|
Post #23 is Really the Sum Up of this Blog
Some people say that starcraft is a game of rock paper scissors
I say that zerg IS the race of rock paper scissors (Zerg is the Zen of the Trinity)
There is and has always been this assumption that the game of starcraft starts out equal, but how difficult of an achievement is this when the game practically follows a golden ratio design philosophy where 1 race(protoss) is 50% different then another race(terran) and then the 3rd race(zerg) is 100% different from the other two.
The fact that all 3 races start out equally in terms of values might seem balanced but the reality is most likely that it is not and that the race which is 100% different is being FORCED to be like the other two in a despicable kind of discrimination. In the forcing of starting out with the same value(400) as the other two races, it caused an imbalance of concept (start with a supply structure/unit, overlord)
Imagine if you staggered the values at the start instead of the concept....
Zerg Start with 2 Hatcheries (1 at two different expo) and no Overlord = 600
Terran - Command Center and Supply Depot = 500
Protoss - Nexus and Pylon = 500
The problem here is that zerg would only start with 4 supply (2 per each hatchery)
But this would be an opportunity to investigate also the proportioning of supply between hatcheries and overlords. Let's say that each overlord were to yield 6 supply instead of 8 and each hatchery were to yield 3 supply instead of 2. All this would do is stagger the supply between overlord and depot/pylon, once again showing a difference of value, but maybe it is this difference of value that has the potential to truly establish the balance of concept. So zerg would be leaning toward the production of more hatcheries and not overlords. Sounds legit... why is zerg leaning toward the production of a supply UNITS only to represent an offensive aggression that they don't really have and negating the production of additional hatchery which would be part of their play-style philosophy?
So now we actually have something... a zerg that starts with 2 hatchery and 6 supply(600) and a protoss and terran that start with their main + supply structure(500).
But this could actually really mess up the meta... because where are the locations of the starting supply depot and pylon going to be?
Since it is complete insanity to start them off anywhere out of the player's choice, then the starting supply depot and pylon are going to start out in reserve stock to be placed anywhere and immediately completed upon placement.
With this said, imagine how quickly a protoss player could rush a zerg that starts out with 2 hatcheries and no overlord, even if the zerg were to start with 6 supply.
This would then lead to the idea that zerg is actually a tri-optioned race from the start and the 3 different starts that zerg could choose from would be the following....
1. Two hatchery no overlord (600)
2. Hatchery spawning pool no overlord (500)
3. Hatchery two overlord (500)
(opponent not knowing which the zerg has chosen)
This would help to prevent cheese rushing, but I'm still wondering if the game would already be balanced with a zerg that starts out with two hatchery bases and no overlords with hatcheries yielding 3 supply each and overlords yielding 6 supply each and protoss and terran starting out with a reserve stock pylon or supply depot that can be immediately completed by probe or scv by mere placement.
The question would be... does zerg still have a tri-direction of options or do they not? for the sake of keeping the game what it is and has always been....
It is between the two hatchery standard start, or the tri-option start that is the real controversy of zerg and the real controversy of starcraft.
|
Hook me up with your dealer fam, it's good shit he sells you
|
|
|
Typical mech balance thread.
|
Canada8989 Posts
That one should be put in the balance thread all of fame
|
Also continued investigation in to 75 mineral, 150 life overlords that hold 6 supply...
If they are slower then the other race's dropping units, then why don't they just have a speed upgrade only...
Carrying capacity is already there due to the fact that it only holds 6 supply instead of 8 and only has 150 life
PRODUCED FROM PRODUCTION SENSITIVE LARVA
The key here is how and where you put in the speed upgrade....
Just put the speed upgrade in exclusively to each overlord for like 25 gas cost... since the other races have to pay gas for their dropping mechanic....
The probe and the queen have a relationship, they are both macro units. Out of the spirit of macro unit design, the probe can now stream a ground to air attack at long range (similar to how the queen has a short range ground and long range air attack)
The ground to air attack is unlocked by the forge across all probes.
Now protoss can still fast expand with the option of stopping an overlord by-pass, and the overlord would have less life as it is, making it more difficult anyways....
For the record, I've always thought that the scv should be able to quickly turn in to and out of a stationary missile turret in mech fashion, which could be a cost and salvage like the bunker...
