What you are talking about is one problem with terran which you can compare to a problem that zerg does not have.
Great, that is balanced.
But we're talking about 2 problems, 2, count them.
You cannot make units with zerg unless you use them, hence why they are a directional race
Hence why broodwar scored units lost so that zerg could have a comparable score but usually lost.
But zerg is the race that keeps sending and sending, the queen occupancy of supply has only but fortified this concept and aim in starcraft 2.
When the most primitive units of the zerg race that you ought to keep sending and sending do not evolve in some way with the empty tiers, you are suiciding stupidly and are restricted on options and tactics that make intelligent suicide possible.
On December 06 2016 23:38 AtlasMeCHa wrote: What you are talking about is one problem with terran which you can compare to a problem that zerg does not have.
Great, that is balanced.
But we're talking about 2 problems, 2, count them.
You cannot make units with zerg unless you use them, hence why they are a directional race
Hence why broodwar scored units lost so that zerg could have a comparable score but usually lost.
But zerg is the race that keeps sending and sending, the queen occupancy of supply has only but fortified this concept and aim in starcraft 2.
When the most primitive units of the zerg race that you ought to keep sending and sending do not evolve in some way with the empty tiers, you are suiciding stupidly and are restricted on options and tactics that make intelligent suicide possible.
Are you talking about SC1 Zerg or SC2 Zerg? Because the SC2 Zerg changes constantly due to patches in the game.
So with Broodwar Remastered Live, so I've heard...
Will anyone be testing a UMS that finally corrects the zerg race by addressing the Directional and Progressive aspects of their design with regard to "The Swarm" (zerglings)
-At lair tech, zerglings naturally getting the ability to leap at the target
and
-At hive tech, zerglings naturally getting a collision suicide ability added to the leap that outputs their life as damage down to 1 hp
Finally establishing a philosophy of play to the zerg race of sacrificing minerals (zerglings) to chip away at the opponent's special units (gas) that is of quality legitimacy?
Fortifying meaning to their Directional aspect (do not make units unless you are going to use them)
and meaningfully filling the empty holes of their Tier Progressive design?
Noting the Beauty of the Idea
Inspired by hegal's trichotomy for the sake of 3 unique bodies
On April 19 2017 11:37 AtlasMeCHa wrote: So with Broodwar Remastered Live, so I've heard...
Will anyone be testing a UMS that finally corrects the zerg race by addressing the Directional and Progressive aspects of their design with regard to "The Swarm" (zerglings)
Not unless you made the UMS, which I seriously doubt you have.
-At lair tech, zerglings naturally getting the ability to leap at the target
They leap with every step. Watch their animation.
and
-At hive tech, zerglings naturally getting a collision suicide ability added to the leap that outputs their life as damage down to 1 hp
That's banelings, dude. And suicide would KILL them.
Finally establishing a philosophy of play to the zerg race of sacrificing minerals (zerglings) to chip away at the opponent's special units (gas) that is of quality legitimacy?
That already exists.
Fortifying meaning to their Directional aspect (do not make units unless you are going to use them)
Nobody makes units that they're not going to use unless they're noobs.
and meaningfully filling the empty holes of their Tier Progressive design?
Are you saying you want to fuck a zerg?
Noting the Beauty of the Idea
Inspired by hegal's trichotomy for the sake of 3 unique bodies
"thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis"
That makes no goddamn sense. That's like saying "Progress + Congress = Tigress". It doesn't mean anything.
except in sc1, zealots do not have charge, so this should make it all the more better in terms of each race still being unique
Zerglings have adrenaline glands. The reason they don't get adrenaline glands at lair has to do with cost effectiveness.
A zealot costs 100 minerals, which will produce 4 zerglings, and 3 zerglings can kill one zealot.
A marine costs 50 minerals, which will produce 2 zerglings, and 1 zergling can kill a marine.
So Zerglings are more cost-effective in the early game where there are smaller numbers of basic units, and get a boost at a point in the game where they need a boost. It would help you greatly if you would learn to play the game and get more bases than just two bases, and then you could afford more units instead of crying about imbalance.
Philosophy Problem: The one thing that lies behind all things in the universe is called the problem of the one and the many
The overmind is the one thing that lies behind all zerg units in the zerg universe
The solution to solving the problem is balancing out the equation with inversion
Solution: "The Many and the One"
The Many Zerglings with One HP
Balance and Completion of the Zerg Philosophy
The zerg race needs to be better at sacrificing zerglings on gas units, KEY WORD, BETTER....
But why?
