Blog Update 9/15: It might be most beneficial to the reader to skip to my 3rd post on this blog before reading anything else
I guess it's important to point out before I start, that what I'm talking about may refer more to broodwar zerg then starcraft 2 zerg but it is something to ponder relative to sc2.
What we ended up concluding on the blizzard forums was that zerg was or is a "Directional Race" or in another term "Vector Race". That is to say that they do have a "half cheesey" functionality. A zerg that heads in a particular direction of offense or defense tends to stay heading in either one of those directions. The classic wisdom is as follows "do not make units unless you are going to use them" and so because of zerg's directional or vectorial functionality it makes it all the more important to have "meaningful long term impact". One consideration for that impact has been in the form of slowing the enemy down. It might ensure some meaningful hits on the enemy, but since zerg's strength is found in their "timing parallel production" it makes their swarming potential too great in combination with enemy slow and would possibly ensure kills every time. The other side of this could be seen in terms of options. We all know how zerg was forced to make lings in many cases. Zerglings could have had the option to merge pairs together in to any unit for the cost so long as they had the building to unlock that unit. But that also seemed to be outside the realm of a quality unique race that should be zerg.
In broodwar we saw lots of speed upgrades for things. I guess in starcraft 2 we see about as many but they removed the speed upgrade from the ultralisk. They added speed enhancement to creep. It has definitely made one wonder what is up with all the speed upgrades on top of speed creep. I think that all this speed is stretching to reach a concept that hasn't been or they haven't seemed to figure out how to ultimately fulfill in a quality way.
At this time I would like to bring up 3 concepts all at once. "Micro, Sacrifice, and Parameter Adjustment" that is to be viewed as a group of concepts that could be useful to achieving the goal of "a unit made is a unit used' with the greatest intention of "quality micro experience on both sides" and "unique functions or methods of sacrifice". I would also like to add the functional design consideration that a production buildings that has lost x% of life produces x% slower. I honestly feel like these two considerations overall would have made zerg "pure balanced" in broodwar and I suppose that pure balance may not be good for our sense of how the game should be, however, it is worth while to consider when the ideas proposed may have no real argument against them in terms of fairness treatment as with the building damage, but as for zerg and having the considered "parameter altering abilities and sacrificial strength" there could be something said about the fairness however having only speed could be an argument for an unfair amount of redundancy.
So now I will provide the design ideas I came up with considering the aspired concepts above.
The first one could be the most significant since many have complained about the "swarm strength concept" not being there.
1.)To properly define the strength of the swarm you don't say "1 zergling many" (many used to describe the many hit points of life pool, rather, you define the swarm by the phrase "Many zergling 1" that is, many zerglings with 1 hp left. This vision for proper definition of the swarm is illuminated in its uniqueness and difference from the other races using Hegel(the philosopher) concept of "thesis plus anti thesis equals synthesis" that in order to get a 3rd body of uniqueness you combine the opposing factors of the other two. The other two factors in this case are "charge" and "stim pack". Notice that these things are in opposition to each other because you don't want to sacrifice and charge at the enemy simultaneously. But when you combine the two for the sake of the zergling you could use a different application of "leap sacrifice" where the zergling can leap in and sacrifice all its life down to 1 hp, using the life sacrificed as damage to the opponent including the basic damage on the attack.
2.)So the ultralisk would have a toggle ability that would allow it to lose in max or current hp for a gain of movement speed. As soon as you get close to the enemy you would toggle it off of course. But the key aspect of the ultralisk in terms of passiveness is that what ever amount of life the ultralisk loses it does as damage back at ranged units. However, what ever % of missing life the ultralisk has, it takes as a reduced amount of its own attack damage "to ranged units" in the same % of missing life.
I said back at "ranged units" but that damage doesn't have to include the bonus damage from counter unit types, a counter unit should be more effective since the right unit was made. And it doesn't have to include air ranged units as missile like banshees of course.
3.) could have been that mutalisks would have been able to sacrifice their splash damage in order to have what ever damage experienced against them splashed in the same proportioned manner. That almost seemed to be the concept going on when the pros clumped mutalisks together as seemed to be "one unit" diminishing any micro towards them. It would seem that capability didn't have to come in the form of a gimmick, but rather could have been in the form as described as a "parameter changing ability"
It seems that the idea of "a unit made is a unit used" hurts zerg the most when fighting terran who have bunkers, planetary fortress, tanks and on top of it all, high ground.
Maybe it would have been interesting to seem some inverted terrain maps of high/low ground.
................
At this time I would like to point out that with the bunker and the planetary fortress. Something has seemed to go out of quality symmetrical design aim whack so to speak.
Terran didn't necessarily need another defense form after the bunker because zerg and protoss had attack building defenses (spine cannon). It only proves that if they were serious about putting the planetary fortress in the game as fairness to terran in a symmetrical sense that they would have considered the fairness for zerg and protoss in terms of "lacking a utility concept" like the bunker. I wrote about that concept previously and here it is.
The swarmwreather: Created by merging the overlord with the spinecrawler (the spinecrawler is unlocked by the pool and not evo, showing its intention to be a part of utility for zerg) This unit is fully mobile everywhere and generally fast. It has the combined hp pools of the spine crawler and overlord but has no natural amor defense to speak of all though it can have its armor upgraded. Ground unit. If the swarmwreather is attacked it releases broodlings per so much life lost. It has no other attack form of its own. Your own units can attack the swarmwreather. The enemy will recognize the swarmwreather as an enemy warrior (fire at it) if it is the only unit of type in the vicinity but as soon as other warriors come in to the vicinity they take the position of priority target.
The swarmwreather can burrow and detonate, however... it can only detonate if an enemy unit is close by and the command of detonation has been acted.
I later decided to perhaps not merge the lord and the spinecrawler to make the swarm wreather because of the "parameter adjusting visibility/invisibility ability" that it could have had for the sake of ensuring the greatest possible utility value out of the overlord for occupying a larva, however, it doesn't really seem to make any difference whether it is the lord and spine crawler merged together or is simply a spinecrawler that can mutate convert in to the swarmwreather alone.
Protoss: Protoss is missing "Quality Utility" thematic. Protoss could have a certain type of building to replace the shield battery which is somewhere between a bunker and swarmwreather, therefore moving around the map in a blink cooldown style that is of substantially different parameter then the stalker blink. Any units inside of the radius of this building have their shields "spirit linked" (wc3 term) or "unitied" (diablo term) to represent the concept of "Semi Mobile Quality" as a differentiating from the other races.
And that leads me to paint the thematic schematic picture over all for all 3 races
Finally, I would love to be able to attack the queen in terms of a degrading of esports but the design considerations only come down to a realm of two possibilities
One is to have the queen produce from larva and spine/spore produce linearly at hatchery
Or swap supply cost and upgrade capability with spines/spores and queens as is.
The other would be to have 3 role forms of the queen that are extreme in concept and produce that way out of the hatchery. So that there would be a sort "light rock paper scissors" going on. As we might see something like the flying "glass harasser flying queen" with negative 1 armor instead of positive one made as the proper sort of counter to what ever the enemy throws at zerg...
The necessity would be to have the general 3 way rock paper scissors aspect of the game nailed down for what ever queen forms would be designed.
But for the sake of esports there would need to be a counter offensive potential going on with the queen here for sure as the addition of the queen from broodwar to sc2 hasn't helped to serve esports, that's for sure.
Finally, if the spinecrawler would have been able to mutate in to the swarmwreather of mobile utility value
I guess the question may have been
What would have the queen mutated in to of stationary utility value?
And if it had something that could be significant then maybe the queen would have never needed an attack hopefully.
.....................
I think my final point to this thread is...
The queen should have never been able to attack, but instead the queen should have been able to lay down defense structures like they originally had in alpha or beta...
3 drones would have come off from minerals which therefor would have automatically factored the supply to instantly (or at 20% faster production speed) form a spine or spore where the queen commands
And it would be upgradable and have unit classification.
.........................
