EPTThat's how 90% of Zergs feel when they win a ZvT they shouldn't, that if the Terran played correctly they wouldn't win
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 242
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Denzil
United Kingdom4193 Posts
That's how 90% of Zergs feel when they win a ZvT they shouldn't, that if the Terran played correctly they wouldn't win | ||
Sp00ly
United Kingdom1546 Posts
On June 22 2012 01:11 Denzil wrote: I find it interesting how all the Korean Terrans are claiming that TvZ is impossible yet they continue to win, and as such when they win they blame it on the Zerg not using the race's OP parts. That's how 90% of Zergs feel when they win a ZvT they shouldn't, that if the Terran played correctly they wouldn't win That's because it's impossible to play perfectly, SC2 is about exploiting the imperfections in your opponents play. Hypothetically if someone plays Z perfectly, they would win, if someone plays T perfectly, they would win. If two perfect players played, the world would explode with awesomeness. | ||
|
sieksdekciw
240 Posts
On June 22 2012 01:11 Denzil wrote: I find it interesting how all the Korean Terrans are claiming that TvZ is impossible yet they continue to win, and as such when they win they blame it on the Zerg not using the race's OP parts. That's how 90% of Zergs feel when they win a ZvT they shouldn't, that if the Terran played correctly they wouldn't win If any of the races are played perfectly, terran would be the strongest imo. However, you and many others fail to recognize there is far more to playing terran perfectly than any of the two races. Here is the main problem. Zerg and toss require far less mechanically to be played on a decent level than terran. We see zergs and tosses a moving their army and sprinkling some fungals here and there. To be cost efficient versus that a terran needs to do abou 400 actions more. We see zergs not pre splitting their banes, tosses being like a huge blob just going through emps and slaughtering the terran. And this seems enough in most cases to beat an army that is far better controlled. The amount of effort and concentration is just plain different. Korean terrans might still be winning here and there but imagine what would happen if zergs and tosses were as mechanically skilled as the terrans. Soon zergs and tosses will improve their micro and then we will have two players of similar skill where one just has the worse army that doesnt handle well and dies for a second. Let me just compare it to a race. A professional driver might still win a contest or two with a crappy car against a crappy competition, but once the competition starts improving and the tracks become straight lines, he is almost certainly going to lose to worse drivers with better cars. Bottom line is:terran currently requires a disproportional amount of skill to beat a zerg and toss. That is called imbalance and should be fixed so that the better skilled player wins at least most of the time. | ||
|
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
On June 22 2012 01:11 Denzil wrote: I find it interesting how all the Korean Terrans are claiming that TvZ is impossible yet they continue to win, and as such when they win they blame it on the Zerg not using the race's OP parts. That's how 90% of Zergs feel when they win a ZvT they shouldn't, that if the Terran played correctly they wouldn't win TSL4 KR Qualifier from today (http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3218, good luck finding weak names on this bracket). This excludes round of 8 results: TvP 20-22 (47.63%) TVZ 23-38 (37.70%) PvZ 32-26 (55.17%) They can win, but it doesn't appear to be often anymore. | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11047 Posts
On June 20 2012 15:51 Bagi wrote: Making vikings a viable unit on the ground could do wonders to terran lategame actually. Its so easy to overmake vikings against either BL or colossi, and end up with them being mostly useless when your opponent switches to ultra or templar heavy armies. Already do more DPS than stalkers. Fun fact. Idk what's the hate for terran lategame. I thought Thorzain showed the way. Once you get X Vikings and X ghosts you shouldn't lose. You can scan and kill obs for your ghosts to make sure no storm lands (superior range). Your vikings can kill off the Toss DPS early on. I mean yes you're more vulnerable to a direct push and can get killed off by a more gas heavy toss army but if you buff terran late game.... how does that look from a toss perspective? Toss is pretty well limited in the early game unless it goes for an allin-esque "pressure". By time toss has tech to fight a more mobile and higher dps terran army... You can't even trim back that superior eco that a terran should have from their period of map control while Toss must wait for tech to come online. | ||
