|
On August 02 2012 21:22 Shiori wrote:
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.
I don't think Roach warren vs Stargate it is a fair comparison.
Roach warren is like cybernetics core for Protoss. 2nd Tech building.
Protoss opening FFE into cybernetics core and being able to play strongly aginast anything. You CAN do that.
It is nearly a must, although I admit Protoss tech tree is more linear.
Zerg option is so much more limited, so Zerg players collectively came up with the conclusion that fast 3rd into well timed roach warren defends good vs millions of builds Protoss can throw at Zerg.
|
On August 02 2012 22:19 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 21:22 Shiori wrote:
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. I don't think Roach warren vs Stargate it is a fair comparison. Roach warren is like cybernetics core for Protoss. 2nd Tech building. Protoss opening FFE into cybernetics core and being able to play strongly aginast anything. You CAN do that. It is nearly a must, although I admit Protoss tech tree is more linear. Zerg option is so much more limited, so Zerg players collectively came up with the conclusion that fast 3rd into well timed roach warren defends good vs millions of builds Protoss can throw at Zerg.
It's not about getting a Roach Warren period it's about the 3 Hatch gasless build with the timed Roach Warren with the possibility of going 3base Roach/Muta/fast Hive/quick 4th/Infestor/Ling etc etc.
Protoss has no build order that we can follow to the 10 minute mark and then choose the optimal path based on what we scout. That's what 3 Hatch is for Zerg. You open 3 Hatch, scout, and decide, on the basis of scouting, whether you wanna do 3base Roach, fast BLs, take a 4th, etc. etc. Protoss decides literally after making sure you're not all-inning what tech we're going to do, and whether it's going to be an all-in or not. Zerg gets to react. Protoss has to decide in advance. That's the problem.
The other problem is that Protoss builds depend entirely on variability. If you tell me in advance that you're going to go 3 Hatch gasless, there's no tech choice that I can pick that will put me in a favourable position. Conversely, if I tell you I'm going Stargate, you can counter it with minimal deviation from your standard build and take no damage. What's more, you'll be able to counter attack me and win the game instantly. Protoss can't do that.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On August 02 2012 22:30 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 22:19 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 21:22 Shiori wrote:
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. I don't think Roach warren vs Stargate it is a fair comparison. Roach warren is like cybernetics core for Protoss. 2nd Tech building. Protoss opening FFE into cybernetics core and being able to play strongly aginast anything. You CAN do that. It is nearly a must, although I admit Protoss tech tree is more linear. Zerg option is so much more limited, so Zerg players collectively came up with the conclusion that fast 3rd into well timed roach warren defends good vs millions of builds Protoss can throw at Zerg. It's not about getting a Roach Warren period it's about the 3 Hatch gasless build with the timed Roach Warren with the possibility of going 3base Roach/Muta/fast Hive/quick 4th/Infestor/Ling etc etc. Protoss has no build order that we can follow to the 10 minute mark and then choose the optimal path based on what we scout. That's what 3 Hatch is for Zerg. You open 3 Hatch, scout, and decide, on the basis of scouting, whether you wanna do 3base Roach, fast BLs, take a 4th, etc. etc. Protoss decides literally after making sure you're not all-inning what tech we're going to do, and whether it's going to be an all-in or not. Zerg gets to react. Protoss has to decide in advance. That's the problem. The other problem is that Protoss builds depend entirely on variability. If you tell me in advance that you're going to go 3 Hatch gasless, there's no tech choice that I can pick that will put me in a favourable position. Conversely, if I tell you I'm going Stargate, you can counter it with minimal deviation from your standard build and take no damage. What's more, you'll be able to counter attack me and win the game instantly. Protoss can't do that.
Indeed, they cannot, and that's the whole point of Zerg, they are PRESENT on the map, they must see the entire map, Zerg is the worst race at turtling, the whole "storyline" is kinda in the favor of how Zerg is played, they came on the planet and are expanding everywhere, fucking everything up. Terran is confined to their base and push out with a small squad to do a precise attack via drop or a huge force that wants to engage the other player's army directly, Protoss was my first race and I hated that I needed to be safe behind my walls in order to get some huge tech units up and then proceed on going out.
But, Protoss have also learned that on certain maps, they can do a VERY fast third, like on Cloud Kingdom, that map is built for defense, it is so easy to defend 2 ramps and 1 pathway, all very narrow, which makes the Colossus very happy. Zerg cannot punish the Protoss going for SUCH a fast third as if they are following the standard metagame, they have no units, or some shitty slowlings which are awful against Zealots.
