|
Core game design/concept of Zerg:
1. Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed. It is non-Zerg's job to pressure Zerg.
2. Zerg can tech switch and remax better.
I don't think you can argue these, nor you should try to change these. Larva mechanics makes these possible, and larva mechanics is what makes Zerg a unique race in starcraft or any RTS game for that matter. It was basically the same concept in broodwar, too. Some people are attempting to challenge this design itself, but Zerg wouldn't be Zerg without these features that come from larva mechanics.
Instead, what we need to consider is:
A. It is currently too hard for non-Zerg to pressure Zerg and disturb economy.
B. Zerg can remax WAY better with so many stored larvae.
Game design itself is not the problem. "In what degree" is the problem.
The answers to these problems should be:
X. Makes it easier to disturb Zerg economy while not making it too easy.
Y. Limit the remaxability of Zerg either by limiting larvae numbers or somehow limiting Zerg economy that supports remaxed army strength.
I play Zerg, but I agree to some nerf to Zerg by taking X or Y route for the sake of balance and more exciting games to spectate. However, I cannot agree to some opinions that try to fundamentally change 1 and 2.
|
The queen change was totally justified and necessary; it added a little stability to early game ZvZ, stopped a single stalker ruining your day in ZvP and stopped 4 hellions denying you any creep spread and a 3rd base until muta or roaches.
I don't think anyone can really complain about ZvP because the win rates are fairly even atm and even if they weren't, Protoss is such a fucked up race with warpgate, collossus, stupidly easy mechanics that any issues in ZvP are probably fixable from the toss end.
So the issue is ZvT, and really the issue is zerg getting 3 bases quickly and creep across half the map. The previous situation with no creep spread until hellions are cleared was bad (why even bother?) and the current situation of terran not really being able to deny creep at all is bad. There needs to be a back-and-forth scenario with mini-skirmishes happening in the early game to deny/push the creep.
Personally i think reapers are due a comeback. They are hardly used at all atm because in the current version, they're a bit shite. Maybe the HotS reaper changes should be implemented early?
|
On July 17 2012 19:44 eXdeath wrote:
Don't you think it's all a bit planned by Blizzard?
I mean, Terran being OP at the launch and first months of Wings of Liberty (most new players would pick Terran at this time, it was the campaign, etc.)
Zerg being OP for the launch of HOTS (most new players will play the Zerg campaign and will want to pick Zerg in multiplayer)
I don't think it's a good "excuse", but maybe there is some marketing reason behind this.
If people are pissed off with the game, they aren't buying the expansions. And in the long run it is e-sports that will best promote the game, so a perceived balance is necessary so that new players come up and turn pro, and new viewers are attracted. This is how half of all SC1 copies ended up selling in Korea, by having a pro scene. If the game is no longer considered proper for the purpose of competition, then it will die like any other.
|
On July 17 2012 19:34 TheBlueMeaner wrote:
This thread is painful to read. Terrans have just forgotten how long they had been domination and just won't innovate. Zerg dominance is not only a result of nerfs, but a result of inovation by players like spanishiwa (mass queen, no gas opener, completely changed the way the game is played now), destiny and catz(mass infestor usage, even before any buffs) and more recently stephano and DRG, macro and agressive strategies.
Hellion opener was too strong a strategy. Before the hellion buff it meant that if 4 hellions ran by you lost automatically without the terran having to risk anything. After the hellion nerf it remained pretty much the same. Now terran has to actually risk something in order to end the game right there. Suddenly it is useless even with the map control and potential of harass it still gives...
Terrans in korea are pretty much still winning against zerg, byun completely destroyed nestea in gsl, those are big words in my opinion...
People are biased right now because of NASL and WCS...
Yeah zergs just got better overnight.
You're absolutely right lol
Oh and terran never innovates, nevermind that they have innovated more than the two races put together over the course of the game while zerg has just been like "ok well instead of double gas im getting one and pumping lings" "ok well infestors counter every single unit the game, so im going to mass them" your buildds have barely moved at all, you're still playing the exact same basic stuff since the begining of the game. Terran innovates and it gets nerfed within a week, zerg innovates and blizzard buffs them just to make sure it works out.
Terran has been overnerfed in tvz to the point where it's just flat out broken. Something needs to change, because if it was a "l2p" issue then you would ahve seen the pros figure something out by now, but they haven't.
|
On July 17 2012 20:09 50bani wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 19:44 eXdeath wrote:
Don't you think it's all a bit planned by Blizzard?
I mean, Terran being OP at the launch and first months of Wings of Liberty (most new players would pick Terran at this time, it was the campaign, etc.)
Zerg being OP for the launch of HOTS (most new players will play the Zerg campaign and will want to pick Zerg in multiplayer)
I don't think it's a good "excuse", but maybe there is some marketing reason behind this.
If people are pissed off with the game, they aren't buying the expansions. And in the long run it is e-sports that will best promote the game, so a perceived balance is necessary so that new players come up and turn pro, and new viewers are attracted. This is how half of all SC1 copies ended up selling in Korea, by having a pro scene. If the game is no longer considered proper for the purpose of competition, then it will die like any other.
Sure! And as i said it wouldn't be a good excuse at all if it was true.
But what i meant is maybe they make them slightly OP on purpose for some months. The unbalance isn't that huge. But maybe big enough to favour picking Zerg if you're a new player.
|
On July 17 2012 19:56 Orek wrote:
Core game design/concept of Zerg:
1. Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed. It is non-Zerg's job to pressure Zerg.
2. Zerg can tech switch and remax better.
No, I have to disagree with you. Those things are not general design, those things are metagame and balancing!
Ever faced a Terran who opens 4CC or a Protoss that opens double expand? They will macro just as hard as you, because they will have similar worker production and hit same saturation at the same time. Even 3CC hellion (or/hellion banshee) openings did accomplish that sometimes, due to how late the 3rd for zerg was.
The thing is, Zerg aggression is strong enough to destroy those openings + Show Spoiler +(though I play only Terran these days and open 2 of 3 TvZs with 4CC with quite some success in holding 2base allins, so at least on some maps like Cloud Kingdom it's possible; that build rather feels like it has other disadvantages)
The thing is, because Zerg can punish greed via explosive unit production, T/Ps are forced to play builds that emphasize on something else than economy that gives them enough units to be safe, so they have to play tech- and/or timingbased. This is not intentional design, this is just how the corestrategies seem to interact.