|
s3rp
Germany3192 Posts
On June 22 2012 03:36 Sabu113 wrote: Already do more DPS than stalkers. Fun fact. Idk what's the hate for terran lategame. I thought Thorzain showed the way. Once you get X Vikings and X ghosts you shouldn't lose. You can scan and kill obs for your ghosts to make sure no storm lands (superior range). Your vikings can kill off the Toss DPS early on. I mean yes you're more vulnerable to a direct push and can get killed off by a more gas heavy toss army but if you buff terran late game.... how does that look from a toss perspective? Toss is pretty well limited in the early game unless it goes for an allin-esque "pressure". By time toss has tech to fight a more mobile and higher dps terran army... You can't even trim back that superior eco that a terran should have from their period of map control while Toss must wait for tech to come online. Vikings are consireably slower , have no blink and don't benefit from the upgrades you will need for your mainarmy anyway. The pure DPS may be higher but that doesn't mean they are better than Stalkers. You land your Vikings you're going to lose them unless you already won the game and they don't come from your main production facility unlike stalkers. | ||
|
architecture
United States643 Posts
When the top koreans show this in their code S matches, then we can agree it is viable. The truth is mass ghost is amazing. It also means the T 200/200 army is 50% more expensive than the P 200/200 army. The problem is that by 15m, your main is almost mined out really soon, and a 4th is generally difficult to hold for both players. So there's not really the time to get 30 ghosts. At 6 gas mining, you would only afford 4 ghosts each cycle, so it would take essentially 4m to get out 24 ghosts. This is a huge window that top players will exploit. | ||
|
architecture
United States643 Posts
On June 22 2012 03:52 s3rp wrote: Vikings are consireably slower , have no blink and don't benefit from the upgrades you will need for your mainarmy anyway. The pure DPS may be higher but that doesn't mean they are better than Stalkers. You land your Vikings you're going to lose them unless you already won the game and they don't come from your main production facility unlike stalkers. Vikings are: 1. 25% more expensive 2. slower 3. 20+% less hp | ||
|
Neurosis
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On June 22 2012 03:55 architecture wrote: Vikings are: 1. 25% more expensive 2. slower 3. 20+% less hp I can't believe people are actually arguing about this... is an air-to-air specialist better than a ground unit on the ground? Really? The guy just said that Vikings are useless on the ground. The other guy said they do more DPS than Stalkers. That's it. Nobody is trying to contend that Vikings are ultimately superior to Stalkers on the ground. | ||
|
padfoota
Taiwan1571 Posts
On June 22 2012 04:06 SeaSwift wrote: I can't believe people are actually arguing about this... is an air-to-air specialist better than a ground unit on the ground? Really? The guy just said that Vikings are useless on the ground. The other guy said they do more DPS than Stalkers. That's it. Nobody is trying to contend that Vikings are ultimately superior to Stalkers on the ground. Viking hellion rushes in TvT are fucking awesome tho lol...brings back the old valk vulture | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11047 Posts
By time we're talking about the 30 ghost army, we're also talking about a toss army with many archons. Buffing the viking, so when you don't scout or overcommit to the wrong composition you won't be punished? You still have a ready unit that adds "good" dps into your army. Terran is still probably the most resilient race. Code S players focus on the 2 medivac timings because Terran is so much more efficient at that time. Toss must have tech to trade cost effectively with a medivac supporter army or a large enough mass of any super cheap M&M composition. So toss has times where they have to be defensive and make smart decisions on where to position their army at the same time there's a pressure to get the additional gas to unlock the ability to push out on the map. Secondly, are we going back to the whine where low level terrans were complaining about how "not fun" and "uncompetitive" they were? And how they needed MKP micro to be viable or are we talking about the pro scene exclusively which has seen probably the most balanced (if stagnant) games since the creation of the game. Competitively, we're talking about