EPTZerg Design and Concept Controversy - Page 3
| Blogs > AtlasMeCHa |
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
| ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On April 24 2017 12:02 AtlasMeCHa wrote: You do realize that vultures with explosive damage would be way more effective against dragoons as opposed to their current concussive damage though right? And with vultures being medium in size, dragoons are not that ineffective against them in terms of their own damage.... You do realize that spider mines are thing, right? | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
| ||
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
On April 24 2017 13:46 ninazerg wrote: You do realize that spider mines are thing, right? That's an interesting point.... did you ever think that because vultures are concussive and therefor pathetic against dragoons that they had to compensate by giving vultures an ability upgrade that has the potential to quickly whipe out chunks of your hard earned gas units although by a unit that doesn't cost gas at all and comes equipped with 3 mines at a time? | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On April 24 2017 22:00 AtlasMeCHa wrote: That's an interesting point.... did you ever think that because vultures are concussive and therefor pathetic against dragoons that they had to compensate by giving vultures an ability upgrade that has the potential to quickly whipe out chunks of your hard earned gas units although by a unit that doesn't cost gas at all and comes equipped with 3 mines at a time? This is precisely a hurdle Protoss players will inevitably come across: how to deal with mines. In a pitched battle, the player with better control and positioning will win the dragoon versus vulture fight. It's not as cut-and-dry as "Oh, this isn't an equivalent cost so that's not fair." unless you're a noob who would rather blame your losses on poor game design rather than your own ineptitude. On April 24 2017 18:42 EsportsJohn wrote: Uh. Wtf is this thread. Great question. Just great question. | ||
|
starkiller123
United States4030 Posts
| ||
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
-Broken Zerg Philosophy -Terran Marines OP -Protoss players defying the reason of classical strategy game wisdom "do not make units or buildings unless you are going to use them" "the best defense is a good offense" When we know for a fact that the forge fast expand is bad game design because it lead players to believe that since it could be done that it had to be legitimate, as if starcraft was God's creation of a perfectly meaningful balance of all directions. LOL! You don't make defense first against zerg, Even better yet, even though starting out by making defense against zerg is absolute stupidity, you would never do so unless you knew that you could cause the zerg player to make defense later guaranteed. The forge fast expand has no relation to causing a zerg player to make defense at any time in regard to anything legitimate. This might not have been true, however, if photon cannons could have been warped in pre-pylon and then activated to function by the follow up pylon. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On April 25 2017 23:50 AtlasMeCHa wrote: I'm just blown away at how unique every major problem is for each race and how it has most certainly held the progress of the game design in to anything that is just simply "better". The reason the game design hasn't changed since 1999 is because there is no need to do so. There are no MAJOR problems with each race that would warrant such a thing. Each race has a 'statistically weak' match-up, but that means almost nothing. You can be a PvZ specialist or whatever. Unless you don't try. I think you'd rather complain about game design and come up with what sound like absolutely insane ideas that are so bad that I'm 70% sure you're trolling. You keep going back to -Broken Zerg Philosophy which is utterly meaningless, because your gripes about Zerg are based on a very poor understanding of game design, but because you keep throwing chess-buzzwords out there, you think what you're saying is relevant. -Terran Marines OP You didn't even know marines were good against dragoons until I made a fricking video so you could SEE IT. Now, suddenly, you think marines are overpowered? Explain to me how marines are "overpowered", because I don't think you understand what you're talking about. -Protoss players defying the reason of classical strategy game wisdom "do not make units or buildings unless you are going to use them" I already explained why Protoss do this, and if you're too dumb to comprehend what I read, then there is no hope for you. At least offer me some coherent rebuttal other than repeating the same fucking phrase over and over. "the best defense is a good offense" Stop saying this. You don't even know what this means. Because I'll tell you this: a fucking bad offense is worse than mediocre defense. When we know for a fact that the forge fast expand is bad game design because it lead players to believe that since it could be done that it had to be legitimate, as if starcraft was God's creation of a perfectly meaningful balance of all directions. LOL! Forge fast-expand was never part of the game's "design". That was created by players. Also, I never said anything about 'perfect balance'. You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. You don't make defense first against zerg, Okay. Play Protoss and I'll pick Zerg and we'll see how that works out for you. Even better yet, even though starting out by making defense against zerg is absolute stupidity, you would never do so unless you knew that you could cause the zerg player to make defense later guaranteed. If Protoss wants to take an expansion, how do you propose they defend it? Oh right, you think they should only attack at all times, and if they don't, it's the game's fault. But what if I told you that cannons only cost minerals and kill gas units like nobody's business? If I had to guess, your next argument would be: "That's what's wrong with the game. Defense needs some equivalent gas cost." The forge fast expand has no relation to causing a zerg player to make defense at any time in regard to anything legitimate. This might not have been true, however, if photon cannons could have been warped in pre-pylon and then activated to function by the follow up pylon. http://imgur.com/8TtKU6b | ||
