoss it just isnt there are always weakness's in every strategy, we have seen how the 3 gate sentry expand is weak against roach ling aggression as of recent as well as early hydra play. Its really disheartening to see that so many people agree with him Its because most people would prefer to just beleive that their race is imbalanced and there is nothign they can do about it then try and work something out to fix it. Its so much easier to blame external factors then your own mistakes. IdrA never said that zergs need to constantly see what thier opponents is doing, he just said that there are to many potential all-ins able to kill zerg that zerg has no way to scout or prepare for, making it a pure guessing game. For IdrA this means the race is "imbalanced". I actually found IdrA to present very valid arguments for once, and seeing how Sean was totally unable to even adress them beyond blankly diasagreeing (while claiming he did want to discuss balance) was refreshing for a chance. I think Tyler even agreed with IdrA (cant remember what he said exactly) but spinning it more like a game design flaw rather than balancing issue. How big a weakness it is is more up for debate i guess, i mean we still see some zerg players performing well. But would have been nice of Sean to either admit to it being a weakness (imbalance if you will) of zerg or presenting arguments that it is not. I feel that Sean would agree to it being a weakness but would be unwilling to call it imbalance, if it proves to be to much of a weakness for zergs to overcome he might even call it a fatal weakness. But even then he would most likely not call it imbalanced, either because he just dislikes the term or because he wants to remain PC and on good terms with Blizzard. i dont think that zerg could scout terran all game long in bw. they also had marines u know The other part of the argument was that, in BW, Terran's way to kill a zerg were limited, and so the zerg could defend to it better, not to mention sunken colonies. In SC2... well it's different. But that's not a valid comparison. How long have you been playing Brood War? Did you at all? Through the evolution of the game was that explicitly true? No. It wasn't. It took years to boil down a set of defined and optimized strategies that were perceived to be the best, which the Zerg's knew of and understood that those strategies could be dealt with. You know, that thing that Day9 tried to explain and was constantly cut off by Idra being an antsy pants? In 10 years from now, that will happen, but it's too early. That's all he's saying. You can't bitch and moan about balance and then try and compare a 1 year old game to a 13 year old game where those predefined strategies are already in place--Starcraft 2 has no such strategies, the game on a strategic level is in a constant volatile state while everyone works to figure things out. It's like people complaining that modern day MMO's aren't as well fleshed out as World of Warcraft--a game that took 6 years to get to the state it's in now. In that same vein, any balance or strategic comparison from SC1 to SC2 is horseshit because the two are incomparable. You can compare the two in 12 years from now when the set of defined and optimized strategies that are perceived to be the best have been figured out. The game is just too young right now and that was all Day9 was trying to say, that you can't say explicitly that all these things are fundamental flaws of a race when in 2 months from now it is undeniable that builds and strategies will arise to deal with all of these issues.
You know, the things I said does not came from me, it was Tasteless' argument. Do you think he does not played brood war enough maybe ?
Whatever you may want to say, BW economical growth is very, very different from SC2 because of the maccro mechanics and the way workers behave. Because of that, the time to tech is way different.
Have you played BW at all ?
Also, Starcraft 1 came out in a gaming scene that was most likely made of noobs and pure casual. SC2 growth is not the same as SC1 because, whatever you may think, SC2 came out after SC1 and took a lot of things from it. Do you think SC2 will need 12 years to stabilize itself ? No.
|
And I genuinely feel that Tasteless' argument was a bad one, I fully understand where it came from, I wasn't addressing that. What I was saying is that in the history of SC:BW in it's entirety, the "Terran's only will attack with X or Y so their options were limited" was not fundamentally true from day 0 until today, that there was a great deal of shifts in the metagame until NOW, at this point in time, Terran only attacks with those two styles because, as Day9 inferred, after 13 years--those strategies are believed/proven to currently be the best strategies.
To say that "In some other game that's been out for 13 years, you only have to worry about these 2 strategies, and in this game that's been publicly released for less than a year and is still undergoing volatile shifts in the metagame you have to deal with all kinds of things because no one's figured out what the best strategies are yet, so Zerg has less options" is an argument that lacks actual substance.
The point is that over time, those strategies will be hammered out and it's way too early to say that Zerg's underpowered as a race right now because it's fundamentally unable to be proven. If SC2 had been out for as long as BW has been out and the same problems still arose, then a clear issue in balance could be discussed: because there is insurmountable evidence that it is the case.
So you have to ask yourself: do you believe that zerg is underpowered? Or can you provide overwhelming evidence that zerg is underpowered and that you are compelled, by a logical analysis of both the observations and evidence provided, to conclude that zerg is underpowered?
