|
On July 16 2012 05:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 05:30 Snowbear wrote: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)
This is not entirely true. BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf will beat Terran on creep with the same supply and even perfect split and perfect positioning of tanks. But when off creep it's true that Terran can beat that zerg late-game composition. You can try that in the unit tester.
But Let's be honest, here is a list the recent zerg champions:
WCS China
WCS Canada
WCS South Amercia
WCS France
WCS UK
WCS Poland
WCS Combined European
WCS USA
WCS New Zealand
WCS Chile
|
|
|
On July 16 2012 09:48 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 09:18 larse wrote:On July 16 2012 05:40 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:30 Snowbear wrote: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) This is not entirely true. BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf will beat Terran on creep with the same supply and even perfect split and perfect positioning of tanks. But when off creep it's true that Terran can beat that zerg late-game composition. You can try that in the unit tester. But Let's be honest, here is a list the recent zerg champions: WCS China WCS Canada WCS South Amercia WCS France WCS UK WCS Poland WCS Combined European WCS USA WCS New Zealand WCS Chile lol.... and the other WCS?
I think there are 3 or 4 protoss, and 2 terran in all other WCS.
Anticipating an all zerg WCS Global. The biggest event in SC2 history and the one that Blizzard plans so long for the goal of promoting SC2. If it's ZvZ all day long, Blizzard's whole point of promoting SC2 will fail miserably.
|
On July 16 2012 10:06 larse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 09:48 monkybone wrote:On July 16 2012 09:18 larse wrote:On July 16 2012 05:40 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:30 Snowbear wrote: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) This is not entirely true. BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf will beat Terran on creep with the same supply and even perfect split and perfect positioning of tanks. But when off creep it's true that Terran can beat that zerg late-game composition. You can try that in the unit tester. But Let's be honest, here is a list the recent zerg champions: WCS China WCS Canada WCS South Amercia WCS France WCS UK WCS Poland WCS Combined European WCS USA WCS New Zealand WCS Chile lol.... and the other WCS? I think there are 3 or 4 protoss, and 2 terran in all other WCS. Anticipating an all zerg WCS Global. The biggest event in SC2 history and the one that Blizzard plans so long for the goal of promoting SC2. If it's ZvZ all day long, Blizzard's whole point of promoting SC2 will fain miserably.
I will laugh so hard if it turns out that way. Still, ZvZ is a lot better than it used to be, so it might not be totally awful.
|
Zerg really seem dominant atm, Terran relatively up, and protoss slightly more viable but still up to protoss imo, looking at the tournaments in general, about 70% of pvz I've watched have been zerg victories, and the only ones they've lost is when there is some "non-standard" play. This isn't right, and I agree if the WCS finals are ZvZ I will laugh.
|
Zerg is looking strong but... don't forget
+ Show Spoiler [NASL] +what MC did to Ret. It just seems ATM protoss has to work a lot harder.
|
|
|
On July 16 2012 10:30 CursOr wrote:Zerg is looking strong but... don't forget + Show Spoiler [NASL] +what MC did to Ret. It just seems ATM protoss has to work a lot harder.
But what about terran? 
|
The problem of PvZ is not the winrate. The winrate is fine. The problem is that Protoss's strategy is always centered on getting that DPS density deathball and try to roll over zerg in that one attack. If the attack fail then it's a gg. Pretty static matchup and there is basically no strategic diversity. It's extremely boring to watch, plus there have been like 1000 PvZ lately. Every matchup is either PvZ or ZvZ.
|
On July 16 2012 10:30 CursOr wrote:Zerg is looking strong but... don't forget + Show Spoiler [NASL] +what MC did to Ret. It just seems ATM protoss has to work a lot harder.
+ Show Spoiler [NASL] +I'm pretty sure that was just a showcase of a huge skillgap, I honestly think MC was playing better than Stephano yet he lost
and yea Terrans are kinda getting fucked lately lol, sorry guys
|
On July 16 2012 10:33 larse wrote:
The problem of PvZ is not the winrate. The winrate is fine. The problem is that Protoss's strategy is always centered on getting that DPS density deathball and try to roll over zerg in that one attack. If the attack fail then it's a gg. Pretty static matchup and there is basically no strategic diversity. It's extremely boring to watch, plus there have been like 1000 PvZ lately. Every matchup is either PvZ or ZvZ.
Yeah, PvZ isn't an imbalanced match-up. It's just really poorly designed. You don't have that many options as a Protoss and everything relies on one big move like a Vortex or Forcefield.
|
Honestly, I would like to see Blizzard fully revoke a change for once. Just once. Like they say they will if things turn out bad. Leave the speedlords and remove the 5 ground range for queens. That would make them look reasonable, for once.