|
SkrollK
France580 Posts
Either way, Nina, i'd advise not to answer again... Tho it's pretty entertaining  | ||
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
Stop saying this. You don't even know what this means. Because I'll tell you this: a fucking bad offense is worse than mediocre defense. You don't understand the figurative nature of the quote and therefor what it is aiming to point out, among other things and i'll explain this later in your question of how I would propose you defend your bases as protoss. As for now.... there is a difference between a bad offense and one that is losing on purpose. If you lose more resource value offensively to what the opponent spent on his defense, then you are losing on purpose. A bad offense is better than a mediocre defense when losing in offense against offense battles because a bad offense has a chance, where as a mediocre defense as any level of defense does nothing, allowing the opponent to expand freely and protect with offense. Note that defense is unlocked by buildings that upgrade the offense and the idea is that if your offense should fail, the moment this is determined, you would upgrade your offense BEFORE putting down any defense structures, and THEN defense would serve a legitimate purpose, but no one does this. Yes, no one does this is a straight fact because 9 times out of 10 it will fail and this is due to proportionate, weak progressioning, bad game design. If Protoss wants to take an expansion, how do you propose they defend it? Oh right, you think they should only attack at all times, and if they don't, it's the game's fault. But what if I told you that cannons only cost minerals and kill gas units like nobody's business? If I had to guess, your next argument would be: "That's what's wrong with the game. Defense needs some equivalent gas cost." You do realize that SC2 was an attempt to correct these things therefor establishing that there was a problem. Zealots lost leg enhancements and could no longer run from base to base in order to protect against the speed of zerglings. Banelings, also in existence had speed upgrade only making quick work of a base that protoss lacked the speed of getting to in the first place. The best defense is a good offense and a good offense is defined by the qualities of Aggression, Harassment, and Making the Most out of the Least, and most important: COUNTERING, which allows you to expand with out ever the need for defense. When you say "defense needs some equivalent gas cost" you would be speaking on behalf of the "missing zerg defense philosophy" for which I explained to you how it would be mobile through the queen and a very light harassment form of countering as the zerg mutates in to any of these forms for a cheaper gas cost and then cooperates with single instances of zerg defense to generate a true defensive counter effect. Then we could say that "yes" zerg's defense has a gas cost. Note that all forms of these zerg defenses would have a mobility AND DO and the potential of being used offensively, which makes defense production a bit more acceptable and legitimate. ------ Just as an additional thought What would be wrong with flipping the concussive damage type of the vulture with the normal damage type of the marine? We know that terran must retain a normal damage type, otherwise they would complain through the roof. But compared to the normal damage marine, the vulture would even be taking a bit more damage by around 25% from units that can contest it (explosive damage type vulture and dragoon) This is already in place but a regular damage type vulture would mean that vultures would be used even more often by popular preference. And it could still be said about terran that they beneficially are the only ones to have a "ranged" normal attack classification | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On April 27 2017 02:54 AtlasMeCHa wrote: You don't understand the figurative nature of the quote and therefor what it is aiming to point out, among other things and i'll explain this later in your question of how I would propose you defend your bases as protoss. Well, I've waited for you to provide further explanation, but you have yet to do so. Now, as far as the quote goes: It stands to reason in a strategy game that a player should have the choice to play defensively or offensively, which are both possible for Protoss to do versus Zerg in the early game. Note that I am strictly talking about SC:BW, which is the game that matters to me. If the designers programmed the game to force players to be strictly offensive, that would be poor game design. As I've mentioned before, there has been a paradigm shift among Protoss players where they used to be aggressive in the early game, whereas now play more defensively in the early game and are more aggressive in the mid-game, where they can hit the Zerg player with timing attacks while the Zerg is still trying to establish an economy. As for now.... there is a difference between a bad offense and one that is losing on purpose. If you lose more resource value offensively to what the opponent spent on his defense, unless, in the process, you kill them then you are losing on purpose. A bad offense is better than a mediocre defense when losing in offense against offense battles because a bad offense has a chance, where as a mediocre defense as any level of defense does nothing, allowing the opponent to expand freely and protect with offense. Doing a double expand as a response to an expansion from your opponent is not the same as expanding all over the map willy-nilly. Note that defense is unlocked by buildings that upgrade the offense and the idea is that if your offense should fail, the moment this is determined, you would upgrade your offense BEFORE putting down any defense structures, and THEN defense would serve a legitimate purpose, but no one does this. Yeah they do, and the fact that you don't know this is baffling to me. A lot of Protoss