|
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
|
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
|
Canada11349 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.
|
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.
|
On January 09 2013 04:28 Krakoskk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 04:13 docvoc wrote: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.
Larvae are the limiting factor, not to mention that you can literally kill the thing that Zerg absolutely needs to make units. If I damage a barracks it doesn't really lose the ability to queue should be shorted from 5 to 4 and progress downward as the structure fails.
I have seen a fair number of high level ZvZ use baneling openers for the sole purpose of killing larvae. Yes high level Zerg have ample production with good injects, but Larvae frequently becomes an issue when say Terran or Protoss burn large supply Zerg armies.
|
Russian Federation11 Posts
But is it ok, that zerg is the only race can max out at around 12-13 minutes? I can't also agree that zerg units aren't cost efficient. The other problem is a cost of tech. Build pool once and you can spam lings the whole game long. Zerg doesn't need 2-4 lairs to be able to produce mass corruptors or mass muta.
Don't know what about other match-ups, but in PvZ zerg always has a better income (varies from 1.5 to 2 times more than protoss has) unless you are constantly harassing zerg. In that case it CAN become even (if you never make mistakes). But the only thing zerg need is paying attention to injections and a-clicking produced army. Protoss must be a god (demigod at least) of multitask to control the army and base properly.
I think there are only few solutions to this problem: either make injections provide 3 larvae's or raise queen's or hatchery's cost (maybe make queen require some amount of gas).
|
On January 09 2013 03:52 Krakoskk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 02:26 eu.exodus wrote: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: You: 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: You: Lolwut
Dude youre just balance whining. You completely missed everything I said and what you are saying has nothing to do with the point the OP makes. What Im saying is that the OP uses an unrealistic situation to try make a stupid point. There is no way that in any game at a respectable level, any zerg would have over 10k resources to dump in a minute, and even if he did he would be able to spend it all because he would be supply capped. You even said yourself a zerg can remax on only 2 hatches worth of larvae. If you let the dude get so much money bank that he could afford to remax on 200 supply of pure ultras and hell even morph all his drones and you dont have the right shit to defend a counterpush, thats your own fault and you werent going to win anyway.
What you dont seem to get either is that Hatcheries dont serve only one purpose. You talk about macro Hatcheries. Yes I completely agree, but what you seem to forget is that whether or not you have macro hatches means nothing if you dont have the resources to actually use the larve the macro hatches give which is why zerg needs static defense to defend drops and a lot of it. You do know that 1 +3+3 marine drop can melt through drones and a hatch before they would even need to use a second stim. You also just took a shit all over your own logic with that one. Macro hatcheries are the exact reason why larvae scaling late game wouldnt have any effect on the kind of late game we're talking about. You still wouldnt be retricted by larvae because you could always build more hatches (especially when youre sitting with over 10k minerals to spend like the OP suggests.
BTW I did play zerg, I also played terran and randomed on my 2nd account. I stopped playing because of infestors and the queen buff believe it or not, and looking up my post history will prove that. I didnt say zergs abilty remax wasnt insane. It is and nobody can deny that but its not game breaking. Its what the whole zerg race is all about ffs. If they made units at the same rate as the other races all their units would have to be buffed a bit because they arent cost effective compared compared to T and P units.
My point was,no way in fuck can you compare 6 unit producing and 4 hatches worth of larvae if you had 10k resources banked to blow. If the Terran had the 10k resources, no way in fuck would he only have 5-1-1 to try and spend it with. You cant fucking compare it. To compare the production capabilities between 2 races would only make sense if you gave them the same income and see what they could make out of the structures mentioned in a given time. Could a zerg dump 10k resources in a minute? Yes he could. So what? Is it likely to happen in any game that means something? Highly unlikely. The argument the OP makes just doesnt have any substance. Its just sounds like flame bait and everyone that isnt a zerg just agrees. I think zerg is OP thats my opinion same as most other people, but it has nothing to do with how quickly a zerg can dump resources because resources are finite. If zerg can afford to max on the most expensive unit in the game in the space of a minute then Im sorry but you just got out macro'd
Oh and good job with quoting me in bits and pieces, next time include the rest of my sentences so you dont appear to be right.
|
On January 09 2013 05:30 DON-ILYA wrote:
But is it ok, that zerg is the only race can max out at around 12-13 minutes? I can't also agree that zerg units aren't cost efficient. The other problem is a cost of tech. Build pool once and you can spam lings the whole game long. Zerg doesn't need 2-4 lairs to be able to produce mass corruptors or mass muta.
Don't know what about other match-ups, but in PvZ zerg always has a better income (varies from 1.5 to 2 times more than protoss has) unless you are constantly harassing zerg. In that case it CAN become even (if you never make mistakes). But the only thing zerg need is paying attention to injections and a-clicking produced army. Protoss must be a god (demigod at least) of multitask to control the army and base properly.
I think there are only few solutions to this problem: either make injections provide 3 larvae's or raise queen's or hatchery's cost (maybe make queen require some amount of gas).
