|
On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:On May 27 2020 15:38 pvsnp wrote:On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:Sooo does Blizz watch GSL? + Show Spoiler +Does not look like Protoss and Terran need buffs and Zerg nerfs .... Maybe they should wait a bit longer PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors. Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that. It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank. I'd say HT's go in the same direction, you barely get more than one storm/ templar. This can also backfire quite heavily, recent example beeing DRG ivs Zest in TSL5 I think Nevertheless I agree. Banelings are the ultimate anti ground weapon. I just worry Zerg beeing overnerfed, TvZ is fine. All changes together could easily sway this in Terrans favor What? When do you ever see a P player with more than like ... 12 HT? And that's like.. 6 with army, and others at home in case of retreat/spread on map, which we dont really see anymore..
That was not what I was going for at all....
On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back.
BUFF Swarmhosts??? Nooooooooooo
The only Zerg unit who maybe deserves a buff are Ultras, because they suck balls for what they cost as a unit and tech path to get there. Make em smaller, cheaper and not so clunky and reduce HP and damage a bit.
Zerg has still nydus as harass tool. Just because it isn't crazy OP anymore doesn't mean it's useless.
|
On May 27 2020 20:08 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:On May 27 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:On May 27 2020 15:38 pvsnp wrote:On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote:
[quote]
PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon.
Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors. Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that. It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank. I'd say HT's go in the same direction, you barely get more than one storm/ templar. This can also backfire quite heavily, recent example beeing DRG ivs Zest in TSL5 I think Nevertheless I agree. Banelings are the ultimate anti ground weapon. I just worry Zerg beeing overnerfed, TvZ is fine. All changes together could easily sway this in Terrans favor What? When do you ever see a P player with more than like ... 12 HT? And that's like.. 6 with army, and others at home in case of retreat/spread on map, which we dont really see anymore.. That was not what I was going for at all.... Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back. BUFF Swarmhosts??? Nooooooooooo The only Zerg unit who maybe deserves a buff are Ultras, because they suck balls for what they cost as a unit and tech path to get there. Make em smaller, cheaper and not so clunky and reduce HP and damage a bit. Zerg has still nydus as harass tool. Just because it isn't crazy OP anymore doesn't mean it's useless.
Honestly I think the current state of zerg balance is almost entirely due to maps this is the first map pool in forever where the majority rather than minority’s of maps have significant terrain features. It’s pretty much the first unfavorable map pool for zerg in years.
I think if you saw a different map pool without any balance changes Terran would perform worse in tvz.
|
On May 28 2020 00:44 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 20:08 Harris1st wrote:On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:On May 27 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:On May 27 2020 15:38 pvsnp wrote:On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:
[quote]
It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors. Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that. It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank. I'd say HT's go in the same direction, you barely get more than one storm/ templar. This can also backfire quite heavily, recent example beeing DRG ivs Zest in TSL5 I think Nevertheless I agree. Banelings are the ultimate anti ground weapon. I just worry Zerg beeing overnerfed, TvZ is fine. All changes together could easily sway this in Terrans favor What? When do you ever see a P player with more than like ... 12 HT? And that's like.. 6 with army, and others at home in case of retreat/spread on map, which we dont really see anymore.. That was not what I was going for at all.... On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back. BUFF Swarmhosts??? Nooooooooooo The only Zerg unit who maybe deserves a buff are Ultras, because they suck balls for what they cost as a unit and tech path to get there. Make em smaller, cheaper and not so clunky and reduce HP and damage a bit. Zerg has still nydus as harass tool. Just because it isn't crazy OP anymore doesn't mean it's useless. Honestly I think the current state of zerg balance is almost entirely due to maps this is the first map pool in forever where the majority rather than minority’s of maps have significant terrain features. It’s pretty much the first unfavorable map pool for zerg in years. I think if you saw a different map pool without any balance changes Terran would perform worse in tvz.