players who are good, in PvZ, will go 8 pylon then scout so they get a 12 forge versus overpool or 12 nexus versus 12 hatch and go gateway before forge, then only get the cannons when the zergling numbers are too high for slow zealots to deal with or in response to seeing hydralisks. Yes, no one does this is a straight fact because 9 times out of 10 it will fail and this is due to proportionate, weak progressioning, bad game design. That is a player decision. They can go double gateway opening if they want to. You do realize that SC2 was an attempt to correct these things therefor establishing that there was a problem. Zealots lost leg enhancements and could no longer run from base to base in order to protect against the speed of zerglings. Banelings, also in existence had speed upgrade only making quick work of a base that protoss lacked the speed of getting to in the first place. SC2; don't care. The best defense is a good offense and a good offense is defined by the qualities of Aggression, Harassment, and Making the Most out of the Least, and most important: COUNTERING, which allows you to expand with out ever the need for defense. So you're saying the game shouldn't have an option to make defense? That doesn't even make sense. When you say "defense needs some equivalent gas cost" you would be playing devil's advocate speaking on behalf of the "missing zerg defense philosophy" for which I explained to you how it would be mobile through the queen and a very light harassment form of countering as the zerg mutates in to any of these forms for a cheaper gas cost and then cooperates with single instances of zerg defense to generate a true defensive counter effect. Then we could say that "yes" zerg's defense has a gas cost. A sunken colony costs zero gas. So it literally has no gas cost. Also, the queen isn't a base-defending macro thing in SC:BW. It's a flying spellcaster. Also, you haven't explained, in practical terms, any of these things. Note that all forms of these zerg defenses would have a mobility AND DO and the potential of being used offensively, which makes defense production a bit more acceptable and legitimate. Zerg defenses can be used offensively if someone spreads the creep close enough. Additionally, the legitimacy of making defensive structures does not hinge on your personal opinion. ------ Just as an additional thought What would be wrong with flipping the concussive damage type of the vulture with the normal damage type of the marine? That would be stupid and pointless. We know that terran must retain a normal damage type, otherwise they would complain through the roof. But compared to the normal damage marine, the vulture would even be taking a bit more damage by around 25% from units that can contest it (explosive damage type vulture and dragoon) This is already in place but a regular damage type vulture would mean that vultures would be used even more often by popular preference. And it could still be said about terran that they beneficially are the only ones to have a "ranged" normal attack classification - Vultures are used by Terran in every match-up - Zerg and Protoss have ranged units with "normal" damage - There is absolutely no reason to make this change Edit: I'm not joking around when I'm asking this - have you been diagnosed with any of the following conditions: - Schizophrenia - Autism Spectrum Disorder - Asperger's Syndrome - Attention Hyper Deficit Disorder - A chemical substance addiction of any kind I'll be fine you don't want to answer publicly, but I really need to know where you're coming from, and I need to either know about these things, or rule them out entirely. | ||
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
What if I say that "Zerg's Offensive Sacrificial Philosophy" is broken We know that -All zerg buildings regenerate life -All protoss buildings regenerate shields -All terran buildings can be repaired at a mineral cost rate What if there was a factor in place that increased the regeneration rate of shields, the regeneration rate of zerg buildings, and reduced the cost rate of scvs to repair buildings, based on the rate of resource in take that the player is taking in from all his bases. And then what if at any time zerg was able to halt the life regeneration across all of their buildings and by doing so it began to apply the same rate of regen as a degeneration to all enemy buildings. Even though it seems completely irrelevant to skill and reason, perhaps it would be possible to justify this kind of ability through the "overmind" Why would zerg need this ability? Sauron zerg is not just a way of playing zerg, it really is the established philosophy of the race. If starcraft was a competitive real-estate simulator and the maps went on forever in every direction then to say that zerg is "winning" or that zerg has "won" the enemies base would not need to be destroyed... it would just be a matter of zerg dominating the most territory and running away with the economic advantage to establish the fact of their "winning" direction and growth over the opponent. But the reality is that maps do not go on forever, and so this zerg philosophy of "winning" as opposed to "won"(opponent base elimination) will never be complete unless this "offensive sacrificial overmind" ability is in the game. The overmind should just be this sort of "sacrifice capable essence" that is in the atmosphere when ever in any vicinity of zerg on the same planet or land mass. But in the end it is all fair you see, because Terran and Protoss have equal opportunity to counter-act this effect by increasing their own resource in take rates for the sake of their regeneration and repair enhancement. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On April 30 2017 11:08 AtlasMeCHa wrote: Let's consider a different point though... What if I say that "Zerg's Offensive Sacrificial Philosophy" is broken We know that -All zerg buildings regenerate life -All protoss buildings regenerate shields -All terran buildings can be repaired at a mineral cost rate What if there was a factor in place that increased the regeneration rate of shields, the regeneration rate of zerg buildings, and reduced the cost rate of scvs to repair buildings, based on the rate of resource in take that the player is taking in from all his bases. And then what if at any time zerg was able to halt the life regeneration across all of their buildings and by doing so it began to apply the same rate of regen as a degeneration to all enemy buildings. What the fuck...? What are you even... what? What if the moon were green? What if tigers had wings? Why would even think of something like this? You won't break me, though. I refuse to get mad. | ||
