|
On October 03 2010 08:07 Skyze wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2010 08:01 wxwx wrote:On October 03 2010 07:33 Polarn wrote:On October 03 2010 07:31 Juaks wrote:
If all this people are crying like babies after the amazing play Fruitdealer show us, I cannot imagine how bad it would be if Hope Torture defeated him.
People complain about zerg even if they win tournaments. Even if one person won one tournament because he is spectacularly good, doesn't mean that the game is balanced for anyone else. If cool were to learn terran and play himself, then maybe we could get some kind of gauge on top-level performance. But rainbow's play wasn't really up there with cool at all imo. Yea the game must be imbalanced with a zerg winning the biggest tournament with the highest prize pool, by a huge margin. I don't understand why zergs can't accept that although their race is difficult at lower levels, it becomes the strongest when mastered... I would be so willing to embrace this if it were my race. Exactly right. Zerg is going to be even stronger in SC2 than it is in BW, once people learn how to play it properly. Sure, creep spreading and perfect larva injecting is hard for lower level players, but once you learn how to play it, its downright scary.
this is exact thinking thats preventing blizzard from doing anything.
people like you always talk about how much of zergs arsenal arent being used, or utilised properly.
yet you fail to relise, that the strats we see from zerg today, will be the same next month. there is litterally no room for improvment.
zerg was the first race to have its builds worked out because it has the smallest amount of different viable options.
Terran and Toss still have a huge amount of room to grow, everyday we see new funky little changes to timing pushes from terrans. sure alot of them are unviable, but when theres a different one popping out one after another, its obvoius terran still has alot about the race to be discovered.
so far zergs developments have been.
speedling opening/baneling bust.
muta 1 base all in
roach 1 base all in
hatch first
and there pretty much isnt anything else that can be figured out.
playing zerg isnt a case of l2p. cool won the GSL BECAUSE HE WAS THE BETTER PLAYER.
he was not getting supply blocked all the time. he did not make HUGE HUGE mistakes leading to his defeat. he played flawlessly. honestly id like to see people suggest what else cool could have done.
Yet ITR despite being a great player, WAS getting supply blocked. WAS NOT using the correct openings to pressure cools hatch first. WAS making game losing blunders.
this series was not a display of ZVT is fine l2p. it was simply a testiment of how much better cool was even with an inferior race.
|
The Cool vs ITR series did nothing to show ZvT balance or imbalance. ITR didn't exploit what makes Z weak, -THE EARLY GAME-
if zerg can secure bases and get to Hive, Z is not underpowered. The problem for zerg is getting to that point with a strong enough economy (or getting that far at all.)
Watch Cool vs OGSTOP, cool should have never advanced, that game on kulas was a wrap if Top didn't decide to be a retard and double expo. ITR decided to play some sort of bizzaro NR15m type of game with little to no early game harassment. Did he make more than 1-2 hellions? Banshees? ITR had poor tactics, and when a T has poor tactics a Zerg, a Protoss or another T can and will demolish them.
And besides ITR questionable builds, cool played phenomenal on top of it, scouting drops, stopping drops, pushing, flanking, army control, was just amazing.
|
On October 03 2010 09:43 crms wrote:
The Cool vs ITR series did nothing to show ZvT balance or imbalance. ITR didn't exploit what makes Z weak, -THE EARLY GAME-
if zerg can secure bases and get to Hive, Z is not underpowered. The problem for zerg is getting to that point with a strong enough economy (or getting that far at all.)
Watch Cool vs OGSTOP, cool should have never advanced, that game on kulas was a wrap if Top didn't decide to be a retard and double expo. ITR decided to play some sort of bizzaro NR15m type of game with little to no early game harassment. Did he make more than 1-2 hellions? Banshees? ITR had poor tactics, and when a T has poor tactics a Zerg, a Protoss or another T can and will demolish them.
And besides ITR questionable builds, cool played phenomenal on top of it, scouting drops, stopping drops, pushing, flanking, army control, was just amazing.
I agree. OGSTOP had a lead and his mistake was going thor when he could've easily won by continuing to attack and harass.
In addition, people say that Zerg is weakest in low level but strongest in high level. This is ridiculous, Terran is strongest in high level because they have the most diversity, allowing for a greater range of strategy. The reason Cool won was because Terran players weren't used to playing a "good" zerg player.
|
On October 03 2010 09:20 pookychoo wrote:
lol @ all the 'zerg won GSL so balance is fine' comments.