Because zerg is a directional race (all units share production from larva)
and a progressive race (lair and hive TIERS that have controversial purpose and previously none)
The progress and the direction go hand and hand
In China, the one thing that unifies the universe is the tai chi, or Great Ultimate. The Great Ultimate is divided into two opposite forces (yang and yin)
Have you just been trolling all these years? At one point you said something about an overlord having the ability to land and produce creep...? And a hatchery providing 10 supply while overlords provide no supply?
You either are trolling really hard and are laughing your ass off, or have some kind of mental disorder. I'd hate to think it's the latter of those two, but for clarity's sake, which is it?
Due to broken zerg philosophy in regard to their unique design and not being able to see what the defining aim is of their philosophy which makes them different as well as not being able to express the justification of the design for that aim forced me to see the race's inferiority in terms of parallel and familiarity, rather then difference.
That has since changed.
I will say though, if Blizzard did have a response counter they would probably say that if there was a philosophy to zerg that it would have to include the overlord, which is what evolved with the progression of the tiers. (Overseer)
That evolution would have needed to be something along the lines of being able to shoot or fling zerglings at the opponent with the same function as I explained. (Colliding with the enemy, sacrificing all life down to 1 hp as offensive damage output)
I actually had some very fantastic points in regard to the overlord such as questioning what the justification was for its occupying of larva in its production. Simply being able to float around and have some high ground vision was not enough. Drones and warriors are significantly more useful in their larva occupancy. If overlords don't naturally come with the ability to load and drop, then it's definitely a severe hindrance to the race as it would force a drop research that was over priced for too long. But that's not the issue... the issue is that if overlords are to be part of the directional production of the zerg race's unique design, then what direction are the overlords supporting? The economic or the combative side?
I'm not going to give you anymore valuable insight then this, I've done to much for your sake as it is with the way you behave towards me.
Will add: One aspect of defining the swarm is sheer weakness, that if you would but merely breathe on it, it will die.
On April 20 2017 19:41 AtlasMeCHa wrote: Due to broken zerg philosophy in regard to their unique design and not being able to see what the defining aim is of their philosophy which makes them different as well as not being able to express the justification of the design for that aim forced me to see the race's inferiority in terms of parallel and familiarity, rather then difference.
That has since changed.
I will say though, if Blizzard did have a response counter they would probably say that if there was a philosophy to zerg that it would have to include the overlord, which is what evolved with the progression of the tiers. (Overseer)
That evolution would have needed to be something along the lines of being able to shoot or fling zerglings at the opponent with the same function as I explained. (Colliding with the enemy, sacrificing all life down to 1 hp as offensive damage output)
I actually had some very fantastic points in regard to the overlord such as questioning what the justification was for its occupying of larva in its production. Simply being able to float around and have some high ground vision was not enough. Drones and warriors are significantly more useful in their larva occupancy. If overlords don't naturally come with the ability to load and drop, then it's definitely a severe hindrance to the race as it would force a drop research that was over priced for too long. But that's not the issue... the issue is that if overlords are to be part of the directional production of the zerg race's unique design, then what direction are the overlords supporting? The economic or the combative side?
I'm not going to give you anymore valuable insight then this, I've done to much for your sake as it is with the way you behave towards me.
Will add: One aspect of defining the swarm is sheer weakness, that if you would but merely breathe on it, it will die.
Can you provide me a single instance of where someone has unironically agreed with you on any forum?
Acknowledging the lack of overlord role fulfillment
Inspired by the thematic differences
Zerg: Aggressive Quantity (Legitimate aggressive quantity as opposed to ling rush)
Protoss: Reactive Quality (Warping in units instantly)
Terran: Positional Ability/Utility (Bunkers repaired and salvaged)
I even discuss what the queen could have been able to do (sc2 queen)
I did this because if you implement a unit like the queen of sc2 then it establishes a concept of "Delayed Reactive Quantity" which only emphasizes the need to compensate with "Advanced Aggressive Quantity" which I explained with the evaluation of the overlord.
The role changing or parameter adjusting queen is just an idea for a deeper counter system as opposed to seeing zerglings leaping or being flung at the enemy's gas units while zerg just takes the map through out the whole teching process.
Perhaps it would be the queen that flings the zerglings, but "the right" queen in order to maintain the counter system...
Because the counter system as is, suggests that zerg should be countering everything with the right defense, a defense that is split and permanently sacrificed for.
Since that doesn't work, then are zerg suppose to be able to make lair and hive with out requiring spawning pool or queen's nest? Or any buildings at all?
No one seems to agree with that either.
What is a good counter system that doesn't break what starcraft is?
Consider this concept I'm putting out there though, the idea that zerglings could have been used in some way at any time to help them in the counter system.
