EPTDamage of Fungal wasn't reduced, the duration was, therefore the part where you say "DPS wasn't changed" is wrong, it actually doubled.
//tx
PvZ Imba - Why? - Page 2
| Blogs > Sarang |
|
Tschis
Brazil1511 Posts
Damage of Fungal wasn't reduced, the duration was, therefore the part where you say "DPS wasn't changed" is wrong, it actually doubled. //tx | ||
|
Sarang
Australia2363 Posts
On April 13 2011 22:54 Tschis wrote: Just an info Damage of Fungal wasn't reduced, the duration was, therefore the part where you say "DPS wasn't changed" is wrong, it actually doubled. //tx Ahh, thanks for picking that up. I'll change it now. | ||
|
TreDawg
41 Posts
Mondragon showed an incredibly cool style of zerg play that just ignored the P air army. I think zerg needs to realize the strengths and weaknesses of their race. They are really good at sending massive amounts of cheap units at their enemy that are NOT cost effective. Fighting head on is almost never a good idea in ZvP. Why play into the enemy's strength and ignore your own? It just blows me away when I see zergs rage when they lose a 200/200 fight. You're not supposed to win that. Stop QQing and play your race the way it was meant to be played. If you don't like playing that way then chances are zerg isn't for you. | ||
|
AntiMoralRealist
United States1 Post
The way I see it the phoenix build time buff creates a small problem for zerg -- you need more anti-air... spores, hydras, but this isn't game breaking in itself (still I feel hydras need to be a bit cheaper and come out on hatch tech). Warpgate is problematic for zerg, you have to constantly scout around 5-7 minutes for it. It takes away the defender's advantage to a degree. Warpgate is actually similar to Nydus but stronger IMO, as it comes earlier and only costs 100 minerals for a pylon. Making warpgate come later, or harder to tech to would help zerg a bit. Dunno how it would affect pvt... Void ray + collo + stalkers is still the major problem. Colossus need their splash nerfed and/or need lower health. Every zerg, when they engage the deathball, is really only concerned about the collosus, if they don't your ground army evaporates. If collo were more like reavers then zerg might have a chance. As it stands, void rays charge up while the collo are being killed and zerg loses the DPS battle. Even if Zerg destroyed 95% of the protoss infrastructure, if they can't kill the deathball they will lose. Zerg tier 3 stinks. 90% of the time blinked stalkers can completely negate both tier 3 units. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11133 Posts
Firstly, I think the buffs to the phoenix and void ray have really encouraged air-based openers that force hydra, which in turn becomes vulnerable to a tech switch to Colossus if the air play doesn't outright kill the Zerg. We saw GuineaPig blow us away with his brilliant air openers in GSL3, and it seems like his innovation has been adopted by many Protoss players and incorporated into standard builds. Secondly, although the larger maps were designed to help Zerg macro, they also had the less-than-intended side effect of perhaps aiding Protoss macro a bit too much. Early games on Crevasse brought an air of worry as Protoss players would try to max out a deathball in relative safety with little to no effective pressure from the Zerg. Greedy Forge FEs are much more common on these larger macro maps, and the fact that 3rd bases are easily taken and defended by P in addition to Z means that the "standard" Protoss strat of amassing a deathball off of 3 base is much more popular. Of course, the pendulum of the metagame can easily swing back in favor of the Zergs if some new revolutionary innovations are made for Zerg play. Honestly, I'm not quite sure about what kind of buffs or nerfs Blizzard can hand out to Protoss and Zerg without unbalancing the other matchups. | ||
|
Joementum
787 Posts
1) The Phoenix opening is amazing for Toss. The only true counter to Phoenix is Corruptors, which are slow and expensive, or Spores, which aren't that great of an investment. Hydras are NOT a counter. You have to invest more in Hydras than a Protoss has to invest into Phoenix to actually defeat the Phoenix. A counter is something that will kill another unit in a cost-effective way. Not only do you have to have more Hydras than Phoenix to kill them, but you also have to keep moving those slow things around from base to base while the Phoenix tear apart your drone line or snipe queens. 2) The Corruptor is an air to air anti-air unit, but it sucks at doing it's job. It can't even defeat Void Rays. How can a ATG/ATA unit destroy an ATA counter so easily? It's ridiculous. The Corruptor should be better against the Void Ray (or better in general). It's quite annoying that Zerg has to invest into 2 Corruptors (4 food) per Void Ray (3 food) the Toss invests into just to destroy the air. In other words, Zerg has to invest 300/200 to kill a 250/150 unit and Zerg will only be left with a 19 HP Corruptor. That again means the Corruptor is not a counter. Blizzard needs to buff the Corruptor and make it 3-food equivalent unit (damage & money wise). In other words, make it actually useful. Even if the Zerg does kill all the air, he still has the Colossus left to deal with and if there are no