|
On April 13 2011 15:44 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:32 Jibba wrote:On April 13 2011 15:29 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 15:23 sCorz wrote:
Anyone interested in their discussion about BW and how the metagame was approached vs how SC2 is being approached, should do the same. This episode made me realize people should really stop worrying about balance so much and focus finding ways around the "walls" they run into.
I think there's an unfounded hope that SC2 balance will turn out like BW balance. As far as I can tell, there's pretty much no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. They're two different games, you might as well compare it to Counterstrike. There's no evidence to suggest either way. The point they're trying to make it that you should withhold judgment until people are playing better. Right now there's just so many flaws in everyone's play. There is evidence: the evidence is zerg getting owned by protoss. The BW mentality seems to be that if we wait long enough that things will swing back to even. My point is that there's no reason to believe that this will happen in SC2 just because it happened in BW. In fact, it seems to me that it's swinging the other way.
Wait let me get this clear: You just said that the evidence that SC2 balance will not turn out like BW balance is that "zerg is getting owned by protoss"? wooowwwwww
|
Zerg has no opportunity cost of time for getting overlord drops. They're making overlords anyways, and they stop queen production pretty early on so it's not like their hatcheries would be upgrading anything else once Burrow is done. With warp prisms, it's either colossus or warp prism, so robotics time is always better spent on a colossus. However, there is no such build time trade off for getting Zerg drop. You can get it after burrow.
If you don't want to give away what you're doing, research drop before speed. Nobody will see it coming and you can still have a strong ground army to not die from a 2 base 6gate unlike the switch the mutalisks. Drop harass can be more effective than muta harass since it's safer on your end, and if you drop hydras they can kill probes and buildings really fast, just make sure to focus on a building if that's your goal. Also, by doing this, you still have a strong ground army and can probably save some of your units to return to your ground army.
As for zerglings being useless late game, drop them! They're so cheap in mineral and food cost, and you can just keep throwing them away dropping them and causing all sorts of havoc, especially once they get attack speed.
Even using them to chip away at buildings is extremely annoying and can cause your opponent's macro to slip or make them move their army back.
|
On April 13 2011 15:48 elmizzt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:44 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 15:32 Jibba wrote:On April 13 2011 15:29 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 15:23 sCorz wrote:
Anyone interested in their discussion about BW and how the metagame was approached vs how SC2 is being approached, should do the same. This episode made me realize people should really stop worrying about balance so much and focus finding ways around the "walls" they run into.
I think there's an unfounded hope that SC2 balance will turn out like BW balance. As far as I can tell, there's pretty much no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. They're two different games, you might as well compare it to Counterstrike. There's no evidence to suggest either way. The point they're trying to make it that you should withhold judgment until people are playing better. Right now there's just so many flaws in everyone's play. There is evidence: the evidence is zerg getting owned by protoss. The BW mentality seems to be that if we wait long enough that things will swing back to even. My point is that there's no reason to believe that this will happen in SC2 just because it happened in BW. In fact, it seems to me that it's swinging the other way. Wait let me get this clear: You just said that the evidence that SC2 balance will not turn out like BW balance is that "zerg is getting owned by protoss"? wooowwwwww
You don't need much evidence at all because it's always more likely than not that the game is not balanced in its current state. In SC2 balance issues are more apparent than in BW as it's much more difficult to just outplay your opponent to the extent the issues won't matter.
|
On April 13 2011 15:43 Grantiere wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 14:29 WniO wrote:
seriously... having 4 non zergs arguing that zerg is fine is really fucking annoying. i wonder how long the excuse will be that "Well you know, the game is, really young, so i mean you need to realize that things might be discovered, which will help zerg out." 1 year? 2 years? till HotS?
*EVEN IF* zergs units were perfectly balanced against toss/terrans units, it would still be fundamentally imbalanced due to the options t/p has against zerg. for instance,
There are 2 football teams, (american football.) Red and Blue. They both are completely even in all aspects, but team Red only has a third of the playcalls that the Blue team has. Red has to practice defending 3 times the amount of plays that blue has, and they only have a third of the plays that they can choose for offence... obviously blue will win more often than not.
Thats what starcraft 2 is like for zerg! They are team Red!