You can max out at 13 mins with roaches, but it only proves that zergs units arent cost effective. Protoss can still hold that push at 13 mins with the right units. Even with the 1.5-2 times weaker economy you mentioned
|
On January 09 2013 06:11 eu.exodus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 05:30 DON-ILYA wrote:
But is it ok, that zerg is the only race can max out at around 12-13 minutes? I can't also agree that zerg units aren't cost efficient. The other problem is a cost of tech. Build pool once and you can spam lings the whole game long. Zerg doesn't need 2-4 lairs to be able to produce mass corruptors or mass muta.
Don't know what about other match-ups, but in PvZ zerg always has a better income (varies from 1.5 to 2 times more than protoss has) unless you are constantly harassing zerg. In that case it CAN become even (if you never make mistakes). But the only thing zerg need is paying attention to injections and a-clicking produced army. Protoss must be a god (demigod at least) of multitask to control the army and base properly.
I think there are only few solutions to this problem: either make injections provide 3 larvae's or raise queen's or hatchery's cost (maybe make queen require some amount of gas). You can max out at 13 mins with roaches, but it only proves that zergs units arent cost effective. Protoss can still hold that push at 13 mins with the right units. Even with the 1.5-2 times weaker economy you mentioned
The roach max can happen at 10:30, 13 minutes would be slow even for me. Roaches are cost effective, they're just not supply effective. The build isn't used anymore because Zerg are much better off going for bw/infestor, this build was popular before that was the way to play.
I didn't include tech buildings in the cost (even though some Terran buildings are tech) or upgrade costs, just the actual infrastructure to create units. It's not that hard to add in the cost of Zerg tech if you want to make your own comparison that way, but I felt for the purposes of what I was looking at it wasn't important to include them. (I dont want to make a 3 hour video for each build orders cost, just generic build orders to keep it simple)
Here's whats important to note though:
Just because you cut Zergs efficiency down from 3x bw to 1.5x bw it's not a direct 50% nerf on Zerg in any way shape or form. It would simply force them to invest more in their economy and slow them down much like trying to threaten them used to force Zergs to make units. The downscaling of say 3 Larva/minute off a hatch and 2 per inject (60seconds for each inject) wouldn't start showing up until after a Zerg would have added on a few Queens. Not only that but instead of being able to have 35 drones at 6minutes they'd probably only have 27 or 28 which is going to free up around 350 resources to make a new hatch anyway. Something like this would simply slow zerg down a bit, as extreme as it looks, and force them to pay infrastructure costs that are a bit higher than the other races to have by far the best production in the game.
Terran with mules is more mining efficient, but that's not what the point of this blog is and that is production. Terrans actual production infrastructure is really only more efficient when you talk about reactored starports, everything else is worse than it was before. Barracks that make marines and use reactors are roughly the same cost as two Barracks from BW, Barracks with tech labs are more expensive than Bw in terms of production of units like ghosts/marauders. (In BW you only needed an academy to do this, the 12 barracks you had could still be naked and produce units more efficiently.)
Protoss is marginally improved. Warpgates allow for a cool "early" spike but have diminishing returns if you warp in consistently. You basically make whatever you could in bw with a +1unit per warpgate bonus at the start of your cycle. Everything else is the same, except Chronoboost can be used. Chrono allows units to be produced 30% faster than they otherwise normally would, but it's really only useful for the big tech units that still take 50 seconds to create.
Basically here's how it breaks down when you talk about infrastructure vs. bw infrastructure
For the resources required to invest in unit production, each race is X% of their BW efficincy
Zerg is 300% BW efficiency
Terran is 100% BW efficiency
Protoss is 115% BW efficiency
I know all the races are different, but this has been overlooked for a very long time.
|
I won't get into a balance debate, but I realized zerg had these issues at launch, which would make some very unfair lategame situations if the zerg was mechanically sound. Blizzard, not realizing this instead punished early game harassment possibilities among the other races. Not implying it makes the game broken, but it's not complex enough if your only option is to prevent a macro war.
