|
On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote:
For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ.
A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world.
Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious?
It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place.
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
|
On May 10 2013 23:07 Qikz wrote:
I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise.
Let me be clear, I am not complaining about baneling cost efficiency at all. They are exactly where they should be. I was countering the "mines are no different than banelings" nonsense by describing the cost efficiency difference - my opinion is not that banelings are too weak, it's that mines are too strong.
There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it.
Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game.
|
On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:07 Qikz wrote:
I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise. Let me be clear, I am not complaining about baneling cost efficiency at all. They are exactly where they should be. I was countering the "mines are no different than banelings" nonsense by describing the cost efficiency difference - my opinion is not that banelings are too weak, it's that mines are too strong. Show nested quote +There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it. Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game.
Roaches.
|
On May 11 2013 18:07 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 23:07 Qikz wrote:
I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise. Let me be clear, I am not complaining about baneling cost efficiency at all. They are exactly where they should be. I was countering the "mines are no different than banelings" nonsense by describing the cost efficiency difference - my opinion is not that banelings are too weak, it's that mines are too strong. There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it. Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Roaches.
unbelievably cost inefficient against bio
naked mines are fine, mines protected by bio/bio protected by mines are another story
|
On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 13:57 _Search_ wrote:On May 11 2013 04:27 tuho12345 wrote:On May 11 2013 01:03 Greendotz wrote:On May 10 2013 10:04 avilo wrote:
For the most part right now they made a good decision to leave everything alone. The game is near perfect balance at the moment.
...
Beyond build order openings, the game is perfectly balanced.
...
That's about it though. GJ on them on seeing how players develop the metagame further. Wow, never thought I'd see the day. I know right? From avilo?? Well all we need now is IdrA to admit it lol Of course he doesn't want anything changed. Terran is ridiculously overpowered right now. So disgusted that they're not fixing TvZ. A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world. Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious? It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place. It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
That is exactly the problem right now. Imagine player JhonnyMaster. He was a high master zerg in WOL. He went infestor + ling bling into broodlord infestor corruptor, terrans had a hard time against it. Everyone agreed that in a game between 2 players with the same skill level, the zerg had an advantage. But for JhonnyMaster it was all fine and dandy. Now JhonnyMaster plays HOTS. His race became harder (now he finally has to micro as hard as the terran) and now the 2 players with the same skill level have the same chance to win the game. What does this mean?
- JhonnyMaster will lose more against the players he owned before.
- JhonnyMaster, who thought wol was all fine and dandy, is confused.
- JhonnyMaster blames imbalance. I mean, the terran has a chance now. That is unacceptable. He wants his old 80% winrate in zvt back.
I almost never see vipers in TvZ. They don't even try it. No swarmhosts (and when some genius uses them against me, I lose every single time). No constant banelingbombs with the speedlords. No banelingburrows everywhere on the map. No infestors.
Zergs also forgot to make spines & spores, like they did in WOL, REMEMBER?
When I make mines, it's imbalanced.
When I make hellbats and no mines, it's imbalanced.
When I make no hellbats, no mines, but pure MMM, it's imbalanced (speedvac).
I mean, seriously?
|
On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote:
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded)
This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse.
4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games.
This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field.
6, Fact that you almost cant punish widow mines. If you caught sieges out of position you could snipe them. Now you need 3 baneling (150 : 75) to snipe 1 widow mine (75 : 25). If you are being dropped in several places while trying to hold main army, creeps spread etc you don't have chance for more micro intensive techniques .. at least i don't on my level.
Another good point. Mines are pretty much the replacement for tanks now, and they lack the counterability of tanks. Maybe if they took as long to burrow as tanks took to siege, it would help. When they're less gas intensive, easier to use, and they're cloaked... there's just so many strengths and few weaknesses compared to WoL.
This is why i cant stand playing ZvT anymore .. it may be balanced stat wise (which i dont believe except for top 30 zerg worldwide) but i am forced to do allins and it sure is not balanced effort or satisfaction - wise... whole ZvT feels like big frustration-fest for me.
I would love to see the overall ladder zerg winrates by matchup in diamond and masters. It's definitely balanced at the pro level but I suspect things look very different at these levels.
|
Mines are so strong that to counter zergs in teamleagues, teams pick protosses unless flash or innovation.