That's a terrible analogy. Once upon a time, football was 3 yards and a cloud of dust. A game manly men played, where everything was even and the manliest men won. Then one day some less manly man got tired of losing and decided to mix it up. Thus was born the single wing offense. Followed by the double wing. And the wishbone. And the run-and-shoot. And the west coast offense. And the shotgun and pistol formations. And the A-11. Defenses countered with the 3-4 formation, nickel and dime packages, the 46, the zone blitz, the Tampa 2. When faced with a limited set of perceived options, people innovated. It took time. The single and double wings were prevalent for 40 years or so. Starcraft 2 has a finite set of options. This is true. What zergs are arguing is that the permutations of the what / when / where / why / how have been fully explored, and are lacking. What Tyler with his doors analogy and he, Day9, and Incontrol with their BW experience are arguing is that they aren't all explored to nearly the level of refinement necessary to make a conclusive case, and that it's unhealthy as a pro to approach the game as otherwise. It's easy to understand progamers being impatient. It's their livelihood. They don't necessarily have 2, 3, or 5 years for SC2 to be as refined as nostalgia recalls BW being. It sucks to be a fullback in the current state of the NFL, with pass-heavy offenses relatively ahead of power-run offenses in solving today's defenses. As fans and observers, we have the luxury of taking a longer view. We don't all have to choose to take it, mind you. I'm annoyed if my team is limited by the imagination of the offensive coordinator (damn you, Jimmy Raye) and loses because of inferior player compositions. Still, that doesn't mean that the game is fundamentally flawed. It just means we're seeing this from a snapshot at a point in time in the evolution of a constantly changing game.
Actually, this is a very good example. American Football is arguably the best professional sport parallel for SC2, given it's relative complexity and multiple moving parts. Still, as long as you have 11 men on the field and obey the rules of the game, offensive and defensive coordinators are constantly looking to gain an advantage over one another.
Does Bill Belicheck probably wish he had a capable back who could handle 25 carries? I'm sure he does, but seeing as how he doesn't have one, and has not had one for some time (Corey Dillon?), he schemes around that. His job is the showcase his team's strengths and diminish it's weaknesses, just like a pro SC2 player. I like that example sir.
|
On April 13 2011 15:44 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:32 Jibba wrote:On April 13 2011 15:29 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 15:23 sCorz wrote:
Anyone interested in their discussion about BW and how the metagame was approached vs how SC2 is being approached, should do the same. This episode made me realize people should really stop worrying about balance so much and focus finding ways around the "walls" they run into.
I think there's an unfounded hope that SC2 balance will turn out like BW balance. As far as I can tell, there's pretty much no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. They're two different games, you might as well compare it to Counterstrike. There's no evidence to suggest either way. The point they're trying to make it that you should withhold judgment until people are playing better. Right now there's just so many flaws in everyone's play. There is evidence: the evidence is zerg getting owned by protoss. The BW mentality seems to be that if we wait long enough that things will swing back to even. My point is that there's no reason to believe that this will happen in SC2 just because it happened in BW. In fact, it seems to me that it's swinging the other way.
What most people are saying is that the possibilities haven't been anywhere near fully explored, and instead of experimentation and refinement(like Tyler was saying, BW builds are refined to the second) and that the self defeating attitude of, "XvY is imba, so I'm going to stop trying and just whine loudly" doesn't help a damn thing. Change doesn't happen just because you will it, and I'm not sure why so many dumbasses think this is the case.
|
On April 13 2011 15:44 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:32 Jibba wrote:On April 13 2011 15:29 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 15:23 sCorz wrote:
Anyone interested in their discussion about BW and how the metagame was approached vs how SC2 is being approached, should do the same. This episode made me realize people should really stop worrying about balance so much and focus finding ways around the "walls" they run into.
I think there's an unfounded hope that SC2 balance will turn out like BW balance. As far as I can tell, there's pretty much no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. They're two different games, you might as well compare it to Counterstrike. There's no evidence to suggest either way. The point they're trying to make it that you should withhold judgment until people are playing better. Right now there's just so many flaws in everyone's play. There is evidence: the evidence is zerg getting owned by protoss. The BW mentality seems to be that if we wait long enough that things will swing back to even. My point is that there's no reason to believe that this will happen in SC2 just because it happened in BW. In fact, it seems to me that it's swinging the other way.
