Why zerg sucks and I'm switching races.

Zerg is a race based on potential. In all truth it is a weaker race then both protoss and terran. However the weakness's of zerg are also its strengths. At times i look back at matches ive lost, I take a good honest look. My macro and micro both greater then the opponent. My positioning also good, but it only takes 1 mistake to cost a zerg player a game. Now is that fair? Sometimes my mind quickly wanders to thoughts of how the other classes are "Imba". However in the end every game lost is something learned.

So ive come to believe zerg is only as good as the person who plays it. It would be nice if zerg was more user friendly to people who arent pro's.

Just because zerg took 2 gsl's doesnt mean zerg is ok where it currently is. They took those wins because they were superior players, and at that time and place with lady luck or god on their side they won. Now I like many others aint as good as them, nor do i want to make my profession playing a competative RTS.

SC2 is a game, and a game should be fun.

 

The zerg really the race for the sneaky underhand mindset type of player. I mean all it take is one spire in the corner and 3 full hatcherys of larva and sudernly you got 57 mutas flying about...

I like Ultra's too. They can take so much hammer its insane. They have no antiair, but who cares when they can take insane amounts of hits from most air units?

 

Hey,

I couldn't agree with you more when you stated something along the lines of zerg's weaknesses are also their strengths. I want to address some of the things the op has said about units and creep spread and the like. Creep takes some to manage, but think of the potential there is in zerg's expansions and mobility. Creep is awesome and even though it requires some management to use it's a huge asset the other races don't have whatsoever. Units are another thing. I love zerg has a smaller amount of units to choose from. It's easier to counter ur opponent.

Hatcheries cost less to make, we're geared to expand like crazy and play defensively until we swallow our opponent with the macro advantage. I don't know man, zerg may be more difficult to play but they pay off. And even then, I can't really feel comfortable saying zerg is more difficult to play. They play different but so what? Does this make them harder to use? I don't think so. In actuality, I think zerg is easier to play because they have a flow about them that feels less mechanical to me...we're like an octopus that you cut the arm off of and then it regenerates with something nastier. The concept of their play is very eastern/adaptive to me....whatever the hell that's supposed to me rofl. :wacko:

I'm not trying to attack the op whatsoever, but maybe zerg just isn't your style or you need a break from them?

 

If you think you're losing because zerg is too weak, just switch to a different race. You'll be screaming that zerg is op in no time.

"One of those frickin banelings blows up eight of my marines. OMG HAX."
"They have another 200/200 army at my base before I even get three thors out!? This game is rigged."

Don't worry. Sooner or later, you'll accept that you keep losing because you're not good enough instead of blaming it on the game.

 

I agree with Butterbattle. You cant whine on that zerg sucks just because you lose, zerg is a unique race. It requires alot of micro/macro to be able to beat people. And yeah it is harder to play zerg then protoss and terran, it actually is. Thats why i started with zerg from the beginning, i was ranked 1th in diamond as zerg in the beta period when they were even harder to play because of the "non" patches for the zerg race. If you want to be good with zerg then watch pro zerg players and learn from them, thats what i did. Rigid and Idra are my favorite zerg players. Zerg is no way unbalanced at all.

 

Zerg takes more micro and macro because of the way it's built, but the micro and macro mechanics are not necessarily the same as terr and toss (at simpler levels, obivously more complicated levels, they are all diff). Even this:
Zerg, Terran , Toss. zerg = z, Terran, Toss= T (the first letter of shorter name)

Also, -100 to robin johnsson rep for saying referencign IdrA

 

dont know why people hate on idra. no matter how he acts he is still better than any of us will ever be at playing zerg.

 

Wow seriously?
Speak for yourself, some people that aren't pro still play competitively.

People dislike other people whose actions are not agreeable. IdrA's skill is not doubt beyond most of the people on these forums, if not everyone on these forums. However, if you wish to look at his skill as a counter to his disagreeable (to many people) behavior, be my guest. Only, do not imply that this is "correct" (morally, because what is "correct"?), because morally, it is definitely not correct.

Allow me to give the example that IdrA came up to everyone you knew and humiliated you, and started to torture and take away all you loved. Now, of course this is a more or less "supernatural" event, and is an exaggeration of his offensiveness, but I hope you understand my point.
Because we are "civilized".

Of course, who the **** made me an arbiter?

 

Dont know where your going with your post. It seems your pretty much agreeing with me, however long winded it is.

"he is a good player reguardless of how he acts"

Lets not get into morality because morality differs from person to person.

Hmm If he ever did do that, i would have probably given him a good reason to. When you look at it others are paying for my mistakes and thats pretty sweet, cause im off the hook.

