|
This thread is going nowhere and I'm tired of dealing with it. Either drop the personal attacks and whining and replace it with actual discussion or it'll be closed.
12:09 KST Page 98 |
On June 25 2012 17:14 Smigi wrote:
During the first stages of the game, Zerg was terribly underpowered.
It took blizzard about 6-8 months after release in a series of spread out patches to resolve this.
If you all can remember, this was the period all terrans were posting "Love drinking zerg tears" "here comes some more zerg qq" ect. and it was true, zerg were complaining and QQing endlessly. Also, yes it was true, zerg was very UP.
However, Blizzard did the correct thing. Instead of instantly patching anything that seemed to break the 50% mark, they sat and saw what the Zerg could figure out, then after it was all said it done, patched what truly needed to be fixed.
Terran's are now finding themselves in the exact circumstance. They need to push through this, and figure out what they can. In the end, Blizzard will fix what needs to be fixed.
End of discussion.
I couldn't disagree more so many kneejerk reactions that made units useless that thanks to later changes wouldn't have been neccesary anymore anyway. ( Thor/Reaper,Barracks before Depot, Tank,Rax Buildtime)
|
However.. regardless of wether it was 3-4 months or 6-8 months, the fact is.. Blizzard took the correct approach to it.
No matter how much any of us yells, no matter how much we post. Blizzard will take their time and make the right choice.
|
On June 25 2012 17:14 Smigi wrote:
During the first stages of the game, Zerg was terribly underpowered.
It took blizzard about 6-8 months after release in a series of spread out patches to resolve this.
If you all can remember, this was the period all terrans were posting "Love drinking zerg tears" "here comes some more zerg qq" ect. and it was true, zerg were complaining and QQing endlessly. Also, yes it was true, zerg was very UP.
However, Blizzard did the correct thing. Instead of instantly patching anything that seemed to break the 50% mark, they sat and saw what the Zerg could figure out, then after it was all said it done, patched what truly needed to be fixed.
Terran's are now finding themselves in the exact circumstance. They need to push through this, and figure out what they can. In the end, Blizzard will fix what needs to be fixed.
End of discussion.
I think that you should look at the map pool of S1 and S2 maps were smaller and 3rd was hard to take rush distances were shorter. And there was a lot of high grounds for siege tanks to abuse. Today the maps are much bigger and 3rd is easier to take rush distances are longer and not that many spots to abuse siege tank.
|
On June 25 2012 17:19 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 17:14 Smigi wrote:
During the first stages of the game, Zerg was terribly underpowered.
It took blizzard about 6-8 months after release in a series of spread out patches to resolve this.
If you all can remember, this was the period all terrans were posting "Love drinking zerg tears" "here comes some more zerg qq" ect. and it was true, zerg were complaining and QQing endlessly. Also, yes it was true, zerg was very UP.
However, Blizzard did the correct thing. Instead of instantly patching anything that seemed to break the 50% mark, they sat and saw what the Zerg could figure out, then after it was all said it done, patched what truly needed to be fixed.
Terran's are now finding themselves in the exact circumstance. They need to push through this, and figure out what they can. In the end, Blizzard will fix what needs to be fixed.
End of discussion. I couldn't disagree more so many kneejerk reactions that made units useless that thanks to later changes wouldn't have been neccesary anymore anyway. ( Thor/Reaper,Barracks before Depot, Tank,Rax Buildtime)
Assuming they were kneejerk reactions..
Would you want another kneejerk reaction to the Queen? or to the state of TvZ in general?
|
On June 25 2012 17:19 Smigi wrote:
Look at the patches during that time, Blizzard disagrees.
So you are stated blizzard did the right thing to let the matchup evolve and let zerg figuere out what the could come up with, and now you say zerg was up and needed all those nerfs/buffs back in the days? Cause there were no 6 to 8 months windows of time without any patching.
Seems wiered...
|
On June 25 2012 17:26 Tryagain4free wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 17:19 Smigi wrote:
Look at the patches during that time, Blizzard disagrees. So you are stated blizzard did the right thing to let the matchup evolve and let zerg figuere out what the could come up with, and now you say zerg was up and needed all those nerfs/buffs back in the days? Cause there were no 6 to 8 months windows of time without any patching. Seems wiered...
"It took blizzard about 6-8 months after release in a series of spread out patches to resolve this."
