|
On July 18 2011 19:23 Inex wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:+ Show Spoiler + The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more.
Zerg has one of the best harass units and if you remember a game between Moon and Kiwikaki, from NASL I believe, after an insane push from the protoss, the zerg was able to come back after a fantastic muta harass. This is the mentality that people above you were talking about. Just because some pro player is whining about balance constantly, it doesn't mean the race is necessarily the weakest. Also what is with this sense of superiority that zergs have over other players. I mean, I play protoss and almost every time I win vs zerg it is because I am a noob with an OP race, but if the zerg wins it's because he is haivng 2000 apm and has the ''Starcraft 2 6th sense''. Annoying to say the least. Anyway now that the ladder reset has been postponed, I guess there will be more time to test the maps and give us a better map pool. Typhon Peaks and Scrapyard are such an uncomfortable maps to play on, backwater being the only decent one. I only hope they'll say which maps will be removed from the pool soon.
I was going to make a comment on that annoying sense of superiority that some Zergs have over other players, but you beat me to it so I'll just say that I agree with you on that. There's this idea that Zerg making one single mistake = being dead, while Protoss and Terran are somehow so much more forgiving. Like I said earlier, missing a forcefield, a bit of Zealot mismicro (zealots behind Stalkers), failing to split marines well against Banelings, not raising a Depot in time - all single mistakes that can pretty much end a game. There's also this mentality that Zerg just takes more skill to play, or something. I remember a topic which discussed something along the lines of which race felt most satisfying to play as, and some people said "Zerg, because when you win, you know you outplayed your opponent". Take a step back and think about what that implies.
|
On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake.
I think the problem is that Zerg is much harder to get into. Meaning, at low levels, Zerg is harder to play because (at the low, mechanics level) it is less forgiving. Missing larva injects can outright kill you, while missing a MULE or a chronoboost is not such a big deal (again, at the low level). Most players aren't Masters or pros, so the complaints come from that background. I have no idea about the skill ceiling for Zerg (I'm a silver league player) so I won't try to argue about it, but from my own experience I feel that Zerg is harder to play than Protoss/Terran (at my level). At the high points you have things like when to drone/when to build units figured out, at the low level you die a lot to making these basics mistakes. And it's easier as Zerg to make basic mistakes than for T/P. Also, of course every race can lose due to a single mistake, that's not the point, the point is who has more "opportunities" to make those mistakes.
|
everybody is biased toward his own race... zerg more than the others :p
|
On July 18 2011 19:44 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 15:31 Whole wrote:On July 18 2011 15:16 Hoven wrote:On July 18 2011 14:41 Whole wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 18 2011 02:59 DarkDolphin wrote:Map TEST 1 , is a SC2 version of "La Mancha" from Broodwar, ^___________^. I wouldn't be surprised if is called the same name. The other maps are just pure crap The only thing is that La Mancha has a reasonable third while this SC2 map doesn't. In the latest version of map 1 on the PTR, the third is no longer a gold expansion, and the rocks have been removed. thats good for getting a third faster, but it is still hard to defend. Mainly, I'm concerned with the little piece of land above the mineral line. Imagine the purple circles are the Zerg bases and the Red is either a Protoss, Terran, or hell, even another Zerg could abuse it. The red has an easy time just walking to use the ledge (red dotted line), or they can just blink/drop back and forth with little risk. The other gold base is pretty far off, so defending it would be a nightmare. You would have to risk getting your army caught extremely out of position running between long 3rd and natural. Too much risk for a 3rd early in the game. If they'd just take out that ledge of land (best solution) or make a bigger gap between main and the ledge above the 3rd so you can at least put some type of preliminary defense there. I think you are missing what that plot of land would really be good for. It seems like the perfect spot to put tanks with marines on both sides while u elevator the main. Think the attack the natural has to deal with as zerg on TDA except instead of attacking the natural you are attacking the main. Not to mention that you have a rather narrow path there, so melee units will get funneled. Seems like the elevator will plague this map, even cross pos, I could see it being worth it to take 2 medivacs, 8 rines + 2 siege tanks and drop there. Heck I can't see how many pixels you have there, but a bunker could probably be dropped there to strengthen that kind of play immensly.
