Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
lings definitely suck in sc2 compared to bw. in bw they were staple unit from beginning to end, in sc2 they arnt even worth the larva mid-late game.
i blame the sc2 affect of damage overwhelming and lack of any consideration of that for zerglings. marines get combat shields, but lings get shit all. Plus the tight balls these days make zerglings useless.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?)
I'm pretty sure that's by design, since otherwise there's no way to respond to a 6 pool on a small map.
That said, a balance change to zergling attack that didn't undo that but made the cost a little heavier for the defender might have other positive effects.
I agree. Zerglings are way worse in SC2 which is one of the reasons Z is very vulnerable in the early game, and has mobility/harrass problems in the end-game
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?)
I'm pretty sure that's by design, since otherwise there's no way to respond to a 6 pool on a small map.
That said, a balance change to zergling attack that didn't undo that but made the cost a little heavier for the defender might have other positive effects.
Earlier scout,or preparing Yourself for the worst. Right now massing lings in any occasion is just like wasting larva/mineral sink. Maybe if Adrenal Glands were cheaper/earlier in tech that would make zerglings a bit more viable mid.. But I love crackling+hydra vs P. Hydras counter Warpgate units pretty well,while cracklings do massive amount and dps and are really mobile,though why would I favour them over Muta/Infestor?
zerglings are my favorite unit from a non-gameplay point of view. watching mass speedlings run around is just so much fun. too bad they are a pretty bad unit.
ya lings are a little worse then bw in terms of what you can do with them but i dont think they will be getting a buff any time soon, zerg right now needs some more diversity instead of everyone just going mass ling/roach or ling/muta or hydra/roach or w/e it is zerg players do, just theres no real unit combos like toss where you have zealots, stalkers, the little orb things, colosi etc..
lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
I think this is a really good point.
Still, it seems like lings are too weak at killing buildings, now that they all come with armor, and that's not really affected by the AI change at all.
I've been saying this since early beta when I did the same calculations after wondering why its so hard to defend zealot rushes with lings. Apparently the rationalization is that the AI helps lings more than it does zealots or marines, which honestly is a load of shit, because if you don't micro your lings you suck. Whats also sad is that a +1 melee upgrade actually increases zergling dps by almost as much as adrenal glands, so the upgrade isn't really worth it if you don't have +1 melee already.
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
autosurround is nice and all in the early game, but once the enemy gets a decent number of units autosurround is useless. and since most people attack with a decent number of units, and rarely will lings surround that ball, zerglings arnt useful in real games.
sure autosurround helps lings, but clumping of units does not. cancels eachother out.
I think a ling buff would do wonders. early zeal rushes or reapers/hellions harass would be a tad more reasonable to defend against with lings, rather than forcing spince crawlers and roaches every damn time.
I don't think that lings are all that bad. It is just that you can't get enough of them to really do the damage you need outside of very early game.
I think they are better than people give them credit for though. They get a ton of extra benefit from upgrades. They are a lot faster than they ever were in brood war, and that gives you some options you never used to have.
It is just that in order for roaches to have a place in the game, some other unit has to lose utility to compensate, and zerglings were that unit.
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
It really doesn't benefit when 20 lings go towards ONE point against a zealot wall.
I agree the zergling is a mess. If they get a proper surround (must move and take damage THEN attack) then zerglings are a bit more lethal, but when you put 24 zerglings against 5 zealots and lose it's a bit disheartening to say the least (600 minerals vs. 500 minerals).
I feel like Zerglings would be better if their size was actually what it was. As of now it looks like they are about the same size as a zealot (with regards to going through walls). Zerglings can't swarm when only 5 can surround a zealot or when only one can get up against a zealot in a wall.
That and marines got this attack bonus that completely tears apart zerglings. I can understand that marines should be stronger against lings since banelings are the proper counter, but the marine ball is stronger than the zergling surround.
Lings are also more vulnerable to other AI changes like better worker pathing (probes dont bumble around retardedly when being attacked by 6pool lings, and instead actually cluster together to fend it off) and the "ball AI" that forms all ranged armies into perfect spheres of death. In that situation, "auto surround" doesnt really benefit them hardly at all since the attacking area on the ball is so small. But i imagine that early game they would be incredibly potent with any sort of buff. I agree that cracklings should be more effective cause in BW, as a toss player, i was scared shitless of my expos being sniped by crack. Now i just dont care.
A possible solution would be to make terran armies move at different speeds (make marauders slower than marines) which would open up moments when zergling flanks would be extremely effective against bio, cutting off the two halves and increasing the attackable area of the bioball. The bioball wouldnt just be able to stim around at will because the player would have to manage 2 units of different speeds.
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
Mmmhmm, their attack speed would probably make them hugely imba in the earlier stages of the game.
Regardless, this does not change the fact that they scale horribly compared to any other tier 1 unit. They actually do very well from early, but in late game they're utterly useless (actually detrimental when paired with ultralisks).
And don't say its cause 'they're a tier 1 unit'. They have a tier 3 upgrade which does absolutely nothing for the 200 mineral 200 gas cost. Zealot's charge adds a huge oomph to their effectiveness (200min/200gas), Marines also have the stim + combat shields (200min/200gas). It's painfully obvious that the other two tier 1 units benefit more from their 200/200 upgrade than the zergling does. (Actually the zergling has a total of 300/300 of unit specific upgrades)
They used to be so effective in destroying buildings, but you never end wanting to use them other than for a mineral sink in the later stages.
Anyways, I wouldn't to go so far as calling them the 'problem'. They're definitely not even close to the sole reason of why zerg is 'underpowered'. Early game issues is where it's at (zerg has a couple of end-game solutions, though most professional games rarely transition to a proper end-game, as a result we can rarely see the balance issues there). Buffing zerglings base attack speed would probably just make them really unfair in rushes.
If they are so bad why do people still insist on getting the speed upgrade? I am not very good, but can't you just go early lair and tech straight for hydras/mutas and rely on more roaches in the early game? You could go early lair -> roach speed -> hydras for example. Hydra/Roach is a very viable comp.
On August 21 2010 01:02 grudgeStar wrote: If they are so bad why do people still insist on getting the speed upgrade? I am not very good, but can't you just go early lair and tech straight for hydras/mutas and rely on more roaches in the early game? You could go early lair -> roach speed -> hydras for example. Hydra/Roach is a very viable comp.
Most people don't like going roaches early because they quite costly and you can't be really aggressive with them pre-speed upgrade where as speedlings give you some potential for early map control. Many people do go roaches though.
i personally think the usefulness of Zerg unit compared to their cost/availabilty is: Baneling Muta Speedling infestor ultralisk BroodLord Corruptor Roach Hydra
Zerglings are crap, but they are useful to run around, cut reinforcements, draw dmg from mutas or blings, control the map. They are fast and cheap and weak. As long as there s 2 + and only 1 -, i love the unit. Take the hdyra: Slow, costly, and weak health-strong dmg. 2.5 -, 0.5 +
I m not saying everybody should look at the units as i do, as it's the truth, it's just how i feel.
Maybe if Adrenal was moved down to T2 things would go better, or possibly increasing Pool buildtime or cost and increasing Zergling power (come out later, giving time for the opponent to defend, but are stronger, allowing the Zerg to defend against the opponent).