adjustments to a race that has been dominant from the game's inception in large part due to poor game and map design. If you're not winning as much right now... well yes we're approaching 50% again. That /should/ happen. SC2 is mediocre and has some serious design issues but it's not because terran late game is "impossible." | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On June 21 2012 04:17 sCCrooked wrote: Wrong again, but you can't really be reasoned with since you apparently didn't read the post or at the very least did not understand it. Terrans units are fine, but you can't make enough of them quickly. Tanks in great numbers are extremely hard to break. You just can't mass them like you can mass a mobile and very efficient bio mass and that makes it less viable as a strategy since you simply can't get the gas mass to do it within a decent frame of time. No its not and my statement is proven by simple mathematic calculations looking at gas amounts necessary in each army not to mention every single caster and progamer noting the efficacy in trading T armies with Z and thus siding with me as well. If your statement were true, Zerg could stay even on bases with T and not be considered behind. Unless you're trying to say that is the case, your statement is incorrect. More to it than that which of course, being zerg, you have never had to consider. Assume that a zerg wants to reproduce 35 corruptors for their late game army. They require 35 larva, which assuming they've been doing anything, is between 4 and 5 bases. That's a frontloaded investment of 600 minerals (one free hatch) plus the 650/250 needed for Hive if we're talking late game.. Add on the queens necessary for each hatch (150 per hatch, so assuming 4 bases, 600 min). Add on the spire (200/200) and the cost of 35 Corruptors (35 x 150/100). The total investment required for this army is 7300 minerals. Gas wise, it's 3950. The only time dependence this has is the number of larva available to the zerg which can only be reduced by reducing the number of bases available to the zerg and killing off queens. Compare this to a terran wanting to produce vikings. Assuming one production building, it's pretty competitive. Production buildings are 150 for the rax, 150/100 for the factory and 150/100 for the starport. Add on an additional 50 gas for the reactor and you're looking at a total production cost of 450/200. 35 vikings cost 150/75 each. The total investment is of course 5700 minerals to 2825 gas unless my maths is shocking. Aha, you say. LOOK AT THOSE STATS. Yes, they do look impressive, and therein lies the rub. A terran's production capacity is not determined by their adherence to macro mechanics as a zerg is. Those corruptors, assuming you have the spare minerals/gas, will NEVER take more than 40s to become combat useful. Ever. It's actually impossible. Eggs are virtually indestructible to anything short of a Thor or a Seeker Missile/Yamato. What terrans are actually buying with their buildings is not just the ability to use their bank, but time. In order to have equivalent instant production capacity to a zerg that wants to get those 35 corruptors, a terran need 17 starports and 16 reactors. This adds an additional 50 minerals and 150 gas to the production cost per building. In other words, an additional 2550 minerals and 2500 gas. For each hatch a zerg adds on, you can assume that a maxed endgame army will have an additional instant production capacity on average of between 6-10 larva in a late game and possibly beyond. This makes each hatch worth an additional FIVE reactored production buildings or TEN tech lab based buildings for the purposes of remaxing. This, for 450 minerals. This problem gets exponentially worse the more powerful the unit. With power units (ultralisk, corruptor, infestor) the only real limitation to their ability to produce them is minerals, gas and larva. With terran there is a very real front-loaded investment they MUST make in order to ensure their units are produced. The most extreme case is the reactored starport which takes a full 120s in order to be prepared. This results in terran tech switches between considerably more expensive than those of a zerg and is ultimately responsible for the crappy TvZ lategame. Terrans can't simply trade armies with zerg because there is no way to reinforce fast enough. A terran army must actually be stronger than a zerg's unless they make an almost unreal amount of production structures - seeing as to match a zerg's production capacity and trade in the way some zerg players seem to be suggesting would require an investment upwards of 15000 minerals. You have quite a silly argument as a result. I