• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:19
CEST 10:19
KST 17:19
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues29LiuLi Cup - September 2025 Tournaments3
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments
Tourneys
Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Pros React To: SoulKey's 5-Peat Challenge [ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence BW General Discussion ASL20 General Discussion
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group D [ASL20] Ro16 Group C [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread General RTS Discussion Thread Nintendo Switch Thread Borderlands 3
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Canadian Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Big Programming Thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1171 users

Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 247

Forum Index > SC2 General
Post a Reply
Prev 1 245 246 247 248 249 1266 Next
vthree
Profile Joined November 2011
Hong Kong8039 Posts
July 08 2012 09:19 GMT
#4921
If you look at the top 10 ELO Terrans and Zergs and compare their last 10 vZ/vT, you can pretty tell what the patch has done for balance. Problem was that the Queen buff was to shore up the early game in TvZ since things like 2 rax/hellion push was deemed too strong (in the sense that it is easy to execute and hard to defend). But the side effect was the mid game is totally zerg favor now because zerg can drone up without only Queens as defense and creep spread. Pretty much ALL terran mid game timings no longer work. So terrans now have to go quick 3CC which is venerable to roach/ling/bang busts. Or the zerg and just go 4 hatch with 80 drones and just outproduce the terran anyways.
Pinna
Profile Joined April 2011
Finland152 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-08 20:47:30
July 08 2012 20:43 GMT
#4922
On July 08 2012 11:25 Shiori wrote:


Show nested quote +
Just why do Terrans think that ravens are a god-awful unit and an ridicilously expensive one?

Because they are, and because 1 slip up means they all get Fungaled and you lose thousands of Gas.

Yes, because it is like terrans use all their gas in the lategame. Oh wait.. Using ravens brings Terran to the same situation as Zerg and Protoss are already in, which is: lose your army once, lose the game.
Show nested quote +
Why won't we see thors in the lategame compositions?
We do.

I disagree. Thors are actually ok'ish if you can get them to target the broodlords before they un-split. Thors are also good against the ultralisk-switches which may be incoming if you make a ton of vikings. And if the Zerg is starting to run away, you might get to snipe couple of infestors with them.
Show nested quote +
Why can't BC:s be buffed?
Because Blizzard hates buffing Capital Ships.

I agree, and that's because of the strenght of the basic units.

School..
hzflank
Profile Joined August 2011
United Kingdom2991 Posts
July 08 2012 20:50 GMT
#4923
Pinna, how on earth can you say Thors are good against Broods? If thors could walk over the broodlings then they might get some shots off, but between broodlings and fungals the thors just cannot get into range.

And if any race can lose their whole army and not lose the game it is zerg in the midgame ZvP or protoss in the lategame PvT. Terran is never in that situation after the very early game (first few drops).

I am a protoss player and have no pro-terran bias, but can we please be the slightest bit neutral?
Toastie.NL
Profile Joined July 2012
Netherlands232 Posts
July 08 2012 20:52 GMT
#4924
On July 09 2012 05:43 Pinna wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 08 2012 11:25 Shiori wrote:


Just why do Terrans think that ravens are a god-awful unit and an ridicilously expensive one?

Because they are, and because 1 slip up means they all get Fungaled and you lose thousands of Gas.

Yes, because it is like terrans use all their gas in the lategame. Oh wait.. Using ravens brings Terran to the same situation as Zerg and Protoss are already in, which is: lose your army once, lose the game.
What he means is that Ravens have a casting range of 6 (IIRC) on Seeker Missile (the useful spell) which can be countered with a range 8+2 spell for Zerg or a range 9 spell for Protoss. Ravens rely on the opponent not paying attention to get their shots off. And once they got them off, they'll die regardless.

Show nested quote +
Why won't we see thors in the lategame compositions?
We do.

I disagree. Thors are actually ok'ish if you can get them to target the broodlords before they un-split. Thors are also good against the ultralisk-switches which may be incoming if you make a ton of vikings. And if the Zerg is starting to run away, you might get to snipe couple of infestors with them.
Again, using thors relies on your opponent not splitting (and thus messing up), also, Thors without an upgrade advantage do pretty terrible damage.


Show nested quote +
Why can't BC:s be buffed?
Because Blizzard hates buffing Capital Ships.

