|
While I was doing the research/math for the latest video I came across this fact. I haven't finished the video yet, but when I do I plan on creating a post centered the full economics. In the meantime however I found this point to be a very interesting concept for discussion and a possible major root cause of some of the balance issues sc2 currently has.
In BW Hatcheries produced 1 larva every 20 seconds, 3 larva/minute. In Starcraft 2 a hatchery with a Queen produced 10 Larva/minute (4 per 40 seconds on injects averages to 6, hatcheries naturally produce 4 per minute.) The cost difference associated with this is the 350 minerals per hatch in BW (300 for the hatch, 50 for the drone) and in sc2 500 per hatch (300 for the hatch, 50 for the drone and 150 for the Queen.) This means you have 9 Larva per minute for 1050mins vs. 10 Larva per minute for 500mins. The additional factor to bring it to roughly 3x more efficient is that you lose 2 more drones in bw than you would in sc2. That's four drones on two bases, six with a macro hatch and so on.
It's very important to note that this is a pure MINERAL based efficiency problem. It's also important to note that Zerg tend to have a lot of extra minerals after they finish droning (of which they reach max saturation on 3 bases 30% faster than any other race can). These extra minerals are often spent on a 4th base for the gas income, and then the extra drones get spent on millions of spine crawlers.
This production problem also exists in that mid->late game it's not really worth harassing a zergs drone line as they can simply create 20 more drones in 30 seconds for the base you just wasted an entire warp cycle, or 3-4 rounds of hellions to kill. The Zerg loses maybe a minute of mining time all things considered.
A Zerg player with 4 Hatches (and Queens) can theoretically dump 12000 minerals and 10000 gas PER minute into new units. Terran and Protoss with Similar levels of production can't even compete with Terran being able to drop about 1500 mins / 500 gas per minute and Toss being able to drop about 1400 mins / 650 Gas per minute (+625/+250 if you count the initial warp in time). Even if the Zerg only made lings he could still drop 2000 minerals per minute.
Infrastructure used in comparison numbers:
Zerg: 4 Hatches w/Queens
Terran: 5 Barracks w/Reactors, 1 Factory w/tech lab 1 Startport w/Reactor
Protoss: 5 Warpgates and 1 Robo producing Colossus
  
|
Well, I guess I'm in before close.
Edit: You really need to find something better to do with your time, rather than trying to prove that Zerg is imbalanced.
User was warned for this post
|
Why would this be closed?
|
On January 08 2013 19:28 Filter wrote:
This production problem also exists in that mid->late game it's not really worth harassing a zergs drone line as they can simply create 20 more drones in 30 seconds for the base you just wasted an entire warp cycle, or 3-4 rounds of hellions to kill. The Zerg loses maybe a minute of mining time all things considered.
This isn't a real problem, it just means that it's more efficient to snipe hatches in the lategame than it is to kill workers. Considering the scalability of common harassment units with upgrades vs hatch hp (8 3/3 zealots vs 1000hp, or 16 3/3 marines, etc), this isn't really a big deal. It's just a different dynamic.
|
It seems like this is just a interesting racial feature when their units are relatively less cost-efficient than terran and protoss. The problem is when their army is super cost efficient, as it is with infestor broodlord.
|
BUT the zerg has to choose those 20 more drones over producing an army which is weaker per unit. so .. . you are not factoring in the whole mechanic of the race to get army and drones cos to me terran can produce all 3 at once with no cutting and then kill all workers and purely use mules giveing a literal 200/200 army? am i rite?
|
You didn't compare how terran or protoss production compares to BW... (or how they compared to zerg in bw)
This is not necessarily an issue. However, it could be part of why we're seeing zerg dominance. For the top tier players, not missing injects means players are getting full use of their production mechanic. Since day 1 people have said that you need to pressure zerg and force them to make army units instead of workers. However, with the current map pool (as well as buff to overlords) it's nearly impossible to catch a zerg player off guard and punish greed. If you do push out with an early timing and force any number of offensive units the zerg can usually overwhelm your army and because of the production disparity it will be very difficult to mount a subsequent attack (allowing the zerg to expand/saturate at will). Along the same lines, because of the map control, zerg aren't actually punished (as much as the should be) for committing to lots of speedlings (or mutas) as they can quickly expand and saturate behind it. The same goes for infestors. There's no punishment for choosing to make infestors over drones (as building up energy is good) and it's a unit that can be produced blindly and will be extremely useful the entire game.
|
Interesting factoid, but I would say that this is a little bit too literal of an interpretation of Zerg production.
|
I would go as far as to say that it's impossible to truly make a zerg waste larvae anymore. It's too difficult exchanging units for drones and forcing army units for an extended period of time when all it really takes is 3 injects and the zerg is back in the game.
|
Cost effectiveness of units?
Supply cap?
This mean anything to you?
|
On January 09 2013 01:50 eu.exodus wrote:
Cost effectiveness of units?
Supply cap?
This mean anything to you?
Lol... supply cap works in the favour of the zerg in this scenario, since this larvae system gives extreme remax abilities vs the terrans/toss being able to spend their resources over time. And also, zerg units are potentially the most cost effective in the game:
Blings Vs Rines in big numbers
Infestors.... Broodlords... Ultras vs No-Marauders....