On August 21 2010 01:02 grudgeStar wrote: If they are so bad why do people still insist on getting the speed upgrade? I am not very good, but can't you just go early lair and tech straight for hydras/mutas and rely on more roaches in the early game? You could go early lair -> roach speed -> hydras for example. Hydra/Roach is a very viable comp.
You can't because it's too easy to abuse the lack of speed of roaches early game. Anyway we don't say that lings are bad early game.. it's kidna the only game time where you can use them propely beside of end/mid game run by.
On August 21 2010 01:02 grudgeStar wrote: If they are so bad why do people still insist on getting the speed upgrade? I am not very good, but can't you just go early lair and tech straight for hydras/mutas and rely on more roaches in the early game? You could go early lair -> roach speed -> hydras for example. Hydra/Roach is a very viable comp.
It depends on your build and what the other guy is doing. Going fast expand then roaches is expensive and time consuming. Without lings your open to a lot of aggression. Also if i want banelings then i need speed anyways.
PS anyone saying a buff would make lings OP early dont really understand what the change would do.
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
I think this is a really good point.
Still, it seems like lings are too weak at killing buildings, now that they all come with armor, and that's not really affected by the AI change at all.
Might be a good point but zerglings have alot of hard counters in SC2 (Hellions, Zealots, Archons, High templars, Banelings etc.), i'd love a zergling buff cause they are just useless right now.
autosurround benefits zerglings since you tend to have a lot of them, however I feel zerglings more or less need to do better than they are in the early game or terran units need to do worse
most notably they need to be on better footing with reapers, I feel increasing zergling runspeed to be on par with reapers (both without upgrades) would not only force reapers to use cliffjumping to get the kind of ridiculous advantages they have on zerglings atm, but it would also help zerglings a little against toss 2gate openings
now I'm not sure if this would make zerglings too strong against protoss but I feel this change along with a nerf to bunker salvage would put an end to the ridiculous bunker rushing that's going on
another option would be to reduce reaper movement speed to be on par with zerglings or even make a change to the reaper speed upgrade, but definetly reapers destroy zerglings way too hard
On August 21 2010 01:09 Jameser wrote: another option would be to reduce reaper movement speed to be on par with zerglings or even make a change to the reaper speed upgrade, but definetly reapers destroy zerglings way too hard
Un-upgraded zerglings and reapers are the same speed. On creep zerglings are 30% faster.
Yes, zerglings are awful units. A slight buff to their normal attack speed would be awesome. I mean, zealots already tear through them, force field makes them useless, and ignitor hellions kill 5x their cost in lings.
Adrenal also needs to be back to 50% or even higher. It's useless right now, effectively not worth getting since a melee up is about the same cost and just as much dps for ALL your melee.
On August 21 2010 01:02 grudgeStar wrote: If they are so bad why do people still insist on getting the speed upgrade? I am not very good, but can't you just go early lair and tech straight for hydras/mutas and rely on more roaches in the early game? You could go early lair -> roach speed -> hydras for example. Hydra/Roach is a very viable comp.
roaches are too costly, vs T hydras arent very useful considering theyre a light unit.
you need early ling speed to deal with hellion/reaper harassment, 2gate pushes/heavy stalker, and in zvz it makes a monumental difference on getting surrounds off.
in short no speed = get fucked early game even harder. without speed you have slow bumbling carcases running around.
roach hydra is decently viable i find it to be a little costly but teching straight to it clearly is not the answer in the least. you need to take steps into moving toward something, teching blindly to roach hydra doesnt help. if they do any early game aggression youll be in trouble because youll be low on roaches and busy teching to lair. this build offers little actual flexibility.
i dare anyone as z to try playing a bo7 vs huk or silver and trying a straight lair tech to roach hydra lol. youll just get 4-0'd
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
The pathing changes killed lings more then helped them. Units clump perfectly now all the time such that lings can ONLY fight vs the surface area of the whatever ball. Even though lings were better in bw if you had a bunch of any ranged units placed perfectly in a clump so that lings could only attack the outside units, the lings would pretty much fail unless they had significantly significantly larger numbers.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?)
I'm pretty sure that's by design, since otherwise there's no way to respond to a 6 pool on a small map.
That said, a balance change to zergling attack that didn't undo that but made the cost a little heavier for the defender might have other positive effects.
I actually think 6 pools are ridiculously easy to defend, but the defensive point shouldn't be once the guys are in your mineral line.
If a protoss or a terran player scouts at a reasonable time on steppes (the quintessential zerg early pool map), they can delay the attack with a wall-off. Right now they don't even need to do this (even if it's the best option). Putting up an emergency pylon/ supply depot (even if it disrupts your build) is pretty much gg since the attack won't land in time and the zerg player is dead economically, this would be true with our without the slight attack speed upgrades. The issue right now is that zerg can't produce enough zerglings due to larva (even with spawn larva) to defend against early rushes with them.
Simply undo the change in alpha where they increased the zergling size.
That, and possibly making adrenal glands a lair tech, or making it do more then the pissant increase it does right now. In BW you could TELL when you had crack upgraded, right now you can't see a difference unless you really pay attention...
On August 21 2010 01:27 Shiladie wrote: Simply undo the change in alpha where they increased the zergling size.
That, and possibly making adrenal glands a lair tech, or making it do more then the pissant increase it does right now. In BW you could TELL when you had crack upgraded, right now you can't see a difference unless you really pay attention...
I was joking about this last night on vet. Talking about making zerglings so small that 12 of them could surround a zealot. They would be extra-swarmy too. I'm a little worried this might make them even worse against tanks and hellions though.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Speedlings are uber good as-is. Likely, Bliz doesn't rush to buff Z due to the Queen mechanic. i.e. a Hatch x 1.2 for half the price and the Hatch can fight and heal (and creep). So much in SC2 to address...
One of the most annoying things is, lings used to be the staple unit for mid-late game expo harrass, but they seems to fail to solo cannons (6/8 adren rush lings can kill 2+ cannons in BW and tear down a nexus on seconds) while in SC2 it take 8~10 to kill2 cannons, and thats if their AI doesnt just focus one cannon instead of splitting between the two...
I think Zerg is un-fixable in its present state. There are simply not enough different options (units/upgrades/tech paths) available in comparison to the other two races. This means that in order to balance it against some T and P strategies they would have to make the Z units so powerful that they are totally OP against some other T and P units. They need to either nerf Terran or give Zerg some different units.
lol, I disagree with almost everyone. The zergling is better in sc2 than in broodwar, just not by a lot. The reason is the speed. They are largely the goto unit for map control and flanks. They work excellently with ultras and it's impossible to escape them on the ground w/o blinking to a ledge or something.
The biggest con with the zergling right now is the huge amount of space it takes up. Sometimes it shocks me just how far they spread apart when they try to attack a building. And If they space imperfectly, you can get as few as 4 zergling on a zealot in open field! that's a bit... bad.
