| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
On April 19 2011 07:54 Mailing wrote: You didn't need balance tweaks to take care of zerg because zerg was never overpowered, the players for T and P just sucked. Maybe our current Z players suck. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
And bigger maps aren't figured out yet. And I love to see aggressive zergs, because they have more bang for their buck per unit cost. Macroing blindly is the wrong strategy, hello? JulyZerg is paving the way, IMO. Instead of thinking "How can I barely get by to get to late game" Zergs should be thinking "How can I use my mobile, high DPS army and quick tech switches to prevent the Protoss from expanding or building a big army." | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
yeah bro please show them how to play zvp | ||
|
Mafs
Canada458 Posts
On April 19 2011 08:11 LF9 wrote: In the ZvP matchup, I think Banelings are HEAVILY overlooked. Banelings with burrow researched forces P to have obs at all times, they're like the new Lurkers. I think in the future we will see Zergs playing a drop-heavy style, and utilizing Banelings more, most likely with burrow, to force P to keep Obs with his army. I see it playing out like this: P deathball comes with obs. Zerg has a nice unit mix, probably the usual Roach/Hydra/Corruptor, but with Banelings as well, in a pretty high ratio, making sure to have Overseers. Zerg tries to snipe obs with Overseer +Hydra or Corruptor, keeping Banelings back. Denying P detection could open up windows, because I've seen good Z players use burrow Banelings (along with a pretty modest supporting army) take out an entire Protoss deathball, just using clever positioning. They are really good for taking out the dreaded Sentry, and great against Collossus as well. Banelings using burrow to get close before forcefields can be thrown all around the ball or slice the Z army can get right inside and do insane damage. A lot of things are underused and undiscovered, because most people use the same strats and unit compositions, as they care more about winning every game than they do about learning new playstyles. Heavy drop-play and more Baneling usage is the future of ZvP, I contend. The banelings and drop heavy play I completely agree with. You don't know much much I agree with it. But the only problem with this is that observers are cheap, and any gold+ protoss always has a observer with their army to take out creep tumors.(Burrowed roachs with tunneling claws work better then banelings vs protoss.) The only thing zergs can do is roach hydra with 20 banelings for dropping. Its only 10 food, and can comepletely decimate a protoss army.(Kill sentries if not stalkers too and deal significant damage to everything else.) Roach hydra and corruptor cleans everything up. Dropping 4 upgrades banelings on a probe line will destroy their economy. And if you keep doing it at specific times in the game when they get resaturated will give you a free win because they won't have economy to create an army. I have just practiced with a friend, and using baneling drops, and hydra drops do amazingly well vs protoss. They gave me a better result then I have ever achived. Nydus I think will also be used for surrounds and base harassment. But balance needs a huge change currently. I am watching grubby destroy a zerg with mass blink stalkers against hydra ling infestor. Which is suppose to counter blink stalkers. | ||
|
Jinsho
United Kingdom3101 Posts
SC wasn't balanced properly until BW, as en example. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On April 19 2011 08:14 Mailing wrote: BECAUSE it was patched. If terran had not received a single of their 20~ nerfs since 1.0, do you think the game would be the way it is right now? It was not just apparent back then because they didn't have enough time to practice how to abuse the power they had. Even now, after terran has been balanced to hell and back, they are doing GREAT. I wouldn't say GREAT, but I think they are not in a bad position. Same thing can be said of Zerg. Like you mentioned earlier, ZvT seems to be at a really good point where it's a favorite of players and balanced quite well. Each part can punish the other for attempting something stupid/ridiculous, but can also be rewarded for pulling off stupid/ridiculous things. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
There is always the usual excuse: "it costs too much" or "it takes too long to make." Yeah well deathball falls under both of those. Watch any replay with a "deathball" and it's army value is usually twice that of the opponent. Blizzard balances units on unit cost, not supply. You need more supply efficient units. 200/200 of all marines is not quite as powerful as a 200/200 army of all tanks. Sometimes when I play, I sacrifice all my zealots on a suicide mission to harass and replace them with stalkers or just more colossus. | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
Sorry for suggesting something completely reasonable then. It's fine that T and P players can suck, but completely unreasonable that Z players can. | ||
|
LF9
United States537 Posts