Mines and old infestors are VERY different, I don't even know how you can compare them. Old infestors had a targeted AOE with good range and radius that rooted and killed things. You compare that which a very cheap (it's true) but very random unit, which utility can range from 0 to killing packs of zerglings with quite a long cooldown. You can micro against that, maybe not easily but there are ways (sending little packs of units first, sending tanky units, infested terrans, locusts). You couldn't micro against fungals and it was way too easy to catch 20 or so marines and to kill them with it. Hell, you can even see burrowed mines. You cannot see burrowed banes. Ho, and also, friendly fire. Sometimes mines will kill more marines than lings, because the funny thing is, the most vulnerable unit to mines in the game as far as I know is the marine. They can't run over mines without triggering them, and you might loose 2x more supply than with zerglings if you take mine hits.
While I agree that mines are strong, I don't understand why people complain so much about them. I played a bit of zerg recently at a low master level, and I found protoss way more frustrating than terran to play against. Terran is basically the same than before, less OP fungals and plus a unit that prevents early bane all ins from being unstoppable/Mass ling/bane to autokill bio (remember the WoL games were symbol was taking 3 bases and spammed speedlings and banes into marine tank endlessly and won games without breaking a sweat?).
People that were used to win by pressing F and A moving in the lower leagues (not high master) are maybe getting frustrated at the game having to be played the way it's supposed to. I'm personally finding ZvT way funnier than before, the only thing bothering me as zerg right know is the muta fuckfest in mirror, which is awfully boring and uninteresting to play/watch in my opinion.
|
On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
"Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed.
BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try".
You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now.
|
On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world.
Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious?
It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place.
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did.
Yeah. It didn't take that long for Terrans to start whining about the machup. You say it took 8months until the queen patch really showed? I tell you that Terrans whined from the moment blizzard put up a CTA map that the matchup would be completly unplayable.
And the "free 3base + 75 drones" build was never a thing if the Terran did a standard 3CC+hellion opening in WoL. But somehow the same opening prevents zergs from doing "this build" in HotS... makes me wonder in which way they buffed hellions in your world.
|
On May 11 2013 18:30 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote:
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse.
Sorry but overseers are a way better detection against mines than scan. Every scan costs 270 resources!!! You cannot just spam scans around in the case there might be mines (well outside very late game).
Show nested quote +4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field.
For me it is exactly the opposite. Granted I prefer bio-mech instead of bio-mine, but unless I do an early game push I have to decisively beat the zerg 3-4 times before I got a chance in hell to actually push into their bases. Everytime you win a fight they just remax so fast. Meanwhile if I lose a fight it generally is game over. Sure often I can stabilize on 3 bases, but then it is just a long death animation.
assuming I play for a macro game
Btw a terran trying to play a pure macro game vs zerg is pretty much setting himself op for an autoloss. There is nothing wrong with early agression.
I tell you that Terrans whined from the moment blizzard put up a CTA map that the matchup would be completly unplayable.
Seems they were right, queen range patch was completely ridiculous.
Edit: But btw then which changes are you zergs in favor of? While taking into account that zerg is way more played than terran, it is preferable if you don't nerf everything down the drain for other matchups, and oh also that zerg is at least as strong, if not stronger, on pro level.
And while busy also take into account that Terran always had the issue in WoL, where only a few Korean Terrans could muster the necesary micro against zerg and toss AOE weapons.
|
On May 11 2013 19:00 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:30 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote:
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse. Sorry but overseers are a way better detection against mines than scan. Every scan costs 270 resources!!! You cannot just spam scans around in the case there might be mines (well outside very late game). Show nested quote +4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field. For me it is exactly the opposite. Granted I prefer bio-mech instead of bio-mine, but unless I do an early game push I have to decisively beat the zerg 3-4 times before I got a chance in hell to actually push into their bases. Everytime you win a fight they just remax so fast. Meanwhile if I lose a fight it generally is game over. Sure often I can stabilize on 3 bases, but then it is just a long death animation. Btw a terran trying to play a pure macro game vs zerg is pretty much setting himself op for an autoloss. There is nothing wrong with early agression.