Knew those were coming if Cool won, but its still worth it to have seen him earn the win. The guy is such a beast. exactly, when savior was winning on terran favored maps no one said "savior won so the maps are balanced" so why would cool winning make tvz balanced?
|
On October 03 2010 09:51 aztrorisk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2010 09:43 crms wrote:
The Cool vs ITR series did nothing to show ZvT balance or imbalance. ITR didn't exploit what makes Z weak, -THE EARLY GAME-
if zerg can secure bases and get to Hive, Z is not underpowered. The problem for zerg is getting to that point with a strong enough economy (or getting that far at all.)
Watch Cool vs OGSTOP, cool should have never advanced, that game on kulas was a wrap if Top didn't decide to be a retard and double expo. ITR decided to play some sort of bizzaro NR15m type of game with little to no early game harassment. Did he make more than 1-2 hellions? Banshees? ITR had poor tactics, and when a T has poor tactics a Zerg, a Protoss or another T can and will demolish them.
And besides ITR questionable builds, cool played phenomenal on top of it, scouting drops, stopping drops, pushing, flanking, army control, was just amazing. I agree. OGSTOP had a lead and his mistake was going thor when he could've easily won by continuing to attack and harass. In addition, people say that Zerg is weakest in low level but strongest in high level. This is ridiculous, Terran is strongest in high level because they have the most diversity, allowing for a greater range of strategy. The reason Cool won was because Terran players weren't used to playing a "good" zerg player.
Actually fruitseller said commented on two separate interviews TvZ is good after the patch 1.1
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=157565
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=157567
Cool has shown the most diversity and greater range of strategy than any other race in the tournament and he won rightfully so. Yes, Terran players weren't used to playing a player with such variety of plays, however, that variety is what has won Cool the game, not the absence of the knowledge that Zerg can have variety.
EDIT:
On October 03 2010 09:58 We Are Here wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2010 09:20 pookychoo wrote:
lol @ all the 'zerg won GSL so balance is fine' comments.
Knew those were coming if Cool won, but its still worth it to have seen him earn the win. The guy is such a beast. exactly, when savior was winning on terran favored maps no one said "savior won so the maps are balanced" so why would cool winning make tvz balanced?
People won't very picky about balance back then. Also that was the realisation that metagame exists. People thought Zergs just cannot win tournaments, however with new strategies Zerg could evolve and win tournaments. After Savior won, people looked at Savior's build and techniques, Zergs became better, Starcraft balance was restored (or even perhaps created)
|
On October 03 2010 09:18 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2010 08:08 lu_cid wrote:
While the result of the tournament doesn't prove anything, it does raise some questions. As we all know, the true balance of the game is revealed only by the tip top level players. Balance means more than "if both races are played perfectly who wins". People need to stop that crap argument. Since no-one can actually play perfectly that is completely irrelevant. It's about options to win. If Terran is incredibly easy and with 50APM you can beat any Zerg with <300 APM that is a balance problem. If Terran has 10 options to win with deceptive cheese whilst Zerg has 0, that is a balance problem. If Zerg mid-late game macro is overpowered that is also a problem. If the ZvT matchup is about Zerg defending against overpowered cheese, then if it fails waiting 10 minutes and winning with overpowered macro, that is a balance problem. It's ludicrious for a 50APM terrible Terran to win 10 times versus a 250APM Zerg and turn round and say "game is balanced you should just play better, it's fine at pro level". And FakeSteve is right. ITR played absolutely horribly. IdrA would've beaten him today with ease.
The APM first off does not equal skill level until you reach a plateau of skill in which macro is perfected and the game is only dependent on a multitude of small deciding factors as demonstrated by BWs late game spellcaster fights.
Second even if the Zergs APM is higher that doesn't matter as in BW Zerg players commonly have 100-150 apm higher then Terran and Protoss players. The same applies to SC2.
|
Cool has shown the most diversity and greater range of strategy than any other race in the tournament and he won rightfully so. Yes, Terran players weren't used to playing a player with such variety of plays, however, that variety is what has won Cool the game, not the absence of the knowledge that Zerg can have variety.
A thing i noticed about Cools play is the diversity. Most Zerg are obsessed with either mass X-UNIT or two unit combos(Muta ling, hydra roach).
Second, Cools demonstrated good use of the Infester, a nuti that is normally ignored by many Zerg Players. infester shut down all Bio, better then Blings. People just think Blings are more cost efficient when they really arent.
Zerg should always fight for map control and can easily achieve it. BLings and good infester play forces tanks, rather then pure Bio.MAP CONTROL.
Hellions are the only unit Terran has that gives map control against an active Zerg. Nothing a few static defence speed roaches, or mutas cant deal with. And tanks although controlling large areas, have to unsiege to move. THus the threat of an atk to prevent unsieging is required.