And branflakes, I'm pretty sure 5unrise totally just didn't get it. RIGHT over his head. lol. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On April 19 2011 05:49 Antedelerium wrote: Definitely a copy-paste error. Regardless, OP does make an interesting point with the comparison of how macro Zergs used to be scary while the Protoss deathball strategy goes along the same lines. I highly doubt balance tweaks will be necessary to counter the deathball, but we'll see what happens in higher levels of play. That's how it always goes. Sooner or later, someone figures out how to counter a specific type of strategy. As good as MC is, sooner or later someone will figure out how to consistently stop his insane pushes. Sooner or later, someone will just figure out how to dismantle Cruncher in ZvP in convincing fashion (some pros probably can already and just haven't faced him). Macro Zergs were never insane. Maybe in the beta before ultralisks sucked less and stalkers did 2 less damage and every1 had terrible forcefield control, maybe. The only time in retail Zerg has actually done well vs Protoss was after roach range was buffed, and that was basically just Protoss slowly figuring out their old bullshit didnt work and having to adjust their play accordingly. Yea, this might be it. If only Idra, Ret, Morrow, Sen, Dimaga, and Sheth were as skilled as Cruncher  .In all seriousness though, the argument that Zerg players lack the skill other races have is just absurd. @OP This thread explains perfectly why Protoss is owning atm http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=191702 | ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
On April 19 2011 08:29 LF9 wrote: Well of course all decent P bring an Observer (probably 2) with their army, but I'm saying that if you have burrow Banelings in a good number, the goal would be to snipe the observer(s), forcing the Protoss to back up. If you can keep playing this game, you will buy yourself time for some drops in a few different places here and there, whittling away at his economy, and if you manage to snipe the Observer(s), he can't attack you without burrowed blings popping up right in the middle of his ball and raping all his units, so he has to go elsewhere. And that means you get to control the map, instead of him. Take an expo, harass with drops, both? Just a possibility. And branflakes, I'm pretty sure 5unrise totally just didn't get it. RIGHT over his head. lol. Yeah, but do you think pros want to base their entire gameplan on 'and then I snipe his oberver, and his backup, and I hope he doesn't look after them well or have a third nearby!' | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On April 19 2011 07:54 Mailing wrote: + Show Spoiler + You didn't need balance tweaks to take care of zerg because zerg was never overpowered, the players for T and P just sucked. Most of the top 8 from the first 2 GSLs are gone/code A now. Yet the only new zerg is basically LosirA and July... Idra, ret, fruit, nestea, zenio are still around. If you look at how oGsTOP or Rain played against Fruit back in GSL1, it wouldn't even be Code A level right now. During the time of the early GSLs, most pro zergs had far more average ladder games played than the other races, meaning more practice. Terrans were still using mostly MMM and didn't incorporate tanks (even when they did 50 damage to all units) into their armies forever. Mass drop play was barely touched until MVP showed up. Protoss were still stuck on 4gate and learning how to expand safely, especially after 4 range roaches. They went as far to say that expanding early was an instant loss against a roach rush because of the 4 range. Turns out they just had to learn where to place cannons and how to use the sentry. THE SENTRY. That is the unit that protoss players learned how to use that has completely owned the metagame, you didn't see amazing force fields 5 months ago. Then you now have big maps, which lets zerg macro.... slightly better than before, but lets protoss and terran get an easy 3 bases. Terran and Protoss can sit and produce off 3 bases for over 20-30 minutes and win, as a protoss can actually max 200/200 3/3/3 off 6 gases if you don't kill any of their colossus with constant attacks. Then you have patches, which nerfed terran over and over and over, making TvZ one of the best and most balanced matchups in the game right now, also the favorite of many. Yet protoss also got a lot of buffs, such as cheaper hallucination, cheaper observers, faster phoenix... all these things MASSIVELY help them in the scouting department so they will always know to make more zealots or more stalkers or if they need an immortal as opposed to colossus, etc. This is a pretty brutal over generalization: The discrepancy in skill between code A and code S, if there even is one at all, is paper thin. Commenting on how those players have dropped to code A doesn't say anything, you'd have to evaluate the shifts in skill on an individual basis. More ladder games does not indicate more practice. More time spent practicing (very likely with practice partners) means more practice. Force fields have always seen effective use. It's an essential part of some of the wilder timing pushes we've seen lately, but it's grossly