|
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.
No it doesn't. It means you won't trade efficiently, but with large enough maps and fast enough resupply, Zerg can still hold its own by tailoring the remax to the surviving opposing army.
|
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.
and here we go:
delaying until Broods
Infestors out
but you want weaker zerg units, so no current infestor/broodlord. Cmon tell me your midgame T2 zerg composition (when you even want to nerf roaches as stated before)
No it doesn't. It means you won't trade efficiently, but with large enough maps and fast enough resupply, Zerg can still hold its own by tailoring the remax to the surviving opposing army.
Please try.
Take a Toss Deathball and engage it with "weaker" units. Your trades are not ony "inefficient", you are not trading at all as your army dies before you even kill something. It doesnt matter how often you remax and how often you bash your head against a the ball, it wont stop.
You remember good old roach/hydra/corruptor? If you overmake corruptors, Toss just stopmps you, if you make too few Toss just stomps you, no matter how "fast" you remax. And at this time we still had toss 3gate expanding, so no FFE or even nexus first
|
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.
If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies.
For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth.
As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point.
|
On July 17 2012 23:23 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Zerg plays passive till 8-9mins, then zerg produces units for 2-3mins and either defends (if protoss attacks) or attacks (if protoss expands). I don't see the problem with that. It's the same concept for Protoss, just 1-2mins earlier:
Protoss plays passive until tech and production structure are up and then starts producing units between 7-10minutes (depending on what Protoss goes for). If the zerg attacks at that time (two base roach, two base muta, two base infestor, two base hydra, two base nydus, 2-3base baneling bust) they defend with them if the zerg plays a standard 3base style, Protoss attacks with them.
And no Zerg is not able to hold everything. Else we wouldn't see 50% winrate PvZ right now.
|
On July 18 2012 00:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 23:23 Shiori wrote: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. Zerg plays passive till 8-9mins, then zerg produces units for 2-3mins and either defends (if protoss attacks) or attacks (if protoss expands). I don't see the problem with that. It's the same concept for Protoss, just 1-2mins earlier: Protoss plays passive until tech and production structure are up and then starts producing units between 7-10minutes (depending on what Protoss goes for). If the zerg attacks at that time (two base roach, two base muta, two base infestor, two base hydra, two base nydus, 2-3base baneling bust) they defend with them if the zerg plays a standard 3base style, Protoss attacks with them. And no Zerg is not able to hold everything. Else we wouldn't see 50% winrate PvZ right now.
The only things Zerg isn't holding are all-ins, specifically of the Immortal/Sentry variety, and this is entirely down to the greed of Zerg players and their inability to engage. For example, this past weekend at NASL, we saw Ret fall to an Immortal/Sentry push due to his bizarre decision to leave half of his army halfway across the map, subsequently suicide it, and then give away Lings for free. It is extremely obvious when a Protoss is going to all-in just based on the build order and third timing. Most Zergs have taken to positioning an Overlord behind the third base in order to make sure the Protoss doesn't Nexus cancel. There is absolutely no excuse for losing to an Immortal/Sentry push at the highest level. None. It's entirely on the Zerg to engage properly and make units. If you do this, it's pitifully easy to hold, much like the 1-1-1.
As for the rest of your post, I agree. There's nothing wrong with Zergs being able to play somewhat passively. The problem is that, right now, Zerg is ahead when they play passively. By slightly weakening their units or making them more expensive, Zergs would have to cut Drones earlier if they scouted an all-in. I think the simplest way to go about this would be to use your suggestion of increasing Roach gas cost, as this would cut down on the number of Roaches possible from gasless openers, but leave them viable in the midgame as a defensive option.
Of course, Infestor/BL needs to be nerfed/fixed somehow, but I'm not sure the best way to do this. The most efficient way, IMO, would be to increase BL supply, because this would keep the BL strong right when it comes out but prevent huge BL counts and huge Infestor counts simultaneously, which has no real response from Protoss.
|
On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine 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. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point.
