|
On July 16 2012 02:00 Toadvine wrote:
In a general sense, a buff to Zerg units and a nerf to their macro mechanics would be the best way to make the game reasonable again. What we'll probably get with HotS instead, is a huge nerf to all the new Zerg units, because having 80 drones at the 10 minute mark will make them extremely overpowered.
Wow, you can't play zvt and ask for a buff to zerg units. Ultralisk + infestor or broodlord + infestor is insanely strong. Mass speedling stephano style is sick good. Muta ling bling is doing very well.
The problem with tvz is IMO that zerg units are too cost efficient.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On July 16 2012 04:16 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 02:00 Toadvine wrote:
In a general sense, a buff to Zerg units and a nerf to their macro mechanics would be the best way to make the game reasonable again. What we'll probably get with HotS instead, is a huge nerf to all the new Zerg units, because having 80 drones at the 10 minute mark will make them extremely overpowered. Wow, you can't play zvt and ask for a buff to zerg units. Ultralisk + infestor or broodlord + infestor is insanely strong. Mass speedling stephano style is sick good. Muta ling bling is doing very well. The problem with tvz is IMO that zerg units are too cost efficient.
Too cost efficient as Zerg when there are Marines?
Are you serious?
|
On July 16 2012 02:51 Rabiator wrote:
The only change I see as "potentially viable" is to make certain Terran (Siege Tank, Thor, BC) and Protoss (Colossus, Immortal, Carrier) units FAR superior to Zerg ones in such a way that they NEED the production to keep up.
You hit the nail on the head here. Zerg units are way too strong atm, and that's imo the only problem with the matchup. Siegetanks +10 or + 15 attack would help a ton. In this way zergs need the production like you said, and it will all balance out.
|
On July 16 2012 04:17 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 04:16 Snowbear wrote:On July 16 2012 02:00 Toadvine wrote:
In a general sense, a buff to Zerg units and a nerf to their macro mechanics would be the best way to make the game reasonable again. What we'll probably get with HotS instead, is a huge nerf to all the new Zerg units, because having 80 drones at the 10 minute mark will make them extremely overpowered. Wow, you can't play zvt and ask for a buff to zerg units. Ultralisk + infestor or broodlord + infestor is insanely strong. Mass speedling stephano style is sick good. Muta ling bling is doing very well. The problem with tvz is IMO that zerg units are too cost efficient. Too cost efficient as Zerg when there are Marines? Are you serious?
I am serious yes. If terrans can't win maxed fights, then they can't win the game. I know this is a bold statement, but look at the macro mechanics. Zerg is the race that can remax the fastest. If they win a battle, then the terran needs a ton of time to rebuild his army. Meanwhile the zerg can remax and crush the terran. Another problem are the tech switches.
Watch any pro terran die to ultra ling bling infestor or broodlord infestor , and then come back and ask for zerg unit buffs.
|
On July 16 2012 04:19 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 02:51 Rabiator wrote:
The only change I see as "potentially viable" is to make certain Terran (Siege Tank, Thor, BC) and Protoss (Colossus, Immortal, Carrier) units FAR superior to Zerg ones in such a way that they NEED the production to keep up. You hit the nail on the head here. Zerg units are way too strong atm, and that's imo the only problem with the matchup. Siegetanks +10 or + 15 attack would help a ton. In this way zergs need the production like you said, and it will all balance out.
Terran units are already superior to Zerg T1 and T2 units (except for the infestor).
Zerg does not win a battle with even cost armies, but a lot of mechanics allow them to go for more costly armies than Terran armies, so that in terms of costs it's always an unfair battle.
The mechanics I have in mind are:
-) speed and creep, so you always have all your army in one place
-) larva, so when you get attacked, you can stall out and outproduce terran for the time of him being on the map and if he is not off the map fast enough, or reinforced fast enough, you just have a bigger army in one place
-) baneling morphs quickly and easily heighten the army strength of zerg, independ from production buildings
-) Terran production and the balancing that zerg units win in the low, Terran in the high amounts of equal costs (like lings vs marines, single siege tanks against anything, single thors against anything) make it impossible to rally for Terran, so Zerg always has a timing window in which he has already produced more and can use it, but Terran had to wait for a bigger blob to reinforce.