Example: 2 zerglings merging together to mutate a different unit so long as you have the building that unlocks the unit.
It makes a lot of sense, but then it is just simply an ugly idea because it negates the role of larvae.
The idea as explained shows how zerglings could always be of use in the counter system as they should be, in a way that has potential.
In a final statement to your point, it's as though the queen(sc2) is the virtual opposite to the overlord since the overlord comes from larva and has no attack, where as the queen does not come from larva and has an attack capability.
Which is why I question the queens role fulfillment as much as I do the overlord's.
Linking to an SC2 thread really does nothing to legitimize anything you're saying.
On April 21 2017 15:37 AtlasMeCHa wrote:
I even discuss what the queen could have been able to do (sc2 queen)
I did this because if you implement a unit like the queen of sc2 then it establishes a concept of "Delayed Reactive Quantity" which only emphasizes the need to compensate with "Advanced Aggressive Quantity" which I explained with the evaluation of the overlord.
The term "delayed reactive quantity" means nothing if you don't define these terms clearly and concisely. I can say something like: "I think Ultralisks should be able to burrow because it is a reciprocal measure to strategic positional gambits during linear antipositional deflections." and it won't mean anything unless I define what I'm talking about.
The role changing or parameter adjusting queen is just an idea for a deeper counter system as opposed to seeing zerglings leaping or being flung at the enemy's gas units while zerg just takes the map through out the whole teching process.
Perhaps it would be the queen that flings the zerglings, but "the right" queen in order to maintain the counter system...
What the heck, dude.
Because the counter system as is, suggests that zerg should be countering everything with the right defense, a defense that is split and permanently sacrificed for.
You don't have to "counter everything". This shows a major misunderstanding of how zerg works on your part. For 100 minerals, a terran can make a bunker with 350 health, but needs an additional 200 minerals worth of marines to be an effective defensive structure. Zerg spends 50 for a drone, 50 for a creep colony, and 75 for a sunken colony, spending a total of 175 minerals for a structure that automatically does 40 damage per shot. That's a good deal for a defensive structure.
If you're mad about having to sacrifice the drone, keep in mind that zerg needs less workers per mineral patch to produce a comparable army to their terran and protoss counterparts.
Since that doesn't work, then are zerg suppose to be able to make lair and hive with out requiring spawning pool or queen's nest? Or any buildings at all?
No one seems to agree with that either.
That's a really bad example/comparison.
What is a good counter system that doesn't break what starcraft is?
You don't need to change the actual game behavior. The way you think StarCraft is a series of 'counters' is kind of flawed logic, and that probably has more to do with why you're frustrated rather than the actual game.
Consider this concept I'm putting out there though, the idea that zerglings could have been used in some way at any time to help them in the counter system.
Having one unit that can counter everything and is always available is not how you make a strategy game.
Example: 2 zerglings merging together to mutate a different unit so long as you have the building that unlocks the unit.
It makes a lot of sense, but then it is just simply an ugly idea because it negates the role of larvae.
It would not 'negate the role of larvae' to combine two zerglings. How did you even come to that conclusion? You would still need larvae to produce zerglings in your hypothetical zergling-based world. Additionally, in no RTS that I know of are you required to build a unit to unlock a tech tree. That's just ass-backwards.
The idea as explained shows how zerglings could always be of use in the counter system as they should be, in a way that has potential.
No, it doesn't at all.
In a final statement to your point, it's as though the queen(sc2) is the virtual opposite to the overlord since the overlord comes from larva and has no attack, where as the queen does not come from larva and has an attack capability.
Which is why I question the queens role fulfillment as much as I do the overlord's.
This addresses nothing I've said, but okay. I don't really care about the function of queens in SC2.
1.) "any forum" - Ninazerg 2.) The queen is a macro mechanic that you pay for and produce (delayed reactive quantity) where as chrono boost is natural. The philosophy of "do not make units unless you are going to use them" applies more to zerg then the other races due to the directional design and function of their production. 3.) The idea is that the queen would be able to change its parameters for a time cost that allowed it to fulfill completely different roles. 4.) Zerg has to make defense and terran do not, the bunker can be mass repaired and salvaged. "The best defense is suppose to be a good offense" but zerg fails at what they need to do "not making units unless they use them" and what they are suppose to do "the best defense is a good offense"
5.) No it's not... that's how it worked in WC3 for all races.... 6.) Saying the game is "Not a series of counters" means nothing unless you define the game clearly and concisely. (in your own words) 7.) Banelings countered marines, but since they were suicided and inefficiently so, zerg had less gas to play in the gas vs gas counter system with. That is not how you make a strategy game.
