There is a profound lack of Korean results backing up the claims of zerg imbalance.
Did some counting for your non-KeSPA OSL:
First 12 Group winners: 4 P, 2 T, 6 Z. (The two T finals were Group C's TvT and Group F's TvP) Not counting walkovers, by group TvZ: A: 1-3 B: 0-1 C: 3-2 D: 1-1 E:3-7 F: 1-1 G: 2-5 H: 3-3 I: 2-2 J: 2-0 K: 1-1 L:0-4 Terrans have the edge in 2 groups (+1, +2), Zerg in 5 (+2, +1, +4, +3, +4), tied 5 TOTAL: 19 - 30
Yes there were more Terran wins in the KeSPA side but I thought we were talking about the SC2 elites. They should be excluded until they prove their SC2 acumen. Certainly they will be better now than we saw at the MLG showmatches but I'd still bet today on the top 10 foreigners against them in SC2.
Of course all of this is a bit beside the point. Saying "You want balance, stay up to 5am and watch GSL. You want PvZ and ZvZ? Watch everything else," is not a very good long-term business plan.
On July 20 2012 02:18 Sandermatt wrote: The Reaper speed upgrade was moved from the barracks to the factory because of the 5 rax reaper strategy. With the new queen range, ist there any reason to let it stay at factory tech? I think reaper openings are rather specatator friendly. (I stoped playing and am only a spectator now)
I stopped playing as well and don't intend to come back until the game looks fun again, but that's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether people believe the matchups are balanced or not, the painful truth is that the game has gotten much less fun to WATCH. At least this is the case for my friends and I. Whether it's FFE vs. 3 Hatch, 6 queen vs. 3 Orbital, or CC First vs 1g Nexus, this game is a complete bore in the first 10 minutes. Hey, I want the game to be fair too, but the systematic nerfs to everything early game from Terran, Warp gate, and the buff to queens has damaged this game from a viewing perspective to be sure. I'm not saying I don't like macro games, but its kind of getting ridiculous. Either your allin or your standardly being greedy. There's is almost no in between minor pressure builds, or at least it seems that way now.
I'm sure some people might enjoy it more though, my two cents. As far as balance, I wish Blizzard would've buffed something else of zergs if they really felt they weren't fine early on that wasn't their core macro unit. Buff spines, or the armor/health on a creep tumor so helions can't really kill it easy. Anything but this. Soz for rant.
I feel the same way. Initially it was that I couldn't watch any matchups with Protoss in it; the balls, the repetitive timings, the forcefields, and the turtling are no fun, and it sucks because Protoss is in half of the available matchups. Now it is that even ZvT is boring to watch. I do, unlike many people it would seem, have hope for HOTS, though.
On July 19 2012 23:12 ooozer wrote: You know, Protoss is OP when MC makes it into the finals.
Watch the resulst of this seasons GSL. Seems quite even to me
gsl is a lot about mind games, specific builds and elabored plans. The emphasis is more on your opponent than on his race, that's why I think the GSL is not a good indicator of the current balance of the game.
I've been seeing this alot, and I disagree - although maybe not about the mindgames (as that is about player psychology).
The fact that GSL allows for competing players of equivalent or nearly equivalent skill to plan against each other is a greater indicator of balance because it means that it allows for successful strategies to win. If a race was truly OP, then the likelihood of successful strategies/tactics/plans working is less when enacted against the OP race (whatever that race is).
Therefore, if the races are more or less balanced, at least in terms of winrates versus each other, then it comes down to the mind and execution of the player. Hence, GSL is the best (if not necessarily the only) indicator of game balance.
On July 19 2012 23:12 ooozer wrote: You know, Protoss is OP when MC makes it into the finals.
Watch the resulst of this seasons GSL. Seems quite even to me
gsl is a lot about mind games, specific builds and elabored plans. The emphasis is more on your opponent than on his race, that's why I think the GSL is not a good indicator of the current balance of the game.
I've been seeing this alot, and I disagree - although maybe not about the mindgames (as that is about player psychology).
The fact that GSL allows for competing players of equivalent or nearly equivalent skill to plan against each other is a greater indicator of balance because it means that it allows for successful strategies to win. If a race was truly OP, then the likelihood of successful strategies/tactics/plans working is less when enacted against the OP race (whatever that race is).
Therefore, if the races are more or less balanced, at least in terms of winrates versus each other, then it comes down to the mind and execution of the player. Hence, GSL is the best (if not necessarily the only) indicator of game balance.