I agree, and that's because of the strenght of the basic units.


That, and the fact that 3/3/3 Carriers or 3/3 Battlecruisers are pretty fucking powerful units, it's just hard to transition into them.
EU Random Player - Contact me for anything :-)!
ahole-surprise
Profile Joined August 2007
United States813 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-08 21:12:29
July 08 2012 21:08 GMT
#4925
Good luck getting Blizzard to revert the balance changes. I think it's a marketing ploy to get people to play Zerg since they're so strong and create interest in Zerg, so casual players will give a fuck about Zerg single player campaign and hardcore players will have an extra incentive to buy HoTS since WoL is so "broken." Not that hardcore players would need that incentive since they have to buy the expansion anyway if they want to play competitively, but by making the game so "imbalanced" straddlers who would have stuck around in WoL for a few months maybe will just buy HoTs now on day one.

I'm convinced of this conspiracy theory because it's exactly what I would do as Blizzard, if I were the currently existing Blizzard that forced B.net to even install the game so as to prevent piracy.
Pulp can move, baby!
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
July 08 2012 21:15 GMT
#4926
On July 09 2012 05:52 Toastie.NL wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2012 05:43 Pinna wrote:
On July 08 2012 11:25 Shiori wrote:


Just why do Terrans think that ravens are a god-awful unit and an ridicilously expensive one?

Because they are, and because 1 slip up means they all get Fungaled and you lose thousands of Gas.

Yes, because it is like terrans use all their gas in the lategame. Oh wait.. Using ravens brings Terran to the same situation as Zerg and Protoss are already in, which is: lose your army once, lose the game.
What he means is that Ravens have a casting range of 6 (IIRC) on Seeker Missile (the useful spell) which can be countered with a range 8+2 spell for Zerg or a range 9 spell for Protoss. Ravens rely on the opponent not paying attention to get their shots off. And once they got them off, they'll die regardless.
Show nested quote +

Why won't we see thors in the lategame compositions?
We do.

I disagree. Thors are actually ok'ish if you can get them to target the broodlords before they un-split. Thors are also good against the ultralisk-switches which may be incoming if you make a ton of vikings. And if the Zerg is starting to run away, you might get to snipe couple of infestors with them.
Again, using thors relies on your opponent not splitting (and thus messing up), also, Thors without an upgrade advantage do pretty terrible damage.
Show nested quote +


Why can't BC:s be buffed?
Because Blizzard hates buffing Capital Ships.

I agree, and that's because of the strenght of the basic units.


That, and the fact that 3/3/3 Carriers or 3/3 Battlecruisers are pretty fucking powerful units, it's just hard to transition into them.


Fungal has range 9 (+radius 2)

And yes, clumping air is bad, spreading it out too far is bad as well. When you move stuff clumps automatically, so good spreading is not possible. But amazingly, such comments come from Terrans that keep on complaining about how spreading up armies against splah and keeping it spread is so hard.

I agree on the BCs (and Carriers and also on Ravens) being really hard to transition into properly. However, I don't think anybody apart from MVP even has a proper gameplan for such a thing yet - and MVP simply gets there when he wants to, because - unlike everyone else - he sets up for it.
HinagikUx
Profile Joined January 2011
United States178 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-08 21:25:12
July 08 2012 21:24 GMT
#4927
On July 09 2012 06:15 Big J wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2012 05:52 Toastie.NL wrote:
On July 09 2012 05:43 Pinna wrote:
On July 08 2012 11:25 Shiori wrote:


Just why do Terrans think that ravens are a god-awful unit and an ridicilously expensive one?

Because they are, and because 1 slip up means they all get Fungaled and you lose thousands of Gas.

Yes, because it is like terrans use all their gas in the lategame. Oh wait.. Using ravens brings Terran to the same situation as Zerg and Protoss are already in, which is: lose your army once, lose the game.
What he means is that Ravens have a casting range of 6 (IIRC) on Seeker Missile (the useful spell) which can be countered with a range 8+2 spell for Zerg or a range 9 spell for Protoss. Ravens rely on the opponent not paying attention to get their shots off. And once they got them off, they'll die regardless.

Why won't we see thors in the lategame compositions?
We do.