inaccurate to say "you didn't see amazing force fields 5 months ago." The part of your post I find most interesting, however, is: Then you now have big maps, which lets zerg macro.... slightly better than before, but lets protoss and terran get an easy 3 bases. Terran and Protoss can sit and produce off 3 bases for over 20-30 minutes and win, as a protoss can actually max 200/200 3/3/3 off 6 gases if you don't kill any of their colossus with constant attacks. See ZvT from bw? A player should never feel entitled to wins playing passively. If there's an argument to be made against protoss balance right now, it starts there. But do the best protoss play that way? Not usually. Sheth has been playing a style that really seems to punish passive protoss, see his game vs Artosis in the NASL. It reminds me of the ZvT mu from bw because the zerg laid on the aggression and harassed and harassed and harassed so that when the push finally came from terran, it was manageable. ZvP is ridiculously hard right now, and maybe it will get patched (further), but (as has been said a thousand times) it's not becoming of players to expect blizzard to spoon feed us the responses to certain styles with balance patches when there's still room to explore solutions. As for protoss buffs, the overall trajectory of the race's balance has been nerfs. There have been buffs, but they themselves would not constitute enough change to alter the balance of the game. If there is a problem, it exists without the buffs you've mentioned. You've conveniently ignored the most recent nerf to high templar, and the substantial nerf that voidrays had before that (as well as the build time of zealots, the cool down of warp gates, etc.) All of those were warranted, imo, but you've been pretty selective with your information there. | ||
|
Ezekyle
Australia607 Posts
On April 19 2011 08:26 Ownos wrote: You know which players give me the hardest time in the late game? The ones that aren't still hanging around on lair tech or barracks tech. There is always the usual excuse: "it costs too much" or "it takes too long to make." Yeah well deathball falls under both of those. Watch any replay with a "deathball" and it's army value is usually twice that of the opponent. Blizzard balances units on unit cost, not supply. You need more supply efficient units. 200/200 of all marines is not quite as powerful as a 200/200 army of all tanks. Sometimes when I play, I sacrifice all my zealots on a suicide mission to harass and replace them with stalkers or just more colossus. Because Protoss can actually defend. Forcefields, ramps, cannons and actually having decent range gives you an ENORMOUS defender's advantage against Zerg. Warp-ins completely negate the Zerg defender's advantage. You can just sit around building up a deathball, because once you have a few sentries and collosi the Zerg player simply cannot attack you. Try doing that with Zerg and a bunch of gateway units will roll you every single time. | ||
|
monterto
Canada103 Posts
| ||
|
VGhost
United States3615 Posts
On April 19 2011 07:33 branflakes14 wrote: I agree completely with the OP. Moreso after watching  Sheth's stream for a good few hours the last couple of days. It's almost embarrassing to see how little faith people have in Blizzard's ability to balance a game, especially when they were responsible for what's considered the most balanced RTS on the planet that isn't a pure mirror. If anything people should have MORE faith in them since between now and Brood War Blizzard have had years to refine their methods of balancing games.Actually, in point of fact Blizzard's methods of balancing SC mostly consisted of not balancing it: by my count there were exactly two major balance patches. One of those "patches" was the release of Brood War, and the other was made just after Boxer won his 1st (!) OSL. It was a decently balanced game to begin with, but "balance" in the BW sense of near-perfection has been the result of just about everybody except Blizzard: map-makers, innovators (Boxer), tons of practice, dumb luck (Shark and his mutas), etc. The thing I take away from the OP is basically this: a couple months isn't long enough, usually, to determine "balance". Therefore - and with BW as an example, no less - we need to quit screaming for patches and just play the game. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
pockie
United States30 Posts
So to the original poster - I disagree with you that the game needs a balance change to fix protoss. It's like calling the 1 base immortal push on scrap station invincible (the unstoppable build from beta lolll). | ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
| ||
|
FrodaN
754 Posts
On April 19 2011 09:11 Tachion wrote: Sheth keeps getting referenced, but I'm not familiar with his ZvP outside of his NASL games with Artosis. What is he doing that is apparently so effective? Just good execution of drops and multi-pronged attacks on lair tech? Strong timing understanding, great map control with mobile units, denying P expos, fantastic positioning/engagements with his army, and solid scouting to name a few aspects. | ||
|
gNs.I-Jasa
United States211 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