Except this sort of reasoning falls apart when you consider that the skill gap between Code A/some code B players and code S players isn't actually that big, and when you consider that mindgaming often constitutes the creation of a nonstandard strategy specifically designed to beat a certain. Emphasis on the strategy being nonstandard.
Well, I am talking about Code A and Code S players. Also, if by mindgaming you mean the creation of "non-standard" strategies (whatever that means) that is far too large a brush to tar the issue with. If that is the case, if, then you could also say it is the creation of new strategies that succeed against standard (or currently accepted strategies). But, if so, it points to flaws in the accepted strategy and the fact of success means that it does come down to planning and execution with race having little to do with when it comes to match-ups between players of comparable skill levels.
To my mind, the dismissal of GSL (as some sort of strategic gimmick-fest) is a way of avoiding results that do not mesh with preferred arguments regarding racial balance. It leads to incomplete (if not superficial) analysis. So, no, I disagree.
On July 20 2012 06:21 aZealot wrote: Well, I am talking about Code A and Code S players. Also, if by mindgaming you mean the creation of "non-standard" strategies (whatever that means) that is far too large a brush to tar the issue with. If that is the case, if, then you could also say it is the creation of new strategies that succeed against standard (or currently accepted strategies). But, if so, it points to flaws in the accepted strategy and the fact of success means that it does come down to planning and execution with race having little to do with when it comes to match-ups between players of comparable skill levels.
To my mind, the dismissal of GSL (as some sort of strategic gimmick-fest) is a way of avoiding results that do not mesh with preferred arguments regarding racial balance. It leads to incomplete (if not superficial) analysis. So, no, I disagree.
It's not that we should dismiss GSL results, but we should take them in context. For instance, the MVP vs Naniwa/Parting series said relatively little about the state of TvP since they were bizarre games littered with all-ins and cheeses. On the other hand, seeing DRG take down MKP at MLG Arena was pretty useful because it looked very much like a standard high level ZvT. All too many of the strategies employed in the GSL are reliant on the element of surprise, which means they might only really work the first time you use them. MC's latest 7gate against Zerg, for instance, while it didn't occur in the GSL, was prepared especially for Stephano, worked the first time, and failed the second. What does this tell us about PvZ? Honestly, not much. That's what I'm getting at.
I still think the best way to analyze a matchup is to really just look at the options the players have, the feasibility of those options, and how effective those options are against an opponent of similar skill. Statistics are helpful, but there are a tonne of variables that can affect statistics of this kind of sample size.
On July 20 2012 06:21 aZealot wrote: Well, I am talking about Code A and Code S players. Also, if by mindgaming you mean the creation of "non-standard" strategies (whatever that means) that is far too large a brush to tar the issue with. If that is the case, if, then you could also say it is the creation of new strategies that succeed against standard (or currently accepted strategies). But, if so, it points to flaws in the accepted strategy and the fact of success means that it does come down to planning and execution with race having little to do with when it comes to match-ups between players of comparable skill levels.
To my mind, the dismissal of GSL (as some sort of strategic gimmick-fest) is a way of avoiding results that do not mesh with preferred arguments regarding racial balance. It leads to incomplete (if not superficial) analysis. So, no, I disagree.
It's not that we should dismiss GSL results, but we should take them in context. For instance, the MVP vs Naniwa/Parting series said relatively little about the state of TvP since they were bizarre games littered with all-ins and cheeses. On the other hand, seeing DRG take down MKP at MLG Arena was pretty useful because it looked very much like a standard high level ZvT. All too many of the strategies employed in the GSL are reliant on the element of surprise, which means they might only really work the first time you use them. MC's latest 7gate against Zerg, for instance, while it didn't occur in the GSL, was prepared especially for Stephano, worked the first time, and failed the second. What does this tell us about PvZ? Honestly, not much. That's what I'm getting at.
I still think the best way to analyze a matchup is to really just look at the options the players have, the feasibility of those options, and how effective those options are against an opponent of similar skill. Statistics are helpful, but there are a tonne of variables that can affect statistics of this kind of sample size.
There's a lot to this, and it is the reason that any balance discussion I get into now has a caveat. I haven't been able to watch much SC2 for a month now, so I'm just going by tiny icons next to names in wikipedia (and my own month old opinions of players).