The trick to Zerg is map control. Same as BW. If you let Terran Get his way he will rape. Same in BW.
|
On October 03 2010 10:18 Raiden X wrote:Show nested quote +
Cool has shown the most diversity and greater range of strategy than any other race in the tournament and he won rightfully so. Yes, Terran players weren't used to playing a player with such variety of plays, however, that variety is what has won Cool the game, not the absence of the knowledge that Zerg can have variety.
A thing i noticed about Cools play is the diversity. Most Zerg are obsessed with either mass X-UNIT or two unit combos(Muta ling, hydra roach). Second, Cools demonstrated good use of the Infester, a nuti that is normally ignored by many Zerg Players. infester shut down all Bio, better then Blings. People just think Blings are more cost efficient when they really arent. Zerg should always fight for map control and can easily achieve it. BLings and good infester play forces tanks, rather then pure Bio.MAP CONTROL. Hellions are the only unit Terran has that gives map control against an active Zerg. Nothing a few static defence speed roaches, or mutas cant deal with. And tanks although controlling large areas, have to unsiege to move. THus the threat of an atk to prevent unsieging is required. The trick to Zerg is map control. Same as BW. If you let Terran Get his way he will rape. Same in BW.
We will see. I have a feeling Cools starts relied heavily on having a very good idea of what his opponent was going to do. While certainly instructive I'm not sure it will translate well to other matches. I do hope he stays Zerg at least for now because watching him play is inspiring. It reminds me of a young Michael Jordan or a cheesy 80s movie
|
On October 03 2010 10:06 Raiden X wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2010 09:18 Klive5ive wrote:On October 03 2010 08:08 lu_cid wrote:
While the result of the tournament doesn't prove anything, it does raise some questions. As we all know, the true balance of the game is revealed only by the tip top level players. Balance means more than "if both races are played perfectly who wins". People need to stop that crap argument. Since no-one can actually play perfectly that is completely irrelevant. It's about options to win. If Terran is incredibly easy and with 50APM you can beat any Zerg with <300 APM that is a balance problem. If Terran has 10 options to win with deceptive cheese whilst Zerg has 0, that is a balance problem. If Zerg mid-late game macro is overpowered that is also a problem. If the ZvT matchup is about Zerg defending against overpowered cheese, then if it fails waiting 10 minutes and winning with overpowered macro, that is a balance problem. It's ludicrious for a 50APM terrible Terran to win 10 times versus a 250APM Zerg and turn round and say "game is balanced you should just play better, it's fine at pro level". And FakeSteve is right. ITR played absolutely horribly. IdrA would've beaten him today with ease. The APM first off does not equal skill level until you reach a plateau of skill in which macro is perfected and the game is only dependent on a multitude of small deciding factors as demonstrated by BWs late game spellcaster fights. Second even if the Zergs APM is higher that doesn't matter as in BW Zerg players commonly have 100-150 apm higher then Terran and Protoss players. The same applies to SC2.
The difference between 50 and 250APM is huge and would indicate a massive skill differential. If they played TvT instead the higher APM player would win easily.
And it's complete nonsense to suggest the Zerg has significantly higher APM in BW. Simply not true. Tell that to NaDa, tell that to Bisu etc... Foreign players considered Terran to be the most APM-intensive.
Obviously muta-micro makes Zerg APM spike high but the macro requirements of the 3 races are a lot closer than they are in SC2. Not perfectly balanced (Protoss macro is slightly easier) but not the HUGE discrepency that we have in SC2.
|
now that i look at it fruitseller is just good thats why he wins games. In order to win as zerg now you need to predict your opponents moves more than you do for toss or terran, and somehow cool just knows every fucking time. Fruitseller is absolutely amazing hes prepared and beaten almost every cheese and come out ahead.
Most other zergs in the other gsl were really good macro-wise and mechanically like check and Idra but they lacked the the mot important part the intuition so they lost to cheese and lack of scouting. Look at how all the great players in broodwar play Jaedong he has caught dropships with scourges as if he had maphacks, this guy is the king of zerg in bw. Now in Broodwar we have found our Jaedong the Jaedong of sc2 that is but, imho we can't really say who the true master is yet untill the gsl season 2 grand finals happen
|
if cool can do it, he proves zerg isnt a weak race. simple as that. of course obviously no one is close to his level, so we say "oh this gsl 1 proves nothing because cool is just that good." is that his fault?
|
So much balance talk. Lol. Funny stuff.
|
This thread is still being talked about? He said BEFORE THE FINALS that he wasn't switching, iirc, and then went on to win. In a post win interview, he said TvZ was close to fine, and PvZ was an issue based on his experience.
|
Zerg is not a weak race, it is not like none can win with Zerg. But at same level to win with zerg it takes more effort. Also weaker non-zerg players tend to win more often against zerg players then the other way around. That is the true problem.
|
On October 04 2010 05:47 -Archangel- wrote:
Zerg is not a weak race, it is not like none can win with Zerg. But at same level to win with zerg it takes more effort. Also weaker non-zerg players tend to win more often against zerg players then the other way around. That is the true problem.
