|
On July 16 2012 14:29 baba1 wrote:
Because the only thing you guys are talking about is how zerg should get nerfed? And nothing about how protoss and terran could evolve/step it up?
Like all protoss and terrans are at 100% of their potential and everything about the pvz and tvz metagame has been discovered in 2 years... Lot of things can change and it doesn't have to be Blizzard changing them.
I geuss Terran is the only race that is allowed to be nerfed?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 16 2012 14:34 xPabt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:29 baba1 wrote:
Because the only thing you guys are talking about is how zerg should get nerfed? And nothing about how protoss and terran could evolve/step it up?
Like all protoss and terrans are at 100% of their potential and everything about the pvz and tvz metagame has been discovered in 2 years... Lot of things can change and it doesn't have to be Blizzard changing them. I geuss Terran is the only race that is allowed to be nerfed?
All races got buffed or nerfed at some point and at different degrees in the last 2 years. Next question
|
On July 16 2012 14:29 baba1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:21 uzushould wrote:On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
hell my 11 year old brother comes up with better arguments....if ur not willing or able to discuss in a prober way, just stay out of it, please. Because the only thing you guys are talking about is how zerg should get nerfed? And nothing about how protoss and terran could evolve/step it up? Like all protoss and terrans are at 100% of their potential and everything about the pvz and tvz metagame has been discovered in 2 years... Lot of things can change and it doesn't have to be Blizzard changing them.
pfff
pretty arrogant to asume that the zerg players have allready figgured out everything while the terran players haven t and therefor terran is weaker while in truth the matchup is balanced.
one could allways say this, and i m so fucking tired of hearing it, ppl like you would also say the same sentence if there are only zergs in the gm left and zerg made place1-3 in the last 50 tornaments....you d still argue with that "blablabla maybe terrans just need to figgure out blablabla bullshit"
fact is, right now zerg is op, latest balance changes where long enough ago that the players had time to adapt, but things just got worst for terran since then, so NOW is the time to act.....and bliz will do so, hopefully
|
On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
When the 2 times gsl winner beats an eu zerg that is currently ranked 60 in gm, I hardly think balance was involved. MC is just the better player.
On the other hand, when a rookie zerg beats the 4 times gsl champ, we might worry a bit. So will Mr Kim and company.
|
On July 16 2012 11:13 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 11:04 xsnac wrote:On July 16 2012 10:52 Big J wrote:On July 16 2012 10:50 xsnac wrote: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. remove banelings add zerlings . dont add helions dont add nothing new . just dont mortph 48 zerlings into banelings . thats it . and all zergs flank from 2 sides try that aswel . btw about balance : i got pissed how protoss has to do something and commit to an attack*4 gate +1 preasure* or some sort of indirect damage*stargate opening* before 9 minute mark to not get rulled over at 11 minute mark by maxxed out zerg on roach and speedlings . and after you did this you still have to defend by the 12 minute mark maxxed out zerg meanwhile zerg just a move with a maxxed out army while grabbing a 4'th , if he fails wich happens 50% of times , he will tech up to broodlords and infestors with tones of spines in his 4'th . p.s. the only way protoss can kill zerg imho before broodlords is when zerg does absolutely no damage with his roach 200/200 timing . and that my friend is near impossible . hopefuly mothership core will allow protoss to secure a 3'd much easier so we can keep up with zerg macro . For non-Zerg having to pressure Zerg is and has been starcraft game design since broodwar. Larva mechanics makes it possible for Zerg to go drone only or unit only production while Terran/Protoss produce both at the same time. So, Terran/Protoss has to pressure Zerg to force units instead of drones. There needs to be balance there as you and many pointed out, but you cannot deny this game design/concept itself.