8.) If zerglings merge to produce units, then larvae doesn't have to make those units. 9.) You don't care about much, that's pretty obvious.
In final point, there are locations in zerg design where things almost start to make a small amount of sense. Such as units being able to mutate in to other units.
But note that even these minor aspects of the design fail in regard to the progression of the direction....
Zerglings mutate to Banelings - Zerglings don't have a leap life sacrificing attack
Hydralisks mutate to Lurkers - Lurkers don't get to keep the hydralisk attack while remaining unburrowed
Mutalisks mutate to Guardians - Guardians don't get to keep the ricochet attack effect that mutalisks had
The direction headed in is suppose to be "progressed out"
But does not and is therefor a failure of design comprehension on the game designers part.
It is the failure of the game designer that has a great deal of solid things to look at, but doesn't get clear on anything.
On April 19 2017 11:37 AtlasMeCHa wrote: So with Broodwar Remastered Live, so I've heard...
Will anyone be testing a UMS that finally corrects the zerg race by addressing the Directional and Progressive aspects of their design with regard to "The Swarm" (zerglings)
Noting the Beauty of the Idea
Inspired by hegal's trichotomy for the sake of 3 unique bodies
except in sc1, zealots do not have charge, so this should make it all the more better in terms of each race still being unique
We're talking about StarCraft: Brood War. SC1. SC:R. That StarCraft. If you go on a fucking SC2 forum and say "Balance is broken." of course people are going to agree with you. That's what the SC2 community does. Sometimes, though, they evoke the holy grail of gaming: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20745054729#post-7
Unfortunately, although SC2 people seem to be of the opinion that the game is eternally broken in terms of balance, they don't have a "solution" per se, they don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
On April 21 2017 11:51 ninazerg wrote:
Can you provide me a single instance of where someone has unironically agreed with you on any forum?
Note: alt accounts do not count.
You know, someone who goes, "Hey, these are GREAT suggestions! I liked how you talked about Zerg being a directional race and I've always thought about that." Not linking a SC2 forum where you incite some people to whine about balance. Getting some to cry about balance in SC2 is NOT equal to someone agreeing to the changes you're proposing.
On April 21 2017 20:49 AtlasMeCHa wrote: Points addressed in order
1.) "any forum" - Ninazerg
I said more than just "any forum". I can post irrelevant shit on another forum and link it, too. I asked specifically for someone who is agreeing that stuff like the "zergling leap" is a good idea. So far, you have not done so.
2.) The queen is a macro mechanic that you pay for and produce (delayed reactive quantity) where as chrono boost is natural. The philosophy of "do not make units unless you are going to use them" applies more to zerg then the other races due to the directional design and function of their production.
It's SC2; don't care.
3.) The idea is that the queen would be able to change its parameters for a time cost that allowed it to fulfill completely different roles.
SC2; don't care.
4.) Zerg has to make defense and terran do not, the bunker can be mass repaired and salvaged. "The best defense is suppose to be a good offense" but zerg fails at what they need to do "not making units unless they use them" and what they are suppose to do "the best defense is a good offense"
More SC2 problems; Zerg can attack in Brood War. Of course, note that the saying is "A good offense", not just "an offense".
Quoting yourself does not ever add legitimacy to your argument, especially when the reference comes from a thread where everyone in the thread made fun of you and then it got closed.
6.) Saying the game is "Not a series of counters" means nothing unless you define the game clearly and concisely. (in your own words)
I have to define which game we're playing? StarCraft: Brood War on fastest speed on maps that are used for competitive play in a 1v1 match. "A series of counters" is a mentality where a bad player thinks, "Okay, my opponent is making rock so I need to make paper." then "Now my opponent is making scissors so I need to make rock." and are continuously just trying to react to perceived threats. A player that plays in this manner is going to create units that they're not going to use because they're not thinking about a logical path to winning, but rather, about how to hard-counter each thing their opponent can do.
An example of this would be a zerg player seeing corsairs, and thinking, "Okay, I need to get some devourers." and then being stuck with air-to-air units they can't use because the rest of the game is a fight between ground units. They just sit there, taking up supply because they were used to counter a threat that could've easily been dealt with in other ways that didn't call for a hard-counter.
See? I actually can explain my ideas using real in-game examples.
7.) Banelings countered marines, but since they were suicided and inefficiently so, zerg had less gas to play in the gas vs gas counter system with. That is not how you make a strategy game.
SC2; don't care. Also, banelings are used to attack any clumped group of units, and to knock down defensive structures.
8.) If zerglings merge to produce units, then larvae doesn't have to make those units.
The zerglings come from larvae.