I disagree. Thors are actually ok'ish if you can get them to target the broodlords before they un-split. Thors are also good against the ultralisk-switches which may be incoming if you make a ton of vikings. And if the Zerg is starting to run away, you might get to snipe couple of infestors with them.
Again, using thors relies on your opponent not splitting (and thus messing up), also, Thors without an upgrade advantage do pretty terrible damage.


Why can't BC:s be buffed?
Because Blizzard hates buffing Capital Ships.

I agree, and that's because of the strenght of the basic units.


That, and the fact that 3/3/3 Carriers or 3/3 Battlecruisers are pretty fucking powerful units, it's just hard to transition into them.


Fungal has range 9 (+radius 2)

And yes, clumping air is bad, spreading it out too far is bad as well. When you move stuff clumps automatically, so good spreading is not possible. But amazingly, such comments come from Terrans that keep on complaining about how spreading up armies against splah and keeping it spread is so hard.

I agree on the BCs (and Carriers and also on Ravens) being really hard to transition into properly. However, I don't think anybody apart from MVP even has a proper gameplan for such a thing yet - and MVP simply gets there when he wants to, because - unlike everyone else - he sets up for it.


creator vs Coca in gstl recently. Sets up really well for carrier transition, but imo the build time is way too long and makes them unviable; he literally loses 100 supply and 2 mining bases while trying to pump one round of carriers out. The game is designed so that you need to stay 200/200 in the late game and throwing away a chunk of supply for carriers or BC's leads to an impossible to defend counter attack due to the strength of the infestor/BL comp which will kill what you have before you get a healthy number of capital ships out
uGpTaiga/HinagikUx NA Server
InoyouS2
Profile Joined December 2011
1005 Posts
July 08 2012 21:26 GMT
#4928
Considering the amount of Terran players pre-patch, post-patch you're looking at maybe 80% of players being Zerg and Protoss, the 20% being Terran players who were actually committed enough to the race to keep playing it.

At least in the era of Terran dominance there was actually something to watch except: 200-200 go kill him, gg.
IMMvp|fOrGG|IMNesTea|oGsMC|Liquid`Hero|DongRaeGu|Slayers_MMA|Liquid`TLO|MarineKingPrime|IMSeed
phiinix
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States1169 Posts
July 08 2012 21:37 GMT
#4929
On July 09 2012 06:08 ahole-surprise wrote:
Good luck getting Blizzard to revert the balance changes. I think it's a marketing ploy to get people to play Zerg since they're so strong and create interest in Zerg, so casual players will give a fuck about Zerg single player campaign and hardcore players will have an extra incentive to buy HoTS since WoL is so "broken." Not that hardcore players would need that incentive since they have to buy the expansion anyway if they want to play competitively, but by making the game so "imbalanced" straddlers who would have stuck around in WoL for a few months maybe will just buy HoTs now on day one.

I'm convinced of this conspiracy theory because it's exactly what I would do as Blizzard, if I were the currently existing Blizzard that forced B.net to even install the game so as to prevent piracy.


Well that only really works if the change is reverted in HotS or if there are more mid and late game choices for terran. Not trying to sound like I know how the game will work out, but looking at the battle hellion, widow mine, and warhound (am I missing anything else?) they seem much more geared towards tvt and tvp, not so much tvz. Additionally, swarm hosts, ultra burrow charge, and vipers are additions to the zerg mid and late game, which would make tvz even more hard, and even more apparent that terrans are struggling in the matchup, since this problem is about those stages in the game.


I have to heavily disagree with Pinna that using gas and ravens put terran on the same footing with zerg and protoss "lose army once and lose the game" It's not actually how it works. I think it would take a fool to honestly argue that terran has the same rebuilding capacity as zerg larve or protoss warp gate/chrono.
Corvi
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
Germany1406 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-08 21:46:09
July 08 2012 21:44 GMT
#4930
here is how i would fix terran:

- vikings are now low armored
- vikings ground dmg +1
- ground mech updates effects viking ground dmg

here is what we would get:

1.: cant get killed so easily by infestors or focused down by stalkers

2.: dont let them and the fact you have air superiority be absolutely useless when opponent transitions away from broodlords or collossi.

