Zerg officially suck

[evillesh]

60 bucks is alot of money.... thats like how many skyze lessons? We should use Skyze currency from now on.

Thanks, lol'd. Made my morning.
But I do agree with Skyze on what he said earlier.

[Gradius]

So I'll say it again: you're trying to get better at the game. A noble, if self-serving goal. I'm trying to make the game better. I know I won't be particularly better at the balanced version than the imbalanced version. That does not mean that I excuse Blizzard from not fixing the imbalance. Nor does it mean I ignore the imbalance that's obviously there.

The better option is the one that helps the greatest number of people. I can do more good for everyone by helping to raise Blizzard's awareness about the issue than by helping only myself.

That's not really a fair assessment. In reality you will not do much to balance this game; blizzard does not listen to public opinion when it comes to balance issues, and for good reason. They use their own data and at the end of the day they will make the calls regardless of if you've raised their awareness of the issue.

What really helps is to show people the right attitude to take until the day of balance comes, that being "ignore the imbalance so that you crush even more face when it finally is balanced" instead of "talk about the imbalance until it goes away".

See, my problem with opinions like your is this: they are founded the presumption that the game is balanced unless indisputable evidence suggests otherwise.

It's more of a "wait and see" attitude. Accusations of imbalance should require extraordinary evidence, because there's too many whiners and theorycrafters that can sway public opinion even if the game is already balanced.

Personally, I think much of the complaining comes from the fact that Zerg are harder to play. But there are lots of facets of this game that seem imbalanced because they simply require better control and multitasking than the opponent. I never complained about imbalance during the multiple times that I got steamrolled by some MMM army, but now I can handle it fine. But yes, if the metagame doesn't evolve to the point where these issues can be nullified, then balancing is required, hence the "wait and see" attitude.

[slyther83]

If Zerg aren't massively imbalanced then why will a comparable mix of zerg units lose horribly to a comparable mix of Terran? Go 200/200 and vs a Terran player. Everyone's excuse is that Zerg is a hit and run race now, blah blah blah. This is nothing like SC1 in the sense of balance.

Zerg T1 units are countered by all of Terran T1. Zerg T2 is countered by all of Terran T2. Zerg need to be one tier ahead of Terran to do well unit vs unit. Elsewise, you have to micro 5x more than the Terran player- that is not balance. Nor is it balance that Zerg need 2 bases to accomplish what everyone else can do from 1- specifically Terran.

Thor/Immortal are T2 and come out of the box with a ton of utility. Ultras are T3 and are absolutely horrible until you get them 4-5+ armor. Meanwhile there is no major benefit to massing Ultralisks vs mass Thors/Immortals, both of which are ranged. Even Marauders wreck Ultras, as Marauder +armor damage (T1) rivals that of Ultralisks (T3). Mutalisks can harass but are easily stopped by a few well placed defensive structures. Spore colonies cost too much and perform poorly in comparison to the cheaper Terran turrets. Zerg have to spawn a queen from their hatchery to produce units at the same rates chrono/warp/labs do, and yet this prevents them from teching as Terran/Protoss can while doing so.

Melee/shortrange in this game performs poorly and unfortunately that comprises 90% of Zerg units. Corruptor Corruption is outright terrible, as it is only effective vs capital ships or Thors. Infestors pale in comparison to the utility HT/Ghosts have. Zerglings kept the same hp as SC1, got reduced attack speed, and yet Marines get more hp and stim with an immediately available upgrade.

BroodLords are Zerg's only siege unit and lay in T3 (with Ultras OFC) and are horribly countered by Vikings, Terran's cheap first available flying unit. Vikings can range BroodLords from atop defenses or armies and prevent the BL from doing anything useful. Zerg have no ranged units to stop this. BL need more than 220hp and 1 armor for their T3 location and cost of 300/250.

I can come up with more, such as +1 range for Roaches and speed for Hydras. These balance changes would at best bring Zerg up to par with Terran, and even then maybe not- FACT.

[Jabber Wookie]

If Zerg aren't massively imbalanced then why will a comparable mix of zerg units lose horribly to a comparable mix of Terran? Go 200/200 and vs a Terran player. Everyone's excuse is that Zerg is a hit and run race now, blah blah blah. This is nothing like SC1 in the sense of balance.