Edit: I'm T, I just have doubts about this map. It seems like a really elevator centric one.
|
On July 18 2011 19:48 Lorizean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. I think the problem is that Zerg is much harder to get into. Meaning, at low levels, Zerg is harder to play because (at the low, mechanics level) it is less forgiving. Missing larva injects can outright kill you, while missing a MULE or a chronoboost is not such a big deal (again, at the low level). Most players aren't Masters or pros, so the complaints come from that background. I have no idea about the skill ceiling for Zerg (I'm a silver league player) so I won't try to argue about it, but from my own experience I feel that Zerg is harder to play than Protoss/Terran (at my level). At the high points you have things like when to drone/when to build units figured out, at the low level you die a lot to making these basics mistakes. And it's easier as Zerg to make basic mistakes than for T/P. Also, of course every race can lose due to a single mistake, that's not the point, the point is who has more "opportunities" to make those mistakes.
A problem is that when people talk about balance, we're assuming that we're talking about high-level play where Pros aren't messing up from forgetting larva injects. Yet, as you say, if complaints come from the background where someone's mechanics aren't on par with the pros, then that means that the problems with mechanics, and the complaints of losing from a single mistake brought on by that lack of good mechanics, have no place in this discussion.
|
On July 18 2011 19:56 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 19:48 Lorizean wrote:On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. I think the problem is that Zerg is much harder to get into. Meaning, at low levels, Zerg is harder to play because (at the low, mechanics level) it is less forgiving. Missing larva injects can outright kill you, while missing a MULE or a chronoboost is not such a big deal (again, at the low level). Most players aren't Masters or pros, so the complaints come from that background. I have no idea about the skill ceiling for Zerg (I'm a silver league player) so I won't try to argue about it, but from my own experience I feel that Zerg is harder to play than Protoss/Terran (at my level). At the high points you have things like when to drone/when to build units figured out, at the low level you die a lot to making these basics mistakes. And it's easier as Zerg to make basic mistakes than for T/P. Also, of course every race can lose due to a single mistake, that's not the point, the point is who has more "opportunities" to make those mistakes. A problem is that when people talk about balance, we're assuming that we're talking about high-level play where Pros aren't messing up from forgetting larva injects. Yet, as you say, if complaints come from the background where someone's mechanics aren't on par with the pros, then that means that the problems with mechanics, and the complaints of losing from a single mistake brought on by that lack of good mechanics, have no place in this discussion.
I agree, I just wanted to make the point that a lot of people probably speak from a background of bad mechanics and therefore they don't realize that their points are invalid. This gives a warped discussion.
|
On July 18 2011 20:06 Lorizean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 19:56 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 19:48 Lorizean wrote:On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. I think the problem is that Zerg is much harder to get into. Meaning, at low levels, Zerg is harder to play because (at the low, mechanics level) it is less forgiving. Missing larva injects can outright kill you, while missing a MULE or a chronoboost is not such a big deal (again, at the low level). Most players aren't Masters or pros, so the complaints come from that background. I have no idea about the skill ceiling for Zerg (I'm a silver league player) so I won't try to argue about it, but from my own experience I feel that Zerg is harder to play than Protoss/Terran (at my level). At the high points you have things like when to drone/when to build units figured out, at the low level you die a lot to making these basics mistakes. And it's easier as Zerg to make basic mistakes than for T/P. Also, of course every race can lose due to a single mistake, that's not the point, the point is who has more "opportunities" to make those mistakes. A problem is that when people talk about balance, we're assuming that we're talking about high-level play where Pros aren't messing up from forgetting larva injects. Yet, as you say, if complaints come from the background where someone's mechanics aren't on par with the pros, then that means that the problems with mechanics, and the complaints of losing from a single mistake brought on by that lack of good mechanics, have no place in this discussion. I agree, I just wanted to make the point that a lot of people probably speak from a background of bad mechanics and therefore they don't realize that their points are invalid. This gives a warped discussion.
Yeah. I do agree that Zerg for beginners is overall harder than Protoss or Terran, but even so, that doesn't give people the right to be stuck up and superior about it.