Maybe the queen sort of acts as the replacement to the creep colony in a way and when the 3 drones come together to make a spinecrawler under the queen's command, it definitely produces rather quickly if not instantly.
tough english for me, liked the ultra suggestion - very simple but could be cool Not sure what u mean with the queen - but ye, the queen attacking in sc2 and also using the "heal" is not likeable with me.
This isn't tough English. Some of these sentences are a garbled mess.
I mean wtf is this sentence: "However, what ever % of missing life the ultralisk has, it takes as a reduced amount of its own attack damage "to ranged units" in the same % of missing life."
I can only guess he's trying to say that an ultralisk does reduced damage to ranged units proportional to the amount (percentage ) of life it has lost.
On September 12 2016 19:44 Foxxan wrote: tough english for me, liked the ultra suggestion - very simple but could be cool Not sure what u mean with the queen - but ye, the queen attacking in sc2 and also using the "heal" is not likeable with me.
Thanks, I wasn't too confident about that one myself so I appreciate it.
Anyways...
Let's say for a minute that the queen's ability to attack is removed and it is now able to lay down spine crawlers.
You command a spine crawler to be made at a location and 3 (non mineral carrying) drones move out and then merge together at the location to mutate the spinecrawler almost instantly.
It might also cost supply if upgrades are desired to work with it, so it's either that queen or the spinecrawler that costs supply and can be upgraded.
But with spawn larva, the name could be changed simply to "spawn" and now it can cast on hatcheries or units.
When casted on a particular zergling in a group that you intend on counter attacking with, upon the effected units death, you can now hit a hot key to spend an additional 50 minerals to revive 2 more zerglings from the corpse and the effect will spread evenly in the revived units but realize that there are only up to 3 or 4 larva to work with.
So a single roach could divide/spend in to two, using up two larva, and then the effect would linger only on one of those two in order to divide in to two more roaches to use up the remaining imaginary larva
Directional or Vectorial zerg function support at its finest.
I think this really helps to support the idea that "a unit made is a unit used"
When it is passing on that "spawn effect" upon death, as though it did not die in vein.
It either ends up being that or that the spine crawler can mutate in to the utility tool of the swarmwreather.
..........
It's also hard to say how long of a wait there would be before the units could be spawned out of a corpse
Date 9/13-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*New Idea!*
At this time I would like to put forth a theory. And the general premise to that theory is that the queen was put in to the game of starcraft to solve a problem, but that problem was improperly percieved because no one knew what the wrong solution was in the first place.
So let's say that all of these unit ideas aformentioned would have been in the game of broodwar.
Well, if that were the case then it might have been much more clear what complex solution the queen could have simplified with the proper role fulfilled. (taking the need for parameter altering abilities and sacrificial concepts out)
In philosophy, there is a theory that beauty is founded on the relationship of "the one and the many".
In starcraft's case, it would be very easy to say that the Queen represents "One" and as far as what represents "the many" would we say only zerglings?
Or would we include all of the zerg units?
One strange point about zerg that people tend to forget is that the zergling AND the mutalisk are both "small" sized as classified by the game.
So imagine for a moment that the protoss race had its "shield unifying semi mobile battery replacement". As far as zerg goes, there should be a life link between the queen and the small units.
Those units would be the zergling and the mutalisk.
Perhaps to be different then protoss, if the queen itself is attacked, then there may be no life link relationship for it. Hence why the queen has 1 armor and other queens can heal that queen.
If this life link were in place then there wouldn't need to be a capability of attacking for the queen and this goes back to supporting the "spine crawler laying" that I say the queen should have had in the first place where 3 drones come together and quickly make the spine.
But then, in terms of "offensiveness" the queen could shift its form in to the "glass harasser flying queen" that has "-1 armor" and flies as fast as any warrior.
Now the enemy ought to try and kill the queen to disable the life link when the queen and zerglings or mutalisks are used offensively, and that -1 armor initially will be really enticing.
Perhaps in the flying form the queen has the ability to cast ensnare instead of transfuse as transfusing spirit linked would be op.
You can start to sense how much this completes the zerg race from broodwar to sc2.
Now as far as being able to cast "spawn" on a unit as previously described, i'm not so sure, perhaps the ensnare spell would be enough.
Couldn't this be a theory that also supports why they added the mutalisk life regen when that might not have been necessary?
And with the swarmwreather, I don't know, would zerg even have needed the roach?
Would the pros please pool together and get blizzard to see that this is a more realistic design for zerg and for e-sports?
Further Thought 9/13:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The considerations have now brought me for a questioning of the roster of zerg units overall and the function of being able to mutate from one unit to another
If we start with broodwar, it would seem to me that it might be possible to divide their entire roster of units down the middle
You have the
Zergling, Hydralisk, and Mutalisk (weak core army)
Ultralisk, Lurker, Guardian (strong and siegelike)
There almost seems to be a concept here of the weaker units being able to mutate in to the stronger ones.
The weaker units are suppose to represent the "defending" side of zerg
While the stronger ones are suppose to represent the "aggressive side"
The one issue with this perspective is that we never saw 2 zerglings merging together in order to mutate in to the ultralisk.
And it's really hard to know why that never was the case...
For the sake of inversion and symmetry, maybe the queen in its first form on the ground with plus 1 armor was only suppose to be able to life link with zerg's lighter units
The ling, hydra and muta (no point with the scourge because that would have defeated the concept of suicidal damage)
And then the weak -1 armor higher speed flying queen, which the would have been able to life link with the stronger siege like units
For the sake of symmetrical design it might make a lot of sense....
Zerg always seemed to be looking for the highlight of their aggression through "units mutated into other units" (proxy units)
Maybe ensnare would be fine as is, because you know that the flying queen is not linking the life of the lighter units and so it should be fine to allow it to ensnare for the lighter units, even if they do have a "spawn" applied to them.
Further Thought 9/13: The Overlord
There is one issue or weakness of design that this queen never really solves though
Why the overlord occupies larva and doesn't have that utility value it should have had for doing so because providing vision over a ledge doesn't quite cut it?
Maybe the overlord was suppose to mutate in to the swarmwreather and the spinecrawler was not suppose to be able to.
If one was to think very symmetrically about it...
It's like the overlord should have had a slightly larger vision radius then most units to show its utility value in that regard...
But in a complete opposing sense, it should have been able to land and mutate in to a swarmwreather that would be visually blind, but release broodlings when it looses life or completely detonate in to broodIiings if desired... only to either give the sense of offensiveness or defensiveness the legitimate strength capability it deserves at the time.
Think about how blizzard wanted banelings to move underground, or many people did.
Imagine if that were to have rather been the overlord that mutated in to the blind swarmwreather that burrowed under the ground but could move around and detonate if desired to, but required that sense of directionalism before confidently doing so which is why it would need a bit of offense in order to see.
There is your grand diamond concept that no money was able to buy....
Further consideration: It's hard to say whether the overlord or the spinecrawler would be able to mutate in to the swarmwreather but I have come up with an expression that ultimately makes sense for Zerg Design Wisdom that builds on the old wisdom of "do not make units unless you are going to use them"
"Do not make offense unless there is a way to use it defensively" "Do not make defense unless there is a way to use it offensively"
-The True Zerg Philosophy
Don't put a queen that can be upgraded and attack right down the middle of zerg's design and break rules with warriors that produce linearly from hatcheries.
It should be, rather
The Queen that can make offense defensive with life link (unite the many) The Queen that can make defense offensive by turning spinecrawlers in to swarmwreathers (divide the singular)
And as for the warriors that are more tanky, singular and siege like that are used offensively because the weaker ones mutate in to them...
I guess it's like.... "Combine the many and the singular in to one" with the unit concepts you already have in the game such as the boodlord and the swarmhost
And then we can wonder why zerglings don't combine together to make swarm hosts and mutas don't mutate in to broodlords so that we know that zerg's true offensive legitimacy is many many..... with swarmwreather and swarmhost or swarmwreather.