Everyone just follows the metagame and keeps saying "this is impossible", well, pro players make it, MC does it, Seed does it, many Protoss player do it, but they have far better game mechanics than any of us here do. If you do not think you are capable of following through the current metagame, surprise the Zerg player, do something funky, why not? I experimented and allowed myself to come up with a decent surprise for Protoss that follow the current metagame, which is Nydus at 10min with +1/+1 done as soon as I drop it down, and just stream lings and keep making Nydus networks until his main is gone, then I can take my third.
Have many Protoss seen this? No, they do not know how to react to it, you can't expect that every game will go as planned, you must have a plan before you even put workers to mine, if the opponent does something that screws up your plan, change your plan or make it work. PvZ is a perfectly balanced MU and basically, you're complaining about Zergs not being creative enough with the small amount of viable units they have and how it is easy "herp-derp" mode to defeat anyone. How come GM isn't just Zergs 24/7 fighting each other since they have the ultimate strategy and units to kill any other race in the game?
|
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem.
|
I don't think anyone can seriously argue against the point that Zergs don't need to do anything "special". They basically have very few core builds that deal with practically everything. I think this is one of the reasons why Zergs are showing a lot of presence in tournaments, especially in these few days long tournaments where you don't have a lot of time to prepare builds, because the current meta-game gives Zerg a very powerful and stable standard play. Zergs go in with 3-5 builds tops while Terrans and Protoss have to go in with 10++ to even have a chance.
This does NOT mean, however, that Zerg is easier to play or that it is clearly imbalanced. It's the way the design of the race is working at the moment. I think, as I have mentioned before, that Zergs potentially got too many "free" buffs instead of upgrade purchase buffs (single units filling in too many roles). Also that the infestor is really effective against everything. It's not imbalanced but it does lead to a very simplified and limited choice for the Zergs which leads to few actual, but very powerful, standard plays.
|
On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem.
Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity.
Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter.
Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it.
You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^.
|
On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^.
The discussion is mainly about mid-late game strategies. By that reasoning spines, spores, and queens should be nerfed because they can hold practically all early game pressure.
We are talking about the mid to late game army comps and strategies. Zerg has very few viable choices other than infestor/BL with roach/ling support. I think the big issue here, which doesn't pertain to balance directly, is that because of this simplicity in Zerg's ability to choose between very few but very powerful builds gives them an inherent advantage where short duration tournaments are concerned.
Certainly T and P have their own strong builds but they are, for the most part, all ins and thus by their nature coin-flippy. Zerg's strongest forte at the moment is their extremely powerful standard game, which to be honest is something every pro wants for their race. When you have a very powerful standard build that is good in practically all situations you start to pressure your opponent into treating you like a time bomb. This is extremely evident from the amount of all ins you see Zergs performing at tourneys. Compared to T and P, Z rarely all ins because their standard build for the moment is so good (though I doubt it's going to remain like this for much longer since new builds from the other races are bound to be discovered).
|
On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^.
Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races.
Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative.
(*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way.
|
On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way.
The problem is, you can either tech off two base, which is easily scouted with a probe.
Or you take an early third, but if you do that, it doesn't pay unlesss you build drones for that 3rd, ie 60+ drone over three bases at least. However, if you want that many drones, you can't tech at the same time.
Similar issues lead Protoss to aways FFe in PvZ.
|
On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^.
How is Protoss defensive ability too strong when most Protoss players struggle to hold a third base? Surely you're not suggesting that Zerg should be able to stop Toss from FFEing easily or something.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way.
Overlords with speed and drop researched cost 300/300, which isn't that big, but you can EASILY spot when a Zerg is going to drop your main.
Nydus is not underused, I use it quite frequently, but the fact is that a couple of workers can kill it while it is "building" is stupid and it's a big investment for early/mid game. It costs 150/200 just to put the Nydus network and every additional Nydus worm costs 100/100, that's quite a lot of gas in the period when gas is most needed for Zerg (Zerg is the race that requires most gas for endgame), and to use Roaches in there is an allin.
Nydus Worm has 200 Hit Points, two units can shut it down pretty easily and it's not hard to miss it on most maps, since the entire base is visible to the player.
That's like saying "why don't you use Nukes when they 1shot almost all units", they are bad and require the other player to respond horribly, same applies to Nydus Network.