As an engineering major who hears lots of his peers make fun of humanities majors, it's the same thing - engineering probably is overall harder than humanities to most people, but that doesn't give me the right to just act stuck-up and superior around humanities majors. It would just make me look like a dick.
|
On July 18 2011 20:06 Lorizean wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 19:56 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 19:48 Lorizean wrote:On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. I think the problem is that Zerg is much harder to get into. Meaning, at low levels, Zerg is harder to play because (at the low, mechanics level) it is less forgiving. Missing larva injects can outright kill you, while missing a MULE or a chronoboost is not such a big deal (again, at the low level). Most players aren't Masters or pros, so the complaints come from that background. I have no idea about the skill ceiling for Zerg (I'm a silver league player) so I won't try to argue about it, but from my own experience I feel that Zerg is harder to play than Protoss/Terran (at my level). At the high points you have things like when to drone/when to build units figured out, at the low level you die a lot to making these basics mistakes. And it's easier as Zerg to make basic mistakes than for T/P. Also, of course every race can lose due to a single mistake, that's not the point, the point is who has more "opportunities" to make those mistakes. A problem is that when people talk about balance, we're assuming that we're talking about high-level play where Pros aren't messing up from forgetting larva injects. Yet, as you say, if complaints come from the background where someone's mechanics aren't on par with the pros, then that means that the problems with mechanics, and the complaints of losing from a single mistake brought on by that lack of good mechanics, have no place in this discussion. I agree, I just wanted to make the point that a lot of people probably speak from a background of bad mechanics and therefore they don't realize that their points are invalid. This gives a warped discussion.
I think another problem is that although the community, as observers and students of the game, love to see it balanced around the pro level, the same community, as players of the game, find it hard to accept when something is not balanced at their level.
For example, let's look at a simplified marines vs banelings battle on 3 different levels (remember, simplified) of the game play. I don't mean lowest as bronze, middle as gold, and highest as Grandmasters, I mean on the scale of perfecting the game so highest level being the 'skill cap'.
Lowest level: Banelings blow up on clumped marines. Banelings are cost effective for 3 times their worth. Neither player micros, but banelings are better in this ball vs ball battle.
Middle level: Banelings head towards marines, marines are split with near perfection, banelings are less than cost effective as they head in a pack towards small groups of marines, and die while traveling between the groups ie MKP vs Kyrix. One player, the Terran, figures out splits, while the other, the Zerg, still rolls his banelings in the same way as he always did, like in the lowest level of gameplay.
Highest level: Banelings are split along with marines, both players play perfectly, getting maximum effectiveness out of their units, akin to Micro programs playing. Also, we'll assume balance at this level. I'm not saying it is or isn't balanced, but for this situation we assume balance at the highest level.
Now, here is my point. If the game is balanced perfectly at highest level, even in this rather simplistic single unit comp vs single unit comp, the lower levels aren't balanced. Let's say that bronze-gold plays at the lowest level of gameplay. Banelings are unfair vs marines, zerg is OP. Gold-Master plays at the middle level of gameplay. Marines are unfair vs banelings, terran is OP. Only at GM is it balanced.
Now, if you knew that zerg, or any other race, is simply better or easier to play at your level, would that not be frustrating? We can assume this is the case in many situations, and while, yes, if either player simply learned to macro better, they would win easily, especially at lower levels, it IS frustrating to know that you are losing to opponents that are, simply put, worse than you.
With the design of an RTS, and the way SC is made of 3 distinct races, it is impossible to fix this solution, at least from what I can tell. If your opponent is equal in MMR, and is playing an easier race, then it follows that he is worse than you at the game, which can and will be extremely frustrating to low level players. You can tell them all they want that all they need to learn to do is macro and they'll win versus an inferior player, but that will just leave them angry and confused as to why they need to improve at all in order to win against that inferior player.
|
On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake.
Yes you are absolutely right, for every race there are these situations, but there are so many situations were Zerg just dies and Protoss and Terran still got a chance to come back.
|
On July 18 2011 21:13 Pred8oar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. Yes you are absolutely right, for every race there are these situations, but there are so many situations were Zerg just dies and Protoss and Terran still got a chance to come back.