It sucks to watch unconventional SC2 matches that spit all over the notion of "standard play" just to see it used as a "GOTCHA" balance zinger. "What? Zerg isn't able to beat Protoss?! What about that game where Ret went mass queen+nydus against Hero, who went 6 nexus before cyber?! A REVOLUTION IN PVZ IS NIGH!" The games are undoubtedly fun to watch, and there is often a lot to learn from them, but balance is hardly relevant or exemplified in those games.
Make mechanical units immune to High Templar feedback or only have it burn energy with no damage - > all Terran high tech units are now viable vs late game toss - > Thor, Banshee, Raven, BC
Make Warp gate a late game research (fleet beacon required?) and buff either gateway build times or buff gateway units slightly to compensate. Protoss may not be able to all-in as hard with gates anymore, but with stronger units and weaker infestor/broodlord Protoss will be able to play with more standard pressure while getting to lategame where the odds are equal
Buff Tank vs armor damage, and allow tanks to do full armored damage to all protoss shields, except immortals (helps versus zealots) - > tanks now okish late game versus Ultras and all Protoss comps
Make fungal cause a 30%~ slow instead of full immobilize (this not only tones infestors down, but also makes broodlord/infestor much more killable with marines/stalkers, as well as actually allowing the enemy to micro AGAINST fungal)
Buff ghost snipe to 30-35 dmg vs all (versus 40 pre-nerf) - > terran late game is back to viable vs zerg
Increase HSM range to same as fungal and slightly increases movement speed
On July 20 2012 08:38 Scila wrote: Make mechanical units immune to High Templar feedback or only have it burn energy with no damage - > all Terran high tech units are now viable vs late game toss - > Thor, Banshee, Raven, BC
Make Warp gate a late game research (fleet beacon required?) and buff either gateway build times or buff gateway units slightly to compensate. Protoss may not be able to all-in as hard with gates anymore, but with stronger units and weaker infestor/broodlord Protoss will be able to play with more standard pressure while getting to lategame where the odds are equal
Buff Tank vs armor damage, and allow tanks to do full armored damage to all protoss shields, except immortals (helps versus zealots) - > tanks now okish late game versus Ultras and all Protoss comps
Make fungal cause a 30%~ slow instead of full immobilize (this not only tones infestors down, but also makes broodlord/infestor much more killable with marines/stalkers, as well as actually allowing the enemy to micro AGAINST fungal)
Buff ghost snipe to 30-35 dmg vs all (versus 40 pre-nerf) - > terran late game is back to viable vs zerg
Increase HSM range to same as fungal and slightly increases movement speed
On July 20 2012 06:21 aZealot wrote: Well, I am talking about Code A and Code S players. Also, if by mindgaming you mean the creation of "non-standard" strategies (whatever that means) that is far too large a brush to tar the issue with. If that is the case, if, then you could also say it is the creation of new strategies that succeed against standard (or currently accepted strategies). But, if so, it points to flaws in the accepted strategy and the fact of success means that it does come down to planning and execution with race having little to do with when it comes to match-ups between players of comparable skill levels.
To my mind, the dismissal of GSL (as some sort of strategic gimmick-fest) is a way of avoiding results that do not mesh with preferred arguments regarding racial balance. It leads to incomplete (if not superficial) analysis. So, no, I disagree.
It's not that we should dismiss GSL results, but we should take them in context. For instance, the MVP vs Naniwa/Parting series said relatively little about the state of TvP since they were bizarre games littered with all-ins and cheeses. On the other hand, seeing DRG take down MKP at MLG Arena was pretty useful because it looked very much like a standard high level ZvT. All too many of the strategies employed in the GSL are reliant on the element of surprise, which means they might only really work the first time you use them. MC's latest 7gate against Zerg, for instance, while it didn't occur in the GSL, was prepared especially for Stephano, worked the first time, and failed the second. What does this tell us about PvZ? Honestly, not much. That's what I'm getting at.
I still think the best way to analyze a matchup is to really just look at the options the players have, the feasibility of those options, and how effective those options are against an opponent of similar skill. Statistics are helpful, but there are a tonne of variables that can affect statistics of this kind of sample size.
Well put. I think we are truly seeing what is happening to Terran over time - it is disappearing. Terran's are dropping off the grid left and right; race distribution, according to sc2ranks.com is P/36% Z/35% and T/25%. Which not only makes Terran the least played race but they are the least played by a lot! When I see many Terran GSL games these days, I agree with you, they are abnormal (typically all-in) or "cheesy" builds. MVP was criticized by the casters last season for practically getting to the finals through cheese...and I agree. The finals were great to watch but honestly I don't think MVP deserved to be there this time. Overtime players learned to combat this cheese and true balance is starting to shine through. I can guarantee you if something doesn't change soon this will be the future of GSL and many tournaments (just like NASL) PvP and PvZ with never ending two base all-in. So what is my criticism (watch 6 minutes in).