The "many many" as true offensive legitimacy
And the "One One" the ultralisk as the true defensive legitimacy
Maybe the entire concept is not complete with out the exclusive "many many" but apparently pertaining more to the defensive side....
And that might be that the broodlings which come from destroyed buildings will continue to divide and spend your minerals upon their deaths/divisions until you tell them to stop.
Might as well lay out the whole design schematic from the bottom to the top
Many Many (Offensive Cheese) Infested terran Many Many (Defensive Cheese) Broodlings From buildings divide upon death and continue to spend your minerals Many One (Defensive Legitimacy) (Queen life links the weaker units (ling, hydra, muta) but when its attacked link breaks One Many (Counter positional to mobile utility) Spine crawler converts to swarmwreather life sacrificed for broodling One and Many (Offensive Legitimacy) ling to swarm hosts, muta to broodlords One One (Mobile defense and offense legitimacy) Ultralisk. One One (Positional defense and offense legitimacy) Lurker *why not produce from larva?
"One is to have the queen produce from larva" -- the most probable reason that this is not the case that I can think of is that players would be prone to misplace their queens if they had the normal army rally point. Furthermore, they are quite slow (though they were much faster in beta) and are associated with a hatchery and as such it makes sense to produce them directly at a single hatchery.
And I think simple solutions tend to be superior over complex solutions. If queens are to be a defensive unit, the best and most robust way to allow them to defend both themselves and the base is to give them an attack.
By the way, a silly thought: in Starbow queens have some sort of enrage for their attack that costs energy, but wouldn't it be funny if seeing drones or larva or whatever die had the same effect?
At this time I feel like the big picture has really all come together
As for zerg it comes together in a way of separation
The warrior queen should not be, and should be divided in to the queen that has no attack but can rather lay down defense quickly by merging 3 drones together, and on the other side, act as a unifier of life pool for the swarm (zerg offense) in an AoE around the queen but to which the queen is actually not a part of if it is the particular target that is attact. Which means if the enemy attacks the queen it will lose life individually as it always has and if killed will disable the AoE life unifying effect to the swarm.
Now, you can see that with the current queen in the game that blizzard was trying to fulfill a concept. That concept being "Zerg should not be defending with defense" because "the best defense is a good offense, especially for zerg's awkward design". But this is so that zerg can potentially have a meaningful "counter offense" and as you can see, the queen divided in to the two capabilities and functions described does not address the offensive side.
The offensive side could come in two further ways.
That the spinecrawler could mutate in to the "swarmwreather" which would make it fully mobile, lose its armor (but can have armor upgraded) and have no attack capability to speak of. Only when it loses life will it release broodlings in a proportion to the amount of life lost. So the enemy either must attack it or zerg must attack it in order to release the broodlings. I proposed allowing the overlord to combine with the spinecrawler to make the swarmwreather so that it would be enticing to the enemy to kill it so that zerg's supply would be lost.
If the overlord and the spinecrawler merged together to make the swarmwreather, the unit may have an opposite concept to the overlord and be blind. But I think that this would allow it to be able to move around while burrowed under ground and then have the option of manual self detonation if enemies are near by, but if it is detonated when an enemy is near there may have only been 1 enemy unit running around.
I think this is what people and/or blizzard was looking for when they were experimenting with the baneling tunneling while burrowed.
On the other side of the offensive picture, I see the queen transforming or converting in to a different form where it sacrifices its 1 armor to have -1 armor instead, and losing its ability to cast spawn larv.... but it becomes fast, flies, and can cast ensnare.
It would still unify the life pool of zerg's offensive army in an AoE underneath it, but keep in mind that it could be picked off by anti air real easy, and zerg would mainly be trying to use it for the ensnare spell rather then the unity unless there were a lot of them.
The final picture of the zerg philosophy comes in the form of the flying queen and how it would work with the swarmwreather.
The queen could be poviding the vision if it is flying above a swarmwreather and then as the enemy walks over it the zerg player would be able to detonate and then cast ensnare for sure kills.
On the other hand the queen could be unifying the life pools of multiple swarmwreathers which would really represent the potential strength of the swarm, however, it is almost humerous because that strength can only really be tapped in to if the enemy decides to force that strength upon itself by attacking the swarmwreather.
As a final note. It is important to realize that the barrack, spawning pool, and gateway were all suppose to unlock utility tools that reperesent the theme of the race. And the spawning pool unlocks the spinecrawler for a reason when the evolution chamber unlocked the spore crawler separately. Protoss once had the shield battery and perhaps they took it out for good reason. But it should have been replaced by the semi-mobile shield unifying pylon that units the shield pool of units and buildings in the AoE.
Now, this may semi-diminish the micro in starcraft which the game if heavily about. But rememeber that shields only are half of what protoss is composed of and terran has EmP to disable those shields, while zerg had plague to drain the life of protoss which they were never able to recover back.
As a final word for terran
Terran can heal and repair.
The planetary fortress mass repaired may have brought enough "unity" concept to the race as is.
They probably thought that terran needed a building form of defense like protoss and zerg, but they never thought to give zerg and protoss a utility unit/building in return.
With out addressing that, it has really hurt e-sports.
And terran has also been understood as the more micro/missile, capable race which would allow them to excel at targeting the queens for the sake of disabling their unity of the swarm.
As a request to the greatest fans of the picture, I would appreciate it if you would cut and paste and post on the blizzard forums to bring the design issues to their attention.
How do you know for sure that zerg's design was failed?
Because if protoss has lots of minerals and one probe they can make a lot of structures.
Zerg are the opposite, if they have no minerals they can make a lot of spines because all of their drones can be sacrificed off by the queen, merging 3 together to quickly make them.
A concept of "reactive" quantity" as opposed to "aggressive singular" as represented by the photon cannon rush.
If you take the warrior queen as it is now and want to perceive the game as Balanced then you would see it this way....
Queen: Strong Tank, Weak Missile unit that sacrifices Production in the form of Casting for Healing (loses energy for spawns when it casts transfusion)
Zergling: Strong Melee, Weak Tank unit that sacrifices its life in the form of attack for health damage to the enemy
You can see very clearly how the zergling has failed in the design it was suppose to have and that design is very important because when they put the queen in to the game zerg became much more of an Expand/Defend race where mass amounts of zerglings and units become possible relative to the enemy's army.
This does not particularly motivate the enemy to play "tech aggression" against zerg however and overall hurts e-sports.
One thing that can be said is that a terran or protoss player should always be playing aggressive against zerg with their ground force because zerg has no way to situationally make a queen that has a strong ground attack and a weak air attack.
That would actually be more fair and reasonable for a situational counter system
But this really only shows how poor the counter system has gotten and with the queen properly implemented in to the game as previously expressed, zerg would actually have hydralisks on tier 1 to counter react against aggressive air to ground units of the enemy, and then counter react with those hydralisks and any spinecrawlers mutated in to swarmwreathers.
This only shows however on terran's side that the banshee should have produced from the factory and started out as a walker with a machine gun that counters zerglings and then lifts its legs up in to itself to the form that it is currently in to counter roaches.
In consideration that there is no situational option to make a queen that is stronger against ground units then air units, perhaps it would be worth it to consider a new unit
-This unit produces linearly at the hatchery like the queen -It costs only gas, but perhaps it costs supply like the queen -Its capability at fighting ground units is better then its ability to fight air units, opposite to the queen -Maybe it is fast and can only damage units not buildings -It fights with only its energy bar -It is unlocked by the evolution chamber which currently and ridiculously unlocks nothing since they moved the spore colony to spawning pool tech
Reading some of this stuff made me think it was 2012 all over again...to be honest, there's always been a group of people (me) that hate how SC2 was designed in general. However, you can't really ask Blizzard to redesign things, nor can you say they should've designed stuff with more thought towards "the design of Zerg." It didn't work back then, it's not going to work now. When people asked Blizzard to "design a unit with a moving shot," they made the phoenix, which made a lot of people face-palm...blizzard definitely took a utilitarian approach to designing the game, making everything in order to appeal to the masses.
