[Video Games] SC2- Zerg Rage Part 1

It's been 12 days since my last post. Whodathunk it...

Anyways, I've been playing copious amounts of sc2. I find it really fun to play and I've been trying to play it at a high a level as possible, because I'm pro... Yeah...

Anyways I worked my way up to the Gold level (about rank 23) and I fell like I have an okay to good grasp of the game. While I am definitely not at the level of other high level players (like Day9) I feel like I am slowly getting there. I currently took a break because of finals and to keep the game fresh.

Anyways, I play mostly Zerg, and I feel like there should be a few changes to the race since the last patch. The last patch, patch 12, changed the "roach" unit to cost two food instead of one. I find this horrible. Blizzard's reason for the change is because "Mass Roach late game is too strong". That's just stupid. Here's the problem with the nerf:

Let's say it's at the end game. As a zerg player you should/will have at LEAST 3 bases, so therefore you will have at LEAST 72 food worth of drones, give or take 10 food. This is calculated by a normal games mineral patch (8 patches), the amount of drones to about fully saturate the patch (about 16, though 18 doesn't hurt) + extractors (6 total, 3 for each extractor). This is a little generous as your minerals in your main base will run out by then, but for now lets accept 72 drones.

Now 200-72 = 128 food remaining. Now that IS a lot of roaches, but chances are a decent enemy could scout mass roaches and really be able to counter them easily. This is assuming you MASS roaches, meaning no other unit besides roaches. In the old patch (we're also, just for ease, assuming max upgrades due to the "late game" hypothesis) this meant that a roach would have 4 armor and 22 damage @ '2' attack speed. It's really hard to find decent information about exactly how much time '2' is and the exact armor damage reduction values for certain armor types there are, but lets just say it means an average attack speed and a high HP + regen unit. Now roaches were originally stronger, but I feel like the nerfs in previous patches were warranted and the 1 food roach was fine.

Basically their damage is average, but their strength was to take hits. Given that Protoss has the Immortal to absorb hits much more effectively and the Terran has Thors, Medivacs for healing, unit upgrades, and Marauders to absorb and do damage, they have so many more options than zerg. This in of itself doesn't make it game breaking, but lets also look at the Terran and Protoss AoE units. The Tank and Colossus (respectively) are both very strong anti-ground army AoE. And they are both becoming a main part of ZvT/P armies.

Since the roach is nerfed, it means that for every roach we're building, we are removing the ability to produce more higher DPS units such as the hydra. however, all of Zerg's high DPS units are incredibly squishy, with the hydra having 80 hp and banelings dying when they attack and zerglings have 30 hitpoints, it means any strong AoE will will be able to really hurt Zergs ability to be aggressive, and since walling of the ramp are common in games against Zerg, it means that any early game harassment opportunities by zerg are denied, which leaves us with air.

I gotta get ready for a final so I'll continue this later.

[Rant] Various stuff

It's been a while since I posted a blog. Many reason include being busy, lazy, and not just caring. However, I finally feel like writing something so here I am.

One thing that is interesting is that I saw a food TV show about an Englishman going around the highest obesity areas in the states and trying to fix schools so that they have more healthy foods.

I feel like this is a good endeavor. There are definitely problems with the consumption or at least lack of exercise in the country. However, there are some things that disturb me. How he uses people is really annoying. When he deals with teenagers and young people I feel he does the "Mr. 'cool' guy". The weird thing with 'Mr. Cool' guys is that a) They're rarely cool and b) They try and walk over people. The way he talks to teens seems to be really steamroller. He's so 'energetic' he just doesn't allow the teens and other people to really get a word in edgewise.

The scary bit is how he talks about things. It is also the reason why I don't like the health care bill. He says one of his interviews (paraphrased) that kids need to be told what to do and what is right and wrong. My problem with this is that he is purposefully removing and controlling choices of people because "he knows better".

I'm not saying what he isn't saying is the truth, I'm just saying he is going about it the wrong way, just like the health care bill. Reformatting the lunch lines for healthier food is good, as it gives kids/teens more chances to become healthier. However, the way he's doing so is going through the parent-teacher boards and schools boards and revamping things without any permission.

If I was in his position, I would push for an upgrade in money for proper training for cooks and for healthy food, but I wouldn't go through people or remove choices. Doing so doesn't really stop the problem, it just postpones it. The main problem is poor education through the teaching and through poor teaching from parents. If you don't try and reform these areas, you're just postponing what will happen, not actually fixing the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I saw a video from a the guy who developed Spore. He said something along the lines of being able to take another 6 years of development before coming out with a game he truly thought was fully fleshed out. I actually disagree with him. My example: Starcraft.

Blizzard hasn't patched Starcraft in years, yet it is the one of the biggest e-sports in the world. It has a HUGE following and community. You would think a 12 year old game wouldn't hold as well as it does, but the fact that people keep on coming up with strategies, tactics, and so on really increase the longevity of the game. The game still has ample bugs, bad ai pathing, and so on yet those bugs ended up making the game DEEPER, not shollower. The AI pathing and so on makes the game more challenging. However, many original SC fans are complaining that SC2 doesn't have these so the game is easier. I think the game is actually more challenging, but not because of the issues with the game.

Warcraft 3 doesn't need as high APM, but it requires more thinking because of how tactics and strategies are executed. A player with a good strategy but low APM can still beat a higher APM player if they're timing and strategy is better than someone who doesn't.

For example, the warcraft 3 player Space has an average of about 150-200 apm, yet he is one of the top undead players because of his ability with timing pushes and his excellent micro in battles.

A good way to compare the two games is that SC plays you against the game and the opponent, while WAR3 allows you to focus on what your opponent is doing.

This will draw a bunch of flame from SC players but whatever.