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
The necessity of zerg's aggressive offense is critical But that should already be found in the nature of zerg design due to the fact that overlords occupy larva but currently do not have a role as significant as resource gatherer or warrior. The fact that zerg start with an overlord already establishes their offensive nature from the get go, but the first overlord does not occupy a larva, so just take one larva away from zerg at the start to compensate. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
We need to reassess the role of the defiler to give it an attack that does concussive damage to make up for the Zerg's lack of concussive damage capabilities. What we know for certain is that dragoons have collision boxes that fundamentally change in size and this is terrible game design, and so why not have Zerg units be able to move while burrowed and sacrifice some of their health to attack from underground? This only makes sense because of the zugzwang tri-directional countergambit design that borked Zergs | ||
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
What is wrong with sunken colonies doing concussive damage instead of explosive.... And then if one hitting marines is really a problem... (too hard of counter) Then why not make it so that concussive damage can only reduce an enemy's hit points down to 1 and any hits after that just stun the target. I don't think this is much of an issue against zealots because shields take full damage regardless... But concussion represents more of a disabling then a "killing" concept... So.... But remember, what ever has concussive damage makes up for it with great re searchable abilities like super speed and 3 free mines comparably, of course zerg must be completely different though, especially considering that we are talking about defense. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
I think a spore colony should be able to burrow. What if we made it so that explosive damage was reversed, so that it does maximum damage to small types and minimum damage to large types? This would force Terrans to go battlecruisers. Anyhow... I think we should add "extra-small" and "extra-large" to the damage type as well to diversify my portfolio and keep my investments secure. | ||
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
A zerg HAS to expand first but at the same time somehow manage to be aggressive This is a MUST in order to play legitimate, but it's not really possible. You can do -9 lord -10 hatch expand -Pool For a perfect bare minimum economic build And throw 8 lings at the enemy or try to be legitimately aggressive with this build but it simply is not legitimate Further more, you can't send drone out early to scout with the intention of an expand first and aggressive approach This is proof that overlords were suppose to have some kind of offensive capability to them because of how this is all suppose to work legitimately. And it should be completely justified by the fact that overlords occupy larva which the justification by some ability means should be a necessity simply on that point alone. But it could also be justified somehow by the fact that hatchery was made first which would make what ever this ability would be, offensively legitimate. That the more hatcheries zerg has completely the stronger this ability could become would be the idea. The game pretty much suggests that you should scout early with drone, expand first by blocking the enemy's expansion followed up by quick pool And then quickly take your expansion | ||
|
SkrollK
France580 Posts
Cause you talk about Zerg's FE and early timings and builds, and relate it to the Game design of the ovis... I dont think the Game devs had the slighest clue, when they designed the Game, of what players would make of the metagame several years later. Hence, connecting the two like you do is at best far fetched, at worst completely and utterly stupid. | ||
|
AtlasMeCHa
70 Posts
Would be that zerg can defend with offense against terran by rushing ling speed And then zerg cannot rush hydra speed to defend with offense against protoss I can't say it's because hydras don't counter zealots due to their design... It's more like hydralisks should have their own damage classification type Like... 100% damage to medium units and 75% damage to small and large It feels stupid saying this when zerg tends to do better against protoss But when protoss plays offense from the start and knows what he's doing you can tell the difference as opposed to the cannon players. This, also in turn means that hydras would do 25% more damage to marines But marines are ranged and do full normal damage across the board and don't cost gas.... If lings had to do 75% damage to large units to make this work then I would be all for it. Lings would still counter large units because large units are tending to do splash (50% damage to small) I just don't think that they could come up with a good way to address this issue that fit nicely in to their damage classification approach. ------------------- To demonstrate how this is a balanced way of thinking Hydralisk Explosive Damage: 50% s 75% m 100% L Total difference between explosive and normal damage : 75% Hydralisk New Damage Type: 75% s 100% m 75% L Total difference: 50% Lings New Damage: 100% s 100% m 75% L Total difference: 25% Total difference between new hydra and ling vs old hydra and ling : 0% --------------- The reason why I say all of this is because there never should really be any time when any race should HAVE to make defense.... Especially in zergs case, and especially in the particular situation of zealots against sunken colonies. | ||
| ||