Zerg T1 units are countered by all of Terran T1. Zerg T2 is countered by all of Terran T2. Zerg need to be one tier ahead of Terran to do well unit vs unit. Elsewise, you have to micro 5x more than the Terran player- that is not balance. Nor is it balance that Zerg need 2 bases to accomplish what everyone else can do from 1- specifically Terran.

Thor/Immortal are T2 and come out of the box with a ton of utility. Ultras are T3 and are absolutely horrible until you get them 4-5+ armor. Meanwhile there is no major benefit to massing Ultralisks vs mass Thors/Immortals, both of which are ranged. Even Marauders wreck Ultras, as Marauder +armor damage (T1) rivals that of Ultralisks (T3). Mutalisks can harass but are easily stopped by a few well placed defensive structures. Spore colonies cost too much and perform poorly in comparison to the cheaper Terran turrets. Zerg have to spawn a queen from their hatchery to produce units at the same rates chrono/warp/labs do, and yet this prevents them from teching as Terran/Protoss can while doing so.

Melee/shortrange in this game performs poorly and unfortunately that comprises 90% of Zerg units. Corruptor Corruption is outright terrible, as it is only effective vs capital ships or Thors. Infestors pale in comparison to the utility HT/Ghosts have. Zerglings kept the same hp as SC1, got reduced attack speed, and yet Marines get more hp and stim with an immediately available upgrade.

BroodLords are Zerg's only siege unit and lay in T3 (with Ultras OFC) and are horribly countered by Vikings, Terran's cheap first available flying unit. Vikings can range BroodLords from atop defenses or armies and prevent the BL from doing anything useful. Zerg have no ranged units to stop this. BL need more than 220hp and 1 armor for their T3 location and cost of 300/250.

I can come up with more, such as +1 range for Roaches and speed for Hydras. These balance changes would at best bring Zerg up to par with Terran, and even then maybe not- FACT.

Not to mention zerg's tier 3 units can only attack ground. What's up with that? Thors and BCs attack air and ground. Carriers, archons, and motherships attack air and ground. Why does zerg get the shaft on this?

For ultras, It's perfectly fine and balanceable because they still destroy most ground armies before air armies can stop them. Also, their HP provides you enough time to build some anti-air units.

But it's a bummer if you finally tech to brood lords and your hydras are outnumbered leaving you with lings, banelings, roaches, ultras, etc. to defend your BLs, which is impossible. I know you could make corruptors, but then if they reinforce their ground army with more anti-air ground units, you're screwed again.

Zerg just lacks the unit composition it needs to be on par with T and P. Those races are almost unstoppable as zerg if they're decent enough players to get a healthy unit composition and stay even with your economy.

You shouldn't be required to perform better at both macro and micro to win at zerg, that's not balance. Yes, Cool and some other players can do this, but it doesn't mean it's balanced, it just means they're that good.

[Norfindel]

Well, Terran units also kill Toss units easily early game. I suppose that the Marauder is still stronger vs the Roach, but should be weaker against the Zerglings than it's against Zealots (which are pretty much disabled, and serve mostly as damage soakers). What about Banelings?

[dustinbrowder]

Well, Terran units also kill Toss units easily early game. I suppose that the Marauder is still stronger vs the Roach, but should be weaker against the Zerglings than it's against Zealots (which are pretty much disabled, and serve mostly as damage soakers). What about Banelings?

Banelings are effective, but again you need twice the effort to make them useful. And they are useful if you make double the damage with them, compared to their cost.

Zerglings(50), burrow(100min and 100gas), Baneling(1 zergling, 25min and 25gas), Centrifugal Hooks (150min and 150gas).
Total cost = 325min and 275gas and 254 seconds or 4 minutes and 14 seconds.

So with this math it shows that Banelings can only be effective when you have at least 20 of them to spread the cost and time and you need to use all 20 of them(to explode and not loose even 1) to make more damage than they are worth.

Considering Terrans have the scan means they don't need to go for a detector unit and almost negates Zerg's burrow investment for banelings.