would add, this kind of argument is not intended to be used for early game situations. A terran can quite cost effectively trade with a zerg in the early game because of the way a terran can wear down a zerg's larva and run them out of minerals. A zerg on five completely safe bases mining them out and collecting infinity gas however is a totally different prospect to fight than a zerg on three bases trying to hold off a terran doing a two base push. | ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On June 22 2012 04:45 Evangelist wrote: More to it than that which of course, being zerg, you have never had to consider. Actually I've tried all races and study them equally. Your assumption of my lack of intricate knowledge on the mechanics of Terran are incorrect. Terrans can't simply trade armies with zerg because there is no way to reinforce fast enough. A terran army must actually be stronger than a zerg's unless they make an almost unreal amount of production structures - seeing as to match a zerg's production capacity and trade in the way some zerg players seem to be suggesting would require an investment upwards of 15000 minerals. This is an incorrect assumption because of a simple misunderstanding of the timing of the trading that must occur. MKP's style relies in fact on these small fully-functional armies to trade very efficiently and sometimes managing to keep the army alive long enough that the next army can merge with it and strengthen the front by a factor proportionate to how much of the first army still was alive. In your example, you attempted to use a very extreme number of bases and hatcheries while using a unit that is quite expensive. If a Terran player allowed themselves to be caught in a position where Zerg could bank so much minerals and gas as to afford 35 corruptors all at once, then I submit to you that that Terran has already played so incorrectly with so many mistakes that the game should indeed go Zerg's way. It is not a realistic example to claim Zerg has imba because of their production facilities when that is, historically, intended to be one of their only and greatest advantages simply because if you can bank enough money to get say... 12 ultralisks all at once. Yes that'd be a very powerful next wave. However, how badly do you have to play the game according to pro mechanics and timings for the Zerg to be in such a massive lead? You have quite a silly argument as a result. I would add, this kind of argument is not intended to be used for early game situations. A terran can quite cost effectively trade with a zerg in the early game because of the way a terran can wear down a zerg's larva and run them out of minerals. A zerg on five completely safe bases mining them out and collecting infinity gas however is a totally different prospect to fight than a zerg on three bases trying to hold off a terran doing a two base push. I do not have a silly argument at all. The truth of the matter is your example is a bit exaggerated and your argument highly specific while mine is much more generalized. I argue that there is an issue with the basic design of WoL's races and mechanics, not that Terran is "just fine" as some have tried to say. You all might want to re-read my argument long though it might be. I still say the problem lies in the current design of how all the races work for the same reason the so-called "BW fanatics" did years ago when we first analyzed the game. What WoL did was add gimmicks to each race because they thought it would "add multi-tasking". Creep started to become essential because it added advantages. Chronos became essential for certain timings, and M.U.L.E.s were so important to Terran that they began to complain that scans or planetaries had to come at their cost. The game has become centric around those gimmicks and only now are we starting to see that they cause issues because gimmick vs gimmick is almost never balanced. The ability to create cost-effectiveness through micro is a much more intense multi-task addition than a "multi-task" addition of hitting 1 button at certain times. All we're going to get until people recognize the root of all these superficial problems is more gimmicky units with more gimmicky fixes (HotS's main gripe I'm seeing in those threads). A-B needs to become aware that cute little things might look appealing and cause people to buy their crap, but it won't make for a long-lasting balanced game. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On June 22 2012 05:35 sCCrooked wrote: Actually I've tried all races and study them equally. Your assumption of my lack of intricate knowledge on the mechanics of Terran are incorrect. This is an incorrect assumption because of a simple misunderstanding of the timing of the trading that must occur. MKP's style relies in fact on these small fully-functional armies to trade very efficiently and sometimes managing to keep the army alive long enough that the next army can merge with it and strengthen the front by a factor proportionate to how much of the first army still was alive. In your example, you attempted to use a very extreme number of bases and hatcheries while using a unit that is quite expensive. If a Terran player allowed themselves to be caught in a position where Zerg could bank so much minerals and gas as to afford 35 corruptors all at once, then I submit to you that that Terran has already played so incorrectly with so many mistakes that the game should indeed go Zerg's way. It is not a realistic example to claim Zerg has imba because of their production facilities when that is, historically, intended to be one of their only and greatest advantages simply because if you can bank enough money to get say... 12 ultralisks all at once. Yes that'd be a very powerful next wave. However, how badly do you have to play the game according to pro mechanics and timings for the Zerg to be in such a massive lead? I do not have a silly argument at all. The truth of the matter is your example is a bit exaggerated and your argument highly specific while mine is much more generalized. I argue that there is an issue with the basic design of WoL's races and mechanics, not that Terran is "just fine" as some have tried to say. You all might want to re-read my argument long though it might be. I still say the problem lies in the current design of how all the races work for the same reason the so-called "BW fanatics" did years ago when we first analyzed the game. What WoL did was add gimmicks to each race because they thought it would "add multi-tasking". Creep started to become essential because it added advantages. Chronos became essential for certain timings, and M.U.L.E.s were so important to Terran that they began to complain that scans or planetaries had to come at their cost. The game has become centric around those gimmicks and only now are we starting to see that they cause issues because gimmick vs gimmick is almost never balanced. The ability to create cost-effectiveness through micro is a much more intense multi-task addition than a "multi-task" addition of hitting 1 button at certain times. All we're going to get until people recognize the root of all these superficial problems is more gimmicky units with more gimmicky fixes (HotS's main gripe I'm seeing in those threads). A-B needs to become aware that cute little things might look appealing and cause people to buy their crap, but it won't make for a long-lasting balanced game. Er. Number 1. I used units that are common in a late game scenario. 35 corruptors is enough for 20 corruptors and 15 broodlords. I could have very easily used 10 infestors, 15 corruptors and 10 broodlords against an equivilent terran army and just as easily produced an appropriate equivilance because food for food the terran army does not trade efficiently against this army. Number 2. If you genuinely think a 4 hatch zerg is exaggerated then I do not think you have played Starcraft 2 in quite some time. Number 3. I explicitly excluded a Thorzain or MKP style gradual efficient trading of armies. I am purposefully discussing remaxing here and the hidden terran gas cost of production which, being zerg (and quite blatently so, despite your protests) you do not acknowledge. The macro mechanics of zerg are substantially stronger than terran. As such, their units are proportionately more expensive per unit strength. | ||
|
ysnake
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
Zerg is a kind of a front-load macro mode, if you're looking at the remax. Although, I have NEVER played a game in which I could easily remax my ultimate composition (Brood Lord/Infestor/Corruptor/Zerglings-Roaches). First off, 35 Corruptors is 5250 Minerals and 3500 gas, add 15 Brood Lords to that (150/150 cost of the morph), that's additional 2250 Minerals and Gas. Plus, that's 35x2=70 supply+15x2, that's 100 supply on just Corruptors/Brood Lords, let's say the Zerg has 70 Drones. He is left with 30 Supply left to fill in with Infestors/Zerglings/Roaches, that's either 15 Infestors, 60 Zerglings or 15 Roaches. You are saying that every Zerg has around 10k Minerals and around 8k gas banked at all times? If he does, suppose he does, what were YOU as a Terran doing during that time? Snipe his Greater Spire with 2 full Medivacs? Snipe Queens, snipe Hive, it is like you do not know the strength of a 3/3 stimmed bio army. I do agree that