In BW Terran had the option to play a turtleing macro game vs Z. In my opinion it made the match up much more interesting.
|
On July 16 2012 14:36 uzushould wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:29 baba1 wrote:On July 16 2012 14:21 uzushould wrote:On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
hell my 11 year old brother comes up with better arguments....if ur not willing or able to discuss in a prober way, just stay out of it, please. Because the only thing you guys are talking about is how zerg should get nerfed? And nothing about how protoss and terran could evolve/step it up? Like all protoss and terrans are at 100% of their potential and everything about the pvz and tvz metagame has been discovered in 2 years... Lot of things can change and it doesn't have to be Blizzard changing them. pfff pretty arrogant to asume that the zerg players have allready figgured out everything while the terran players haven t and therefor terran is weaker while in truth the matchup is balanced. one could allways say this, and i m so fucking tired of hearing it, ppl like you would also say the same sentence if there are only zergs in the gm left and zerg made place1-3 in the last 50 tornaments....you d still argue with that "blablabla maybe terrans just need to figgure out blablabla bullshit" fact is, right now zerg is op, latest balance changes where long enough ago that the players had time to adapt, but things just got worst for terran since then, so NOW is the time to act.....and bliz will do so, hopefully
Where did you read that zerg have figured out everything? You are just putting words in my mouth. Zerg might be one step ahead right now, doesn't mean that they have figured out everything and that the only way to fix things is to nerf zerg.
|
well to justify the results zerg is having against terra and even toss latetly would imply zerg to be at least 10 steps ahead of terra. Its not like zerg is slightly performing better then terra.....its in the top 8 finisher of the last 5 big tornments there where 50 % zerg 40 % toss 10 % terra, that has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with some kind of metagameshift or something not beeing figured out yet.......get real
|
On July 16 2012 14:46 baba1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:36 uzushould wrote:On July 16 2012 14:29 baba1 wrote:On July 16 2012 14:21 uzushould wrote:On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
hell my 11 year old brother comes up with better arguments....if ur not willing or able to discuss in a prober way, just stay out of it, please. Because the only thing you guys are talking about is how zerg should get nerfed? And nothing about how protoss and terran could evolve/step it up? Like all protoss and terrans are at 100% of their potential and everything about the pvz and tvz metagame has been discovered in 2 years... Lot of things can change and it doesn't have to be Blizzard changing them. pfff pretty arrogant to asume that the zerg players have allready figgured out everything while the terran players haven t and therefor terran is weaker while in truth the matchup is balanced. one could allways say this, and i m so fucking tired of hearing it, ppl like you would also say the same sentence if there are only zergs in the gm left and zerg made place1-3 in the last 50 tornaments....you d still argue with that "blablabla maybe terrans just need to figgure out blablabla bullshit" fact is, right now zerg is op, latest balance changes where long enough ago that the players had time to adapt, but things just got worst for terran since then, so NOW is the time to act.....and bliz will do so, hopefully Where did you read that zerg have figured out everything? You are just putting words in my mouth. Zerg might be one step ahead right now, doesn't mean that they have figured out everything and that the only way to fix things is to nerf zerg.
Yes I agree. Why dont we nerf zerg then and just let them do the figuring out for once. It took the collective zerg mind 6 months to figure out that banes should be sent on move instead of a move, so if there is a more serious nerf, I am a bit sceptical about the future of the zerg race.
|
All u got to do is look at the winners of tournaments since the patch. Stephano, scarlett, nerchio, violet... I can keep going. Terrans need the most help.
When any zerg can drone up to 75 while terrans and protoss are only at 50 scvs/probes at the same point, somwthing is wrong
|
On July 16 2012 14:29 baba1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:21 uzushould wrote:On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
hell my 11 year old brother comes up with better arguments....if ur not willing or able to discuss in a prober way, just stay out of it, please. Because the only thing you guys are talking about is how zerg should get nerfed? And nothing about how protoss and terran could evolve/step it up? Like all protoss and terrans are at 100% of their potential and everything about the pvz and tvz metagame has been discovered in 2 years... Lot of things can change and it doesn't have to be Blizzard changing them.
Clearly Protoss and Terran players can develop more, for example, Byun's recent statement about battlecruiser raven and his apparent success in practice games against Zerg, and the fact that between MC and DRG, considered some of the best (or the best) players of their respective races, people could see either one of them winning against the other in GSL off better play and not the current state of balance.