Or have you just lost games to cheese like everyone else and feel you're entitled to buffs because of it?
|
IdrA likes to talk in absolutes, which is silly, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have an underlying point that's true.
I don't think Zerg should have perfect scouting, but I think the guesses that Zerg have to make are too big. That means:
a) Builds that are powerful enough to kill you are too similar, in terms of scouting, to builds that are vey macro focused.
b) Zergs ability to use their investment in early units aggressively is too small. When you make too many units to defend you're almost dead already, this just makes the gamble even bigger.
|
I was curious as to why it was that everyone on the show (including Greg, which is weird) seemed to agree that warp prisms died too easily when they only have 10 less health and 1 less armor than a medivac? It takes 10 stalker shots to kill a Warp Prism and 12 to kill a medivac. What gives with the double standard?
|
On May 07 2011 00:33 Kich wrote:
And I genuinely feel that Tasteless' argument was a bad one, I fully understand where it came from, I wasn't addressing that. What I was saying is that in the history of SC:BW in it's entirety, the "Terran's only will attack with X or Y so their options were limited" was not fundamentally true from day 0 until today, that there was a great deal of shifts in the metagame until NOW, at this point in time, Terran only attacks with those two styles because, as Day9 inferred, after 13 years--those strategies are believed/proven to currently be the best strategies.
To say that "In some other game that's been out for 13 years, you only have to worry about these 2 strategies, and in this game that's been publicly released for less than a year and is still undergoing volatile shifts in the metagame you have to deal with all kinds of things because no one's figured out what the best strategies are yet, so Zerg has less options" is an argument that lacks actual substance.
The point is that over time, those strategies will be hammered out and it's way too early to say that Zerg's underpowered as a race right now because it's fundamentally unable to be proven. If SC2 had been out for as long as BW has been out and the same problems still arose, then a clear issue in balance could be discussed: because there is insurmountable evidence that it is the case.
So you have to ask yourself: do you believe that zerg is underpowered? Or can you provide overwhelming evidence that zerg is underpowered and that you are compelled, by a logical analysis of both the observations and evidence provided, to conclude that zerg is underpowered?
Or have you just lost games to cheese like everyone else and feel you're entitled to buffs because of it?
I only use my own personnal experience, but I never thought that zerg were underpower, might even be overpower mid/late game in ZvT. My point is that zerg as a whole has a flawed design and lack a certain defensive units (the lurker in BW), because of that things seems even in ZvT. Overall, that flawed design makes most zerg player resort to guessing / chancy kind of play, and it's actually not good for the game because the one who win never feel like he should have or deserved it (at least for ZvP).
Because I explain IdrA's argument does not mean I'm 100% behind it. For exemple, the colossi is bad designed as well, and poor if you compare it to the reaver, but I never thought it was imbalanced.
Never wanted any buff for the zerg, they are and will stay broken until HotS imo.
|
On May 07 2011 00:41 Treehead wrote:
I was curious as to why it was that everyone on the show (including Greg, which is weird) seemed to agree that warp prisms died too easily when they only have 10 less health and 1 less armor than a medivac? It takes 10 stalker shots to kill a Warp Prism and 12 to kill a medivac. What gives with the double standard?
Terran has much better anti-air than Protoss
|
On May 07 2011 00:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 00:33 Kich wrote:
And I genuinely feel that Tasteless' argument was a bad one, I fully understand where it came from, I wasn't addressing that. What I was saying is that in the history of SC:BW in it's entirety, the "Terran's only will attack with X or Y so their options were limited" was not fundamentally true from day 0 until today, that there was a great deal of shifts in the metagame until NOW, at this point in time, Terran only attacks with those two styles because, as Day9 inferred, after 13 years--those strategies are believed/proven to currently be the best strategies.
To say that "In some other game that's been out for 13 years, you only have to worry about these 2 strategies, and in this game that's been publicly released for less than a year and is still undergoing volatile shifts in the metagame you have to deal with all kinds of things because no one's figured out what the best strategies are yet, so Zerg has less options" is an argument that lacks actual substance.
The point is that over time, those strategies will be hammered out and it's way too early to say that Zerg's underpowered as a race right now because it's fundamentally unable to be proven. If SC2 had been out for as long as BW has been out and the same problems still arose, then a clear issue in balance could be discussed: because there is insurmountable evidence that it is the case.
