|
On May 10 2011 04:56 R0YAL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:51 MangoTango wrote:On May 10 2011 04:49 R0YAL wrote:On May 10 2011 04:45 MangoTango wrote:
Creep tumors already took over the role of spreading creep. What would Creep Colonies do that's unique? Creep colonies morphed into either a sunken colony or spore colony. It made it so that you could throw down a few creep colonies and quickly morph them into sunkens when desired. It makes Zerg much more flexible, I miss my creep colonies  I played Zerg in BW, thanks. Spine/Spores are better in SC2 than 1, and the ability to move them around is already really good. Curious as to why you think spines/spores are better in sc2. Could you elaborate other than uproot? Personally I would trade uproot for creep colonies if presented the choice. Sunkens seemed much more durable in bw because in sc2 there are a number of units that absolutely destroy buildings, not to mention these units get massed like crazy. It makes spines not very effective. Also how come spines dont produce broodlings like all other buildings. I think it would be better if they produce like 3 broodlings when destroyed.
You touched on exactly why spines are worse than sunkens. Because there are more "building killing" units in SC2 than SC1. The solution to this is to make spines have more HP or armor, not to give zergs creep colonies. Lowering the burrow time to 9 seconds would help alot as well.
|
On May 10 2011 13:56 crimsonsentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 04:56 R0YAL wrote:On May 10 2011 04:51 MangoTango wrote:On May 10 2011 04:49 R0YAL wrote:On May 10 2011 04:45 MangoTango wrote:
Creep tumors already took over the role of spreading creep. What would Creep Colonies do that's unique? Creep colonies morphed into either a sunken colony or spore colony. It made it so that you could throw down a few creep colonies and quickly morph them into sunkens when desired. It makes Zerg much more flexible, I miss my creep colonies I played Zerg in BW, thanks. Spine/Spores are better in SC2 than 1, and the ability to move them around is already really good. Curious as to why you think spines/spores are better in sc2. Could you elaborate other than uproot? Personally I would trade uproot for creep colonies if presented the choice. Sunkens seemed much more durable in bw because in sc2 there are a number of units that absolutely destroy buildings, not to mention these units get massed like crazy. It makes spines not very effective. Also how come spines dont produce broodlings like all other buildings. I think it would be better if they produce like 3 broodlings when destroyed. You touched on exactly why spines are worse than sunkens. Because there are more "building killing" units in SC2 than SC1. The solution to this is to make spines have more HP or armor, not to give zergs creep colonies. Lowering the burrow time to 9 seconds would help alot as well.
I know, I was asking why he thought spines were better than sunkens. Or are you agreeing with me?
|
On May 10 2011 06:23 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 05:18 Grumbels wrote:
Zerg has base defense in creep tumors now, the speed bonus helps a lot. Also, queens double as base defense too. Given this, there is less of a need for instantly built static defense.
Furthermore, what do you think happens to the game when you give zerg powerful reactive defensive tools? They will drone even more and the game will be even more about how many drones a zerg can get away with. At least now they have to pre-make spine crawlers, so zerg is encouraged to at least get some defenses or units instead of just drones.
And also, if you want spine crawlers to have less root time, just say so and don't hide it behind a silly idea like copying a brood war design unto sc2. Or more generally speaking, ask for the spine crawler to have a lower build time, since that's functionally mostly the same. Zerg should not have to blindly make spine crawlers or static defense because they're scouting can't find out what build the toss/terran is doing. The whole point of the OP is that Zerg can split up the build time by making creep colonies, and then morphing them so spines when he sees the Toss/Terran push out. Watch SC1 TvZ. In almost every pro match I see, the Terran moves out with his first group of M&M's. This forces the Zerg to make 1-3 sunken colonies and possibly even some zerglings. I don't understand how the same logic couldn't apply to SC2 in this case. If you're so worried about the Zerg making no defenses/drones, then push out with some units and force the Zerg to make zerglings and spines. Your statement about how Zergs can just make drones if they have a reactionary defense is just blatantly false.
So annoying when people attribute a strawman position to me and then make fun of me. I didn't actually say that. The point is that the larva mechanic is potentially broken, since at any point when they're not pressured, a zerg can make purely drones. The game, then, has to be either balanced around letting the zerg have more economy (which it partly is), or there need to be ways to slow it down.
Suppose you could build spine crawlers in time for an attack. If the opponent moves out, you get a lot of them, and if it's a fake attack you cancel them at low cost, if it's a real attack you win because you can put all your economy into defense suddenly. The game would revolve purely around these attacks that are so hard to balance.
So, the idea is that super fast and super powerful spine crawlers are bad for the game, not that they let zergs drone up forever.
I know the match-up didn't degenerate in brood war, but I think zerg had less larva to work with then. (I might be mistaken)
|
I think that a solution to this problem would be replacing spore and spine crawlers with a generic 'crawler', which has a shorter build time. This crawler can't do anything, but costs only 50 minerals (100 if the drone is included).
Then, this crawler can be morphed into a spore or spine crawler for 25 or 50 minerals repectively.
The build time of the old spine crawler would be the same as the build time for the generic crawler, combined with the morph to a spine crawler.