3.: make mech viable tvp, to have at least one metal unit that doesnt get roflstomped by immortals.

what do you think?
Big J
Profile Joined March 2011
Austria16289 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-08 21:50:12
July 08 2012 21:46 GMT
#4931
On July 09 2012 06:24 HinagikUx wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2012 06:15 Big J wrote:
On July 09 2012 05:52 Toastie.NL wrote:
On July 09 2012 05:43 Pinna wrote:
On July 08 2012 11:25 Shiori wrote:


Just why do Terrans think that ravens are a god-awful unit and an ridicilously expensive one?

Because they are, and because 1 slip up means they all get Fungaled and you lose thousands of Gas.

Yes, because it is like terrans use all their gas in the lategame. Oh wait.. Using ravens brings Terran to the same situation as Zerg and Protoss are already in, which is: lose your army once, lose the game.
What he means is that Ravens have a casting range of 6 (IIRC) on Seeker Missile (the useful spell) which can be countered with a range 8+2 spell for Zerg or a range 9 spell for Protoss. Ravens rely on the opponent not paying attention to get their shots off. And once they got them off, they'll die regardless.

Why won't we see thors in the lategame compositions?
We do.

I disagree. Thors are actually ok'ish if you can get them to target the broodlords before they un-split. Thors are also good against the ultralisk-switches which may be incoming if you make a ton of vikings. And if the Zerg is starting to run away, you might get to snipe couple of infestors with them.
Again, using thors relies on your opponent not splitting (and thus messing up), also, Thors without an upgrade advantage do pretty terrible damage.


Why can't BC:s be buffed?
Because Blizzard hates buffing Capital Ships.

I agree, and that's because of the strenght of the basic units.


That, and the fact that 3/3/3 Carriers or 3/3 Battlecruisers are pretty fucking powerful units, it's just hard to transition into them.


Fungal has range 9 (+radius 2)

And yes, clumping air is bad, spreading it out too far is bad as well. When you move stuff clumps automatically, so good spreading is not possible. But amazingly, such comments come from Terrans that keep on complaining about how spreading up armies against splah and keeping it spread is so hard.

I agree on the BCs (and Carriers and also on Ravens) being really hard to transition into properly. However, I don't think anybody apart from MVP even has a proper gameplan for such a thing yet - and MVP simply gets there when he wants to, because - unlike everyone else - he sets up for it.


creator vs Coca in gstl recently. Sets up really well for carrier transition, but imo the build time is way too long and makes them unviable; he literally loses 100 supply and 2 mining bases while trying to pump one round of carriers out. The game is designed so that you need to stay 200/200 in the late game and throwing away a chunk of supply for carriers or BC's leads to an impossible to defend counter attack due to the strength of the infestor/BL comp which will kill what you have before you get a healthy number of capital ships out


lol, no he didnt setup properly. He went to 200/200 and then started building 7carriers when he was losing a combat and needed units instantly.It's what happens to Zergs when they max on roaches in ZvP, what happens to Terran when they max on MMM in TvP and apparently happens when you get destroyed in a battle and start 42 supply of carriers while your SGs are being sieged by a maxed (? or at least 50supply advantage BL) army (the creator game).
darthfoley
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States8003 Posts
July 08 2012 21:52 GMT
#4932
On July 09 2012 06:44 Corvi wrote:
here is how i would fix terran:

- vikings are now low armored
- vikings ground dmg +1
- ground mech updates effects viking ground dmg

here is what we would get:

1.: cant get killed so easily by infestors or focused down by stalkers

2.: dont let them and the fact you have air superiority be absolutely useless when opponent transitions away from broodlords or collossi.

3.: make mech viable tvp, to have at least one metal unit that doesnt get roflstomped by immortals.

what do you think?


that's actually an interesting idea, i'm not good enough to gauge it though (only high diamond)
watch the wall collide with my fist, mostly over problems that i know i should fix
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-08 21:55:49
July 08 2012 21:53 GMT
#4933
I think everyone's missing the bigger problem: neither Protoss nor Terran have any way of dealing with lategame Zerg reliably. Whether it's the massive, scaling economy which benefits from stacked Larva, or the potency of the Infestor/BL, both races have an incredibly hard time playing standard against lategame Zerg armies. While it's certainly true that there are numerous problems existing for mid and early game XvZ, mostly insofar as pressure has been totally stifled by patch after patch, the true problem is that this pressure is necessary. No matchup should be on a timer. Period.

