|
On August 01 2012 08:16 ysnake wrote:
Are we back to Raven story again?
Ravens are only useful now in clearing the creep alongside a Banshee (which is a minor investment considering that you deny most advantage Zerg tries to get), they are useful only if you're going Mech and Zerg is massing Roaches (PDD=instant win for Terran), otherwise, they get screwed over with Fungals, sure, Terrans should split the air units (which everyone states over and over again), it's nearly impossible to keep your air units spread out, simply because as soon as you order them to attack they stack, and plus, when Ravens are out, so are Corruptors, which can deal with Ravens decently, and Ravens can either be EXTREMELY cost efficient or just a waste of money (most of time).
Ravens are not a solution, neither is using Tier 1 units to defeat Tier 3 units (as many Terrans point out, they love their bio), but what advantage they have with best Tier 1 units, they have a disadvantage with Tier 3 units. However, Terran is getting new mech units with HotS, and many of them are quite powerful, but the game is not even in beta, too early to talk smack about it.
Ghosts still work wonders against any caster and whoever says this just doesn't know how to use them effectively (he has 10 Infestors? get 10 Ghosts), once you put Infestors out of play, they are just +supply in Zerg's army force, while Ghosts are still a viable attack unit. Snipe might have been overnerfed, but prenerf, it was ridiculously overpowered and imbalanced.
I agree that Zerg (I am a Zerg player myself) has an edge over Terran currently, for whatever reason, but that does not mean Terran cannot win. Terran can always win, but it is a matter of fact that I have defeated some Terran players that have outplayed me, simply because they made 1 mistake and that's it. But same happened when I outplayed my Terran opponent and accidentally run my Infestor squad in Siege Tank line I did not know was there, so it's kind of on a same footing.
And to person that wants to buff AoE damage from Siege Tanks, simply no.
You should get a better sarcasm detector. He was clearly joking.
While we are at it:
Your paragraph why the raven is of very limited use is mostly correct. But I have to disappoint you. Raven doesn't combo well with mech because the gas is even more needed and PDD does NOT absorb roach shots.
|
|
|
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living.
|
On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living.
Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way.
Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now.
|
On August 02 2012 07:15 Kamwah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living. Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way. Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now.
I know, but Naniwa expressed it so perfectly well that I think it bears paying attention to. Zerg fundamentally has the easier job in the matchup. Maybe easier isn't the right word. "Simpler" is how Naniwa put it. They can execute 1 build and be in a good spot against anything. Protoss has to rely on having like 909095824570 builds to try to catch the Zerg off guard. Almost word for word what I said earlier. Damn.
|
On August 02 2012 07:19 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:15 Kamwah wrote:On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living. Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way. Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now. I know, but Naniwa expressed it so perfectly well that I think it bears paying attention to. Zerg fundamentally has the easier job in the matchup. Maybe easier isn't the right word. "Simpler" is how Naniwa put it. They can execute 1 build and be in a good spot against anything. Protoss has to rely on having like 909095824570 builds to try to catch the Zerg off guard. Almost word for word what I said earlier. Damn.
On the other hand, Zerg can basically only do one build and still lose about 50% of the time. Depends on your perspective.
|
On August 02 2012 07:19 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:15 Kamwah wrote:On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living. Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way. Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now. I know, but Naniwa expressed it so perfectly well that I think it bears paying attention to. Zerg fundamentally has the easier job in the matchup. Maybe easier isn't the right word. "Simpler" is how Naniwa put it. They can execute 1 build and be in a good spot against anything. Protoss has to rely on having like 909095824570 builds to try to catch the Zerg off guard. Almost word for word what I said earlier. Damn.
Protoss has 12 offensive units.
Zerg has 10 offensive units including queen.
Are they suggesting Zerg shold have ,say, 2 more units so that Zerg can play more builds? But then Protoss would 100% complain Zerg has 548975490732 builds they can do and Protoss can't read...
If Protoss NEVER complain that way, then giving Zerg more units/upgrades might help solve the situation.