On July 20 2012 08:38 Scila wrote: Make mechanical units immune to High Templar feedback or only have it burn energy with no damage - > all Terran high tech units are now viable vs late game toss - > Thor, Banshee, Raven, BC
Make Warp gate a late game research (fleet beacon required?) and buff either gateway build times or buff gateway units slightly to compensate. Protoss may not be able to all-in as hard with gates anymore, but with stronger units and weaker infestor/broodlord Protoss will be able to play with more standard pressure while getting to lategame where the odds are equal
Buff Tank vs armor damage, and allow tanks to do full armored damage to all protoss shields, except immortals (helps versus zealots) - > tanks now okish late game versus Ultras and all Protoss comps
Make fungal cause a 30%~ slow instead of full immobilize (this not only tones infestors down, but also makes broodlord/infestor much more killable with marines/stalkers, as well as actually allowing the enemy to micro AGAINST fungal)
Buff ghost snipe to 30-35 dmg vs all (versus 40 pre-nerf) - > terran late game is back to viable vs zerg
Increase HSM range to same as fungal and slightly increases movement speed
Voila, game is balanced.
If balanced means 80% winrate for terran, then yes. Your suggestions would make the game balanced.
Nerf larvae inject to make up for the fact you can't do anything whatsoever to keep zerg from being ultra greedy. They start the game with a free expansion and they can choose to further that economic lead OR they can punish the terran player for trying to keep up in the economic game. All of terran's "punish" strategies have been nerfed out of the game and the queen buff just finished off the last card in the terran deck, the reactor hellion expand. At an extremely basic level z v t is broken massively in the zerg's favor.
On July 20 2012 08:38 Scila wrote: Make mechanical units immune to High Templar feedback or only have it burn energy with no damage - > all Terran high tech units are now viable vs late game toss - > Thor, Banshee, Raven, BC
Make Warp gate a late game research (fleet beacon required?) and buff either gateway build times or buff gateway units slightly to compensate. Protoss may not be able to all-in as hard with gates anymore, but with stronger units and weaker infestor/broodlord Protoss will be able to play with more standard pressure while getting to lategame where the odds are equal
Buff Tank vs armor damage, and allow tanks to do full armored damage to all protoss shields, except immortals (helps versus zealots) - > tanks now okish late game versus Ultras and all Protoss comps
Make fungal cause a 30%~ slow instead of full immobilize (this not only tones infestors down, but also makes broodlord/infestor much more killable with marines/stalkers, as well as actually allowing the enemy to micro AGAINST fungal)
Buff ghost snipe to 30-35 dmg vs all (versus 40 pre-nerf) - > terran late game is back to viable vs zerg
Increase HSM range to same as fungal and slightly increases movement speed
Voila, game is balanced.
If balanced means 80% winrate for terran, then yes. Your suggestions would make the game balanced.
I would vouch for those balance changes if:
1)The hp of the Marauders were decreased from 125hp to something like 110hp AND/OR its damage nerfed from 20 to 15 vs armored.
2)The hp of the marine decreased from 45 to 40 hp.
On July 20 2012 08:38 Scila wrote: Make mechanical units immune to High Templar feedback or only have it burn energy with no damage - > all Terran high tech units are now viable vs late game toss - > Thor, Banshee, Raven, BC
Make Warp gate a late game research (fleet beacon required?) and buff either gateway build times or buff gateway units slightly to compensate. Protoss may not be able to all-in as hard with gates anymore, but with stronger units and weaker infestor/broodlord Protoss will be able to play with more standard pressure while getting to lategame where the odds are equal
Buff Tank vs armor damage, and allow tanks to do full armored damage to all protoss shields, except immortals (helps versus zealots) - > tanks now okish late game versus Ultras and all Protoss comps
Make fungal cause a 30%~ slow instead of full immobilize (this not only tones infestors down, but also makes broodlord/infestor much more killable with marines/stalkers, as well as actually allowing the enemy to micro AGAINST fungal)
Buff ghost snipe to 30-35 dmg vs all (versus 40 pre-nerf) - > terran late game is back to viable vs zerg
Increase HSM range to same as fungal and slightly increases movement speed
Voila, game is balanced.