The only costefficient units of zerg are Broodlords and Infestors (and corruptors vs air), when it comes to even amount high supply battles. Ultralisks and banelings can be such as well, but that's very position, creep and infestor dependend.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On July 16 2012 04:21 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 04:17 ysnake wrote:On July 16 2012 04:16 Snowbear wrote:On July 16 2012 02:00 Toadvine wrote:
In a general sense, a buff to Zerg units and a nerf to their macro mechanics would be the best way to make the game reasonable again. What we'll probably get with HotS instead, is a huge nerf to all the new Zerg units, because having 80 drones at the 10 minute mark will make them extremely overpowered. Wow, you can't play zvt and ask for a buff to zerg units. Ultralisk + infestor or broodlord + infestor is insanely strong. Mass speedling stephano style is sick good. Muta ling bling is doing very well. The problem with tvz is IMO that zerg units are too cost efficient. Too cost efficient as Zerg when there are Marines? Are you serious? I am serious yes. If terrans can't win maxed fights, then they can't win the game. I know this is a bold statement, but look at the macro mechanics. Zerg is the race that can remax the fastest. If they win a battle, then the terran needs a ton of time to rebuild his army. Meanwhile the zerg can remax and crush the terran. Another problem are the tech switches. Watch any pro terran die to ultra ling bling infestor or broodlord infestor , and then come back and ask for zerg unit buffs.
Hmm, Zerg NEEDS to be able to produce more units than you because the units are not cost efficient when compared to Terran's units.
I do agree that gglord composition (I hate to use it, but hear me out) is a bit imbalanced, but so is the fact that a Zerg cannot touch a Terran's base unless he is doing an allin or flying around with Mutas. That's what they are bringing in HotS, the ability for Zerg to finish off his opponent after gaining a significant lead, this might lead to gglords being nerfed and I am all up for that as Ultralisks can finally be of some use (they are useful now, but they are just godhorrible tier 3 units) and we (Zergs) might finally get that feeling of playing Zerg again, instead of some grim reaper force called Brood Lords.
|
|
|
On July 16 2012 04:16 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 02:00 Toadvine wrote:
In a general sense, a buff to Zerg units and a nerf to their macro mechanics would be the best way to make the game reasonable again. What we'll probably get with HotS instead, is a huge nerf to all the new Zerg units, because having 80 drones at the 10 minute mark will make them extremely overpowered. Wow, you can't play zvt and ask for a buff to zerg units. Ultralisk + infestor or broodlord + infestor is insanely strong. Mass speedling stephano style is sick good. Muta ling bling is doing very well. The problem with tvz is IMO that zerg units are too cost efficient.
I was thinking more in terms of buffs to lings, roaches, hydras, corruptors, and so forth. You yourself admit that most of this stuff is powerful because of the possibility of an instant remax after a battle. Which is why I'm advocating a nerf to larvae generation at the same time, so that Zerg can play a bit more like Terran or Protoss in terms of economy/production.
One of the reasons muta/ling/bling vs marine/tank used to be such a cool matchup, is because the Zerg is a bit less cost-efficient, but more mobile, and a bit ahead in economy. while Terran has the better units. Nowadays it isn't like that simply because Zerg is too far ahead by default.
|
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good
|
Zerg is flat-out broken against both Protoss AND Terran in the current build of the game. Arguing back and forth about whether or not change is warranted is pointless - it's obvious to pretty much everyone who plays the game and isn't a balance-blind, low-level Zerg player that one of two things need to happen. Either Zerg needs to be nerfed in some way to bring them in line, or Protoss and Terran both need to be buffed to bring them up in line with Zerg WITHOUT breaking the TvP matchup, which is the only non-mirror matchup in the game that is balanced at this point. Personally, I am in favor of the former option, because it makes more sense to change one overpowered race than to change two races which are already balanced relative to one another just because the 3rd race is more powerful. Anyone who can't see that Zerg having the strongest maxed army of all 3 races AND being able to remax into the same army faster than the other 2 races is a problem is stupid or insane.
|
On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good
Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50
Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5
Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75
Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50
Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3
Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0
Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them:
Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50
Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5
Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6
Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3
Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5
Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0
Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75
Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50
Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3
Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25
Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25
Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0
So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army.
Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas.
Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors.
If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame.
|
On July 16 2012 04:47 Masvidal wrote:
Anyone who can't see that Zerg having the strongest maxed army of all 3 races AND being able to remax into the same army faster than the other 2 races is a problem is stupid or insane.
I totally agree with this. People really should stop pointing at the queen. The queen makes zergs more allin proof, which is nice imo. The problem is just the zerg army that is way too strong. Keep this queen change, but nerf zerg units or buff terran (tanks for example, this doesn't break tvp) and protoss (carrier?) units.
|
On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame.
Let's imagine a maxed ling bling infestor ultra army. It will kill the terran army (unless the zerg fucks up). The zerg will remax faster, and the terran will lose his expansions. Zerg is maxed and can put more money in his eco. How can the terran ever win???
|
|
|
On July 16 2012 05:30 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame. Let's imagine a maxed ling bling infestor ultra army. It will kill the terran army (unless the zerg fucks up). The zerg will remax faster, and the terran will lose his expansions. Zerg is maxed and can put more money in his eco. How can the terran ever win???
