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.
http:
The other maps are just pure crap
I really love La Mancha :D
Tbh I think Blizz should just copy BW maps and make some changes and make it look different because the rest of their maps are just utter trash tbh...
it would had been funny if maptest 1 was a desert map too lol
On July 19 2011 02:08 hehe wrote: lol heres blizzard for the new maps
1.COPY BROODWAR MAPS
2.ADD WATCH TOWERS IN MIDDLE AND DESTRUCTIBLE ROCKS AND BACK DOORS FOR CREATIVE PLAY which actually makes the game 100 times worse
Test Map 1 doesn't have back doors, and the only rocks in the current version are the ones that help you wall, which is actually kind of interesting (and thank god blizz is getting creative with these things).
The only issues with test map 1 right now are
1. In horizontal spawns, thirds are a little awkward. 2. The elevator siege of your main.
I don't know how bad the elevatoring will be. Getting your expansion sieged on TA is almost as bad, but it's easier to counter-attack/cut of reinforcements. You might have to get a spine or two in your main though, and that kind of sucks. I guess we'll see how it plays. If you run banelings into that choke, there's no where for marines to run; it's a dead-end.
On July 18 2011 14:00 DooMDash wrote: It's not just refuse to innovate, it's refuse to innovate compared to Terran and Protoss. I've seen much more creativity out of P and T than Z's. Day9 said it best when I'd say 90% of the SCII time Zergs were literally just picking a random number to drone to and then building their army... that's not innovation. Recently things have started to change with Zergs, and only recently has Zerg actually been doing well at high level... coincidence?
The problem is not innovation. Z's try to innovate all the time, the problem is that the ZvT/P matchups are so incredibly fragile that it is very difficult to find something that actually work. On top of that Zerg has the fewest combat units of all the races, at least one of which is almost useless in most situations *cough* hydra *cough*. It is a mathematical fact that Zerg has fewer potential options than T/P, which makes innovating a lot more difficult.
There have been many pro games where every zerg units gets built over the course of the game. How often do you see pro games that see the use of Ravens, Carriers, Warp Prisms, reapers, Battle cruisers, etc.. Zerg players are already using all of their units in games, there isn't much left to be innovative with other than timings.
Which is why this statement is very important:
Day9 said it best when I'd say 90% of the SCII time Zergs were literally just picking a random number to drone to and then building their army... that's not innovation.
That is about all the innovation you can do as zerg. Drone timing is a very very important part of playing zerg. The decision to build drones or units at a given time is like walking the razor's edge. The wrong choice between drones/units can mean the difference between winning and losing the game at all levels of play. Too many units and you are behind on econ, too many drones and you just die. The game is far too complicated to come up with an analytic solution to optimal drone timing, therefore the only alternative is the monte-carlo method. Eventually you figure out exactly how many units you need to make to live based on information obtained through scouting. Figuring out that balance is the hard part.
P/T have plenty of wiggle room to be creative with. Strong defenses, efficient units, and relatively forgiving mechanics make it much easier to be 'creative' without dying. Zerg players don't have that option. Zerg can't wall, all the tech times are significantly longer, and Zerg is extremely vulnerable to air.
The fact that game balance for ZvX is so map dependent is another design flaw. A large dependence on melee / short range units makes zerg incredibly vulnerable to terrain abuse. This is something that really needs to be fixed in HOTS.
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 19 2011 13:17 L3gendary wrote: Sorry if this has been answered already but i didn't wanna read 38 pages. Do we know wat maps are being taken out?
I don't think we'll know until the season is up, the entire PTR pool was the new maps.
The most frustrating thing about playing zerg is the lack of offensive capabilities in early game. There really isn't a very strong build like 2rax or 4 gate that will utterly destroy T/P if they're not prepared for it. 6pool was the only thing close to this, but it's not easy to transition out of. And since larva limitation does not allow drones and army units at once, doing any sort of attack will guarantee that you will lose to T/P due to walloffs. It's not really imbalance, but more like stupid game design that makes zerg always the defensive race for the first 7 minutes of every game. I wish zergs can walloff easier...maybe that would change everything.
On July 19 2011 16:06 neoghaleon55 wrote: The most frustrating thing about playing zerg is the lack of offensive capabilities in early game. There really isn't a very strong build like 2rax or 4 gate that will utterly destroy T/P if they're not prepared for it. 6pool was the only thing close to this, but it's not easy to transition out of. And since larva limitation does not allow drones and army units at once, doing any sort of attack will guarantee that you will lose to T/P due to walloffs. It's not really imbalance, but more like stupid game design that makes zerg always the defensive race for the first 7 minutes of every game. I wish zergs can walloff easier...maybe that would change everything.
Well there is the 5/7 Roach Rush, even though the build is pretty bad. But you have to keep one thing in mind. Zerg can expand super early AND defend against early aggression. Image a protoss going for a nexus first on say XelNagaCaverns.. instant gg. Would be pretty sick, if zerg could expand at 14 AND apply pressure against toss/terran...