This would allow for a similar mechanic to the creep colony in BW, since their main purpose in these situations was for defence, not creep spread.
It also lessens the upfront costs for zergs who choose to invest in static defence, and means they need less time to prepare their defence if they scout an attack coming.
|
...Because. They. Move. Doesn't matter how fast they move, they move fast enough that if I did a 16 marine drop in your main you could lift 3 spines, and land them before the marines have killed anything but a queen and some drones.
with 16 marines, you could kill all 3 Spines in that time.
|
On May 10 2011 09:55 Mataza wrote:
For the love of whoever(Dunno maybe Hot_bids love):
Really the point of Idra was that zerg don´t have a safe build. As was already said greedy>safe>aggressive>greedy.
But Zerg can´t do a safe build against an aggressive one. They have to do an aggressive build also(building a metric frickton of units). And at that point the T/P can go back to a safe build(wall-in, bunker, Sentries) rendering the units that were build by zerg useless.
Defending for Zerg is really hard because Spines can´t be made reactionary and later on they lack lurkers to hold chokepoints. Building lurkers freed up larva tto make drones and lurker expand was kinda like siege tank expand.
The replacement for that are banelings and roaches which both don´t do very well in defense until you get burrow. The other option, spines, take too long to build to be of any use either.
Take for example the 7 rax allin, which pretty much looks like a 2 rax pressure into expand until you see him having more than 8 marines.
You want 1 or 2 spines vs 2 rax pressure and 5+ against a 7rax.
In this example, what Idra asks for is either a way to find the 5 dirty hidden raxes in T´s main without crippling himself or a way to defend it after he sees the marines coming down the ramp.
Right now the only option is to make a lot of units anyway, which will put him behind a 2rax expand(making the fast expand useless).
You're touching on something very interesting.
Since Zerg don't really got a safe build (spines are not reactionary) you have to guess. You can either build spines preemptively or you make a ton of units, which in most cases is the better solution. You have to commit heavily to those units to fend off his aggressive attack. So you're fighting fire with fire. The truth of the reality is though, that a terran or protoss will be able to back off at any time leaving you behind with a shit ton of units that will be fended off by his transition into a safe build (wall, bunker etc.), because safe beats aggressive and aggressive is the only response for zerg against aggressive styles. If you chose to build those spines preemptively you will play a safer style. However, spines cannot attack and thus T or P will be free to play very greedily for quite some time and greedy beats safe in the long run.
I think this discussion points out some of the fundamental design flaws in this game. Zerg needs something to make up for the lack of scouting abilities. This something could be creep colonies allowing you to be more reactionary and you don't have to fully commit to it, since you only have to pay for the spine when you need it.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I kind of like that you can't just use Sunkens to defend and you actually have to use units (same goes for bunkers and cannons). In Broodwar I found it so annoying that I could try and counter attack the zerg but I'd lose the majority of my units to his wall of like 12 sunkens he built since he was up to 3 base and could afford it while his units just went past my front and killed me.
|
They should simply lower Spine build time to like 35-40 sec, fast enough so you can build them reactively.
|
|
|
The problem is that if you give Zerg too much safety in the early game then they will get such a strong econemy that they will be able to roll the other races eventually unless other changes are put in place. Better early game scouting for zerg would have a simmilar impact as if the zerg can see exactly what a terran or protoss is doing then they will be able to prapare for any early push and come out ahead and were in the same situation where the game is favoring the zerg possibly too much.
I really do feel the answer is in changing the way Zerg build their defensive structures similar to how myself and others have suggested where spine and spore's are 2phase buildings where you are able to build something at a reduced cost and time with the option of morphing into a spine or spore as you require (only one way though). This aswell has the option to balance the structure around ZvZ as the stage 1 building can have relitively low health so in ZvZ they arent too strong and can be delt with via drones but still giving Zerg reactionary defensive structures and still be vulnerable to eary preasure.
|
It would be awesome (yet broken at the same time) if queens could speed up the building of structures by transfusing it. Maybe limit this mechanic to spines/spores only.
|
On May 10 2011 14:08 R0YAL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 13:56 crimsonsentinel wrote:On May 10 2011 04:56 R0YAL wrote:On May 10 2011 04:51 MangoTango wrote:On May 10 2011 04:49 R0YAL wrote:On May 10 2011 04:45 MangoTango wrote:
Creep tumors already took over the role of spreading creep. What would Creep Colonies do that's unique? Creep colonies morphed into either a sunken colony or spore colony. It made it so that you could throw down a few creep colonies and quickly morph them into sunkens when desired. It makes Zerg much more flexible, I miss my creep colonies I played Zerg in BW, thanks. Spine/Spores are better in SC2 than 1, and the ability to move them around is already really good. Curious as to why you think spines/spores are better in sc2. Could you elaborate other than uproot? Personally I would trade uproot for creep colonies if presented the choice. Sunkens seemed much more durable in bw because in sc2 there are a number of units that absolutely destroy buildings, not to mention these units get massed like crazy. It makes spines not very effective. Also how come spines dont produce broodlings like all other buildings. I think it would be better if they produce like 3 broodlings when destroyed. You touched on exactly why spines are worse than sunkens. Because there are more "building killing" units in SC2 than SC1. The solution to this is to make spines have more HP or armor, not to give zergs creep colonies. Lowering the burrow time to 9 seconds would help alot as well. I know, I was asking why he thought spines were better than sunkens. Or are you agreeing with me?