I disagree. Protoss has units like the DT to come back, Terran has banshees, Zerg doesn't have a unit like this, but it has droning up. You can be behind and just drone up EXTREMELY hard, and come back into a game. You might say, 'Well if the other player scouts and attacks, zerg will lose.' Well, yeah, but you're behind, you're 'supposed' to lose, and if protoss or terran gets scouted teching to their 'comeback' units, they lose too, especially if they're behind.
|
On July 18 2011 20:24 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 20:06 Lorizean wrote:On July 18 2011 19:56 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 19:48 Lorizean wrote:On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. I think the problem is that Zerg is much harder to get into. Meaning, at low levels, Zerg is harder to play because (at the low, mechanics level) it is less forgiving. Missing larva injects can outright kill you, while missing a MULE or a chronoboost is not such a big deal (again, at the low level). Most players aren't Masters or pros, so the complaints come from that background. I have no idea about the skill ceiling for Zerg (I'm a silver league player) so I won't try to argue about it, but from my own experience I feel that Zerg is harder to play than Protoss/Terran (at my level). At the high points you have things like when to drone/when to build units figured out, at the low level you die a lot to making these basics mistakes. And it's easier as Zerg to make basic mistakes than for T/P. Also, of course every race can lose due to a single mistake, that's not the point, the point is who has more "opportunities" to make those mistakes. A problem is that when people talk about balance, we're assuming that we're talking about high-level play where Pros aren't messing up from forgetting larva injects. Yet, as you say, if complaints come from the background where someone's mechanics aren't on par with the pros, then that means that the problems with mechanics, and the complaints of losing from a single mistake brought on by that lack of good mechanics, have no place in this discussion. I agree, I just wanted to make the point that a lot of people probably speak from a background of bad mechanics and therefore they don't realize that their points are invalid. This gives a warped discussion. Yeah. I do agree that Zerg for beginners is overall harder than Protoss or Terran, but even so, that doesn't give people the right to be stuck up and superior about it. As an engineering major who hears lots of his peers make fun of humanities majors, it's the same thing - engineering probably is overall harder than humanities to most people, but that doesn't give me the right to just act stuck-up and superior around humanities majors. It would just make me look like a dick. It's frustration which leads to what you consider superiority. In gold/plat EU, what will a terran generally do against a zerg? A 1 or 2 base timing attack. How hard is that to pull off? Not at all. How hard is it to defend as a zerg? Hard. Which means the zerg player has to outplay the terran.
This is of course true the other way around as well. A protoss going forge expand will have to outplay a zerg going roach/ling all-in which is easier to do than defend.
The reasons why Zergs are frustrated is because Zerg doesn't have all that many viable 1-2 base timing attacks, where as they are very vulnurable to a ton of them, which makes it seem like you have to outplay your opponents every single game because they can beat you with inferior play.
After losing to simple timing attacks enough times, you're going to become overly baised and think every single terran/protoss is a 2base timing scrub, even though it isn't true.
|
On July 18 2011 21:17 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 21:13 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. Yes you are absolutely right, for every race there are these situations, but there are so many situations were Zerg just dies and Protoss and Terran still got a chance to come back. I disagree. Protoss has units like the DT to come back, Terran has banshees, Zerg doesn't have a unit like this, but it has droning up. You can be behind and just drone up EXTREMELY hard, and come back into a game. You might say, 'Well if the other player scouts and attacks, zerg will lose.' Well, yeah, but you're behind, you're 'supposed' to lose, and if protoss or terran gets scouted teching to their 'comeback' units, they lose too, especially if they're behind. Depends on the timing. In the late game, burrowed infestors can devestate mineral lines to get back into the game.. but yeah, depends on having infestors ready.
|
On July 18 2011 21:17 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 21:13 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. Yes you are absolutely right, for every race there are these situations, but there are so many situations were Zerg just dies and Protoss and Terran still got a chance to come back. I disagree. Protoss has units like the DT to come back, Terran has banshees, Zerg doesn't have a unit like this, but it has droning up. You can be behind and just drone up EXTREMELY hard, and come back into a game. You might say, 'Well if the other player scouts and attacks, zerg will lose.' Well, yeah, but you're behind, you're 'supposed' to lose, and if protoss or terran gets scouted teching to their 'comeback' units, they lose too, especially if they're behind. I think a nydus worm belongs to the same category as Banshees or DTs in terms of high-risk/high-reward tactics that can bring a Zerg player back into a lost game. Depending on the opponent's tech choices, burrow-movement roaches or a really hard tech switch into mutas can have a similar effect. Those are the things I immediately start keeping an eye out for when I'm in an advantageous position PvZ, same as I get detection if I've got my opponent on the ropes PvP and cannon up my mineral lines against Banshee harass and drops PvT.
