SC2 Patch 1.1 announced (Due Mid Sept)

seraphimvc · 29-09-2010 01:46AM

ultras is tier3.5 - pool->Lair->infest pit->Lair->Ultra den

thor is tier2.5 - rax->factory+techlab->armory

seeing now ultras no longer cost efficient against thors, can anyone justify the tech tree i stated above?

dont tell me to use broodlord - you need tier4 unit to deal with them is a nonsense and thor has crazy AA dps. plus not to mention that when the time he gets 7 thors you will probably just started making your 1st broodlord.

so lets say i dont like to gamble my game by using NP, my only viable option is mass blings+lings and some mutas? and that will only work if the terran didnt get any tank/marauder/marine? seriously, blizzard? why dont you just get rid of this race lol

NeoSlicerZ · 29-09-2010 02:56AM

Thor has terrible aa dps vs broodlords, utter trash, worse if you micro so that your air isn't clumped. QQ more and play on more macro orientated maps with more possibilities for flanking. Oh wait, now you'll complain zerg is more mechanically difficult.

TheDoc · 29-09-2010 10:20AM

There is no problem for me with the designers telling us what race they like/play/prefer.

Its kinda what makes them a good publisher, they get stuck into the games they make big time.

I'd hardly say its the reason Zerg are "****".

Zerg are a hard race to play and manage, I think its very much the issue that bad players or mediocre players are the issue rather then the race.

Jonny7 · 29-09-2010 11:25AM

As a zerg/random player I don't feel that zerg are so awful. They just lack a few options early on and making need some balancing there, but later in the game they are excellent.

However Terran are quite strong at the moment, no denying, the last dozen or so winners of the Zotac cup have been Terran and pretty much everywhere else they are dominating. This is what happened in Starcraft 1 as well, it will just take Blizzard a few patches to get this right, have patience. Sure its only 1.1.

Also try not to focus purely on units and dps, focus on zerg advantages, e.g. the mobility of speedlings and mutas, the threat of drops/worms, infestor use, etc.

DeVore · 29-09-2010 02:57PM

I've stopped playing now except for the Tuesday night games and thats because those are fun games between mates.

I bought Civ 5 and I'm finding it more rewarding and more enjoyable, though its a very different game of course.

The one point I would make is that in Civ 5, the cities (think, bases/buildings) shoot back. This means that while your early troops are good for combat with other early troops, and good for expanding to discover new territory and resources, you cant rush the other players, their cities are effectively immune from all but a seriously determined push until midgame.

This changes the dynamic from "first to get a force wins" to "get out there and grab land". I think this is a big issue for SC at the moment... quite frankly, I'm bored stupid playing the same 10 minutes every game. I'm not the best player in the world, its true but then there are bad Terran players and bad Toss players too, but they arent additionally hampered by their race.

While people may troll and say Zerg players are crying, does anyone think they are ok at the moment? Or should it just be labeled "hard mode" and be done with it, because if we are saying you shouldnt play them as a mediocre player, then thats effectively the same thing.

I'll continue to play SC2 (I think I might like to learn Toss) but mostly because I like the crew here and I like the craic. The game itself has become something of a disappointment to me. I wanted something which was strategic, this is tactical. I was looking for something more epic, this is a grubby fight between a handful of low level troops.

I still contend (and always have done) that 2v2 is where the real skill in SC is, but its said to see 1v1 degrade into Rushcraft and I must admit its loosing its appeal to me.

But I guess you can dismiss my analysis as a whingy Zerg player... :rolleyes:

DeV.

RoyalMarine · 29-09-2010 03:07PM

DeVore wrote: »

but its said to see 1v1 degrade into Rushcraft and I must admit its loosing its appeal to me.

But I guess you can dismiss my analysis as a whingy Zerg player... :rolleyes:

DeV.

still hate you for 6 pooling me.

but completly agree with you on all that, and im after getting civ 5 too, and have to admit it makes me a lot happier to play than starcraft 2 at the moment.

pixelburp · 29-09-2010 03:18PM

DeVore wrote: »

[...]This changes the dynamic from "first to get a force wins" to "get out there and grab land". I think this is a big issue for SC at the moment... quite frankly, I'm bored stupid playing the same 10 minutes every game. I'm not the best player in the world, its true but then there are bad Terran players and bad Toss players too, but they arent additionally hampered by their race.