Because Spines are better than Sunkens. They only seem worse because of other units. Or, to put it another way, if you put Sunkens in SC2, Zerg would have worse defense.
|
On May 10 2011 20:10 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 14:08 R0YAL wrote:On May 10 2011 13:56 crimsonsentinel wrote:On May 10 2011 04:56 R0YAL wrote:On May 10 2011 04:51 MangoTango wrote:On May 10 2011 04:49 R0YAL wrote:On May 10 2011 04:45 MangoTango wrote:
Creep tumors already took over the role of spreading creep. What would Creep Colonies do that's unique? Creep colonies morphed into either a sunken colony or spore colony. It made it so that you could throw down a few creep colonies and quickly morph them into sunkens when desired. It makes Zerg much more flexible, I miss my creep colonies I played Zerg in BW, thanks. Spine/Spores are better in SC2 than 1, and the ability to move them around is already really good. Curious as to why you think spines/spores are better in sc2. Could you elaborate other than uproot? Personally I would trade uproot for creep colonies if presented the choice. Sunkens seemed much more durable in bw because in sc2 there are a number of units that absolutely destroy buildings, not to mention these units get massed like crazy. It makes spines not very effective. Also how come spines dont produce broodlings like all other buildings. I think it would be better if they produce like 3 broodlings when destroyed. Sunkens aren't completely worse. They do a whopping 40 damage to large units and protoss shields, making them somewhat better against the units that ravage spines. You touched on exactly why spines are worse than sunkens. Because there are more "building killing" units in SC2 than SC1. The solution to this is to make spines have more HP or armor, not to give zergs creep colonies. Lowering the burrow time to 9 seconds would help alot as well. I know, I was asking why he thought spines were better than sunkens. Or are you agreeing with me? Because Spines are better than Sunkens. They only seem worse because of other units. Or, to put it another way, if you put Sunkens in SC2, Zerg would have worse defense.
|
On May 10 2011 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:
They should simply lower Spine build time to like 35-40 sec, fast enough so you can build them reactively.
If you do this you open a pandora's box in ZvZ where defending ling spinecrawler allin becomes impossible if you try to go economy (14 pool).
|
The build time, root time and DPS of the spine crawler is fine imo. Just have to react and scout better. Spines are already the most versitile static D due to the fact they can be moved, and don't require any other buildings to make.
Just scout better
|
On May 10 2011 21:20 ffadicted wrote:
The build time, root time and DPS of the spine crawler is fine imo. Just have to react and scout better. Spines are already the most versitile static D due to the fact they can be moved, and don't require any other buildings to make.
Just scout better
Dude, the whole point of the thread is that, on almost every map, you scout a push, you put down spines, the push in here before the spines are finish.
|
On May 10 2011 21:09 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:
They should simply lower Spine build time to like 35-40 sec, fast enough so you can build them reactively. If you do this you open a pandora's box in ZvZ where defending ling spinecrawler allin becomes impossible if you try to go economy (14 pool).
That's not much of a problem, let alone a pandora's box. It just means the average pool timing would have to drop a little and 12 or 13 pool is the new version of going economy, and maybe 11 pool becomes a new standard opener. Spine build time being lowered would change ZvZ, but it won't lead to an unstoppable 7 pool build.
|
creepy crawlers!
edit:
that can morph to spine and spore
|
On May 10 2011 21:26 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 21:09 -Archangel- wrote:On May 10 2011 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:
They should simply lower Spine build time to like 35-40 sec, fast enough so you can build them reactively. If you do this you open a pandora's box in ZvZ where defending ling spinecrawler allin becomes impossible if you try to go economy (14 pool). That's not much of a problem, let alone a pandora's box. It just means the average pool timing would have to drop a little and 12 or 13 pool is the new version of going economy, and maybe 11 pool becomes a new standard opener. Spine build time being lowered would change ZvZ, but it won't lead to an unstoppable 7 pool build.
It does however completely eliminate the possibility of 15 hatch, which has become semi-standard in ZvZ.
If you thought the baneling wars were bad right now, wait until nobody can feasibly expand without having gone through them.
|
On May 10 2011 21:26 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 21:09 -Archangel- wrote:On May 10 2011 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:
They should simply lower Spine build time to like 35-40 sec, fast enough so you can build them reactively. If you do this you open a pandora's box in ZvZ where defending ling spinecrawler allin becomes impossible if you try to go economy (14 pool). That's not much of a problem, let alone a pandora's box. It just means the average pool timing would have to drop a little and 12 or 13 pool is the new version of going economy, and maybe 11 pool becomes a new standard opener. Spine build time being lowered would change ZvZ, but it won't lead to an unstoppable 7 pool build.
The followup question is, would you really want a matchup where you have to 12pool every game or else youre dead? That would make ZvZ even more early game-gimmicky than it is tbh
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