And how much does losing an overseer cost? 150/50 + (minutes the game goes on 17seconds after you started the overlord)*42. So usually much more than your 270minerals
|
On May 11 2013 18:06 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:07 Qikz wrote:
I'd just like to point out that people complaining about cost efficieny with banelings is that no zerg unit outside of or lair are really super cost efficient. If zerglings, banelings and roaches for example were guarenteed to be cost efficient every game zerg would be horribly broken as they'd have not only the best way of remaxxing super fast, but they'd also have the best army cost efficiency wise. Let me be clear, I am not complaining about baneling cost efficiency at all. They are exactly where they should be. I was countering the "mines are no different than banelings" nonsense by describing the cost efficiency difference - my opinion is not that banelings are too weak, it's that mines are too strong. Show nested quote +There was a massive reason zerg having infestors like they were and broodlords were broken. They basically countered every single unit in the game cost efficiently and that was the issue with it. Yep. Kinda like how mines are cost efficient vs everything zerg has in the first 15-20 minutes of the game.
Mines are perfectly useless most of the time because they are a unit which is based in its efficiency sooooo much on luck that it balances itself out. Only looking at the "awesome mine kills" doesnt work.
The only point when Widow Mines are potentially super strong is the early game, BUT only if the stupid defending Zerg tries to solve the Widow Mine crisis by throwing tons of Zerglings at them (or the Hellbats which got dropped) while not building any Spore or Spine Crawler to give his bases a "solid" defense.
Banelings are far too efficient because they can be massed in a critical number and then right-clicked into a Planetary Fortress which has ZERO CHANCE to survive. For Widow Mines there is no such thing as a critical number, because it is a DEFENSIVE UNIT in its method of use, i.e. you dont really trigger its attack but rather the mine triggers itself (which can be abused by smart players).
|
On May 11 2013 19:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:00 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 18:30 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote:
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse. Sorry but overseers are a way better detection against mines than scan. Every scan costs 270 resources!!! You cannot just spam scans around in the case there might be mines (well outside very late game). 4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field. For me it is exactly the opposite. Granted I prefer bio-mech instead of bio-mine, but unless I do an early game push I have to decisively beat the zerg 3-4 times before I got a chance in hell to actually push into their bases. Everytime you win a fight they just remax so fast. Meanwhile if I lose a fight it generally is game over. Sure often I can stabilize on 3 bases, but then it is just a long death animation. assuming I play for a macro game Btw a terran trying to play a pure macro game vs zerg is pretty much setting himself op for an autoloss. There is nothing wrong with early agression. And how much does losing an overseer cost? 150/50 + (minutes the game goes on 17seconds after you started the overlord)*42. So usually much more than your 270minerals
Really?
Scan costs 20 resources + (minutes the game goes on - some production time) * 42 *5. So usually way much more than your overseer... (assuming you made 5 SCVs with the income from your mule).
That makes as much sense as your calculation.
Edit: And of course while you will sometimes lose an overseer, I hope you aren't losing one for everytime you need to kill a single widow mine.
|
On May 11 2013 18:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
A bit of history: it took about 8 months for the zergs to fully acknowledge the possibilities that opened for them once the queen+overlord patch kicked in. After these 8 months dominated almost every tournament in the world.
Right now we are two months into HotS. The zergs won MLG, they won Dreamhack, they have half of the spots in GSL CodeS ro8. And what do they say? "Terran is overpowered". Are you serious?
It takes way more time for the Z's to figure out new strategies and adapt to new micro requirements. It took 8 months for z's in WoL to adapt to a simple change affecting two units. It's dazzling how after just 2 months of HotS and great tournament results we have the "nerf T"! chant all over the place.
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. Yeah. It didn't take that long for Terrans to start whining about the machup. You say it took 8months until the queen patch really showed? I tell you that Terrans whined from the moment blizzard put up a CTA map that the matchup would be completly unplayable.