It's not like Zerg want to play 1 solid build, but they are FORCED to play it for the lack of variety.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 02 2012 12:05 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:19 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Kamwah wrote:On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living. Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way. Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now. I know, but Naniwa expressed it so perfectly well that I think it bears paying attention to. Zerg fundamentally has the easier job in the matchup. Maybe easier isn't the right word. "Simpler" is how Naniwa put it. They can execute 1 build and be in a good spot against anything. Protoss has to rely on having like 909095824570 builds to try to catch the Zerg off guard. Almost word for word what I said earlier. Damn. Protoss has 12 offensive units. Zerg has 10 offensive units including queen. Are they suggesting Zerg shold have ,say, 2 more units so that Zerg can play more builds? But then Protoss would 100% complain Zerg has 548975490732 builds they can do and Protoss can't read... If Protoss NEVER complain that way, then giving Zerg more units/upgrades might help solve the situation. It's not like Zerg want to play 1 solid build, but they are FORCED to play it for the lack of variety.
On the other hand, that build is so solid that zerg has to make a mistake to lose. If zerg makes no mistakes, regardless of how well his opponent executes, zerg wins every time.
|
The problem with Zerg is the production capabilities. They force Terran and Protoss to play reactionary and the sheer amount of units they pump out makes it even worse.
|
On August 02 2012 12:05 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 07:19 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Kamwah wrote:On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living. Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way. Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now. I know, but Naniwa expressed it so perfectly well that I think it bears paying attention to. Zerg fundamentally has the easier job in the matchup. Maybe easier isn't the right word. "Simpler" is how Naniwa put it. They can execute 1 build and be in a good spot against anything. Protoss has to rely on having like 909095824570 builds to try to catch the Zerg off guard. Almost word for word what I said earlier. Damn. Protoss has 12 offensive units. Zerg has 10 offensive units including queen. Are they suggesting Zerg shold have ,say, 2 more units so that Zerg can play more builds? But then Protoss would 100% complain Zerg has 548975490732 builds they can do and Protoss can't read... If Protoss NEVER complain that way, then giving Zerg more units/upgrades might help solve the situation. It's not like Zerg want to play 1 solid build, but they are FORCED to play it for the lack of variety.
The number of offensive units is irrelevant, lol.
|
On August 02 2012 12:35 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 12:05 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 07:19 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Kamwah wrote:On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living. Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way. Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now. I know, but Naniwa expressed it so perfectly well that I think it bears paying attention to. Zerg fundamentally has the easier job in the matchup. Maybe easier isn't the right word. "Simpler" is how Naniwa put it. They can execute 1 build and be in a good spot against anything. Protoss has to rely on having like 909095824570 builds to try to catch the Zerg off guard. Almost word for word what I said earlier. Damn. Protoss has 12 offensive units. Zerg has 10 offensive units including queen. Are they suggesting Zerg shold have ,say, 2 more units so that Zerg can play more builds? But then Protoss would 100% complain Zerg has 548975490732 builds they can do and Protoss can't read... If Protoss NEVER complain that way, then giving Zerg more units/upgrades might help solve the situation. It's not like Zerg want to play 1 solid build, but they are FORCED to play it for the lack of variety. The number of offensive units is irrelevant, lol.
Personally, I think there are mainly 2 reasons that ZvP is in the state it is currently.
1. Protoss has been balanced around warp gates. Warp gates have made protoss insanely gimmicky, since at times when warp gates finish, you can (obviously) get that extra round of units(without the traveling distance) and just have more stuff that your opponent. This has made gateway units pretty crap in a straight up confrontation(hts/archons not counted, since they take 12/45 seconds to become combat ready)
2. I'd still say this mostly comes from the advantage infestors + broods have in the lategame, since the lategame of protoss is either pray for all the broods to clump up, a mistake by the zerg or simply to outmicro the crap out of the zerg player via attacking on like 3+ fronts(via WPs mostly). If that synergy/unit combo wasn't quite so deadly, so that a player could go head to head against it to some extend(without the zerg's infestors falling asleep far in the back), I think protoss players could look into the lategame more, where they don't have to win with these gimmicky allins.
If we were to assume the MU is 50/50, any nerf to lategame zerg, which would cause protoss to win more in lategame would need a similarly influenced nerf to protoss(which would be around the timing these 2 base allins are hitting).