The 2nd biggest con is also a pro: the AI. The AI is great when hauling into someone's base over a depressed supply depot, but when surrounding enemy units, I have to disagree that the AI is very good. I find it to be very bad, and the more I play, the more I hate it. Ultimately, that's ok, because I never let my lings do their own thing, but the AI pathing, imo, helps out terran and toss way more than it will ever help zerg, and that includes zergling.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
If by big tournaments you mean KotB and that s it, then yes, else absolutely not
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. perhaps he should have invested in immortals. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I don't play zerg and have thought since beta that adrenal glands needs a buff. It's a joke of an upgrade for how late it comes and how much it costs. Compare the timing and cost of something like stim/charge/blink to adrenal glands and it is laughable.
Also some people have been mentioning zerglings maybe being too big - I kinda think it is a double edged sword. If they were smaller they could get better surrounds - but splash damage would be more effective against them.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Crack open unit tester lings are still favorable against comparable forces which do not include too many hellions or zealots. They trade way upwards with marauders and stalkers and do just fine against small MM bio balls. Even against thors and archons once you adjust for cost the lings DPS will just tear down the expensive unit. The problem occurs like other posters said, when the death ball's dps:surface area ratio gets too favorable.
I do agree that their game vs. zealots is pretty terrible, especially against 2 gate when your liable to only have a small number of lings.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
TeWy - Play zerg for a month and watch your elo plummet. Play terran and watch it skyrocket past your protoss high ezpz. Then come back and tell us zerg isn't weak.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
the first 2 were played with completly different patches, the KotB is the only one won by Zerg, and calling it most likely to win, it's just a pathetic argument. In the querterfinals 2 Zergs (the best european and american zerg btw) barely got trough with 3-2, one got roflstomped 3-0, and the other was a TvT. And you're using that tournament as an argument that Zerg is so strong? How pathetic an you get terran-fanboys?
open up craftcup and Zotac cup europe, oh i know, those doesnt count because ther isnt 10000k dollars involved, the zergs just throw those games away because they go for the real money. Srsly...
And if you think hasu is the best European P, you really underestimate Eu protosses I dont say they are taht good overall, but i dont believe Hasu is even top 3 or 5, he dindt deserve to advance, Huk and WR getting eliminated was a shocker but watching the games it was understandable.. And btw there is rage about Protoss getting eliminated, check the LR thread. How can one make arguments out of the clean air and think he's right?
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
ok this is sort of pissing me off. you fuckin idiots who say "oh zerg wins all the time. look at idra hes doin awesome!!11!1 zErG is fine l2p nubs"
you are all morons, you guys dont even CONSIDER that idra is just way fuckin better then the other kids he plays. u just all assume tlo = huk = dimaga = idra = tester, they all same skilll level, and ppl only win cuz X race is better then Z race. seroiusly kids, fuckin think before you post
idra and dimaga are JUST BETTER PLAYERS ATM THEN THE OTHER PLAYERS, JESUS CHRIST
I'm not going to chime in on racial balance, but I'm not sure if you can single out a unit as the reason Zerg is weak. It's the same flawed argument as people complaining about Terran, and then focusing on the Marauder.
On August 21 2010 01:20 MoreFasho wrote: I actually think 6 pools are ridiculously easy to defend, but the defensive point shouldn't be once the guys are in your mineral line.
I generally play zerg, which makes a preemptive wall-off to protect against a 6-pool pretty difficult. Defending with workers is one's only alternative. Scouting very fast can tell me a 6-pool is coming, but there still won't be time to get a spawning pool and units up on most maps.
On August 21 2010 01:46 TeWy wrote: What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
So by standard tier rankings among many competitive games (aka, use tourney results, not ladder/popular usage), Zerg is currently the best race in the game.
I'd say that four is an incredibly small sample size. I'd also refer you to the infamous words of a SSBM player: Tires don exits.
The Zerg for 2 of those 4 tournaments is Idra (easily one of the most skilled SC2 players in the world right now, and he would be winning even if he picked T or P for SC2) and the fact that he, along with many top players (Z or non), have made comments about the general balance of the races at high level play seems to point to a different conclusion than what you seem to be indicating.
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
autosurround is nice and all in the early game, but once the enemy gets a decent number of units autosurround is useless. and since most people attack with a decent number of units, and rarely will lings surround that ball, zerglings arnt useful in real games.
sure autosurround helps lings, but clumping of units does not. cancels eachother out.
I think a ling buff would do wonders. early zeal rushes or reapers/hellions harass would be a tad more reasonable to defend against with lings, rather than forcing spince crawlers and roaches every damn time.
However much I love my 2 gate, I agree. Roaches seem like the only counter to fast zealots/rines. seems kind of ridiculous that Zerg has to get tier 1.5 with gas to beat a really early tier 1 rush.
That said, i think buffing lings would make 6 or 8 pools the norm, as they could rape everything that early in the game. Which would further disrupt balance. Maybe giving them more health would help?
I think the largest issue with Zerg is the fact that queens are too good. Zerg T1 units have been horribly gimped in order to prevent zerg players from easily winning with spawn-larva assisted all-ins.
The motivation behind the reduction of quality in lings is rather obvious; if you can have 32 of them when your opponent has maybe 6 zealots something needs to change. Unfortunately, rather than nerfing the queen they nerfed the zergling. The meat of zerg was instantly reduced to mostly a jerk-reaction defense unit and backstab-against-players-who-can't-wall unit. I'm not trying to imply that zerglings are not worth buildling -- I nearly always build them in the masses even still. My goal here is to try and make zerg more fun to play while preserving balance.
Honestly I'd like to see lings reverted to sc1 stats (attack speed and movement speed) and spawn larva gimped (reduction in larva provided - maybe t2/t3 upgrades to spawn 1 additional larva). This would allow/compel zerg to take early thirds (or just additional in-base hatcheries) and provide a efficient mechanism for defense. The most grievous issue with zerg now is that they're boring -- any early offense is likely to put you behind given that it's just too easy to stop early game harass since they've over-nerfed lings due to their all-in potential. There's no reason we can't seek to make zerg more bw-like, because y'know... it was fun.
Maybe I'm lame, but encouraging the zerg to expand all over the map and play greedily at the start is more fun to play and enjoyable to watch than the current 2-base macro-turtle into hydra or muta into t3 on 3 bases.
On August 21 2010 01:20 MoreFasho wrote: I actually think 6 pools are ridiculously easy to defend, but the defensive point shouldn't be once the guys are in your mineral line.
I generally play zerg, which makes a preemptive wall-off to protect against a 6-pool pretty difficult. Defending with workers is one's only alternative. Scouting very fast can tell me a 6-pool is coming, but there still won't be time to get a spawning pool and units up on most maps.
I mean it's quite possible that a balance change would affect zvz, might not be able to do 14g 14 pool in zvz on a 2 player map anymore, but that's not necessarily bad. I mean it's just as arbitrary to complain that right now you can't 15 hatch 14 pool on steppes because of a 14g 14 pool, don't expect build orders to be unchanged by patchees.
I think at one point this topic was about zerglings. If I may go back to that...
TvZ Yeh, as terran I always pull a fast fac + hellion pressure + rush the igniter upgrade. In my experience 4+ hellions will roast any number of zerglings with proper kiting and kill nearly all workers in 2-3 seconds; alot of it depends on how fast I get them out and how fast/much defenses the zerg gets out.