Please don't give me any ridiculous examples about lategame TvP in BW. It's not the same. I want a dynamic matchup in XvZ, and right now we don't have it. Archon Toileting, trying to out-multitask your opponent, and so on are just gimmicky bandaids on the problem that is lategame Zerg. I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, but it needs to be a real change, or we're going to keep alternating between strategy X being too strong in he midgame and summarily being nerfed so that that race can't actually play anymore.

The real problem isn't that Terran's early game is/was too strong, or that Protoss's all-ins are/were too strong. Maybe they were, and maybe they still are, but it doesn't matter because that's the only way to play against Zerg. I desperately, dearly want to macro against Zerg, and on ladder I often do, but any time I know I'm playing someone who has good mechanics, I all-in, because even if we're evenly skilled, he'll beat me in a macro game just due to the obscene power of BL/Infestor compositions. Terrans work the same way. Of all the GM Terrans I know, not a single one wants to get into a macro situation against a player they know is skilled. They will always go for some sort of all-innish pressure opening, and only macro if it pays off.

This is bad, and I'm sick of hearing people just lament this particular change or that particular change or pretend that things can be fixed by increasing the movement speed of the BC or some bullshit. The problem is that Zerg's economy is untouchable for most of the game barring all-in pressure, and that Zergs think the level of economy they are allowed right now should be the baseline, so that whenever a strategy is developed that reliably denies 80 Drones before 10 minutes, they complain that it's overpowered. It's not. You shouldn't be getting that many Drones by 10 minutes, because it means you're fucking miles ahead.

It's so frustrating to read this thread sometimes because people don't understand that since Zerg's economy is so fucking steroided right now, anything which fixes the matchups will mean that ZERG IS WEAKER AND CAN'T DREAM OF GETTING A 15 MINUTE BL FORCE.

When a Terran/Protoss can 'risk-free' stop you from purely Droning in the early game, that's the way it should be. It's not imbalanced that they can do this. You should never be able to purely Drone against someone who's playing standard. Never. It's fucking obscene to even suggest that. You shouldn't be taking a free third at 5 minutes against someone who didn't fast expand.
gillon
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Sweden1578 Posts
July 08 2012 21:59 GMT
#4934
On July 09 2012 06:53 Shiori wrote:
I think everyone's missing the bigger problem: neither Protoss nor Terran have any way of dealing with lategame Zerg reliably. Whether it's the massive, scaling economy which benefits from stacked Larva, or the potency of the Infestor/BL, both races have an incredibly hard time playing standard against lategame Zerg armies. While it's certainly true that there are numerous problems existing for mid and early game XvZ, mostly insofar as pressure has been totally stifled by patch after patch, the true problem is that this pressure is necessary. No matchup should be on a timer. Period.

Please don't give me any ridiculous examples about lategame TvP in BW. It's not the same. I want a dynamic matchup in XvZ, and right now we don't have it. Archon Toileting, trying to out-multitask your opponent, and so on are just gimmicky bandaids on the problem that is lategame Zerg. I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, but it needs to be a real change, or we're going to keep alternating between strategy X being too strong in he midgame and summarily being nerfed so that that race can't actually play anymore.

The real problem isn't that Terran's early game is/was too strong, or that Protoss's all-ins are/were too strong. Maybe they were, and maybe they still are, but it doesn't matter because that's the only way to play against Zerg. I desperately, dearly want to macro against Zerg, and on ladder I often do, but any time I know I'm playing someone who has good mechanics, I all-in, because even if we're evenly skilled, he'll beat me in a macro game just due to the obscene power of BL/Infestor compositions. Terrans work the same way. Of all the GM Terrans I know, not a single one wants to get into a macro situation against a player they know is skilled. They will always go for some sort of all-innish pressure opening, and only macro if it pays off.

This is bad, and I'm sick of hearing people just lament this particular change or that particular change or pretend that things can be fixed by increasing the movement speed of the BC or some bullshit. The problem is that Zerg's economy is untouchable for most of the game barring all-in pressure, and that Zergs think the level of economy they are allowed right now should be the baseline, so that whenever a strategy is developed that reliably denies 80 Drones before 10 minutes, they complain that it's overpowered. It's not. You shouldn't be getting that many Drones by 10 minutes, because it means you're fucking miles ahead.