I agree. 2019 was a year of very little in the way of balance changes. Three balance updates in total; 1 of them very minor. The highlight of the buffs to Terran was Thor AA-range increase and a new upgrade for Ghost EMP's radius.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xR27fsm.png)
With relatively the same balance, and the fact that there isn't a revolutionary new style of TvZ that's shaking up the meta, Terrans having a resurgence recently is only explained by the new maps.
If the balance team believes that TvZ is Terran favoured; what happens when the map pool changes? what happens when pro zergs adapt to the new maps?
|
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so.
|
On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so.
Thors need to be able to 1-shot broodlords or else they get stuck behind broodlings. A 1-range advantage isn't enough to make a couple thors threaten broodlords. And bio Terrans dont have the infrastructure to mass produce thors; the meta rightnow (from what I've seen) is bio-mine-tank pushes in TvZ.
BC's also got their instant teleport nerfed (I have not really seen BCs massed in late-game after that patch) and lib range got nerfed too (libs were/still are used in late-game TvZ).
I, for one, am glad if pro Terrans feel that they dont have to play on a timer. But I attribute that to maps being strong with tanks. Terrans are able to pressure Zergs in the mid-game enough to force poor trades and have enough map-control to expand.
|
On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so.
TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action.
And the less said about mass infestor the better.
|
On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better.
Both Lurkers and Ultras suck hard vs bio especially in lategame. Pack of bio can easily stim into Lurkers and snipe them, ghost snipe too. There are not Broodwar Lurkers u know? And it's different pathing in here. That's why u see Zerg slowly bleeding units in lategame. Cost efficiency is not there compared to Terran. With nerfing banelings it will be just worse.
|
On May 28 2020 13:59 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. Both Lurkers and Ultras suck hard vs bio especially in lategame. Pack of bio can easily stim into Lurkers and snipe them, ghost snipe too. There are not Broodwar Lurkers u know? And it's different pathing in here. That's why u see Zerg slowly bleeding units in lategame. Cost efficiency is not there compared to Terran. With nerfing banelings it will be just worse.
That's not a design problem. I stand by my position that BLs are horrible for both game design and the game itself, for the same reason that skytoss and skyterran deathballs are also horrible. The fact that we see so few of them these days is a positive indication of the game's health.
If Zerg is indeed struggling, then buffs to ground units are the correct answer. Not a return to air deathballs. The Ultralisk would probably be the first candidate, since several of its counters have been buffed in recent years. But that's neither here nor there, seeing as the balance team has obviously concluded that Zerg buffs are not necessary at this time. The recent shift towards Terran did not happen as a result of any balance changes, but rather a change in the map pool. We are getting new maps with Season 2–maybe they will tilt things back towards Zerg. Time will tell.
|
On May 28 2020 13:59 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. Both Lurkers and Ultras suck hard vs bio especially in lategame. Pack of bio can easily stim into Lurkers and snipe them, ghost snipe too. There are not Broodwar Lurkers u know? And it's different pathing in here. That's why u see Zerg slowly bleeding units in lategame. Cost efficiency is not there compared to Terran. With nerfing banelings it will be just worse.
biggest problem right now where TvZ isnt okay is 3 things:
- super early game: 2 / 3 rax still has insane winrates --> mb super small nerf to rax build time like 2-3 sec?
- lairtech Z sucks
- superlategame Z cant trade anymore with PFs, mass OCs and ghosts on the field
My biggest problem with this is definetly lairtech Z sucking so hard. If anything we see mutas in ZvT, most times we just see +2 +2, get roach and banespeed and get to hive asap.