What blizzard failed to do with zerg (and how they interact with other races), is balance zerg around cutting economy to be safe and not fall behind while staying a threat big enough that P/Ts now can't go supergreedy. And this was not intended to be that way. That is the whole reason, why they invented the roach and the queen for SC2 in the first place, to make Zerg better at pressureing early on. But in the balancing process, they basically slowly gave up on this idea, because they couldn't balance the roach properly, because it was way too good when massed early on (too good for allins).
|
On July 17 2012 16:09 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 15:53 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 15:46 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 10:52 larse wrote:On July 17 2012 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote:
Personally, I don't think mid-late/late game zerg itself is hopelessly broken or anything, it tends to feel like that, but its because they are already in such an advantageous position by the time it reaches that point. A lot of people point out the race's ability to remax instantly being too strong and whatnot, but that can only happen with an existing big resource bank. And in my humble opinion there lies the problem, zergs ability to deflect most early game pressures too cost efficiently. Right now a lot of harassments can be held off just fine with minimal lings/roaches if you just get more queens. Which is a problem as building queens for defense is not even an opportunity cost, because there is so much utility for them.
So what you are left with is zerg being mostly undisrupted in their macro, by the 15-20min mark they have a huge supply lead with a sizable bank; that even trading armies well as a terran/toss feels futile because soon enough there is another similar wave coming at you again, but only this time you have like maybe 60% the previous army size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the thing people are frustrated with is the fact that you have to consistently trade ultra cost efficiently to have a chance to even consider doing a counterattack, trade slightly bad once and you know the game is over already.
I would like to see a small change on the PTR or something (say queens raised to 200 minerals for instance) and see how it changes the overall flow of the game. I'm not trying to say that queens are overpowered per se, but they seem a bit too cheap considering how all-purpose they are right now - it turns so many of the pressure attacks into somewhat of an all-in already, which is terrible for gameplay imo. I'm not a fan of big nerfs for any race, so I would much rather prefer a subtle change that reduces the rate of momentum zerg gains.
Great insight. Now the statement that Zerg is OP mostly diverges into two arguments: 1. Zerg's macro mechanism is OP
2. Zerg's army strength (especially late-game) is OPSaying Queen is OP is basically the first argument, since the logic of Queen being OP is the same as saying that "no damage to zerg economy early ----> zerg's economy grows faster than other two races later". This is an indirect statement that Zerg's macro mechanism is OP. Therefore, as always, to address the first type of OPness, the solutions can be either revert the queen change (so other two races can do economic damage early ----> equal economy later), or nerf the Zerg's macro mechanism (most people argue reduce the larvae produced from injection by 1) To address the second type of OPness, the solutions are more debatable but most people argue some sorts of nerfs to roach, infestor, or Broodlord. I would much rather it wasn't just a blanket nerf to larva. As a spectator, the game is far better if the economy is slowed by the opponent actually attacking. TvZ was universally considered the most entertaining matchup because economic damage mattered, so there was constant action. TvZ has now degenerated to what PvZ has always been - fast all in to avoid midgame, or bilateral turtling straight to a late game economy. Being FORCED or REQUIRED to attack Zerg early to have a chance to win is actually bad, because you should be able to "outeconomize" or "outstrategize" them in any form. Letting a Zerg get to a huge economy just means you will lose most likely. Sure there are certain pros who can win against unwinnable odds, but the majority of us will simply lose. TvZ is boring, because bio loses as soon as the Zerg hits a decent supply of Infestors (supported by ling-Baneling) and mech loses right after they have lost the majority of their siege tanks to one attack wave and when the Zerg have rebuilt their whole army in one production cycle. There is no way for Terrans to make a Zerg trade cost inefficient in the late game unless the Zerg goes for mass Ultralisks without good support. I don't agree at all. Starcraft is a game of asymmetry. It's perfectly fine for one race to be better at macro if left alone - the larva mechanic is specifically suited to reward the opponent's aggression. It allows for posturing and feints. The Zerg should have to decide whether to spend larva on units or drones. In current ZvT they just spam drones. As to infestors, fungal is just complete bullshit and should be entirely reworked. Changes to consider: * Limit 1 queen per hatch, remove food cost. * Hydra den to tier 1. * Fungal damage reduced by 25%, root removed, replaced by silence (can't stim, blink, medivacs can't heal, motherships can't vortex, sentries can't FF, templars can't storm, ghosts can't snipe or emp). Would turn Infestor into a proper anti-caster unit like other casters are, while not being a straight up carbon copy of HT/ghost). * Hellion speed on creep reduced, pre-igniter upgrade also removes speed limit.
I agree with you on the asymmetry, BUT the asymmetry should be balanced as well. Zerg have the highest reproduction capacity for ALL types of units and this should be balanced by the units of the other two races being tougher because they simply cant be reproduced as fast. This is not how Blizzard has implemented it and thus we get Siege Tanks which are easily overrun by lowly tier 1 stuff the Zerg can reproduce cheaply and in great numbers. This "battle balance" was whined for by many many many people saying "Siege Tank OP" and so on. Btw., only the units which cant be "mass produced" should be tougher, thus any unit produced with a Reactor or Warp Gate should stay the same, but others need to be tougher to kill.
If this kind of "unit asymmetry" cant be achieved then a complete removal of all macro boosts for economy and production is the only solution to make the game more manageable.
I like your idea of trading the root of Fungal Growth for a silence, but the other changes seem too good for Zerg and limiting the Queen to 1 per hatch is somewhat silly since it should be a supporting battle unit with transfusion and that useage is ok. Just remove the range buff and remind Zerg players that they could get 4 Spine Crawlers easily for those 3 extra Queens and a few Zerglings that are usually built and those will provide enough safety against an early Hellion harrass until the Roach count is high enough.
On July 17 2012 19:09 50bani wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 15:43 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 11:01 s1ege wrote:On July 17 2012 10:52 larse wrote:On July 17 2012 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote:
Personally, I don't think mid-late/late game zerg itself is hopelessly broken or anything, it tends to feel like that, but its because they are already in such an advantageous position by the time it reaches that point. A lot of people point out the race's ability to remax instantly being too strong and whatnot, but that can only happen with an existing big resource bank. And in my humble opinion there lies the problem, zergs ability to deflect most early game pressures too cost efficiently. Right now a lot of harassments can be held off just fine with minimal lings/roaches if you just get more queens. Which is a problem as building queens for defense is not even an opportunity cost, because there is so much utility for them.
So what you are left with is zerg being mostly undisrupted in their macro, by the 15-20min mark they have a huge supply lead with a sizable bank; that even trading armies well as a terran/toss feels futile because soon enough there is another similar wave coming at you again, but only this time you have like maybe 60% the previous army size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the thing people are frustrated with is the fact that you have to consistently trade ultra cost efficiently to have a chance to even consider doing a counterattack, trade slightly bad once and you know the game is over already.