I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard.
It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there.
|
On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote: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. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there.
I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better.
The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.
So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically.
|
Warpgate research was nerfed because of PvP
And now take a guess why Spores where buffed and VR Speed got nerfed... could it be that Blizzard dislikes "Lol I win with 2 Units!" Builds?
The Problem with Toss/Terran early pressure was, that it is not "just pressure". Pressure is ok, if you mess up you are behind. Problem with toss and terran "pressure" was:
Zerg messes up, Zerg dies
Zerg defends ok, Zerg is slightly behind
Terran/Toss messes up badly, you are even.
This is a nobrainer. There is no reason to not do it, the worst outcome is an even economy while the best outcome ends the game right there.
|
On July 18 2012 00:52 Charon1979 wrote:
Warpgate research was nerfed because of PvP
And now take a guess why Spores where buffed and VR Speed got nerfed... could it be that Blizzard dislikes "Lol I win with 2 Units!" Builds?
The Problem with Toss/Terran early pressure was, that it is not "just pressure". Pressure is ok, if you mess up you are behind. Problem with toss and terran "pressure" was:
Zerg messes up, Zerg dies
Zerg defends ok, Zerg is slightly behind
Terran/Toss messes up badly, you are even.
This is a nobrainer. There is no reason to not do it, the worst outcome is an even economy while the best outcome ends the game right there.
And do you know how the game works right now?
You pressure and succeed = you're even.
You pressure and you fail = you're behind and will die to a counterattack.
You don't pressure = you lose to super fast Hive tech and get rolled by an 80 Drone economy.
You should die if you mess up defending a pressure. What the fuck do you think happens when a Protoss messes up defending a 10 minute Medivac push in PvT? They die.
At no point was it the case that yo could defend a timing reasonably well and still behind. Not since the days of BETA has this been true, rofl. Queens are so fucking strong now that Void Ray speed could easily be reimplemented without any balance concerns, especially given how utterly awful the unit is right now.
The worst outcome of any pressure is doing no damage against Zerg, which means you are behind because Zerg always has a superior economy if left unchecked. And no, forcing Zerg to make units is not "doing damage" when those same units can march over to your base and deny your third. A pressure against Zerg should be able to make the Zerg do something other than play greedy. Stargate should require more than a Spore Crawler at each base to fend off. Protoss should have an option to actually make Zerg do something other than make Drones and static defense all day without leaving themselves open to a huge counterattack that they can't possibly hold. As for Terran, Hellion openers were never overpowered and you know it. If you were losing to them, it's because you are bad. They gave Terran a way to delay the Zerg third, because if you don't delay the Zerg third you end up with a shitty matchup like we have now.
PS if Blizzard dislikes winning builds with 2 units, why haven't they nerfed Roach/Ling after it had like a 90% winrate in NASL?
|
On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote: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. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you.
I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it.
|
On July 18 2012 00:52 Charon1979 wrote:
Warpgate research was nerfed because of PvP
And now take a guess why Spores where buffed and VR Speed got nerfed... could it be that Blizzard dislikes "Lol I win with 2 Units!" Builds?
The Problem with Toss/Terran early pressure was, that it is not "just pressure". Pressure is ok, if you mess up you are behind. Problem with toss and terran "pressure" was:
Zerg messes up, Zerg dies
Zerg defends ok, Zerg is slightly behind
Terran/Toss messes up badly, you are even.
This is a nobrainer. There is no reason to not do it, the worst outcome is an even economy while the best outcome ends the game right there.
So why haven't they fixed maxed roach pushes that still are quite deadly?
Also in regards to pressure.....how is that not like roach/ling/bane attacks in ZvT? It's the same with all races, if your pressure attack is doing well and they don't defend then they most likely die. If they barely hold then they are still behind.
|
On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote: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. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it.
I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes.
Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die.
Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way.
|
You should die if you mess up defending a pressure. What the fuck do you think happens when a Protoss messes up defending a 10 minute Medivac push in PvT? They die.