Because it did not take 8 months, Right after patch TvZ dropped to around 45% and never recovered
|
On May 11 2013 19:07 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 19:03 Big J wrote:On May 11 2013 19:00 Sissors wrote:On May 11 2013 18:30 Chocobo wrote:On May 10 2013 23:50 Pitrocelli wrote:
3, Overseers are so uncomfortable to use. When i compare ease of pressing button and gaining vision to struggles of keeping overseers alive ... Eventually they run into stimmed marines or mine and die .. i have to remake and wait for them with rest of army due to their ridiculous move speed (even upgraded) This is a major problem imo. Compared to terran and protoss, it's difficult just to be able to see the mines even if you know they're out there. Overseers are just not great for this purpose and are easily killed... and it's not like terrans have even been trying to target them, once they start it'll get even worse. Sorry but overseers are a way better detection against mines than scan. Every scan costs 270 resources!!! You cannot just spam scans around in the case there might be mines (well outside very late game). 4, You loose one fight, you lost the game. .. this never applies vice versa. Ever since terrans realised all they have to do is to rally all barracks after winning fight i loose a lot more games. This isn't new, but it happens more often. One significantly cost inefficient move by an opponent can lose a game... but zerg rarely has one in their favor, and terrans get them much more frequently with mines on the field. For me it is exactly the opposite. Granted I prefer bio-mech instead of bio-mine, but unless I do an early game push I have to decisively beat the zerg 3-4 times before I got a chance in hell to actually push into their bases. Everytime you win a fight they just remax so fast. Meanwhile if I lose a fight it generally is game over. Sure often I can stabilize on 3 bases, but then it is just a long death animation. assuming I play for a macro game Btw a terran trying to play a pure macro game vs zerg is pretty much setting himself op for an autoloss. There is nothing wrong with early agression. And how much does losing an overseer cost? 150/50 + (minutes the game goes on 17seconds after you started the overlord)*42. So usually much more than your 270minerals Really? Scan costs 20 resources + (minutes the game goes on - some production time) * 42 *5. So usually way much more than your overseer... (assuming you made 5 SCVs with the income from your mule). That makes as much sense as your calculation.
a) really? scans/mules use the same production queue you use for workers? Always interesting what you can learn from forum Terrans. Do Overlords/Drones use the same production queue? Yes.
Can I choose to make one more drone by not making an overlord (assuming I'm making one for the sole purpose of turning it into an overseer). Yes. Can you just spawn 5SCVs anytime you have 270money? Nope.
So the only example that doesn't make sense is yours.
b) of course the example is ridiculous, because the opportunity to mine money =/= having/spending money. Just like saying that a scan costs 270money. Do you have to bank 270money that you lose for a scan? No. Can you scan while you are not mining (basetrade situations)? Yes! Is your base running out faster when you choose to mule? Yes! Do you have to wait for some time to "slowly" acquire some money from a mule? yes..........
There is a huge difference between having money and "having something that mines minerals". HUGE, HUGE, HUGE. You are not suddenly running out of scans in a combat, just because you don't have the money for it. Go ahead and try starbow. They made a worker calldown that costs 50minerals. Then you see what real costs on such an ability are.
Edit: And while you may sometimes just scan for scouting/positioning, I hope that you will not always just scan and then not kill something cloaked, drop something that was not protected properly, defend some rush more costefficiently...
|
Has anybody every considered than balance between regions revolves around variability of imbalance? Has this EVER been tested, or are we just hiding under the bush and pretending that everything is ok because the game isn't figured out yet? Seems like a typical Blizzard cop-out. But what can you do: when you create a Human game, it's bound to have Human errors. But at least admit it, Blizzard. You made such an imba game that you can actually fall back on a neutral statement to defend it. That's sad.
|
On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now.
OK then, since I play zerg too (33% of the time) I'll give you my insight on the matchup from a (terrible) zerg perspective.
First of all, the mindset "I play the macro game" is incorrect. The zerg is a reactionary race and you need to react to what your opponent is doing. I guess if toss would go for a 1-gate 3-nexus you would try to do something about it and kill the expansion. Same goes for terrans who opt for a quick 3rd cc build. You need to scout and punish that, even if that means a lot of commitment (or even all-in).
If the T does not build 3rd cc then you are in a good shape for a macro game (see Losira vs Gumiho, final series in GSL Code S).
This is not WoL where you could just say "I want to macro and there is nothing you can do about it". This is a new game, the rulse have changed. Once again: it's been around for only two months! And it took 8 months to take advantage of the queen + ov buff in WoL. This is way too soon to say "well, I've tried anything and there is absolutely nothing more I can do".
Another thing: Starcraft 2 is not similar to digging a ditch. If you take a shovel and dig long enough you will have a nice, deep ditch that you imagined. If you play SC2 and practice a lot you still might not be able to accomplish anything spectacular skill-wise. You can go to sc2earnings.com and look at the second hundred players. Why are they there? Why didn't they do better? Sorry... it is not a ditch.
|
On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now.