In final point, there are locations in zerg design where things almost start to make a small amount of sense. Such as units being able to mutate in to other units.
But note that even these minor aspects of the design fail in regard to the progression of the direction....
Zerglings mutate to Banelings - Zerglings don't have a leap life sacrificing attack
Hydralisks mutate to Lurkers - Lurkers don't get to keep the hydralisk attack while remaining unburrowed
Mutalisks mutate to Guardians - Guardians don't get to keep the ricochet attack effect that mutalisks had
The direction headed in is suppose to be "progressed out"
But does not and is therefor a failure of design comprehension on the game designers part.
It is the failure of the game designer that has a great deal of solid things to look at, but doesn't get clear on anything.
Never mind that lurker spines do way more damage than hydralisk spines, and are invincible against ranged attacks under dark swarm while burrowed. Also never mind that a mutalisk can also morph into a devourer, which does splash damage. No no, let's cry because guardian acid doesn't bounce. Never mind that a guardian has way more range than a mutalisk and does way more dps. Let's focus on perceived negative attributes!
Also, you're talking about SC1 units, which means you realize that, at some level, we're talking about SC1. But you also mention banelings, so I dunno how that relates to SC1 at all. Do you think SC1 and SC2 are the same game? Because they're separate games, and you were complaining about SC1 long before SC2 existed.
I have to define which game we're playing? StarCraft: Brood War on fastest speed on maps that are used for competitive play in a 1v1 match. "A series of counters" is a mentality where a bad player thinks, "Okay, my opponent is making rock so I need to make paper." then "Now my opponent is making scissors so I need to make rock." and are continuously just trying to react to perceived threats. A player that plays in this manner is going to create units that they're not going to use because they're not thinking about a logical path to winning, but rather, about how to hard-counter each thing their opponent can do.
An example of this would be a zerg player seeing corsairs, and thinking, "Okay, I need to get some devourers." and then being stuck with air-to-air units they can't use because the rest of the game is a fight between ground units. They just sit there, taking up supply because they were used to counter a threat that could've easily been dealt with in other ways that didn't call for a hard-counter.
See? I actually can explain my ideas using real in-game examples.
It's funny that you should conveniently use the "different" race as your example that does not play a hard counter game because 1 base tech zerg is cheese as a known fact.
Where as a legitimate in game example of the rock paper scissors element is taken in to account after the fact that all the immediate mineral costing warriors are virtually equivalent until upgrades take effect, and so therefor ends up being staggered up the tech tree in timing.
Therefor as follows:
Marines with range upgrade > Zealot Dragoon with range upgrade > Marine with range upgrade Tanks added > Dragoon Speedlot added > Tank
And so the rock paper scissors sections can be isolated out considering the initial upgrade for the basic mineral warriors
Marine > Zealot > Dragoon > Marine
Dragoon > Marine > Tank > Dragoon
Starcraft is a fantastic design for business because it is half truth stacked upon half truth on which it has built the reputation of being balanced and can claim as such.....
The players with a decent head on their shoulders going from sc1 to sc2 knew that T>Z>P>T. Could it be said that the game was balanced? Yes, because T>Z>P>T is a model of balance, that is irrefutable.
And even though it is obviously a half truth, the notion that Z>P was also just another half truth with-in the greater half truth. It was from the sheer fact that protoss players came up with this new build against zerg known as the "Forge Fast Expand" which only resulted in advantageous wins for the zerg player by wearing out the protoss player over time.
And so what was the purpose of the forge fast expand? There was no actual purpose. In fact, it broke the fundamental wisdom of what is considered legitimate play for the sake of dominating the opponent and therefor ... winning.
"The best defense is a good offense" - And you know for a fact that this is more then true against zerg because if they start making offense, it is very difficult for them to turn back. Who would not play aggressive against zerg with the aim of winning?
"Do not make units unless you are going to use them" - But the sheer stupidity of the forge fast expand even went beyond the units rule in to buildings! And protoss was actually making buildings that they weren't immediately using nor ultimately using. That's one of the prime reasons that the best defense is a good offense... because with static defense there is never a guarantee that it is ultimately going to be used. And then to actually make the forge with out having the gas to upgrade and instead setting it aside only to build another nexus at the expansion? The most messed up part is how blizzard tried to work with and build upon that asinine play style by how chrono boost could be used to speed up upgrades! LOL!
Just because Z>P>T>Z was true in sc1 and that protoss players developed an Anti-Intelligent play style that kept zerg alive competitively does not warrant the quality of being balanced...
Quality... now there is a lost cause concept that doesn't get its fair share of attention in this day and age....