However, if my early hellions get picked off/my # stays low it's difficult to pull off succesful harass and if roaches pop hellion harass = over.
I mix some into my later mech army so I dunno if zerglings are UP as I don't see them at any point later in the game before my hellions wipe them out.
I play Zerg (mid diamond) and think Zerglings are strong as hell. They just don't perform the way they do in BW. Speedling runbys and surround snipes are so powerful when used properly. I honestly feel like they would be too strong if they did any more damage.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Idra is a terrible representation of "all zerg players" tewy.
Thanks for playing.
Oh and Idra is at the forefront of this "Zerg Underpowered" issue. He's openly stated his (subtle) hatred for Terran players because of the ease of scouting and harass, yet you continue to use him as your poster child for why Zerg is in fact OP.
Protoss players have another issue they need to deal with, but it's not the same as the Zerg's massive uphill battle in ZvT, since ZvP is definitely an easier battle for Toss players AS WELL.
On August 21 2010 02:44 MaD.pYrO wrote: There's nothing wrong with Zerglings imo, they're damn incredible if used right
so what's that sum? 6/4a^4 is the integral, so I'm thinking something like 6/4(sum) (a^4)^n/n!, but that only converges for n<1...seems kinda useless IMO.
edit: nvm, the taylor polynomial would converge to integral 1a2a3a da for all a<1, not n. my bad.
On August 21 2010 02:43 silencesc wrote: Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Idra probably has 10 times better mechanics than Hasu and Diamaga combined, don't know if he's able to use them to full potential in sc2 though
They should bump the cost of speed down to either 50/50 like the concussive shells upgrade or make it free. That would prevent lings from being overpowered and would open up a lot of options for zerg early game. You could use the saved gas to defend an early rush, put on early pressure, fast tech to lair...
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
Oh, so that's why he got raped in the HDH, thanks for clarifying.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
Oh, so that's why he got raped in the HDH, thanks for clarifying.
Being the best team or being the best player doesnt matter. Thats why people play the games. THats why the best team usually doesn't win championships, whether team composition or regular season play.
On August 21 2010 02:50 Dental Floss wrote: They should bump the cost of speed down to either 50/50 like the concussive shells upgrade or make it free. That would prevent lings from being overpowered and would open up a lot of options for zerg early game. You could use the saved gas to defend an early rush, put on early pressure, fast tech to lair...
It would also completely break TvP. early zealot pressure would be denied easily, and terran cout just sit behind his wall and go about his business.
On August 21 2010 02:50 Dental Floss wrote: They should bump the cost of speed down to either 50/50 like the concussive shells upgrade or make it free. That would prevent lings from being overpowered and would open up a lot of options for zerg early game. You could use the saved gas to defend an early rush, put on early pressure, fast tech to lair...
It would also completely break TvP. early zealot pressure would be denied easily, and terran cout just sit behind his wall and go about his business.
Sorry, but I fail to see how lowering the cost of a Zerg upgrade will make TvP imbalanced.
For me, I think that Zerglings should be buffed health wise and attack speed wise. The terrible terrible damage syndrome still renders Zerglings useless if the health isn't buffed.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
Oh, so that's why he got raped in the HDH, thanks for clarifying.
So you honestly think every pro has identical skill? I can't even believe the ignorance of a such a statement.
Gotta break it to you buddy, NOBODY has perfect timing and micro.
The only way ling's are useful late game (with the new AI surround) is to stop units from running away so hydras/roaches can actually deal damage. They are essentially walls and that is a painful realization.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
Oh, so that's why he got raped in the HDH, thanks for clarifying.
Being the best team or being the best player doesnt matter. Thats why people play the games. THats why the best team usually doesn't win championships, whether team composition or regular season play.
u dumb bro
I'm sorry, what? That made absolutely no sense. Not only the logic, but the sentence structure is all screwed up. I thought the had devolved into an argument about whether or not IdrA (or any Zerg) was the best player because protoss had problems against terran, not about who wins the most tournaments.
If you could clarify that thought so that I could respond, it would be much appreciated.
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
Oh, so that's why he got raped in the HDH, thanks for clarifying.
Being the best team or being the best player doesnt matter. Thats why people play the games. THats why the best team usually doesn't win championships, whether team composition or regular season play.
u dumb bro
I'm sorry, what? That made absolutely no sense. Not only the logic, but the sentence structure is all screwed up. I thought the had devolved into an argument about whether or not IdrA (or any Zerg) was the best player because protoss had problems against terran, not about who wins the most tournaments.
If you could clarify that thought so that I could respond, it would be much appreciated.
How about you answer my last post instead of cherrypicking the one to respond to. If you think all pros have = skill, and that all pros play perfectly every game, you have lost ALL credibility.
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
Oh, so that's why he got raped in the HDH, thanks for clarifying.
Being the best team or being the best player doesnt matter. Thats why people play the games. THats why the best team usually doesn't win championships, whether team composition or regular season play.
u dumb bro
I'm sorry, what? That made absolutely no sense. Not only the logic, but the sentence structure is all screwed up. I thought the had devolved into an argument about whether or not IdrA (or any Zerg) was the best player because protoss had problems against terran, not about who wins the most tournaments.
If you could clarify that thought so that I could respond, it would be much appreciated.
Simple. You think that if IdrA was the best, he should have won the HDH.
However, in real life, the 'best' doesn't always win.
Woah hold up, i dont think lings are the problem here. Id be the first one to agree that zergs early game is weak as balls, but buffing lings would just make z stoop to terrans level. Zlings with speed are useful in nearly EVERY situation. On creep, their speed and pathing make up for the atk speed reduction twice over. It may seem like they are less effective, but thats the enemy's ball thats making them suck. Lings relied on dispersed forces in BW. They stall retreating units and give zerg an instant double prong on open maps. Blizz has left plenty of options for all races to deal with people who have 1ctrl group syndrome. Lings will have their place once players learn how to spread properly vs AoE and concave that shit. Lings will shine then.
I don't know if it is just me but almost every game I never get that many zerglings, I normally go roaches instead. First off zerglings just feel really weak right now and as every zerg player knows you need all the larvae you can get early game. I tend to go roaches because they are actually good and they can defend an early attack while zerglings would just get stomped.
One of the best things about zerglings is you rarely have to fight in a situation you dont want to. They are so fast that if you find your self in a bad situation you can run away, yeah you will take some losses, but losing 5 lings isn't that much, many other units dont really have that option of running away. Of course when defending your base from big pushes, zerglings are pretty shitty in most cases, but they are fantastic at flanking the enemy from behind and taking out seiged tanks or counter attacking the enemy base, 20 lings can rip through a worker line in seconds.
I think one of the largest problems with zerg play at the moment is that many players to force things that don't work, such as trying to force zerglings into the role of a well rounded attacker/defender, when they are really more of a skirmishing unit it my eyes, extremely useful to hit the enemy where they are weak
On August 21 2010 03:09 JudoChopper wrote: What?? Zerglings are one of Zerg's best units (cost wise) and they fit in with most army compositions.
