So since I don't think any intelligent discussion is ever going to come out of the TeamLiquid thread that I posted in last week (and now this week) I've decided to bring it over here. We could all use some good ol' fashioned StarCraft 2 balance discussion right? I'd like to apologize in advance for the walls of text you're about to be slammed with. So I'm going to recreate the posts from the TL thread as they appeared originally but I'm going to take out all the flaming that occurred (not going to lie, I got into it somewhat too and I shouldn't have--but nothing to the extent I received IMO). And away we go! Read the Original Article
Joneagle_X's first reply: Sup fellas, Jon from SC2Forums.org. I'm the guy whom HotBid "made look like he knows nothing." Sometimes the ridiculousness you guys post makes it into my inbox and then I just have to respond. Feel free to read (and inevitably downplay) my review here. And in contrast to HotBid's two days (maximum 20 hours) of playtime I've logged almost 60 hours on StarCraft 2. Look, I respect quite a few guys from TL. There are some very capable people on staff. I had a pretty good discussion with a TL member who had commented on the article I wrote, and while he had some valid points I think we straightened out some issues he wasn't understanding with StarCraft 2. Alas, I'm never going to understand the horses in the header, but that's not the point. Unfortunately, it's damaging to the development of the game and the credibility of TL when someone posts an article like this one. It's so narrow and focused (at the author's repeated admittance) that it's like measuring the safety of a vehicle solely by the type of tires it has. You can't look at StarCraft 2 through such a narrow scope and decide that you've found an issue. What's interesting is that the refutations to this article are all over the place and yet they're shot down by so many TL backers (most, if not all of whom have never played the game) because those refutations are made by "random peons" (I believe that's the popular term). In any case, let's get down to business on this one. The Queen is weaker than she was in previous builds. The only thing she's got going for her is the Larvae Spawn ability. Don't get me wrong, this ability is far and beyond the main mechanic keeping the Zerg in the game at this time (I disagree with saying that Zerg is weak, I just think they need new mechanics like the proposed Roach movement while burrowed). But that doesn't mean they're suddenly ruling the battlefield. Yes, the Zergling pathing has improved immensely. Yes, the Zergling is generally more deadly in combat, but so is the Zealot. Even with the speed upgrade Zealots are able to stack more effectively as well which means they're better able to kill Zerglings. In addition the fact that cliff vision is so dampened in StarCraft 2 makes it incredibly easy to hold a ramp against Zerglings. The only race at a disadvantage in Tier 1 is Terran and even then a Terran can have an effective wall up by 1:40 by using an additional SCV for the second supply depot. As far as macro is concerned (and to refute the idea that a 1-Hatch Zergling build is somehow "invincible") the race with the most powerful macro element is Protoss. The new Obelisk ability is absolutely ridiculous. Even utilizing the Queen's larvae ability, it's still a challenge for the Zerg to keep up economically. I think this is a fundamental mistake made in this article. HotBid failed to take into account the fact that while the Zerg has the option to either produce extra units or opt for saturation of their expansions, the Protoss also has the ability to mass produce these same tier 1 units. It's likely that HotBid's opponents weren't utilizing this mechanic to its full potential. I'd also like to point to the fact that the Queen has only 175 HP and only does 8 damage, half that of the Zealot. A single zealot could easily kill a Queen as she's fairly slow even on Creep. This makes the Queen incredibly easy to kill and is a big, fat, juicy target. It is a viable strategy to kill your opponent's Queen instead of going for their drones. She's the cost equivalent of three drones and also has the potential to create many more. Next I feel I just have to address what I can only describe as a laughable description of "20+" Hydralisks at only 5-6 minutes in (from HotBid's description it seems like even less time). I find it hilarious