Terran has no real tech path to transition from early-mid game into late game unless they are going Mech. And once again, Zerg is a race that goes frontload macro-mode while Terran is slowly building up, adding more tech buildings etc. In the terms of unit production, Terran is the slowest, followed by Protoss, on top with Zerg. As for unit cost efficiency, Zerg has the least cost efficient units, followed by Protoss, while Terran has the most cost efficient units (of course, assuming that you do not clump up your bio ball and hug the Banelings). Let's assume this, you just traded armies with the Zerg, you're cycling through your buildings building units, Zerg lost everything and is set to remax (he somehow has shitloads of resources). Let me remind you this: Corruptor - 40 second build time Brood Lord morph - 34 second build time Infestor - 50 second build time You have a decent window to snipe a whole expansion or let that drop eat his main base. You snipe his Spire/Greater Spire, let me remind you this again: Spire - 100 second build time Greater Spire upgrade - 100 second build time Basically, what I am trying to say, NO ZERG OUT THERE can instantly remax his ultimate composition unless you are REALLY DOING SOMETHING WRONG and let him have something like 8base full saturation economy to support that. I've just lost to a Masters Terran who abused my army's immobility. I was making my way through the middle of Shakuras stumbling upon a small force every now and then, holding me back. The instantly, 5 full loaded Medivacs doom dropped my main, cleared Hive, Greater Spire down at the natural and the second Spire (since he already sniped my Spire beforehand), my Spawning Pool, my Infestation Pit and picked up and went to defend his base, as I was already sieging it. I destroyed his main and natural, he kept 1 Medivac dropping at my saturated bases and I eventually lost because he was being cost efficient with Vikings, and I didn't have 35 Corruptors or some crazy number like that. Just a mere force of 8 Brood Lords/9 Corruptors (it was an early Hive build)/some Infestors/Zerglings and Banelings. Again, I agree that Terran needs some love for the late game without having to completely tech-switch because they simply cannot do that, but without buffing their early-game pressure, as I believe TvP would have some major imbalances then. | ||
|
Ldawg
United States328 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + The game was AnnYung vs Hero in the Team Arena Challenge 3 on 6/26, game 3. The game went VERY long, with the Protoss having somewhere around 5-7 bases, and the Zerg with 3-4 bases (some were destroyed from time to time, hence the approximation). The Zerg, even though mined out from 3 bases, had the traditional Brood Lord/Infestor army that the Protoss couldn't break because they did not get the "magic" vortex. The Protoss massed carriers, but since he already had a mothership, the Zerg had corruptors and instantly massed carriers in response to the carrier switch. Essentially the Protoss kept losing army after army to the BL/Corruptor/Infestor, since the Zerg was smart and didn't clump up his units, preventing the OP vortex from killing everything. There was adequate defence for his structures, and after losing many armies to the Zerg, despite having almost double the bases and a huge bank, the Protoss was eventually whittled away and lost. From what I've seen, in the late game PvZ (Mothership vs Bl/Infestor), if the Zerg controls his army correctly and protects his structures with static defense, there is a almost non-existent chance for a victory of the Protoss. I don't claim to have any direct answer for this, but I think one huge problem comes from the fact that since Corruptors are the first stage of Brood Lords, it is almost a given that the Zerg will have some on hand for when he frees supply to produce more Brood Lords. These Corruptors hard counter the MOthershipt and Carrier, limiting their use in the Protoss army. Complaint Problem: Zerg late game BL/Corruptor/Infestor comp Solution: Not certain..Perhaps disconnect Corruptors from Brood Lords? Nerf Brood Lord spawn of Broodlings? Side Effects: We shall see.... | ||
|
][Primarch][
Sweden302 Posts