From my previous post on the last page.
|
On June 25 2012 17:23 Smigi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 17:19 s3rp wrote:On June 25 2012 17:14 Smigi wrote:
During the first stages of the game, Zerg was terribly underpowered.
It took blizzard about 6-8 months after release in a series of spread out patches to resolve this.
If you all can remember, this was the period all terrans were posting "Love drinking zerg tears" "here comes some more zerg qq" ect. and it was true, zerg were complaining and QQing endlessly. Also, yes it was true, zerg was very UP.
However, Blizzard did the correct thing. Instead of instantly patching anything that seemed to break the 50% mark, they sat and saw what the Zerg could figure out, then after it was all said it done, patched what truly needed to be fixed.
Terran's are now finding themselves in the exact circumstance. They need to push through this, and figure out what they can. In the end, Blizzard will fix what needs to be fixed.
End of discussion. I couldn't disagree more so many kneejerk reactions that made units useless that thanks to later changes wouldn't have been neccesary anymore anyway. ( Thor/Reaper,Barracks before Depot, Tank,Rax Buildtime) Assuming they were kneejerk reactions.. Would you want another kneejerk reaction to the Queen? or to the state of TvZ in general?
If they stay their course they're going to. I mean the Queenbuff came out of leftfield anyway and broke the best balanced non-mirror . ( doesn't say alot though ) They start with kneejerk moves they have to clean up their messes with one its that simple. There's not really anything left to figure out with anyway Terran after all the nerfs. There's only a limited of viable units and openings left that even theoretically work. What units other than Helions or Banshees can harass / pressure on bigger Maps without risking losing the game instantly is you lose them before half the map is covered with creep ? . Or what units can compete with Zerg lategame if played decently that hasn't been used with more or less mediocre at best success ?
The best solution would be Air-Units since lets be honest Broodlords are uncounterable by ground only once a certain number is reached. That would actually work pretty well if fungal was THIS strong against air , its almost completely shuts airplay down with the way it works . I think the Infestor / Fungal Growth hurts the game overall with its strengh.
|
On June 25 2012 17:27 Smigi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 17:26 Tryagain4free wrote:On June 25 2012 17:19 Smigi wrote:
Look at the patches during that time, Blizzard disagrees. So you are stated blizzard did the right thing to let the matchup evolve and let zerg figuere out what the could come up with, and now you say zerg was up and needed all those nerfs/buffs back in the days? Cause there were no 6 to 8 months windows of time without any patching. Seems wiered... "It took blizzard about 6-8 months after release in a series of spread out patches to resolve this."From my previous post on the last page.
Sorry,
not my best post. But do you really think the latest patch was a thing "that really needed to be fixed"? Where was the problem? And has the matchup become any better since? More entertaining? More action? More balanced?
|
On June 25 2012 10:41 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 10:23 Talack wrote:On June 25 2012 10:08 Kharnage wrote:On June 25 2012 09:46 Talack wrote:
Fungal Growth no longer affects air units.
Spore colonies now have a small splash radius against biological units.
Bam, late game problem of TvZ fixed. No need to change queen and terrans can move forward with a more economic style strategy. They attempted fungal no longer affects air and VR and phoenix play is too strong. Mixing in more hydras/corrupters seems to be the solution to that. Zerg anti-air is rediculously bad at dealing with mass air with fungal removed from the equation. Once phoenix get their ran ge upgrade they can even take on corruptors. Hydras cannot do anything to a wall in that has colossus supporting it, which means protoss can turtle on 3 base and mass an air composition for which zerg has no answer. Phoenix are simply too fast for zerg to deal with, and the vulnerability of OL means that there is ALWAYS something for protoss to hasass. Obs + VR can keep the creep under control, and hydras off creep are terrible.
Sounds like the solution to the entire problem then. Brilliant way to break up deathball protoss play by giving protoss a second viable way of doing PvZ and makes terran air much stronger.
|
Germany1199 Posts
Regardless of balance issues, the patch changed the metagame in a nice way. Terrans on ladder play more macro oriented and rely less on all-ins and early gimmickry. This opens more opportunities for the Zerg to play an agressive style, which is a good thing imo.
I personally favor agressive play (for the fun of it) and was pretty annoyed to be forced to defense-macro into blords every game ..