Push =/= Pressure
A Push is commited, pressure was for free.
There is no problem dying to a push. There is a problem was dying to free pressure.
So why haven't they fixed maxed roach pushes that still are quite deadly?
Because you dont die to 2 Roaches, while the death rate of pro zergs against 2 VRs or 2 Banshees was quite high.
Also in regards to pressure.....how is that not like roach/ling/bane attacks in ZvT? It's the same with all races, if your pressure attack is doing well and they don't defend then they most likely die. If they barely hold then they are still behind.
Roach/Ling/Bane is an all-in. You cut your drone prduction to pull it off, you dont get a 3rd base. If you can hold it well, zerg is dead as he has no Lair, no 3rd, no more units and no tech.
And as every other all-in there are chances to win or to come out even or ahead depending on the damage done. That is no "pressure" as you are totally commited to this attack.
|
On July 18 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote: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. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it. I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes. Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die. Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way. I don't think that it's my job to think for you, but will give you some things that I have seen that look from a Zerg prospective to be better than FFE:
Naniwa vs. DRG...Go watch it. Opened gateway in the main, followed by Nexus, then gas. He hit a big 4 gate timing at ~6:30 that forced a lot of units out of DRG. He did similar openings in 4 games against the best zerg in the world and went 2-2. White-ra and Tails do similar builds and it seems rather flexible. It seems like it would have problems with speedling aggression, but, as Naniwa did in one of his games, you can reactively get Forge + Cannon to deal with this sort of thing.
I've seen players in high Master league go for Nexus first followed by 2 gateways for early zealot pressure, all while still getting earlier tech for followup aggression than FFE. It seems semi-vulnerable to early 2 base roach timings, but those are problems that can likely be worked out by build refinement, scouting and deviation.
|
On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine 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. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point.
I claimed it was basically the same in BW. I don't think we are talking about different things.
As you pointed out, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a bigger deal in BW. Terran medic marine pushing out to force creep colony into spine colony was one form of "disturbing Zerg economy."
With introduction of larva inject in SC2, core designs are exaggerated by a lot, but basically the same as BW at its heart.
While Protoss and Terran produce workers and units at the same time, Zerg can produce workers only or units only depending on what happens in game. This larva mechanics leads to the point I made in orginal post. Larva mechanics became way too strong with queen's spawn larva ability, which I think is the problem, but concept itself never changed, or at least that's how I see both games.
I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that Zerg macro mechanics=larva inject came to the table first, then Mule and chronoboost counterparts were made when Blizzard was making alpha or even before alpha stage of SC2. After 2 years since release, it turns out larva inject is imba with current state of the game.
|
On July 18 2012 01:12 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote +You should die if you mess up defending a pressure. What the fuck do you think happens when a Protoss messes up defending a 10 minute Medivac push in PvT? They die. Push =/= Pressure A Push is commited, pressure was for free. There is no problem dying to a push. There is a problem was dying to free pressure. Because you dont die to 2 Roaches, while the death rate of pro zergs against 2 VRs or 2 Banshees was quite high. Show nested quote +Also in regards to pressure.....how is that not like roach/ling/bane attacks in ZvT? It's the same with all races, if your pressure attack is doing well and they don't defend then they most likely die. If they barely hold then they are still behind. Roach/Ling/Bane is an all-in. You cut your drone prduction to pull it off, you dont get a 3rd base. If you can hold it well, zerg is dead as he has no Lair, no 3rd, no more units and no tech. And as every other all-in there are chances to win or to come out even or ahead depending on the damage done. That is no "pressure" as you are totally commited to this attack.