|
On January 09 2013 06:06 eu.exodus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 03:52 Krakoskk wrote:On January 09 2013 02:26 eu.exodus wrote: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 Dude youre just balance whining. You completely missed everything I said and what you are saying has nothing to do with the point the OP makes. What Im saying is that the OP uses an unrealistic situation to try make a stupid point. There is no way that in any game at a respectable level, any zerg would have over 10k resources to dump in a minute, and even if he did he would be able to spend it all because he would be supply capped. You even said yourself a zerg can remax on only 2 hatches worth of larvae. If you let the dude get so much money bank that he could afford to remax on 200 supply of pure ultras and hell even morph all his drones and you dont have the right shit to defend a counterpush, thats your own fault and you werent going to win anyway. What you dont seem to get either is that Hatcheries dont serve only one purpose. You talk about macro Hatcheries. Yes I completely agree, but what you seem to forget is that whether or not you have macro hatches means nothing if you dont have the resources to actually use the larve the macro hatches give which is why zerg needs static defense to defend drops and a lot of it. You do know that 1 +3+3 marine drop can melt through drones and a hatch before they would even need to use a second stim. You also just took a shit all over your own logic with that one. Macro hatcheries are the exact reason why larvae scaling late game wouldnt have any effect on the kind of late game we're talking about. You still wouldnt be retricted by larvae because you could always build more hatches (especially when youre sitting with over 10k minerals to spend like the OP suggests. BTW I did play zerg, I also played terran and randomed on my 2nd account. I stopped playing because of infestors and the queen buff believe it or not, and looking up my post history will prove that. I didnt say zergs abilty remax wasnt insane. It is and nobody can deny that but its not game breaking. Its what the whole zerg race is all about ffs. If they made units at the same rate as the other races all their units would have to be buffed a bit because they arent cost effective compared compared to T and P units. My point was,no way in fuck can you compare 6 unit producing and 4 hatches worth of larvae if you had 10k resources banked to blow. If the Terran had the 10k resources, no way in fuck would he only have 5-1-1 to try and spend it with. You cant fucking compare it. To compare the production capabilities between 2 races would only make sense if you gave them the same income and see what they could make out of the structures mentioned in a given time. Could a zerg dump 10k resources in a minute? Yes he could. So what? Is it likely to happen in any game that means something? Highly unlikely. The argument the OP makes just doesnt have any substance. Its just sounds like flame bait and everyone that isnt a zerg just agrees. I think zerg is OP thats my opinion same as most other people, but it has nothing to do with how quickly a zerg can dump resources because resources are finite. If zerg can afford to max on the most expensive unit in the game in the space of a minute then Im sorry but you just got out macro'd Oh and good job with quoting me in bits and pieces, next time include the rest of my sentences so you dont appear to be right.
No. That's stupid and you're wrong. It's just a strawman post where you quote me then talk about the OP. I'm not suggesting a change to ANY remax units... Roach/Hydra/Zerglings ETC all stay exactly the same. The only change I'm suggesting is high tech units (That should be limited by your resources anyway unless your own 6 mining base with no macro hatches and don't know what inject larvae is) like ultra and infestor cost a little more than one larvae to prevent ridiculous one base instant max outs from macro slipped players.
Notice: I said larvae scaling not larvae nerf. This could involve roach or zerglings becoming 0.5 larvae if it was needed to balance it out, for example. It's just stupid and lopsided how it is now and is part of the reason XvZ (especially tvz)) SUCKS
I just think you're biased, ignorant and wrong. Roaches max out 11 mins not 13 mins, its like you do not even understand the game at all
|
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.
Zerg does not need this sort of production.
This was merely the DESIGN that Blizzard chose to use...Larva injection, what makes larva rate as high as it is, is a macro mechanic.
Try removing all macro mechanics (and yes, I would qualify reactors as a macro mechanic). What happens? Zerg players are forced to do something they did classically...
BUILD A FUCKTON OF HATCHERIES.
I know it sounds hard to believe.
But the way it is now, the Zerg macro mechanic is much more engrained into the race than Terran or Protoss (Protoss macro mechanic being the least so). What Falling said is true - the game is balanced around Zerg having this sort of production. It doesn't have to be that way. But removing the Zerg macro mechanic will have far more ramifications than removing that of T/P.
|
On January 09 2013 04:03 Falling wrote:
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 think it's more complex than that. I just tested and i was able to max out in bw in 10 min on drone/ling and 4 bases on FS (with 80 drones to try to get something similar to sc2). I think the time could be brought down quite a lot with proper teching to get something more supply intensive per larva (it's complicated though, because we haven't got roaches in bw).
There are numerous other factor other than that reduced cost in infrastructure. It has to do with the difference in unit I think, abut also with the way sc2 works (or doesn't rather if I may give my opinion here^^) strategically : it's overall much easier to drone. It's most obvious in ZvZ, but it's also true in ZvT and ZvP. Droning is much riskier in bw than in sc2, and I don't think it's really easy to point out which factor is responsible for that.
All in all, i'm not sure the larva mechanic itself explains that much the huge difference between the races in bw and sc2, probably the bigger of the three. I'd say unit design is a bigger factor.
After that, I'm pretty sure in theory the impact of such a mechanic on balance could be made negligible, and WoL already seems pretty balanced.
Edit : it does explain the easier to remax part though, unless my brain has finally ceased to function
|
very interesting read thank you!
|
On January 09 2013 02:05 Krakoskk wrote:
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.
Won't this just lead to zerg players just investing more heavily in macro hatches? If the issue is units being remaxed too quickly, then the limiting factor is more likely to be the time it takes to build the unit - in the case of ultras, the big cut in build time has had a pretty big impact.
Also, it takes 1 larvae to make one unit in the same way it takes 1 building to make one unit, the difference for units stems from the time it takes to make them - I'm not sure that scaling larvae really covers off whatever fundamental issue is believed to exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