They suck against Hellions, wall-ins, chokes, big MM balls. They are also really expensive in terms of larvae which you could otherwise spend on drones or roaches.
i have a lot of problems with zerg, but i don't have a problem with zerglings. with a little bit of micro i can hold off early game pressure fairly easily, be it 2gate, hellions, or early infantry pushes.
i don't get them later game because i feel that if i can afford ranged units with higher dps and more health, then there is really no reason not to.
I have a lot of fun with lings early game, especially against protoss. If you just have enough lings (and it's so much easier to get a lot of lings early game with the queen when compared to brood war). They're certainly weaker than in BW but you can get more of them, faster and that makes up for it imho. Mass speedlings is just so strong very early.
On August 21 2010 03:20 NukeTheBunnys wrote: One of the best things about zerglings is you rarely have to fight in a situation you dont want to. They are so fast that if you find your self in a bad situation you can run away, yeah you will take some losses, but losing 5 lings isn't that much, many other units dont really have that option of running away. Of course when defending your base from big pushes, zerglings are pretty shitty in most cases, but they are fantastic at flanking the enemy from behind and taking out seiged tanks or counter attacking the enemy base, 20 lings can rip through a worker line in seconds.
I think one of the largest problems with zerg play at the moment is that many players to force things that don't work, such as trying to force zerglings into the role of a well rounded attacker/defender, when they are really more of a skirmishing unit it my eyes, extremely useful to hit the enemy where they are weak
Problem is, skirmishing opprotunities are rare in sc2. I can rush lings into a mineral line of a toss but he will warp in a bunch of zeals and my lings will die or i cna run them away. So what if he had to make units to defend, hes going to use them anyways. If i rush a terran expo and hes got a PF, how am i going to harass that with lings?
Sure lings can poke around here and tyhere but really, there arnt any real opportunities for them to do more than an insignificant amount of damage in most cases.
Sure they can kill scouts, take xel naga towers, and pick off a wandering unit, but i still think the costs are better spent elsewhere.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
Oh, so that's why he got raped in the HDH, thanks for clarifying.
Wait, what?
In a thread arguing that Zerg is UP, you're taking the other side because Idra, arguably the best Zerg player in the world (and probably the best SC2 player in general), didn't win the HDH?
No, he doesn't play perfectly, but between perfect and shit there is endless, so that's not even an argument.
Get with the damn program already. If you had actually been paying attention, you would have known that most top players also considers ZvP increasingly broken (in favour of P). TvP is easily the most balanced match-up bar the mirrors (even though it's obvious that T generally is the better race).
Actually, I don't know why I'm even writing this. You should just read more and write less. There are literally hundreds of posts from top players on this forums that, in detail (mind you), explains the problem with Zerg right now. This isn't an obscure problem at all, nor even up for debate.
Um, the way roach hydra becomes a very viable strat is when you get those upgrades going asap. beat the opponent in upgrades and that comp will destroy him. other wise it gets raped
On August 21 2010 03:33 PeT[uK] wrote: Um, the way roach hydra becomes a very viable strat is when you get those upgrades going asap. beat the opponent in upgrades and that comp will destroy him. other wise it gets raped
2/2 hydra roach gets crushed against a 0/0 P with zeal/few sstalker/sentry/collosi
hey silencesc, would you mind stop trolling? idra is the best player, zerg is UP in zvt, and even the best players have losses, he is the best yes, but that doesnt mean he will have 100% winrate
good sir, you appear to be somewhat lacking in intelligence. please refrain from posting until this is remedied, since it renders your opinions slightly less than correct and has a tendency to irritate more informed forum-goers
zerglings are only good now if you can get a surround. if you can't get a surround you should run away. Even if you can only get a surround on one unit. run the other ones away. They're faster than everything else.
Lings work to tank damage and Stop the enemy from retreating. Their DPS is also pretty good, I think it's almost as good as a hydra on low-armored units. It's not BW..
The reason they are used more is because roaches suck. Marines can kite them, especially with stim and off creep. Marauders own them.
Hydras are immobile as hell w/o creep which makes it very difficult to push with them. Not really sure what blizzard's problem with zerg was changing their units so drastically from BW. I guess spawn larva is really that powerful of a macro mechanic
btw, i dont feel like looking it up, but whoever said "at that level they all have perfect timing and micro" all i have to say tto u is fuckin R O F L clearly you have no idea what your talking about. ahaha
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
As for the World Cup it was in May, From what i can remember I terran strats had not evolved into their current Mech heavy form yet vs Zerg.
The Kaspersky Cup was also in May so the later applies was well, It also only had 2 terrans, while it had 4 zerg, 5 Toss and 1 random.
In King of the Beta Tourney both Terran made it to the semi finals. I believe that was the first time Idra had beaten Tester in a multi game match. Tester had knocked him out of a few other tournments i believe(artosis talks about this with idra in his interview after the tournment).
In General you also need to look at the rankings of players in tournment brackets(and who ends up in what pool) it has a large effect on the out come of the tournment.
On August 21 2010 02:04 dogabutila wrote: TeWy - Play zerg for a month and watch your elo plummet. Play terran and watch it skyrocket past your protoss high ezpz. Then come back and tell us zerg isn't weak.
A while i agree Tewy does not have the most sound logic, This Statement does not prove a whole lot for a few reasons, first Terran Play more or less like every other RTS even made(my 50 year old father could play terran not because their are face roll but because it plays like C&C 95), playing zerg is a completely different game, when compared to Protoss and Terran.
For those poeple who say look at Idra crazy record, as "Proof that zerg is not UP"
Assumption: (ONLY) In High diamond you play poeple with a simlar ELO in matchmaking games.
Idra practices with his team and other korean players, So his Elo(and Matchmaking ranking(MMR) for that matter) are artifically lower than his skill level because he has only played ~110 NA ladder games. As apposed to other Great players who have played 200-300 games on the NA ladder. So Idra win percentage is a combination of a couple things first he is a great player, second he is most likely not playing competion close to his level of play in the majority of his games.
Note: 600 point Terran plat player take with a grain of salt.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Maybe its because the zerg players played better in those tournaments? How is it that zerg is most likely to win IEM? BEcause idra is the best player in the world perhaps? I think that has something to do with it, not just because hes playing IMBA OP ZERG..
Sorry that your protoss brothers got beat down by marauders. I fail to see how that relates to this thread though. Go complain about your protoss being UP in your own thread. Dont forget to consider how your colossi dont roast enough hydras and roaches and lings in 1 shot.
I think I got your point. The reason why Zergs win most of the tournaments is because they're the better players. But the fact that they don't win them all proofs that there are balance issues, otherwise the Zerg players, as "obvious" better players, would win them all. This proofs without a shadow of doubt that Zerg is the weakest race and should get buffed.
Thanks for enlightening me with your flawless logic.
Your logic is just as bad if you think protoss is UP because they didnt make it out of their group stage in 1 tournament.
Move along young one.
Wait. How can you say that that logic is flawed? Do you really think Hasu is worse of a technical player than Dimaga or IdrA? Of course not. At that level, everyone has perfect timing and micro. If not a single Protoss got out of group, then there is a flaw with the race. Terran bio armies rape gateway armies, and heavy robo isn't cost effective vs 50 min marines and a couple marauders.