What's far worse than this to me is how incredibly overpowered ultras are below top GM because of costing ONE LARVAE to create a 6 supply unit. What the fuck?
To Fix the game = Scale larvae at least a little bit... corruptors = 2 larvae, ultralisk = 3 or 4 larvae, infestors = 2 or 3 larvae etc.... its silly and makes no sense how everything is one larvae. It's like if you could just start making battlecruisers two at a time out of a reactor barracks as long as you have a fusion core.
In the currrent state, a terran can harass the shit out of a Z and take him down to 2 base vs 5 base and be ahead by 60 supply and be spending his resources way faster at the same time and the Z can be missing all his injects while the T only macro slips slightly.... and still lose because the Z can make a 200/200 army out of 2 hatcheries using ultralisks: macro meaning absolutely nothing at all.
|
On January 09 2013 02:05 Krakoskk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 01:50 eu.exodus wrote:
Cost effectiveness of units?
Supply cap?
This mean anything to you? Lol... supply cap works in the favour of the zerg in this scenario, since this larvae system gives extreme remax abilities vs the terrans/toss being able to spend their resources over time. And also, zerg units are potentially the most cost effective in the game: Blings Vs Rines in big numbers Infestors.... Broodlords... Ultras vs No-Marauders.... What's far worse than this to me is how incredibly overpowered ultras are below top GM because of costing ONE LARVAE to create a 6 supply unit. What the fuck? To Fix the game = Scale larvae at least a little bit... corruptors = 2 larvae, ultralisk = 3 or 4 larvae, infestors = 2 or 3 larvae etc.... its silly and makes no sense how everything is one larvae. It's like if you could just start making battlecruisers two at a time out of a reactor barracks as long as you have a fusion core. In the currrent state, a terran can harass the shit out of a Z and take him down to 2 base vs 5 base and be ahead by 60 supply and be spending his resources way faster at the same time and the Z can be missing all his injects while the T only macro slips slightly.... and still lose because the Z can make a 200/200 army out of 2 hatcheries using ultralisks: macro meaning absolutely nothing at all.
Sorry but youre wrong. In a pro game you would never see someone bank the amount of minerals the OP is talking about here. Even if they did I can guarantee you that at that stage of the game
Terran would not only have: 5 Barracks w/Reactors, 1 Factory w/tech lab 1 Startport w/Reactor
Protoss would not only have: 5 Warpgates and 1 Robo producing Colossus
You forget that zerg needs to invest a fuck ton more to static defense than T or P because you are defending both economy and production at each base so they money spent on spines alone compared to other races would mean a lot more resources for T + P to make army + production.
You cant compare larvae and other race mechanics to each other. They are completely different. Scaling larvae would break early game. If somehow you get to late game with your suggested larvae scaling, it would make pretty much no difference anyway .
This is just another zerg QQ thread nothing more
|
United States5491 Posts
On January 08 2013 20:21 StatixEx wrote:
BUT the zerg has to choose those 20 more drones over producing an army which is weaker per unit. so .. . you are not factoring in the whole mechanic of the race to get army and drones cos to me terran can produce all 3 at once with no cutting and then kill all workers and purely use mules giveing a literal 200/200 army? am i rite?
This argument died a while ago dude. The argument that choosing drones of army, though still a thing, has been massively changed with the advent of stronger queens which do not force the zerg to choose between army and drones. Because of that, terran can produce 3 at once, but zerg can then produce 20+ at once. So you neglect to mention that whatsoever, so no you are not right here. It isn't that Zerg is imba, but that this form of production pushes zerg over the top in some opinions, and while Terran can replace his workers with mules, the amount you are describing just really isn't possible whatsoever in the large majority of games.
|
Of course Zerg production is more "efficient" than it was in BW, but Terran and Toss have also had improvements. MULEs are huge, and reactors also mean that production can be amped up. Protoss have chronoboost, and the warp-in mechanic is also superior to traditional gateways.
|
Obviously you can't just do some simplistic "how many units produced" or "how much money can be dumped" comparison, because this comparison is predicated upon the assumption the units are equally cost effective. Which is a horribly false assumption to make.
The game isn't as horribly imbalanced as you wish to think it is.
Another thing, your infrastructure comparison includes the tech tree for terran, but not for zerg.
|
On January 09 2013 02:26 eu.exodus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 02:05 Krakoskk wrote:On January 09 2013 01:50 eu.exodus wrote:
Cost effectiveness of units?
Supply cap?