Basically what I think Blizzard needs to make happen is to nerf protoss early aggression(like many have said before) and possibly buff gateways, so the toss would prefer using the gateways as they are(such as decreased build time for gateways after WG research finishes), until he either is attacking or is on 3+ bases.
The idea being, to have protoss early game defense the same/better while having their aggression considerably worse. Then they need to change infestor immobalize to a -x% movement speed, and I think the game would be a lot more back and forth. Currently the infestor's immobilize is just such a one dimensional "you're fucked" spell.
Those changes would probably make the vT MUs better too, where PvT, both parties would be safer in the early game. The infestor change would have a huge effect on ZvT, but as hell would be frozen over before I said infestors were balanced there, I personally don't think it'd make T to strong.
|
the problem isnt ZvP being imba in lategame. its just too coinflippy. if P hast 2 vortex Z cant attack into it without moving ALL spines (since otherwise Z has to split his stuff so far that the BLs to the left and right are easily picked up) and P cant attack into Z under the spines. thats just retarded for both sides.
so basically vortex has to go and carrierbuildtime needs to be decreased.
|
Basically what I think Blizzard needs to make happen is to nerf protoss early aggression(like many have said before) and possibly buff gateways, so the toss would prefer using the gateways as they are(such as decreased build time for gateways after WG research finishes), until he either is attacking or is on 3+ bases.
The idea being, to have protoss early game defense the same/better while having their aggression considerably worse. Then they need to change infestor immobalize to a -x% movement speed, and I think the game would be a lot more back and forth. Currently the infestor's immobilize is just such a one dimensional "you're fucked" spell.
Problem is, if you nerf the zerg deathball (by nerfing infestors) or buff toss lategame (by buffing gateway units) it comes to this again: Toss turtles till 6+ Colossi + Blinkstalkers are up and just rolls over anything again.
This whole deathball play is a huge design issue but it wont stop. The reason for Terran "sucking" at lategame is simple: Terran has no deathball and dropping efficiently all over the map is not that easy to pull off.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On August 02 2012 12:35 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 12:05 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 07:19 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Kamwah wrote:On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living. Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way. Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now. I know, but Naniwa expressed it so perfectly well that I think it bears paying attention to. Zerg fundamentally has the easier job in the matchup. Maybe easier isn't the right word. "Simpler" is how Naniwa put it. They can execute 1 build and be in a good spot against anything. Protoss has to rely on having like 909095824570 builds to try to catch the Zerg off guard. Almost word for word what I said earlier. Damn. Protoss has 12 offensive units. Zerg has 10 offensive units including queen. Are they suggesting Zerg shold have ,say, 2 more units so that Zerg can play more builds? But then Protoss would 100% complain Zerg has 548975490732 builds they can do and Protoss can't read... If Protoss NEVER complain that way, then giving Zerg more units/upgrades might help solve the situation. It's not like Zerg want to play 1 solid build, but they are FORCED to play it for the lack of variety. The number of offensive units is irrelevant, lol.
No, it is not.
Zerg:
Tier 1: Queen, Zergling, Roach, Baneling (early and mid game, we rely on huge numbers of Zerglings and Roaches, Queens and Banelings are rarely used, Queens only for defense)
Tier 2: Hydralisk, Mutalisk, Corruptor, Infestor (Hydralisks are never used, Mutalisks only in Muta/Ling and are not a good unit for straight-up engagement, Corruptors are only used if switching to Tier 3 or to deal with the Colossi, Infestors are always used)
Tier 3: Ultralisk, Brood Lord (Ultralisks are almost never used in ZvP, so the only unit left is Brood Lord)
When you come up with ANY different strategy that a Zerg can use without being at a serious disadvantage, let me know. In my practice matches, almost all Protoss tell me "damn it, you love your lings", and I do, because I do not dislike Roaches, I just prefer Lings over them. That's all the Zerg can use in early and mid game, so, sorry for popping your bubble, but let's take a look at the Protoss units:
Tier 1: Zealot, Stalker, Sentry (all usable at any stage of the game in all MUs)
Tier 2: Observer, Immortal, Warp Prism, Phoenix, Void Ray (Observers are Observers, Immortals are used in every MU simply because of how awesome they are, Warp Prism is also used in every MU, especially PvZ, Phoenixes are very good in PvZ and Void Rays are meh units, but still useful)
Tier 3: Colossus, Dark Templar, High Templar, Mothership, Archon, Carrier (Colossus are always good, Dark Templar is a perfect harassment unit, High Templar are very useful in all MUs, Mothership is especially useful in ZvP, Carriers are bad, Archons are awesome and deal bonus damage to everything Zerg has, including buildings).