I would like to see a small change on the PTR or something (say queens raised to 200 minerals for instance) and see how it changes the overall flow of the game. I'm not trying to say that queens are overpowered per se, but they seem a bit too cheap considering how all-purpose they are right now - it turns so many of the pressure attacks into somewhat of an all-in already, which is terrible for gameplay imo. I'm not a fan of big nerfs for any race, so I would much rather prefer a subtle change that reduces the rate of momentum zerg gains.
Great insight. Now the statement that Zerg is OP mostly diverges into two arguments: 1. Zerg's macro mechanism is OP
2. Zerg's army strength (especially late-game) is OPSaying Queen is OP is basically the first argument, since the logic of Queen being OP is the same as saying that "no damage to zerg economy early ----> zerg's economy grows faster than other two races later". This is an indirect statement that Zerg's macro mechanism is OP. Therefore, as always, to address the first type of OPness, the solutions can be either revert the queen change (so other two races can do economic damage early ----> equal economy later), or nerf the Zerg's macro mechanism (most people argue reduce the larvae produced from injection by 1) To address the second type of OPness, the solutions are more debatable but most people argue some sorts of nerfs to roach, infestor, or Broodlord. Or they can simply remove warp gate from protoss, reactors from terran, and larva inject from Zerg. Also one thing I'd like to say is that I think sc2 is too worker focused. They only mine 5 per miner and 4 gas. Blizzard should make them mine 8 minerals and 5 gas with only 1 gas per base You forgot to remove Chronoboost and MULE, but once all of them are gone the game should be much easier to balance due to being slower paced and not focused on HUGE economy and production. I am all for that ... It has been mentioned many times, the MULE is very necessary because Terran SCVs have to be pulled off to build, so therefore they have higher infrastructure costs. One way to "fix" it would be to weaken it, so that it mines only 120/minute, give it for free, no Orbital required, but probably start CCs with 0 energy fwiw... Chronoboost is pretty benign, you can increase building times for stuff if you want it anyways. Larva is a good question, maybe they need to remove Larva Inject, and get more Larva per minute by upgrading to Lair. This would increase the time it takes the Zerg economy to grow, or start growing I should say. My take on WG is pretty well known, it is super bad for the game and it inserts a lot of volatility into the game, but if you remove it, many things would need rebalancing in all matchups, of course starting with Larva mechanics.
The MULE actually isnt necessary ... because there wasnt any in BW and the economy there worked well enough. Terrans have the great advantage to wall themselves in and that prevents a lot of harrassment which the other races might have to suffer and thus everything would be fine if you remove all of the macroing boosts for economy and production.
|
The MULE is necessary because of larva inject and Chrono.
I think MULES, larva inject, and Chrono are all good game design. They're not the cause of the problems, those lie in the actual balancing of the numbers.
For instance, creep tumors being infinitely replicating is a terrible idea. The macro mechanic of Zerg no longer involves a choice apart from the very early game. Get early tumors up and then spam larva every time it's up.
|
On July 17 2012 21:07 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 16:09 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 15:53 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 15:46 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 10:52 larse wrote:On July 17 2012 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote:
Personally, I don't think mid-late/late game zerg itself is hopelessly broken or anything, it tends to feel like that, but its because they are already in such an advantageous position by the time it reaches that point. A lot of people point out the race's ability to remax instantly being too strong and whatnot, but that can only happen with an existing big resource bank. And in my humble opinion there lies the problem, zergs ability to deflect most early game pressures too cost efficiently. Right now a lot of harassments can be held off just fine with minimal lings/roaches if you just get more queens. Which is a problem as building queens for defense is not even an opportunity cost, because there is so much utility for them.
So what you are left with is zerg being mostly undisrupted in their macro, by the 15-20min mark they have a huge supply lead with a sizable bank; that even trading armies well as a terran/toss feels futile because soon enough there is another similar wave coming at you again, but only this time you have like maybe 60% the previous army size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the thing people are frustrated with is the fact that you have to consistently trade ultra cost efficiently to have a chance to even consider doing a counterattack, trade slightly bad once and you know the game is over already.
I would like to see a small change on the PTR or something (say queens raised to 200 minerals for instance) and see how it changes the overall flow of the game. I'm not trying to say that queens are overpowered per se, but they seem a bit too cheap considering how all-purpose they are right now - it turns so many of the pressure attacks into somewhat of an all-in already, which is terrible for gameplay imo. I'm not a fan of big nerfs for any race, so I would much rather prefer a subtle change that reduces the rate of momentum zerg gains.
Great insight. Now the statement that Zerg is OP mostly diverges into two arguments: 1. Zerg's macro mechanism is OP
2. Zerg's army strength (especially late-game) is OPSaying Queen is OP is basically the first argument, since the logic of Queen being OP is the same as saying that "no damage to zerg economy early ----> zerg's economy grows faster than other two races later". This is an indirect statement that Zerg's macro mechanism is OP. Therefore, as always, to address the first type of OPness, the solutions can be either revert the queen change (so other two races can do economic damage early ----> equal economy later), or nerf the Zerg's macro mechanism (most people argue reduce the larvae produced from injection by 1) To address the second type of OPness, the solutions are more debatable but most people argue some sorts of nerfs to roach, infestor, or Broodlord. I would much rather it wasn't just a blanket nerf to larva. As a spectator, the game is far better if the economy is slowed by the opponent actually attacking. TvZ was universally considered the most entertaining matchup because economic damage mattered, so there was constant action. TvZ has now degenerated to what PvZ has always been - fast all in to avoid midgame, or bilateral turtling straight to a late game economy. Being FORCED or REQUIRED to attack Zerg early to have a chance to win is actually bad, because you should be able to "outeconomize" or "outstrategize" them in any form. Letting a Zerg get to a huge economy just means you will lose most likely. Sure there are certain pros who can win against unwinnable odds, but the majority of us will simply lose. TvZ is boring, because bio loses as soon as the Zerg hits a decent supply of Infestors (supported by ling-Baneling) and mech loses right after they have lost the majority of their siege tanks to one attack wave and when the Zerg have rebuilt their whole army in one production cycle. There is no way for Terrans to make a Zerg trade cost inefficient in the late game unless the Zerg goes for mass Ultralisks without good support. I don't agree at all. Starcraft is a game of asymmetry. It's perfectly fine for one race to be better at macro if left alone - the larva mechanic is specifically suited to reward the opponent's aggression. It allows for posturing and feints. The Zerg should have to decide whether to spend larva on units or drones. In current ZvT they just spam drones. As to infestors, fungal is just complete bullshit and should be entirely reworked. Changes to consider: * Limit 1 queen per hatch, remove food cost. * Hydra den to tier 1. * Fungal damage reduced by 25%, root removed, replaced by silence (can't stim, blink, medivacs can't heal, motherships can't vortex, sentries can't FF, templars can't storm, ghosts can't snipe or emp). Would turn Infestor into a proper anti-caster unit like other casters are, while not being a straight up carbon copy of