However terran might need some end game buffs in order to profit from a stronger macro play. There should be something past mass marine/tanks as fungal+banes+blords just own this pretty easy. Terran should not be forced to Mech in order to get a strong late game army. Maybe some lategame upgrade on the thor might help.
|
On June 25 2012 17:22 Smigi wrote:
However.. regardless of wether it was 3-4 months or 6-8 months, the fact is.. Blizzard took the correct approach to it.
No matter how much any of us yells, no matter how much we post. Blizzard will take their time and make the right choice.
Like how they took their time adding the queen buff? Pretty much no foresight into the consequences. Blizzard doesn't know all of the correct decisions. I'm fairly sure the only reason to buff queens against hellions that they mentioned was because they didn't like hellions denying creep spread/third base. If they thought it through any further than that, then to regard their balance decisions to such high esteem embraces blind optimism and ignorance.
|
On June 25 2012 16:58 submarine wrote:
To put an end to that stupid "tickle" argument once and for all:
QUEEN:
Attributes Biological, Psionic
Defense HP 175 Armor 1 (+1)
Ground Attack: 4(+1) (x2)
Ground DPS: 8(+2)
Air Attack: 9(+1)
Air DPS: 9(+1)
Range: 5 (ground), 7 (air)
Cooldown: 1 (air and ground)
Sight 9
Speed on Creep 2.5
ROACH:
Attributes Armored, Biological
Defense HP 145 Armor 1 (+1)
Ground Attack: 16(+2)
Ground DPS: 8(+1)
Range: 4
Cooldown: 2
Speed on Creep 2.92 (+0.975)
The queen has no Armor attribute! Thats huge! The queen has same DPS, more range and more health. The only disadvantages of queens compared to roaches as a fighting unit on creep are: They are a little bit slower, the attack is more affected by armor and they are a little big bigger. The last one can sometimes even be a advantage.(hello splash damage)
The range change made queens a very good early game fighting unit. Please stop to repeat this stupid "tickle" BS you heard on SOTG.
Just build Terran battlecruisers. They have huge DPS 35.6 ground. Roaches useless against them. GG zerg.
Ridiculous? But why? You're making a DPS argument aren't you? Reply is - you make DPS, I make DPS, you make resource based DPS, I make resource based DPS, etc. etc. It doesn't work. You don't just build queens, you don't just build roaches. You don't just build marines, or marauders, or tanks.
It's about making use of the strengths of each race and combining forces effectively. If you build nothing but marines, you'll get killed by speedling/baneling. If you build nothing but speedling/baneling, you can get slaughtered by banshees. If you think it's insulting that I should point this out, then please don't try to simplify things down to DPS, because if you WERE insulted, you know better than to try to base an argument on DPS.
The fact is that idra was right. Oh, okay, he has a reputation for being BM (or maybe he really is BM lol - let's just say he's a passionate guy). And maybe his performance hasn't been great recently compared to what he's done in the past. And maybe higher ranked players disagree with him, and he's a zerg, and not known for well-reasoned arguments (even if he makes them, they're lost behind a wall of BM). But he's right. They didn't buff queen damage. Just range.
BTW, zergling DPS is 7.2 ground, and they cost 25 minerals. (Attack is 5) Roaches have DPS 8 ground (Attack is 16), and they cost 75 mineral 25 gas. That is to say, roaches are f*ing trash in the DPS department, considering supply, considering cost, considering damage dealt. Oh, they're nice against mech because they do a chunk of damage per attack so do well against armor. But when you're talking about nice soft targets, 28.8 ground DPS versus 8 ground DPS? No contest, ZERGLINGS are the monster. (I'm not even talking adrenal gland zerglings.)
So actually idra was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about queens just tickling from further away. Again - queen damage wasn't buffed, just range. And the REAL DPS monster is zergling, with over triple that of the queen. I know, right, Idra being right about things - doesn't seem right, maybe. But really, he's a talented guy, and again, in this case, absolutely right in every real sense.
--
As far as queens being viable army - already gone over the DPS difference between simple zerglings and queen, but it's even greater for banelings. Besides which even early, you don't want to grab too many queens. Fighting off creep isn't just some trivial weakness. If someone pushes into Zerg base, okay, queens nasty, and yes, more queens more creep, etc. But really, you're not going to get queens running out of the Zerg base into your base and killing you and blowing up your bunkers like Zerg can with speed/banelings. Nor are you even just going to get queens running after you and surrounding you and killing chunks of your army like regular speedlings after an early failed push. Besides which you really don't want to load up on queens going into late game either. If you load up on queens, where are your minerals for other things?
