On December 15 2012 02:13: I completely agree with this entire post.
TvZ was the flag ship MU until Zergs received many patches that just made the game boring. When neutral Korean and foreign pros began to speak out about the imbalance, I knew there was an issue. It was easy to see for anyone who had played Terran at a relatively high level. I stopped playing myself after the queen buff because I began to lose to players I once used to dominate. TvT and TvP remained great, but you could easily tell that TvZ was not right.
As a player, I stopped playing several months ago. And I even reduced my consumption of sc2 because, as was stated, the games became more linear and predicable. Zergs turtled to infestor/bl or ultra and won. 11/11 rax had been neutered. reaper fe neutered. 2 rax variants, and even the hellion opener lost their potency.
PvZ showed the same problems. the MU was stale, as protoss was relegated to 2 base while Zergs were free to both take more bases and deny protoss bases with their mobility. zerg seemed to have it all: the strongest 200/200 army, the best static defense (wall of spines/spores for no supply), the best mobility (running zergling packs to deny/delay expos), ability to drop, burrow, burrow move (denying expansions, forcing obs. or scans, greater harass), the best macro (when zergs could lose over 100 drones in the early/mid game and win), and the best re-max (even with the best 200/200 supply army, zergs could also instantly re-max).
What confused me was the game design. How was it that the "swarm" race; ostensibly the race of "many weak units" became the race of the strongest unit composition in both MUs, and the ability to have "many" units with the re-max and static defense. As well as the huge pool of resources to support both of the aforementioned options due to superior macro mechanics.
How did Zerg receive all of these benefits? As someone who loves playing RTS games-- all of these factors leave one wondering how one race could have so many advantages relative to the others.
Zerg has every possible advantage, so it's little wonder we have seen so much domination on the part of foreign and Korean zergs.
Well articulated. I play HOTS now. I have to give it to Blizzard for buffing Terran slightly with some mech. But I see this slowly deteriorating once again with the new patches where they, once again, make air less viable versus Zerg. I'm still missing the reasoning for Terran air upgrades being more expensive than any other race and the least effective against BL/infestor/Corruptor. They have some way to go.
PS: I think mech is still viable in HOTS (PvT) even though others say it is not. It takes more experimenting before it is discredited.
On December 15 2012 09:54 FXOjEcho wrote: Im confused why this property doesnt echo back to the other races. the game was insanely imbalanced when it came out, shouldn't any protoss/terran who had any success and can no longer do anything be labeled a patch toss/terran
The rationale in your statement practically alings with the other less experienced Sc2 players that say: "we used to be underpowered now its our turn to be OP." As a GM I thought you would contribute more to your statement. I have no problem articulating when units of my own race or imbalanced (I do it all the time in HOTS), perhaps consider the same for Zerg.
I really dont understand this concept of "patch zerg". People seem to be referring to that infestor buff a very long time as the reason for zerg dominance, despite the fact nearly a year and a half has gone by and zerg have NOT been winning everything since then. I can see the statistics jumping in zerg's favor after the queen range buff (with maybe the exception of Stephano winning before that due to his ZvP win-rate), but that's not where people are aiming their complaints at, rightfully so.
If you want to label infestors too strong late game in conjunction with broodlords, so be it (I might agree with that). Call them strong late game. But calling certain zerg players coming out of the woodwork who are winning "patch zergs" is stupid and absurd and wreaks of a desire to put a label on something.
On second thought, lets label Nestea and every other zerg (idra?) who won after the roach range patch a "patch zerg".
On December 15 2012 17:16 Bayyne wrote: I really dont understand this concept of "patch zerg". People seem to be referring to that infestor buff a very long time as the reason for zerg dominance, despite the fact nearly a year and a half has gone by and zerg have NOT been winning everything since then. I can see the statistics jumping in zerg's favor after the queen range buff (with maybe the exception of Stephano winning before that due to his ZvP win-rate), but that's not where people are aiming their complaints at, rightfully so.
If you want to label infestors too strong late game in conjunction with broodlords, so be it (I might agree with that). Call them strong late game. But calling certain zerg players coming out of the woodwork who are winning "patch zergs" is stupid and absurd and wreaks of a desire to put a label on something.
On second thought, lets label Nestea and every other zerg (idra?) who won after the roach range patch a "patch zerg".
Derogatory labels are almost always inaccurate and stupid.