HT/ghost). * Hellion speed on creep reduced, pre-igniter upgrade also removes speed limit. I agree with you on the asymmetry, BUT the asymmetry should be balanced as well. Zerg have the highest reproduction capacity for ALL types of units and this should be balanced by the units of the other two races being tougher because they simply cant be reproduced as fast. This is not how Blizzard has implemented it and thus we get Siege Tanks which are easily overrun by lowly tier 1 stuff the Zerg can reproduce cheaply and in great numbers. This "battle balance" was whined for by many many many people saying "Siege Tank OP" and so on. Btw., only the units which cant be "mass produced" should be tougher, thus any unit produced with a Reactor or Warp Gate should stay the same, but others need to be tougher to kill. If this kind of "unit asymmetry" cant be achieved then a complete removal of all macro boosts for economy and production is the only solution to make the game more manageable. I like your idea of trading the root of Fungal Growth for a silence, but the other changes seem too good for Zerg and limiting the Queen to 1 per hatch is somewhat silly since it should be a supporting battle unit with transfusion and that useage is ok. Just remove the range buff and remind Zerg players that they could get 4 Spine Crawlers easily for those 3 extra Queens and a few Zerglings that are usually built and those will provide enough safety against an early Hellion harrass until the Roach count is high enough. Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 19:09 50bani wrote:On July 17 2012 15:43 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 11:01 s1ege wrote:On July 17 2012 10:52 larse wrote:On July 17 2012 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote:
Personally, I don't think mid-late/late game zerg itself is hopelessly broken or anything, it tends to feel like that, but its because they are already in such an advantageous position by the time it reaches that point. A lot of people point out the race's ability to remax instantly being too strong and whatnot, but that can only happen with an existing big resource bank. And in my humble opinion there lies the problem, zergs ability to deflect most early game pressures too cost efficiently. Right now a lot of harassments can be held off just fine with minimal lings/roaches if you just get more queens. Which is a problem as building queens for defense is not even an opportunity cost, because there is so much utility for them.
So what you are left with is zerg being mostly undisrupted in their macro, by the 15-20min mark they have a huge supply lead with a sizable bank; that even trading armies well as a terran/toss feels futile because soon enough there is another similar wave coming at you again, but only this time you have like maybe 60% the previous army size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the thing people are frustrated with is the fact that you have to consistently trade ultra cost efficiently to have a chance to even consider doing a counterattack, trade slightly bad once and you know the game is over already.
I would like to see a small change on the PTR or something (say queens raised to 200 minerals for instance) and see how it changes the overall flow of the game. I'm not trying to say that queens are overpowered per se, but they seem a bit too cheap considering how all-purpose they are right now - it turns so many of the pressure attacks into somewhat of an all-in already, which is terrible for gameplay imo. I'm not a fan of big nerfs for any race, so I would much rather prefer a subtle change that reduces the rate of momentum zerg gains.
Great insight. Now the statement that Zerg is OP mostly diverges into two arguments: 1. Zerg's macro mechanism is OP
2. Zerg's army strength (especially late-game) is OPSaying Queen is OP is basically the first argument, since the logic of Queen being OP is the same as saying that "no damage to zerg economy early ----> zerg's economy grows faster than other two races later". This is an indirect statement that Zerg's macro mechanism is OP. Therefore, as always, to address the first type of OPness, the solutions can be either revert the queen change (so other two races can do economic damage early ----> equal economy later), or nerf the Zerg's macro mechanism (most people argue reduce the larvae produced from injection by 1) To address the second type of OPness, the solutions are more debatable but most people argue some sorts of nerfs to roach, infestor, or Broodlord. Or they can simply remove warp gate from protoss, reactors from terran, and larva inject from Zerg. Also one thing I'd like to say is that I think sc2 is too worker focused. They only mine 5 per miner and 4 gas. Blizzard should make them mine 8 minerals and 5 gas with only 1 gas per base You forgot to remove Chronoboost and MULE, but once all of them are gone the game should be much easier to balance due to being slower paced and not focused on HUGE economy and production. I am all for that ... It has been mentioned many times, the MULE is very necessary because Terran SCVs have to be pulled off to build, so therefore they have higher infrastructure costs. One way to "fix" it would be to weaken it, so that it mines only 120/minute, give it for free, no Orbital required, but probably start CCs with 0 energy fwiw... Chronoboost is pretty benign, you can increase building times for stuff if you want it anyways. Larva is a good question, maybe they need to remove Larva Inject, and get more Larva per minute by upgrading to Lair. This would increase the time it takes the Zerg economy to grow, or start growing I should say. My take on WG is pretty well known, it is super bad for the game and it inserts a lot of volatility into the game, but if you remove it, many things would need rebalancing in all matchups, of course starting with Larva mechanics. The MULE actually isnt necessary ... because there wasnt any in BW and the economy there worked well enough. Terrans have the great advantage to wall themselves in and that prevents a lot of harrassment which the other races might have to suffer and thus everything would be fine if you remove all of the macroing boosts for economy and production.
PvT is 55% for Protoss in BW
One basing has died for Terran, in fact, 2 basing is not very good either, everybody going for turtling, and a doom push with 3-2 upgrades. It seems like the economy disadvantage is showing to me...
|
On July 17 2012 21:07 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 16:09 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 15:53 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 15:46 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 10:52 larse wrote:On July 17 2012 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote:
Personally, I don't think mid-late/late game zerg itself is hopelessly broken or anything, it tends to feel like that, but its because they are already in such an advantageous position by the time it reaches that point. A lot of people point out the race's ability to remax instantly being too strong and whatnot, but that can only happen with an existing big resource bank. And in my humble opinion there lies the problem, zergs ability to deflect most early game pressures too cost efficiently. Right now a lot of harassments can be held off just fine with minimal lings/roaches if you just get more queens. Which is a problem as building queens for defense is not even an opportunity cost, because there is so much utility for them.
So what you are left with is zerg being mostly undisrupted in their macro, by the 15-20min mark they have a huge supply lead with a sizable bank; that even trading armies well as a terran/toss feels futile because soon enough there is another similar wave coming at you again, but only this time you have like maybe 60% the previous army size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the thing people are frustrated with is the fact that you have to consistently trade ultra cost efficiently to have a chance to even consider doing a counterattack, trade slightly bad once and you know the game is over already.
I would like to see a small change on the PTR or something (say queens raised to 200 minerals for instance) and see how it changes the overall flow of the game. I'm not trying to say that queens are overpowered per se, but they seem a bit too cheap considering how all-purpose they are right now - it turns so many of the pressure attacks into somewhat of an all-in already, which is terrible for gameplay imo. I'm not a fan of big nerfs for any race, so I would much rather prefer a subtle change that reduces the rate of momentum zerg gains.