What about early fighting units? Queens cost 150. Roaches cost 100. That's a huge difference. 2 Queens are 350 HP 18 DPS. 3 Roaches are 435 HP 24 DPS. You can afford queens for larvae, creep spread, a few transfers. But you don't base an army on a unit with 66% the damage output and 80% the hit points. Sure, transfer is very good stuff. But again, you can't just build a single unit and plow opponents. There's a reason why top pros don't just build queen armies, and although I think they may sometimes lack vision, there is very good and obvious reason for this in the case of queens vs roaches. You need the DPS, and I mean the REAL DPS, not some "8 DPS per second" based on a Liquipedia entry and hasty assessment. (Not dissing Liquipedia. It's useful! But players REALLY have to read it carefully.)
Besides which players REALLY need to think about the mid/late game development.
Queen ground attack isn't 8. It's 4 x 2, cooldown 1 A bit of armor, and queens are suddenly very crappy, even upgraded queens with +1. Contrast with roach base 16 damage that punch through armor with +2 per upgrade. Cooldown is 2.
Now let's say you're looking at mech with 3 ups vs Zerg with 3 ups. Queens do 7 x 2 cooldown 1, less the 4 armor per, so 3 x 2 = 6 DPS (real). Roaches do 22 cooldown 2, less the 4 armor per, so 18 / 2 = 9 DPS (real). Then consider you're buying 3 roaches for the cost of 2 queens, so you have 12 DPS (real) versus 27 DPS (real). Transfer is cool, but it doesn't compensate for the additional viability of roaches, the fact that overkill is wasted on more targets with less hp, and the 125% damage increase that roaches offer.
You get similar things if you run through for Hydralisk (although they're horribly fragile), zergling, baneling, etc. When it comes right down to it, queens are most definitely useful. Transfer is mighty. But they are never what you want as the core of your army, and they usually shouldn't even be the first things targeted down when armies clash. If Terran is going bio, Zerg will want speedling/baneling/infestor, if Terran is going mech, Zerg will want roach, but in either event Zerg absolutely CANNOT afford to just stock up on queens, or Zerg get crushed.
--
You WILL see almost pure queen armies in some games, but not so much in serious games between fairly skilled players in the TvZ matchup.
|
On June 25 2012 18:26 redruMBunny wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 16:58 submarine wrote:
To put an end to that stupid "tickle" argument once and for all:
QUEEN:
Attributes Biological, Psionic
Defense HP 175 Armor 1 (+1)
Ground Attack: 4(+1) (x2)
Ground DPS: 8(+2)
Air Attack: 9(+1)
Air DPS: 9(+1)
Range: 5 (ground), 7 (air)
Cooldown: 1 (air and ground)
Sight 9
Speed on Creep 2.5
ROACH:
Attributes Armored, Biological
Defense HP 145 Armor 1 (+1)
Ground Attack: 16(+2)
Ground DPS: 8(+1)
Range: 4
Cooldown: 2
Speed on Creep 2.92 (+0.975)
The queen has no Armor attribute! Thats huge! The queen has same DPS, more range and more health. The only disadvantages of queens compared to roaches as a fighting unit on creep are: They are a little bit slower, the attack is more affected by armor and they are a little big bigger. The last one can sometimes even be a advantage.(hello splash damage)
The range change made queens a very good early game fighting unit. Please stop to repeat this stupid "tickle" BS you heard on SOTG. + Show Spoiler +Just build Terran battlecruisers. They have huge DPS 35.6 ground. Roaches useless against them. GG zerg.
Ridiculous? But why? You're making a DPS argument aren't you? Reply is - you make DPS, I make DPS, you make resource based DPS, I make resource based DPS, etc. etc. It doesn't work. You don't just build queens, you don't just build roaches. You don't just build marines, or marauders, or tanks.
It's about making use of the strengths of each race and combining forces effectively. If you build nothing but marines, you'll get killed by speedling/baneling. If you build nothing but speedling/baneling, you can get slaughtered by banshees. If you think it's insulting that I should point this out, then please don't try to simplify things down to DPS, because if you WERE insulted, you know better than to try to base an argument on DPS.