The point is, terran have a-typical defense, and should have a-typical defense entirely....
The terran that mines out an entire expansion and moves his cc in to a new expansion spot and does the same thing with his scv/turrets
A powerful concept that needs completion
|
Came in here wanting to be on your side, left asking myself what the f-ck is this kid talking about
|
Holy mother of Adun, what did I just read?
It's an ... interesting concept to be sure, but I think such drastical changes might be too much for most of the playerbase. 
|
Just trying to tie the original post in with the thematic utility tools concept as previously talked about...
Terran have always had their thematic utility tool, the bunker, and the missile turret fits in with it but the turret cannot be salvaged for reason. Considering that zerg could potentially be threats to primary bases I'm looking at both the thematic utility tool concept. An scv that can transform in to and out of a ground to ground missile turret for a cost and time that can be salvaged when it goes back in to scv form.
This is just for the sake of adding something to the protection of primary bases
Terran have always had the thematic utility tools that represent "positional ability"
Protoss used to be "aggressive quality" in sc1 due to the fact that shield batteries could be used offensively and shields regenerated faster then zerg life.... shields are an additional layer of upgradable armor hence establishing the concept of "aggressive QUALITY"
The problem is that the shield battery should have been replaced with a shield restoring mobile building since they took the medic out... if pylons could be upgraded to a pylon battery which allows mobile shield battery units to be warped in by probes to pylon radius only, then the re-storing of pylons to be re-placed again at home, would not be over powered due to the fact that you have to have pylon radius to make buildings.
Protoss lost its thematic utility tool going in to sc2
Zerg's thematic utility tool would have been a unit that cannot attack but when loses life it releases a corresponding amount of broodlings that eventually die out.... could be made with spawning pool tech.
Strategies such as attacking the unit with your own units is the point.
It would have covered zerg's missing dimension of production if a rule could be in place that you cannot have more then 1 larve mutating in to one of these units at a time per hatchery.
Reactive quantity might be the idea that you can only have 1 of these units per queen that you have, hence fulfilling the concept of a "delayed reactive quantity"
They could detonate from underground in a self destruction sense after a period of time in order to keep the opponent moving out on the field, not necessarily swarm enemy armies in battle advantages.
Just tying the original post in to a full completion of what would both be balanced AND better....
If the life pool of this unit was tied with so many drone life pools, then the unit could have immediate detonation capability and be recognized as a hostile target immediately, if not then it would have to have a delay to its detonation from under ground and not automatically be recognized as a hostile target.
I take back the pylon to battery upgrade, rather a nexus to a nexus battery of some kind...
|
Why don't you make your own RTS, or at the very least a UMS, so that you're not held down by all of these silly things that Blizzard put into their imbalanced game? Sounds like you have plenty of ideas about how things "should" work.
|
Still more coherent than Jordan Peterson.
|
Whoa... whoa whoa..... hold on a minute....
Let's say we don't stagger the values at the start but instead we FLIP the concepts....
Because, let's be realistic here... a hatchery must include the drone that made it, so zerg is starting at 450 value while t and p start at 400 value.
The hatchery has been increasing the supply it holds from sc1 to sc2 from 1 to 2, so let's bump it up to 3 and reduce the overlord down to 6 supply with any other changes to the lord that might be necessary aforementioned...
If each race starts with 6 workers, then T and P would start with 6, their main building and a supply depot/pylon in stock to be immediately completely upon placement of location of choice.
Zerg would start out with 6 workers, and no hatcheries, but would have 2 hatcheries in stock to be immediately completed upon placement of choice, however, it would be implemented in to the game the immediate build of one drone in to a hatch at primary base along side the auto command of mining minerals....
Now one other hatchery is still in stock for placement, and would most likely be placed at natural expo by player choice.
Now the values line up perfectly, while the concepts have merely been inverted....
