Asymmetrical balance :I think thats a concept many people on this forum dont understand. It seems everybody wants to make all the races with identical units stat wise with only diferrent graphics. I see terrans wanting to nerf storm , when splash dmg is the only way for Protoss to compensate for their crap gateway units. I see Protoss suggesting to boost gateway units all around, while this would have to be connected with serious splash dmg units nerf to remain balanced.
You got to look at a whole picture of a race, all of its strenght and weaknesses. Thats why balancing SC2 isnt so trivial as many think and why actually the overall design of the races is quite brillant
Totally agreed, I think each race has cool things about it. Protoss warp in structures so a worker doesn’t have to stay and make it, but they can’t repair their buildings (using a shield battery is different as they need to spend extra on a shield battery compared to an SCV that Terran already has), Terran has to use an SCV to make a structure, but they can float buildings and they can mass repair a Planetary or a bunker, Zerg has to use up a worker (even bigger cost than a worker having to stay and build a structure) to construct a building, but Zerg units have a slow regen overtime.
This is just one of MANY asymmetrical balance things in this game and I find it very cool and very well done. Many games that are more symmetrical than SC2 are less balanced.
I think Terra should already have cost efficient units if you have good mirco, I would only adapt scout after changing the mules.
But otherwise T is pretty balanced.
blazzard put assmetrical bananalance so they win there games and get promote. assimilatorical bananalance mean that protons and zerg beat terran ez and get all there free winz
it can be beter if terran get buffs and is a better race
Asymmetrical balance is, according to these forums, “terran has all options and zerg and protoss have none - in every game, on every map and at every point in time of the game. Anything less than this and the game is racist against terran!”.
T has cost-efficient units if you micro them. Problem is, no enemy will let you micro in peace. Attack on 2 fronts mean that one of them is going to get absolutely crushed because you can’t kite vs banes on 2 places at once.
VS protoss, Terran micro is contested by powerful AOE. Small mistakes can spiral out hard and result in army dying. This is much more healthy tho as T units actually can stand and fight if you build right and have powerful enough macro. At least in lower leagues.
Assymetrical imbalance is when a race supposed to be very good at defending is also very good at attacking.
Zerg are op from every angle you take a look at them.
Not only adapt but they overcome every effort to attack them, punish them or slow them down while they can also jump into your base and wreak havoc.
Early harassment gets shut down by queens, mid game harassment gets shut down by map vision ling/banes/sh, late game gets shuts down by corruptors/vipers/infestors/broodlords
In the end because the legend says “you gotta stop zerg early” everyone is throwing their self at them at early stages getting shut down left right and centre while the superior economy of the zerg being the catalyst as their always ahead in resources plus they can spit out units faster than any race.
The only weakness zerg have is if you attack simultaneously in 3-4 different places which requires a ridiculous amount of effort plus a particular set of skills that the majority of the player base does not have.
Best defenders in game are zerg not terrans unlike popular belief due to the fact that terrans can build a few supply depots to block your way. Such defence much wow.
Historically defenders and those under siege have some disadvantage: such as limited information of what is happening to the other encampment, starvation (lack of resources), immobility, etc none of which applies to zerg.
If they want zerg to be the master race of defending that is absolutely fine but they gotta have some drawbacks as well. Currently there are none.
I mean in the end is the only race in game that does not spend money on static defences, does not utilise structures as defence mechanism and is able to coop and expand while under hard pressure.
Balancing sc 2 is trivial, balance each race individually. HOTS was already close to perfectly balanced, except: sh/ravens/tempests, except maps. It may not be as easy to balance whole game from scratch, but game is already out long time, people figured it out.
A race that is good at defending is good at attacking. A good defense is what allows you to have resources to attack. A race with a bad defense is a race with a bad offense. You have severe misconceptions about the basics of this game.
Thank you for agreeing with me you just phrased it alternatively.
So you have a race that excels in defending, which in a nutsell means what ever your throw at it it will rise unscathed while you are hurting your self punching a wall.