A maxed ling/bling/infestor/Ultra army gets DESTROYED by a maxed Tank/Thor/Hellion(Ghost) army and can't even fight a maxed BC/Raven force.
If you insist on going bio or biomech against Zerg in the lategame, then you have to avoid big main army engagements at all costs, because the Zerg army is simply stronger, because it is simply way more costly.
Again, I'm not saying that the game is balanced in the lategame, because the transitioning is too hard for Terran and the "timing window" for Broodlords therefore is way to big. (while the same does not hold for Protoss; transitioning into Archons (Warpgatebased) and Mothership (only one needed) is quite OK)
|
On July 16 2012 04:17 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 04:16 Snowbear wrote:On July 16 2012 02:00 Toadvine wrote:
In a general sense, a buff to Zerg units and a nerf to their macro mechanics would be the best way to make the game reasonable again. What we'll probably get with HotS instead, is a huge nerf to all the new Zerg units, because having 80 drones at the 10 minute mark will make them extremely overpowered. Wow, you can't play zvt and ask for a buff to zerg units. Ultralisk + infestor or broodlord + infestor is insanely strong. Mass speedling stephano style is sick good. Muta ling bling is doing very well. The problem with tvz is IMO that zerg units are too cost efficient. Too cost efficient as Zerg when there are Marines? Are you serious?
Zerglings are more cost efficient than marines. Zerglings + banelings are even more cost efficient. 3 infestors can melt 40 marines. How cost efficient is that?
|
|
|
On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame.
Is that your definition of cost-efficiency? You just state how much minerals/gas 1 supply of a certain unit costs which is basically a useless fact in the first place, if you ask me.
Cost-efficiency basically means that I need to spend less ressources on fighting units than my opponent to be on equal army strength.
Btw you missed one unit in your list: The Roach with "37,5/12,5" per supply if I am not mistaken. From what you are presenting there it seems to be the most "cost efficient" unit in the game (going by that imo wrong definition by you). Oh and guess what the staple unit in ZvP is these days. Right...
|
i love how people can assume that zerg can just''remax'' faster, the only reason most pro zergs win lategame is because they already have an advantage so they have time to max out larvea.I rarely see zerg max army being sucesful when they arent compeltetly in control of the game.
|
On July 16 2012 05:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 04:42 Crying wrote:
you guys are joking right
zerg not cost efficient???
BL/Infestor???
Ling/Ultra/Baneling/Infestor???
You joke right?
And you know that actually if protoss makes air to deal with BLs they die to a fungal?
And if we build colossus the zerg can pop 15corrupturs and NO BLINK can deal but not enoughly good Cost of Baneling per supply: 100/50 Cost of Broodlord per supply: 75/62,5 Cost of Infestor per supply: 50/75 Cost of Corruptor per supply: 75/50 Cost of Ultralisk per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Zergling per supply: 50/0 Now let's compare them to what Protoss and Terrans use against them: Cost of Medivac per supply: 50/50 Cost of Viking per supply: 75/37,5 Cost of Tank per supply: 50/41,6 Cost of Thor per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Marauder per supply: 50/12.5 Cost of Marine per supply: 50/0 Cost of HT and (HT-) Archon per supply: 25/75 Cost of Mothership per supply: 50/50 Cost of Colossus per supply: 50/33,3 Cost of Immortal per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Stalker per supply: 62,5/25 Cost of Zealot per supply: 50/0 So no, in even supply the "usual" Zerg endgame army just costs way more (and is therefore not "costefficient") than the "usual" P/T army. Funny enough, if you start using more and more Archons and a mothership and add in HTs (25/75) for carpet storming and replace stalkers with carriers (75/41,6), Protoss does very well because then they use armies that actually cost a similar amount of minerals and gas. Similar for Terrans that use Ravens (50/100) and BCs (66,6/50) and the occasional ghost (100/50) to EMP and snipe Infestors. If there is a problem with BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf (or whatever exact mixture of units is best), it is that zerg gets such an army way before Terran and Protoss, which can't switch into their respective "perfect armies" (so armies that don't use marines or marauders or stalkers) easily in the lategame.
I don't exactly see what you are trying to argue with these numbers. Just because an army is "more expensive" (and I use that very loosely) doesn't mean that it isn't more cost effective.
Also, the issue with units aren't their cost.....its their viability. Teching to BCs and Carriers with good upgrades takes 5 years.....and the investment in tech itself its incredibly expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