Hatchery + Hatchery + 4 workers = 800 minerals (starting with 6 total supply mind you)
Command Center + Depot + 6 workers = 800 minerals
Nexus + Pylon + 6 workers = 800 minerals
With the 3 supply hatchery and the 6 supply overlord in place,
It is going to bring up the question once again of why overlords are occupying larva with a role that is not as significant as warrior or worker, and holding capacity/vision is not going to properly justify it...
|
"Giving Zerg and Actual Philosophy while Keeping the Game Balanced"
Ok this guy can't be for real.
|
Lead designer Starcraft 3.
|
On June 04 2018 01:40 AtlasOfMeCH wrote:
Whoa... whoa whoa..... hold on a minute....
Let's say we don't stagger the values
This is the most sane thing you've said in years.
|
I have to apologize for some things said in post # 12, I had forgotten my opinion of the overlord from a long time ago... and my thoughts got away from me....
I left what I believe to be true in post 12 and took out what I believe not to be true, and I would remind and add on to what I had previously said long ago....
Continuing from the end of post 12
It is going to bring up the question once again of why overlords are occupying larva with a role that is not as significant as warrior or worker, and holding capacity/vision is not going to properly justify it...
I had forgotten my opinion of the overlord filling an "trinity extreme role changer" for occupying larva. Those roles being expressed as...
The Glass Harasser (negative armor, high speed, low damage, ranged)
The Meat Shield Exclusive (armored, good life pool, moderate speed, no attack)
The Siege Sacrificing Building Destroyer (maybe sacrificing life pool from high range to attack buildings only)
This only brings me back to my original belief that zerg is missing a thematic utility tool of reactive quantity to complete the linear productive side of their parallel production with larva that crawl back in to the hatchery and produce a unit that I called "swarm wreather" that costs around 150 minerals and has the potential of releasing 150 minerals worth of broodlings by the damage it receives. This might really make transfusion from queens quite meaningful prior to ultralisks. The swarm wreather can be attacked by its own to release the broodlings and can detonate from under ground after a period of time to release all 150 minerals worth of broodlings.
Broodlings regenerate life on creep and lose life off creep
Broodlings that expire on creep are consumed by the creep and recycled as larva output and mineral return.
Terran have the bunker (positional ability)
Protoss have the shield something... (aggressive quality)
Zerg have the swarm wreather (reactive quantity)
Reactive as it would be either unlocked by evolution chamber, or simply just hatchery....
Reactive, knowing that broodlings slowly lose life off creep....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review
All this would mean for starcraft overall is simply 3 things
1. 3 supply hatchery, 6 supply overlord, 6 worker starts, pylon, supply depot ready to be placed down from start, 2 hatchery ready to be placed down from start (no starting overlord) with the option of this auto commanding.
Note: 800 mineral equal value starts from all the races
2. The implementation of thematic utility tools for protoss once again, and for zerg for once with tweaks to perhaps each of the mechanics from the races.
Note:
Terran: Positional Ability (Bunker, Repair, Etc)
Protoss: Agressive Quality (Shield restoring unit or building)
Zerg: Reactive Quantity (Swarm Wreather unit Idea)
3. Overlords capable of filling extreme roles due to occupying larva and the fact that more overlords would be made at 6 supply, 75 minerals, 150 life pool
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all that said, I think that the investigation of drones mutating in to queens should occur, and all races actually paying for their macro mechanics since this would be paying for the macro mechanic, which would then bring the discussion of keeping macro mechanics in the game back out on to the table. But a drone mutating in to a queen makes sense when the queen can attack... natural zerg defense is a boring starcraft game.
|
So how do you account for the fact that Zerg can produce twice as many workers as the other races? Or is that a feature?
|
1 hatchery
Overlords Occupy Larva
Drones Sacrifice for buildings (permanently)
Drones Sacrifice for defense (permanently)
Make twice as many workers only to not make any warriors only to turn around and lose those workers permanently?
I'm glad that you clarified the production of more workers
By saying this you have established that the advantage would theoretically be the production of more workers, and not the mining of more resources.
Zerg are a recovery race when they have the hatcheries to do so.... such as more then one....
If they start out with two and in the hole, they can recover quick and conduct a better push out of the hole.