Colossus, then the Corruptors are dead weight in the army further weakening a Zerg's army. 3) Forcefields give the Protoss way too many outs in certain situations and can nullify any mistakes a Protoss makes. I hate how Protoss can just herp derp around a map without any care in the world. If they get into a bad position, they can just create a wall of forcefields and run away to higher ground or a better position for them. Forcefields can effectively negate any stupid mistakes a Protoss makes. What happens if a Zerg engages in a choke or a Terran doesn't siege up his army in time? They get rolled over, but Toss gets this magical unit that can negate doing something stupid. The only way to "fix" this is to make Forcefield a channeling ability, like Graviton beam. This way, if the Protoss makes a stupid mistake, he will have to sacrifice something to save his army. In this case, it would be 600 gas in units, which would be a completely fair trade. Protoss would either have to stop production of their Colossus/VRs/Immortals to get more Sentries out or just not get more Sentries. 4) Forcefields can easily make a 200-food army useless. Forcefields are way too easy to spam. That's really the only thing I hate about Forcefields. They are way, way, way too easy to spam. Why can't Forcefields be a channeling ability and have a cool down? They would still be useful as hell, but not overpowered. You would no longer be able to spam 15+ forcefields (unless you invested into 15 sentries O_O) and trap 5+ roaches in a donut anymore, but you could still separate armies effectively. Make forcefield a channeling ability + have a cooldown of 20 seconds. This would actually make the Protoss player think "Where exactly would the best area to drop the FFs be?" instead of just Forcefielding everywhere. This is just my opinion. If you don't agree, that's great. I'm not asking you too. I'm not crying imbalanced, but it is quite annoying having to do 3 times the work a Protoss player does just to win. I have to be doing 2 pronged drops, 2 pronged attacks and sneak attacks with Infestors just to beat a Protoss player, while all they have to do is 1a2a3afffffffgg. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
1. Is the macro effect of workers split between bases. There's no advantage to splitting your workers across bases besides any workers over 20 on a base unlike SC2 where even as little as 19 workers total split between bases (so 9 at each base) would give you an economic boost compared to mining from a single base. If this was the case in SC2 then it'd be easier for zerg to hold early pressure (slightly better economy) and late game they can keep a mineral income advantage by having more bases. On the Protoss side they'd have a better shot surviving mid-game from the mineral boost offered by their 2nd or 3rd bases so it's not something that's just going cause zerg to run away. 2. Along with #1 the gas ratio of zerg units is pretty poor. The best min:gas unit for zerg is infestor and all other zerg units have a min:gas ratio of 3:2 or worse. Even infestors at 10:15 are a worse ratio than other races most gas heavy units. If zerg had some lighter mineral costs it'd help them take advantage of a large # of bases and the associated increased gas income. This is doubly problematic because of the poor performance of hydralisks and the relatively lackluster offensive capabilities of infestors (they're great offensively in an open field, but they aren't really that good at busting ramps or sim cities it would seem). 3. The maps are a big issue. They often allow for easy turtling or reduce the potential effectiveness of drops and nydus worms. This really hinder's Zerg's mid-game ideal strategy of multipronged attacks, drops, and nydus play. If we had more well designed maps that promoted drop and harass play then it'd help a lot. 4. Zerg units are not really cost efficient, even in small-ish numbers. Yet on the other side it takes a while for zerg's macro to pull ahead of a macro oriented Protoss player. What ends up happening is that the window for aggression where P is vulnerable enough and the Zerg has a superior economy to overcome their cost-inefficiency is pretty small. It's doubly so because of the threat of P early attacks and because of the glut of gas upgrades zerg needs mid-game (burrow, drop, tunneling claws, roach speed, etc.) tends to draw away from their ability to get attack/armor upgrades. So even small early game mistakes or misreads can cause the mid-game windows to just evaporate. So combined with #2 promoting turtley or small maps you run into problems where it seems to become almost trivially easy to defend as Protoss. Generally in these situations the cost inefficient trades can't even be covered by a better economy unless again the early game goes just right for zerg with a good read. 5. Tier 3 has a lot of anti-synergy with Zerg mid-game ZvP. Z mid-game is all about aggression, mobility, drops, and multi-pronged harass (generally even with hydralisks), A switch to hive tech basically means abandoning all that and stopping all mobility based play because Broodlords need to be protected at all time. Most of your army composition also becomes somewhat of deadweight as you need to shed roaches/hydras/etc. for more