The funny thing is, that I think part of the reason they did it, is, if you notice the new queens for HOTS have no Antenna for the 3 range attack... they are a sleeker version. No reason that couldn't be a 3 range for ground units- reguardless. I urge Blizzard to consider a 1 change balance patch. Revoke Queen range.
|
Now the balance situation is even worse than Terran in 2010 and 2011. The Terran domination is most just centered on GSL but not in NA and EU in 2010 and 2011. It's slightly lean to Terran favor in NA and EU in 2010 and 2011, but people obviously exaggerate the Terran domination outside Korea and GSL. Don't forget that MC and Nestea had their best results in 2010 and 2011.
|
|
|
On July 16 2012 10:35 Kluey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 10:33 larse wrote:
The problem of PvZ is not the winrate. The winrate is fine. The problem is that Protoss's strategy is always centered on getting that DPS density deathball and try to roll over zerg in that one attack. If the attack fail then it's a gg. Pretty static matchup and there is basically no strategic diversity. It's extremely boring to watch, plus there have been like 1000 PvZ lately. Every matchup is either PvZ or ZvZ. Yeah, PvZ isn't an imbalanced match-up. It's just really poorly designed. You don't have that many options as a Protoss and everything relies on one big move like a Vortex or Forcefield.
I've been saying that for a while, the overall matchup is balanced. Each individual game however is not. It all depends on the protoss' use of ff or vortex. That's literally it. It's especially crippling at lower leagues.
|
On July 16 2012 09:18 larse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 05:40 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:30 Snowbear wrote: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) This is not entirely true. BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf will beat Terran on creep with the same supply and even perfect split and perfect positioning of tanks. But when off creep it's true that Terran can beat that zerg late-game composition. You can try that in the unit tester.
Yeah, I just did try it and the Thor/Tank composition wins against Ultra/bling/Infestor that sandwitches it open field. Though I forgot to add creep, so it might actually be quite even on creep if zerg can get a full surround.
Setup was
8 Thors
12 tanks
84 supply, 4200minerals/3100gas
8 Ultras
48 banelings
6 Infestors (throwing ITs)
84supply, 5400minerals/3700gas
5Thors, 5Tanks (though 3nearly dead) left over.
http://drop.sc/222629
Though I do agree (and never said differently) that BL/Inf/Cor beats such a composition.
|
On July 16 2012 10:37 larse wrote:
Now the balance situation is even worse than Terran in 2010 and 2011. The Terran domination is most just centered on GSL but not in NA and EU in 2010 and 2011. It's slightly lean to Terran favor in NA and EU in 2010 and 2011, but people obviously exaggerate the Terran domination outside Korea and GSL. Don't forget that MC and Nestea had their best results in 2010 and 2011.
puma ?any1 ?
|
Why does protoss only need to warpin and A-move? i mean seriously they don't need mechanical skills at ALL!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 16 2012 10:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 09:18 larse wrote:On July 16 2012 05:40 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:30 Snowbear wrote: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) This is not entirely true. BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf will beat Terran on creep with the same supply and even perfect split and perfect positioning of tanks. But when off creep it's true that Terran can beat that zerg late-game composition. You can try that in the unit tester. Yeah, I just did try it and the Thor/Tank composition wins against Ultra/bling/Infestor that sandwitches it open field. Though I forgot to add creep, so it might actually be quite even on creep if zerg can get a full surround. Setup was 8 Thors 12 tanks 84 supply, 4200minerals/3100gas 8 Ultras 48 banelings 6 Infestors (throwing ITs) 84supply, 5400minerals/3700gas 5Thors, 5Tanks (though 3nearly dead) left over. http://drop.sc/222629Though I do agree (and never said differently) that BL/Inf/Cor beats such a composition.
i dont see the point of going 48 banelings ?? there is no bio . and baneling die faster then speedlings . go for speedlings instead and see what happens , flank from 2 sides aswel and use creep
|
On July 16 2012 10:50 xsnac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 10:43 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 09:18 larse wrote:On July 16 2012 05:40 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 05:30 Snowbear wrote: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) This is not entirely true. BL/Inf/Cor or Ultra/bling/inf will beat Terran on creep with the same supply and even perfect split and perfect positioning of tanks. But when off creep it's true that Terran can beat that zerg late-game composition. You can try that in the unit tester. Yeah, I just did try it and the Thor/Tank composition wins against Ultra/bling/Infestor that sandwitches it open field. Though I forgot to add creep, so it might actually be quite even on creep if zerg can get a full surround. Setup was 8 Thors 12 tanks 84 supply, 4200minerals/3100gas 8 Ultras 48 banelings 6 Infestors (throwing ITs) 84supply, 5400minerals/3700gas 5Thors, 5Tanks (though 3nearly dead) left over. http://drop.sc/222629Though I do agree (and never said differently) that BL/Inf/Cor beats such a composition. i dont see the point of going 48 banelings ?? there is no bio . and baneling die faster then speedlings . go for speedlings instead and see what happens , flank from 2 sides aswel and use creep
I don't either see the point. It was not my idea to use this composition. But I mean, if we add zerglings and add hellions, the outcome will be just worse for the zerg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