while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead)
technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), but it is frustrating to see your effort compared to the opponents effort. Against siege tanks there was plenty of counterplay, snipe with mutas, flank with Zerglings, catch them out of position... there were obvious weaknesses. Against Biomine - currently you run in and hope for a clean headshot on the wrong Zergling. Maybe with increased use of swarm hosts this situation will improve, but widow mines are still way too strong for their raw stats in controlling space, given zerg has both the worst detection and the lowest ranged units (especially since if you do make ranged units, bio just crushes that). But even though I personally hate the mine (as it ruined my favourite matchup where I would just go muta ling bling into ultras and both the terran and me always had lots of fun compared to now) I think the situation will improve for Zergs. Probably making ~10 Mutas will become mandatory, as with only ground units (and no fungal to root them) the new speedy medivacs can demolish your economy in no time with 2-4 well controlled hellbat drops. Which by the way feel way more frustrating to me than widow mines, as the mines just counter most things softly, while the hellbat (when build more than one) simply denies you from making a core unit.
On the other hand there seems to be quite a problem in late game ZvP, where once again both players camp for hours as they cannot engage when Zerg turtles with mass static defense + Vipers + Swarm hosts/Corruptor. I expect a ton of QQ from protoss players in the future, as split-map-turtle-Zerg is about as deadly as BL/infestor was in WoL, just takes longer to starve the opponent to death. If you need an example of that, try to catch some of CatZ' ZvP, as he has a ridiculously high win rate once he manages to split the map by just turtling and using Vipers to pull stuff into static defense.
And I don't expect the spore crawler buff to fix ZvZ at all. Yeah, maybe you need one less spore to defend your main vs mutas, but that never was the problem. The problem was to get your third up, which gets denied by the map control the player going mutas has over his opponent. Mutas should never fly above the main/natural of the opponent anyway, they prevent ling runbys, snipe overlords, give you vision and if you know your opponents muta position they can assist in sniping the enemy third base. Which now becomes even more attractive, as you can build spores in your main/natural to defend vs base trades in a muta vs muta and just go kill their third if you feel like trading third bases. Besides the massive advantage mutas give in map control/denying the third, even under the assumption that both players can somewhat get their third up - what then? The muta player can simply take his fourth, because buffed spores will not give you any map control. Now that infestors cannot reliably defend your hydras from multiple baneling flanks anymore (and cannot really catch mutas), Muta + baneling still can crush any army in ZvZ with ease. And with additional bases over your opponent (thanks to map control) you can tech switch into whatever you want - ultras, Brood Lords, you name it. So while Blizzard did see that ZvZ is only the same ol' muta vs muta battle with nothing else really viable (besides all-ins and counter-all-ins and the gimmicky super fast double upgrades for lings which get countered by roach baneling allin) they will not improve the matchup by an inch with a spore crawler buff vs bio.
Funny, I just noticed I started with stuff that is frustrating to play against (and toxic to a good playing experience while maybe being balanced) and ended up with what the topic was really about. To add to the stuff that just feels aweful, there would of course be the sentry, the zerg anti-air being stupidly ineffective and costly at the same time, the power of muta switches mid-late game, the warp in of units anywhere on the map, the baneling bust, the widow mine or hellion/hellbat drops, baneling mines, tempests, lack of an invisible attacker for zerg that does not die from its attack and that has an attack that cannot be destroyed before doing any damage, map designs, too many workers needed -> not enough units on map -> on fight to rule them all, units countering units too hard (such as immortals gaining 150% more dmg when against armored - wtf?)... If it was up to me, I would try to change those things to turn them into something more fun to play with/play against, and go from there trying to archieve balance once more. Currently a lot of the game feels like the minigame "I wanna be the boshy" on one of the harder difficulties. While the game might be somewhat balanced and both play- and winnable, it more often is just frustrating to play, and a game should not be that frustrating to play.
