|
On May 07 2013 17:39 Faust852 wrote:[ afOn May 07 2013 02:23 Graven wrote:Show nested quote +[B]I don't understand what you really want, muta ling bling deals ok with marines with support. Muta, ling, bling vs. marine, medevac, mine is incredibly cost-efficient for Terran. Game 2 of Moonglade vs. Illusion in the WCS is a good example (http://sc2casts.com/cast12348-mOOnGLaDe-vs-Illusion-Best-of-3-2013-WCS-America-S1-Group-Stage). From my experiences (I'm only a top-Dia player), it feels like at best you can break even, but pulling ahead feels far less likely than a mine shot putting you in the hole instead. The logic in getting Muta's is to deny drop-play, but marines and mines are also great counters to Muta's, so it's counter-intuative. The alternative for Zerg is to go Roach-Hydra instead, but you're often limited in any agression due to drops, so you're forced to try and starve out Terran or gamble on dividing your forces in an attack -- of course the issue there is that by the time you cross the map, Terran has received two additional waves of 15+ marines each and is in a good defensive position. In either case, Zerg is often waiting for an Ultra tech-switch, which can be tricky as it requires a base advantage (not easy against a multi-dropping Terran bio-mine opponent) and it leads to vulnerability while you're saving bank and building the Ultras. All of that goes into the specifics though...if we step back, the bigger issue to me is that the Terran force has better synergy than any Zerg counter. In warcraft 2/3 logic, Zerg need something like "Bloodlust" from a support unit to counter the healing of medevacs. While Infestors and Vipers are both great units, I don't find that they synergize great with a Zerg army vs. a bio-mine Terran, whereas Medevacs are the ultimate synergy. (In fact, I find that Infestors work best when they're not used as a support unit at all, but more like a rogue, Ghost-type unit, that burrows into enemy mineral lines.) The issue Zerg's are having is that in addition to the maddening drop play, more often than not, bio-mine can roll a Zerg army in a straight-up fight.
Zerg isn't supposed to be cost efficient.[/QUOTE]
Then how does zerg win with capped sc2 economy? You cant spend more than your opponent, because you dont have more
|
Btw infestors synergize great with other zerg units, especially against bio-mine. You don't get it much better than that. With broodlords they prevent marines from being able to get under the broodlords. With ultras/banelings they hold the bio in place, at which point they directly melt to zerg forces.
And zerg wins by just throwing another army at it when their first army is destroyed.
|
|
|
On May 07 2013 17:44 Sissors wrote:
Btw infestors synergize great with other zerg units, especially against bio-mine. You don't get it much better than that. With broodlords they prevent marines from being able to get under the broodlords. With ultras/banelings they hold the bio in place, at which point they directly melt to zerg forces.
And zerg wins by just throwing another army at it when their first army is destroyed.
Fungal growth is great synergy with Ultra's and Broodlords, the issue is getting to Ultra's and Broodlords. There's no transitional synergy, as adding Infestors to Roach-Hydra isn't nearly as helpful as adding Medevacs to Bio-Mine.
The mid-game is the issue for Zerg against Bio-Mine. Zerg can't go for T3 too fast, or they die, and they can't create an army as cost-efficienct as Bio-Mine before then. Medevac healing and mobility intrisically make Terran's army incredibly more cost-efficient.
I'm expressing this because I don't have an answer for it (my overall win-rate is roughly 60% and my win-rate vs. Terran's is around 30%, lol) -- I'm looking for answers just like a lot of other Zergs. To be brutally honest, I find that I'm just not good enough to go Muta-ling-bling against Bio-Mine and survive (as most pros choose to do in the matchup). It's a constant back-and-forth battle until one or two mine shots put Terran over the top...they wear me down with mines and drops and an army that they can replensih faster than mine. My choice is to then go Roach-Hydra with a big pack of lings to defend drops, but I find even then, because my resource demand is so much higher, I need to have more bases then them to survive the mid-game.
For those of you who watched WCS last night, there was an incredibly entertaining series between Suppy and Heart. In Game 2, one rogue mine shot killed 17 banelings. To me, that swing -- 100 resources killing more than 1,200 resources -- creates huge pitfalls for a lot of Zerg players (I won't spoil the match though).