There are no free pressures in this game. Going 2 Void Rays is a huge investment, delays every other tech, means Sentry count is low, and means you can't take a third.
|
On July 18 2012 01:26 TrippSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 01:00 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 18 2012 00:34 Shiori wrote:On July 18 2012 00:30 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 17 2012 23:33 Toadvine wrote: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. If you had carefully read the post I was replying to, you'd see that he was claiming this was the same in BW, which is wrong. A lot of people newer to the scene think that SC2 Zerg is somehow a continuation of BW Zerg, when they couldn't be further apart, all things considered. I think it's useful to correct this misconception, especially since A LOT of basic strategic ideas were directly lifted from BW into SC2, often to the detriment of the development of original sc2 strategies. For example, the notion of "forcing the Zerg to make units instead of drones" is a lot less impactful in SC2 than it is in BW, because larvae are so cheap in the former. Similarly, forcing a Zerg to make static defense was a huge deal in BW, because they cost a drone at a time when Zerg wouldn't have a lot of drones - DTs forcing a spore at every Zerg expo was in itself pretty decent damage. In SC2, it doesn't matter that much, and you see Zergs having 30+ spines on the map in the lategame. And so forth. As an aside, I think the Zerg core design in SC2 is pretty stupid, but it's impossible to change at this point. I didn't play BW, so please don't hold that against me, but I think that the difference is that the increase in larva capacity becomes exponentially larger if left unchecked early, rather than linearly. A lot of the builds currently used against Zerg in both matchups are the variety that abandon very early pressure in favor of a stronger personal economy, but allow the Zerg free reign in the early game to drone super hard. It's debatable how much Terran have the ability to slow Zergs down with the queen change, but Protoss players have adopted play that basically guarantees that Zergs get to 60 drones and even very strong all-ins that come from FFE can still be held with around 50 drones. I'm surprised that Protoss players haven't given other FE possibilities another look to see if they can trade spending 300 minerals blindly on static defense, in favor of earlier pressure to force units. What Naniwa did in GSL Ro8 might be the start of something like this for the greater metagame. I think the reason this hasn't happened sooner is that Protoss players have a rather strong late mid game and late game composition that is established with solid transitions to get there. I hate this line of reasoning so very much because it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the history of the game and the skill of Protoss pros. 1gate FE is not good. The times it works right now are 100% down to metagame and lack of Zerg practice against this. Proof? We used to 1gate and 3gate expand exclusively in this matchup, before we realized that FFE was better. The reason that Zerg can hold everything Protoss can throw at them is because of nerfs to virtually every Protoss timing following immense Zerg QQ. Maybe you've forgotten, but WG nerfs delay all of our timings SIGNIFICANTLY. Void Ray speed nerf made Stargate openings way worse. Spore Crawler root time was buffed so Stargate is actually virtually useless now. Blink research time was increased in a time when barely anyone was actually losing to Blink timings. What other tech path are we supposed to pressure with? +1 4gate zealot is countered by standard play. DTs are countered by standard play. Warp Prism harass in the midgame is countered by standard play. There's nothing left except all-ins or fake pressures.So yeah, it's not that Protoss players are averse to trying pressures. It's just that all the non-all-in versions have been nerfed to oblivion because Zergs like Idra thought they were entitled to get 70 Drones automatically. Now, I see why I avoided this thread. You don't really want to discuss anything. You just want to bash other races and cry about things not being easy for you. I've played on both sides of the matchup and I'm aware of the meta-game shifts that have happened. My point is that putting down a Forge and a Cannon delays all pressure substantially to be safe against theoretical pressure. If the pressure doesn't come, you can basically assume that Zerg should have 60 drones at a minimum if they play properly, because your tech is so far delayed that you can't actually