|
On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), but it is frustrating to see your effort compared to the opponents effort. Against siege tanks there was plenty of counterplay, snipe with mutas, flank with Zerglings, catch them out of position... there were obvious weaknesses. Against Biomine - currently you run in and hope for a clean headshot on the wrong Zergling. Maybe with increased use of swarm hosts this situation will improve, but widow mines are still way too strong for their raw stats in controlling space, given zerg has both the worst detection and the lowest ranged units (especially since if you do make ranged units, bio just crushes that). But even though I personally hate the mine (as it ruined my favourite matchup where I would just go muta ling bling into ultras and both the terran and me always had lots of fun compared to now) I think the situation will improve for Zergs. Probably making ~10 Mutas will become mandatory, as with only ground units (and no fungal to root them) the new speedy medivacs can demolish your economy in no time with 2-4 well controlled hellbat drops. Which by the way feel way more frustrating to me than widow mines, as the mines just counter most things softly, while the hellbat (when build more than one) simply denies you from making a core unit. On the other hand there seems to be quite a problem in late game ZvP, where once again both players camp for hours as they cannot engage when Zerg turtles with mass static defense + Vipers + Swarm hosts/Corruptor. I expect a ton of QQ from protoss players in the future, as split-map-turtle-Zerg is about as deadly as BL/infestor was in WoL, just takes longer to starve the opponent to death. If you need an example of that, try to catch some of CatZ' ZvP, as he has a ridiculously high win rate once he manages to split the map by just turtling and using Vipers to pull stuff into static defense. And I don't expect the spore crawler buff to fix ZvZ at all. Yeah, maybe you need one less spore to defend your main vs mutas, but that never was the problem. The problem was to get your third up, which gets denied by the map control the player going mutas has over his opponent. Mutas should never fly above the main/natural of the opponent anyway, they prevent ling runbys, snipe overlords, give you vision and if you know your opponents muta position they can assist in sniping the enemy third base. Which now becomes even more attractive, as you can build spores in your main/natural to defend vs base trades in a muta vs muta and just go kill their third if you feel like trading third bases. Besides the massive advantage mutas give in map control/denying the third, even under the assumption that both players can somewhat get their third up - what then? The muta player can simply take his fourth, because buffed spores will not give you any map control. Now that infestors cannot reliably defend your hydras from multiple baneling flanks anymore (and cannot really catch mutas), Muta + baneling still can crush any army in ZvZ with ease. And with additional bases over your opponent (thanks to map control) you can tech switch into whatever you want - ultras, Brood Lords, you name it. So while Blizzard did see that ZvZ is only the same ol' muta vs muta battle with nothing else really viable (besides all-ins and counter-all-ins and the gimmicky super fast double upgrades for lings which get countered by roach baneling allin) they will not improve the matchup by an inch with a spore crawler buff vs bio. Funny, I just noticed I started with stuff that is frustrating to play against (and toxic to a good playing experience while maybe being balanced) and ended up with what the topic was really about. To add to the stuff that just feels aweful, there would of course be the sentry, the zerg anti-air being stupidly ineffective and costly at the same time, the power of muta switches mid-late game, the warp in of units anywhere on the map, the baneling bust, the widow mine or hellion/hellbat drops, baneling mines, tempests, lack of an invisible attacker for zerg that does not die from its attack and that has an attack that cannot be destroyed before doing any damage, map designs, too many workers needed -> not enough units on map -> on fight to rule them all, units countering units too hard (such as immortals gaining 150% more dmg when against armored - wtf?)... If it was up to me, I would try to change those things to turn them into something moree fun to play with/play against, and go from there trying to archieve balance once more. Currently a lot of the game feels like the minigame "I wanna be the boshy" on one of the harder difficulties. While the game might be somewhat balanced and both play- and winnable, it more often is just frustrating to play, and a game should not be that frustrating to play.
and why would i read something this long?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 11 2013 19:26 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 18:41 Chocobo wrote:On May 11 2013 17:32 scypio wrote:
It seems that the "free 3 base + 75 drones" build no longer works in HotS. Oh well... suck it up and L2P, just the way the pro zergs did. "Suck it up and L2P" is just as silly and tiresome as the "everything I lose to is imbalanced" whiners. It adds nothing to the conversation, it makes no claim about balance, it adds nothing to the specific situations being discussed. BTW there are a lot of players who are "learning to play" and trying to improve against these strats every day. The issue is that despite our best efforts, it doesn't lead to anything. This isn't "wahh I lost, make it easier for me". It's "I am practicing for hours and hours and still getting destroyed no matter what I try". You could specifically tell me that you're using the same bio+mine build, with the same strategy and same attack timings, for 20 games in a row and I would still lose over 2/3 of the time (assuming I play for a macro game). Like the final months of WoL where protoss would always choose one allin or another in PvZ because there's so little hope if the game goes longer than 10 minutes... that's what ZvT is like now. while the game may not be imbalanced, it still is frustrating to play (and a game should not be frustrating to play but fun instead) + Show Spoiler [for length] +
technically you can micro against widow mines (until terrans figure out that you can hold and aim them -.-), but it is frustrating to see your effort compared to the opponents effort. Against siege tanks there was plenty of counterplay, snipe with mutas, flank with Zerglings, catch them out of position... there were obvious weaknesses. Against Biomine - currently you run in and hope for a clean headshot on the wrong Zergling. Maybe with increased use of swarm hosts this situation will improve, but widow mines are still way too strong for their raw stats in controlling space, given zerg has both the worst detection and the lowest ranged units (especially since if you do make ranged units, bio just crushes that). But even though I personally hate the mine (as it ruined my favourite matchup where I would just go muta ling bling into ultras and both the terran and me always had lots of fun compared to now) I think the situation will improve for Zergs. Probably making ~10 Mutas will become mandatory, as with only ground units (and no fungal to root them) the new speedy medivacs can demolish your economy in no time with 2-4 well controlled hellbat drops. Which by the way feel way more frustrating to me than widow mines, as the mines just counter most things softly, while the hellbat (when build more than one) simply denies you from making a core unit.