|
On May 07 2013 17:39 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 02:23 Graven wrote:[B]I don't understand what you really want, muta ling bling deals ok with marines with support. Muta, ling, bling vs. marine, medevac, mine is incredibly cost-efficient for Terran. Game 2 of Moonglade vs. Illusion in the WCS is a good example (http://sc2casts.com/cast12348-mOOnGLaDe-vs-Illusion-Best-of-3-2013-WCS-America-S1-Group-Stage). From my experiences (I'm only a top-Dia player), it feels like at best you can break even, but pulling ahead feels far less likely than a mine shot putting you in the hole instead. The logic in getting Muta's is to deny drop-play, but marines and mines are also great counters to Muta's, so it's counter-intuative. The alternative for Zerg is to go Roach-Hydra instead, but you're often limited in any agression due to drops, so you're forced to try and starve out Terran or gamble on dividing your forces in an attack -- of course the issue there is that by the time you cross the map, Terran has received two additional waves of 15+ marines each and is in a good defensive position. In either case, Zerg is often waiting for an Ultra tech-switch, which can be tricky as it requires a base advantage (not easy against a multi-dropping Terran bio-mine opponent) and it leads to vulnerability while you're saving bank and building the Ultras. All of that goes into the specifics though...if we step back, the bigger issue to me is that the Terran force has better synergy than any Zerg counter. In warcraft 2/3 logic, Zerg need something like "Bloodlust" from a support unit to counter the healing of medevacs. While Infestors and Vipers are both great units, I don't find that they synergize great with a Zerg army vs. a bio-mine Terran, whereas Medevacs are the ultimate synergy. (In fact, I find that Infestors work best when they're not used as a support unit at all, but more like a rogue, Ghost-type unit, that burrows into enemy mineral lines.) The issue Zerg's are having is that in addition to the maddening drop play, more often than not, bio-mine can roll a Zerg army in a straight-up fight. Zerg isn't supposed to be cost efficient.
What exactly does that mean? I understand that the swarm style is to throw away a lot of cheaper units, but cost-efficiency isn't directly correlated to that when you add in all the other gameplay variables. So sure, as an example, Roaches are an overpriced unit relative to what they do and other units comparable to them. But if they were cheaper, they'd be overpowered in the big picture. The issue for Zerg right now is that drop-play is preventing Zerg from gaining a resource advantage and mines, at times, are BY FAR the most cost-efficienct unit in the game. Both of those factors combine for the current issues with the matchup.
|
The thing about Zerg is that you have to lose something initially to gain anything. You lose drones to create structures. You lose army units while maneuvering in close enough to attack enemy forces. It seems to me to be a race of "1 step back to get 2 steps forward." This means that Zerg must be very certain of their builds, strategies, and especially of their battle engagements. Otherwise, Zerg will have taken 1 step back but not gotten 2 steps forward.
A Zerg army must be large enough to overwhelm an enemy army or else it will not be trading efficiently. This is why I feel that Muta Ling/bling is wrong vs bio+mines, because it cant overwhelm the massive massive amounts of bio (unless the Terran makes a major micro mistake, which obviously should not be a part of the Zerg's strategy).
The only purpose of going Muta versus Terran bio+mines is to deal with Medivacs (to shut down drops), but Mutas cost so much (compared to bio+mines) and don't do well against the main bio army. The Zerg finds themselves being overrun by Tier 1 Terran units (with a few Medivacs and mines) because so many resources are tied up in Mutas (for example, 1000/1000 for 10 mutas versus 400/400 for 4 Medivacs or even 600/600 for 6 Medivacs), Mutas that are supposed to be dealing with drops but must be pulled into main battles just for the Zerg to survive, meanwhile the drops happen anyway. The Mutas can't even reliably kill the Medivacs in main battles because the Marines tear them up. The Mutas can't reliably kill the drops because the Terran can just speed-boost away to fight another day. So the Zerg has invested in useless Mutas, wasted a painful amount of time defending in vain instead of denying the Terran's expansions, and then eventually the Zerg just crumbles.
Do I even need to mention how ineffective banelings are against bio+mines? But banelings cost so much, which when coupled with the cost of also-ineffective Mutas, creates a losing scenario for Zerg.
Sure, pro Zergs can do Muta Ling/bling and survive well enough, without taking too much in the way of losses, but it is super difficult to manage even that. Meanwhile, in the background, Terran is taking a 4th base that the Zerg has no way to pressure because they were just trying to survive with MutaLing versus mass bio + mines and constant peripheral drops. This style buys the Terran so much time to expand. Little Zergling runbys do nothing against even light defense.
I feel that ultimately simple Muta Ling/bling is not the answer. Zerg needs a way to take control of the game in the mid-game, not "try to survive on 3 or 4-base until Hive-tech" while the Terran expands freely.
|
Zerg has to invest less into infrastructure. If you aim at one point in the game, zerg will always be able to have the biggest army at that time. The units are balanced accordingly.
|
On May 07 2013 23:54 Graven wrote:
For those of you who watched WCS last night, there was an incredibly entertaining series between Suppy and Heart. In Game 2, one rogue mine shot killed 17 banelings. To me, that swing -- 100 resources killing more than 1,200 resources -- creates huge pitfalls for a lot of Zerg players (I won't spoil the match though).