On the flip side of things though, the same could be applied to last year's apparent Terran dominance. Protoss and Zerg could have adapted (and there is reason to believe they would have eventually if you look at how players are playing now), there were probably some imbalances as well, and the system in GSL kept a lot of Terrans alive in code S for longer than they should have been. The only problem is that Blizzard listened to all the complaints anyways and nerfed accordingly, so there is reason to believe that overnerfing occurred and there is actually imbalance again.
To address PvZ (since talking about what happened to Terran can really only address TvZ), a lot of the balance discussion probably stems from the fact that it really is not hard to execute the basic roach max build that Stephano is well-known for (see the Day[9] daily on it, it was #472) and yet it takes much more to defend even the version that seems less refined than what was displayed more recently. While that might not be imbalance in a strict sense, it still says that we should expect Zerg dominance at lower tiers of play in this matchup, which apparently includes everything except for the current GSL.
TL;DR - yeah players definitely should evolve their play because otherwise this game gets real boring even when balanced, but the way things are playing out does warrant discussion (hence the existence of the thread)
|
On July 16 2012 14:56 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:46 baba1 wrote:On July 16 2012 14:36 uzushould wrote:On July 16 2012 14:29 baba1 wrote:On July 16 2012 14:21 uzushould wrote:On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
hell my 11 year old brother comes up with better arguments....if ur not willing or able to discuss in a prober way, just stay out of it, please. Because the only thing you guys are talking about is how zerg should get nerfed? And nothing about how protoss and terran could evolve/step it up? Like all protoss and terrans are at 100% of their potential and everything about the pvz and tvz metagame has been discovered in 2 years... Lot of things can change and it doesn't have to be Blizzard changing them. pfff pretty arrogant to asume that the zerg players have allready figgured out everything while the terran players haven t and therefor terran is weaker while in truth the matchup is balanced. one could allways say this, and i m so fucking tired of hearing it, ppl like you would also say the same sentence if there are only zergs in the gm left and zerg made place1-3 in the last 50 tornaments....you d still argue with that "blablabla maybe terrans just need to figgure out blablabla bullshit" fact is, right now zerg is op, latest balance changes where long enough ago that the players had time to adapt, but things just got worst for terran since then, so NOW is the time to act.....and bliz will do so, hopefully Where did you read that zerg have figured out everything? You are just putting words in my mouth. Zerg might be one step ahead right now, doesn't mean that they have figured out everything and that the only way to fix things is to nerf zerg. Yes I agree. Why dont we nerf zerg then and just let them do the figuring out for once. It took the collective zerg mind 6 months to figure out that banes should be sent on move instead of a move, so if there is a more serious nerf, I am a bit sceptical about the future of the zerg race.
It is arrogant to asume that the zerg players have already figured out everything while the terran players haven't and therefore terran is weaker while in truth the matchup is balanced. This guy gets it wrong.
At the same time, Assuming that zerg has not tried to figure out something for once is wrong as well.
It took about a year for zerg to figure out mutalisk harras/ling/bling does not work well and switched to infestor style.
Both sides are doing figuring out.
Sick and tired of Terran blaming Zerg, Zerg blaming Terran.
I think thread should only allow Terran nerfing Terran or Zerg nerfing Zerg.
|
On July 16 2012 14:36 baba1 wrote:
All races got buffed or nerfed at some point and at different degrees in the last 2 years. Next question
Next question, are you stupid or simply uninformed?
Sorry, that's not nice. I retract the question.
Here's a handy list of buffs and nerfs and to save you a click I'll give you all of the Terran buffs so far:
-Thor 250mm Strike Cannons now 50-second cooldown-based (Useable immediately)
Removed after just a few months. The only time I've seen it researched since then was a hotkey misclick in a game where no Thors were made. I may be forgetting something but I feel confident saying Strike Cannon is the least used item in the game, less than bunker upgrades, less than hydras, less than contaminate.
-Battle Cruiser Movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Still hasn't really made it viable, but hey it's a buff.
-Supply Depot life increased from 350 to 400.
Whee!
-Seeker missile movement speed increased from 2.5 to 2.953.