that he suggests he had produced this many before a Terran opponent was able to tech Siege Tanks. Absolutely ridiculous. I'd also like to point out that the Terran Hellion is so mass producible (I will describe a perfect counter build shortly) and so devastating to Hydralisks that as a Zerg player I would be very reluctant to mass produce Hydralisks against a Terran opponent. Roaches would be much more appropriate. Lurkers even more so. I could go into the fact that there is no real acceptable tier 2 "tank" unit for the Zerg like the Lurker was in BW but that's not for this discussion. In essence what I'm saying is that while the Queen's macro ability is certainly powerful, it is not in any capacity a game ending mechanic. I played against a couple decent Zerg players and an easy and effective counter as Terran is as follows: 8 SCV -> Wall Supply Depot -> Barracks 12 SCV -> Second Wall Depot 13 SCV -> Refinery -> Marine 15 SCV -> Barracks Reactor -> Pump Marines -> Orbital Command -> MULE This is easily enough to eliminate any threat made by Zerglings. You're simply not going to take a ramp with Zerglings against a Terran build like that. You need more firepower. The Terran's next step is to tech a factory, swap out their second barracks for a reactor on the factory, and begin producing Hellions en masse. The Hellion (with Marine support) is more than a match for Hydralisks even in a decent group. Their speed also makes it all but impossible for the Zerg to flee to battlefield as they're as fast as speedlings. As if it needed a third reason, the Hellion is also massively produceable at 100 minerals and has splash damage. Another option would be to go for Marauders which massed with Marines (saying a 4 rax Terran is unable to keep up with Zergling production is just ridiculous) would be enough to counter Hydralisks as well. You'd still need some Hellions but you wouldn't need the factory reactor. Anyway, a second factory is then used to tech Siege Tanks and grab a couple Thors (to decimate Mutalisks as well as destroy Hatcheries in just a couple shots). I could go on forever, but frankly I think HotBid should have focused more on Zerg's inability to counter Terran Tier 2 than their supposed ability to conquer all during Tier 1.
Hot_Bid Reply: (The first one I relating the topic at least) I don't think I ever spoke like I knew everything or that this was the be-all-end-all of SC2 imbalance. It was just our staff's initial impression of the game. As I said, we could be wrong. We probably are at least partly wrong. But that doesn't suddenly make everything we've said illegitimate -- while I readily concede that your arguments might even be right, you seem almost irrationally sure that your thoughts on these issues that nobody other than Blizzard employees are experts in. How can you be so certain that you're the authority on this? Llike the statement in your article about the Queen being really bad... that's just flat wrong. Joneagle_X Reply: Also, I never said you were COMPLETELY wrong. Your observations about Fast Expand strategies are correct. It's a bit difficult to form a cohesive argument into a forum posting. Especially when you made as many points as you did. I think your analysis was well intentioned but far too limited in scope. That's why you missed what you did. There are benefits to taking a wider view of the game as well as using a selective approach. But drawing the conclusions you did from such a limited build test made your opinion more into a nit-picking session. ........ I think your approach is correct and I commend you for that. In fact I had no issue with your article other than I felt that the overall assumption that any of the 1-Hatch builds are invincible is incorrect. I just think you focused far too much on the tier 1 tech and you were focusing on defending a strategy rather than reacting to it. You basically discounted all the other mechanics of the Protoss and Terran races. However, I think you were correct in your ZvZ analysis because I have major issues in that matchup no matter what I tried. I couldn't find a decent option to bring the game into Tier 2. But I try not to generalize based on stats either. When I play I make notes about unit interactions and build orders, not the HP or damage of each unit. That consideration comes later. That's why when someone says "Hydralisk" I immediately counter with Hellion because I utilized it firsthand.