The fact is that idra was right. Oh, okay, he has a reputation for being BM (or maybe he really is BM lol - let's just say he's a passionate guy). And maybe his performance hasn't been great recently compared to what he's done in the past. And maybe higher ranked players disagree with him, and he's a zerg, and not known for well-reasoned arguments (even if he makes them, they're lost behind a wall of BM). But he's right. They didn't buff queen damage. Just range.
BTW, zergling DPS is 7.2 ground, and they cost 25 minerals. (Attack is 5) Roaches have DPS 8 ground (Attack is 16), and they cost 75 mineral 25 gas. That is to say, roaches are f*ing trash in the DPS department, considering supply, considering cost, considering damage dealt. Oh, they're nice against mech because they do a chunk of damage per attack so do well against armor. But when you're talking about nice soft targets, 28.8 ground DPS versus 8 ground DPS? No contest, ZERGLINGS are the monster. (I'm not even talking adrenal gland zerglings.)
So actually idra was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about queens just tickling from further away. Again - queen damage wasn't buffed, just range. And the REAL DPS monster is zergling, with over triple that of the queen. I know, right, Idra being right about things - doesn't seem right, maybe. But really, he's a talented guy, and again, in this case, absolutely right in every real sense.
--
As far as queens being viable army - already gone over the DPS difference between simple zerglings and queen, but it's even greater for banelings. Besides which even early, you don't want to grab too many queens. Fighting off creep isn't just some trivial weakness. If someone pushes into Zerg base, okay, queens nasty, and yes, more queens more creep, etc. But really, you're not going to get queens running out of the Zerg base into your base and killing you and blowing up your bunkers like Zerg can with speed/banelings. Nor are you even just going to get queens running after you and surrounding you and killing chunks of your army like regular speedlings after an early failed push. Besides which you really don't want to load up on queens going into late game either. If you load up on queens, where are your minerals for other things?
What about early fighting units? Queens cost 150. Roaches cost 100. That's a huge difference. 2 Queens are 350 HP 18 DPS. 3 Roaches are 435 HP 24 DPS. You can afford queens for larvae, creep spread, a few transfers. But you don't base an army on a unit with 66% the damage output and 80% the hit points. Sure, transfer is very good stuff. But again, you can't just build a single unit and plow opponents. There's a reason why top pros don't just build queen armies, and although I think they may sometimes lack vision, there is very good and obvious reason for this in the case of queens vs roaches. You need the DPS, and I mean the REAL DPS, not some "8 DPS per second" based on a Liquipedia entry and hasty assessment. (Not dissing Liquipedia. It's useful! But players REALLY have to read it carefully.)
Besides which players REALLY need to think about the mid/late game development.
Queen ground attack isn't 8. It's 4 x 2, cooldown 1 A bit of armor, and queens are suddenly very crappy, even upgraded queens with +1. Contrast with roach base 16 damage that punch through armor with +2 per upgrade. Cooldown is 2.
Now let's say you're looking at mech with 3 ups vs Zerg with 3 ups. Queens do 7 x 2 cooldown 1, less the 4 armor per, so 3 x 2 = 6 DPS (real). Roaches do 22 cooldown 2, less the 4 armor per, so 18 / 2 = 9 DPS (real). Then consider you're buying 3 roaches for the cost of 2 queens, so you have 12 DPS (real) versus 27 DPS (real). Transfer is cool, but it doesn't compensate for the additional viability of roaches, the fact that overkill is wasted on more targets with less hp, and the 125% damage increase that roaches offer.
You get similar things if you run through for Hydralisk (although they're horribly fragile), zergling, baneling, etc. When it comes right down to it, queens are most definitely useful. Transfer is mighty. But they are never what you want as the core of your army, and they usually shouldn't even be the first things targeted down when armies clash. If Terran is going bio, Zerg will want speedling/baneling/infestor, if Terran is going mech, Zerg will want roach, but in either event Zerg absolutely CANNOT afford to just stock up on queens, or Zerg get crushed.
--
You WILL see almost pure queen armies in some games, but not so much in serious games between fairly skilled players in the TvZ matchup.