If there exists no recovery, then there exists no argument for a zerg strength
Their strength is found in the deficit, and this statement is an example of balance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why proportioning is so important:
2 hatchery and 2 overlords used to equal a total of 18 supply which is the same as 1 command center and 1 supply depot
Hatchery = 1, Overlord = 8
This is the proof that zerg is a half race, particularly represented by control/supply
you can't have hatcheries that yield 5 control each with overlords that yield 4 control each to reach the total of 18 because this over pushes for too much building production and not enough unit production for an aggressive game...
On the other hand you don't want too much overlord production because that would diminish the offense in a legitimate way, zerg can't just be a harassing race the whole game (by the proper re-evaluation of overlords, their capabilities, role significance for occupying larva)
The proportioning is a critical and delicate thing...
Hatcheries that yield 3 supply and Overlords that yield 6, I believe is the proper proportioning and still establishes zerg as a half race in terms of comparable structures.
If zerg is a half race then
2.5 races in starcraft
4 races in their role playing strategy game
2.5/4 = the golden ratio
There are actually 6.5 colors in the color spectrum and not 7
|
|
|
Going to move through some afterwards points real quick here...
I never bought LOTV but I see that apparently the hatchery control yield was increased to 6 up from 2.
Change history-
Hatch supply = 1 - Wrong
Hatch supply = 2 - Better but not good enough
Hatch supply = 6 - Showing us that based on the cost of the hatchery vs the command center and the nexus, the hatchery would technically need to yield 6 control but the changes to the supply of the overlord would be too dramatic to compensate for such a drastic change, however, they did it anyways.
If 6 control was always what the hatchery should have yielded based on its cost and output, then cutting the supply from 6 to 3 would call for a cost reduction. From 300 to 250 would show what the hatchery should have always cost for the following reason.... (with reconsideration of build times and larva output rates of course)
All races starting with 800 minerals worth of structures and units
2 hatcheries in the pocket, 6 starting works, 2 auto command to make a hatch at main and natural, completed upon placement.
= 800 minerals worth of structures and units (2 hatchery = 500 + 100 (drones) = 600 + 4 starting drones to mine = 800 minerals
1 nexus, 6 workers, 1 pylon in the pocket to be completed upon placement = 800 minerals
1 command center, 6 workers, 1 supply depot in the pocket to be completed upon placement = 800 minerals
With a hatchery that yields 3 control and an overlord that yields 6 control, as one would think a proper balance and proportioning would be considering the original design and intention of the original game of starcraft, then more overlord would need to be made, which would call for the re-evaluation of why overlords occupy larva, at which point, becomes fixed by the option to mutate the overlord in to any of the 3 "extreme roles" aforementioned.
1. So with the proper costs, proportioning of control, build times, and outputs etc. etc. Zerg, Terran, and Protoss can start at the proper and equal 800 mineral start.
2. The overlord can attain its original purpose for the establishment of a zerg play style philosophy with the 3 extreme role mutation options.
3. The implementation of thematic utility tools,
Protoss: Aggressive Quality
I want to review protoss' original and missing aggressive quality thematic utility tool from sc1 to sc2.
If protoss could just naturally have warp in warriors with pylons and also have the 100 mineral shield battery, and pylons could also be restored back in to the pocket as an ability (to be completed elsewhere upon placement). It should be fine with all the other changes in place and each race having their thematic utility tool.
Imagine a protoss rush, pylon proxied, by production, but the first pylon in the pocket immediately placed to make 2 gateways. A shield battery is made for 100 minerals, and 2 zealots are warped in. The zealots move in to attack the opponent's base, they lose their shields and then fall back to the shield battery.
But if the tactic needs to be abandoned then the pylon can be restored back in to storage to be immediately replaced. Psi is lost while back in storage.
It should be perfectly fine for a pylon to be held in a storage sense because you need pylons on the map to construct your buildings.... make your units, etc.
This would be the perfect example of aggressive quality achieved with the thematic utility tool. Warriors warped in, aggressively, warriors shield restored, quality (as shields represent quality as a 2nd layer of armor)
The shield battery would probably not return home with the pylon, and would most likely be lost, but that is all that would be lost, promoting the playstyle option.