well then it's time to ask ourselves why zerg is getting owned by protoss. Maybe zergs need a new kind of playstyle? We know protoss is susceptible to drop harass. Why can't we abandon the whole idea of massing roaches and corruptors and instead engage the enemy indirectly? Even without the colossus, it's pretty damn hard for zerg to engage a protoss army head on, thanks to force fields. Which is why things like hydra/baneling drops, contaminates, nydus networks, aggresive creep spread for map control are all better options than sitting in your base and spamming roaches till maxed. This may feel like the zerg having to massively outplay the toss to win, but what if it becomes the norm?
|
On April 13 2011 15:50 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:48 elmizzt wrote:On April 13 2011 15:44 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 15:32 Jibba wrote:On April 13 2011 15:29 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 15:23 sCorz wrote:
Anyone interested in their discussion about BW and how the metagame was approached vs how SC2 is being approached, should do the same. This episode made me realize people should really stop worrying about balance so much and focus finding ways around the "walls" they run into.
I think there's an unfounded hope that SC2 balance will turn out like BW balance. As far as I can tell, there's pretty much no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. They're two different games, you might as well compare it to Counterstrike. There's no evidence to suggest either way. The point they're trying to make it that you should withhold judgment until people are playing better. Right now there's just so many flaws in everyone's play. There is evidence: the evidence is zerg getting owned by protoss. The BW mentality seems to be that if we wait long enough that things will swing back to even. My point is that there's no reason to believe that this will happen in SC2 just because it happened in BW. In fact, it seems to me that it's swinging the other way. Wait let me get this clear: You just said that the evidence that SC2 balance will not turn out like BW balance is that "zerg is getting owned by protoss"? wooowwwwww You don't need much evidence at all because it's always more likely than not that the game is not balanced in its current state. In SC2 balance issues are more apparent than in BW as it's much more difficult to just outplay your opponent to the extent the issues won't matter.
HAhahahah holy crap people need to learn to read before posting.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 13 2011 15:48 Zzoram wrote:
Zerg has no opportunity cost of time for getting overlord drops. They're making overlords anyways, and they stop queen production pretty early on so it's not like their hatcheries would be upgrading anything else once Burrow is done. With warp prisms, it's either colossus or warp prism, so robotics time is always better spent on a colossus. However, there is no such build time trade off for getting Zerg drop. You can get it after burrow.
If you don't want to give away what you're doing, research drop before speed. Nobody will see it coming and you can still have a strong ground army to not die from a 2 base 6gate unlike the switch the mutalisks. Drop harass can be more effective than muta harass since it's safer on your end, and if you drop hydras they can kill probes and buildings really fast, just make sure to focus on a building if that's your goal. Also, by doing this, you still have a strong ground army and can probably save some of your units to return to your ground army.
Yeah and die to any early all in because you're spending 200 gas on something that REQUIRES another 100 gas to be effecient. Your point is stupid and it's obvious you don't play zerg. You spend the gas on anything but units and you die to all ins. Not to mention getting drop that early is so pointless because even if you get it safely, you're not going to have the correct number of units to use it effectively. You have to be significantly ahead economically to throw away units as Zerg, especially when the damage isn't guaranteed.
Let me get drop after burrow and have about zero units that can do any damage with the drops. Sounds solid.
There's not a single zerg, pro or not, out there that isn't having consistent trouble with Protoss. You might dominate one game, but it probably won't work the next 3. Why do Protoss care so much anyway? The idea is not to nerf Protoss, it's to give Zerg something that's actually useful against them.
Btw feedback alone shuts down infestor play, and don't whine that you can't go high templar against it because if they're spending gas on infestors, they have nothing to actually kill you with.