I used to like posting walls of text, explaining in detail what I thought would be best for the game, but I quickly realized that no one read it, no one cared enough about what I thought, and most importantly, my voice isn't going to change the game in the slightest, especially after the games and major patches have already been released.
On September 16 2016 18:59 imBLIND wrote: Reading some of this stuff made me think it was 2012 all over again...to be honest, there's always been a group of people (me) that hate how SC2 was designed in general. However, you can't really ask Blizzard to redesign things, nor can you say they should've designed stuff with more thought towards "the design of Zerg." It didn't work back then, it's not going to work now. When people asked Blizzard to "design a unit with a moving shot," they made the phoenix, which made a lot of people face-palm...blizzard definitely took a utilitarian approach to designing the game, making everything in order to appeal to the masses.
I used to like posting walls of text, explaining in detail what I thought would be best for the game, but I quickly realized that no one read it, no one cared enough about what I thought, and most importantly, my voice isn't going to change the game in the slightest, especially after the games and major patches have already been released.
There is an audience for such posts I do think, but if you want to stand out I think it's mostly about original argumentation, not about coming up with unique suggestions since those just get lost in the crowd. I had some concepts that I favored and when I would post them the reception would basically differ between people that just read the suggestion and dismissed it as stupid and people that actually read the post and engaged with the argumentation from which the suggestion was derived. You'll always get some of the former though, which is annoying.
In general I don't think that the way zerg is designed and functions creates incentive for the enemy to attack them.
Like, you don't see drones exclusively producing 15% faster because they were drones that produced from the larva of the queen, might be an example. (which obviously creates a design overlap with protoss but zerg already overlaps queens with reactors of terran)
And so what if there is that minor particularly classified overlap? Are people really going to whine that blizzard promised unique races or that they promoted balance and worked on that for years....
The only thing that creates the incentive is the hatchery being there, not the fact that it is being mined, to which zerg do not have some ability to sacrifice the hatchery for the resources salvaged.
Which of course would be a stupid game design, balanced none the less though...
And so, because of that, the game clearly has absolutely no design with e-sports in mind not a single drop of concern.
It's sad to see people even being converted over to this game who, deep down, would rather be playing one that concerns e-sports.
-----
On the other hand, I would only personally rather see drones produce 15% faster from the larva of hatcheries, all other units and larva spawns aside.
Does this have to do with balance? Maybe, maybe not, but it sure makes sense for the zerg race relative to e-sports.
Maybe it wasn't about the 4 larva spawns...
Only the 15% faster drone producing exclusively from hatcheries exlusively
Zerg shouldn't be forced to be the aggressor because not every unit they have can simply mutate in to something else in order to ensure that "a unit made is a unit used" in terms of their Vector or Directional design function that distinguishes their uniqueness.
Before trying 15%, maybe they could at least try 7.5%, half of chrono boost
But if they did that then I'm sure it would apply to all drones all the time spawn larva or not.
-------
But not only do they design the game with out 15% increased drone production at hatcheries, which forces zerg to be the aggressor, they don't even have zerg designed properly back at base where they would be quickly merging 3 drones together to instantly make spine crawlers so that they would be able to attack the opponent at his base and defend properly at home.
--------
Further more, with terran's "reactor" being made, would this imply that scvs be able to quickly sacrificially transform in to a ground to ground turret of some kind for a mineral cost? But be able salvange/transform out?
And what about protoss? Would protoss complain? Well doesn't protoss kind of have the "naturally better" concept with chrono boost?
Maybe this goes back to the "missing utility concepts" for zerg and protoss, the swarmwreather and the semi-mobile shield uniting shield battery replacement.
Then we can say that at least protoss got something out of this...
As you can see though, the entire meta of the game is off from a failure to understand what the philosophy of zerg is all about.
Throw in high ground, choke points, natural defense concepts like planetary fortress and protoss' what ever and the game really hits a low point in terms of concept failure.
I mean, dear god... you know that when they put the PF in to the game that it was making the statement "yes we are also going to give zerg and protoss utility tools like the bunker" but then what do they do? Nothing.
------------------
You can really tell that zerg are suppose to have the 15% increased drone production with hatcheries stand alone, even if it had to take away from future spawn larva casts to work then so be it.
I am back with a new theory to compensate the premise of the original one on this blog
The philosophy of zerg is to expand while terran and protoss is to tech
We all know this, and we all know that it leaves zerg in many cases to fight with zerglings against more advanced units
That's just the sour note of starcraft that we've seemed to both love and hate
When they made zerg warriors faster on creep, it didn't necessarily matter so much for the more advanced higher tech units because zerg still tries to do what it can with zerglings first as it is, and speed on creep was doing something for zerglings which was the important thing.
But it seems to me that a whole concept has completely evaded us in our goal of "quality starcraft design" especially in terms of zerg's philosophy of swarminess
And that is to have zerglings becomes more advanced upon unlocking each tier of the zerg race, hatch, lair, hive.
But they need to become more advanced in terms of supporting "The Swarm" but the micro swarm of the Many, and the Macro Swarm of the Creep.
Tier 1 hatchery: Zerglings Have Increased Speed on Creep (currently functioning as intended)
Tier 2 lair: Zerglings leap forward and crash/attack the enemy, sacrificing all of their hp pool down to 1 life as damage against them and the opponent.
Tier 3 Hive: Zerglings get a 13% increased attack speed while on creep now restoring the old zergling completely once the adrenal gland has been researched to a total of 33% attack speed.
And there you go, the problem with the zerg race philosophy of design, now corrected.
Unfortunately I have moved on from starcraft a long time ago, but you can follow me (Kyfoid) now on the DotaFire forums where I seek to correct the design flaws of dota 2.
On December 06 2016 04:39 AtlasMeCHa wrote: What I just described is now a blending of starcraft 1 and starcraft 2 zerg.
The perfect meet in the middle, which is, in the way I've described it, what we've subconsciously longed for in my opinion.
Nope. I have not.
StarCraft itself is also the failure to recognize the philosophy of thesis plus anti-theses = synthesis
That's nonsense. It's like saying "The opposite of congress is progress". Nice wordplay, but it's meaningless.
The zergling was always meant to have the function of the combined concepts of the zealot charge and the marine stimpack...
You mean like ADRENALINE GLAND and METABOLIC BOOST?
In to a concept that is unique and properly functioning to its own for the zergling.
It's completely necessary because zerg are a directional race
The Zerg, or any race, is whatever you want it to be. You, the player, should dictate how you want to play the race, not have the game tell you how to play. You can do a tech rush and have a few expensive units early, you can be aggressive in the early game, and you can build your economy. However, none of these are going to work 100% of the time because you have the variable of a human opponent that is trying to gauge what you're doing and is trying to win.
And climbing the tech tree with gaping holes in lair and hive tech that are suppose to represent the progress of the race
Not having truly fulfilled these holes has been the greatest shame in game design history
A complete disgrace
I'm only speaking about SC1, but there is no "gaping holes" in the later tech of the game. I don't know what exactly it is you're looking for. There's a unit to facilitate virtually every function of strategy that you could want.
However, we'll see who's going to get honored for design gracefulness, and I don't believe I will even have to do that through starcraft.
I believe I can succeed through dota 2 alone.
It is very likely that you will do nothing of the sort, and here's why:
I don't need nor care for this game so much anymore, nor its people.
But that's my right after watching 15 years of nonsense.
Your attitude is terrible, and you have maintained for years that the reason you weren't good at SC1 is because the game itself was flawed, rather than admitting you just weren't that good. I also found it very telling that you would complain about Protoss, and you would complain about Terran, saying they only won because of inherent flaws in the game, but curiously enough, you never played any ZvZ. Doing so would've allowed you to prove that you are superior to other Zerg players, but the risk of failure never would let you even attempt it.
You have yet to explain how sAviOr, JulyZerg, and Jaedong were so dominant in their days despite no changes being made to the game. You have yet to explain the success of Sziky, Trutacz, or if you want to go further back, Mondragon. You have yet to explain how half the top players on the ladder were Zerg, and yet you, with your profound understanding of Zerg, have never won a tournament.