Terran- Positional ability
Bunker, Scv Repair
Zerg- Reactive Quantity
The reactive part has always been tricky to grasp here but when zerg's "Other Side" of their production dimension is completed with a thematic utility tool such as a unit that costs 150 minerals, out puts as much power as 150 minerals worth of zerglings as broodlings that die off after a duration, the unit produced at hatchery, linearly, by a larva crawling back in to the hatchery to produce. Broodlings released corresponding to health lost (unit does not attack on its own)
Then yes, reactive quantity is achieved because the 150 mineral unit would still likely take as long to produce as 150 minerals worth of zerglings therefor establishing the concept of...
"Delayed Reactive Quantity"
Hence why reaction is the virtual opposition to aggression.
|
On June 03 2018 03:55 ninazerg wrote:
Still more coherent than Jordan Peterson.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down there batman! Jordan Peterson is a brilliant genius! He's like the Kanye West of psychology! Without him, I never would have realized there were any parallels between human and lobster behaviours, or between rejecting extremist ideologies and standing up straight.
|
Just as I am adding basically one final point to my blizzard thread
us.battle.net
I am adding also that final point to this blog as talked about
*New Post 2018*
Decided to bring this thread back up again with another point
Zerglings in Sc2 are the prerequisite to the baneling
So one would think that the zergling would have some kind of familiarity of function to the baneling, but that does not exist
I once suggested the zergling "Leap/Sacrifice" ability from the inspiration of Hegel's 3 unique entities achieved by "Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis". Basically the synthesis of the zealot charge and marine stim-pack concepts.
But imagine if in sc2, queens were unlocked by evolution chambers and zerglings were unlocked by spawning pool as should be, but then there was this sort of "Paradigm-Shift" ability that switched the zergling and the queen's position in the tech tree. Of course this wouldn't seem to mean anything once both spawning pool and evolution chamber were completed, but at that point it would be established which mode you are in, Spawning or Evolution mode, as an overall status.
In spawning mode, everything is normal the way it currently is
But in evolution mode all zerglings produced stay in their eggs and queens move at a greater speed, about like a normal warrior speed even off creep.
The queen has an ability in this mode to "Consume Egg" and when consumes the eggs of the zerglings, the life pool of the zerglings are converted in to ammunition for the queen, meaning that the life of the zergling was sacrificed for a purely offensive means.
This is really the sort of micro function against enemy gas units that zerg has always needed.
*And now finally makes sense out of the fact that zerglings are the prerequisite to the baneling
Maybe the queens have to root their position though to be able to shoot the zergling life pool value at the enemy
but can do so in a very quick warrior like fashion similar to a lurker.
But that this would ultimately represent the "defensive mode" of being in Evolution mode represented by the evolution chamber.... the building which in virtually every race of classical strategy game design, unlocks defense structures.
However, it would be more like a tactical positionary mode
|
I put my final points all together in one writing that spanned 3 posts on the blizzard forums
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20761858135?page=3#post-55
Farewell yall...
My previous recent posts had kind of shot off in a different direction with starcraft 2 but I was hoping that I could sum up the zerg problem entirely between both starcraft 1 and starcraft 2 to see both of the failed directions that were not taken with each.
Starcraft 1 Zerg: The fact that zerg are the different race of the 3 races requiring a different design foundation to represent their different philosophy.
Terran and Protoss could have started out in the direction of supply structures, therefore representing Units and Zerg could have started out in the direction of base structures therefor representing Macro.
Currently, each race starts out with 600 minerals worth of structures and workers to show a start of equal footing. Technically Zerg start with 650 minerals worth of structures if you want to count the drone that made the initial hatchery. We won't count drones for hatcheries since that is apparently not suppose to be accounted for in Blizzard's eyes.
If hatcheries would have yielded 3 supply and overlords 7 supply, then each race could have started out with exactly 800 minerals worth of structures and workers. Zerg would have had 2 hatcheries and 4 drones to start and 6 total supply as there would be no starting overlord. Terran and Protoss could have started out with *6 workers each and a pylon/depot in the hole to be immediately deployed by one of their workers.... *That's 800 minerals worth of structures and workers for all 3 races as a start of equal footing and does not compromise the 4 pool build order (zerg's earliest rush) as an overlord can be made after pool contruction and not impede on the 6 zergling rush, although now starting with 2 hatcheries opens up more options.