|
On April 13 2011 15:41 jmbthirteen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:31 ixi.genocide wrote:On April 13 2011 14:59 KevinIX wrote:On April 13 2011 14:57 ixi.genocide wrote:On April 13 2011 14:52 Zzoram wrote:
Zerg's drop mechanism is cheaper and more readily available than Terran drops because losing an Overlord doesn't hurt as much as losing a Medivac. Overlords are cheaper, build faster, and you'll likely have tons of extras doing nothing anyways. Also, Terrans generally only build Turrets along their mineral line, so specifically doing Baneling drops to target clumps of Supply Depots is entirely possible. Overlords don't heal at 13.5 hp/s though. Medivacs would be built even if they didn't act as drop ships. And medivacs would still be built even if they didn't act as medics. just as much as warp prisms and ovie drop/speed is.... I see Terran players make medivacs for dropping purposes way more than I see zerg's get drops and protoss players make warp prisms. Plus both those units are terribly under utilized right now. Terrans realize how strong drops are so they do it often. Zergs are starting to do this too. NASL spoiler + Show Spoiler +Look at the Sheth vs Artosis game. Sheth used drops beautifully. Dropping roaches in Artosis's base and expansions and then the rain of banelings all over his army. It was beautiful and its something we don't see enough of. And when we do see it, IT WORKS! No strategy will be a 100% win rate in every case. There are so many variables in this game that haven't even been explored yet. Saying a game is fundamentally broken when it hasn't even been a year since the launch of the game is ridiculous. Maybe Zerg's fundamental thinking is broken. It's just so annoying to see Zergs complaining all the time. Thats why everyone else just says go try something new. Your just so damn annoying to help. These guys come up with different ideas and they get shot down right away before any experimentation. It is not Tyler and iNcontroL's job to tell you the magic Zerg strategy. They are protoss players. Get to work. You may have to work harder, but tough shit. Then when you figure it out Terran's and Protoss's will have to figure it out.
Yes, the entire race of Terran collectively came together and said "make more medivacs for drops"....
Here's an interesting thing... ZERGLINGS do more DPS than marines do, dropping slings would do a fair ammount of damage to the worker line, same as marines. The progression of all 3 races are going to be fairly similar. Zergs don't "Try hard enough and aren't innovative" and terran/toss aren't smarter than Z's... You can tell because we are talking about groups of people, not dude A, B and C.
|
On April 13 2011 15:55 sniverty wrote:
[
well then it's time to ask ourselves why zerg is getting owned by protoss. Maybe zergs need a new kind of playstyle? We know protoss is susceptible to drop harass. Why can't we abandon the whole idea of massing roaches and corruptors and instead engage the enemy indirectly? Even without the colossus, it's pretty damn hard for zerg to engage a protoss army head on, thanks to force fields. Which is why things like hydra/baneling drops, contaminates, nydus networks, aggresive creep spread for map control are all better options than sitting in your base and spamming roaches till maxed. This may feel like the zerg having to massively outplay the toss to win, but what if it becomes the norm?
Because when the toss sees you've wasted gas and money on drops and units to drop, they're going to take their death ball and kill your base, and you'll have nothing to stop it.
You can't harass someone to death as Zerg. You need to harass but also win army vs army engagements. You can't win massive army vs army engagements, so you must force your opponent to split his army but that's hard. That's why Zerg is in the state its in - you can do all this cool tricky harass with muta/drops/nydus but at the end of the day there's nothing stopping him from a+moving into your main where all your tech is - except that nearly max'd ball of 3/3 roaches.
Can you imagine a situation where a zerg player gets to a+move their army into a Terran or Protoss base?
I can't, unless the game was already over.
|
On April 13 2011 16:00 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:55 sniverty wrote:
[
well then it's time to ask ourselves why zerg is getting owned by protoss. Maybe zergs need a new kind of playstyle? We know protoss is susceptible to drop harass. Why can't we abandon the whole idea of massing roaches and corruptors and instead engage the enemy indirectly? Even without the colossus, it's pretty damn hard for zerg to engage a protoss army head on, thanks to force fields. Which is why things like hydra/baneling drops, contaminates, nydus networks, aggresive creep spread for map control are all better options than sitting in your base and spamming roaches till maxed. This may feel like the zerg having to massively outplay the toss to win, but what if it becomes the norm? Because when the toss sees you've wasted gas and money on drops and units to drop, they're going to take their death ball and kill your base, and you'll have nothing to stop it. You can't harass someone to death as Zerg. You need to harass but also win army vs army engagements. You can't win massive army vs army engagements, so you must force your opponent to split his army but that's hard. That's why Zerg is in the state its in - you can do all this cool tricky harass with muta/drops/nydus but at the end of the day there's nothing stopping him from a+moving into your main where all your tech is. Can you imagine a situation where a zerg player gets to a+move their army into a Terran or Protoss base? I can't, unless the game was already over.
really? zerg has no way to delay their opponent from attacking? harass is just 'cute'? do you honestly believe that you can objectively justify that considering that the entire race was designed to accomodate this?
|
|
|
I gotta say one thing about tonight's cast which is that they really need to stop using Assembly as an argument that zerg isn't broken.