 

Yes that is what you should do and i do so as well . Download (so you can take your time) some reps from zerg players you like and learn the build orders timings etc better, from them. I personally like Ret , fruit dealer and dimaga. If you want a link for this just pm me and give the swarm another chance

 

Wow, tasty treat, im not agreeing with you. if u understand english, you would know -.-

We will get into morality, because morality doesnt not differ in a more general fashion.

You're not getting my point, im not saying that u provoked him, im not saying u get off the hook. im saying he just does it, and u dont because anything u hold with important is ripped to shreds, even your comfort

 

I obviously understand english, and yes your post does agree with mine. You stated that idra is more than likely a better player than us and everyone who frequents this forum.

Now on to the matter of morality. Morality does not exist on the internet since by definition Morality is proper conduct within accepted norms. Their are no norms on the internet you can be, do, and say whatever it is you please. In short morality has no place on the internet.

I guess i should have put /sarcasm at the ending paragraph of my last reply. I just assumed you understood with your amazing comprehension of the English language. My fault for making assumptions of your intellect.

Anyhow this is getting off topic.

 

You can get more units than Terran or Protoss at any point in the game if you want to. The trick is to do it when it counts, and not too early.

Corruptors rape colossus, so all you need to do is get them at the right time in the game to fight the Protoss ball. You don't need but a handful of hydras or mutas to stop banshees. It's just a bit of technological pressure.

Corruptors take care of almost anything that flies. Taking extra bases as Zerg is easy. Late game isn't a lost battle. Zerg has many strengths in the late game. You can max after a battle instantly, and reinforce your push. If your army composition was good and your attack was good, then the opponent will have a hard time stopping the reinforced push without taking some damage. You can also do things like baneling drops to put your opponent behind, and in general use Zerg's mobility to your advantage. Theoretically Zerg will lose a game where the map is split in half and mined out...but you have plenty of tools at hand to make that a difficult goal.

I agree that Zerg is the hardest race to play until very high levels, but I think you focused more on just general game difficulties that lots of Zerg have. Zerg is a versatile race that has to be played to its strengths. It has lots of advantages and disadvantages, and ultimately it has been shown to be just as strong as Protoss and Terran in the right hands.

 

Norms =/ what you can be, do or say.

Norms exist within the social circles that make up the internet.

Whether or not morality has a place on the internet is a different kind of discussion, but I disagree with you there too.

That's about all I read about what you two were arguing about. I was just mulling around a bit deciding if I want to start playing again. I've been too busy for the last couple of months to give this game any time

 

I was thinking of making a lengthy post on this but I'm kinda bored to... Ikkabotz(I hope I spelled it correctly) made a post I agree with about zerg being different but not harder to play. RushSecond also made a good post on how balance is done and how there hasn't been any good suggestion in this forum so far.

As for pro levels of play, here's something to think about:
If zerg take more skill to play than terran or protoss, then why would a player who's income, quality of life, fame and all that crap depend on how well he performs play zerg, if using his superior skill on terran or protoss he could perform even better and win more competitions, earn more money, get better sponsors and do it easier?

You may play against a same-skill-level player as you and have a lower than 50% win rate, and that would suggest a balance issue, but a better player will win most of the matches against a worse player, no matter the race. Arguments of the type "I macro and micro better than my enemy and still lose" are quite junk imo because even in the case that they are true, they don't take into consideration an even more important factor, which is decision making. A single bad decision can cost the game to any of the 3 races. Maybe it takes a different type of mistake in decision making to cost you the game, but a mistake is a mistake.

A zerg player may lose his army after taking a bad decision to attack, and quickly recover by building it up again, but then lose to a push because he decided to drone up at a bad timing and it delayed his army production, while a protoss player may recover from a bad timing in army production by getting a few sentries and surviving but lose a game cause he decided to attack at a bad time and lost his money-units, be it colossi or immortals or whatever else... It's the reverse situation, but still mistakes of this type win or lose games for all races and all players.

And decision making is not only limited to that, but extends into what tech path you decide to follow and when and all kinds of stuff which you opt to do any time in-game...


As for the "Zerg require more macro and micro" argument, I say it's a myth. Someone said so and everyone jumped up to agree because macro is just the race-specific mechanic-namely queens/chronoboost-mules- so whichever mechanic is easier it means that race has an easier time macroing, and man, microing zerglings around is hard but you have to do it, don't you? No and no.

If you think macro is hard as zerg, go play terran and try to keep your money low while constantly training scvs. Do it in a 15 minute game-successfully- and then come back here and claim "Yes, terran have an easier time macroing than zerg". Zerg might need to inject larvae which takes some focus, but balancing production buildings to meet income is much easier, because you only need 1 building to cover for a whole base's production, and if you get 1 hatch too many, you can just use it to drone up more and bolster your economy instead. If you do a mistake with terran though you'll end up with either too few buildings and money piling up, too many buildings and half of them unable to build, or wrong buildings that are unable to produce the army you need.