Since Zerg would now be leaning slightly in the Macro direction with 7/3 lord to hatchery supply ratio, it would then shed light on two more significant issues and those are as follows:
-Why overlords occupy larvae
-Zerg's missing Thematic Utility Tool through Overlord and Creep Colony representing (Reactive Quantity)
This initial and founding macro direction to the zerg race would make us question again why overlords occupy larva but do not play a role as significant as a warrior or a worker therefor hurting, for no lack of better way of putting it... the lack of aggression of zerg's missing "reactive quantity" philosophy. This is why the overlord would need the ability to mutate in to say, 3 different options of extreme role Utility Tools expressed as follows:
-The Glass Harasser: perhaps going negative on armor but gaining a light ranged attack
-The Meat Shield Exclusive: Landing on the ground, gaining warrior quality movement speed and Armor, but maybe going blind
-The Utility Spell caster with ensnare and parasite solving the issue of divided classification within zerg's spellcasting arsenal (hey maybe it would not have been mobile at all? a stationary caster?)
And finally, as for the creep colony, the spawning pool (Compared to Barrack unlocking Bunker) would have unlocked the ability of the creep colony to mutate in to the proper Utility Tool which I have previously labeled as a "Swarm Wreather" while the evolution chamber would have unlocked the ability for the creep colony to mutate in to both the spore colony AND THE SUNKEN COLONY.
The swarm wreather would be a final product of a creep colony mutation that has full warrior quality mobility and burrow capability that when loses life, a corresponding amount of broodlings are released from it, although it would have no attack ability of its own. Being able to burrow and then be detonated by say, the glass harasser utility tool of the overlord would show how the overlord and the creep colony were suppose to ultimately represent the Thematic Utility Tool of the zerg race as "Reactive Quantity"
We note that both Protoss and Zerg have been unfairly left out in the "Thematic Utility Tool" department going in to starcraft 2 as the shield battery was taken away from protoss which should have originally represented aggressively quality. It is cool to imagine how unit warp in could have been used in tandem with the shield battery to represent the Aggressive Quality concept but I don't even need to analyze that considering the fine analysis of zerg already described.
------
Starcraft 2 Zerg: The issue could be a bit simpler to understand because as soon as they had zerg making a unit linearly through a structure(Queen) like the other races (Opposed to the "more different" races promised to us when we went to purchase starcraft 2), it became clear to me what could be the ultimate resolve considering that the lurker was also taken away from Zerg going in to Sc2. A zerg that could switch between basically a night and day mode with its zerglings and queens where in one mode everything functions as it currently does, but in the other mode the zergling loses its ability to attack and the queen gains warrior quality movement speed and the ability to root. While the queen is rooted, it also loses its attack but can consume zerglings converting their lifepool value in to damage output value creating a fast mobile siege concept to replace the lurker. Perhaps the attack damage would have been like streamlined acid familiar to a void ray attack to be just as cool. But didn't this make perfect sense since the zergling is the pre-requisite to the sacrificial baneling?
I have some good opinions of diablo and have also since moved on to try and help valve with the problems of their intelligence class...
But whos to blame for all of this mess? The players? The game?
I blame myself since I could be the biggest fan of the origins of this franchise deep down, but could never really express why.... until now I guess...
But when the nay Sayers said that The game lacked soul, and there was soul searching to do... they weren't kidding....
Einstein once said "Our biggest problem is a perfection of means and confusion of aims"
Why does this guy always seem to be right but also be right?
--------------
One last point to get out of the way while the thread is up....
So I corrected the starting structure/worker value total to 800 as you can see two posts previously. This means that terran and protoss start with 6 workers and a pylon/depot in the hole, ready to be deployed anywhere, and zerg start with 2 hatcheries, 4 drones, and no overlord.
Given this set up and the implementation of a 7/3 food lord to hatchery ratio, I'm sure that people are going to say that this hurts, even the earliest of zerg rushes.... the 4 pool, and even hurts the follow through with overlords that only yield 7 food.
Another shedding of light that this proper set up reveals to us is in regard to the Zerg movement speed problem. It could have been easily argued that Zerg had too many speed enhancement abilities to research with too many individual units.
In starcraft 2, the issue only became amplified with bonus movement speed on creep which almost seemed to be applied strictly out of gut feelings from the devs. But another movement speed element? really?