I'm not saying anything about imbalance. This has nothing to do with that. But using a flawed argument to make a point makes for bad discussion.
Ret and Morrow were #1 and 2 respectively at Assembly. The top 2 players at the tournament were zerg so that makes a statement about it? Consider this:
In the top 2, 2 players were zerg
In the top 4, 2 players were zerg
In the top 8, 2 players were zerg
In the top 16, 2 players were zerg
And in the top 32, only 5 players were zerg
Again, this isn't to do with balance. This is simply a weak argument so if they want to make their point, they should find something else to do it with.
|
On April 13 2011 16:01 nath wrote:
really? zerg has no way to delay their opponent from attacking? harass is just 'cute'? do you honestly believe that you can objectively justify that considering that the entire race was designed to accomodate this?
I didn't say any of that, All I said was that I disagree with the concept that you can "beat" the deathball by never engaging it. I do a lot of zerg drops myself so I know what I'm saying here - every race does multi-pronged harassment it's not a zerg-only thing, it has risks and rewards but people act like if you kill enough probes the Colossi/VR ball (which are already created and on the game field) just magically disappear.
You might get a GG from battering them psychologically but objectively harassment like this almost always leads to a big all-in push (since you used your army to kill workers and/or tech, and his army is still in tact). And you'll die if you don't have a nearly maxed army to fight with and rally to.
|
Imagine if Toss whined all day about not having any viable anti-air in the late game, that phoenixes were good in the mid game but too weak and void rays were too frail and slow.
All the Zergs would whisper, "Try building some fucking carriers. They have the highest range and DPS in the game."
And then, instead of trying to find a viable build to get to carriers, the Toss whined about how expensive they are, how they take forever, et cetera et cetera.
The SOTG hosts are right. There are a plethora of unique abilities that the Zerg have that are under-used. Maybe instead of complaining about how difficult it is to actually exploit these abilities, Zerg's should rethink their approach to the game, so they can create situations where they can exploit these abilities.
|
On April 13 2011 16:00 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:55 sniverty wrote:
[
well then it's time to ask ourselves why zerg is getting owned by protoss. Maybe zergs need a new kind of playstyle? We know protoss is susceptible to drop harass. Why can't we abandon the whole idea of massing roaches and corruptors and instead engage the enemy indirectly? Even without the colossus, it's pretty damn hard for zerg to engage a protoss army head on, thanks to force fields. Which is why things like hydra/baneling drops, contaminates, nydus networks, aggresive creep spread for map control are all better options than sitting in your base and spamming roaches till maxed. This may feel like the zerg having to massively outplay the toss to win, but what if it becomes the norm? Because when the toss sees you've wasted gas and money on drops and units to drop, they're going to take their death ball and kill your base, and you'll have nothing to stop it. You can't harass someone to death as Zerg. You need to harass but also win army vs army engagements. You can't win massive army vs army engagements, so you must force your opponent to split his army but that's hard. That's why Zerg is in the state its in - you can do all this cool tricky harass with muta/drops/nydus but at the end of the day there's nothing stopping him from a+moving into your main where all your tech is. Can you imagine a situation where a zerg player gets to a+move their army into a Terran or Protoss base? I can't, unless the game was already over.
Notice that all the "cool tricks" you mention are specifically geared towards preventing the protoss from getting a deathball. Destroy tech with drops, delay units with contaminate, slow down the economy etc. Zerg needs to incorporate this kind of style as soon as it becomes available, not when the protoss is sitting at 150-200 supply with the capability to a-move and destroy your base.
Now, you may ask .how zerg can afford all this? Map control, fast tech switches, creep spread, I don't know, I don't claim to have the solution to ZvP. What I am suggesting is that zergs shed their fear of getting rolled over by aggresive builds that punish zergs who have "wasted" gas on drops or nydus. It's going to happen. You will get 6-gated when you try risky builds without the ability to adequately defend your base. But, someone somewhere will find a way to beat it. Nothing is unsolvable.
|
On April 13 2011 16:08 Defacer wrote:
Imagine if Toss whined all day about not having any viable anti-air in the late game, that phoenixes were good in the mid game but too weak and void rays were too frail and slow.
All the Zergs would whisper, "Try building some fucking carriers. They have the highest range and DPS in the game."