On December 06 2016 13:34 AtlasMeCHa wrote: It's quite simple my friend, you just don't understand the concept of PROGRESSIVE design most critical on a DIRECTIONAL race.
Lair and Hive do not unlock more production like a factory and starport would because the races would not be different enough.
Was overseer the right answer? Well just because they did something about it doesn't mean it was the right thing.
That still doesn't mean that they are doing what they are suppose to be doing.
Case closed.
Let's say you're playing Terran in TvZ in SC1. You want to change your tech paradigm. You have to lift off your barracks buildings and start building like 8 factories. Or in TvT if you want to switch from tanks to battlecruisers, then you need to place like 12 starports.
With Zerg, if you want to switch tech, all you have to do is place one building, and all of your hatcheries have access to that tech. So when you get a spawning pool, you have access to lair, and when you gets a queen's nest, you have access to hive. I don't care about SC2 because the developers don't seem to know what they're doing. So using an example from SC2 means nothing to me. You were on this kick about how SC1 was designed incorrectly before SC2 ever existed, because Zerg started with a population ceiling of 9, rather than 10, but neglected to see the obvious advantage of starting with a floating detector unit.
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.
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....
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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".
-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.
Everything you've said is completely wrong. Let's break down why:
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
What if overlords applied this effect to justify the reason for why they occupy larva?
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.
The fact that Zerg starts with an overlord indicates to me that they have a polydimensional offensive paradigm.
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
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.
I think what we should do is make it so siege tanks, when in siege mode, shoot out smaller siege tanks that crawl towards their target and explode.
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.
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
One thing that might do something to enhance your comprehension, is to understand and acknowledge the fact that one should NEVER EVER mistake, when talking about BW, the Game design and the meta gale defined by the pro scene (player and map makers alike).
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.
I think my most legitimate complaint and point for how the game currently is to something better
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.
On May 04 2017 22:09 AtlasMeCHa wrote: 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.
Overlords were originally supposed to be able to burrow. I know this for a fact because you start with 4 drones but only 3 larvae, so this is the only possible explanation.
Another thing that is quite bothersome when you consider it is how the hydralisk gets + 1 attack damage per upgrade of attack which is exactly what the marine gets while the vulture and the dragoon get +2.
If classification of damage type had anything to do with damage per upgrade as it should then this would mean that the hydralisk should do normal damage just like the marine since it only gets +1 damage per upgrade while STILL COSTING GAS.
But no.... it does explosive damage like the tank or dragoon yet doesn't get any more then +1 damage per upgrade like the marine and still costs gas....
This only proves that I'm right about this as a completely failed design point of the game and that either the hydralisk was suppose to get more then 1 damage per attack upgrade or simply doesn't have the right damage type classification.
The bottom line is that it is one or the other....
I mean you know for a fact that they tried to solve this problem in sc2 with the roach which you don't even want to hear my opinion on.
On May 05 2017 12:04 AtlasMeCHa wrote: Another thing that is quite bothersome when you consider it is how the hydralisk gets + 1 attack damage per upgrade of attack which is exactly what the marine gets while the vulture and the dragoon get +2.
If classification of damage type had anything to do with damage per upgrade as it should then this would mean that the hydralisk should do normal damage just like the marine since it only gets +1 damage per upgrade while STILL COSTING GAS.
But no.... it does explosive damage like the tank or dragoon yet doesn't get any more then +1 damage per upgrade like the marine and still costs gas....
This only proves that I'm right about this as a completely failed design point of the game and that either the hydralisk was suppose to get more then 1 damage per attack upgrade or simply doesn't have the right damage type classification.
The bottom line is that it is one or the other....
I mean you know for a fact that they tried to solve this problem in sc2 with the roach which you don't even want to hear my opinion on.
On May 05 2017 12:04 AtlasMeCHa wrote: Another thing that is quite bothersome when you consider it is how the hydralisk gets + 1 attack damage per upgrade of attack which is exactly what the marine gets while the vulture and the dragoon get +2.
If classification of damage type had anything to do with damage per upgrade as it should then this would mean that the hydralisk should do normal damage just like the marine since it only gets +1 damage per upgrade while STILL COSTING GAS.
But no.... it does explosive damage like the tank or dragoon yet doesn't get any more then +1 damage per upgrade like the marine and still costs gas....
This only proves that I'm right about this as a completely failed design point of the game and that either the hydralisk was suppose to get more then 1 damage per attack upgrade or simply doesn't have the right damage type classification.
The bottom line is that it is one or the other....
I mean you know for a fact that they tried to solve this problem in sc2 with the roach which you don't even want to hear my opinion on.
Now, consider this: what if Zerglings had an upgrade that allowed them to be catapulted into the air by an ultralisk so they can rip apart air units?
This makes sense because when you spend gas, you invest in gas-based things. Therefore, the zergling should have a psionic storm ability. If you do the math, each Zergling costs 25 minerals, and each High Templar costs 25 minerals. This is an indisputable fact.
Now, let's switch gears and go back to the evolution chamber, which should be able to have an attack that drains all shields from Protoss units but causes the evolution chamber to go down to half-health.
These changes make sense because I have the mind of a small child.
On May 05 2017 12:04 AtlasMeCHa wrote: Another thing that is quite bothersome when you consider it is how the hydralisk gets + 1 attack damage per upgrade of attack which is exactly what the marine gets while the vulture and the dragoon get +2.
If classification of damage type had anything to do with damage per upgrade as it should then this would mean that the hydralisk should do normal damage just like the marine since it only gets +1 damage per upgrade while STILL COSTING GAS.
But no.... it does explosive damage like the tank or dragoon yet doesn't get any more then +1 damage per upgrade like the marine and still costs gas....
This only proves that I'm right about this as a completely failed design point of the game and that either the hydralisk was suppose to get more then 1 damage per attack upgrade or simply doesn't have the right damage type classification.
The bottom line is that it is one or the other....
I mean you know for a fact that they tried to solve this problem in sc2 with the roach which you don't even want to hear my opinion on.
I don't want to hear your opinions on anything
That wouldn't be because you haven't developed your own opinion on classification failure points of game design would it?
On May 05 2017 12:04 AtlasMeCHa wrote: Another thing that is quite bothersome when you consider it is how the hydralisk gets + 1 attack damage per upgrade of attack which is exactly what the marine gets while the vulture and the dragoon get +2.
If classification of damage type had anything to do with damage per upgrade as it should then this would mean that the hydralisk should do normal damage just like the marine since it only gets +1 damage per upgrade while STILL COSTING GAS.
But no.... it does explosive damage like the tank or dragoon yet doesn't get any more then +1 damage per upgrade like the marine and still costs gas....
This only proves that I'm right about this as a completely failed design point of the game and that either the hydralisk was suppose to get more then 1 damage per attack upgrade or simply doesn't have the right damage type classification.
The bottom line is that it is one or the other....
I mean you know for a fact that they tried to solve this problem in sc2 with the roach which you don't even want to hear my opinion on.
Now, consider this: what if Zerglings had an upgrade that allowed them to be catapulted into the air by an ultralisk so they can rip apart air units?
This makes sense because when you spend gas, you invest in gas-based things. Therefore, the zergling should have a psionic storm ability. If you do the math, each Zergling costs 25 minerals, and each High Templar costs 25 minerals. This is an indisputable fact.
Now, let's switch gears and go back to the evolution chamber, which should be able to have an attack that drains all shields from Protoss units but causes the evolution chamber to go down to half-health.
These changes make sense because I have the mind of a small child.
I was thinking more like that the spawning pool would actually HOLD the collective hp pool of all overlords that are out on the field that any zerg units can drink from in order to heal their life while the nearest overlord loses life down to 1 hp at which point the next nearest overlord takes over and loses its life, drained in to the spawning pool for the recovery of warrior or drone hp at the spawning pool. The lord heals from above, albeit sacrificial.