[Todie]

i still enjoy zvz, and i still hardly play banelings.... its never baneling vs baneling anyway. I still FE when i can, scout early enough to find 6-8 pools and defend, kill offensive spines, and love defensive queens and queen pushes. I wish i knew matchup winrate because zvz would probably be my highest.

i think im in a similar place in this match-up .. which doesnt surpsie me given our previously tied stats (im lacking some games lately though)

In reality you will not do much to balance this game; blizzard does not listen to public opinion when it comes to balance issues, and for good reason. They use their own data and at the end of the day they will make the calls regardless of if you've raised their awareness of the issue.

What really helps is to show people the right attitude to take until the day of balance comes, that being "ignore the imbalance so that you crush even more face when it finally is balanced" instead of "talk about the imbalance until it goes away".[...]

i think raising awareness of an issue in a balanced way has a worth of its own, especially as it can help marginalize less rational ramblings about perceived imbalances.

... and lets acknowledge that these irrational ramblings will "always" continue to exist, and to most players that are at all fooled by these, the "ignore the imbalance" isnt very appealing or convincing.

... i think we can have a constructive discussion about game balance if we chill out for a bit and get less anxious about proving the other side wrong.
As Nicol Bolas points out, starting out with refuting the possibility of any kind of imbalance is in no way constructive to the discussion.

.. this discussion shouldnt be "is or isnt zerg underpowered" - because even if we could agree on that, it wouldnt really matter. Instead, this discussion should be "if zerg is underpowered - what is the problem?"

... to the point. The one thing i feel certain still stands from Nicols initial argumentation is zergs higher dependancy on scouting - im realizing that for the most part we do have the tools to scout, but a scouting failure at a crucial time can arguably have more grave consequences for a zerg player than for a terran or protoss.

this is based on the assumption of zerg as a reactionary race, that tries to cut corners whenever possible (in the way of making more drones asap & taking additional epxos sooner); cutting corners in the dark is dangerous.

One question is, can we scale back on the corner-cutting in dark times without falling behind? (like skyze said, making additional queens earlygame is a good way to stay safer even not knowing what is coming) ... Nicols argument on this point is that zerg lacks a versatile early option equivalent of stalkers and marines to do this. (queens cant be offensive) im torn on this, because he has a point, though its clearly not as simple as that; there are tradeoffs as well as ways around this problem. we should elaborate on this part. (one thing remains sure though: queens cant retake the map control given by air units. not until they'e allowed to amass creep for quite a few minutes)

a second question is, can we scale up our scouting efforts to minimize risks of surprises in an organized fashion? ... i feel like this -during the earlygame - can only be done up to a certain extent. and due to overlord vulnerability it comes with some risks and requires a backup plan (if you try & fail to scout enough for voidray / banshee, you need to prepare for it anyway).

something concrete i doubt people do enough is poking at a front with enough units to raise attention and require a reaction - as a decoy for sending OL(s) in - and possibly get needed intel as well as go back out to safety.. OL's take time and manpwoer to shoot down; it makes sense to divide opponents forces & attention at such times (then again,FF & concussive shells are sceary enough devices of defense to guarantee loss of units)


.. there's much to be done with how we play zerg, perhaps more than with the other races. but that doesnt necessarily mean that perceived problems cant also be real balance problems. a slight increase in overlord movement speed might do wonders!

[Gifted]

That's not really a fair assessment. In reality you will not do much to balance this game; blizzard does not listen to public opinion when it comes to balance issues, and for good reason. They use their own data and at the end of the day they will make the calls regardless of if you've raised their awareness of the issue.

While this has a lot of truth to it Gradius, the information I have is that there is a little public opinion sway.

As I've had in discussions with people who work there, as well as they've said in their own forums, Threads with high amounts of replies create beacons which help them view the data more. This doesn't mean that the population is right, but when a large amount of people complained about the issue of proxy zealot rushes or Reaper/tank pains, they were able to take that information and examine the data to consider if it had merit or not.

But other cases, such as complaints about Marauders, will cause them to look into the data and find different results... so far.

[Norfindel]

I wonder what did they checked. Having the data is one thing, having the right criteria for interpreting it is another.

[Skyze]

HOPEFULLY after this massive rape that Cool is putting on in the GSL finals, all this "zerg sucks" chat can be put to rest..

Its so one sided right now, and keep in mind the terran is IntoTheRainbow, easily one of the most accomplished BW progamers, getting totally dominated by a zerg.

So yea.. Stop with the "wahh zerg are underpowered".. They clearly are not.