On April 23 2017 02:50 AtlasMeCHa wrote: It's funny that you should conveniently use the "different" race as your example that does not play a hard counter game because 1 base tech zerg is cheese as a known fact.
Where as a legitimate in game example of the rock paper scissors element is taken in to account after the fact that all the immediate mineral costing warriors are virtually equivalent until upgrades take effect, and so therefor ends up being staggered up the tech tree in timing.
Therefor as follows:
Marines with range upgrade > Zealot Dragoon with range upgrade > Marine with range upgrade Tanks added > Dragoon Speedlot added > Tank
And so the rock paper scissors sections can be isolated out considering the initial upgrade for the basic mineral warriors
Marine > Zealot > Dragoon > Marine
Dragoon > Marine > Tank > Dragoon
This is where you're showing a basic lack of game knowledge. A single marine will NEVER kill a zealot. In fact, even two marines are hard-pressed to kill a zealot. It's only once you reach 3+ marines where killing a zealot becomes a reasonable proposition. So that's a cost of at least 150 minerals to kill a 100 mineral unit. What's more important than sheer cost are other variables that come into play, such as obstacles, chokepoints, and unit combinations. Marines are actually fantastic against dragoons, and the only reason they aren't 'standard' in TvP is because psionic storm does way too much damage to them.
Additionally, ranged units become more effective than melee units as they grow in number. In a ball of melee units, only the units that can reach their targets to hit can do damage, whereas in a ball of ranged units, all of the units can deal damage provided that their target is in range. So in a battle of 4 zerglings vs 4 marines, the zerglings will likely win easily, but in a battle of 48 zerglings vs 48 marines, the zerglings will lose.
Starcraft is a fantastic design for business because it is half truth stacked upon half truth on which it has built the reputation of being balanced and can claim as such.....
The players with a decent head on their shoulders going from sc1 to sc2 knew that T>Z>P>T. Could it be said that the game was balanced? Yes, because T>Z>P>T is a model of balance, that is irrefutable.
And even though it is obviously a half truth, the notion that Z>P was also just another half truth with-in the greater half truth. It was from the sheer fact that protoss players came up with this new build against zerg known as the "Forge Fast Expand" which only resulted in advantageous wins for the zerg player by wearing out the protoss player over time.
And so what was the purpose of the forge fast expand? There was no actual purpose. In fact, it broke the fundamental wisdom of what is considered legitimate play for the sake of dominating the opponent and therefor ... winning.
Forge expanding didn't just poof into existence. Many older maps had entrances that were very wide and had a lot of vulnerabilities if the Protoss were to fast-expand. Similarly, the size of the natural meant that the Zerg would have to make more defense to stop a double-gate opening from Protoss. So, fast expanding wasn't even a popular concept until 2006-2007ish. The advantage of a fast expand is economic: if a Zerg fast expands and a Protoss fast expands, then they're both on two bases, and the Protoss will eventually out-muscle the Zerg in terms of army strength. In response, Zergs began double expanding, but Protoss continued to fast-expand because the fact that Zerg was double expanding led to timing windows for the Protoss player to exploit.
It's also easier to manage 2 bases versus 3 bases than 1 base versus 2 bases.
"The best defense is a good offense" - And you know for a fact that this is more then true against zerg because if they start making offense, it is very difficult for them to turn back. Who would not play aggressive against zerg with the aim of winning?
Like I've said, simply mounting "offense" is not necessarily a "good offense". And of course people can play aggressive against Zerg. They do it all the time.
"Do not make units unless you are going to use them"
You keep using this stupid line, which is a guideline for players to follow, not an imperative of game design. Defensive structures serve a purpose: to deter an attack or mitigate a threat. If you, as a player, don't want to build defensive structures, no one is forcing you to.
- But the sheer stupidity of the forge fast expand even went beyond the units rule in to buildings! And protoss was actually making buildings that they weren't immediately using nor ultimately using. That's one of the prime reasons that the best defense is a good offense... because with static defense there is never a guarantee that it is ultimately going to be used.
Defensive structures serve a purpose: to deter an attack or mitigate a threat. If you, as a player, don't want to build defensive structures, no one is forcing you to.
And then to actually make the forge with out having the gas to upgrade and instead setting it aside only to build another nexus at the expansion? The most messed up part is how blizzard tried to work with and build upon that asinine play style by how chrono boost could be used to speed up upgrades! LOL!
SC2 is not relevant to this conversation. You can cry about chrono-boost all day and night and it won't make a difference. What I will say, though, is that you're completely wrong about the forge not being used, because Protoss players use it to get upgrades.
Just because Z>P>T>Z was true in sc1 and that protoss players developed an Anti-Intelligent play style that kept zerg alive competitively does not warrant the quality of being balanced...