This way it justifies why overlords occupy larvae and can now be recognized as worthy of occupying larvae instead of drones just mutating in to overlords outright.
Do not make "units" unless you are going to "USE" them.... and the overlord IS a UNIT that simply doesn't get its USE ... FULFILLED. If it does not, then we will have to correct the game design and function that drones mutate in to overlords instead of larvae. But you guys would probably do that just to shut me up and fail at the aspiration of beautiful creative and balanced game design.
Overlords occupy larvae, and therefore, drones should be able to morph into a Krogoth Gantry with an already-completed Krogoth, or possibly remove Protoss from the game and replace them with Brotherhood of Nod. Then it would be such a beautiful and balanced game that brings tears to my eye.
On May 05 2017 23:31 ninazerg wrote: Overlords occupy larvae, and therefore, drones should be able to morph into a Krogoth Gantry with an already-completed Krogoth, or possibly remove Protoss from the game and replace them with Brotherhood of Nod. Then it would be such a beautiful and balanced game that brings tears to my eye.
Good at winning or dominating in battles but horrible at winning wars
You might as well start zerg off with 2 hatcheries at 2 bases and cut the hit points of hatcheries in half
Still start with 4 drones at main hatchery
And so zerg still start with 300 minerals worth of buildings 150 + 150
This is the reason why hatcheries start off with 1 larva instead of 3
And why overlords occupy larva
----
You have to admit though, that if there was a philosophy of "doing good" with zerg it would be all about using damage upgrades on enemy units that are attacking 2 armor sunken colonies and that would be the pure defining aspect of how zerg legitimately win.
This is why zerg defense needs progressive enhancements to the sunken colony that come naturally with lair and hive tech.
Such as "Taunt" ability
I don't care if you have to make the fricken sunken colony concussive damage so that they can have such abilities, comparable to the fantastic abilities of the vulture that is also concussive damage.
----
Actually this would have worked well enough with the +1 armor of queens in sc2 as you would probably see a line of queens spread out, dotted and burrowed between zerg and their enemy for the sake of setting up "taunt bombs" so that zerg could make the most out of their attack upgrades on units that are attacking plus 1 armor queens.
Guardians should shoot smaller guardians out. Then Zerg could start with 10 supply and all Protoss units would do concussive damage. This transdimensional tridirectional paradigm would make it so Zerg isn't forced to go 6 hatch, 7 pool every game against Protoss and oh god my cat is stepping on my keysgfkjnsdgjnkjrugiwhersflvjnaerifgoel
Okay, got the cat down. Crisis averted. Anyhow, where was I? All air units should shoot a blue laser I mean oops wrong game we should make it so ghosts can burrow and Zerg needs cloaks, like literal cloaks to cover their naked bodies.
On May 06 2017 11:33 ninazerg wrote: Guardians should shoot smaller guardians out. Then Zerg could start with 10 supply and all Protoss units would do concussive damage. This transdimensional tridirectional paradigm would make it so Zerg isn't forced to go 6 hatch, 7 pool every game against Protoss and oh god my cat is stepping on my keysgfkjnsdgjnkjrugiwhersflvjnaerifgoel
Okay, got the cat down. Crisis averted. Anyhow, where was I? All air units should shoot a blue laser I mean oops wrong game we should make it so ghosts can burrow and Zerg needs cloaks, like literal cloaks to cover their naked bodies.
Does not even remotely come close to explaining what Krogoth is/are. And since I dont want to Google it, then I rely entierely upon you to enlighten me.
On May 06 2017 11:33 ninazerg wrote: Guardians should shoot smaller guardians out. Then Zerg could start with 10 supply and all Protoss units would do concussive damage. This transdimensional tridirectional paradigm would make it so Zerg isn't forced to go 6 hatch, 7 pool every game against Protoss and oh god my cat is stepping on my keysgfkjnsdgjnkjrugiwhersflvjnaerifgoel
Okay, got the cat down. Crisis averted. Anyhow, where was I? All air units should shoot a blue laser I mean oops wrong game we should make it so ghosts can burrow and Zerg needs cloaks, like literal cloaks to cover their naked bodies.
And also consider that 16 zerglings equals 8 food and 1 overlord occupying larva so if there would have been 3 zerglings per larva....
2 ( 1 4-( 2 6-( 3 8-( 4 + = 100
Then it would add up to 100 minerals worth of excess lings and therefor makes up for the 100 mineral overlord occupying larva
So they should really consider 3 lings per larva for 75 mineral cost
Also because every hatchery has 3 larva....
This completes the Macro and Micro Fractal Design Alignment
Of parallel production and concept design
For the sake of the zerg philosophy of "react and swarm"
That the units zerg makes, THEY USE... because its enough to potentially hold the opponents army from running back like a coward.
Therefor zerg does not completely fail on the goal and point of "not making units unless they use them"
On May 06 2017 11:33 ninazerg wrote: Guardians should shoot smaller guardians out. Then Zerg could start with 10 supply and all Protoss units would do concussive damage. This transdimensional tridirectional paradigm would make it so Zerg isn't forced to go 6 hatch, 7 pool every game against Protoss and oh god my cat is stepping on my keysgfkjnsdgjnkjrugiwhersflvjnaerifgoel
Okay, got the cat down. Crisis averted. Anyhow, where was I? All air units should shoot a blue laser I mean oops wrong game we should make it so ghosts can burrow and Zerg needs cloaks, like literal cloaks to cover their naked bodies.
Does not even remotely come close to explaining what Krogoth is/are. And since I dont want to Google it, then I rely entierely upon you to enlighten me.
Unlike certain people that will not be named, I can actually explain what I'm talking about:
And 2 zerglings for 50 minerals do a total of about 28 dps
And 1 marine for 50 minerals does 9 dps
Then it should in fact be obvious that the 100% irrefutable fact of zerg design failure lies in the inability to switch between
2 zergling per egg and 1 drone per egg
and
1 zergling per egg and 2 drones per egg
Which would prove and in fact does prove that zerg are a "situational and directional" race
We all see that 2 zerglings per egg for 50 minerals is in fact over powered, but being overpowered in the offensive direction when the enemy can easily cause you to make units that you have to use but will not use is merely a set up for failure.
Then it should in fact be obvious that the 100% irrefutable fact of zerg design failure lies in the inability to switch between
2 zergling per egg and 1 drone per egg
and
1 zergling per egg and 2 drones per egg
You're assuming there already is a "design failure", which there is not.
Which would prove and in fact does prove that zerg are a "situational and directional" race
Meaningless and unfounded conclusion based on ridiculous opinions.
We all see that 2 zerglings per egg for 50 minerals is in fact over powered, but being overpowered in the offensive direction when the enemy can easily cause you to make units that you have to use but will not use is merely a set up for failure.
I would explain to you, in detail, why you're totally wrong, but you seem to be incapable of responding to critique and resort to changing the subject when confronted by evidence.
We all see that 2 zerglings per egg for 50 minerals is in fact over powered, but being overpowered in the offensive direction when the enemy can easily cause you to make units that you have to use but will not use is merely a set up for failure.
I would explain to you, in detail, why you're totally wrong, but you seem to be incapable of responding to critique and resort to changing the subject when confronted by evidence.
Then it should in fact be obvious that the 100% irrefutable fact of zerg design failure lies in the inability to switch between
2 zergling per egg and 1 drone per egg
and
1 zergling per egg and 2 drones per egg
You're assuming there already is a "design failure", which there is not.
Which would prove and in fact does prove that zerg are a "situational and directional" race
Meaningless and unfounded conclusion based on ridiculous opinions.
We all see that 2 zerglings per egg for 50 minerals is in fact over powered, but being overpowered in the offensive direction when the enemy can easily cause you to make units that you have to use but will not use is merely a set up for failure.
I would explain to you, in detail, why you're totally wrong, but you seem to be incapable of responding to critique and resort to changing the subject when confronted by evidence.