Now, you see how many options a Protoss has, look at the amount of your units, more units=more options. Zerg get to play with less units and therefore instead of relying on countless strategies and BOs (one of the reasons why I play Zerg, is that I don't have to follow a BO, only timings) they rely on perfecting the strategies available with the current units.
|
On August 02 2012 19:13 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 12:35 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2012 12:05 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 07:19 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2012 07:15 Kamwah wrote:On August 02 2012 07:11 Shiori wrote:
Just want to point out that Naniwa's statement about balance in the latest real talk is pretty much exactly what my point of view is. Zerg race can rely on 1, simple build, whereas the Protoss needs to rely on surprises and, to some extent, luck, in order to win.
It feels nice to be vindicated by someone who plays for a living. Not sure where you've been hiding your head but a lot of pros have said they feel this way. Even DRG and Stephano said it's too easy now. I know, but Naniwa expressed it so perfectly well that I think it bears paying attention to. Zerg fundamentally has the easier job in the matchup. Maybe easier isn't the right word. "Simpler" is how Naniwa put it. They can execute 1 build and be in a good spot against anything. Protoss has to rely on having like 909095824570 builds to try to catch the Zerg off guard. Almost word for word what I said earlier. Damn. Protoss has 12 offensive units. Zerg has 10 offensive units including queen. Are they suggesting Zerg shold have ,say, 2 more units so that Zerg can play more builds? But then Protoss would 100% complain Zerg has 548975490732 builds they can do and Protoss can't read... If Protoss NEVER complain that way, then giving Zerg more units/upgrades might help solve the situation. It's not like Zerg want to play 1 solid build, but they are FORCED to play it for the lack of variety. The number of offensive units is irrelevant, lol. No, it is not. Zerg: Tier 1: Queen, Zergling, Roach, Baneling (early and mid game, we rely on huge numbers of Zerglings and Roaches, Queens and Banelings are rarely used, Queens only for defense) Tier 2: Hydralisk, Mutalisk, Corruptor, Infestor (Hydralisks are never used, Mutalisks only in Muta/Ling and are not a good unit for straight-up engagement, Corruptors are only used if switching to Tier 3 or to deal with the Colossi, Infestors are always used) Tier 3: Ultralisk, Brood Lord (Ultralisks are almost never used in ZvP, so the only unit left is Brood Lord) When you come up with ANY different strategy that a Zerg can use without being at a serious disadvantage, let me know. In my practice matches, almost all Protoss tell me "damn it, you love your lings", and I do, because I do not dislike Roaches, I just prefer Lings over them. That's all the Zerg can use in early and mid game, so, sorry for popping your bubble, but let's take a look at the Protoss units: Tier 1: Zealot, Stalker, Sentry (all usable at any stage of the game in all MUs) Tier 2: Observer, Immortal, Warp Prism, Phoenix, Void Ray (Observers are Observers, Immortals are used in every MU simply because of how awesome they are, Warp Prism is also used in every MU, especially PvZ, Phoenixes are very good in PvZ and Void Rays are meh units, but still useful) Tier 3: Colossus, Dark Templar, High Templar, Mothership, Archon, Carrier (Colossus are always good, Dark Templar is a perfect harassment unit, High Templar are very useful in all MUs, Mothership is especially useful in ZvP, Carriers are bad, Archons are awesome and deal bonus damage to everything Zerg has, including buildings). Now, you see how many options a Protoss has, look at the amount of your units, more units=more options. Zerg get to play with less units and therefore instead of relying on countless strategies and BOs (one of the reasons why I play Zerg, is that I don't have to follow a BO, only timings) they rely on perfecting the strategies available with the current units.