No Zerg can break a front in the mid-game without being allin, sorry, but Force Fields and Siege Tanks make it impossible to try and break down a wall without severely losing to Siege Tanks, and plus, Siege Tanks still continue to pound your army as they are on the high ground, even if you break through.
Please get your facts straight or try and cheese your way as Zerg and tell me how it went.
|
?
You must not watch Terran play much. Nukes are standard lategame.
|
On August 03 2012 01:11 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. The discussion is mainly about mid-late game strategies. By that reasoning spines, spores, and queens should be nerfed because they can hold practically all early game pressure. We are talking about the mid to late game army comps and strategies. Zerg has very few viable choices other than infestor/BL with roach/ling support. I think the big issue here, which doesn't pertain to balance directly, is that because of this simplicity in Zerg's ability to choose between very few but very powerful builds gives them an inherent advantage where short duration tournaments are concerned. Certainly T and P have their own strong builds but they are, for the most part, all ins and thus by their nature coin-flippy. Zerg's strongest forte at the moment is their extremely powerful standard game, which to be honest is something every pro wants for their race. When you have a very powerful standard build that is good in practically all situations you start to pressure your opponent into treating you like a time bomb. This is extremely evident from the amount of all ins you see Zergs performing at tourneys. Compared to T and P, Z rarely all ins because their standard build for the moment is so good (though I doubt it's going to remain like this for much longer since new builds from the other races are bound to be discovered).
I actually agree with you.
Zerg standard build is just so strong. At the same time, non-standard builds are relatively shitty.
Therefore, people stick to roach ling transitioning into BL/infestor.
Let's just asssume there are 5 builds for each race, then Zerg is like
100 50 40 40 30
while Protoss is like
90 80 70 70 60
Don't take numbers literally. I know it is not that simple, but you know what I mean.
Zerg standard build is so much superior to other builds at the moment.
Protoss builds are a bit inferior to Zerg standard play if executed well in my opinion, but varying builds has much less risk.
|
On August 03 2012 02:54 Nourek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way. The problem is, you can either tech off two base, which is easily scouted with a probe. Or you take an early third, but if you do that, it doesn't pay unlesss you build drones for that 3rd, ie 60+ drone over three bases at least. However, if you want that many drones, you can't tech at the same time. Similar issues lead Protoss to aways FFe in PvZ.
And it is totally different for Terrans and Protoss? I think not.
|
On August 03 2012 03:01 ysnake wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 02:46 Rabiator wrote:On August 03 2012 00:55 Orek wrote:On August 02 2012 23:31 Shiori wrote:
MC and Seed have a zillion builds and they change them every matchup. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's sort of like a meta-coinflip. It doesn't work well against Zergs like Stephano, because they don't get flustered when they see something a bit strange. They just scout, play standard, and react to what they see. Someone like Stephano also learns from his mistakes. So, while MC might have lots of builds, Zergs like Stephano will only ever really lose to each one a maximum of once or twice, which means he needs to try and surprise the Zerg or keep inventing new builds. Meanwhile, Zerg gets to keep executing the same build while just learning the proper tells for different builds of other races.
The problem is that it's infinitely easier to learn to deal with "surprises" than actually create them. Going back to the analogy I gave way back: suppose we're playing a game in which I gotta make you laugh to win, and you have to not laugh to win. Your role is just about keeping your mind calm and straight. As for me, I need to do the same thing, but I need to also be creative. Unfortunately, creativity is limited.