While people may troll and say Zerg players are crying, does anyone think they are ok at the moment? Or should it just be labeled "hard mode" and be done with it, because if we are saying you shouldnt play them as a mediocre player, then thats effectively the same thing.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, although the more I thought about it, Zerg can be the most rewarding team to play as - maybe that's the same as saying "hard mode", I dunno. Yes, they're harder to win with allright, and by god they have enough disadvantages for two factions, and it can feel very dispiriting to play against clumsy Terrans who just mush you with their MMM steamroller, but when you hit the sweet spot with some Mutas / speedlings the feeling of satisfaction at the end is quite high. Maybe it's because you know you really earned that victory and probably caused the other fella to scream loudly at his monitor

DeVore wrote: »

I still contend (and always have done) that 2v2 is where the real skill in SC is, but its said to see 1v1 degrade into Rushcraft and I must admit its loosing its appeal to me. [...]

DeV.

In fairness, I've played my fair share of RTS games down the years and I can't think of a single RTS that hasn't - at some point in its patch history - descended into a game of rushing. I never really took to SC1 so can't comment there, but from C&C to Company of Heroes, I could list half a dozen cheesy rush tactics that caused annoyance and screams of "OP!", whether justified or not. Hell, in the case of CoH, probably the greatest modern RTS out there, it's been broken since the last major balance patch.

Unless you block bases off with rocks completely, I doubt there's any realistic way you could remove rushing from the RTS game.

DeVore · 29-09-2010 03:19PM

Actually, 6-pooling you was a sign of weakness I felt against Terran. Previously (ie: SC1) I wouldnt 6 pool because its an idiotic strategy with a low probability of success and massive downside to your econ. The % chance of success in early game, simply wasnt enough to justify the reduction of chance in mid-late game. Zerg were strong mid game with Hydras and so throwing most of your eggs into a 6-pool rush was sub-optimal since you damaged your chances at the 1.5-2 tier timeframe.

Now however I feel that that equation has changed. I felt my chances pretty much degrade linearly with time as Zerg. If you dont win by rushing (either out right or crippling their econ) then as length-of-game increases the chances for a Zerg win decrease. Consequently, that made an early game gambit worth the shot as with some surprise added in you can bump the chances of a win at the stage when the Zerg has the best chances of winning, right at the Zergling stage.

Bluewing's (perfectly legitimate) win last night with a single void ray just punctuated the problem for me. Thats not a criticism of BW, not in the slightest. He did what was needed to get the win and thats what a game is all about. in fact fair f*cks to him, he didnt cheat, he wasnt underhand, he played the game as the rules are set and won, fair and square. But this isnt a war game any more, its a mixture of economic chicken and rock-paper-scissor.

Add to that the balance issues and suddenly there are better ways to spend an evening. Which really is a shame.

DeV.

DeVore · 29-09-2010 03:26PM

Pixelburp, try Civ 5 lol.... an early rush is somewhere in the "10 hours into a fast game" region. A mate and I have been playing an 8-player "fast" game hardcore for over 12 hours (real time) and we just eliminated the second player.

I think the addition of buildings hitting back would radically change the game and I wonder if it would be hard to mod...

Imagine you could leave your base undefended at the start and head out looking for places to set up expansion asap. You'd have to send troups with your drones to avoid them being killed (because the enemy troups wouldnt target your buildings) and you would want to target your enemies expeditionary forces because you would want to stop him expanding (just as you are intent on doing!).

Choking would be idiotic. Rushing would be idiotic. Higher tier troups would barely notice the return fire of the buildings so once you had progressed up the tech tree then the battle of bases could begin but by then players would have 2,3,4 expansions and the war would TRUELY be on.

DeV.