Why don't you respond ot arguments instead of just dismissing them out of hand and being patronizing, you ass.
Yes.
I don't think anyone would disagree that IdrA is simply a better player.
Oh, so that's why he got raped in the HDH, thanks for clarifying.
Idra is the better player and the Zerg players do tend to be better than the others, but thats only because they have to be to compete with Terran. However your point about protoss losing to Terran brings up the idea that its possible that Terran is overpowered rather than Zerg being underpowered or even Protoss being underpowered. However, this is nothing new as its been relatively common knowledge nowadays that Terran is OP. In the old days Zerg used to be UP but I don't hear it as much anymore.
I like the zergling as-is, and don't think it's even top 10 things I'd want changed with zerg if I had the choice.
As for everyone having perfect timing and macro, lol. Watch the replays of Hasuobs/Madfrog at IEM - I must have missed when the new macro goal was to keep your money under 3000. Even the tip top players have huge skill gaps at the moment.
I hate that every thread on this board turns into Zerg UP, Terran OP, etc, but what can you do? I do feel that the protoss representatives at IEM failed more than the race itself.
Bring adrenal glands to lair tech please. By the time you reach tier 2, both other races already have plenty of viable counters to mass ling (e.g. hellion blue flame, colossi, siege tanks). If zerglings were made at least a bit more scary, at lair tech the midgame T timing pushes wouldn't be nearly as scary.
zerglings are complete shit right now and do not compete with marine or zealot. their hive upgrade does almost nothing and they are a waste of a unit after early game. Even in early game they are useless vrs a proper marine ball or a 2gate.
Zerglings might be a TINY bit weaker, but they are still faster.
Zerg has like 10 problems much worse than zerglings. I don't know why anyone would blame the zergling. It's Blizzard simply pushing out a poor quality race.
Zerg lacks units that can micro, they haveabout 3 times less good special abilities than protoss or terran, less combat units overall than protoss or terran.
To top it off, blizzard hasn't been balacing zerg well either. They played around with zerg almost as if it was alpha testing, including making bad changes like roach to 2 supply.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: Everyone loves to say that Zerg is underpowered these days. A quick browse through Liquipedia leads me to blame Zerglings. They attack too slow.
BW Liquipedia states that the Marine attack cooldown is 15 (7.5 stimmed). Zergling attack speed is 8. 6 with the Hive upgrade. Zealots have a cooldown of 22.
So baseline numbers show that Zerglings/Marine is roughly a 2:1 ratio. Zergling/Zealot is around a 3-1 ratio. Marine/Zealot is a roughly 3:2 ratio at base.
Looking at SC2, attack cooldowns are all fancy to multiple decimal points.
SC2 Zergling is .696 and .587 with Hive upgrade. SC2 Marine is .8608 and .57387 stimmed. SC2 Zealot is at 1.2
Marine/Zealot ratio seems to be around the same. Zerglings are just under getting 2 attacks per Zealot attack instead of just under 3 (and people have noticed that it takes 4 lings per Zealot instead of about 3). Versus Marines where it's supposed to be about 2 for every 1 Marine shot it's closer to being 1 for 1 than it is 2 for 1 and stimmed Marines actually attack faster than cracklings! Whereas in BW it was at 6 vs 7.5, which is a 4:5 ratio.
As a side note it seems that stim actually got nerfed slightly in the attack speed buff it gives to Marines, but that's another discussion altogether for various reasons.
This inhibits Zerglings in all sorts of other ways (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?) as the game goes on (defending harass, etc.) since Zerglings are supposed to be a bread and butter unit. Zerg seem to have the hardest trouble with early game antics. Once it gets past that into a macro game it's a lot more stable (late game ZvT mech whining aside). Fixing Zerglings seems to be the best solution. Are other tweaks needed? Of course, the game just came out. All races need tweaks but it is amazingly well-balanced for a launch state.
Now sure, SC2 is a different game than BW with different units to make up each race's army, but I can't think of a decent reason why it's like this as it effects the early game so much unless A: Liquipedia is wrong (doubtful) or B: some Blizzard dev accidentally changed it/missed it while tweaking various numbers.
I tried to keep that as fact-based as possible. If I missed something or am completely off feel free to correct me.
Zerg has won pretty much ALL the BIG tournaments so far, and it seems that the next one (IEM) will be won by a Zerg as well. It is amazing how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a groundless assertion "Zerg is weak".
Extremely flawed argument alert!
Nice post, thanks for your extraordinary contribution to the discussion. Zerg won pretty much all the biggest tournaments so far.
What race won the World Cup? Zerg. What race won the Kaspersky Cup? Zerg. What race won the King of the beta? Zerg. What race will most likely win IEM ? Zerg.
How can you have the audacity to complain about your race when not ONE SINGLE PROTOSS passed his groupstage in IEM... Why is there not one single thread about that... Why is there no comment about the fact that when Hasuobs, probably the best european protoss, got obliterated by a straightforward marauders/medivacs push of Lucifron he looked jaded and told that he no idea of what he could have done better and what units could counter this terran army... Gosh...
Now moving on, how come there are all these new terran players upsetting the top players? Have you heard of any unknown Zergs coming in and suprising anyone? nope.
E.g Silver vs IdrA, MsV vs HuK
In the Diamond League, In Korea, In the Top 1000 33% Play Protoss 41% Play Terran and 21% Play Zerg.
They are not saying Zerg is completely UP and can't win, if the Zerg player is significantly better, he can win over to Terran player. That doesn't mean its balanced.
Now back on subject, I really that Zerglings are terrible in SC2, with their lack of DPS, Forcefield, and Hellions they have been rendered almost useless from mid game on. I only use them as a mineral dump when I go ultras sometimes, but if that.
actually a good point was brought up..zerglings are too weak vs buildings. They all start out with 1 armor which reduces their DPS by 20% (and in terran's case can be upgraded +2, making all buildings equivalent to the 3 armor Destructible Rocks), they attack slower than BW zerglings (and adrenalings dont compare whatsoever between the 2 games), and perhaps most importantly, less surface area to attack..as every building makes a perfect zergling-proof wallofff. so in many cases only a few zerglings can attack buildings at a time (whereas in BW, most adjacent buildings did not make a zergling proof walloff). all these factors combine to make zerglings just way the fuck awful vs buildings, making pylon/cannon rushes/walloffs so much more deadly, as well as bunker rushes
On August 21 2010 04:56 Scorcher2k wrote: God this reminds me of WoW balance threads... Just go to any single class forum at one point or another and they all had these exact same arguments...
The only difference is players can just switch race and own while in wow you have to lvl a whole new to whatever lvl and get gear.
I have a friend who beat me ZvT so switched to toss and he could touch me.