broodlords/corruptors/infestors. Being caught with aggression during this transition when you're getting up broodlord/infestor numbers, but are still primarily roach/ling/etc. is very brutal. This sets up a really difficult transition that's not smooth at all. Also in ZvP the ranged attack upgrade is vital for tier1/2 play, but entirely useless for tier 3 army compositions. The ultralisk is also just generally seems bad with their dependence on fungal and the ability for zealots to shut down ultra dps so hard (if caught without fungal almost every P unit can handle ultralisks). A great example would be if your P defends semi-well on 2-3 bases and you have a super economy and need to transition from your roach heavy army (say 150-200 food size) to a higher tier or more infestor based army. Well it's tough to make use of your roaches via aggression without opening a window for a counter-attack once the roaches are defended. It's 50s for an infestor to build and 74 to morph a broodlord so there's quite a large window before your higher tier reinforcements can be ready and in position even if you do make large batches of them at once. 6. Z units are almost universally population in-efficient. It's one thing to be cost inefficient, but to be both pop and cost inefficient is a pretty damning blow. Only blings, broodlords, infestors, and hydras seem to be population efficient Z units. Lings and ultras kinda are as well, but they do have diminishing returns being a melee unit and all. When you combine this inefficiency with the problem of queens eating up population and the previous points encouraging zergs to maintain larger drone counts than their opponents you run into a big problem. It's not unlikely for a maxed zerg to only have 110 population in army while a maxxed P/T would have 130 or so. 7. The mobility of Z isn't that far ahead of P. Unlike ZvT Zerg's mobility isn't all that hot ZvP. Stalkers are quite fast (doubly so with blink) and colossi are the same speed as hydras off creep and can take short routes with cliff-walk. Sure the P army isn't super mobile, but it's pretty dang fast. And when you combine that with the ability to turtle up with cannons knowing that 200P > 200Z and the ability for P to warp-in as a stop-gap defense Z's mobility advantage is greatly marginalized. 8. Production capabilities! First off warp-gates produce pretty dang quickly and early game it can be a serious problem for Zerg to handle especially because Zerg's production relies on the queen which is very vulnerable early game and very damning if lost. Beyond that is just the rapid pace at which P can add on production capabilities. It takes 80s from when you toss down a gateway to when you get your first units from it and this can be any number of gateways at once of course. For Zerg, by comparison, it takes 170-200s before the first real production happens from a hatchery (100s for hatch, 40s for inject, 30-70s train time) and for Terran you're looking at 100-150s for real production beyond just having single marines/hellions from a barracks. This gives Protoss a real ability to just suddenly surge in production which can be really difficult for a Zerg to read, react to, and defend. The 2nd part is the strength of small amounts of robo/stargate units. These units train slow, but when 2-3 of them are game changing it gives Protoss a lot of ability to switch their compositions around and muck with the Zerg's ability to react and defend. It's not like what PvT seems like where maintaining colossi is huge because you need to build up to 6+ or whatever. ZvP small colossi counts do wonders if you force corruptors and keep your gateway count good and well upgraded. Now these aren't things I'm saying need to be patched, but this is what I view as the problem areas a Zerg has in ZvP. Well ok the macro issue should be fixed because that's a deep running issue with the game overall. I'd also roughly order what I'd want to see fixed in the order which I mentioned them (so #1 and #3 would be what I want to see changed while #8 is more of just something to note) if anything was to be fixed. And sorry if some of the stuff seems a written in kind of a scatterbrained manner, it's a little tough to organize all of the information/reasoning well. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
While creating forcefields requires micro on the Protoss his part, a zerg has no way of efficiently nullying these things as they are unbreakable by anything bar ultralisks, which come out at a way too late of a stage. Well technically Z has roach burrow, Morrow used it against MC in the game he won. | ||
|
Flytrapz
United States32 Posts