I don’t believe any of the 2 other races can be under constant pressure and still out-resource you.
So basically when it comes ZvX just stay in your side of the map go full supply and wait 3 days for the game to end yes moving back and forth.
There has to be some weakness that you have to exploit which by general rule of thumb there is not an obvious one that zerg have.
I mean you drone up to 80 workers with just a bunch of queens.
I so disagree with you on this point.
I would argue that strength changes as the game progresses.
What I see as the drawback to zerg is the utility of his units. Which makes their early games weaker. All ground units need an upgrade. Speed in most cases. Only air units bring their utilities with them.
another weakness that zerg has in early games is range. with the exception of queen against air. a reason why walls is bad for zerg in most cases.
In ZvX, P/T use a classic defense. a wall that stops enemies and does enough damage to make them retreat. the mechanics also work in early games and is a weakness for zerg.
Zerg has a different kind of defense. Get units into position.
btw in the current small tournaments i have not seen a game where i thought. Zerg has all aces in his hand in the late game.
Hell even mech with the exception of tanks are not good to go straight out of the box.
Same applies to protoss zealots/stalkers etc
The only difference is zerg get a speed update straight out of the box just being on creep. The rest of us peasants we don’t.
So actually you have an advantage since all races require upgrades to their units to reach their full potential.
It would be a weakness if you didn’t had the queens and not being able to drop spores without requiring evo which is more than enough to cover early harasses like banshees.
By the time your enemy will have enough air units to actually do you real damage you are able to produce your own.
It is not a weakness when you have the tools…
Which is the best defence mechanism in game, period. Static defences are worthless on their own and they must be complimented by units. Something that works as an advantage point for zerg since they don’t need to spend money on static defences.
I thought the general consensus in the game was “KILL ZERG EARLY” cause their late game is unstoppable.
Imo according to different stats TvZ is terran favored for the sole reason that after the infestor nerf (boohoo!) people stop making them. Although the unit still has a ton of utility. I barely saw any infestors made in IEM tbh. I might be wrong tho. A bit irrelevant but just thought to toss it out there too
No. What you said and what I said are, quite literally, polar opposites. You said it’s imbalanced for a race to be good at defending AND attacking. You are arguing that the two must be mutually exclusive for the game to be balanced, which by definition is impossible since, as I pointed out, how aggressive a race can be is decided by how strong their defenses are (aggression is a function of defense, and therefore you cannot make the game balanced by separating the two).
My point is that you cannot separate aggression and defense while your point was that we can and that we must. These are opposite positions.
What in the world? Asymmetrical balance in this context is a misnomer, it’s asymmetrical design y’all are referring to. And it’s the concept that the three races have different strengths and weaknesses, meaning they won’t always have equal opportunity to win at every stage of the game.
The reason people hate Zerg is they’ve increasingly become the late game race, because they were initially designed to defend and adapt. As timings got more and more precise and abusive, Blizzard continued to improve Zerg’s ability to hold these timings until we got to a point where it’s become incredibly difficult to break a Zerg before they get to late game. And then add in the economy boost that came with LotV that lets people hit hive regularly before 10 minutes.
Protoss was initially that race and harbored that hatred until Blizzard started redesigning them to be more aggressive and active as a race.
Terran was always the race that played the line between pure aggression and economy, where you can’t allow the other races’ economies to take off or you can get wrecked.
I may be stretching here, but I honestly believe the early game shenanigans are only possible due to how restricting Zerg late game is on Protoss/Terran builds.
There is no outcome then and the game should be a stalemate. Nullifies the whole game and how the races are designed. For example zerg are the defenders, Terrans can poke and be abusive, Protoss have cheeses etc etc.
You give a race the ability to be a good defender,good attacker and good harassment options it is going too far.
I get your point that if you have a good economy (which derives from being able to defend therefore not losing mineral lines) also gives you the advantage to have resources to divert into attacking.
Usually when the game goes past 15mins mark Terrans and Protoss usually lose because they cant defend expansions and are bleeding resources the same does not apply to zerg.