It's so frustrating to read this thread sometimes because people don't understand that since Zerg's economy is so fucking steroided right now, anything which fixes the matchups will mean that ZERG IS WEAKER AND CAN'T DREAM OF GETTING A 15 MINUTE BL FORCE.

When a Terran/Protoss can 'risk-free' stop you from purely Droning in the early game, that's the way it should be. It's not imbalanced that they can do this. You should never be able to purely Drone against someone who's playing standard. Never. It's fucking obscene to even suggest that. You shouldn't be taking a free third at 5 minutes against someone who didn't fast expand.


I agree, there are some serious fundamental problems with zerg economy, it's in such a ridiculous situation right now.
www.teamproperty.net | "You should hate losing, but you should never fear defeat." - 이윤열
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
July 08 2012 22:08 GMT
#4935
On July 09 2012 06:59 gillon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2012 06:53 Shiori wrote:
I think everyone's missing the bigger problem: neither Protoss nor Terran have any way of dealing with lategame Zerg reliably. Whether it's the massive, scaling economy which benefits from stacked Larva, or the potency of the Infestor/BL, both races have an incredibly hard time playing standard against lategame Zerg armies. While it's certainly true that there are numerous problems existing for mid and early game XvZ, mostly insofar as pressure has been totally stifled by patch after patch, the true problem is that this pressure is necessary. No matchup should be on a timer. Period.

Please don't give me any ridiculous examples about lategame TvP in BW. It's not the same. I want a dynamic matchup in XvZ, and right now we don't have it. Archon Toileting, trying to out-multitask your opponent, and so on are just gimmicky bandaids on the problem that is lategame Zerg. I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, but it needs to be a real change, or we're going to keep alternating between strategy X being too strong in he midgame and summarily being nerfed so that that race can't actually play anymore.

The real problem isn't that Terran's early game is/was too strong, or that Protoss's all-ins are/were too strong. Maybe they were, and maybe they still are, but it doesn't matter because that's the only way to play against Zerg. I desperately, dearly want to macro against Zerg, and on ladder I often do, but any time I know I'm playing someone who has good mechanics, I all-in, because even if we're evenly skilled, he'll beat me in a macro game just due to the obscene power of BL/Infestor compositions. Terrans work the same way. Of all the GM Terrans I know, not a single one wants to get into a macro situation against a player they know is skilled. They will always go for some sort of all-innish pressure opening, and only macro if it pays off.

This is bad, and I'm sick of hearing people just lament this particular change or that particular change or pretend that things can be fixed by increasing the movement speed of the BC or some bullshit. The problem is that Zerg's economy is untouchable for most of the game barring all-in pressure, and that Zergs think the level of economy they are allowed right now should be the baseline, so that whenever a strategy is developed that reliably denies 80 Drones before 10 minutes, they complain that it's overpowered. It's not. You shouldn't be getting that many Drones by 10 minutes, because it means you're fucking miles ahead.

It's so frustrating to read this thread sometimes because people don't understand that since Zerg's economy is so fucking steroided right now, anything which fixes the matchups will mean that ZERG IS WEAKER AND CAN'T DREAM OF GETTING A 15 MINUTE BL FORCE.

When a Terran/Protoss can 'risk-free' stop you from purely Droning in the early game, that's the way it should be. It's not imbalanced that they can do this. You should never be able to purely Drone against someone who's playing standard. Never. It's fucking obscene to even suggest that. You shouldn't be taking a free third at 5 minutes against someone who didn't fast expand.


I agree, there are some serious fundamental problems with zerg economy, it's in such a ridiculous situation right now.

It really is, and I'm so sick of reading the complacency that Zergs have adopted. "Have you tried this?" It doesn't matter. I shouldn't have to be trying all kinds of obscure shit just to get into an even position from something you do by default.
Gumbotwins
Profile Joined October 2011
Netherlands256 Posts
July 08 2012 22:12 GMT
#4936
+ Show Spoiler +
On July 09 2012 06:59 gillon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2012 06:53 Shiori wrote:
I think everyone's missing the bigger problem: neither Protoss nor Terran have any way of dealing with lategame Zerg reliably. Whether it's the massive, scaling economy which benefits from stacked Larva, or the potency of the Infestor/BL, both races have an incredibly hard time playing standard against lategame Zerg armies. While it's certainly true that there are numerous problems existing for mid and early game XvZ, mostly insofar as pressure has been totally stifled by patch after patch, the true problem is that this pressure is necessary. No matchup should be on a timer. Period.