NeoSlicerZ · 29-09-2010 03:41PM

Zerg is somewhat lacking right now but as a race they're harder to play than terran. The latest State of the Game podcast covered it well. High level team games are filled with some of the most ridiculous **** possible. Reaper/speedling all. How the hell you manage to have a game longer than 15 minutes is amazing and how is "I'm going to sit back and mass this ONE unit!" fun. Zerg endgame is the part people QQ about LEAST. It's their early game that suffers right now. 4 pooling in bw isn't really that idiotice. Jaedong 4 pooled flash twice last OSL.

As for blue wing with a single void ray, he chose a high risk/reward strat and it paid off.

The maps are currently the problem imo.

BluE-WinG · 29-09-2010 04:13PM

Thanks lads for not slagging me on my choice of tactic, I did do what was needed to win- that is how I am a diamond player, although I am constantly watching replays trying to improve the midgame (that I never get to). The longest game I have in the 1v1 league is 9minutes (most 7-8mins), I have started to become a short game specialist, and it works (for now)

DeVore: youre right it is a bit of rock paper scissors, but I believe blizzard will start to sort this out with future patches, the game isnt perfect yet, but theyre trying.

DeVore: I was a massive Civilization fan, from the very first one in Dos, Civ5 looks the part, does it play as good as IV and III? If I enjoyed those, will I enjoy V?

Neo: I hear alot of people stating the maps are the problem, why is this? They seem symmetrical to me, is it due to the fact they favour some races over others, and why? Id love some examples as I dont understand this.

NeoSlicerZ · 29-09-2010 04:45PM

Try playing a game on the iCCup maps, the gameplay varies quite a bit. The current maps are really too small and it favours one army play barring terrans dropping everywhere... This also makes it harder for zerg to expo freely. Naturals even are pretty exposed, there is NOT symmetry on a lot of maps to boot. It takes 2 gateways + forge to do my f/e PvZ build on metalopolis in the 9oclock position compared to the 3 and 6 and positioning is somewhat dodgy in the 12. Admittedly, you can 4gate any map but the maps themselves don't tend towards a macro orientated game. I prefer to take the game into mid-late game since that's when the toss army starts to get powerful.

I'm sorting out my lategame right now (after getting SURPRISE ULTRAS in my face too many times to speak of). Zerg gets surprisingly powerful (if you can macro well) on a map like Match Point, not to say anything about fighting spirit.

Shiminay · 29-09-2010 05:52PM

I can understand the points you're making DeV, but this isn't just a game, it's Starcraft. It's bigger than just any other RTS if you get my meaning. It has to be instantly competitive at a pro level and that's a lot of pressure for Blizzard

You say you're not enjoying it, but you are playing it with very competitive people in this group, a lot of whom are Diamond. I get beaten in pretty much every game I play, but I think I'm getting better. I'm still enjoying the game and I'm really enjoying the Tuesday nights thing - reminds me a lot of the fun we used to have back in the day.

This idea of buildings "hitting back" seems mad to me. Unless you allow for the stationing of troops inside every building and thus eliminating the need for Terran Bunkers? Building base defences is just as much a part of the game as attacking the enemy's base

For what it's worth, I don't think the game is right. MMM is too easy to with with and Zerg really do have a tough time of it.

BTW, Blue, I *loved* the void-ray rush, I'm definitely giving that a try

The second game was you just catching Xios out of place with a couple of Zealots, I'd imagine he'd say that was a far assessment

His only defence might've been to sacrafice some lings and a queen tbh, it's something I think we all agree that other race Tier 1 "rush" units are in better shape to dominate Zerg rush units.

DeVore · 29-09-2010 08:50PM

To be fair, I liked the void ray rush too. It was perfect games playing. You are given an environment (rules etc) and may the best man win. It was an innovative rush to be fair to you but it just was so far from the SC I want to play (of major battles over resource points) that I felt a bit let down by the game....

I dont want to compete on "Actions Per Minute" with some ADD riddled Korean teenager

Thats not the game I want to play (no offence to any Korean teenagers out there

)

DeV.