Just give up, this guy is hopeless
probably just trolling
He's been doing this for at least the last 8 years, I want to know why. Is he trolling? Mentally deranged? An AI?
Actually, has anyone ever proposed that plague heals zerg units when cast on them by the same rate and amount that enemy units would be life drained by plague casts?
And since ultras are immune to spells, at least in sc2
How about drones acquire the properties of the inverse of zergling stats relative to zealot stats of equal resource cost value until the spawning pool completes at which point drones go back to normal.
Then it can be part of lore that the spawning pool converts life essence of drones in to the damage essence of zerglings which is why zerglings do so much dps per amount of resources spent.
The Math is this:
4x zerglings = 100 minerals = 140 life = 59.6 dps
1x zealot = 100 minerals = 160 over all life pool = 34.6 dps
Difference between health pool = 20, 160 + 20 = 180, 180 / 2 = 90 life per 1 drone
Difference between DPS = 25.6, 34.6 - 25.6 = 9, 9 / 2 = 4.5 dps per 1 drone
Drone stats with Spawning Pool :
40 life 5.4 dps
Drone stats with out Spawning Pool (zergling to zealot inverse)
90 life 4.5 dps
So the drone gets a 50 life buff and a .9 dps nerf until the spawning pool completes at which point it loses 50 life and gets an additional .9 dps
And the lore behind the spawning pool explains it all
Then I would say any enemy units hit by drones on creep lose a % of movement speed for a period of time or until they leave the creep.
This would have to at least be due to the fact that zealot's shields are recharging faster then zerg life regeneration.
Combine this change with the creep colony effect on nearest hatchery as aforementioned in previous post and then I'd say you have the zerg problem solved.
But I think I would also switch the spore and spine crawler unlocking position in the tech tree
I decided to actually make a map to test what the zerg race would be like with out defense structures with a few of the changes described applied in the map.
I'm not sure if it will all work perfectly but the following effects should be in the map
1.) Drones have 90 life until spawning pool completes, at which point they drop down to 40 life
2.) Spore colonies produced result in 4 zerglings which cost 100 minerals (including drone) and of course double the build time as 2 zerglings.
3.) Sunken colonies produced result in 2 hydralisks which cost 150 minerals and 50 gas (including drone) and of course double the build time of 1
A question for 2 and 3 may be whether the drone cost should be included or not
Drones no longer factored in cost in drone to warrior conversion costs, but....
-1 drone can convert in to 6 lings for 150 mineral cost and 3x build time of 2 lings by producing evolution chamber and making spore. (creep colony: 75 mins, sunken colony 75 mins)
The problem is that these lings made from drones are suppose to be defensive in concept and LOSE LIFE OFF CREEP instead of REGEN
-1 drone can convert in to 3 hydralisks for 225 minerals and 75 gas and 3x build time of 1 hydralisk, by producing spawning pool and making sunken colony. (creep colony : 75 mins, sunken colony 150 mins, 75 gas)
the problem is, again.... these hydras and lings made from drones like this should slowly lose life off creep.
-Drones still have 90 hp at start and basically retain the 90 hp since I could not get them to go from 90 life and 4 damage (the inverse of 4 ling to 1 zealot) back to 40 life and 5 damage (normal) upon spawning pool completion.
So try this map, and see if you still can't beat a good terran player, even with these "seemingly" over powered changes.
And you still have the option to play zerg in the classic style, but you will not have defense structures.
The whole key and philosophy to beating this zerg design now lies in the destruction of his hatcheries
Hatcheries that have always had 250 less life then CC or Nexus, that should have ALWAYS been the primary target for the sake of winning.
"The Delayed Reactive Ghost Dimension of the Zerg Race"
Where added perpendicular production on top of zerg's 3 larva wide parallel production (3 larvas worth of units produced from drone for 3x the cost and build time of 1 larva)
Completes the zerg race dimensionaly
And the fasion by which it has been applied here can be justified by, for example:
1.
-The evolution chamber costs 1/4th the hatchery
-The barrack and gateway cost 1/4th the command center and nexus
Conclusion: A way in which the evolution chamber unlocks zergling
2.
-The spawning pool costs the same amount of money as the academy or cybernetics core (200)
-This 200 mineral structure should be classified to unlock either advanced units (medic/firebat) or ranged units (dragoon)
-In some way, the spawning pool now unlocks the hydralisk
Conclusion: The Delayed Reactive Ghost Dimension of the Zerg Race
But quite simply addressing the question:
What would the zerg race be like with out static defense?
At this point you may have made the observation that I have, and that is that a zerg that can open up
by having 90 life drones, access to upgrades and perpendicular production of zerglings is too powerful all at once.
And it is too powerful all at once.
Aside from the upgrade access and perpendicular production however,
The purpose of the 90 life 4 damage drone prior to the spawning pool, after which the spawning pool has been completed and the drone goes back to 40 life and 5 damage
Is to open up new options for builds, such as the 5 drone rush, and the fast expand at an expo near an opponent drone rush with a fast recovery after good harassment.
What I realized was that to make these changes and the 90 life 4 damage drone possible (prior to spawning pool)
Was that what ever damage the hatchery has sustained by percentage is also the percentage damage to the production output speed of larva by the damaged hatchery.
With this in place, the 90 life 4 damage drone that is the inverse of 4 ling's life and damage to 1 zealot
This actually promotes the idea that the opponent should try to attack the hatchery initially, perhaps opposed to the drone if he is rushing. But it is a more balanced and situational choice at least.
There could possibly be put in to the game though a counter option of life sacrificed by the drone or warrior units made from the drone of dumping their life back in to the hatchery.
----------------
It could also be said that the zerg race doesn't have to get rid of defense structures, but this fortifies the point that when defense structures are made, they are only suppose to be used 1 at a time at each base.
----------------
Update on the map: I was able to get the creep colony to be 10 armor like an egg, but not sure while mutating. - I still haven't solved the problem of lings going beyond the food cap, so you'll just have to play fair if you want a legitimate test.
And now I will bring it all together and bring home the point in relation to the ability "burrow"
Just look at where burrow is in the tech tree relative to what was explained and it says just about everything....
With the 90 life 4 damage drone as the inverse of lings to zealots prior to spawning pool
We could see the fast expand near enemy drone rush/harass recover with 2 hatchery drone production opening.
And if burrow gets researched somewhere in there as it is immediately accessible in the tech tree....
Then it would be possible to set up a surprise drone attack on the enemy as they may counter and come out to kill the hatch that may very well be outside the enemy's base.
Even when considering the perpendicular production of defensive zerglings unlocked by evolution chamber, you don't need the speed upgrade of zerglings when you could already have burrow to get in range of ranged attackers, instead you would rather have a raw upgrade of melee or carapace.
This brings in to light the whole philosophy of zerg as a macro defending economically capable race.
Where surprise masses of burrowed and upgraded units can catch the enemy off guard, and be used to protect across multiple bases by an offensive means.
Producing lings with drone mutation perpendicularly, meaning 3x the build time and cost of 2 ling for example
Has been what zerg has needed all along in order to make the burrow concept everything that it was suppose to live up to.
It's also interesting to point out that if the original game's design for zerg was actually done right
The points of:
Do not make units unless you are going to use them:
Which leaves zerg with hydras and mutas (because hydras mutate in to lurker later and mutas mutate in to guardian later)
Which leaves zerg with hydras against protoss,
And mutas against terran
And because it is also proper with zerg to "not make buildings unless they are going to use them"
Means that zerg should have a choice between either making spawning pool or spire
200 or 200/200 gas
and as both the zergling and muta are small units
the choice between one or the other small units (zergling or muta)
In order to be viable against terran, not protoss
Otherwise the assumption is that zerg is suppose to use spells against terran....
Which means that the problem is that parasite and consume from the queen and defiler need to be switched around
So i'm going to say that it could be possible that zerg is ok against protoss
But the problem with zerg in zvt is that parasite and consume need to be switched around for zerg to be viable against terran.