For that matter, something as simple as a well-timed Zergling runby can get a zerg player back into a lost game. The idea that once Zerg makes a single mistake, they're irretrievably lost, is just silly.
|
On July 18 2011 21:28 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 21:17 bigbeau wrote:On July 18 2011 21:13 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 19:42 HolyArrow wrote:On July 18 2011 18:55 Pred8oar wrote:On July 18 2011 14:15 DooMDash wrote:On July 18 2011 14:09 crms wrote: its funny all the T/P bitching about Zergs.. bitching... Ironic, eh?
Fact is Zerg is balanced in the sense it can win, imbalanced in the sense its much more difficult and fragile. T and P are so much more forgiving its a joke. Zergs are playing starcraft, T/P are playing connect 4 on their iphones. Most people feel the opposite. Isn't that what morrow was complaining about recently? That Z has a low skill cap compared to T and P? This is the kind of attitude that is holding Z's back, some form of thinking they are harder, when in reality a lot of people think they are easier. Morrow wants more units that reward high skill, so you can say that being easier but with less skill ceiling is actually a bad thing for Zergs especially at pro level. Also considering Terran literally can do almost nothing to replace its army fast enough once its gone, I would say Terran is absolutely the least forgiving. The problem for many zerg players is just, you make a single mistake especially in the early game and you are dead, such as one round of drones to much or a bit to late bane nest. Terran and Protoss can make mistakes and they will be behind but not immeadetly out of the game. The most obvious one is a marine scv all in because even if it fails Terran is quite a bit behind but still in it and can just go again. If T or P almost die they can play very defensive and try to make a comeback becaue Z cant break their defences, Z cant come back. In my opinion zerg is not forgiving at all while t and p is a lot more. For sure at lower levels you need more micro as terran for example vs muta ling bling but once you got it down you will rip every z apart if you got good timings until the zerg overthinks his strat and gets above his current skilleve. Because there are so many things Zerg can utilize and has to do it benefits from a better player with more multitasking while protoss doesnt need that at non tip top level to utilize all what their race offers. I've seen Terrans immediately out because they pulled SCVs slightly too late to keep a bunker alive, or Protosses out due to messing up a single forcefield at a crucial moment. Protoss and Terran can indeed die from a single mistake. Yes you are absolutely right, for every race there are these situations, but there are so many situations were Zerg just dies and Protoss and Terran still got a chance to come back. I disagree. Protoss has units like the DT to come back, Terran has banshees, Zerg doesn't have a unit like this, but it has droning up. You can be behind and just drone up EXTREMELY hard, and come back into a game. You might say, 'Well if the other player scouts and attacks, zerg will lose.' Well, yeah, but you're behind, you're 'supposed' to lose, and if protoss or terran gets scouted teching to their 'comeback' units, they lose too, especially if they're behind. I think a nydus worm belongs to the same category as Banshees or DTs in terms of high-risk/high-reward tactics that can bring a Zerg player back into a lost game. Depending on the opponent's tech choices, burrow-movement roaches or a really hard tech switch into mutas can have a similar effect. Those are the things I immediately start keeping an eye out for when I'm in an advantageous position PvZ, same as I get detection if I've got my opponent on the ropes PvP and cannon up my mineral lines against Banshee harass and drops PvT. For that matter, something as simple as a well-timed Zergling runby can get a zerg player back into a lost game. The idea that once Zerg makes a single mistake, they're irretrievably lost, is just silly.
Yeah, of course. And that's just talking about a game where you SHOULD NOT win and you win anyways. Everyone has had games like that. In a situation where you're only at a playable disadvantage, zerg can come back just like the other races.
|
While I see why people are annoyed at the "zerg whining", the idea that zerg can make less mistakes is a fact in my opinion.
One reason is that the race is more weak to timing pushes due to its production nature, and the fact that it (usually) trades a weaker defense for more mobility. One bad call and you're gone.
Another reason is that many of its units are low hp, micro units (unlike what the "zerg needs no micro" crowd seems to imply), and it's very easy to lose everything because of a slightly delayed reaction time even at a high level. Losing all your marines to banelings is nothing compared to losing high gas units like mutas or infestors in exchange for nothing.
Finally it's true that it doesn't really have a come-back unit, except maybe the broodlord and infestor against terran in some situations.