Range is still a real issue and for everyone thinking this is a Terran late game salvation, it would last about a week until Protoss and Zerg will realize they'll have to micro a teeny tiny bit to split units.
-Thor will now prioritize attacking ground combat units over Medivacs.
So that makes TvT just a little easier. lol
-Ghost Cost changed from 150/150 to 200/100.
Debatable if this is a buff or nerf, xref qxc SotG
-SCV construction movement has been made more consistent.
Just for completeness sake.
|
On July 16 2012 15:17 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:36 baba1 wrote:
All races got buffed or nerfed at some point and at different degrees in the last 2 years. Next question Next question, are you stupid or simply uninformed? Sorry, that's not nice. I retract the question. Here's a handy list of buffs and nerfs and to save you a click I'll give you all of the Terran buffs so far: -Thor 250mm Strike Cannons now 50-second cooldown-based (Useable immediately) Removed after just a few months. The only time I've seen it researched since then was a hotkey misclick in a game where no Thors were made. I may be forgetting something but I feel confident saying Strike Cannon is the least used item in the game, less than bunker upgrades, less than hydras, less than contaminate. -Battle Cruiser Movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875. Still hasn't really made it viable, but hey it's a buff. -Supply Depot life increased from 350 to 400. Whee! -Seeker missile movement speed increased from 2.5 to 2.953. Range is still a real issue and for everyone thinking this is a Terran late game salvation, it would last about a week until Protoss and Zerg will realize they'll have to micro a teeny tiny bit to split units. -Thor will now prioritize attacking ground combat units over Medivacs. So that makes TvT just a little easier. lol -Ghost Cost changed from 150/150 to 200/100. Debatable if this is a buff or nerf, xref qxc SotG -SCV construction movement has been made more consistent. Just for completeness sake.
Wow how nice of you.
I kept myself pretty informed don't worry, thanks for asking so nicely!
The reason that terran didn't RECEIVE so many buffs is that they never needed them in the first place.
We were at 1 terran buff close to have 100% terran GSL not too long ago. So yeah, I'm glad they didn't receive as many buffs as protoss or zergs. You remind me of a kid crying because he only receive 10 candies and his friend received 12. How unfair...
|
On July 16 2012 15:17 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:36 baba1 wrote:
All races got buffed or nerfed at some point and at different degrees in the last 2 years. Next question Next question, are you stupid or simply uninformed? Sorry, that's not nice. I retract the question. Here's a handy list of buffs and nerfs and to save you a click I'll give you all of the Terran buffs so far: -Thor 250mm Strike Cannons now 50-second cooldown-based (Useable immediately) Removed after just a few months. The only time I've seen it researched since then was a hotkey misclick in a game where no Thors were made. I may be forgetting something but I feel confident saying Strike Cannon is the least used item in the game, less than bunker upgrades, less than hydras, less than contaminate. -Battle Cruiser Movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875. Still hasn't really made it viable, but hey it's a buff. -Supply Depot life increased from 350 to 400. Whee! -Seeker missile movement speed increased from 2.5 to 2.953. Range is still a real issue and for everyone thinking this is a Terran late game salvation, it would last about a week until Protoss and Zerg will realize they'll have to micro a teeny tiny bit to split units. -Thor will now prioritize attacking ground combat units over Medivacs. So that makes TvT just a little easier. lol -Ghost Cost changed from 150/150 to 200/100. Debatable if this is a buff or nerf, xref qxc SotG -SCV construction movement has been made more consistent. Just for completeness sake.
A hundred nerfs would still be justified if the race started off overpowered. Terran was constantly winning despite nerfs back then. -.-
That being said, they are definitely feeling weak right now, but I think it's more because of a buff to the Zerg side rather than Terran being nerfed constantly.
|
The whole discussion is pointless. To fix all the issues we have to fix EVERY ISSUE at once.
You want to nerf Infestor/Broodlord? No Problem with that, give Zerg another way to deal with Blinkstalker/Colossi/Mothership which is not "dont let toss get 3 bases".
You want to nerf Roaches? No problem here, just give Zerg another way to deal with the 300 Toss All-ins midgame where Roach defense is crucial.