In the proper 800 mineral structure/worker start for all 3 races and the 7/3 lord to hatchery food ratio, it reveals to us that zerg should have naturally had enhanced movement speed for its warrior units. At least and especially with zerglings to offset the starting lean in the macro direction.
Smaller bursts of offense.... speed jabs of aggression to offset the missing "Reactive Quantity" thematic.
But wasn't this obvious all along since having a bland army amassed of single unit types is suppose to find its specialization through micro?
|
|
|
Hmm... you've triggered me to continue my thought progression and bury your irrelevancy
I guess there is some more I'd like to say about the matter....
So why the 7/3 lord to hatchery food yield ratio and not 7/2?
First of all, imagine comparing the current Zerg start to the start of Terran and Protoss except take away the overlord.
If you take away the overlord but want to compare equally, you basically have to imagine that there exists and invisible pylon in the nexus and depot in the command center that you take out of each.
Take the pylon out of the Nexus and you have a 300 mineral cost structure that yields 1 supply.
Take the depot out of the Command Center and you have a 300 mineral structure that yields 2 supply, and terran are starting to lean more toward macro with partial sacrifice of workers for building their structures (over a period of time)
Now correct me if I'm wrong but following this pattern, wouldn't the hatchery then yield 3 supply because it not only distinguishes them from the other races but also because they lean the most in the macro direction with permanent worker sacrifice?
Wouldn't the holy trinity within mathematics alone simply be 1, 2 and 3?
Yet... when you classify 1, 2 and 3.... it is the number 2 and the number 3 that fall under the same classification as being primary while 1 is the odd 3rd out as being undefined.
If you apply this same consideration to the races in terms of supply and macro tendency aforementioned then Protoss is actually the odd race out while Zerg and Terran are more similar. But didn't this make sense all along since protoss can use 1 worker to accomplish everything while Terran and Zerg have to use multiple workers?
Doesn't this mean that zerg should have a 7/3 lord to hatchery food ratio to total the 10 supply also yielded by the command center?
If Terran and Zerg align on unit and food costs
and Terran and Protoss align on building costs
And this is a starting pattern for distinguishing out the races....
Then what is it that Zerg and Protoss align on that is different then structures and units/supply?
After units and structures you only have functions...
Zerg produce their units in a parallel fashion and while there is a strong intuition that protoss produce their units linearly like terran, it is actually built on a deception. A zealot is practically identical in value and power to 4 zerglings and 2 pairs of zerglings are fully capable of being made through parallel function.
There is also the function of unit behaviors like.... you guessed it... movement speed. So of course zerglings and zealots are going to share a movement speed enhancement. However, the enhancement itself shouldn't be just an identical type of enhancement to the other. For zerg, it should be a nature, for protoss, a research, as both should be, as how it should have stayed overall...
Now, if you try and make the argument that I'm talking about a different game and not starcraft....
Look at what happens when trying to talk about THIS game in its design regard to achieving 3 unique races....
You want the unique zerglings as a zerg player that you should have always had? The ones that don't have a movement speed upgrade the same way zealots do?
Then you got to take out the speed upgrade and put it more in alignment with marine stim pack.
When you do that you have a zergling "leap sacrifice" ability that would be similar to the zealot charge of sc2, except upon collision, say all of the zergling's life pool would be sacrificed down to 1 hp as an offensive attack value output.
But at the end of the day... with the game revolving around the element of skill which created the professional scene that makes this game remain a competitive spirit spectacle.... I'm willing to bet that everyone is going to go with the first proposition.
|
It's just hard for me to wrap my mind around the idea that naturally faster zerg warrior units, even with the changes aforementioned... would not be imbalanced, even if it was say.... half the amount of speed of the speed ability upgrades and maybe a universal creep speed research coming later for a hefty cost
I'll add this point, just in case....
-Zerg warrior units slowly lose life off creep....
-Zerg warrior units can burrow (without burrow research) to regenerate life
BUT CAN STILL BE SEEN WHILE BURROWED
-Burrow research changed to "Invisible burrow"
[A[H]A] there was the breath of fresh air all along ay?
|
Do you play the actual game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