If balanced means 80% winrate for terran, then yes. Your suggestions would make the game balanced.
I really dislike it when people totally ignore the fact that an increase to siege tank damage is both a buff and a nerf at the same time. Which other unit deals friendly fire? It is so easy to abuse that with non-food-energy units that it can be dangerous for a Terran to use tanks at all. I guess people are just too lazy to come up with new non-a-move strategies to roll over Terrans.
Ghosts are expensive to use and are the alternative to Tanks.
HSM doesnt have any use at all right now and that needs to be fixed.
Fungal Growth is wayyy too powerful as a means to shape the battlefield and it cant be cured/removed by anything. Forcefield - the other battlefield shaping spell - can be destroyed by certain units or circumvented by some others and consequently isnt as bad.
I think Brood Lords are a problem in the PvZ matchup.
The problem with brood lords is they are a long range air unit, and protoss isn't very well equipped to deal with this kind of unit outside of the "archon toilet." This isn't simply a "boo hoo, brood lords OP" complaint, but a complaint about the general gameplay the brood lord introduces. The game will either end with a vortex hitting most/all of the BLs and the protoss player will win, or the protoss player will be unable to get a good vortex and zerg will win. This mechanic was most evident in the recent NASL grand finals. We got to watch a huge amount of PvZs, and most went into late game, and I'm pretty sure every late game PvZ was decided by whether or not protoss could get a good vortex on the BLs. Although it's "fair" in a sense that the protoss player can counter BLs (with vortex) and the zerg player can counter vortex (by spreading), such a simple game mechanic is bad for the matchup.
I think the best way to resolve this is to decrease BL range and remove the Mothership all together. The only reason protoss players use a mothership is to vortex BLs. If BLs had shorter range they would be more susceptible to blink stalkers and void rays.
This, however, could have negative effects in the ZvT matchup and make BLs more vulnerable to vikings and stimmed marines, but I think zerg players would work around this by fungal and using more corrupters to fend off vikings.
Zerg does not want to go Broodlords. Its boring and opens up a timing window where 50% of the zerg army flies around as useless corruptors behind a wall of spines. But Zerg HAS to go broodlords as 6+ Colossi will kill everything on Ground. Removing the mothership would not change that. You just trade one boring mechanic (a-move broodlords) against another (a-move colossi). Remember Roach/Hydra/Corruptor? Thats what games without Broods look like. With these changes you need to get neural back to 9, wich gives even more power to a single unit.
On July 20 2012 06:21 aZealot wrote: Well, I am talking about Code A and Code S players. Also, if by mindgaming you mean the creation of "non-standard" strategies (whatever that means) that is far too large a brush to tar the issue with. If that is the case, if, then you could also say it is the creation of new strategies that succeed against standard (or currently accepted strategies). But, if so, it points to flaws in the accepted strategy and the fact of success means that it does come down to planning and execution with race having little to do with when it comes to match-ups between players of comparable skill levels.
To my mind, the dismissal of GSL (as some sort of strategic gimmick-fest) is a way of avoiding results that do not mesh with preferred arguments regarding racial balance. It leads to incomplete (if not superficial) analysis. So, no, I disagree.
It's not that we should dismiss GSL results, but we should take them in context. For instance, the MVP vs Naniwa/Parting series said relatively little about the state of TvP since they were bizarre games littered with all-ins and cheeses. On the other hand, seeing DRG take down MKP at MLG Arena was pretty useful because it looked very much like a standard high level ZvT. All too many of the strategies employed in the GSL are reliant on the element of surprise, which means they might only really work the first time you use them. MC's latest 7gate against Zerg, for instance, while it didn't occur in the GSL, was prepared especially for Stephano, worked the first time, and failed the second. What does this tell us about PvZ? Honestly, not much. That's what I'm getting at.
I still think the best way to analyze a matchup is to really just look at the options the players have, the feasibility of those options, and how effective those options are against an opponent of similar skill. Statistics are helpful, but there are a tonne of variables that can affect statistics of this kind of sample size.
Well put. I think we are truly seeing what is happening to Terran over time - it is disappearing. Terran's are dropping off the grid left and right; race distribution, according to sc2ranks.com is P/36% Z/35% and T/25%. Which not only makes Terran the least played race but they are the least played by a lot! When I see many Terran GSL games these days, I agree with you, they are abnormal (typically all-in) or "cheesy" builds. MVP was criticized by the casters last season for practically getting to the finals through cheese...and I agree. The finals were great to watch but honestly I don't think MVP deserved to be there this time. Overtime players learned to combat this cheese and true balance is starting to shine through. I can guarantee you if something doesn't change soon this will be the future of GSL and many tournaments (just like NASL) PvP and PvZ with never ending two base all-in. So what is my criticism (watch 6 minutes in).