Want to nerf Queens? No Problem... just change hellions so they dont provide mapcontrol + sometimes game ending aggression + denying creep + denying expansion + denying lings WHILE taking a 3rd behind 4 units.
Want to nerf infestors in TvZ? No Problem, just give us another non suicide unit to deal with marines.
ALL your suggestions get in one direction:
T = I want to kill Zerg in the early game again, screw lategame!
P= I want my Stalker/Colossi Deathball to be a 100% win again, I deserve it!
|
On July 16 2012 14:59 TeamBreezy wrote:
All u got to do is look at the winners of tournaments since the patch. Stephano, scarlett, nerchio, violet... I can keep going. Terrans need the most help.
When any zerg can drone up to 75 while terrans and protoss are only at 50 scvs/probes at the same point, somwthing is wrong
Horrible first post. If zerg could build workers only at the rate of P or T then it follows that they would have a comparable amount of units. if zerg has a comparable amount of units to P or T then the zerg loses. That's how the game was designed, zerg can only make huge droves of units because each individual one sucks horribly if your opponent has a comparably sized army.
|
On July 16 2012 16:12 TemujinGK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 14:59 TeamBreezy wrote:
All u got to do is look at the winners of tournaments since the patch. Stephano, scarlett, nerchio, violet... I can keep going. Terrans need the most help.
When any zerg can drone up to 75 while terrans and protoss are only at 50 scvs/probes at the same point, somwthing is wrong Horrible first post. If zerg could build workers only at the rate of P or T then it follows that they would have a comparable amount of units. if zerg has a comparable amount of units to P or T then the zerg loses. That's how the game was designed, zerg can only make huge droves of units because each individual one sucks horribly if your opponent has a comparably sized army.
That's simply not true. Zerg units aren't weaker. Infestors are the strongest caster, by far. Corruptors are the strongest anti-air, and Broods are the strongest capital ships.
The idea that Zerg is about mass amounts of cost inefficient units is only true for mutaling, which is hardly played these days.
|
On July 16 2012 16:26 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 16:12 TemujinGK wrote:On July 16 2012 14:59 TeamBreezy wrote:
All u got to do is look at the winners of tournaments since the patch. Stephano, scarlett, nerchio, violet... I can keep going. Terrans need the most help.
When any zerg can drone up to 75 while terrans and protoss are only at 50 scvs/probes at the same point, somwthing is wrong Horrible first post. If zerg could build workers only at the rate of P or T then it follows that they would have a comparable amount of units. if zerg has a comparable amount of units to P or T then the zerg loses. That's how the game was designed, zerg can only make huge droves of units because each individual one sucks horribly if your opponent has a comparably sized army. That's simply not true. Zerg units aren't weaker. Infestors are the strongest caster, by far. Corruptors are the strongest anti-air, and Broods are the strongest capital ships. The idea that Zerg is about mass amounts of cost inefficient units is only true for mutaling, which is hardly played these days.
Whaaaat?
Infestors are arguably the strongest spellcaster, maybe, but even there it's very situational. In many situations you would rather have templar/ghost over infestors, especially when facing infestors.
Corruptors are strong vs air, probably because that's the ONLY thing they do for 150/100.
And in many situations, you will need more corruptors than whatever unit they are countering, because like the guy above said, zerg units aren't that good by themselves, they are good in large numbers.
Broodlords aren't the strongest capital ship. At this point you are just spewing lies. Every capital ship as a completly different role and you can't compare broodlords who are anti ground siege breakers to BCs or carriers who are extremely powerful all-around units and hard counter BLs.
And the only inneficient part about mutaling is lings. Mutas aren't meant to be cost ineficient as you almost never want to trade them except in some rare occasions.
|
I don't think there's really a solution to late game Zerg. The current "solutions" for both P and T rely on the Zerg playing badly. Vortex requires terrible army control by the Zerg. Terran requires piss-poor response to drops.
I think there are fundamental design flaws in the lategame of all races that don't seem like they can be fixed with tiny buffs this way or that way.