Someone's never lost six HTs to one EMP before.
|
On May 08 2013 03:17 submarine wrote:
Zerg has to invest less into infrastructure. If you aim at one point in the game, zerg will always be able to have the biggest army at that time. The units are balanced accordingly.
The difference in investment is minimal if even existent (depends a lot on builds, certain investments are discussable how to classify). Units are balanced upon "whatever works" and nothing else.
|
What i said is still true. All zerg units are kind of expensive, because every larva can be turned into any unit.
And if you look at the army value especially in early game scenarios in TvZ, the zerg will always be far ahead if he wants to be. Apart from zerglings, production capability is never limited for zerg by larvae. In nearly any fight taking place in a pro game the zerg army will be a lot more expensive. That is how it is balanced.
It is stupid to build equally expensive armies in the unit tester and cry "imbalanced" afterwards. The game is balanced around the fact, that zerg can sink more res into army at a certain point in the game.
|
On May 08 2013 04:20 submarine wrote:
What i said is still true. All zerg units are kind of expensive, because every larva can be turned into any unit.
And if you look at the army value especially in early game scenarios in TvZ, the zerg will always be far ahead if he wants to be. Apart from zerglings, production capability is never limited for zerg by larvae. In nearly any fight taking place in a pro game the zerg army will be a lot more expensive. That is how it is balanced.
It is stupid to build equally expensive armies in the unit tester and cry "imbalanced" afterwards. The game is balanced around the fact, that zerg can sink more res into army at a certain point in the game.
this is true but zerg still needs to be cost-efficient. its just in a different ratio. if the Z income is 3k and T has 2,5k income the ratio Z needs to trade is 3:2,5 in the long run or lose. some people here do like Z has double income or whatever which is just not true. and if i hear that zerg is never limited in larvae...*facepalm*.
the problem with mines is simply that you always do damage with the mines vs ling bling muta. so its always good to get more mines (20 or so are no problem and VERY strong vs ling bling muta). basically ZvT is now a race to superfast ultras to take mine damage or all in with ling bling. macrogames with a long ling bling muta style or other units often end in Z losing since once T reaches 10+ mines its almost impossible to engage costefficient enough.
|
On May 08 2013 04:20 submarine wrote:
What i said is still true. All zerg units are kind of expensive, because every larva can be turned into any unit.
And if you look at the army value especially in early game scenarios in TvZ, the zerg will always be far ahead if he wants to be. Apart from zerglings, production capability is never limited for zerg by larvae. In nearly any fight taking place in a pro game the zerg army will be a lot more expensive. That is how it is balanced.
It is stupid to build equally expensive armies in the unit tester and cry "imbalanced" afterwards. The game is balanced around the fact, that zerg can sink more res into army at a certain point in the game.
Well, I agree that races can perform strategies where they are able to mass a higher value of combat units than their opponents, especially in the early game. (other such strategies would be warp gate rushes or mass barracks allins)
But those things balance out largely in the mid- and lategame (due to standing armies making up the biggest part of units that can be used for an attack) and most of those early game situations are balanced around defenders advantages, maps, stationary defenses...
Zerg units are not "weaker to balance out production advantages". Nearly each of them is very powerful in the right situation. Of course a lot of them have been designed and balanced without taking too many risks - low range early game units, no AtA and AtG capable capital ship, very few units with extra damage to certain types, many needed upgrades to take away potential from the early game. But I think it's pretty hard to deny that the roach and the hydralisk are very costefficient units if the opponent lacks specific counters for them, that speedzerglings just rape anything early game in equal numbers, that with the ultralisk, zerg has the strongest ground unit in a 1v1 comparison and that the viper and the infestor are amongst the strongest spellcasters in the game. Oh well, and the Broodlord beats every ground unit if you just have enough of them.
|
On May 08 2013 03:58 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 23:54 Graven wrote:
For those of you who watched WCS last night, there was an incredibly entertaining series between Suppy and Heart. In Game 2, one rogue mine shot killed 17 banelings. To me, that swing -- 100 resources killing more than 1,200 resources -- creates huge pitfalls for a lot of Zerg players (I won't spoil the match though). Someone's never lost six HTs to one EMP before.