Hot_Bid Reply: I never said 1-hatch builds are invincible, just that they are very difficult to play against. How could I possibly think that a simplistic build developed in 2 days is in any way "invincible." I even conceded its possible we completely missed things. Tier 1 dictates what happens in the rest of the game. It's a huge snowball effect and knowing what kind of advantage you can get in early game is critical for late game. Tier 1 is actually far more important to determining mid game and late game than actual Tier 2 and Tier 3 units. Anyone that watches competitive RTS can tell you that. We played a lot of games and very carefully looked at Tier 1. Its the simplest to analyze and far less complex than trying to come up with some theory about the unit interaction later in the game. Most other sites do these broad sweeping reviews that look at every unit. It would be like reviewing BW and saying "well tanks rape ultralisks, i grade ultralisk a C-" when we all know this statement is worthless to an assessment of competitive TvZ. Each matchup is far more complex and has far more dynamics than a simple straightforward grade. You can't possibly think that two days of playing and one fluff paragraph about a 3rd-tier unit is somehow better? How to get to that unit and the early game dynamic is far more determinative of the usefulness of a 3rd tier unit than just briefly looking at it. You'd need weeks to fully understand if a hive unit is overpowered, and 99% of the time you'd spend on builds, not the unit itself. I don't think anyone from any other site talked about scouting and the problem of overly powerful Zerg allins. Killing scouts and making it a guessing game for your opponent (are you powering drones or making units) is even harder in SC2 with the extra larvae from the Queen. Nobody but someone familiar with the BW competitive scene really understands this. It's incredibly important and fragile a situation when you have to guess what your opponent is doing. Its easier to scout in BW and its immensely easy to turn the game into a coinflip with Zerg. Of course it's easy to say "i counter your hydras with my X" when you know how many units and when the Zerg will attack. The real issue with larvae inject is that given how easy it is to deny scouting now, the Queen magnifies the Zerg's ability to all-in attack or super-power economy, and if the P or T guesses wrong, they either die or are very behind. Joneagle_X Reply: I disagree with it being any more difficult to scout in SC2. I agree that Zerg can easily change from drones to troops in a flash but I don't think that makes them any more dangerous than they were in BW. In fact I feel they might have to be less aggressive because of the achille's heel that the Queen represents. Take her out and the entire Zerg macro is crippled. Unless they have another they're in really deep trouble. Especially when they're trying a 1-Hatch build like you're suggesting. In addition she's incredibly easy to kill which only makes this worse. If you think about it it's also incredibly difficult to scout Terran. Marines + walling makes it incredibly hard to guess what they're going to do and with the addition of the Reaper and Viking you could make an argument that it's actually more dangerous to not know what the Terran is doing than the Zerg. The bottom line is that clearly scouting has become imperative to the player in StarCraft 2. However, I don't think it's going to be any tougher, just different. Perhaps scouting will just become a more aggressive affair than the simple suicide worker. ......... I do think it's funny that we disagree on the Queen but I think it's because you're assuming I'm just giving the Queen an overall "D." The grade I gave her is based on her change from the previous build. I'm rating the change in the Queen from one build to the other as a "D." Does that make sense? Hot_Bid Reply: Have you ever played competitive Brood War? Because its far, far, far easier to keep your scouting worker alive in BW than in SC2. How can you possibly say that scouting "isn't more difficult in SC2" when Zerg has an early game ranged unit and the pathing AI is like 3x better? The difference is huge. The Queen is NOT incredibly easy to kill. I don't know what else to say about this other than if you can walk into a Zerg base with Zealots or Marines and snipe a Queen you are playing a horrible Zerg player. There's no way with overlords and 2 early lings will you get close enough to a Zerg base to snipe a Queen early in the game without the Zerg being fully prepared for you. Also, how can you say that extra larvae doesn't make Zerg more dangerous? Choosing to make units or workers together was the strength of Zerg macro in BW -- you weren't sure what the Z was doing. In SC2 you know even less because your scout dies fast and they have more larvae to exponentially increase their eco or army early game. What conclusion can you draw from that other than that it makes early game all-ins / eco powering more dangerous? There's no basis to this statement, it's 100% conjecture and the opposite of how we believe things work in RTS games. It's not going to be tougher to scout!? It's just going to be "different and more aggressive than suiciding a worker?!" That statement leads me to believe you really don't understand how scouting and adaptive builds work, and that you've never kept your scouting worker alive in an opponents base in BW for longer than 10 seconds after their Tier 1 units spawn. Zerg having a ranged unit that can easily kill scouting workers plus better AI for chasing lings is absolutely huge.