Great insight. Now the statement that Zerg is OP mostly diverges into two arguments: 1. Zerg's macro mechanism is OP
2. Zerg's army strength (especially late-game) is OPSaying Queen is OP is basically the first argument, since the logic of Queen being OP is the same as saying that "no damage to zerg economy early ----> zerg's economy grows faster than other two races later". This is an indirect statement that Zerg's macro mechanism is OP. Therefore, as always, to address the first type of OPness, the solutions can be either revert the queen change (so other two races can do economic damage early ----> equal economy later), or nerf the Zerg's macro mechanism (most people argue reduce the larvae produced from injection by 1) To address the second type of OPness, the solutions are more debatable but most people argue some sorts of nerfs to roach, infestor, or Broodlord. I would much rather it wasn't just a blanket nerf to larva. As a spectator, the game is far better if the economy is slowed by the opponent actually attacking. TvZ was universally considered the most entertaining matchup because economic damage mattered, so there was constant action. TvZ has now degenerated to what PvZ has always been - fast all in to avoid midgame, or bilateral turtling straight to a late game economy. Being FORCED or REQUIRED to attack Zerg early to have a chance to win is actually bad, because you should be able to "outeconomize" or "outstrategize" them in any form. Letting a Zerg get to a huge economy just means you will lose most likely. Sure there are certain pros who can win against unwinnable odds, but the majority of us will simply lose. TvZ is boring, because bio loses as soon as the Zerg hits a decent supply of Infestors (supported by ling-Baneling) and mech loses right after they have lost the majority of their siege tanks to one attack wave and when the Zerg have rebuilt their whole army in one production cycle. There is no way for Terrans to make a Zerg trade cost inefficient in the late game unless the Zerg goes for mass Ultralisks without good support. I don't agree at all. Starcraft is a game of asymmetry. It's perfectly fine for one race to be better at macro if left alone - the larva mechanic is specifically suited to reward the opponent's aggression. It allows for posturing and feints. The Zerg should have to decide whether to spend larva on units or drones. In current ZvT they just spam drones. As to infestors, fungal is just complete bullshit and should be entirely reworked. Changes to consider: * Limit 1 queen per hatch, remove food cost. * Hydra den to tier 1. * Fungal damage reduced by 25%, root removed, replaced by silence (can't stim, blink, medivacs can't heal, motherships can't vortex, sentries can't FF, templars can't storm, ghosts can't snipe or emp). Would turn Infestor into a proper anti-caster unit like other casters are, while not being a straight up carbon copy of HT/ghost). * Hellion speed on creep reduced, pre-igniter upgrade also removes speed limit. I agree with you on the asymmetry, BUT the asymmetry should be balanced as well. Zerg have the highest reproduction capacity for ALL types of units and this should be balanced by the units of the other two races being tougher because they simply cant be reproduced as fast. This is not how Blizzard has implemented it and thus we get Siege Tanks which are easily overrun by lowly tier 1 stuff the Zerg can reproduce cheaply and in great numbers. This "battle balance" was whined for by many many many people saying "Siege Tank OP" and so on. Btw., only the units which cant be "mass produced" should be tougher, thus any unit produced with a Reactor or Warp Gate should stay the same, but others need to be tougher to kill. If this kind of "unit asymmetry" cant be achieved then a complete removal of all macro boosts for economy and production is the only solution to make the game more manageable. I like your idea of trading the root of Fungal Growth for a silence, but the other changes seem too good for Zerg and limiting the Queen to 1 per hatch is somewhat silly since it should be a supporting battle unit with transfusion and that useage is ok. Just remove the range buff a nd remind Zerg players that they could get 4 Spine Crawlers easily for those 3 extra Queens and a few Zerglings that are usually built and those will provide enough safety against an early Hellion harrass until the Roach count is high enough.
OK, sry to be rude but you are insane and the proposal of this strategy just shows that you have no clue at all about what Zerg is able to produce at which time and off what economy.
4spinecrawler cost 600+4larva while 3queens cost 450 and no larva, so you are cutting into your ecnomy with 7drones (compared to the queen opening) and then you want the zerg to cut even harder into his economy to build extra lings (let's say 8lings so another 4drones less) and build a roach warren (-4drones) and roaches (extra gas, 2drones per roach less) and thereby delay lair tech on two bases, so any mutas or infestors will come out earliest at 11min (the usual mutatiming of two base if you didn't go roach was ~10min and didn't accomplish anything), but the third timing will still be like 8 or 9min (after you pushed the hellions).
Zerg can barely afford this until now. But you are forgetting about the evo chamber and the spores to not lose against the banshee in the usual hellion/banshee opening (again, mobile antiair is delayed and cut in favor of roaches and spines) and you do all of that to be safe while Terran macros away with 3CCs uncontested and just lands his third CC at the expo when zerg has just has started his third IF the banshee(s) even let it get up, because they rule the air for 2mins now and zerg has no creep to defend the third with either queens or spores, due to the early hellion contain.
And yes, Terran can go hellions and (cloaked) banshees and 3CC, we have seen plenty of games go like that, but we haven't seen zergs that "innovated" 4 early spine/3queen/some lings with speed/roach/spore 2base play. But if it is possible, I really would like to see a replay of you playing this (with 3range queens), as the way you describe it, it sounds quite easy and strong.
|
On July 17 2012 19:56 Orek wrote:
Core game design/concept of Zerg:
1. Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed. It is non-Zerg's job to pressure Zerg.
2. Zerg can tech switch and remax better.
I don't think you can argue these, nor you should try to change these. Larva mechanics makes these possible, and larva mechanics is what makes Zerg a unique race in starcraft or any RTS game for that matter. It was basically the same concept in broodwar, too. Some people are attempting to challenge this design itself, but Zerg wouldn't be Zerg without these features that come from larva mechanics.
Instead, what we need to consider is:
A. It is currently too hard for non-Zerg to pressure Zerg and disturb economy.
B. Zerg can remax WAY better with so many stored larvae.
Game design itself is not the problem. "In what degree" is the problem.
The answers to these problems should be:
X. Makes it easier to disturb Zerg economy while not making it too easy.
Y. Limit the remaxability of Zerg either by limiting larvae numbers or somehow limiting Zerg economy that supports remaxed army strength.
I play Zerg, but I agree to some nerf to Zerg by taking X or Y route for the sake of balance and more exciting games to spectate. However, I cannot agree to some opinions that try to fundamentally change 1 and 2.