stop it from happening realistically. I'm not saying go back to 1/3 Gate then expand builds. What I'm saying is that I'm surprised smarter and better Protoss minds than I should look at that and say there is something wrong and there's got to be a better way to do it. I don't want to discuss things that are settled issues. Anything other than FFE is just not workable right now because of how fast Zerg economy can spiral and because of how utterly huge the maps are. Yes, FFE delays your pressure, but no FFE delays your economy. Since every Protoss tech has massive costs attached to it, you can't really 1base for long against a Zerg since Speedling expands are able to fend off basically any ground-based pokes. Every Protoss player knows that FFE makes your pressure come later, but there really isn't anything we can do about it. Sometimes you can get away with going Gate before Forge, but only if the Zerg player opens really greedily. Other than that, Zerg will see your greedy opening and just pump out Lings until you die. Until you can give a suggestion as to what we're supposed to do other than FFE, there's no point saying "oh, well there's gotta be something since FFE is bad." Yeah, no shit FFE is bad. That's the point. That's why PvZ needs fixing. There needs to be some way of viably pressuring Zerg without being incredibly behind in another way. I don't think that it's my job to think for you, but will give you some things that I have seen that look from a Zerg prospective to be better than FFE: Naniwa vs. DRG...Go watch it. Opened gateway in the main, followed by Nexus, then gas. He hit a big 4 gate timing at ~6:30 that forced a lot of units out of DRG. He did similar openings in 4 games against the best zerg in the world and went 2-2. White-ra and Tails do similar builds and it seems rather flexible. It seems like it would have problems with speedling aggression, but, as Naniwa did in one of his games, you can reactively get Forge + Cannon to deal with this sort of thing. I've seen players in high Master league go for Nexus first followed by 2 gateways for early zealot pressure, all while still getting earlier tech for followup aggression than FFE. It seems semi-vulnerable to early 2 base roach timings, but those are problems that can likely be worked out by build refinement, scouting and deviation.
The latter opening is viable, but very weak after the Queen buff. The Naniwa Gate expand is 100% a metagame build. It would not work if everyone did it.
|
let the statistics speak for them selfs:
Homestory cup top 8:
Zerg: 5
Protoss: 3
Terran: 0
MLG Annaheim top 8:
Zerg: 2
Protoss: 3
Terran: 3
NASL Finals top 8:
Zerg: 2
Protoss: 5
Terran: 1
Dreamhack top 8:
Zerg: 3
Protoss: 5
Terran: 0
GSL codeS Season 3 top 8:
Zerg: 3
Protoss: 3
Terran: 2
OVERALL SUMMERY:
Zerg: 15
Protoss: 19
Terran: 6
as well i have looked up how much zerg/toss/terra is in the top 8 of the 3 ladders (NA, Europe, Korea)
there are :
11 Zerg
8 Protoss
5 Terrans
overall there are aproximately (sc2ranks.com shows always some more then 200 for the gm for some reason, but aproxximate the numbers should be ok)
so overall there are
241 Zerg
238 Protoss
168 Terrans
in the GMs of EU NA Korea together.
this all while the actual
|
Anyone who watches the game can see that Zerg is ludicrously overpowered right now, especially against Terran but a fair amount versus Protoss too. It's reached the point where it's ruining the viewing experience for me.
There used to be so many players who were amazing vs Zerg. Guys like MMA, MVP, Jjakji, MC, Ganzi, Hero and Happy.
And this isn't because Zerg was too weak because there has been loads of guys who were amazing vs Protoss (Puma, Bomber, DRG, Stephano, Coca, Nestea, Losira) and guys who were amazing vs Terran (Creator, Parting, DRG, Leenock, San, Puzzle, July).
Right now I can't think of a single player who is good vs Zerg. Even guys like MC who are the best of a bad bunch have lost a hell of a lot of PvZ's lately.
There loads of ways Blizzard could fix this and I'll leave it to them to come up with something but they need to do something soon because it's getting ridiculous and devaluing the wins of Zergs players who may or may not have won regardless.
And by the way I say all this as a guy who's always played Zerg and 70% of my favourite players are Zerg.
|
+ 11 T in RO24 in GSL Code A + perhaps even 12.
why do T so much whine? its like 6 weeks (?) after queen patch and T win more and more since that. also in GSTL where zerg won everything in TvZ after patch T won more than Z did in TvZ in the last round. just give it time, it got better and will get even better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