1) Toss always tell zergs "Don't go head on! Just go around!" And of course, because they can wall off, the answer is always supposed to be drop play and nydus. The problem is that warp gates make nydus play non-viable, because nydus have so little health. Just warp in half a dozen zealots and it's dead before more than a couple units are out. Drop plays suffer the same fate unless you bring huge drops...and whatever you drop is probably not coming back. Also, they have an incredibly high overhead: 300/300 for speed and capacity. 2) Zerg can't wall off the way other races can, which makes it super vulnerable to toss timing pushes and all-ins, and also makes proxy warp-ins from low ground much harder to stop. This combined with Zerg's need to devote its early game production capacity to drones makes it very hard for Zerg to gain the expansion / economy advantage that is supposed to be the race's defining trait. Now that I write this, it suddenly looks to me like the answer to ZvP balance might be a building armor upgrade at the evo chamber. Spines and worms, baby. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + really liked Game 3 when Moon dealt with the 3 base toss deathball by taking the map, then countering when Grubby moved out, did economy damage and then after his roach hydra ball inevitably died he used small groups of roaches and lings to keep Grubby on his side of the map while he remaxed to brood lords and mutas. | ||
|
Dismantlethethroat
114 Posts
On April 14 2011 02:22 The KY wrote: Just watched Grubby vs Moon NASL; + Show Spoiler + really liked Game 3 when Moon dealt with the 3 base toss deathball by taking the map, then countering when Grubby moved out, did economy damage and then after his roach hydra ball inevitably died he used small groups of roaches and lings to keep Grubby on his side of the map while he remaxed to brood lords and mutas. Lol you're from the eu battle.net forums. Anyway, mutalisks + broodlord work vs deathball? I really need to know lol. | ||
|
TreDawg
41 Posts
1. I'm not even sure thats a problem. Its not like the other races don't also have to deal with that. Zergs can saturate bases faster than any other race too giving the lowest downtime between a naked base and a completely saturated base. 2. You're wrong about the ratios. In ZvP the most popular combo seems to be Roach/Hydra. A Roach's mineral:gas ratio is 3:1 (75/25) and the hydra is 2:1 (100/50). I understand that they aren't cost efficient but that doesn't mean you need to lie about how much they really cost. It also sounds like you're not using the units you're supposed to for the tasks at hand. The ramp busters of Z are the broodlord and the ultra. If you don't want to wait until T3 to get ramp busters, switch races. 3. If your opponent is turtling just take more bases. The Nydus doesn't have to be used offensively. You can use it to move your whole army from wherever it is to the other side of the map in very short time making spreading yourself out more beneficial than not. 4. To get a lair, burrow, and tunneling claws costs a little less than 3 sentries, a stalker, and a zealot. I'd say having your units not get rocked by FF is worth it early game. Plus roaches regen 10hp/s while burrowed. 5. I don't play zerg but I'd imagine being up in bases makes it very easy to get really fast upgrades. Also, if you're armies don't synergize, why use them together? Split them up and hit the Protoss from as many angles as you can. Don't play to the enemies strengths. Also, get better with infestors. They're the mid game equivalent of the sentry and you know how awesome sentries are I'm sure. 6. Not a real issue. The race was designed that way. Its supposed to be fast to max out but the easiest to replace. If you don't like how that works find a different race to play. 7. Infestors. They solve all of that. 8. Also not a real issue. The race was designed that way. Rather than having smooth production like P or T zerg is supposed to swell up in resources between production cycles and then make everything all at once. Watching the daily where he goes over Idra's econ management is a great example of how zerg needs to manage their money. Getting macro hatches and/or expanding more will also solve that. | ||
|
Joementum
787 Posts
5. Very easy to negate with warp-ins and the Protoss splitting up his army, but that really is the way to beat a Protoss. And Infestors are not the mid-game equivalent of a Sentry. I'm sorry, but Infestors are not that hard to stop as a Toss. Get some HTs with Feedback and they are very easy to stop. 4 seconds hold versus a 15 second FF is nowhere near as good as FF. 7. How do Infestors stop mobility? Maybe with the 8 second hold they did. Now, they really don't. And again, if the Toss decides to actually get HTs, then Feedback will own you. <- We don't see anywhere near enough Feedback usage, but it is great against Infestors. You're also not going to just send in an Infestor, fungal an army and then Nydus. That's a waste of an Infestor. And again, the 4 seconds isn't going to do much if you had a drop ready. Chances are, the P will use a warp-in cycle and will have 1-2 cannons to hold everything off until FG ends. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