Your core game design points are purely an SC2 fabrication, aside from the tech switch one perhaps. Zerg does not have the best economy in BW when undisturbed, and you can often see a 3 base Zerg push a 2 base Protoss. They also don't remax noticably faster, since their production is quite similar to that of the other races.
It's a misunderstanding by Browder and co, that led them to understand that swarminess = super cheap production. BW Zerg simply had extremely supply-efficient and powerful units, which is why their armies will often look huge, even though they're nominally down in supply. And Zerg is almost always down in supply in an even game vs P or T.
That said, in SC2 it is indeed a question of degree. I personally think that spawn larvae is too extreme and makes the game extremely volatile - which is why a relatively small buff to Queens can completely flip a matchup upside down.
|
Your core game design points are purely an SC2 fabrication, aside from the tech switch one perhaps. Zerg does not have the best economy in BW when undisturbed
What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about STACRAFT 2 balance. What the races were like in BW is completely irrelevant. The core game design of SC2 is that Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed.
|
On July 17 2012 21:37 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 21:07 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 16:09 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 15:53 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 15:46 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 10:52 larse wrote:On July 17 2012 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote:
Personally, I don't think mid-late/late game zerg itself is hopelessly broken or anything, it tends to feel like that, but its because they are already in such an advantageous position by the time it reaches that point. A lot of people point out the race's ability to remax instantly being too strong and whatnot, but that can only happen with an existing big resource bank. And in my humble opinion there lies the problem, zergs ability to deflect most early game pressures too cost efficiently. Right now a lot of harassments can be held off just fine with minimal lings/roaches if you just get more queens. Which is a problem as building queens for defense is not even an opportunity cost, because there is so much utility for them.
So what you are left with is zerg being mostly undisrupted in their macro, by the 15-20min mark they have a huge supply lead with a sizable bank; that even trading armies well as a terran/toss feels futile because soon enough there is another similar wave coming at you again, but only this time you have like maybe 60% the previous army size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the thing people are frustrated with is the fact that you have to consistently trade ultra cost efficiently to have a chance to even consider doing a counterattack, trade slightly bad once and you know the game is over already.
I would like to see a small change on the PTR or something (say queens raised to 200 minerals for instance) and see how it changes the overall flow of the game. I'm not trying to say that queens are overpowered per se, but they seem a bit too cheap considering how all-purpose they are right now - it turns so many of the pressure attacks into somewhat of an all-in already, which is terrible for gameplay imo. I'm not a fan of big nerfs for any race, so I would much rather prefer a subtle change that reduces the rate of momentum zerg gains.
Great insight. Now the statement that Zerg is OP mostly diverges into two arguments: 1. Zerg's macro mechanism is OP
2. Zerg's army strength (especially late-game) is OPSaying Queen is OP is basically the first argument, since the logic of Queen being OP is the same as saying that "no damage to zerg economy early ----> zerg's economy grows faster than other two races later". This is an indirect statement that Zerg's macro mechanism is OP. Therefore, as always, to address the first type of OPness, the solutions can be either revert the queen change (so other two races can do economic damage early ----> equal economy later), or nerf the Zerg's macro mechanism (most people argue reduce the larvae produced from injection by 1) To address the second type of OPness, the solutions are more debatable but most people argue some sorts of nerfs to roach, infestor, or Broodlord. I would much rather it wasn't just a blanket nerf to larva. As a spectator, the game is far better if the economy is slowed by the opponent actually attacking. TvZ was universally considered the most entertaining matchup because economic damage mattered, so there was constant action. TvZ has now degenerated to what PvZ has always been - fast all in to avoid midgame, or bilateral turtling straight to a late game economy. Being FORCED or REQUIRED to attack Zerg early to have a chance to win is actually bad, because you should be able to "outeconomize" or "outstrategize" them in any form. Letting a Zerg get to a huge economy just means you will lose most likely. Sure there are certain pros who can win against unwinnable odds, but the majority of us will simply lose. TvZ is boring, because bio loses as soon as the Zerg hits a decent supply of Infestors (supported by ling-Baneling) and mech loses right after they have lost the majority of their siege tanks to one attack wave and when the Zerg have rebuilt their whole army in one production cycle. There is no way for Terrans to make a Zerg trade cost inefficient in the late game unless the Zerg goes for mass Ultralisks without good support. I don't agree at all. Starcraft is a game of asymmetry. It's perfectly fine for one race to be better at macro if left alone - the larva mechanic is specifically suited to reward the opponent's aggression. It allows for posturing and feints. The Zerg should have to decide whether to spend larva on units or drones. In current ZvT they just spam drones. As to infestors, fungal is just complete bullshit and should be entirely reworked. Changes to consider: * Limit 1 queen per hatch, remove food cost. * Hydra den to tier 1. * Fungal damage reduced by 25%, root removed, replaced by silence (can't stim, blink, medivacs can't heal, motherships can't vortex, sentries can't FF, templars can't storm, ghosts can't snipe or emp). Would turn Infestor into a proper anti-caster unit like other casters are, while not being a straight up carbon copy of HT/ghost). * Hellion speed on creep reduced, pre-igniter upgrade also removes speed limit. I agree with you on the asymmetry, BUT the asymmetry should be balanced as well. Zerg have the highest reproduction capacity for ALL types of units and this should be balanced by the units of the other two races being tougher because they simply cant be reproduced as fast. This is not how Blizzard has implemented it and thus we get Siege Tanks which are easily overrun by lowly tier 1 stuff the Zerg can reproduce cheaply and in great numbers. This "battle balance" was whined for by many many many people saying "Siege Tank OP" and so on. Btw., only the units which cant be "mass produced" should be tougher, thus any unit produced with a Reactor or Warp Gate should stay the same, but others need to be tougher to kill. If this kind of "unit asymmetry" cant be achieved then a complete removal of all macro boosts for economy and production is the only solution to make the game more manageable. I like your idea of trading the root of Fungal Growth for a silence, but the other changes seem too good for Zerg and limiting the Queen to 1 per hatch is somewhat silly since it should be a supporting battle unit with transfusion and that useage is ok. Just remove the range buff a nd remind Zerg players that they could get 4 Spine Crawlers easily for those 3 extra Queens and a few Zerglings that are usually built and those will provide enough safety against an early Hellion harrass until the Roach count is high enough. OK, sry to be rude but you are insane and the proposal of this strategy just shows that you have no clue at all about what Zerg is able to produce at which time and off what economy. 4spinecrawler cost 600+4larva while 3queens cost 450 and no larva, so you are cutting into your ecnomy with 7drones (compared to the queen opening) and then you want the zerg to cut even harder into his economy to build extra lings (let's say 8lings so another 4drones less) and build a roach warren (-4drones) and roaches (extra gas, 2drones per roach less) and thereby delay lair tech on two bases, so any mutas or infestors will come out earliest at 11min (the usual mutatiming of two base if you didn't go roach was ~10min and didn't accomplish anything), but the third timing will still be like 8 or 9min (after you pushed the hellions).