Having said that, you can't look at brood/infestor in a vacuum. Zergs had a more difficult time reaching this composition prior to the Queen buff. The Queen buff supercharged Zerg early-econ, which then lead to a stronger mid game, and easier transition to Brood/infestor that is just about impossible to beat efficiently unless the Zerg makes a huuuge mistake.
On December 15 2012 17:16 Bayyne wrote: I really dont understand this concept of "patch zerg". People seem to be referring to that infestor buff a very long time as the reason for zerg dominance, despite the fact nearly a year and a half has gone by and zerg have NOT been winning everything since then. I can see the statistics jumping in zerg's favor after the queen range buff (with maybe the exception of Stephano winning before that due to his ZvP win-rate), but that's not where people are aiming their complaints at, rightfully so.
If you want to label infestors too strong late game in conjunction with broodlords, so be it (I might agree with that). Call them strong late game. But calling certain zerg players coming out of the woodwork who are winning "patch zergs" is stupid and absurd and wreaks of a desire to put a label on something.
On second thought, lets label Nestea and every other zerg (idra?) who won after the roach range patch a "patch zerg".
Derogatory labels are almost always inaccurate and stupid.
Having said that, you can't look at brood/infestor in a vacuum. Zergs had a more difficult time reaching this composition prior to the Queen buff. The Queen buff supercharged Zerg early-econ, which then lead to a stronger mid game, and easier transition to Brood/infestor that is just about impossible to beat efficiently unless the Zerg makes a huuuge mistake.
So it's the queen buff in conjunction with the year and a half old infestor buff that, according to the guy above me, has zergs playing better than what they should be playing at. A series of buffs that have players playing better than before the buffs came into existence. Very interesting. -_-
I understand your point on the queen range buff allowing for an easier transition, I just don't agree that it super-charges their early game. There are still various mid-game pressure/harass/timing builds that are effective against zerg to slow their eco or outright kill them (immortal all-in?).
You, I, and everyone else, can sit and argue both sides whether the queen change really made for an easy transition into late game. I think the problem lies in the complete lack of effective diversity for zerg in the late game. Broodlord infestor essentially works against everything, yet it's the only thing that CAN work against late-game t/p.
Hopefully HOTS brings more interesting and arguably balance late-game compositions.
This was an insanely good read, very interesting. Unless people are going to argue that foreign terrans just aren't talented at all (relative to foreign zergs) then it's obvious that Zerg is currently imbalanced
On December 15 2012 17:16 Bayyne wrote: I really dont understand this concept of "patch zerg". People seem to be referring to that infestor buff a very long time as the reason for zerg dominance, despite the fact nearly a year and a half has gone by and zerg have NOT been winning everything since then. I can see the statistics jumping in zerg's favor after the queen range buff (with maybe the exception of Stephano winning before that due to his ZvP win-rate), but that's not where people are aiming their complaints at, rightfully so.
If you want to label infestors too strong late game in conjunction with broodlords, so be it (I might agree with that). Call them strong late game. But calling certain zerg players coming out of the woodwork who are winning "patch zergs" is stupid and absurd and wreaks of a desire to put a label on something.
On second thought, lets label Nestea and every other zerg (idra?) who won after the roach range patch a "patch zerg".
Derogatory labels are almost always inaccurate and stupid.
Having said that, you can't look at brood/infestor in a vacuum. Zergs had a more difficult time reaching this composition prior to the Queen buff. The Queen buff supercharged Zerg early-econ, which then lead to a stronger mid game, and easier transition to Brood/infestor that is just about impossible to beat efficiently unless the Zerg makes a huuuge mistake.
So it's the queen buff in conjunction with the year and a half old infestor buff that, according to the guy above me, has zergs playing better than what they should be playing at. A series of buffs that have players playing better than before the buffs came into existence. Very interesting. -_-
Yes?... Try to keep sarcasm to a minimum please.
I understand your point on the queen range buff allowing for an easier transition, I just don't agree that it super-charges their early game. There are still various mid-game pressure/harass/timing builds that are effective against zerg to slow their eco or outright kill them (immortal all-in?).
After Zerg drones freely, it is a very strong mid-game for the Zerg. If you know anything about the game, it is the fact that advantages from early economy compounds. More drones = more minerals = more drones = more minerals. Of course, going past a certain amount of drones is bad. But if you disagree with this fundamental point, then there is little left to discuss. The reason Queen buff allowed for easier transition is because it makes Zerg early econ that much more powerful.
Immortal all-in is the only thing for Protoss that can succeed against a skilled Zerg in the mid-game.