I could make the argument that this is in fact true, because the queen is ALREADY a great flying and fast scout, so why does it have a scouting spell (parasite)
It's obvious that consume and parasite need to be swapped with each other.
Now it becomes clear that zerg should be using the queens to consume lings to take out medics that are speckled around out the infantry.
-----
The only reason why I say that zerg could be fine against protoss until proven otherwise is because
A.) protoss are still stupidly using or opening up with cannons against zerg
B.) zerg can open with the (3 - 2 - 1 drone on gas, 3 hatch build) where zerg opens with 3 drones on gas, get's missile upgrade, pulls 1 drone off of gas until hydra speed and range are gotten, and then pulls another drone off of gas to do 3 hatch hydra with 1 drone on gas.
But you see the critical point for why this works is because
A.) Zerg isn't making many buildings or teching uselessly for units that they aren't going to use
The hydra works and works great because they can convert in to lurkers later
Neither of which work good against terran due to tanks and marine/medic
and then the Muta doesn't end up working that great because you can't research guardian aspect on the same tier like you can with lurkers...
This only seems to come back to the point that zerg were suppose to be using spells against terran
Where consume and parasite need to be swapped between queen and defiler
Because the queen is already a fine scout with out parasite
And the design conflict there suggests piss poor design with complete design conflict.
----------
I would honestly switch parasite with consume and also switch the 150 gas cost of the defiler with the 100 gas cost of the queen.
-------
And at that point, once you realize how dumb it would be for queens consuming and using broodling on everything, you would realize that broodling and plague need to be inverted with each other so that broodling would simply be a single target life eating spell and plague would no longer eat away at the opponent's life but rather apply an affect to a group of units where if they died they would spawn broodlings.
And that's the end of the story, there is no more
And I didn't buff or nerf ANYTHING
Merely filled in the gaps and made some flips and applied some inversions.
1. Drones can morph in to 4 zerglings for 100 minerals and 2x the build cost of 2 zerglings with evolution chamber tech.
2. Drones can morph in to 2 hydralisks for 150 minerals and 50 gas and 2x the build time of 1 hydralisk with spawning pool tech.
3. Units made from drones lose life off creep.
- Just realized that 6 lings or 3 hydras coming from 1 drone is too much. This is just a way for zerg to have a way of paralleling protoss costs when you consider it closely. 4 lings = 1 zealt = 100 minerals, 2 hydralisks = 1 dragoon = 150 minerals and 50 gas.
4. When there are 0 warrior units on the creep and drones are on the creep OR UNDER OVERLORDS, drones acquire the attributes of 90 life and 4 (from 40 life 5 damage) which is the inverse of lings life and damage to zealot. Just say that this is a capability of the creep that provides the drone when it isn't supplying the dps output of warriors (which isn't a buff to anything, merely justifying the natural high dps output of zerg's warriors). When the 90 life 4 damage drone attacks an enemy unit on the creep, it slows the unit by a %. This effect does not apply with basic drones.
5. Consume and Parasite are switched between queen and defiler. The effect of Spawn broodling and the effect of plague are switched between each other and so are their names with further clarification. I.E. Plague Host, Brood Disease
The original spawn brood-lings now because like a single target plague, and plague becomes merely an aoe status changing effect that causes enemy units to release broodlings upon death.
Conclusion: Swarm Fixed.
And this can actually answer a point earlier in this entire thread. The leap sacrifice zergling concept found through the Plague Host ability of the queen as it consumes lings to apply plague host.
The change of design also promotes more micro as well, as key units are weakened which challenges zerg to use its army to pick those key units off, rather then just a free kill that took no skill what-so-ever (original broodling).
And as said before, these changes do not really change anything about the game.... merely fills in the gaps, and applies some swaps as well as some inverses.
just tell me your name on what ever server you are on, will play when ever but not so much later on at night. I don't really play too much anymore either. Tried to get back in to it.
At this point I would like to get in to more of the "why" for these changes, aside from the drone change, in regard to how they work together to serve a point.
If zerg would have a greater defensive army by the design changes suggested, then it is possible for this to create conflict with the spawn broodling spell as it currently is. Key units such as tanks and high templars may be too conveniently picked off with spawn broodling, while the rest of zerg army (now greater on the defensive side) is used to protect zerg's bases.
This is precisely why I am suggesting that spawn broodling and plague from the defiler essentially be introverted with one another.
Look at it even from a starting point of view of Plague first. Zerg needed plague in starcraft 1 because they did not have lurkers for the sake of killing marines or zealots. This didn't make a whole lot of sense because plague worked both against air and ground units, and ultimately just way more effective and ideal against air units over all since air units cost more gas, while the ground army may not even cost any gas at all.
This, to me, suggests that plague, as critical of a spell for zerg's strength seems to be, is designed more for ZvZ then the other match ups. Why? Because zerg is more of an air race then terran or protoss are. We know that spawn broodlings can only be used on ground units but that it doesn't do anything in regard to countering army. How is it that protoss and terran are able to push the zerg race off of army with army when zerg is the swarm? The result is a zerg race whos answer to ground army and tanks/high tamplers is Queens and Lurkers. This is horribly dull and boring for the game overall. Zerg casts broodlings on key units only to get broodlings that immediately die and do not last, and lurkers are a positional unit that is just not great at posing much threat against mobile armies.
The game should be dancing, and zerg with the potential of having good army along with queens that weaken down key targets individually, rather then instantly killing them, means that there would be a lot more micro/sacrifice of lings going on, on key targets, more zerg units dying on the screen, which there should be as zerg is the swarm and it supports also the entertainment factor, and finally, more micro in terms of dodging storms, more army for surprise attacks on key units with say hydralisks unburrow and more overlord drops on enemy army to get him to attack himself while key units that are already weakened get finished off.
What could be expressed in terms of the greatest of zerg strength and philosophy is an economy zerg that is on the aggressive about sending drones toward the enemy in bursts to proxy mutate and set up critical amounts of army forces burrowed underground that are used to surprise key protoss and terran units out of sacrifice.
That is how the zerg race should be played with "legitimate aggression"
in a "legitimate e-sport"
A very complex yet fantastic way of looking at the whole problem is,
Consider a zerg race that is parallel production as they currently are, but as drones get closer and closer to the enemy, and further and further away from home, the more perpendicular they become in production of army.
Greater amounts of army, at a longer production timing result accordingly.
Seems to be too complex, yet also good at the same time, for it to ever be viable.
But it's actually funner to think about then even play this game.
The reason why starcraft is bad game design particularly for zerg and their critical elements of
"numbers" "micro"
is for the 3 following reasons
"gaping holes" "redundancies" "concept/effect confusion" conflicting with lore, where lore is prioritized as superior to proportionate functionality when lore should be 2nd, and there is no reason why it can't be.
Gaping Holes: Such as how Zerg require the element of defensive perpendicular production on top of their offensive parallel production which would allow drones to mutate in to twice as many warriors that would be produced from larva for double the build time and cost with these warriors also slowly losing life off of creep. Overall, aligning zerg warrior costs with protoss warrior costs in many cases.
Redundancies: Such as when the queen is given the ability parasite and already acts as a good scout, and has the ability "broodling" which takes away from the micro of zerg numbers that is suppose to be a critical element of the zerg race. Now bringing the entire design concept of queen and defiler in to question, in which case I propose switching parasite with consume and the effect of plague with the effect of spawn broodling. Making zerg more tempted to sacrificing numbers for the sake of taking out critical weakened targets.
And finally
Concept/Effect Confusion: Which is pointing out again the confusion of broodling effect with plague effect, which would now allow the defiler to apply a status to a group of targets, where if they were to die, would all become the broodlings as we know them. It's not even that lore is treated as superior to proportionate functionality that bad game designers refuse to acknowledge. It's even to the point that they place lore above essential concepts and thematics of what core elements a race is suppose to be all about.
Note: Nothing of the sum of concept and value of the game overall was actually changed by these implementations
Moral of the Story: Don't hate the player, hate the game
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eksLWik.jpg)