The big point is that Zerg also build Zerglings as a defensive measure and those cost resources and larva as well. Just skip them and get a Drone for Spine Crawler instead. Zerg are able to afford 6 Queens on 2-3 bases right now and so the money is there and a Spine Crawler is much tougher than Zerglings, doesnt require gas for a speed upgrade to be useful, is a worthy target for transfuse and has a pretty long range right from the start. Oh and it can be moved around your base as well.
The point is that many Zerg are whining "boohoo we dont have a tough unit with high dps early on to defend" ... which was the reason why Queens got their range buff. The truth is they do have Spine Crawlers and they are much tougher and longer ranged than anything the opposition can muster, so it is a valid option for defense. The point is that the players have been taught to NOT build them by people like Day[9], but that mindset comes from BW and needs to be revised. The one-sided whining of the Zerg has not taken into account that the other two races have nothing that comes close in toughness to the Queen as their first unit (Zealot / Marine) and the Queen does even provide extra benefits for them. Why else are maps halfway covered by creep now past the 12 minute mark or so? Its not really balanced, because the macroeconomics REQUIRE a chance for harrassment against Zerg early on to give other races at least a chance of winning. With the Queen range Terrans lost the only thing they still could do early on and that is terrible.
|
On July 17 2012 22:22 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +Your core game design points are purely an SC2 fabrication, aside from the tech switch one perhaps. Zerg does not have the best economy in BW when undisturbed What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about STACRAFT 2 balance. What the races were like in BW is completely irrelevant. The core game design of SC2 is that Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed.
And that is bad unless one of the following is true:
a) Zerg's units are significantly weaker than the other races', meaning that they'd need to make a LOT of units to defend things
b) Zerg's production is less effective than the other races'
Right now, both of these are false, in particular a) is false. Zerg units ae way too good for the amount of Larvae accessible and the cost of the units themselves. Roach/Ling is ridiculously effective against non-AoE Protoss. You need to reduce the potency of Larva stacking and reduce the strength of Zerg in the early/midgame. Doing both of these would make the game much more balanced.
|
On July 17 2012 22:30 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 21:37 Big J wrote:On July 17 2012 21:07 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 16:09 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 15:53 Rabiator wrote:On July 17 2012 15:46 yeint wrote:On July 17 2012 10:52 larse wrote:On July 17 2012 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote:
Personally, I don't think mid-late/late game zerg itself is hopelessly broken or anything, it tends to feel like that, but its because they are already in such an advantageous position by the time it reaches that point. A lot of people point out the race's ability to remax instantly being too strong and whatnot, but that can only happen with an existing big resource bank. And in my humble opinion there lies the problem, zergs ability to deflect most early game pressures too cost efficiently. Right now a lot of harassments can be held off just fine with minimal lings/roaches if you just get more queens. Which is a problem as building queens for defense is not even an opportunity cost, because there is so much utility for them.
So what you are left with is zerg being mostly undisrupted in their macro, by the 15-20min mark they have a huge supply lead with a sizable bank; that even trading armies well as a terran/toss feels futile because soon enough there is another similar wave coming at you again, but only this time you have like maybe 60% the previous army size. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the thing people are frustrated with is the fact that you have to consistently trade ultra cost efficiently to have a chance to even consider doing a counterattack, trade slightly bad once and you know the game is over already.
I would like to see a small change on the PTR or something (say queens raised to 200 minerals for instance) and see how it changes the overall flow of the game. I'm not trying to say that queens are overpowered per se, but they seem a bit too cheap considering how all-purpose they are right now - it turns so many of the pressure attacks into somewhat of an all-in already, which is terrible for gameplay imo. I'm not a fan of big nerfs for any race, so I would much rather prefer a subtle change that reduces the rate of momentum zerg gains.
Great insight. Now the statement that Zerg is OP mostly diverges into two arguments: 1. Zerg's macro mechanism is OP
2. Zerg's army strength (especially late-game) is OPSaying Queen is OP is basically the first argument, since the logic of Queen being OP is the same as saying that "no damage to zerg economy early ----> zerg's economy grows faster than other two races later". This is an indirect statement that Zerg's macro mechanism is OP. Therefore, as always, to address the first type of OPness, the solutions can be either revert the queen change (so other two races can do economic damage early ----> equal economy later), or nerf the Zerg's macro mechanism (most people argue reduce the larvae produced from injection by 1) To address the second type of OPness, the solutions are more debatable but most people argue some sorts of nerfs to roach, infestor, or Broodlord. I would much rather it wasn't just a blanket nerf to larva. As a spectator, the game is far better if the economy is slowed by the opponent actually attacking. TvZ was universally considered the most entertaining matchup because economic damage mattered, so there was constant action. TvZ has now degenerated to what PvZ has always been - fast all in to avoid midgame, or bilateral turtling straight to a late game economy. Being FORCED or REQUIRED to attack Zerg early to have a chance to win is actually bad, because you should be able to "outeconomize" or "outstrategize" them in any form. Letting a Zerg get to a huge economy just means you will lose most likely. Sure there are certain pros who can win against unwinnable odds, but the majority of us will simply lose. TvZ is boring, because bio loses as soon as the Zerg hits a decent supply of Infestors (supported by ling-Baneling) and mech loses right after they have lost the majority of their siege tanks to one attack wave and when the Zerg have rebuilt their whole army in one production cycle. There is no way for Terrans to make a Zerg trade cost inefficient in the late game unless the Zerg goes for mass Ultralisks without good support. I don't agree at all. Starcraft is a game of asymmetry. It's perfectly fine for one race to be better at macro if left alone - the larva mechanic is specifically suited to reward the opponent's aggression. It allows for posturing and feints. The Zerg should have to decide whether to spend larva on units or drones. In current ZvT they just spam drones. As to infestors, fungal is just complete bullshit and should be entirely reworked. Changes to consider: * Limit 1 queen per hatch, remove food cost. * Hydra den to tier 1. * Fungal damage reduced by 25%, root removed, replaced by silence (can't stim, blink, medivacs can't heal, motherships can't vortex, sentries can't FF, templars can't storm, ghosts can't snipe or emp). Would turn Infestor into a proper anti-caster unit like other casters are, while not being a straight up carbon copy of HT/ghost). * Hellion speed on creep reduced, pre-igniter upgrade also removes speed limit. I agree with you on the asymmetry, BUT the asymmetry should be balanced as well. Zerg have the highest reproduction capacity for ALL types of units and this should be balanced by the units of the other two races being tougher