Well there is the 5/7 Roach Rush, even though the build is pretty bad. But you have to keep one thing in mind. Zerg can expand super early AND defend against early aggression. Image a protoss going for a nexus first on say XelNagaCaverns.. instant gg. Would be pretty sick, if zerg could expand at 14 AND apply pressure against toss/terran...
why expand AND apply pressure. I think most zergs would be happier if the could saty on 1 base for a period of time (like P/T), apply agression and THEN get their expansion. But that doesnt work. You HAVE to hatch early. And for protoss... thats a pretty bad example. In fact you can nexus first on some maps AND apply pressure to the zerg (forge) or forge -> nexus and then even pressure a zerg/delay his hatch when he went pool first
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.
the problem is scouting. without scouting you will make like 30 drones and then stop because you're scared because you know the opponent has a big army... so you make army and then don't get a chance to make drones.
on the other hand, if you have a drone/ling outside opponent base and on the towers, and overlord spotting for drops etc, then you can make far more workers than your opponent which translates to playing the game on easy mode.
get the required tech and expand, but not too quickly, then as soon as you see the opponent move out of their base, you can power a huge army to completely overwhelm.
to put it simply, if all players had map hack, then zerg would be rediculously overpowered.
or to put it another way, good zerg players are impossible to beat unless they make a mistake.
On July 18 2011 21:53 MilesTeg wrote: 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).
While I see why people are annoyed at the "Protoss whining", the idea that Protoss can make less mistakes is a fact in my opinion.
One reason is that the race is more dependant on timing pushes due to Zerg's production nature, and the fact that it (usually) trades a weaker mobility for more offense. One missed timing and you're behind forever.
Another reason is that many of its units are low speed, power units (unlike what the "Zerg units suck because they can be microed" crowd seems to imply), and it's very easy to lose everything because of a slightly mispositioned army even at a high level. Losing all your Roaches to Blink Stalkers is nothing compared to getting countered and losing 30 probes in exchange for nothing.
Finally it's true that it doesn't really have a come-back unit, except maybe the DT and drops against Zerg in some situations where they don't put up adequate defense at their expos.
I'll add that it depends on the scenario. If you look at the reality of PvZ, Protoss has to be more offensive in the early game, so naturally it's going to be harder to tech and expand than it is to put up a couple of spine crawlers and pump roaches. In other scenarios, for instance a roach ling against protoss, it's even easier 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 21:53 MilesTeg wrote: 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).
While I see why people are annoyed at the "Protoss whining", the idea that Protoss can make less mistakes is a fact in my opinion.
One reason is that the race is more dependant on timing pushes due to Zerg's production nature, and the fact that it (usually) trades a weaker mobility for more offense. One missed timing and you're behind forever.
Another reason is that many of its units are low speed, power units (unlike what the "Zerg units suck because they can be microed" crowd seems to imply), and it's very easy to lose everything because of a slightly mispositioned army even at a high level. Losing all your Roaches to Blink Stalkers is nothing compared to getting countered and losing 30 probes in exchange for nothing.
Finally it's true that it doesn't really have a come-back unit, except maybe the DT and drops against Zerg in some situations where they don't put up adequate defense at their expos.
I'll add that it depends on the scenario. If you look at the reality of PvZ, Protoss has to be more offensive in the early game, so naturally it's going to be harder to tech and expand than it is to put up a couple of spine crawlers and pump roaches. In other scenarios, for instance a roach ling against protoss, it's even easier 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).
Any Terran players want to do their version?
Except.... your post didn't make any sense at all. People like you are why it's impossible to have a discussion on this subject. If you can't have a non biased and emotional reaction to what I think are valid points, please refrain from posting.
On July 19 2011 16:06 neoghaleon55 wrote: The most frustrating thing about playing zerg is the lack of offensive capabilities in early game. There really isn't a very strong build like 2rax or 4 gate that will utterly destroy T/P if they're not prepared for it. 6pool was the only thing close to this, but it's not easy to transition out of. And since larva limitation does not allow drones and army units at once, doing any sort of attack will guarantee that you will lose to T/P due to walloffs. It's not really imbalance, but more like stupid game design that makes zerg always the defensive race for the first 7 minutes of every game. I wish zergs can walloff easier...maybe that would change everything.
If zerg early game vulnerability was made the same as T/P the game would not be as dynamic and exciting as it is now. Each race has different strengths/weaknesses based on the stage in the game, and because some races are vulnerable at particular times (zerg early game for instance) this encourages more engagements. If these timing windows of vulnerability did not exist games would become more turtley and SC2 would not be the awesome game that it is.
A simple example is Terran vs Zerg in the mid game. Zerg can get a good number of muta before Terran easily defend 2 base (and esp 3 base) from them. Eventually terran can get enough defense (Thors/Turrets/Marines) to put an end to muta harass, but because a timing window existed for the muta the zerg is incented to harass for a while, which leads to a more interesting game.
Constant engagements is what makes the game great. Zerg fending off attacks/pressure for the first 7 minutes as you say... is a good thing... as the alternative is that both sides build up for 10 - 15 minutes before any attacks can take place, which can be a real snoozer to play/watch.