I'll add that it depends on the scenario. If you look at the reality of ZvT, Zerg has to be more defensive in the early game, so naturally it's going to be harder to scout and defend the push than it is to execute it. In other scenarios, for instance a roach ling against protoss, it's easy to execute and the protoss has to be the better player to repel it, and mistakes are less punitive for the zerg than the protoss (bad FF for instance).
|
On July 18 2011 12:10 STS17 wrote:
It's not just the total damage of the spell that people complain about. Fungal Growth completely shuts down any and all micro potential for the opposing army, and against anything that can't out range the spell (such as marines for example) a single fungal growth sets the units up to be repeatedly hit with the spell again and again until they die from the damage. Storm can be micro'd out of (so it's often 20-40 damage not 80) and force fields can be popped by massive units if you really need to get them out of the way (and only work on ground units, but still also allows the opposing units to micro to some extent).
Except Ghosts often take 3 snipes to kill an infester due to a bug* with Zerg Health Regeneration. While this by no means makes it impossible to use Ghosts to deal with infesters and Broodlords, it does make it quite APM intensive, and is certainly much more difficult to pull off then it is to play against (not that that is necessarily bad). I/BL is certainly powerful, but it is by no means unstoppable, just excruciatingly cost efficient.
*The cooldown on health regen for zerg units continues to tick while the unit is at full health so it recovers the first point of damage almost immediately when it takes its first portion of damage, as opposed to having to wait the duration of the cooldown to recover the first hitpoint. It is possible for two Ghosts to kill a single Infester in two snipes provided they are both told to snipe the same target and both do so within less than one tenth of a second of each other (to not allow the health point to regen), a single Ghost cannot kill an Infester in two Snipes because ZHR will kick in during the cooldown between the snipes leaving the Infester with 1hp after two snipes. It is this same bug that is the reason the 250mm Strike Cannon from the Thor will not kill an Ultralisk and why a Drone will always beat a Probe in a duel (with no micro).
You are right about the infestor regen leaving them with 1 health, and that needs to be fixed. 2 snipes from 2 ghosts cast in immediate succession should kill an infestor. However that only becomes noticeable if you put the ghosts on hold fire. Cloaking a group of ghosts and moving them to a group of infestors and sniping them will still take them all out really quickly. While the infestor is left with 1 health another regular shot from another ghost kills it when the snipes go off. I could still get 6 cloaked ghosts to take out over 20 infestors with snipe and standard fire. While this is APM intensive, standard BW play was more APM intensive.
The reason that I bring up the damage that FG does is because, that is what the main change was. It has a higher DPS than before. The old FG held down units twice as long, and nobody had a problem with it back then. It was strong, but people weren't crying about it.
When comparing the strength of FG and FF you have to look at all aspects of it. Sentries are cheaper, come out earlier, and FF requires less energy. They are much more prevalent than FG with more possibilities. Yes FG can be cast immediately after one ends, but that has actually been reduced by the change to FG. It is easier to micro your army, hit injects, and recast FG when you only have to do it every 8 seconds. The massive thing also kinda irrelevant in ZvP. Our ground massive unit, is terrible. Combat viability aside, tell an ultra to go forward to break a FF and it will instead turn around in circles and piss itself.
Part that makes this frustrating is that it is like watching somebody fail to take a nut off a bolt with a hammer and refuse to use the wrench right next to them. Terrans have all the tools for the job, but they just don't want to use them. Ghosts still get used in TvP, why is it that much harder to use them in TvZ. The only thing that I can see is that Terrans already have the tech labs on the barracks for the marauders in TvP, but in TvZ they have reactors.
I really don't like the current mentality going around of, "everything good the other guy has is imba because it works."
|
Massive units are held back by FG.
|
On July 18 2011 23:30 Sarsi wrote: Massive units are held back by FG.
No they are not, check Nesta / July in exhibition match for instance and the effect of FG on Ultras...
|
Ultras are special. They have an ability that makes them immune to special effects like that.
"Frenzied
Ultralisk is immune to snare, stun and mind control effects."
|
On July 19 2011 00:14 ArhK wrote:No they are not, check Nesta / July in exhibition match for instance and the effect of FG on Ultras...
They are rooted... Ultras have a special skill called "frenzy" which negates all root/stun/mindcontrol. All other units are rooted in place
|
|
|
|