because they simply cant be reproduced as fast. This is not how Blizzard has implemented it and thus we get Siege Tanks which are easily overrun by lowly tier 1 stuff the Zerg can reproduce cheaply and in great numbers. This "battle balance" was whined for by many many many people saying "Siege Tank OP" and so on. Btw., only the units which cant be "mass produced" should be tougher, thus any unit produced with a Reactor or Warp Gate should stay the same, but others need to be tougher to kill. If this kind of "unit asymmetry" cant be achieved then a complete removal of all macro boosts for economy and production is the only solution to make the game more manageable. I like your idea of trading the root of Fungal Growth for a silence, but the other changes seem too good for Zerg and limiting the Queen to 1 per hatch is somewhat silly since it should be a supporting battle unit with transfusion and that useage is ok. Just remove the range buff a nd remind Zerg players that they could get 4 Spine Crawlers easily for those 3 extra Queens and a few Zerglings that are usually built and those will provide enough safety against an early Hellion harrass until the Roach count is high enough. OK, sry to be rude but you are insane and the proposal of this strategy just shows that you have no clue at all about what Zerg is able to produce at which time and off what economy. 4spinecrawler cost 600+4larva while 3queens cost 450 and no larva, so you are cutting into your ecnomy with 7drones (compared to the queen opening) and then you want the zerg to cut even harder into his economy to build extra lings (let's say 8lings so another 4drones less) and build a roach warren (-4drones) and roaches (extra gas, 2drones per roach less) and thereby delay lair tech on two bases, so any mutas or infestors will come out earliest at 11min (the usual mutatiming of two base if you didn't go roach was ~10min and didn't accomplish anything), but the third timing will still be like 8 or 9min (after you pushed the hellions). The big point is that Zerg also build Zerglings as a defensive measure and those cost resources and larva as well. Just skip them and get a Drone for Spine Crawler instead. Zerg are able to afford 6 Queens on 2-3 bases right now and so the money is there and a Spine Crawler is much tougher than Zerglings, doesnt require gas for a speed upgrade to be useful, is a worthy target for transfuse and has a pretty long range right from the start. Oh and it can be moved around your base as well. The point is that many Zerg are whining "boohoo we dont have a tough unit with high dps early on to defend" ... which was the reason why Queens got their range buff. The truth is they do have Spine Crawlers and they are much tougher and longer ranged than anything the opposition can muster, so it is a valid option for defense. The point is that the players have been taught to NOT build them by people like Day[9], but that mindset comes from BW and needs to be revised. The one-sided whining of the Zerg has not taken into account that the other two races have nothing that comes close in toughness to the Queen as their first unit (Zealot / Marine) and the Queen does even provide extra benefits for them. Why else are maps halfway covered by creep now past the 12 minute mark or so? Its not really balanced, because the macroeconomics REQUIRE a chance for harrassment against Zerg early on to give other races at least a chance of winning. With the Queen range Terrans lost the only thing they still could do early on and that is terrible.
everybody was building 1-2 spinecrawlers, but if you went for 3-4spines+lings you were simply falling behind against a clever Terran and they did not even provide that good defense, because as said you still needed more investments to deal with banshee or early elevator play. So the way zergs tried to dealt with this situation was to go for very few spines (which only help with frontal attacks and even there have quite some trouble against hellion/marauder) and rather trying to hit zergling production right to be able to defend against all the various things. That was not greedy, it was just more universal.
And no, Terrans did not need to harass the zerg at all before the patch. They needed to delay the third (and force 2base play) with a hellion contain or force a lot of units if the zerg wanted to go for the fast third. Any damage was a bonus, but not necessary at all.
|
On July 17 2012 22:41 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 22:22 yeint wrote:Your core game design points are purely an SC2 fabrication, aside from the tech switch one perhaps. Zerg does not have the best economy in BW when undisturbed What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about STACRAFT 2 balance. What the races were like in BW is completely irrelevant. The core game design of SC2 is that Zerg has the best economy if undisturbed. And that is bad unless one of the following is true: a) Zerg's units are significantly weaker than the other races', meaning that they'd need to make a LOT of units to defend things b) Zerg's production is less effective than the other races' Right now, both of these are false, in particular a) is false. Zerg units ae way too good for the amount of Larvae accessible and the cost of the units themselves. Roach/Ling is ridiculously effective against non-AoE Protoss. You need to reduce the potency of Larva stacking and reduce the strength of Zerg in the early/midgame. Doing both of these would make the game much more balanced.
I agree. Zerg units should be weaker, and the game should be balanced for current maps, not Steppes of War.
|
Problem here is, if Zerg units are weaker you need a higher control cap for them.
Weaker units just mean you will lose every fight against a maxed out army. Losing in SC2 means: You lose everything without even denting your opponent.
Thats one core problem of this game and the reason why zerg try hard to skip midgame going straight for Infestor/BL. There is just no midgame army to deal with the Toss midgame deathball, no matter how often you remax.
|
On July 17 2012 23:09 Charon1979 wrote:
Problem here is, if Zerg units are weaker you need a higher control cap for them.
Weaker units just mean you will lose every fight against a maxed out army. Losing in SC2 means: You lose everything without even denting your opponent.
Thats one core problem of this game and the reason why zerg try hard to skip midgame going straight for Infestor/BL. There is just no midgame army to deal with the Toss midgame deathball, no matter how often you remax.
This just isn't true anymore. The Roach/Ling composition is so brutally powerful in the early phases of the midgame that you can force a LOT of Sentries or deny a Toss's third base for a long time. It shouldn't be possible to do this while still macroing hard behind it, but right now it is. So you need to reduce the power of the Roach in order to make Zergs decide between Droning and pressuring.
Nobody is going to be maxed at 10 minutes except Zerg, so it's not a problem.
|
so its not a problem at the 10 minute mark because toss is just at 130 supply and maxes at 14... so if you havent won by 10 minutes you have 4 more minutes to live. Great game!
and now tell me what this "strong midgame" is:
a) a push to deny a third, trade units and try to enter quickly lategame, because toss will have colossi soon
or
b) a serious midgame strategy aiming on stable and supplyefficient combat units with good upgrades
|
On July 17 2012 23:21 Charon1979 wrote:
so its not a problem at the 10 minute mark because toss is just at 130 supply and maxes at 14... so if you havent won by 10 minutes you have 4 more minutes to live. Great game!
???
Toss 200/200 pushes at 14 are very holdable in the current metagame just by taking a 4th, making Spines, and delaying until Broods, taking down the 2-3 Colo with BLs and then just walking over the rather weak Stalker/Sentry army. It's more than possible for Zerg to have Infestors out at this point, but they shouldn't be able to hold everything while playing aggressive and passive at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