1 in 5 games its mutas --> kind of okay IF other styles become playable
1 in 20 games hydras --> way too expensive for what they do --> give them antihealing to fight bio comps better
1 in 100 games lurker (on lairtech!!) --> just seen on hivetech AFTER they have their 2 long and expensive upgrades and even then they suck because ghosts, mass tanks or mass drops kill the lurkerstyle
1 in 100 games SHs --> after nydus nerfs they just outright suck even against mech and lol SHs vs bio
1 in 1000 games its lairtech infestors bc you cant even harrass now that IT are gone --> just give it IT back with ground attack only
So basically what the patch will do is Z gets to lairtech EVEN worse with buffed libs, mines and less creep, so Z cant afford to build lairtech units and will even more depend on just +2 +2 ling bane...thats just bad and lairtech is where the most fun should be for Z...
|
On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better.
When Terrans start to say, the TvZ is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them...
TvZ was at 70% on GSL, gomTvT and broodlords/infestors in WOL was more balanced than that.
Zerg had a good lategame before simply because the map pool had big maps where it was easier to take a lot of expansions or to slow the mech push when the rush distance is long.
Now it's not the case, and Zerg are in huge trouble because the two T3 units can't compete with the P/T lategame, and maps aren't not big enough to get enough expansions to compensate by a better macro the lack of cost effectivity of Zerg units.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so.
Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors 
|
On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:
I think the point he is trying to make is that there is very few other units that it's almost better to have just MORE of, even if it outnumbers your other units. The reason is because if you get basically any trades at all, the units youre killing cost more, take longer to rebuild, cost more supply etc so it's almost always a better trade. Not to mention, if you survive X amount of time without taking damage as Z, that means your eco is generally ahead/you've established more larva/bases etc. Therefore, simply trading leads to the establishment of being able to dump into your next tech such as mutas when available etc off your eco advantage etc.
I just want to point out one detail here.
Banelings are the most expensive unit per supply in the game. 50 minerals for 2 zerglings and 25 gas and minerals extra per baneling making 1 supply cost 100 minerals and 50 gas or 150 resources. There are units that are more gas intensive, e.g. observer, ghost, DT, viper. Notable units that do not cost more gas per supply compared to banelings are the colossus, medivac, siege tank, mutalisk, lurker, sentry, disruptor and BC.
Banelings seldom trade cost effectively in higher numbers. They can be used in high numbers because of the strong economy and the time it takes for the opponent to reassemble a fighting force.
It was just the part about being cheaper that I did not agree on.
|
On May 28 2020 17:15 Tyrhanius wrote:
When Zerg start to say, the ZvT is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them...
see how that works ?
|
On May 28 2020 17:15 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. When Terrans start to say, the TvZ is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them... TvZ was at 70% on GSL, gomTvT and broodlords/infestors in WOL was more balanced than that. Zerg had a good lategame before simply because the map pool had big maps where it was easier to take a lot of expansions or to slow the mech push when the rush distance is long. Now it's not the case, and Zerg are in huge trouble because the two T3 units can't compete with the P/T lategame, and maps aren't not big enough to get enough expansions to compensate by a better macro the lack of cost effectivity of Zerg units.
I like how you completely ignored my other comment just so you could whine disingenuously..
|
On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back.
Pls leave the swarm host in its niche role until it gets yet another design revamp, it's a strong contender for lamest unit in the game rn
|
On May 28 2020 18:00 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 17:15 Tyrhanius wrote:On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. When Terrans start to say, the TvZ is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them... TvZ was at 70% on GSL, gomTvT and broodlords/infestors in WOL was more balanced than that. Zerg had a good lategame before simply because the map pool had big maps where it was easier to take a lot of expansions or to slow the mech push when the rush distance is long. Now it's not the case, and Zerg are in huge trouble because the two T3 units can't compete with the P/T lategame, and maps aren't not big enough to get enough expansions to compensate by a better macro the lack of cost effectivity of Zerg units. I like how you completely ignored my other comment just so you could whine disingenuously..
I like how you ignore any arguments i've provided to just nearly insult me.
Unlike you i now play both Zerg and Terran, and i've to say i've gave up playing Zerg completly because it's x100 times more fun to play Terran than Zerg, specially in TvZ.