On June 27 2012 09:44 Ldawg wrote: OK this game JUST finished and I was so mad that it brought me to action lol. Spoiler tagged below so do not click if you are interested in watching Liquid vs Prime TAC 3, but you can view this VOD for an example + Show Spoiler + The game was AnnYung vs Hero in the Team Arena Challenge 3 on 6/26, game 3. The game went VERY long, with the Protoss having somewhere around 5-7 bases, and the Zerg with 3-4 bases (some were destroyed from time to time, hence the approximation). The Zerg, even though mined out from 3 bases, had the traditional Brood Lord/Infestor army that the Protoss couldn't break because they did not get the "magic" vortex. The Protoss massed carriers, but since he already had a mothership, the Zerg had corruptors and instantly massed carriers in response to the carrier switch. Essentially the Protoss kept losing army after army to the BL/Corruptor/Infestor, since the Zerg was smart and didn't clump up his units, preventing the OP vortex from killing everything. There was adequate defence for his structures, and after losing many armies to the Zerg, despite having almost double the bases and a huge bank, the Protoss was eventually whittled away and lost. From what I've seen, in the late game PvZ (Mothership vs Bl/Infestor), if the Zerg controls his army correctly and protects his structures with static defense, there is a almost non-existent chance for a victory of the Protoss. I don't claim to have any direct answer for this, but I think one huge problem comes from the fact that since Corruptors are the first stage of Brood Lords, it is almost a given that the Zerg will have some on hand for when he frees supply to produce more Brood Lords. These Corruptors hard counter the MOthershipt and Carrier, limiting their use in the Protoss army. Complaint Problem: Zerg late game BL/Corruptor/Infestor comp Solution: Not certain..Perhaps disconnect Corruptors from Brood Lords? Nerf Brood Lord spawn of Broodlings? Side Effects: We shall see.... omg, I watched that game and hero had it won, the game was over, the zerg had all his tech sniped by Dt drops, 150 drones dies, hero sacced lots of probes and had a huge army supply and killed 20 free infestors, the last thing I saw before I had to go was all the broods getting sniped by stalkers, all that was left was corruptor - infestor, not even maxed and with no money left for zerg while hero sat on 7 base, 2 still mining and with a ton of mins and gas left (like 5k 5k). The game even went to the point where hero just threw away units just cause he could. Losing that game must have been some kind of accomplishment lol. | ||
|
Ldawg
United States328 Posts
On June 27 2012 09:59 ][Primarch][ wrote: omg, I watched that game and hero had it won, the game was over, the zerg had all his tech sniped by Dt drops, 150 drones dies, hero sacced lots of probes and had a huge army supply and killed 20 free infestors, the last thing I saw before I had to go was all the broods getting sniped by stalkers, all that was left was corruptor - infestor, not even maxed and with no money left for zerg while hero sat on 7 base, 2 still mining and with a ton of mins and gas left (like 5k 5k). The game even went to the point where hero just threw away units just cause he could. Losing that game must have been some kind of accomplishment lol. LOL, it was certainly some type of accomplishment. I really recommend anyone watch that game for the sheer epicness. I was however, trying to keep spoilers intact but oh well, that wouldn't last forever. You aren't kidding about that point in the game, I remember the same point because while I left the stream up and could hear the audio, I was surfing on other pages. Literally the Brood Lords were gone, he had little/no mining bases at the time-just some corruptors and infestors. It wasn't until I heard the casters getting super excited that I watched the rest and couldn't believe my eyes. | ||
|
h0oTiS
United States101 Posts
- Baracks nerf; they now take 5 seconds longer to build => This was because zerg was having a hard time dealing with 11/11's and bunker rushes, I feel its safe to say or atleast test the effects of reverting back since the queen buff which will greatly medigate the dammage from these rushes. Map size has also signifigantly increased slowing the 11/11 -Reaper nerf; +10 seconds train time and SPEED UPGRADE requiring a FACTORY => This was done because zergs couldn't defend against early or mass reapers, however if the time was reverted the dammage would be prevented from the queen's new range * leaving the speed nerf due to mass reaper problems* Removing these nerfs wouldn't hopefully have any direct effects on the balance but it would open the game up more, just about every unit in the terran arsenal has been nerfed and it feels like there arn't any options. This would bring some of those options back since they may no longer be imbalanced. Also I feel that the BFH nerf should be under consideration, I'm not sure how it could be changed since hellions were straight up overpowered; a decrease in cost or time of blue flame upgrade perhaps to make up for the dammage nerf... | ||
| ||