Quality... now there is a lost cause concept that doesn't get its fair share of attention in this day and age....
The way I understand it is that regardless of explosive damage type, the dragoon should still counter the marine due to the combination of being higher tier and getting more damage per upgrade +2 as opposed to the marines +1. This should also be true against the hydralisk, which is why the zergling > the dragoon.
Anyways.... let's go back to the parameter adjusting queen I was talking about earlier and set the "zergling leap hp sacrifice" idea aside for a moment.
At one point in time in the development of SC2, Blizzard was considering having the queen Lay Down defensive structures (spine at least that I know of) in which case it may not have required a larva, although I am not sure... I'm assuming that the queen might not have had an attack capability and just had the ability to lay down 1 spine and 1 spore, or something to that effect.
I felt like I could understand what Blizzard was getting at with that idea. Consider this balance schematic for a moment.
Probe warps in photon cannons but can now warp them in before needing a pylon radius, meaning that when warping in the photon cannon and then the pylon, the pylon's radius will finish the production of any warping in photon cannons. This is the way it should be if protoss is really going to build a forge first.
With this change it allows us to start with a balance schematic for terran and protoss for which we can see the completion with zerg.
Probe-Cannon : Aggressive Linear (1 Probe for all production) Scv-Bunker : Positional Origin (Surrounding Repair) Drone-Spine/Spore : Reactive Parallel (all drones can mutate defenses structures)
But the key to virtually instant production time is the Queen who lays down the defense structures but pulls unoccupied drones off the mineral line to "lay them down" so to speak.
And therefor, this might mean that the queen doesn't have to have the capability of attacking with its own attack. Rather, let's say it can go through mutation times that may or may not cost resources to transform in to a different form of the queen as we know it but with parameter adjustments.
For example: The glass harassing air queen that flies and attacks but has -1 armor instead of plus 1 and cannot cast spawn larvae or lay down defense structures.
Then let's go back to the swarm wreather idea for "Thematic Utility" consideration, but most importantly for zerg's issue, use it to justify the reason why overlords occupy larva.
So the overlord can merge with the spine crawler for example to make the swarmwreather with the function and attributes as I described and then this ultimately opens up the possibility for the glass harassing flying queen and the swarm wreather to work together, although it could be any of the different parameter adjusting queens for the sake of fulfilling a unique role and providing a legitimate counter system, and so this form of the queen could actually attack the swarmwreather while near the enemy for the sake of releasing broodlings on them (as the wreather looses life it would release broodlings proportionally)
Even though the swarmwreather could still potentially have its purpose solo as a scout, or burrow and detonate itself only when enemy units are nearby as previously explained.
added*
Sc1: Zerg macro/economic counter with minimal defense and offense* Sc2: Zerg macro/economic counter with mass upgraded queens* Sc?: Zerg macro economic counter with minimal defense and THE RIGHT queen*
added*
Now I would like to go back to the "zergling life sacrifice concept" and address the queen in the way that blizzard implemented it in to sc2.
With + 1 armor naturally, one would have thought that the queen was trying to fill a role, a tank role of course. Now imagine if queens would have been able to sacrifice an amount of their life as damage output, perhaps added to the damage of their attack....
Wouldn't this have properly drawn attention to them for the sake of absorbing damage up to their maximum 4 armor for the sake of the glass offense swarm?
And wouldn't this have made sense, especially with the use of transfusions cast between queens?*
On April 23 2017 13:51 AtlasMeCHa wrote: The way I understand it is that regardless of explosive damage type, the dragoon should still counter the marine due to the combination of being higher tier and getting more damage per upgrade +2 as opposed to the marines +1. This should also be true against the hydralisk, which is why the zergling > the dragoon.
Foist of all,
" ranged units become more effective than melee units as they grow in number. In a ball of melee units, only the units that can reach their targets to hit can do damage, whereas in a ball of ranged units, all of the units can deal damage provided that their target is in range. So in a battle of 4 zerglings vs 4 marines, the zerglings will likely win easily, but in a battle of 48 zerglings vs 48 marines, the zerglings will lose. "
This applies here. The larger the dragoon numbers, the more difficult it becomes for zerglings to attack them. Conversely, in a marine versus dragoon situation, marines will win. You can test this for yourself. IN FACT, LET'S DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
Anyways.... let's go back to the parameter adjusting queen I was talking about earlier and set the "zergling leap hp sacrifice" idea aside for a moment.