Who is complaining about losing to mass queens in mid/late game? Everyone is complaining that queens are too strong early game. Zerg can make a unit that has the same DPS, more HP, and better range than a roach for no larva. Terran needs to slow down the zerg economy or enter the midgame with a huge disadvantage being down 30 workers. Queens are strong enough where the zerg doesn't have to spend larva on anything but drones unless they see some kind of crazy all in coming.
|
Huge post to miss the point. 3 roaches were enough to drive off 6 hellions and allow zergs to take a 3rd. Thus three queens do an even better job after the buff and they don't cost larva or gas or need a tech structure.
Some zerg users doubted that 3 queens would be as efficient, stating the pityful DPS of the queen in comparison to the roach. Which is bullshit.
So basically if 3 roaches were enough to secure a 3rd vs hellions, then three queens are also enough. Zergs save 4-5 larvae (3 for the roaches, 1 temporary for the early extractor and 1 for the roach warren), while on top of that gain extra anti-air making them safer against banshee play, gain a massive boost on creep spread, the ability to transfuse AND they are not vulnerable to marauders. This is the essence why it's so very much easier to get 3 bases now as Zerg in TvZ.
|
they should leave the changes alone. Stop nerfing or buffing units, just change maps. Put more high ground in a map is instant buff for terran
|
On June 25 2012 16:30 s3rp wrote:
If you don't mech and don't plan of making a Bio/Helion push Helions ARE useless now. . Helions are just as fragile as Bio is against Lings/Banelings and don't really deal decent good damage unless the Zerg runs everything in a line. If you want something running around build one or two Banshees way more cost effective. If he overreacts and goes Mutas thats a win right there and Banshees will never take any significant damage from Queens by just poking around ( unlike Helions )
(I posted why I consider Hellions still useful in the TvZ matchup a while back - defend ling tech, force split off into roaches, gives Terran more time. Plus keeps Zerg a bit on defensive, map control, restrict Zerg ground scouting, &c &c. More in previous post.
To address s3rp's fragility point, Hellions are fragile in a straight up fight, but they're fast. This is why they're durable, in the same sense that banshees are durable, because you can't hit what's not there. I don't mean to connote that if you're very good with Hellions that you aren't going to lose any. Even top pros will lose 1-2 Hellions minimum on a run in against queens, and will lose 1-3 Hellions when escaping from speedlings. But top pros tend not to get a bunch of Hellions surrounded and destroyed, which is something I see pretty frequently in a lot of lower level games. (I think especially it has to do with lower level players reacting to speedlings showing up, at which point it's often too late.) Higher level players tend to run in, mess with things, maybe stick around a few seconds, but then they get out if they can't do a lot of damage, and they get out fast. Even if they're happily toasting a hatchery from which drones have fled, if it's been more than 15-20 seconds (usually far earlier), they start running back and forth like they're ready to run away, which is exactly the case, so when speedlings show up, the Hellions already have a foot out the door, instead of being caught flatfooted and being surrounded. The difference is perhaps 0.75-1.5 seconds, but it's defintitely there, and it means getting 3-4 Hellions out alive from a pack of 6, or 5-6 out of a pack of 8, or losing absolutely everything.)
But back to the point - I'm afraid I don't quite understand your post s3rp. If Hellions are useless unless you go mech or bio, okay - but if you're not going mech or bio what are you doing?
As far as something running around, you can do both hellions and banshees. (I'm not saying it's The Answer. But I've seen it done, it seems to work decently. Plus it carries all the advantages I mentioned earlier of going Hellions anyways, not least of which is not getting run over by ling tech.)
Solo (or a couple) banshee harass can be useful and effective, but I don't think it's enough to destabilize TvZ. Zerg are well used to banshees by now, especially strong Zerg players. I'm not discounting Banshees, I'm not saying they're not effective and useful and worth their cost. But I don't think it's enough to go Banshee/bio. You'll get decent results, sure, and you can pick off Banelings if you run into ling tech, but overseer, spore, queens, speed/baneling on defense and offense, and soon infestors and Zerg push. It isn't anything Terran can't handle (I mean, not saying it's easy for Terran to defend the push, but just saying it's not a walkover for Zerg - after all, Terran has drops, harass, maybe tanks although that isn't strictly bio, but whatever). But it's not new territory, and I don't feel that matchup particularly favors Terran, especially once you get a few infestors running around.
Banshee/mech, maybe, is what you're proposing, but then, I think that if you're going mech you're going to end up Hellions anyways, yes?