I think the whole problem lies in terran having their entire bio ball move at the smae rate of speed. If Zealots and stalkers and sentries moved at the smae speed protoss would be so OP, if Roaches moved as fast as cracklings .... etc etc. The bread and butter units of terranss army all move at the same speed so you can just a-move to victory. IMHO a balance fix would be to nerf maurder speed just slightly (or maybe their affected by slow aswell (their own slow))
On August 21 2010 05:23 red_hq wrote: I think the whole problem lies in terran having their entire bio ball move at the smae rate of speed. If Zealots and stalkers and sentries moved at the smae speed protoss would be so OP, if Roaches moved as fast as cracklings .... etc etc. The bread and butter units of terranss army all move at the same speed so you can just a-move to victory. IMHO a balance fix would be to nerf maurder speed just slightly (or maybe their affected by slow aswell (their own slow))
This is a great idea i never understood why those fat marines could run so fast, their kitting might be a little less effective too that could really even things out. What about ghost? do they have the same speed has well?
On August 21 2010 05:23 red_hq wrote: I think the whole problem lies in terran having their entire bio ball move at the smae rate of speed. If Zealots and stalkers and sentries moved at the smae speed protoss would be so OP, if Roaches moved as fast as cracklings .... etc etc. The bread and butter units of terranss army all move at the same speed so you can just a-move to victory. IMHO a balance fix would be to nerf maurder speed just slightly (or maybe their affected by slow aswell (their own slow))
holy crap I've never thought of that before...Terran requires only a 1a - ttttttttt because their entire army moves at the same speed, so no micro is required beyond spamming stimpack and siegeing tanks...
On August 21 2010 01:27 Shiladie wrote: Simply undo the change in alpha where they increased the zergling size.
That, and possibly making adrenal glands a lair tech, or making it do more then the pissant increase it does right now. In BW you could TELL when you had crack upgraded, right now you can't see a difference unless you really pay attention...
I was joking about this last night on vet. Talking about making zerglings so small that 12 of them could surround a zealot. They would be extra-swarmy too. I'm a little worried this might make them even worse against tanks and hellions though.
which is exactly why they wouldn't make that change
if anything, they should increase base attack speed.... that way it would only require 3 (maybe 2 with micro) to kill 1 zealot, and the dps early game would put terran on the defensive (where they should be tbh)
BW didnt have the speed upgrade. Thats a huge difference in how many shots marines can get off before the lings are attacking. That affects the balance hugely and you haven't factored that into your ideas. (OP)
On August 21 2010 06:08 driftme wrote: BW didnt have the speed upgrade. Thats a huge difference in how many shots marines can get off before the lings are attacking. That affects the balance hugely and you haven't factored that into your ideas. (OP)
Please know what you're talking about before posting
On August 21 2010 06:08 driftme wrote: BW didnt have the speed upgrade. Thats a huge difference in how many shots marines can get off before the lings are attacking. That affects the balance hugely and you haven't factored that into your ideas. (OP)
On August 21 2010 06:08 driftme wrote: BW didnt have the speed upgrade. Thats a huge difference in how many shots marines can get off before the lings are attacking. That affects the balance hugely and you haven't factored that into your ideas. (OP)
I think you're the one on crack here...
I'd be in full support of moving adrenal glands to lair and changing it to 150/150, it won't solve the early game hell, but it'd be a step in the right direction at least...
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
I think this is a really good point.
Still, it seems like lings are too weak at killing buildings, now that they all come with armor, and that's not really affected by the AI change at all.
I agree that this is somewhat of a good post however if you take the clumping of units in SC2 VS SC1 you quickly see that the surrounds are less effective than they were in BW.
1. They are too big. 2. Their T3 Adrenaline upgrade is too mediocre 3. Their AI is god awful
1. Their size is just too large, which means less zerglings are able to get in hits, and they do their little dance until one zergling dies, then another one takes it's place. I've found situations where I try to break walls and I have to manually move my zerglings a tiny spec to the left or right so I can fit 1 more in to get in some attacks. It's quite annoying. They are still excellent at surrounding units though, but the don't get in enough dps because of their size. I would rather have them be smaller in size and take a few extra damage from splash. They also royally suck at taking out buildings because of this. Remember how quickly a pack of lings could take down a barracks? Good luck doing that in Sc2.
2. Getting their T3 upgrade almost feels like a huge gas sink. I don't even bother getting it unless I'm just messing around in a game. Getting weapon or armor upgrades is much more useful.
3. Once again this is due to their size (Somewhat). I constantly find myself in this situation where my zerglings all clump up into a narrow but multi-pathed choke point all trying to impossibly squeeze in to attack. I have to manually lead the others around the other pathways to attack. This almost never happened in starcraft.
I think that zerglings are a part of the whole issue of Zerg being weak at the moment.
for example, zerg runs lurks up followed by lings. burrow lurks and lings are attackin them. the terran of course runs from the lurks and the lings kill the marines
for example, zerg runs lurks up followed by lings. burrow lurks and lings are attackin them. the terran of course runs from the lurks and the lings kill the marines
this isn't bw though. it's sc2 and that is what we are discussing no?
Zelniq wrote: actually a good point was brought up..zerglings are too weak vs buildings.
I totally agree with Zelniq on that. In SC2, it seems like 5 lings are the max amount to attack cannons/spine crawlers (I think bunkers are a little bigger), so the DPS of lings is way down compared to BW. Not sure how to balance that, cause splash dmg would be even more potent if lings got even smaller.
i think zerglings, roaches, and hydras need slight buffs. contrary to the others, i think zergling has an easy fix. buff adrenal glands to grant more attack speed. the late game problem i see is that even w/ the upgrade, the few zerglings that do survive splash dmg etc don't do enough once they get to their location.
My only problem with lings are that the adrenaline upgrade is very late and not too effective. Other than that I really love them and use them all the time, maybe to make them more useful and give that upgrade more ompf would be to make it available in lair or slightly more effective at Hive. Again don´t really have a problem with them, except that I don´t think like in BW, Nice finally Hive so I can get the awesome Adrenaline glands upgrade now it´s more like - Meh 200-200 for a pretty mediocre upgrade, i´ll just skip that for the next 10 minutes... LETS GET ULTRA INSTEAD =)
On August 21 2010 00:40 NukeTheBunnys wrote: lings were nerfed to make up for the pathing changes. The whole auto surround thing benefits lings much more then almost any other unit. I have the feeling that if lings had the same attack speed ratio as BW they would be OP. I haven't tested it, and even if I did test it I don't feel that I'm qualified to make a decision on balance. In any case, I just remember reading something to this effect a while ago.
I think this is a really good point.
Still, it seems like lings are too weak at killing buildings, now that they all come with armor, and that's not really affected by the AI change at all.
That doesn't actually play out in reality, though. In BW you'd run units into whatever line and then attack and because of pathing there would be holes around units. Now, everything stays in a huge, tight ball that no melee can penetrate. Similarly, because the ball is so tight, more ranged units can hit a given unit than would be able in BW. This makes melee units in general much weaker in SC2. The auto-surround of melee is already inferior to a manual surround in many cases, so that kind of logic doesn't follow through to actuality.
This particular discrepancy also seems to only exist with marines, not with lings and zealots. This would lead me to believe that the change is something more terran-centric than pathing-centric.
I've long felt that marines strength in the early/mid-game is the reason for many of the anti-terran complaints, so maybe this is related.
with upgrades and air shooting + steam marines look like tier 2 unit at least.
Zealots with charge are also good as well vs marauders in late game both in breaking enemy lines deal and absorb dmg , let alone siege tanks shooting their own.