Funky · 29-09-2010 10:28PM

The problem's mainly with the current map pool on bnet, they cater more to one base all-in rushes than they do a macro orientated game. There's alot of rushes for toss/terran, less so for zerg, that are pretty hard to deal with unless you're used to incorporating a counter to them into your build. Even in GSL you see people often doing 1 base rushes but if you watch Brood War they pretty much never ever have a 1 base build unless it's a cheese build. Not that that's a bad thing or anything. Sure in the OSL finals Jaedong 5 pooled twice.

Like Neo said though, the iccup maps cater to longer games more than the current map pool and I'm pretty sure for high level tournaments and leagues they'll eventually become the norm.

Kirby · 30-09-2010 12:46AM

Exactly. Some of the official maps lack imagination.

Personally, I would add two entrances to every starting base on all maps....not just a couple of them. It makes for more interesting early play early. Some diversity in strats more often. Wall off and pump MMM, and a 4 gate. the vast majority of players just go through the motions. It shouldn't be this easy. So add more entrances. Larger ramps like on scrap station. Make players work.

I also think zerg could use another tier 1 unit to harass with. Something reaper-esque. Zerg are a harass race and you simply can't do it effectively early on in the game due to easy wall in. Muta harass is incredible, but tier 2 requirements means it won't alter your opponents build order....which is what zerg need badly. As a zerg player, you spend the first ten minutes adjusting to what your opponent is doing. They never adjust to yours.

I just think should be much stronger than they are in the early game. The only option you have as an early gambit is a 6 or 7 pool rush and thats not very appealing tbh.

TheDoc · 01-10-2010 09:38AM

I still feel its more players not being able to utilise zerg properly mostly.

Its easy to jump on the " my race is weak" bandwagon. I saw it all the time in WoW.

Bad players, not being able to maximise their class, saying how their class was weak.

Zerg is tough there is no doubt, but I've seen plenty of good players make mince meat of their opponents.

I'm still yet to buy into the Zerg is weak thing, might be me just being cold hearted, but I'm seeing so many top players saying they are picking up Zerg, I think its to simply show everyone zerg arnt as rubbish as everyone thinks.

Also remember games like this get balanced from the top tier and work their way down. You dont buff a race to help average to novice players.

I think its very much just a case Zerg hasnt been fully utilized yet, or there arnt enough good zergs.

If there was a serious problem it would have been addressed, or we would have been told " its being addressed"

Shiminay · 01-10-2010 11:13AM

For DeV:

Thank you Gabe and Tycho

NeoSlicerZ · 01-10-2010 10:26PM

Remove the dark shrine. Templar tech out of the archives! Surviving midgame till templar tech is a pipe dream vs T.

DeVore · 02-10-2010 12:03AM

Kharn wrote: »

For DeV:

Thank you Gabe and Tycho

Dav... I think I love you. LOL

DeV.

ps: My mates and I have been playing Civ for 166 turns which is approximately 8-10 hours solid. I just created a swordsman. Its an amazing game but its about as far from SC as it gets

VenomIreland · 02-10-2010 01:05AM

166 turns took you 8-10 hours?

Took me 366 turns to reach 7 hours/

DeVore · 02-10-2010 01:23AM

3 player multiplayer, two of whom are learning the game.... it means every turn is someones "turn to do things" rather then giving things a few instructions and hitting next a few times.

Its awesome fun in multi but I hope I can finish it before I , you know, die.
SC2 has the advantage that at least I can screw things up and lose *quickly*

DeV.

RoyalMarine · 02-10-2010 01:26AM

DeVore wrote: »

3 player multiplayer, two of whom are learning the game.... it means every turn is someones "turn to do things" rather then giving things a few instructions and hitting next a few times.

Its awesome fun in multi but I hope I can finish it before I , you know, die.
SC2 has the advantage that at least I can screw things up and lose *quickly*

DeV.

dev how are you finding it so far? any signs of slow down like civ 3 suffered from?

seraphimvc · 02-10-2010 11:26AM

NeoSlicerZ wrote: »

Zerg is somewhat lacking right now but as a race they're harder to play than terran. The latest State of the Game podcast covered it well. High level team games are filled with some of the most ridiculous **** possible. Reaper/speedling all. How the hell you manage to have a game longer than 15 minutes is amazing and how is "I'm going to sit back and mass this ONE unit!" fun. Zerg endgame is the part people QQ about LEAST. It's their early game that suffers right now. 4 pooling in bw isn't really that idiotice. Jaedong 4 pooled flash twice last OSL.