Heh I read these over at TL after mentioning in the chatbox that you've been banned. I admit I didn't read the posts here but you said you'd remove the flaming so obviously I didn't miss out on much, on the contrary. If I may say this, based on the original posts (not the ones here) you did indeed deserve the ban I mean, you called their team smatter I just hope it isn't a perm. Good luck resolving it, if you want to that is.
Random Peons, ROFL I could picture out two demons having court trial on who's guilty and not... I've read TLs article a month passed now I think, and even from that thread there were numbers of fans that argue about its credibility of an assessment. I started reading and after that I got confused about his generalization that SC2 Tier 1 = Z > T & P I almost believed him until..... I saw this thread. Well, not all of the fans are as keen as you guys and adding that fact that you both have been able to play the game. Right now I think Jon made more valid points that Hotboy didn't account for. Generally, even if his emphasis was only about the queens hatch crack ability, there were still too many questions of "How" in his scenario was he able to do it. And if only he made a video out of it, he could have made his article more intriguing. (their a team that can't afford to get a recording cam T_T sigh). Q: Jon, did you give any response to his statement especially this one, because I think this is where He is really trying to pin you: Have you ever played competitive Brood War? Because its far, far, far easier to keep your scouting worker alive in BW than in SC2. How can you possibly say that scouting "isn't more difficult in SC2" when Zerg has an early game ranged unit and the pathing AI is like 3x better? The difference is huge. Well, I think this is personal... and this should be answered with a challenge imo. Since no one knows if this argument has an ending, if given a chance that you two will meet at a certain conference that will feature SC2, can you see yourself challenging HotBid for a match to prove who is right/. (only complication is if SC2 then will get major balance updates) - D.Kim on Blizzcon09: of course there will be no price money for winners, just fame for the winners and to the losers, just sheer loss, humiliation and teasing by your co-workers. ^_^
Just read it all, very informative. I could comment on the ban thing, but I didn't read the original post. So I'll leave that bit alone. As for the real topic: you were obviously right. Focussing on tier 3 gameplay to analyze the balance in sc2 is ridiculous. Focussing on tier 1 is the best way to go, especially since you were on a timer and didn't see much tier 3. Correct? Still, I have to agree with the TL guy that rating units isn't an "exact science". You can't possibly include every single strategy in a number. Still, I think he was missing the point there. The numbers were supposed to reflect how usefull you found them to be, not to show how "good or bad" they were. Right?
Hey guys, I deleted most of the posts from here down because (on top of being off topic, and don't worry I just soft deleted them. Feel free to contact me to get your words back lol) I don't see a point in bashing TL. They also expressed some disappointment in this thread and I agree with them. So let's keep discussion in this thread on the topic of the original article posted, my replies, and the gameplay and balance directly implied there. Thanks!
i really dont see how its possible to have a decent discussion with them. i read most of that thread pretty much and they talk about being "civilized" yet the members site is wide know for flaming and bashing other sites or other members of sites or just plain bashing for no reason. and they let those types of bashing/flaming post go unpunished on there site if its posted. but ya i wont go into that anymore.
Hmm after reading through the entire thread, i just gonna say both parties got a tad too emotional. But aw well it seems to have cleared out now... So anyway back onto the topic at hand, so u don't think the zerg is imba in the beginning? I personally think that its a bit of both. A person caught off guard would say it is OP but if proper precautions are taken i think that it could be countered rather easily by turtling til tier 2 or producing specific units like roaches as you suggested (though could be too risky of a maneuver) How do u think the zerg should be improved to better themselves in tier 2? Because from what i've seen zerg have a hard time stopping the enemies' tier 2 units once they start coming out (but then they were inexperienced people so...) . Has anyone manged to survive with zerg to use the higher mechanics? (Brood Lords, ultralisks... ect)