Zerlgings do nothing after mid game they usless , the only good is upgrading them to banelings but they cost too much gas and their too slow off creep.
both toss and esp terran can rely in end game to zealot marines if hes out of gas and sometimes can win with mass marines medvacs or charge zealots + storm backing up.
Imo, zerglings should have a lair level upgrade to allow them to jump on units/buildings. Not jump as in reaper jump. Jump as in the first ling to get to the unit has a little jumping animation, and is at the same place as the unit. Thus for example, if lings attacked a ball of units, you would get the same number of attacking lings as now, attacking from outside the ball, and then an extra one able to attack for each unit on the outside of the ball. This is probably very unclear, so lets illustrate it with my pain skillz, showing lings fighting a marauder.
Make lings ignore all other unit collision(including other lings, but not buildings), but other units can't ignore them? Tie that in with the speedling upgrade, so zealot walls are still effective and P has time to get forcefields.
On August 21 2010 08:32 morimacil wrote: Imo, zerglings should have a lair level upgrade to allow them to jump on units/buildings. Not jump as in reaper jump. Jump as in the first ling to get to the unit has a little jumping animation, and is at the same place as the unit. Thus for example, if lings attacked a ball of units, you would get the same number of attacking lings as now, attacking from outside the ball, and then an extra one able to attack for each unit on the outside of the ball. This is probably very unclear, so lets illustrate it with my pain skillz, showing lings fighting a marauder.
This is a really interesting idea. Although there would probably still be issues with defending early game harass and such since the upgrade would involve getting a lair.
Either a) increase the damage/attack speed of lings (make adrenal glands easier to obtain, maybe even more effective?), b) reduce the unit size of lings to allow for more deadly surrounds or c) make early game larva more abundant. A lot of theory-crafting but with some slight changes any one of these could easily improve zerglings.
On August 21 2010 09:08 sureshot_ wrote: This is a really interesting idea. Although there would probably still be issues with defending early game harass and such since the upgrade would involve getting a lair.
Either a) increase the damage/attack speed of lings (make adrenal glands easier to obtain, maybe even more effective?), b) reduce the unit size of lings to allow for more deadly surrounds or c) make early game larva more abundant. A lot of theory-crafting but with some slight changes any one of these could easily improve zerglings.
Well imo, the issue isnt really all that much early game. Lings do pretty fine in the early game, it takes like 20 marines before lings start being cost inefficient, the critical mass doesnt hapen until later on, early on lings do perfectly fine. Its in the midgame, where stim, combat shield, charge, and bigger 1a-balls are arround that lings start to really struggle. Lings are not meant to be a counter to hellions, reapers, banelings, and zealots, they are meant to kill stalkers, marauders, small amounts of marines, sentries, and so on. Roach>zealot>ling>stalker>roach for example seems perfectly fine, but once critical mass of ranged units is achieved, for example here stalkers, then lings become ineffective. This happens around lair level, which is why I think it would be a good place to put the upgrade.
Allowing zerg players to easily make a lot of lings early on, and having them own any unit that you throw at them would be dumb design imo. Lings are not supposed to be able to defend easily against anything at all. Otherwise, there is no strategy involved, you just make lings.
i remember the days where lings could actually take down cannons in BW... where they could fit between gaps between buildings allowing like 8-10 to actually get around a cannon to ravage it in 3 seconds. now, you're lucky if you can get 4 zerglings attacking a cannon.
My question is why did Blizzard feel the need to give everything armor? Oh wait, they had to because that's how they set up their "counters" and "terrible terrible damage". Little did they know, they completely gimped Zergling's DPS by a huge amount because of this.
Not only do zerglings deal horrendous DPS, they also can't surround stuff as well. Don't tell me that the AI let's zerglings surround so well. Awesome, because back in BW, it was much better to run your zerglings into the heart of the opponent's army and then attack. Too often do I see many zerglings just running around not able to find a target because it simply cant find an opening to attack. Zealots vs. Zerglings isn't even close now because it's just too hard to get all your zerglings attacking the zealots at the same time.
On August 21 2010 02:10 Inori wrote: I'm quite sure that if you buff lings base attack damage/speed, then 6 poll will be unstoppable in ZvP. Although I do agree that Adrenal Glands could be reworked.
and how is it stronger in sc2 compared to BW? you spend less% of workers by building pool - yes, but enemy has more workers to defend, which make it equal, so now 6 pool is the same as 4 pool, but lings are weaker. so how would increased ling attack speed be imba if its the same as in broodwar? Ye it will punish those with 14 gate, so it SHOULD, now 6 pool is suicide, because it just get killed by workers alone...
On August 21 2010 08:32 morimacil wrote: Imo, zerglings should have a lair level upgrade to allow them to jump on units/buildings. Not jump as in reaper jump. Jump as in the first ling to get to the unit has a little jumping animation, and is at the same place as the unit. Thus for example, if lings attacked a ball of units, you would get the same number of attacking lings as now, attacking from outside the ball, and then an extra one able to attack for each unit on the outside of the ball. This is probably very unclear, so lets illustrate it with my pain skillz, showing lings fighting a marauder.
Lol I have to say that picture is pretty epic.. I award you +1 Internets Sir! As for the topic that attack speed upgrade needs to some seriously reworking I'll agree, If I remember right someone was posting about it a while back an showed it in fact only gave you +15%.. which is sad for the cost.
would be nice some sort of range attack mabe 2 or three range where the zergling jumps back and forth if it cant get into meele range. Or give Zerglings an upgrade to ignore armor
On August 21 2010 06:40 drewcifer wrote: If you think zerglings are useless you are using them wrong realize that some units in this game aren't meant to engage and win straight up battles.
Yeah, cause lings are so useful for other things in this game like sniping expo's- oh wait.
On August 21 2010 00:27 Vortok wrote: (6 pool dying to probes attack moving, anyone?)
I'm pretty sure that's by design, since otherwise there's no way to respond to a 6 pool on a small map.
That said, a balance change to zergling attack that didn't undo that but made the cost a little heavier for the defender might have other positive effects.
Earlier scout,or preparing Yourself for the worst. Right now massing lings in any occasion is just like wasting larva/mineral sink. Maybe if Adrenal Glands were cheaper/earlier in tech that would make zerglings a bit more viable mid.. But I love crackling+hydra vs P. Hydras counter Warpgate units pretty well,while cracklings do massive amount and dps and are really mobile,though why would I favour them over Muta/Infestor?
And what's the Protoss counter to Hydra? Colossi, which make lings cry blood. :D
IF a mostly mineral Terran army beats mineral heavy Protoss and Zerg armies it seems more logical to adjust the Terran first before you start tinkering with Zerg and Protoss
The problem is that zerglings don't suck. They're one of the few units that it good off-creep. The fact that their attack is so awful, and yet they are used so heavily (muta-ling) speaks a lot towards how advantages speed is to the zerg.
On August 23 2010 01:16 vol_ wrote: Want mid-late game zergling play owning? Watch the IEM...
I watched it. Must have missed. Saw Idra and Dimaga maybe the two best overall skilled players loose ind mid and lategame with T3 vs t1/t2 mix. But maybe thats just me being blind ? : )
I think tho overall game is very balanced specially so close after release.