I'm not complaining about Zergs being creative. I'm complaining that they don't need to be creative because their standard play counters anything and everything while putting them ahead unless they make a blunder. I wouldn't mind if it was just them being even, but since half of every Toss build is surprising the Zerg, it's not fair. Give Toss solid builds that actually work whether or not the Zerg is surprised and the matchup will be fun and interesting. It's not even so much a balance thing as it is a design problem. Make Protoss cannon/wall/force field/turtle ability worse, then Zerg can go attack with creativity. Protoss defense is just too good, or Terran as well for that matter. Therefore, it is often not worth for Zerg to get creative and attack with it. You are asking to make a person laugh when he/she has brain injury that prevents laughing. Protoss has immunity vs laughing that way, so Zerg gave up on trying. Instead, Zerg decided to improve skill not to laugh because making you laugh is impossible. That's where the current game is at. Ironically, nerfing Protoss would make Zerg more creative if you can take it ^^. Zerg simply arent being creative, because they hardly ever try out the Nydus Worm or do drops to get inside an enemy Protoss base in the early minutes. Protoss are only good at blocking a choke and Cannons at the front of the natural expansion dont help against Zerg inside the main. So dont pull the "nerf the others" card please, because simply the threat of a drop is enough to pull off some forces from the front and could be enough to break in. All YOU have to do it is actually use those tactics and stop whining about "Terran OP" or "Protoss OP"(*1), because there are ways to abuse the weaknesses and circumvent the strengths of those two other races. Baneling carpet-bombing has been popular and effective for a short while. Why isnt it used anymore? Probably because they dont need to do it and the "lazy standard swarm everything" build has removed the need for it. Why arent Baneling drops made on opponents mineral lines? Same answer as above. The creative uses of Zerg technology are there; they arent required to be used and thus Zerg players are becoming lazy and uncreative. (*1) You actually didnt say that, but asking for a nerf to another race is the same ... just phrased the opposite way. Overlords with speed and drop researched cost 300/300, which isn't that big, but you can EASILY spot when a Zerg is going to drop your main. Nydus is not underused, I use it quite frequently, but the fact is that a couple of workers can kill it while it is "building" is stupid and it's a big investment for early/mid game. It costs 150/200 just to put the Nydus network and every additional Nydus worm costs 100/100, that's quite a lot of gas in the period when gas is most needed for Zerg (Zerg is the race that requires most gas for endgame), and to use Roaches in there is an allin. Nydus Worm has 200 Hit Points, two units can shut it down pretty easily and it's not hard to miss it on most maps, since the entire base is visible to the player. That's like saying "why don't you use Nukes when they 1shot almost all units", they are bad and require the other player to respond horribly, same applies to Nydus Network. No Zerg can break a front in the mid-game without being allin, sorry, but Force Fields and Siege Tanks make it impossible to try and break down a wall without severely losing to Siege Tanks, and plus, Siege Tanks still continue to pound your army as they are on the high ground, even if you break through. Please get your facts straight or try and cheese your way as Zerg and tell me how it went.
Nydus in pro games are wayyy underused IMO especially when the opponent (Protoss only since Terrans need a lot more space for buildings) doesnt cover his main base with Pylons ... which is very likely if he goes the "fast expand" route. A fast lair will allow you to abuse this weakness and Protoss main bases are scouted regularly through Overlords. Usually the Protoss on a heavy economy/expansion build has a forge and cannon at his choke outside the natural and this FORCES many buildings to be built not in the main base, so there should be a LOT of space to get a Nydus in on a lot of maps.
Can you really spot if those Overlords heading for your main base are actually full? No, but they could be and that is the key. You are NOT forced to fight against the full force at the front and you might even have only a few Banelings in the Overlords to get some worker kills. Even more damaging is a drop of Banelings on Terran add-ons IMO, because they cost time to build, reduce the available tech and slow down the Terran. Might be much better than rolling them into the front wall ...
Who said a Zerg should be able to BREAK A FRONT? Seriously? You should use attacks in many places through drops or attacks on other outlying bases to "pull strings" while abusing the Zerg mobility to strike where you want. Sneakiness like burrow (also rarely seen) would help a lot, but Zerg players are too lazy (because I dont dare say "dumb") to use it. Especially against Protoss it should be easy to "siege-break" a front simply because the wall-in also reduces their mobility AND because they might not have blink yet (in early mid-game?). Just get a Nydus Worm, plant it outside the enemy base to start some creep. Then get a Queen to drop creep tumors and grow some Spine Crawlers as base siege units. At 7 range they outrange anything pre-Colossus (with upgrade) or sieged tank. With some Queens behind them a siege or blockade should be possible.
The possibilities are there, just get creative and use EVERY weapon in your arsenal and not just the stuff categorized as "unit".
|
The last 2 pages of this thread make no sense to me.
How many viable builds did zerg have in BW TvZ? They had exactly one, and virtually everything else remotely viable was super volatile and could fall flat on its face if scouted. Meanwhile Terran could do all sorts of wacky things to try and disrupt this build. Sound familiar?
The entire race is designed in a way that discrete build orders only sort of exist, the exact order of what you use your larva to produce is contingent on what your opponent does. If zerg is finally approaching what will end up being standard play in sc2 then that should be viewed as a good thing.
|
On August 03 2012 03:49 Zanno wrote:
The last 2 pages of this thread make no sense to me.
How many viable builds did zerg have in BW TvZ? They had exactly one, and virtually everything else remotely viable was super volatile and could fall flat on its face if scouted. Meanwhile Terran could do all sorts of wacky things to try and disrupt this build. Sound familiar?