Neither is harder, they're different. One has to pay attention to one thing the other has to pay attention to another. A T or P player has to pay attention to what production buildings he builds since they govern the army composition he's able to have, while the Z can just build one building and balance their army composition on the fly at ease, but have to pay attention to injecting larvae and spreading creep...


Lastly about the "Tier 3" zerg units: Let's suppose zerg traded armies with protoss but both races kept their mechanics: Protoss would warp in zerglings,hydras and roaches anywhere they please and train ultras and infestors from the robo bay, while zerg would just make the tech buildings and produce any protoss unit from larvae:
The protoss goes for a gateway army and makes a heavy hydra/roach push: Zerg has a colossus nest ready and responds by turning 10 larvae into colossi and the rest into zealots: game over for toss. Or carriers: If zerg had carrier or BC-type units their ability to mass produce without needing mass production facilities would allow for sick tech switches and sick pushes in the end game. A terran brings in a couple of BCs and it spells trouble whatever race the enemy is, a zerg player would be able to spawn 7 simultaneously without giving the enemy time to react, it would just spell game over to them....


A piece of advice: Whenever you don't understand something, or think that something is wrong, consider it's denial: What if it was the other way round? See how that scenario fits in your mind. If it does not, then maybe you need to rethink your approach.

 

I see your points. Zerg do best when they overrun their opponents. The classic Zerg(ling) rush is the best example of this. Defilers can quickly degrade large groups of enemies (or infesters in SC2). In the campaign, the Zerg are so powerful because it is implied that they multiply in number very quickly when there isn't a battle going on. They're biological, so it's implied that they can reproduce and multiply without the same resources that industrial species would need. Although in a PvP match, there are substantial weaknesses. A strong advantage of the Zerg is that they heal over time, and throughout the course of a battle, this makes a big difference.

 

Not "weakness", difference.

also,
"This may make a big difference"

 

i think:
Terran = Harder than Zerg and Protoss
Zerg = Hmmm kinda in the middle
Protoss = Easier than the other races

The thing i hate about protoss and terran is that you cant really build a suply depot or pylon without looking at your base while if your Zerg you can just use hotkeys all the way to build overlords

The same is when you have to warp in units you have to be at a pylon field to do it so unless you place pylons everywhere you cant do it without looking at your base and thats what i think makes the races "hard" to play.

 

Thank you Stirlitz,

Conceptually Zerg have some differences compared to the other two races that begin to offset what a player may be used to playing, but there are some real misconceptions that circulate around the forums and sc2 community about their mechanics.

Zerg have a lot going for them people undermine due to their problems in decision making and scouting. Zerg workout great as long as you use what they're made for, and that's lots of creep and expanding while keeping your eye on the opponent constantly to prepare an absorption of their attack until it's your turn to swing with an advantage. Think how intimidating that can be for an opponent?

Zerg macro is not harder, it's actually a lot easier to move about with a feeling of freedom due to the strengths originating from hatcheries. I mean think about it, hatcheries cost less to make and you produce larva that can be used instantly for supply, workers, and units. There is a lot less time going back into your base to produce structures and considering how to craft units. Zerg have a feeling of immediacy to them. It's a great feeling for someone who can enjoy keeping a presence of mind for it, but if you're busy thinking they're underpowered you need to take some time reconsidering what it is in your own game that's making you feel that way first and try to improve it before blaring out how much they suck.

 

Yes, I agree with that... It's a different mindset the zerg player has to have compared to the protoss or terran one, which I believe makes a transition from the one side to the other relatively tough for both sides...

As for zerg, there are many misconceptions(for all races, i think, but especially zerg) lying around...
There's the rumour that says "zerg are a macro race" which most of the time gets translated to "zerg need perfect macro to play" or "zerg are tougher to macro than terran or protoss" which both are actually quite wrong... On the contrary, I do believe that zerg have a much easier time macroing up than terran or protoss, they have however some very tough decision making to take which can cost them the game which terran or protoss don't have, I'll explain below:

Zerg have the ability(or strength) of making multiple workers at once from the same building, and also use that very same building to make overlords and army units. What this means is that if a zerg player keeps pumping out drones, tons of drones, and expanding(not because zerg are "weak" and have to, but because they can overdrone easily and put those extra workers to use on an extra mineral line while increasing their production with an extra hatch that's not in their main base) up to the point where he senses danger, if he builds exactly enough of an army to survive an attack then he's in an extreme advantage and his following counterattacks will be deadly. The tough part of zerg macro is that they have to not overreact, but not underreact either. They need precision in how much army they make to survive till their economy kicks in where they can overwhelm their enemies with numbers. If the zerg that drones up is late to build defenses/army for an incoming attack, he'll lose. If he builds them too early and builds too many of them and the attack doesn't come he'll lose the economic advantage that droning up gave him, plus the larvae spent on defenses and army could have been larvae spent on drones for an even better economy. These kinds of decisions are what poses a challenge to a zerg player when macroing, and they differentiate a bad player from an expert.