This mean anything to you? Lol... supply cap works in the favour of the zerg in this scenario, since this larvae system gives extreme remax abilities vs the terrans/toss being able to spend their resources over time. And also, zerg units are potentially the most cost effective in the game: Blings Vs Rines in big numbers Infestors.... Broodlords... Ultras vs No-Marauders.... What's far worse than this to me is how incredibly overpowered ultras are below top GM because of costing ONE LARVAE to create a 6 supply unit. What the fuck? To Fix the game = Scale larvae at least a little bit... corruptors = 2 larvae, ultralisk = 3 or 4 larvae, infestors = 2 or 3 larvae etc.... its silly and makes no sense how everything is one larvae. It's like if you could just start making battlecruisers two at a time out of a reactor barracks as long as you have a fusion core. In the currrent state, a terran can harass the shit out of a Z and take him down to 2 base vs 5 base and be ahead by 60 supply and be spending his resources way faster at the same time and the Z can be missing all his injects while the T only macro slips slightly.... and still lose because the Z can make a 200/200 army out of 2 hatcheries using ultralisks: macro meaning absolutely nothing at all. Sorry but youre wrong. In a pro game you would never see someone bank the amount of minerals the OP is talking about here. Even if they did I can guarantee you that at that stage of the game Terran would not only have: 5 Barracks w/Reactors, 1 Factory w/tech lab 1 Startport w/Reactor Protoss would not only have: 5 Warpgates and 1 Robo producing Colossus You forget that zerg needs to invest a fuck ton more to static defense than T or P because you are defending both economy and production at each base so they money spent on spines alone compared to other races would mean a lot more resources for T + P to make army + production. You cant compare larvae and other race mechanics to each other. They are completely different. Scaling larvae would break early game. If somehow you get to late game with your suggested larvae scaling, it would make pretty much no difference anyway . This is just another zerg QQ thread nothing more
Sorry, but you're wrong and I'm not.
Read my post. Then read the start of yours. I win.
P.S: Just incase you didn't get it
Me: overpowered ultras are below top (or mid) GM
You: In a pro game you would never see someone bank
Also, your post is just stupid and not true. Macro hatches, its not like they are forced to make every base at a new patch ( and if they do, Terran/toss need to equalize on economy anyway) they don't need to invest more in D, they need to invest LESS because they have 1.5k hp 300 mineral production buildings in their bases. You're just another low level noob zerg, nothing more.
Also,
Me: ultralisk = 3 or 4 larvae, infestors = 2
You: Scaling larvae would break early game
Lolwut
|
Canada11367 Posts
Well this need not have anything to do with balance because SC2 is for the most part balanced around Zerg having this sort of production. But it does help explain the max out in 12 min (or is it 8) phenomenon which really could only be replicated in BW's Big Money maps. Probably Fastest Possible is the only one that could give SC2 Zerg a run for their money.
Nevermind racial imbalance as there will always be buffs and nerfs. This has more to do with the sort of economic system that SC2 has created which is foundational to how it is played.
|
On January 09 2013 04:03 Falling wrote:
Well this need not have anything to do with balance because SC2 is for the most part balanced around Zerg having this sort of production. But it does help explain the max out in 12 min (or is it 8) phenomenon which really could only be replicated in BW's Big Money maps. Probably Fastest Possible is the only one that could give SC2 Zerg a run for their money.
Nevermind racial imbalance as there will always be buffs and nerfs. This has more to do with the sort of economic system that SC2 has created which is foundational to how it is played.
I disagree. Zerg needs this SORT of production, but ultralisks, infestors, don't need to be one larvae, just like how they're not all one supply.
|
United States5491 Posts
On January 09 2013 04:07 Krakoskk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 04:03 Falling wrote:
Well this need not have anything to do with balance because SC2 is for the most part balanced around Zerg having this sort of production. But it does help explain the max out in 12 min (or is it 8) phenomenon which really could only be replicated in BW's Big Money maps. Probably Fastest Possible is the only one that could give SC2 Zerg a run for their money.
Nevermind racial imbalance as there will always be buffs and nerfs. This has more to do with the sort of economic system that SC2 has created which is foundational to how it is played. I disagree. Zerg needs this SORT of production, but ultralisks, infestors, don't need to be one larvae, just like how they're not all one supply.
So I agree with Falling on this, but I wonder, are you suggesting that if infestors cost 3 supply then they should cost 3 larvae or something similar?
|
On January 09 2013 04:13 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 04:07 Krakoskk wrote:On January 09 2013 04:03 Falling wrote:
Well this need not have anything to do with balance because SC2 is for the most part balanced around Zerg having this sort of production. But it does help explain the max out in 12 min (or is it 8) phenomenon which really could only be replicated in BW's Big Money maps. Probably Fastest Possible is the only one that could give SC2 Zerg a run for their money.
Nevermind racial imbalance as there will always be buffs and nerfs. This has more to do with the sort of economic system that SC2 has created which is foundational to how it is played. I disagree. Zerg needs this SORT of production, but ultralisks, infestors, don't need to be one larvae, just like how they're not all one supply. So I agree with Falling on this, but I wonder, are you suggesting that if infestors cost 3 supply then they should cost 3 larvae or something similar?
No, I'm suggesting that if zerglings cost 1 larvae, then infestors should cost 2 larvae. How can you balance a race which has absolutely no scaling in their production? Obviously it will be imbalanced in at least one stage or aspect of the game. At least make fucking ultralisk more larvae than a roach. In my opinion, it's terrible design that the only limiting factor the zerg's production is how many resources they have (if you have infestor and ultra tech out) and not injects or production buildings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