As for blue wing with a single void ray, he chose a high risk/reward strat and it paid off.

The maps are currently the problem imo.

:pac: as zerg is about fending off early crazy harass (from Terran) because we know once we hit late game with ultras we have the game right there.

I kinda 'QQ' some days ago saying i am staying away from sc2 is because i am going to holidays

and if you read clearly what i said, and you fully understand about this ultras 1.1.1 neff - this ultras neff brings nothing to the already weakest race in sc2 and more importantly it is a big discouraging act from blizzard basically saying: 'FUUU, zerg player, s*ck it up,okay?'.

it is not me the only one feel highly unfair to this 1.1.1 change. look around TL and us/eu bnet forum,i believe it is the only sc2 topic on bnet forum atm has the most official responses from blizzard. eventually blizzard even came up officially saying that ultras are BUGGED since beta/launch, 1.1.1 is what their attack aoe is intended. if you cant see whats wrong with blizzard atm then what can i say more.

NeoSlicerZ wrote: »

Thor has terrible aa dps vs broodlords, utter trash, worse if you micro so that your air isn't clumped. QQ more and play on more macro orientated maps with more possibilities for flanking. Oh wait, now you'll complain zerg is more mechanically difficult.

try it, bro. go get someone play blords vs thors. LOL. hint: no player on earth will have their army consisted of merely thors vs blords. and i am not even bother with that you didnt see how crazy thor AA dps is - in reality, your broodlords will never outnumber his thors anyway. (i know, 1 blord can take 1 thor, but try it in a real game, you will feel whats the reality.)

and people stop saying like Zerg is a harder race to manage etc - THIS is exactly why people are screaming this race is IMBA right now. It is not supposed to be 'oh look, is zerg, it is harder to play'.

if SC is not the most game mechanic balance RTS out there (yes, despite this zerg nonsense), i wont even bother with this neff/buff etc - i can change to any race can make me win games, like any RTS i played. but i love zerg so much and i will never change race and in the end of the day it is just a product, as a customer I am fully entitled to be unhappy when blizzard did something pissed me off. (is not like blizzard care about our player feeling either:p)

also, 1.1.1 comes with this embarrassing phoenix bug, if anyone notice yet:P

seraphimvc · 02-10-2010 11:32AM

TheDoc wrote: »

I still feel its more players not being able to utilise zerg properly mostly.

Its easy to jump on the " my race is weak" bandwagon. I saw it all the time in WoW.

Bad players, not being able to maximise their class, saying how their class was weak.

Zerg is tough there is no doubt, but I've seen plenty of good players make mince meat of their opponents.

I'm still yet to buy into the Zerg is weak thing, might be me just being cold hearted, but I'm seeing so many top players saying they are picking up Zerg, I think its to simply show everyone zerg arnt as rubbish as everyone thinks.

Also remember games like this get balanced from the top tier and work their way down. You dont buff a race to help average to novice players.

I think its very much just a case Zerg hasnt been fully utilized yet, or there arnt enough good zergs.

If there was a serious problem it would have been addressed, or we would have been told " its being addressed"

everyone who watch zerg will kinda feel it - if we all can play the race like Cool then obviously there wont be any more QQ :P

the thing is simple: not everyone of us is going pro, spending that kind of time and effort to play a 'game'. it is not supposed to be beginner ->go terran, advanced player-> go zerg? as like terran is easy mode but zerg is hard mode? lol

read this interesting piece of race analysis from GSL S1:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=157464

cool is just an exception :pac:

NeoSlicerZ · 02-10-2010 12:06PM

So Ultras now work as intended. Good. A thor does 8dps to air, that's less than a stimmed marine, I'll let you think about that. Noone gets thors to kill broodlords.

THIS is exactly why bad players people are screaming this race is IMBA right now. It is not supposed to be 'oh look, is zerg, it is harder to play'.