Please don't give me any ridiculous examples about lategame TvP in BW. It's not the same. I want a dynamic matchup in XvZ, and right now we don't have it. Archon Toileting, trying to out-multitask your opponent, and so on are just gimmicky bandaids on the problem that is lategame Zerg. I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, but it needs to be a real change, or we're going to keep alternating between strategy X being too strong in he midgame and summarily being nerfed so that that race can't actually play anymore.

The real problem isn't that Terran's early game is/was too strong, or that Protoss's all-ins are/were too strong. Maybe they were, and maybe they still are, but it doesn't matter because that's the only way to play against Zerg. I desperately, dearly want to macro against Zerg, and on ladder I often do, but any time I know I'm playing someone who has good mechanics, I all-in, because even if we're evenly skilled, he'll beat me in a macro game just due to the obscene power of BL/Infestor compositions. Terrans work the same way. Of all the GM Terrans I know, not a single one wants to get into a macro situation against a player they know is skilled. They will always go for some sort of all-innish pressure opening, and only macro if it pays off.

This is bad, and I'm sick of hearing people just lament this particular change or that particular change or pretend that things can be fixed by increasing the movement speed of the BC or some bullshit. The problem is that Zerg's economy is untouchable for most of the game barring all-in pressure, and that Zergs think the level of economy they are allowed right now should be the baseline, so that whenever a strategy is developed that reliably denies 80 Drones before 10 minutes, they complain that it's overpowered. It's not. You shouldn't be getting that many Drones by 10 minutes, because it means you're fucking miles ahead.

It's so frustrating to read this thread sometimes because people don't understand that since Zerg's economy is so fucking steroided right now, anything which fixes the matchups will mean that ZERG IS WEAKER AND CAN'T DREAM OF GETTING A 15 MINUTE BL FORCE.

When a Terran/Protoss can 'risk-free' stop you from purely Droning in the early game, that's the way it should be. It's not imbalanced that they can do this. You should never be able to purely Drone against someone who's playing standard. Never. It's fucking obscene to even suggest that. You shouldn't be taking a free third at 5 minutes against someone who didn't fast expand.


I agree, there are some serious fundamental problems with zerg economy, it's in such a ridiculous situation right now.


100% agree with this fine man
Polt, MMA, MVP. Terran triforce!
darthfoley
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States8003 Posts
July 08 2012 22:12 GMT
#4937
On July 09 2012 07:08 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 09 2012 06:59 gillon wrote:
On July 09 2012 06:53 Shiori wrote:
I think everyone's missing the bigger problem: neither Protoss nor Terran have any way of dealing with lategame Zerg reliably. Whether it's the massive, scaling economy which benefits from stacked Larva, or the potency of the Infestor/BL, both races have an incredibly hard time playing standard against lategame Zerg armies. While it's certainly true that there are numerous problems existing for mid and early game XvZ, mostly insofar as pressure has been totally stifled by patch after patch, the true problem is that this pressure is necessary. No matchup should be on a timer. Period.

Please don't give me any ridiculous examples about lategame TvP in BW. It's not the same. I want a dynamic matchup in XvZ, and right now we don't have it. Archon Toileting, trying to out-multitask your opponent, and so on are just gimmicky bandaids on the problem that is lategame Zerg. I'm not entirely sure how to fix it, but it needs to be a real change, or we're going to keep alternating between strategy X being too strong in he midgame and summarily being nerfed so that that race can't actually play anymore.

The real problem isn't that Terran's early game is/was too strong, or that Protoss's all-ins are/were too strong. Maybe they were, and maybe they still are, but it doesn't matter because that's the only way to play against Zerg. I desperately, dearly want to macro against Zerg, and on ladder I often do, but any time I know I'm playing someone who has good mechanics, I all-in, because even if we're evenly skilled, he'll beat me in a macro game just due to the obscene power of BL/Infestor compositions. Terrans work the same way. Of all the GM Terrans I know, not a single one wants to get into a macro situation against a player they know is skilled. They will always go for some sort of all-innish pressure opening, and only macro if it pays off.