I completely agree with demuslim's point of view on current tvz... which is in step with just about every single pro terran that I have heard talk about it in the last month or two(and it has been MANY). These pros have realized that complaining about balance is not good for their careers, but they cannot help but speak out based on how bad it has gotten. Yet, zerg fanboys are so terrified that terran get any help to makeup for the patches/huge maps that they have gotten recently, they are all over every forum in the community saying that tvz is balanced anytime they find anything that they can try to spin as proof. Like how there seems to be this consensus that "in the gsl tvz is balanced... its just other terrans are bad". Maybe its because idra said this on SOTG( at which time zergs were at around a 70% winrate in gsl for that month) but wherever it has come from, its bullshiet. TvZ is just as bad in the gsl as it is anywhere else. People need to quit being biased cowards and truly examine how weak terran lategame is. For that matter, even how weak terran can be at holding off all-ins due to having both; THE most expensive production infrastructure; and THE worst production mechanic. Namely who needs to look at this: BLIZZARD. *endrant*
On July 20 2012 15:28 Tewks44 wrote: I think Brood Lords are a problem in the PvZ matchup.
The problem with brood lords is they are a long range air unit, and protoss isn't very well equipped to deal with this kind of unit outside of the "archon toilet." This isn't simply a "boo hoo, brood lords OP" complaint, but a complaint about the general gameplay the brood lord introduces. The game will either end with a vortex hitting most/all of the BLs and the protoss player will win, or the protoss player will be unable to get a good vortex and zerg will win. This mechanic was most evident in the recent NASL grand finals. We got to watch a huge amount of PvZs, and most went into late game, and I'm pretty sure every late game PvZ was decided by whether or not protoss could get a good vortex on the BLs. Although it's "fair" in a sense that the protoss player can counter BLs (with vortex) and the zerg player can counter vortex (by spreading), such a simple game mechanic is bad for the matchup.
I think the best way to resolve this is to decrease BL range and remove the Mothership all together. The only reason protoss players use a mothership is to vortex BLs. If BLs had shorter range they would be more susceptible to blink stalkers and void rays.
This, however, could have negative effects in the ZvT matchup and make BLs more vulnerable to vikings and stimmed marines, but I think zerg players would work around this by fungal and using more corrupters to fend off vikings.
Thoughts?
I think the real issue regarding Brood Lords is that they produce free units that can easily swarm and surround mass Stalkers. The reason why players are hesistant about blinking underneath Brood Lords is because once they do, there is a chance that Zerglings, Broodlings, and Infestors can completely surround and trap Stalkers. The strength of the Brood Lord lies in its range and if we remove that, then the unit itself will become very weak (I will correct this statement if it is false).
I agree with you that PvZ is very gimmicky add that it relies on one 'play' from every player. You support your case with good evidence and proof, and I applaud you for that. I just feel like removing the range is not the best solution. If the Protoss player could safely blink in, snipe Brood Lords, and retreat without getting absolutely swarmed, then Protoss players would not have to rely on the Vortex as much.
My solution is to slow the attack rate of Brood Lords, and/or perhaps make the amount of Broodlings spawned to a constant value of 1. I don't know if this will completely break Brood Lords or not.......please don't hate me, Zerg players! I'm just trying to remove the typical 'B.L spread + Neural Parasite v.s Vortex' scenario!
Regarding TvP: Someone mentioned that the matchup was broken because Terran players require so much micro in the late game against the Protoss death ball. However, Protoss requires quite a bit of micro in the mid/late game, when Terrans have the opportunity to push and pressure. Hopefully HotS will fix the 'death ball' problem with the Warhound and Battle Hellion, allowing the Terran player to easily destroy Colossi and burn Chargelots with a bio-mech strategy.
Meh, I think Brood Lords are fine. Aside from broodlings screwing up pathing, they have a good enough balance of strengths and weaknesses, and essentially play a similar role to siege tanks. The problem lies in the Infestor, which makes the natural ways of dealing with broodlords (air units) largely ineffective. Making Fungal not hit air would immediately solve any and all Broodlord problems, imo.
EPT