Zerg is characterized by reactivity, however the larva mechanic turns from a reaction tool to an offensive tool that lets them change their entire composition at the drop of a hat, and remax within a single production cycle. Zerg units are not a one-size-fits-all solution to what the enemy has (although infestors come close), but they have the ability to be reactive.
Protoss in general is very linear and restricted. Turtle to a deathball, spam gateways. Trade enemy army for your power units, then warp in more gateway units with templar support and roll enemy. The turtling requires sentries, so if you can't retain them, you're dead. Once you survive to the lategame and trade armies, upgraded gateway forces are a one-size-fits-all solution to everything Z and T have.
Terran lategame is characterized by terrible T3 units. In that they're not used (aside from Thors as mobile turrets). Terran plays lategame highly reactively (need Vikings now, need Ghosts now, need Marauders now) while having the least suited production mechanic for doing so. The distinctive lack of offensive AOE leaves them at mercy of sudden changes in composition to mass infantry (lings, chargelots). Terran does not have a one-size-fits-all solution because Barracks units are so susceptible to AOE, which both Zerg and Protoss have in droves.
Terran was dominant for so long because Terran was really powerful in the early game, the maps were small, and very few games ever got past the early-to-midgame. This was obviously unfair to Z and P, who were basically tasked to survive whatever shenanigans the Terrans threw at them.
Protoss deathball started becoming dominant when map and balance changes "fixed" one base play by giving players safe expansions on maps that were still rather small. Think Shakuras.
More balance changes, and bigger maps, and now Zerg is dominant. Why? Because the game design fundamentally favors different races in order of Zerg > Protoss > Terran more and more as expanding becomes safer and distances become long enough to allow for a production cycle after engagements.
How to fix things? I don't know. Maybe increase Brood Lord supply cost, and increase HSM range drastically. What I feel would be most beneficial is leaving the game alone and giving the scene about a year to balance things via maps. Then again half the tournaments seem to be run by people who are clueless as to what makes a good map, so there's no guarantee that the scene can even manage it.
|
On July 16 2012 16:42 baba1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 16:26 yeint wrote:On July 16 2012 16:12 TemujinGK wrote:On July 16 2012 14:59 TeamBreezy wrote:
All u got to do is look at the winners of tournaments since the patch. Stephano, scarlett, nerchio, violet... I can keep going. Terrans need the most help.
When any zerg can drone up to 75 while terrans and protoss are only at 50 scvs/probes at the same point, somwthing is wrong Horrible first post. If zerg could build workers only at the rate of P or T then it follows that they would have a comparable amount of units. if zerg has a comparable amount of units to P or T then the zerg loses. That's how the game was designed, zerg can only make huge droves of units because each individual one sucks horribly if your opponent has a comparably sized army. That's simply not true. Zerg units aren't weaker. Infestors are the strongest caster, by far. Corruptors are the strongest anti-air, and Broods are the strongest capital ships. The idea that Zerg is about mass amounts of cost inefficient units is only true for mutaling, which is hardly played these days. Whaaaat? Infestors are arguably the strongest spellcaster, maybe, but even there it's very situational. In many situations you would rather have templar/ghost over infestors, especially when facing infestors. Corruptors are strong vs air, probably because that's the ONLY thing they do for 150/100.
They also turn into these things called Brood Lords, unlike Vikings, which are dead weight.
And in many situations, you will need more corruptors than whatever unit they are countering, because like the guy above said, zerg units aren't that good by themselves, they are good in large numbers.
Nice try, but Corruptors win vs Vikings 1v1.
Broodlords aren't the strongest capital ship. At this point you are just spewing lies. Every capital ship as a completly different role and you can't compare broodlords who are anti ground siege breakers to BCs or carriers who are extremely powerful all-around units and hard counter BLs.
True, the role of Carriers and Battlecruisers is "things that only get used in monobattles".
And the only inneficient part about mutaling is lings. Mutas aren't meant to be cost ineficient as you almost never want to trade them except in some rare occasions.
They're cost inefficient because you need at least 10 (1000/1000, 20 food) to do anything with them, whereas comparable units for T and P, Banshees and Phoenixes, function very well in low numbers (2-4).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