At one point in time in the development of SC2, Blizzard was considering having the queen Lay Down defensive structures (spine at least that I know of) in which case it may not have required a larva, although I am not sure... I'm assuming that the queen might not have had an attack capability and just had the ability to lay down 1 spine and 1 spore, or something to that effect.
Citation please.
I felt like I could understand what Blizzard was getting at with that idea. Consider this balance schematic for a moment.
Probe warps in photon cannons but can now warp them in before needing a pylon radius, meaning that when warping in the photon cannon and then the pylon, the pylon's radius will finish the production of any warping in photon cannons. This is the way it should be if protoss is really going to build a forge first.
With this change it allows us to start with a balance schematic for terran and protoss for which we can see the completion with zerg.
Probe-Cannon : Aggressive Linear (1 Probe for all production) Scv-Bunker : Positional Origin (Surrounding Repair) Drone-Spine/Spore : Reactive Parallel (all drones can mutate defenses structures)
But the key to virtually instant production time is the Queen who lays down the defense structures but pulls unoccupied drones off the mineral line to "lay them down" so to speak.
And therefor, this might mean that the queen doesn't have to have the capability of attacking with its own attack. Rather, let's say it can go through mutation times that may or may not cost resources to transform in to a different form of the queen as we know it but with parameter adjustments.
For example: The glass harassing air queen that flies and attacks but has -1 armor instead of plus 1 and cannot cast spawn larvae or lay down defense structures.
Then let's go back to the swarm wreather idea for "Thematic Utility" consideration, but most importantly for zerg's issue, use it to justify the reason why overlords occupy larva. So the overlord can merge with the spine crawler for example to make the swarmwreather
What the fuck am I reading
with the function and attributes as I described and then this ultimately opens up the possibility for the glass harassing flying queen and the swarm wreather to work together, although it could be any of the different parameter adjusting queens for the sake of fulfilling a unique role and providing a legitimate counter system, and so this form of the queen could actually attack the swarmwreather while near the enemy for the sake of releasing broodlings on them (as the wreather looses life it would release broodlings proportionally)
Even though the swarmwreather could still potentially have its purpose solo as a scout, or burrow and detonate itself only when enemy units are nearby as previously explained.
added*
Sc1: Zerg macro/economic counter with minimal defense and offense* Sc2: Zerg macro/economic counter with mass upgraded queens* Sc?: Zerg macro economic counter with minimal defense and THE RIGHT queen*
added*
Now I would like to go back to the "zergling life sacrifice concept" and address the queen in the way that blizzard implemented it in to sc2.
With + 1 armor naturally, one would have thought that the queen was trying to fill a role, a tank role of course. Now imagine if queens would have been able to sacrifice an amount of their life as damage output, perhaps added to the damage of their attack....
Wouldn't this have properly drawn attention to them for the sake of absorbing damage up to their maximum 4 armor for the sake of the glass offense swarm?
And wouldn't this have made sense, especially with the use of transfusions cast between queens?*
It's funny how tanks dragoons and hydralisks are explosive damage
And if a vulture were explosive then would any terran complain as it costs minerals only?
It's also funny how tanks dragoons and hydralisks are all ranged and none have normal damage
What makes the marine, with it being ranged, deserve normal damage.... what is wrong with concussive damage?
Other then that, the dragoon gets + 2 range on its ability upgrade and +2 damage per attack on its attack upgrade.
I think that based on mineral cost the dragoon wins, but considering the gas cost factor there is something to be said about it, which is why I resort back to the previous points on damage types.
I mean take mutalisks for example...
They are small units, so the marine will still be doing 100% damage to the mutalisk.....
On April 24 2017 05:06 AtlasMeCHa wrote: It's funny how tanks dragoons and hydralisks are explosive damage
And if a vulture were explosive then would any terran complain as it costs minerals only?
It's also funny how tanks dragoons and hydralisks are all ranged and none have normal damage
What makes the marine, with it being ranged, deserve normal damage.... what is wrong with concussive damage?
Other then that, the dragoon gets + 2 range on its ability upgrade and +2 damage per attack on its attack upgrade.
I think that based on mineral cost the dragoon wins, but considering the gas cost factor there is something to be said about it, which is why I resort back to the previous points on damage types.
I mean take mutalisks for example...
They are small units, so the marine will still be doing 100% damage to the mutalisk.....
Some ranged units do explosive damage, some don't. It works out so that lower-tier units have a bigger impact against higher-tier units like carriers and battlecruisers. In TvT, you go up in tier with your opponent. I don't see what the issue with normal-type damage is. If marines had explosive-type damage, they would absolutely devastate dragoons in a way that would break the game. If they did concussive damage, they would be worthless against dragoons, and it would make Protoss too strong in the early game.
EPT