IMO that's not a balance issue. That's a minor difficulty issue. There may be some balance issues that will be found out (Reaver drops before there was a delay for shooting after dropping and the like), but the game is NOT broken, and only minor changes are necessary.
|
On October 04 2010 06:06 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2010 05:47 -Archangel- wrote:
Zerg is not a weak race, it is not like none can win with Zerg. But at same level to win with zerg it takes more effort. Also weaker non-zerg players tend to win more often against zerg players then the other way around. That is the true problem. IMO that's not a balance issue. That's a minor difficulty issue. There may be some balance issues that will be found out (Reaver drops before there was a delay for shooting after dropping and the like), but the game is NOT broken, and only minor changes are necessary.
Did we watch different tournaments? I'm not sure what you mean by difficulty issue. Having to outplay your opponent to such a degree that it looks like he is using maphacks would indicate a racial issue to me. I think Cool will stay Zerg for at least GSL 2. There are a lot of big tournaments starting soon, we will see how Zerg fares. I imagine we will see a lot more baneling drops but I suspect Zerg will continue to struggle.
|
Holy shit how did this thread explode so quick
I like cool, he's cool
|
On October 04 2010 04:34 andynewin wrote:
now that i look at it fruitseller is just good thats why he wins games. In order to win as zerg now you need to predict your opponents moves more than you do for toss or terran, and somehow cool just knows every fucking time. Fruitseller is absolutely amazing hes prepared and beaten almost every cheese and come out ahead.
I'd say doesn't matter what race you play. Anticipating your opponent is equally important in any match for any race. It's just that Fruitseller is a step ahead in that department. It probably really helps that he's the only really great zerg atm.
|
On October 03 2010 10:06 Raiden X wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2010 09:18 Klive5ive wrote:On October 03 2010 08:08 lu_cid wrote:
While the result of the tournament doesn't prove anything, it does raise some questions. As we all know, the true balance of the game is revealed only by the tip top level players. Balance means more than "if both races are played perfectly who wins". People need to stop that crap argument. Since no-one can actually play perfectly that is completely irrelevant. It's about options to win. If Terran is incredibly easy and with 50APM you can beat any Zerg with <300 APM that is a balance problem. If Terran has 10 options to win with deceptive cheese whilst Zerg has 0, that is a balance problem. If Zerg mid-late game macro is overpowered that is also a problem. If the ZvT matchup is about Zerg defending against overpowered cheese, then if it fails waiting 10 minutes and winning with overpowered macro, that is a balance problem. It's ludicrious for a 50APM terrible Terran to win 10 times versus a 250APM Zerg and turn round and say "game is balanced you should just play better, it's fine at pro level". And FakeSteve is right. ITR played absolutely horribly. IdrA would've beaten him today with ease. The APM first off does not equal skill level until you reach a plateau of skill in which macro is perfected and the game is only dependent on a multitude of small deciding factors as demonstrated by BWs late game spellcaster fights. Second even if the Zergs APM is higher that doesn't matter as in BW Zerg players commonly have 100-150 apm higher then Terran and Protoss players. The same applies to SC2.
APM doesn't equal skill level; you're right.
However, you can't have 50 APM and be skilled. If you have 200+ APM and it's efficient non-spamming, you're skilled.
|
I really think to balance SC2 there needs be a higher skill cap. If you look at battles in BW you see TONS of micro, like TvZ where it's mnm vs zerg w/ dark swarm. The units could be properly microed to fair a good chance against things that hard counter the unit (lurker + darkswarm against mnm). If you look at one in SC2 it's just casting some spells, then occasionally moving some units. Also, the decision making is too easy. If you move out, then you simply expand. In BW there were a lot more factors going into whether you expanded or not, and expansions were 10x more valued than in SC2.
SC2 has too much units slamming into each other, not enough units mid game (the current effective unit compositions take up way too much supply), too many units early game off 1 base, not enough value placed on expansions and not enough room around maps. The skill cap will not change unless the meta game is changed, and the meta game will not change unless the skill cap is changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