On the pure macro part though - which is what to build and when- zerg have it a lot easier than terran or toss. You need to inject larvae? 4(if that's your queen hotkey)- shift-v - and click click on the minimap. Need to change tech? Just pick a drone, build the building and you have your production ready beforehand to create the new unit you want en mass. Your roach attack gets repelled, but it reveals 4 stargates just having been built(a little extreme number but possible in the mid-game for a tech switch)? Build a hydraden, save your larvae till it's complete and you have an army ready in the next production cycle to beat any air force. Are you supply blocked? 5(if that's your hatch key) - s - vvvvvvvv.

Terran and protoss have a much harder time in that part though: If a terran or toss needs a tech switch they have to not only build the building that will enable that tech, but also make enough production buildings to produce that unit in desirable numbers. If a terran wants to make a production cycle he has to select his rax, build rauders/rines, then select his factories and build tanks/thors, then select his starports and build vikings/vacs and keep in mind how many of his buildings have reactors, how many have techlabs etc... If he wants to make a tech switch, then he'll have to not only make the building that enables him to build what he wants but also the building that actually produces that thing in suitable amounts to fit his income, be it techlabed factories or reactored starports...
Where a zerg has to 5sv to make an overlord, a terran has to select an scv, build a depot and rally it back to the line, and a protoss will also have to choose a suitable spot for his pylon so that it can power up buildings, provide vision and a place for warping in units etc.
When a terran or protoss builds too few production buildings then they are unable to use their money and fall behind. When they build too many productioin buildings they have wasted money on structures that they cannot use. When switching tech they often leave buildings unused due to lack of money. They have to think carefully how many buildings to make and what kinds since on that will rely their army composition.

On the other hand though, terran and protoss don't have the same type of crucial decision to make as zerg. They cannot make more than 1 worker/cycle so any remaining money they dump into increasing production and when they keep their production going they judge depending on their income and needs if they need to further increase their income(expand) or further increase production(build gateways/stargates/robos) or tech.
Terran and protoss productions are streamlined, they have much less decision making in them than zerg. A terran that has 3 techlabed and 2 reactored rax, and 1 reactored starport will make 3 rauders, 4 marines per cycle without any thought and waste the minutest amount of decision making on whether he needs vikings or medvacs from the starport.
A zerg does not have streamlined production so he must do some serious decision-making in that part to be effective. You have a good income, good saturation and larva ready to pop? You have to scout, decide if it's safe to keep droning up and perhaps expand or if an attack is imminent and you have to build units. It's a minor investment for zerg to build a building just to be safe, like build a roach warren or a hydralisk den just because you're not sure what your opponent is making, and keep droning up till you scout, and when you sense danger, pop up what units you need.


In short: Terran and Protoss have a streamlined production while zerg does not. Protoss and terran have to think in advance what to make and react using tech switches, while zerg have to play more reactively from start, and have to delay making an army as long as possible.

The above also explain why zerg have fewer units than terran and protoss. It's easy for zerg to make a tech switch(even preemptively just for safety's sake) by just building a tech structure, while a terran or protoss player will have to modify his whole production line for every tech switch. The amount of flexibility zerg get from hatcheries, terran and protoss have to get by having a few roles covered by the basic production buildings.
To give an example: If you're zerg and want to keep a steady roach production, you just have your hatches making roaches. If the opponent decides to go air you just make a hydralisk den and you have the production already set up for you and ready to make hydras at will.
If you're terran and have 6 rax all techlabed making rauders. And suddenly you realise that your enemy is going air. Then you either judge if you have time to build 6 reactors for those rax to make marines, or have your production halved by making marines out of techlabed raxes. If you wanted to tech switch to air instead while for the zerg it would be as easy - just make a spire and spam mutas/ruptors - for a terran you'd have to stop producing from the raxes(so have money invested in production that doesn't produce) and make starports, then attach them to the nessessary addons and then start producing.

Having production merged with tech is a weakness in itself, unless it comes with variety that offers enough flexibility. If protoss had 3 buildings for the 3 air units(that unlock the units and build only the unit they unlock) imagine how weak and inflexible the race would be... Tech switches would be impossible...


Anyway, I'm getting too long here... I hope I explained what I wanted to say well enough...