You disregard like half of your units just because they arent used as often, this doesnt mean that they arent good. I mean dimaga uses banelings to great effect in his ZvPs and ultras are most definately used in ZvP. The real problem is that roaches are too good, that there is very little reason to not use them aside form stylistic purposes. Roaches and Queens hold off everything protoss has to offer until collossi come out. Thats the real problem, protoss builds are becoming ever more centralised about dealing with roaches and ignoring all other zerg units purely because theyre damn good units that kick the arse of anything not specifically made to counter them, and even then unless you have good forcefields they can still win.
It doesnt matter how many "options" you have if 1 unit can deal with all of them, this is the reason zerg feel so tunneled into using roaches, not because they have nothing else, but because its silly to use anything else because roaches are so good and require very little adaptation to handle anything the protoss throws at it. Sure banelings and lings might not be as effective, but theyre still good units, its just roaches do their job and more and istead of zerg having to worry about composition, position and timings, they just worry about timings and positioning now. Roaches being so multi purpose is the reason zergs have "limited options", but ive seen many zergs uselings and blings and mutas and corruptors and hydras effectively, they arent trash units, theyre just not roaches
|
Thats the real problem, protoss builds are becoming ever more centralised about dealing with roaches and ignoring all other zerg units purely because theyre damn good units that kick the arse of anything not specifically made to counter them, and even then unless you have good forcefields they can still win.
everything that kills roaches will kill all other units even faster. There is no way making hydra work as a lategame unit. There is no way to ling/bling the entire game. There isnt even a way to Roach in lategame, while there is nothng wrong with Zealot, Stalker and Sentry being used through the whole game.
|
On August 02 2012 19:38 Charon1979 wrote:Show nested quote + Thats the real problem, protoss builds are becoming ever more centralised about dealing with roaches and ignoring all other zerg units purely because theyre damn good units that kick the arse of anything not specifically made to counter them, and even then unless you have good forcefields they can still win. everything that kills roaches will kill all other units even faster. There is no way making hydra work as a lategame unit. There is no way to ling/bling the entire game. There isnt even a way to Roach in lategame, while there is nothng wrong with Zealot, Stalker and Sentry being used through the whole game.
U mean that immortal all ins are so prevalent because lings and banes and hydras also lose to it? i dont think so. Also, roaches are most definately used in the late game, just because the focus switches to brood infestor, there are still roaches milling about, they never lose their all around goodness, infestors and broods all around goodness is just better. Now think of zealots and stalkers and sentries, of course they are going to be used, because protoss cant mass tier 3 like zerg can, if they could protoss would love to have a tier 3/2 only units composition, think mother ships archons, collosi and voidrays. But its just not possible for protoss, roaches cant just be on their own in the late game, but neither can pure gateway, you'll never see a protoss beat an infestor BL death ball with zealot stalker sentry, its just not possible. Also sentries begin to be phased out purposefully after around 15 minutes
|
Before the immortal all-ins, Toss used Colossi all-ins. They would still, if the maxout timing was not before a critical amount of colossi are out.
This unit kills every ground unit zerg has in a blink of an eye. If the metagame would suddenly switch to ling/Hydra, you can bet that immortal pushes get scrapped in favor of colossi pushes again.
|
Nowhere have I used an argument regarding plainness of composition. Obviously we need to use what units are available to us. The problem is that Zerg being able to do 3 hatch with timed Roach Warren to transition into anything is equivalent to Protoss opening FFE into Stargate and being able to play strongly against anything. You can't do that.
|
All the arguments about Zerg having only a limited number of tactics available to them somewhat ignore the possibilities of delivering those attack units and Zerg have an easy way to get "free air transport" (just need the two researches and you are ready to go) and obviously the Nydus Worm. If you look closely at many Protoss opponents for example thy will have "dark areas" in parts of their bases EARLY ON and if the Zerg should rush to a Nydus Worm it would most likely succeed at circumventing the "main entrance" and the cannons and Sentries posted there for an easy win. No Zerg seems to be using that though, because the "straight up" battle is easy enough for them.
So dont whine about not having other possibilities ... use them, because you have them. Spine Crawler rush is another one of those tactics which are exciting to watch and use wayy too few times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