This is bad, and I'm sick of hearing people just lament this particular change or that particular change or pretend that things can be fixed by increasing the movement speed of the BC or some bullshit. The problem is that Zerg's economy is untouchable for most of the game barring all-in pressure, and that Zergs think the level of economy they are allowed right now should be the baseline, so that whenever a strategy is developed that reliably denies 80 Drones before 10 minutes, they complain that it's overpowered. It's not. You shouldn't be getting that many Drones by 10 minutes, because it means you're fucking miles ahead.

It's so frustrating to read this thread sometimes because people don't understand that since Zerg's economy is so fucking steroided right now, anything which fixes the matchups will mean that ZERG IS WEAKER AND CAN'T DREAM OF GETTING A 15 MINUTE BL FORCE.

When a Terran/Protoss can 'risk-free' stop you from purely Droning in the early game, that's the way it should be. It's not imbalanced that they can do this. You should never be able to purely Drone against someone who's playing standard. Never. It's fucking obscene to even suggest that. You shouldn't be taking a free third at 5 minutes against someone who didn't fast expand.


I agree, there are some serious fundamental problems with zerg economy, it's in such a ridiculous situation right now.

It really is, and I'm so sick of reading the complacency that Zergs have adopted. "Have you tried this?" It doesn't matter. I shouldn't have to be trying all kinds of obscure shit just to get into an even position from something you do by default.


you've sold me through your last 3 posts. you make sense
watch the wall collide with my fist, mostly over problems that i know i should fix
TibblesEvilCat
Profile Joined March 2010
United Kingdom766 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-07-08 22:20:21
July 08 2012 22:14 GMT
#4938
i don't understand why people are stressing so bad, if the changes are really that horribley bad, changes will made or unmade etc.

My issue is the maps are HUGE! i mean really? were talking 2 min rush distances for some of these maps, i think there needs to be some scale down with some maps.

To understand what that means to a lowish zerg player?

* can scout a push happening late and still have 1-2 rounds of units to defend

pro player

* scout push happening, setup awsome flanks, and still get to 90 drones comfortabily etc

that my issue, if players played some of the more oldschool maps vs there freinds, you'll see that you can still do timing pushes that punnish zerg for not doing everything correct there side
Live Fast Die Young :D
Willzzz
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom774 Posts
July 08 2012 22:16 GMT
#4939
Yes but you once you test it out and find that it works it becomes the new default.

Hellions were default between the queen buff, but they weren't default until they were 'discovered'.

Oh and I play terran

But yeah queens seem to do too many jobs for just one unit, they are too versatile.
neoghaleon55
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7435 Posts
July 08 2012 22:18 GMT
#4940
On July 09 2012 07:16 Willzzz wrote:
Yes but you once you test it out and find that it works it becomes the new default.

Hellions were default between the queen buff, but they weren't default until they were 'discovered'.

Oh and I play terran

But yeah queens seem to do too many jobs for just one unit, they are too versatile.


...kind of like the marine...wouldn't you agree?
moo...for DRG
Prev 1 245 246 247 248 249 1266 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 41m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
OGKoka 81
ProTech67
StarCraft: Brood War
firebathero 1233
actioN 1099
PianO 184
Leta 149
Dewaltoss 70
soO 69
Sharp 53
Noble 35
sorry 30
NaDa 14
[ Show more ]
Sacsri 9
Dota 2
XcaliburYe1318
BananaSlamJamma252
NeuroSwarm129
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K549
olofmeister493
shoxiejesuss239
allub195
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King43
Other Games
ceh9484
XaKoH 182
Pyrionflax131
SortOf97
Trikslyr25
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick418
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• OhrlRock 54
• LUISG 23
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt1311
• Jankos437
• HappyZerGling88
Upcoming Events
LiuLi Cup
2h 41m
OSC
10h 41m
RSL Revival
1d 1h
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
1d 4h
RSL Revival
2 days
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
3 days
RSL Revival
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
Wardi Open
5 days
Monday Night Weeklies
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.