Zerg is a more mechanically demanding race, deal with it. The game mechanics between all three races are NEVER going to be the same, what's important is that they have roughly the same possibilities. If you want all races to be the same, go play war2 or something.

if SC is not the most game mechanic balance RTS out there (yes, despite this zerg nonsense), i wont even bother with this neff/buff etc - i can change to any race can make me win games, like any RTS i played. but i love zerg so much and i will never change race and in the end of the day it is just a product, as a customer I am fully entitled to be unhappy when blizzard did something pissed me off. (is not like blizzard care about our player feeling either)

SC2 is designed for esports and thus will be balanced around the very top tier of gamers as it should be. The whole problem seems to be that you can't win with zerg then or want to be able to A-move to victory. Nice.

EDIT : That link of that analysis on TL, let me quote something for you.

This certainly helps the "Terran too strong" bandwagon keep momentum, but overall its not significant enough to be evidence on its own. The PvT or TvZ numbers on their own look like a disaster, but I can't help but feel like while watching many of those games the Terrans playing were simply stronger players than their Zerg or Protoss opponents (this is particularly true with TvP). Even not including Rainbow or FruitD (FDealer? FD?) it could still be a case of Terran player quality simply being higher than Zergs or Protosses.

TheDoc · 02-10-2010 12:44PM

As neo said the game is balanced around the top tier of players.

If what I think it happening, that the problem is poor players not using the race properly, then change your race, cause they wont make the race easier to play for you, henceforth making it EZ mode for top players.

Aslong as Starcraft keeps its spot as the top pro game around and it keeps its reign in Korea, I doubt they care about loosing players in Europe, who play gold and below, stressing over how weak they feel Zerg is.

Cool showed how Zerg are fine.

What I have noticed on Twitter is people screaming Zerg are overpowered and that Terran need a buff.

See what blizzard contend with? Just one tournament can change a perspective.

Hence why I dont give tow ****s, and I don't let it bother me, cause I know Blizzard will sort it out.

Zerg are fine in my view. If you dont believe me, watch GSL : /

Jonny7 · 02-10-2010 03:24PM

For me, when I am playing zerg, the game has changed hugely since the patch, reapers are still a pain but can just about be contained. Tanks seem to be adjusted just right at the moment. The zealot rushes are not so commonplace nor vicious.

There are a bunch of kids screaming about imbalance, that the game is broken and that Blizzard secretly hate zerg.. these are just angry teenagers.. they'll always be around.

As a random player, I can tell you the idea that "terrans are just better players" at the moment is pretty ridiculous. Zerg players weren't "just better" players early in the beta and protoss weren't "just better" players during mid to late beta.

As the game stands at the moment, the debate is about 1v1 and the early game. There is something up with it. Try playing random and you will notice. I feel that they have the mid to late game quite balanced for all 3 races though.

Anyway I am glad fruitseller won, it shows that if there is any imbalance at the moment, its only very very slight and fixable, not some montrous end of the world problem that many seem to be making it out as.

Xios · 02-10-2010 06:09PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

For me, when I am playing zerg, the game has changed hugely since the patch, reapers are still a pain but can just about be contained. Tanks seem to be adjusted just right at the moment. The zealot rushes are not so commonplace nor vicious.

There are a bunch of kids screaming about imbalance, that the game is broken and that Blizzard secretly hate zerg.. these are just angry teenagers.. they'll always be around.

As a random player, I can tell you the idea that "terrans are just better players" at the moment is pretty ridiculous. Zerg players weren't "just better" players early in the beta and protoss weren't "just better" players during mid to late beta.

As the game stands at the moment, the debate is about 1v1 and the early game. There is something up with it. Try playing random and you will notice. I feel that they have the mid to late game quite balanced for all 3 races though.

Anyway I am glad fruitseller won, it shows that if there is any imbalance at the moment, its only very very slight and fixable, not some montrous end of the world problem that many seem to be making it out as.

Fuuuuuuu, Use spoilers!

TheDoc · 02-10-2010 11:11PM

If at that the time of the post you didn't know the result, well don't be reading starcraft forums

SC2 Patch 1.1 announced (Due Mid Sept)

Comments