Maybe you could elaborate a bit on what it is you would be proposing? I can't quite get a picture of what it is that you're proposing as the best Terran decision tree.
|
On June 25 2012 15:55 s3rp wrote:
The Thing about Cloak Tech against Zerg is how easy it is for Zerg to defend Cloaked Units with early Evos and Overseers. If you tech to Banshees you at least will probably keep the Banshees alive and you're already at Startport tech that is important to have anyway. Cloaked Ghosts will die once detection in Up and the damage they deal isn't that great against anything but Drones and Lings. ( If you try to kill Queens with snipe you'd use too much Energy ). I mean it could deal ok damage but its really delays your tech ALOT.
While you are talking about Ghosts getting cloak I would like to point out that if people want to try a smoother transition into RAvens into the mid and late game their banshee openers should be Raven first then banshee and ignore the cloak. PDD offers so much tanking against Queens and Spores Banshees shouldn't spend the gas on their own cloak anymore.
|
I don't mind Terran late game getting a buff in order to 'fix' the matchup, in fact, I would love a late game buff of course (possibly Raven). However, I just don't think it's a good idea just to focus on the late game aspect. I still say that the Queen buff to be reverted, and have Terran's late game buffed. Sure, long macro games are great, but I just do not find it entertaining watching a NR15.
|
On June 25 2012 18:44 Thrombozyt wrote:
Huge post to miss the point. 3 roaches were enough to drive off 6 hellions and allow zergs to take a 3rd. Thus three queens do an even better job after the buff and they don't cost larva or gas or need a tech structure.
Some zerg users doubted that 3 queens would be as efficient, stating the pityful DPS of the queen in comparison to the roach. Which is bullshit.
So basically if 3 roaches were enough to secure a 3rd vs hellions, then three queens are also enough. Zergs save 4-5 larvae (3 for the roaches, 1 temporary for the early extractor and 1 for the roach warren), while on top of that gain extra anti-air making them safer against banshee play, gain a massive boost on creep spread, the ability to transfuse AND they are not vulnerable to marauders. This is the essence why it's so very much easier to get 3 bases now as Zerg in TvZ
Oh, well, when you were talking about DPS and the use of Queens as early military, I thought I was exactly addressing the point. If you read through your previous post (the one not quoted above), I think you will see how I could understandably misconstrue your meaning.
As far as 5-6 queens helping secure the 3rd Zerg base, particularly against Hellion runthroughs, I don't think that's ever been in contention. I see a lot of posts saying that Zerg are calling Terrans whiners or that Zerg are telling Terrans just to play through, or that Zerg are claiming that queens actually suck and can't repel Terrans. But I don't think that's actually been the case at all. I don't think anybody's claiming that Terran can just blow through with Hellions like they used to - or at least, nobody apart from perhaps one or two posters. Anybody knows it's easier for Zerg to get 3 bases against light harassment/scouting pushes now.
As far as saying this is bullshit or that is bullshit - I didn't say DPS of queen is pitiful compared to roach, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't swear gratuitously, even if it does make you angry.
As far as queens being vulnerable to marauders - marauders have base 1 armor, so queens do less damage, as already mentioned queens don't have the DPS or HP of roaches considering cost (especially after the armor of marauder), marauders can get concussive shell to pick off Queens, and queens that are spreading lots of creep shouldn't have a load of energy to transfuse anyways (considering you were concerned about a massive boost on creep spread.) Besides which marauders have range 6 and queens have range 5. Nice, right?
This isn't to dismiss your concern. I'm not saying "oh, marauders are gosu against queens end of story." No question, queens are more useful post-buff, and sure, marauders don't just blast through queens like they do roaches. But also for sure Zerg can't just march queens around and own the map.
I do feel you're exaggerating the importance of the queen a bit. Oh, not intentionally, perhaps. But it's like you just feel the queen is something you can't handle, and that the queen itself is the problem. (Look at your previous post. Queen focused, is it not?)
If you feel that Zerg 3 base is too much for Terran 3 base, because of lategame TvZ imba, shouldn't that be your focus instead of the queen?
|
On June 25 2012 19:16 redruMBunny wrote:
If you feel that Zerg 3 base is too much for Terran 3 base, because of lategame TvZ imba, shouldn't that be your focus instead of the queen?
No, you know, the matchup used to revolve around pressuring the zerg in order not to let them get their optimal economy at 10 minutes into the game. And it was way better to watch that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