The entire race is designed in a way that discrete build orders only sort of exist, the exact order of what you use your larva to produce is contingent on what your opponent does. If zerg is finally approaching what will end up being standard play in sc2 then that should be viewed as a good thing.
Yeah that's a fair complaint about wanting all these races to do so many different things in a match. Almost everytime you could expect 3 hatch muta -> 5 hatch Hydra without fail.
At the same time, some variation of Sair/ DT or Reaver could be expected.... and still get results. There were timings that were very strong like +1 Zealot speed +archons.
It goes back to the problem that protoss can't harass and now terran's pressures are lookin a touch too feeble. That combined with a lategame that is so superior to the other races means that you end up with a stale matchup that is "biased" zerg. [I want to complain about toss pressures being allin compared with a +1 Zel archon timing but I don't know enough to make the comparison]
I think the one interesting thing about sc2 is that most of the early complaints about race design (atleast toss) have been vindicated with time.
|
On August 03 2012 03:49 Zanno wrote:
The last 2 pages of this thread make no sense to me.
How many viable builds did zerg have in BW TvZ? They had exactly one, and virtually everything else remotely viable was super volatile and could fall flat on its face if scouted. Meanwhile Terran could do all sorts of wacky things to try and disrupt this build. Sound familiar?
The entire race is designed in a way that discrete build orders only sort of exist, the exact order of what you use your larva to produce is contingent on what your opponent does. If zerg is finally approaching what will end up being standard play in sc2 then that should be viewed as a good thing.
You win the argument.
Yes I agree with you.
I follow BW for about 6 years, and I would say builds rarely vary. Yeah, Zerg started to prefer no sunken colony at front in favor of units and such, but overall, buids are so refined today that not much room for creativity is left. Still, game has continued to evolve, and is as enjoyable as SC2 if not more. Probably it is a good sign that Zerg found a solid build as you pointed out.
|
On August 03 2012 04:01 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 03:49 Zanno wrote:
The last 2 pages of this thread make no sense to me.
How many viable builds did zerg have in BW TvZ? They had exactly one, and virtually everything else remotely viable was super volatile and could fall flat on its face if scouted. Meanwhile Terran could do all sorts of wacky things to try and disrupt this build. Sound familiar?
The entire race is designed in a way that discrete build orders only sort of exist, the exact order of what you use your larva to produce is contingent on what your opponent does. If zerg is finally approaching what will end up being standard play in sc2 then that should be viewed as a good thing. You win the argument. Yes I agree with you. I follow BW for about 6 years, and I would say builds rarely vary. Yeah, Zerg started to prefer no sunken colony at front in favor of units and such, but overall, buids are so refined today that not much room for creativity is left. Still, game has continued to evolve, and is as enjoyable as SC2 if not more. Probably it is a good sign that Zerg found a solid build as you pointed out.
Yeah, except their solid build is built on being totally impervious to pressure. In BW, you could force reactions and do a bit of damage with harassment/pressure without all-inning. You cannot do that in Sc2 with Protoss, and, post Queen buff, neither with Terran.
|
On August 03 2012 04:04 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 04:01 Orek wrote:On August 03 2012 03:49 Zanno wrote:
The last 2 pages of this thread make no sense to me.
How many viable builds did zerg have in BW TvZ? They had exactly one, and virtually everything else remotely viable was super volatile and could fall flat on its face if scouted. Meanwhile Terran could do all sorts of wacky things to try and disrupt this build. Sound familiar?
The entire race is designed in a way that discrete build orders only sort of exist, the exact order of what you use your larva to produce is contingent on what your opponent does. If zerg is finally approaching what will end up being standard play in sc2 then that should be viewed as a good thing. You win the argument. Yes I agree with you. I follow BW for about 6 years, and I would say builds rarely vary. Yeah, Zerg started to prefer no sunken colony at front in favor of units and such, but overall, buids are so refined today that not much room for creativity is left. Still, game has continued to evolve, and is as enjoyable as SC2 if not more. Probably it is a good sign that Zerg found a solid build as you pointed out. Yeah, except their solid build is built on being totally impervious to pressure. In BW, you could force reactions and do a bit of damage with harassment/pressure without all-inning. You cannot do that in Sc2 with Protoss, and, post Queen buff, neither with Terran.
Although we talked things from different sides, I think we are talking about the same thing.
That is, SC2 game design sucks.
Even as Zerg, I think Protoss/Terran should be able to harrass Zerg more effectively, and Zerg just needs other options if standard play is to be criticized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