On the other hand there seems to be quite a problem in late game ZvP, where once again both players camp for hours as they cannot engage when Zerg turtles with mass static defense + Vipers + Swarm hosts/Corruptor. I expect a ton of QQ from protoss players in the future, as split-map-turtle-Zerg is about as deadly as BL/infestor was in WoL, just takes longer to starve the opponent to death. If you need an example of that, try to catch some of CatZ' ZvP, as he has a ridiculously high win rate once he manages to split the map by just turtling and using Vipers to pull stuff into static defense.
And I don't expect the spore crawler buff to fix ZvZ at all. Yeah, maybe you need one less spore to defend your main vs mutas, but that never was the problem. The problem was to get your third up, which gets denied by the map control the player going mutas has over his opponent. Mutas should never fly above the main/natural of the opponent anyway, they prevent ling runbys, snipe overlords, give you vision and if you know your opponents muta position they can assist in sniping the enemy third base. Which now becomes even more attractive, as you can build spores in your main/natural to defend vs base trades in a muta vs muta and just go kill their third if you feel like trading third bases. Besides the massive advantage mutas give in map control/denying the third, even under the assumption that both players can somewhat get their third up - what then? The muta player can simply take his fourth, because buffed spores will not give you any map control. Now that infestors cannot reliably defend your hydras from multiple baneling flanks anymore (and cannot really catch mutas), Muta + baneling still can crush any army in ZvZ with ease. And with additional bases over your opponent (thanks to map control) you can tech switch into whatever you want - ultras, Brood Lords, you name it. So while Blizzard did see that ZvZ is only the same ol' muta vs muta battle with nothing else really viable (besides all-ins and counter-all-ins and the gimmicky super fast double upgrades for lings which get countered by roach baneling allin) they will not improve the matchup by an inch with a spore crawler buff vs bio.
Funny, I just noticed I started with stuff that is frustrating to play against (and toxic to a good playing experience while maybe being balanced) and ended up with what the topic was really about. To add to the stuff that just feels aweful, there would of course be the sentry, the zerg anti-air being stupidly ineffective and costly at the same time, the power of muta switches mid-late game, the warp in of units anywhere on the map, the baneling bust, the widow mine or hellion/hellbat drops, baneling mines, tempests, lack of an invisible attacker for zerg that does not die from its attack and that has an attack that cannot be destroyed before doing any damage, map designs, too many workers needed -> not enough units on map -> on fight to rule them all, units countering units too hard (such as immortals gaining 150% more dmg when against armored - wtf?)... If it was up to me, I would try to change those things to turn them into something more fun to play with/play against, and go from there trying to archieve balance once more. Currently a lot of the game feels like the minigame "I wanna be the boshy" on one of the harder difficulties. While the game might be somewhat balanced and both play- and winnable, it more often is just frustrating to play, and a game should not be that frustrating to play.
I wish Blizzard would hire you. You've basically covered everything I've been wanting to write about but have neither the in game experience or skill to make a good post about. I don't think the game is particularly imbalanced (except for a couple of specific late game scenarios, like the split map ZvP people have brought up), but that's evry different from saying that things shouldn't be changed.
And on the topic of the actual upcoming change, I really wish if they were going to change the spore crawler they did something other than this kinda bland +damage thing. Heck, it's a spore crawler, give it something sporey - maybe the spores prevent regeneration of health for 30 seconds or something. I'm not suggesting that should be the change, but something else would have been better, and I don't think the change they are making will have enough of an imapact in the match up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