I invite zergs who are least mid masters to look at their overall zvp record via sc2gears. Some zergs I know have been qq'ing about zvp, then checked and found out they have a very favorable record vs p despite feeling like they lose horribly all the time. It could just be a side effect of the fact that when a protoss ball rolls a zerg army, it is very dramatic, and so might stick out more in memory and blot out other things. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On April 14 2011 03:04 TreDawg wrote: Logo, I think you're looking at this matchup the wrong way. I'll address all of your points in the order that you presented them. 1. I'm not even sure thats a problem. Its not like the other races don't also have to deal with that. Zergs can saturate bases faster than any other race too giving the lowest downtime between a naked base and a completely saturated base. 2. You're wrong about the ratios. In ZvP the most popular combo seems to be Roach/Hydra. A Roach's mineral:gas ratio is 3:1 (75/25) and the hydra is 2:1 (100/50). I understand that they aren't cost efficient but that doesn't mean you need to lie about how much they really cost. It also sounds like you're not using the units you're supposed to for the tasks at hand. The ramp busters of Z are the broodlord and the ultra. If you don't want to wait until T3 to get ramp busters, switch races. 3. If your opponent is turtling just take more bases. The Nydus doesn't have to be used offensively. You can use it to move your whole army from wherever it is to the other side of the map in very short time making spreading yourself out more beneficial than not. 4. To get a lair, burrow, and tunneling claws costs a little less than 3 sentries, a stalker, and a zealot. I'd say having your units not get rocked by FF is worth it early game. Plus roaches regen 10hp/s while burrowed. 5. I don't play zerg but I'd imagine being up in bases makes it very easy to get really fast upgrades. Also, if you're armies don't synergize, why use them together? Split them up and hit the Protoss from as many angles as you can. Don't play to the enemies strengths. Also, get better with infestors. They're the mid game equivalent of the sentry and you know how awesome sentries are I'm sure. 6. Not a real issue. The race was designed that way. Its supposed to be fast to max out but the easiest to replace. If you don't like how that works find a different race to play. 7. Infestors. They solve all of that. 8. Also not a real issue. The race was designed that way. Rather than having smooth production like P or T zerg is supposed to swell up in resources between production cycles and then make everything all at once. Watching the daily where he goes over Idra's econ management is a great example of how zerg needs to manage their money. Getting macro hatches and/or expanding more will also solve that. 1. It is an issue that affects everyone, but one of the advantages of Zerg is the ease at which they can expand. When you have a 2 base to 1 base Protoss or a 6 base zerg to 3 base Protoss if the macro issue didn't exist then the Zerg could have an economic advantage even on equal workers which is really important early game in defending pressure and late game in keeping an economic advantage when you max out on workers. 2. I'm not wrong? Roaches are 3:1, Hydras 2:1, Infestors 10:15, Ultras 3:2, mutas 1:1. The point is that a late game strength of zerg is increased gas income compared to P due to having more bases, but with overall poor mineral:gas ratios on units it's hard to really make use of that as Zerg without being mineral capped. By comparison a P player who has access to lots of geysers can make sentries and templar to really strengthen their army and sentries at the very least are pretty immediate. Maybe by saying poor it seems confusing as usually it's in reference to units being gas heavy, but in this case I'm thinking the opposite way since I can gain access to a wealth of gas mid/late game and it's minerals. This ties into the point brought up on SotG where Zerg should try to expand more and go a more gas heavy composition. The issue is that there's not necessarily a lot of room there for that to happen given the gas ratios of current zerg units and the inaccessibility of an early tier 3. 3. Turtling by Protoss is an issue because of 1 and 2 (as well as the pop inefficiency of Zerg). More bases does very little when it just gives you extra gas you don't necessarily need. 4 & 5. The point is getting all those ups comes at the trade-off of stuff like +1 attack or +1 armor. They're great ups and more important, but say in the case of stalkers with detection vs roaches burrow isn't going to help your cost-efficiency. It's really not easy to just throw down for the ups given that having more bases means nothing until you have more drones. 5 (again). You can't use Broodlords naked. You just can't, they're super expensive and vulnerable and losing them can cost you the game. Broodlords act a lot like colossi in that you want everything balled up around them because of how they work. Ultra ZvP I'd like to explore more, but generally they seem rather weak in this matchup. It'd be interesting to see how well they could be used with Nydus play though. 7, Nothing here is solved by infestors so I don't know what you're even getting at and don't know how to respond to it. 8. Doesn't even address anything I mentioned because it's about how quickly P can ramp up production, not about the style of zerg production. The way P can ramp up their gateway count and production is very hard for zerg to manage overall. Plus for 6 & 8 saying, "That's the way the race is designed" doesn't solve or show anything. 6 especially is one of the big problem points for Zerg and a big concern as they enter the end game. I never said it had to be changed, just pointing out why it's so difficult for Zerg to deal with Protoss. | ||
|
BladeofHell
Canada23 Posts
| ||
| ||