You're claiming TvZ is fine designwise because you play on the only side who has fun in the match up.
On the Zerg side, the game is a torture where you are the punching ball of the terran for 10min+. The number showed that's even not balance if you look the winrate.
You speak about broodlords, but they are quite similar to liberator and siege tanks. Except broodlords is the hardest tech to unlock while siege tank is one of the easiest. Mech and siege tanks do encourage turtling way more than broodlords, whose actually main function in the MU is to be an anti-mass tanks.
So the combination of tanks/thors give Terran a combinaison to turtle the whole game and event in lategame with little answer for Zerg. And ultras/lurkers are also counter by tanks. The only thing that remains is vipers, and grabing one by one the deathball which means long and uninteresting games.
|
Zergs should be happy of the map pool this year
They are allowed to play on " Rush Map "
Ah Ah Ah
|
On May 28 2020 17:54 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:
I think the point he is trying to make is that there is very few other units that it's almost better to have just MORE of, even if it outnumbers your other units. The reason is because if you get basically any trades at all, the units youre killing cost more, take longer to rebuild, cost more supply etc so it's almost always a better trade. Not to mention, if you survive X amount of time without taking damage as Z, that means your eco is generally ahead/you've established more larva/bases etc. Therefore, simply trading leads to the establishment of being able to dump into your next tech such as mutas when available etc off your eco advantage etc.
I just want to point out one detail here. Banelings are the most expensive unit per supply in the game. 50 minerals for 2 zerglings and 25 gas and minerals extra per baneling making 1 supply cost 100 minerals and 50 gas or 150 resources. There are units that are more gas intensive, e.g. observer, ghost, DT, viper. Notable units that do not cost more gas per supply compared to banelings are the colossus, medivac, siege tank, mutalisk, lurker, sentry, disruptor and BC. Banelings seldom trade cost effectively in higher numbers. They can be used in high numbers because of the strong economy and the time it takes for the opponent to reassemble a fighting force. It was just the part about being cheaper that I did not agree on.
I agree, baneling cost per supply is way too high.
Let's double bane supply to 2 - problem solved.
|
On May 28 2020 21:57 LTCM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 17:54 Drfilip wrote:On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:
I think the point he is trying to make is that there is very few other units that it's almost better to have just MORE of, even if it outnumbers your other units. The reason is because if you get basically any trades at all, the units youre killing cost more, take longer to rebuild, cost more supply etc so it's almost always a better trade. Not to mention, if you survive X amount of time without taking damage as Z, that means your eco is generally ahead/you've established more larva/bases etc. Therefore, simply trading leads to the establishment of being able to dump into your next tech such as mutas when available etc off your eco advantage etc.
I just want to point out one detail here. Banelings are the most expensive unit per supply in the game. 50 minerals for 2 zerglings and 25 gas and minerals extra per baneling making 1 supply cost 100 minerals and 50 gas or 150 resources. There are units that are more gas intensive, e.g. observer, ghost, DT, viper. Notable units that do not cost more gas per supply compared to banelings are the colossus, medivac, siege tank, mutalisk, lurker, sentry, disruptor and BC. Banelings seldom trade cost effectively in higher numbers. They can be used in high numbers because of the strong economy and the time it takes for the opponent to reassemble a fighting force. It was just the part about being cheaper that I did not agree on. I agree, baneling cost per supply is way too high. Let's double bane supply to 2 - problem solved.
Let's also double their explosion radius
Now, can we stop the whining and go back to the patch at hand which will come after GSL Code S is over I guess
|
On May 28 2020 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors
It wasn't a bug and it isn't in the game anymore. The general behaviour how the broodlord actually works as a carrier is still there, but the broodling leash range has been reduced from 12 to 9. So as far as I understand it the actual broodlord range should be down to 9 (used to be 12), not 10 as the weapon stat in the game says.
Thors have 11 range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kIn11ml.png)