You, I, and everyone else, can sit and argue both sides whether the queen change really made for an easy transition into late game. I think the problem lies in the complete lack of effective diversity for zerg in the late game. Broodlord infestor essentially works against everything, yet it's the only thing that CAN work against late-game t/p.
Hopefully HOTS brings more interesting and arguably balance late-game compositions.
/endrant
No one in their right mind would argue whether Queen change really made an easier transition into late game. People might argue whether it is too easy, or not easy enough, but everybody would agree that it is easier than before the Queen buff.
The problem is not just diversity. The other races are also rather limited in their lategame compositions. TvZ was entertaining with the same units when it was an actual challenge for Zergs to reach that composition. Jaws would drop when broodlords start to morph on the map. Now, every Zerg and their grannys reach that composition.
On December 15 2012 18:44 fr4nk1sh wrote: I read all of this i think its a great read.. But whatsup with all that Whiteman race nonsense???..
I play zerg myself and i belive fungal growth is silly and HAVE to be changed. Other then that great read!
BLIZARD takes notes!
He put that in on purpose to make a point/ his point more clear. The whole article is a parody or better, a caricature of the scene or our society in general even. This becomes really obvious around the time he puts in the graphs and pictures. The article becomes more and more unreasonable in it's bias against one race, Zerg. It's how racism works. You start of with at least seemingly valid reasoning to lure people in and from that point use their own bias/ racism against them. Another thing is that the stuff he talks about that is true is also quite commonly known already. This reminded me of Destiny's post in which Destiny also summed up some already known but not wrong issues and added some exaggerated conclusions. The directly addressing to Blizzard is also an similarity with that post.
In short: It's for funzies and yes, like everybody knows; There are some problems with the game.
It's not just the queen range buff, but also the buff to their initial energy which allows zerg to inject larva more quickly and spread creep extremely fast. That being said it is true that the infestor itself has not been changed for quite a while so saying that some zerg players who have gotten good results very recently are only doing so because of OP infestors is a bit misguided. Hots looks promising to me as far as decent balance overall and I still have fun playing regardless.
On December 15 2012 17:22 monkybone wrote: People got to realize that "patch zerg" is more a term than it is a label. The current use now is not really to point out who's "patch zergs" and who's not, but rather highlight that every Zerg player is performing better than they actually should, including previously unknowns who became known as the first "patch zergs". That doesn't mean that other Zergs remain unaffected by the notion. In one sense every Zerg is a patch zerg, because everyone got affected by the patch. In another sense, no Zerg is really a patch Zerg, because they are obivously still really skilled in order to achieve the results they do.
You know that what you said is even worse right? You don't just insult certain people but everyone who plays the freaking race. Next thing we gonne see is people calling Nestea/DRG/Leenock patchzergs when they win something.
On December 16 2012 01:14 Yorkie wrote: It's not just the queen range buff, but also the buff to their initial energy which allows zerg to inject larva more quickly and spread creep extremely fast. That being said it is true that the infestor itself has not been changed for quite a while so saying that some zerg players who have gotten good results very recently are only doing so because of OP infestors is a bit misguided. Hots looks promising to me as far as decent balance overall and I still have fun playing regardless.
I can be wrong but didn't that upgrade got removed in trade for the queen range buff?
On December 16 2012 01:14 Yorkie wrote: It's not just the queen range buff, but also the buff to their initial energy which allows zerg to inject larva more quickly and spread creep extremely fast. That being said it is true that the infestor itself has not been changed for quite a while so saying that some zerg players who have gotten good results very recently are only doing so because of OP infestors is a bit misguided. Hots looks promising to me as far as decent balance overall and I still have fun playing regardless.
you do realize their energy was not buffed, that was proposed and shotdown. what a joke, maybe know what actually happened before trying to argue.
When did Day9 turn into a random forum poster who plays zerg? Surely of all people he would understand the genesis of the term patchzerg, and obviously it has nothing to do with the fact that they "got a patch and now they are better". It has to do with a whole lot more, as eloquently put by Ver in this OP.
On December 15 2012 18:16 plogamer wrote: Jaws would drop when broodlords start to morph on the map. Now, every Zerg and their grannys reach that composition.
yup, I remember those days ... back then it wasnt so easy ;x
On December 15 2012 16:14 FoShao wrote: I agree that Zergs have been given a lowered skill ceiling and an easier time playing at the top levels of play, but come on, conspiracy theories? lol
So there is still people who took it seriously? Lol.
EPT