So you have to ask yourself: do you believe that zerg is underpowered? Or can you provide overwhelming evidence that zerg is underpowered and that you are compelled, by a logical analysis of both the observations and evidence provided, to conclude that zerg is underpowered?
Or have you just lost games to cheese like everyone else and feel you're entitled to buffs because of it? I only use my own personnal experience, but I never thought that zerg were underpower, might even be overpower mid/late game in ZvT. My point is that zerg as a whole has a flawed design and lack a certain defensive units (the lurker in BW), because of that things seems even in ZvT. Overall, that flawed design makes most zerg player resort to guessing / chancy kind of play, and it's actually not good for the game because the one who win never feel like he should have or deserved it (at least for ZvP). Because I explain IdrA's argument does not mean I'm 100% behind it. For exemple, the colossi is bad designed as well, and poor if you compare it to the reaver, but I never thought it was imbalanced.
Zerg has solid defense in the Queen, the Spine Crawler, and Creep.
|
On May 07 2011 00:45 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 00:41 Treehead wrote:
I was curious as to why it was that everyone on the show (including Greg, which is weird) seemed to agree that warp prisms died too easily when they only have 10 less health and 1 less armor than a medivac? It takes 10 stalker shots to kill a Warp Prism and 12 to kill a medivac. What gives with the double standard? Terran has much better anti-air than Protoss
Eh, I guess I'm just saying - if the real issue is that stalkers aren't as effective at against air as marines, queens or hydras, why claim that warp prisms are "made of paper" instead of just saying drop play is better against toss because stalkers' dps is terrible?
|
On May 07 2011 00:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2011 00:33 Kich wrote:
And I genuinely feel that Tasteless' argument was a bad one, I fully understand where it came from, I wasn't addressing that. What I was saying is that in the history of SC:BW in it's entirety, the "Terran's only will attack with X or Y so their options were limited" was not fundamentally true from day 0 until today, that there was a great deal of shifts in the metagame until NOW, at this point in time, Terran only attacks with those two styles because, as Day9 inferred, after 13 years--those strategies are believed/proven to currently be the best strategies.
To say that "In some other game that's been out for 13 years, you only have to worry about these 2 strategies, and in this game that's been publicly released for less than a year and is still undergoing volatile shifts in the metagame you have to deal with all kinds of things because no one's figured out what the best strategies are yet, so Zerg has less options" is an argument that lacks actual substance.
The point is that over time, those strategies will be hammered out and it's way too early to say that Zerg's underpowered as a race right now because it's fundamentally unable to be proven. If SC2 had been out for as long as BW has been out and the same problems still arose, then a clear issue in balance could be discussed: because there is insurmountable evidence that it is the case.
So you have to ask yourself: do you believe that zerg is underpowered? Or can you provide overwhelming evidence that zerg is underpowered and that you are compelled, by a logical analysis of both the observations and evidence provided, to conclude that zerg is underpowered?
Or have you just lost games to cheese like everyone else and feel you're entitled to buffs because of it? I only use my own personnal experience, but I never thought that zerg were underpower, might even be overpower mid/late game in ZvT. My point is that zerg as a whole has a flawed design and lack a certain defensive units (the lurker in BW), because of that things seems even in ZvT. Overall, that flawed design makes most zerg player resort to guessing / chancy kind of play, and it's actually not good for the game because the one who win never feel like he should have or deserved it (at least for ZvP). Because I explain IdrA's argument does not mean I'm 100% behind it. For exemple, the colossi is bad designed as well, and poor if you compare it to the reaver, but I never thought it was imbalanced.
Though obviously I was quoting and referring to you, the question I posed stands for all zerg's to answer. Personally, I agree, I'm willing to sink into my emotions and say that there's stupid designs on the Zerg end--I feel roaches as a general statement are a dumb unit that should never have been implemented, if anything, their Burrow/Tunneling claw aspect should have been what they were used for, not as the zerg equivalent of Stalkers/Marauders.
If Zerg's could make hydra's as their t1.5 unit (after spawning pool with a hydra den) I feel like a lot of these issues would be less of a big deal since they have a unit that can both shoot up and tear apart other early game units (obviously, increasing their movement speed off creep would be necessary because they're slow as shit right now). I feel like with their longer range and higher dps they could, as many zergs are wanting, reapply pressure onto the opponent for making a bad mistake etc.
So, personally I feel like it'd be a good decision, but I'm not Blizzard and I'm not in their chair. I understand that it's my bias towards disliking Roaches and doesn't actually mean Zerg is underpowered, I'd just prefer if the race was designed differently (because I'd play them in a heartbeat if hydra's were still their main army comp unit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