And then, instead of trying to find a viable build to get to carriers, the Toss whined about how expensive they are, how they take forever, et cetera et cetera.
The SOTG hosts are right. There are a plethora of unique abilities that the Zerg have that are under-used. Maybe instead of complaining about how difficult it is to actually exploit these abilities, Zerg's should rethink their approach to the game, so they can create situations where they can exploit these abilities.
Carriers don't have highest dps in the game. BCs have higher on the ground and same in air with all 8 interceptors. Not to mention Yamato.
|
On April 13 2011 16:08 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 16:01 nath wrote:
really? zerg has no way to delay their opponent from attacking? harass is just 'cute'? do you honestly believe that you can objectively justify that considering that the entire race was designed to accomodate this? I didn't say any of that, All I said was that I disagree with the concept that you can "beat" the deathball by never engaging it. I do a lot of zerg drops myself so I know what I'm saying here - every race does multi-pronged harassment it's not a zerg-only thing, it has risks and rewards but people act like if you kill enough probes the Colossi/VR ball (which are already created and on the game field) just magically disappear. You might get a GG from battering them psychologically but objectively harassment like this almost always leads to a big all-in push (since you used your army to kill workers and/or tech, and his army is still in tact). And you'll die if you don't have a nearly maxed army to fight with and rally to.
Is it possible to drop harass early enough to be around the time of only 1 colossus being out? Then use that harass or threat of harass with empty overlords to keep them in base while you gain a macro advantage?
With Broodwar, they were talking about how you could get to a point in certain matchups where you could no longer win. The key was then to delay the progression to that point and build up an advantage.
Don't wait until the death ball is ready to harass, harass so that the death ball doesn't get so big.
As for staying alive from 6-gate pushes, maybe spine harder? Broodwar zergs used double thick walls of sunkens to delay the protoss advance. They don't cost gas and they're great against stalkers.
|
On April 13 2011 15:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 15:29 Nakas wrote:On April 13 2011 15:23 sCorz wrote:
Anyone interested in their discussion about BW and how the metagame was approached vs how SC2 is being approached, should do the same. This episode made me realize people should really stop worrying about balance so much and focus finding ways around the "walls" they run into.
I think there's an unfounded hope that SC2 balance will turn out like BW balance. As far as I can tell, there's pretty much no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. They're two different games, you might as well compare it to Counterstrike. There's no evidence to suggest either way. The point they're trying to make it that you should withhold judgment until people are playing better. Right now there's just so many flaws in everyone's play.
That is an intriguing theory and I certainly see the merits of it. But it does bring a few questions:
- Will fixing the perceived imbalance today somehow stunt the growth of players' skills in the future?
- Will blizzard stop patching the game when players' skills are at 200% of those of today's?
Try to answer these questions yourself with yes/no. You'll see a more complex picture. And while doing so, consider the growing eSports scene and players whose living depend on their achievements.
|
On April 13 2011 16:08 Defacer wrote:
Imagine if Toss whined all day about not having any viable anti-air in the late game, that phoenixes were good in the mid game but too weak and void rays were too frail and slow.
All the Zergs would whisper, "Try building some fucking carriers. They have the highest range and DPS in the game."
And then, instead of trying to find a viable build to get to carriers, the Toss whined about how expensive they are, how they take forever, et cetera et cetera.
The SOTG hosts are right. There are a plethora of unique abilities that the Zerg have that are under-used. Maybe instead of complaining about how difficult it is to actually exploit these abilities, Zerg's should rethink their approach to the game, so they can create situations where they can exploit these abilities.
If toss whined all day about not having any viable anti-air in the late game and the entire race plus korean pros of the other races agreed then I would say their is a problem. While carriers should be explored I wouldn't call them viable anti-air.
Please name this plethora of unique abilities that are under used... Actually I will do it for you
Ling speed, bane speed, roach speed, burrow, hydra range, roach underground movement, infester energy upgrade, ovie speed, adrenal glands.
Ovie drop, NP, chitenous plating, Nydus worm, overseer-
These are all of the abilities that Z has and the last 3 are the ones that are underused.... I use ultras a lot and like them a lot, NP is limited but has potential, overseer is very gas expensive but still has potential, ovie drop is rather intuitive and nydus worm is the #1 ability that EVERY NON-ZERG talks about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