My issue with that comparison is that in your example the opposing player was tasked with microing the Ghost. In the example I provided, there was a lone mine placed at a random location on the map and forgotton. The lack of investment -- in both resources and micro -- yielded incredibly cost-effective results. Not to mention, you're example is in the late game, where huge swings like that are more common and more recoverable. In the early game, 17 free banelings should almost always result in a game over.
|
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm
|
On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm
There is no reason for hellbat drops to be so good and its not something terran does all the time so its easy to fix. And mines aren't op but there is no reason for them to be invisible on creep for example it can work for terran but has nothing to do with skill or planning. Sometimes terran doesn't even know what the mines do after the first attack. Its just bad design. Terran forces an overseer to spot mines witch is easy then if you forget overseer they can kill a lot is that good? The strength of the mines aren't that they are invisible except for drops.
|
I accidentally quoted myself but i an say i like playing against mines more now then i did at the start. So i like mines but just some things i don't like witch they can fix but they prob wont.
|
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On May 08 2013 07:16 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm There is no reason for hellbat drops to be so good and its not something terran does all the time so its easy to fix. And mines aren't op but there is no reason for them to be invisible on creep for example it can work for terran but has nothing to do with skill or planning. Sometimes terran doesn't even know what the mines do after the first attack. Its just bad design. Terran forces an overseer to spot mines witch is easy then if you forget overseer they can kill a lot is that good? The strength of the mines aren't that they are invisible except for drops.
The reasons why mines are invisible is to force the other players to finally have to pay attention when moving around the map. The big issue with WoL is there wasn't anything to really force the zerg player to actually do anything with his army, it felt like watching and playing (a little bit, not all the time) of zerg late game was just spawn a load of zerglings and rally them into the enemy base and forget about them. That's bad design. Players should have to think about their army movements and not just lololol a-move around the map in my opinion.
They give a little bit (not a great) deal of space control which was needed as small amounts of tanks (unless protected on highground or behind a wall) can't really punish a-moving.
|
On May 08 2013 07:36 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:16 Usernameffs wrote:On May 08 2013 06:39 iky43210 wrote:
good thing blizz did not nerf terran because of zerg tears a few weeks ago. They seem to do perfectly fine if not too fine atm There is no reason for hellbat drops to be so good and its not something terran does all the time so its easy to fix. And mines aren't op but there is no reason for them to be invisible on creep for example it can work for terran but has nothing to do with skill or planning. Sometimes terran doesn't even know what the mines do after the first attack. Its just bad design. Terran forces an overseer to spot mines witch is easy then if you forget overseer they can kill a lot is that good? The strength of the mines aren't that they are invisible except for drops. The reasons why mines are invisible is to force the other players to finally have to pay attention when moving around the map. The big issue with WoL is there wasn't anything to really force the zerg player to actually do anything with his army, it felt like watching and playing (a little bit, not all the time) of zerg late game was just spawn a load of zerglings and rally them into the enemy base and forget about them. That's bad design. Players should have to think about their army movements and not just lololol a-move around the map in my opinion. They give a little bit (not a great) deal of space control which was needed as small amounts of tanks (unless protected on highground or behind a wall) can't really punish a-moving.
Yeah but it very unpredictable in some cases. And you didn't say anything about the hellbats.
|
I've been watching almost all of the big tournaments lately in SC2 and I've noticed a huge difference in late game engagements involving Ultralisk alone or with Queens (transfuse). Now, I'm a Zerg player (top Diamond, nothing much) and I generally will cheer for top Zergs in a match because I enjoy watching their play style - and I REALLY like playing with Ultras but I think that transfuse is currently a bit strong with them. I was wondering what other players think of Ultra+Queen in late game scenarios. The change I would like to propose for discussion is reducing the heal from transfuse on massive (or even just Ultra). I think that without spam tranfuse Ultras are pretty fair (high damage, but kiteable, battles come down to better micro) - but with 6-8 queens it becomes very hard to wear them down without giving up major ground due to their insane tanking capabilities and high damage output... usually resulting in the loss of a base or the game.
Any thoughts on this idea? Also note, I'm note advocating this because it affects my gameplay at the level I'm at (lets face it, Diamond and even Masters are hardly good enough to argue for balance from watching pro games, only from what is "fun" to play against etc.) - but because I think it might result in a better state of the game (and better viewing overall, imo) than if Ultras dominate for a few months and then get nerfed in damage instead of just having the healing nerfed. Marauders and Immortals deal with them very well in non mirror matchups from the tournaments I've watched, but fail to do so when Queens and transfuse become involved.
TLDR: Reduce heal effect from transfuse on Ultralisk or massive.
|
Northern Ireland25945 Posts
I agree in part, I'll wait and see if the trend for mass transfused catches on. It does look strong though.
I'm loathe to see cool, micro heavy stuff nerfed until there's at least a lot of VoDs showing it off :p. despite being silly, mass snipe was fucking sweet to see a few times
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
