|
On September 12 2009 06:38 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2009 06:34 integral wrote:
The graphs are interesting, I hope people interpret them appropriately. As you say, Zerg having fewer minerals at an arbitrary one-base saturation level is only due to their macro mechanic not raising the maximum rate of mining from a particular area. I think that could easily be misunderstood, especially in the context of "in the end, RTS strategies usually boil down to the simplest common factor - maximize resource production as quickly as possible." Those are pretty significant gaps for mineral count, after all, so zerg will have to leverage its early game advantage to make up the difference in theoretical maximums. True, however, keep in mind that from this one hatchery and queen, Zerg essentially has 2 gateways and a nexus. If the model built 2 gateways and constant zealots, im sure the minerals would come a little more together.
What? You weren't producing zerglings, were you? Why would one race adding in combat unit production make an assessment of the economic potential of the races an even comparison? I understand that larva are equivalent to production buildings, but you were using your larva for drones, not zerglings, so I'm confused.
I'm not concerned with the model's accuracy, I'm fond of the saying that "all models are wrong, some are useful", but this model does seem to indicate that protoss and terran have the ability to have a stronger economy IF all they do is focus on workers and their macro mechanics -- which is of course, very unrealistic. Zerg reaches drone saturation earlier, as you point out, but why is that so critical if their economy at saturation is relatively worse than a protoss or terran's economy pre-saturation?
Factor in production buildings and the other things terran and protoss would need to do to remain militarily (can military be adverbed?!) comparable and they might be more even, yes, but I do find it interesting.
If my point stands and I'm not missing something, the main things to balance are (as you point out) the zerg's ability to 1. gain map control due to early unit production advantage and 2. fluidly switch between what they're producing, which are as far as I can tell the sole reasons why the queen mechanic is better -- NOT that the zerg can outmine the other two races in a "who can mine more minerals faster", as you suggested when you said Further, in a straight-up macro war, you will never out macro a Zerg player who opens 13 pool into queen.
This is, of course, just looking at the numbers here. Though psi count and the other factors involved in macro might be higher for zerg initially, unless the ratio of terran/protoss buildings' and units' cost to zerg's buildings' and units' cost is worse than the ratio of their economic advantage, there simply must be an intersection at some point.
edited to make the last paragraph more confusing
|
Gosh, beta's going to be fun...:7
Here's to six solid months of arguing about balance...with actual gameplay experience and testing to back us up! And here's to a well-balanced game when it's over.
Godspeed, gentlemen...Godspeed.
|
Calgary25972 Posts
On September 12 2009 08:48 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2009 06:38 Chill wrote:On September 12 2009 06:34 integral wrote:
The graphs are interesting, I hope people interpret them appropriately. As you say, Zerg having fewer minerals at an arbitrary one-base saturation level is only due to their macro mechanic not raising the maximum rate of mining from a particular area. I think that could easily be misunderstood, especially in the context of "in the end, RTS strategies usually boil down to the simplest common factor - maximize resource production as quickly as possible." Those are pretty significant gaps for mineral count, after all, so zerg will have to leverage its early game advantage to make up the difference in theoretical maximums. True, however, keep in mind that from this one hatchery and queen, Zerg essentially has 2 gateways and a nexus. If the model built 2 gateways and constant zealots, im sure the minerals would come a little more together. What? You weren't producing zerglings, were you? Why would one race adding in combat unit production make an assessment of the economic potential of the races an even comparison? I understand that larva are equivalent to production buildings, but you were using your larva for drones, not zerglings, so I'm confused.
I understand. I'm just saying that Protoss is going to be doing something with his extra minerals. We're not going to race to 30 supply while we bank thousands of minerals. If Protoss produces Zealots and Zerg is forced to produce Zerglings, it will drive the mineral different down. That's all I meant.
I'm not concerned with the model's accuracy, I'm fond of the saying that "all models are wrong, some are useful", but this model does seem to indicate that protoss and terran have the ability to have a stronger economy IF all they do is focus on workers and their macro mechanics -- which is of course, very unrealistic. Zerg reaches drone saturation earlier, as you point out, but why is that so critical if their economy at saturation is relatively worse than a protoss or terran's economy pre-saturation? Factor in production buildings and the other things terran and protoss would need to do to remain militarily (can military be adverbed?!) comparable and they might be more even, yes, but I do find it interesting. If my point stands and I'm not missing something, the main things to balance are (as you point out) the zerg's ability to 1. gain map control due to early unit production advantage and 2. fluidly switch between what they're producing, which are as far as I can tell the sole reasons why the queen mechanic is better -- NOT that the zerg can outmine the other two races in a "who can mine more minerals faster", as you suggested when you said Show nested quote +Further, in a straight-up macro war, you will never out macro a Zerg player who opens 13 pool into queen. This is, of course, just looking at the numbers here. Though psi count and the other factors involved in macro might be higher for zerg initially, unless the ratio of terran/protoss buildings' and units' cost to zerg's buildings' and units' cost is worse than the ratio of their economic advantage, there simply must be an intersection at some point. edited to make the last paragraph more confusing
Yes your point stands and I agree.
|
Not about the macro mechanics itself, but here's something.
In my opinion, it's never good for a RTS to have things that are there just for giggles. This is a problem up to nowadays in BW, and I don't want that in SC2.
I'm talking about many upgrades like "increased Observer sight range", Scouts, All of Medic researchable abilities, Devourers, etc.
It's essential that the Macro mechanics are fair amongst races - but once Blizzard has figured it out, why not make Obelisks/Queens/Terran thing have more uses? 2 energy for 1 mana is RIDICULOUS, seriously, they have to be kidding. If I were to balance it would be 1 energy for 2 mana, maybe even more if it's not something that is worth it in 9 out of 10 games...
Nice write-up anyways Chill.
|
On September 12 2009 06:00 heyoka wrote:Good article, and the best banner I've seen in ages The model is pretty interesting, and is probably a good avenue to go down as we near beta to try to find results for theorycrafting. I suspect we have a lot to learn with that kind of methodology. Show nested quote +Step 4: Test it under the premise that good players are going to abuse it. Return to Step 1. This seems to be the biggest problem with balancing before a beta. Developers don't have the same kind of drive to abuse mechanics and competitive spirit that shines light on just how serious (or not serious) problems like this are for balance. Until beta actually hits I would expect this kind of issue to be relatively unchecked, not by direct fault from blizzard but because the talent pool doing the testing won't be good enough until the public has their hands on it.
should point out that balancing something is different from watering it down.
in SC1, with MM+tank>all, watering it down would be to make tanks do less damage. balancing it would be having swarm kick in right when MM+tanks are unstoppable. same in PvT in SC1. watering down mech 3/3 upgrades is bad. but giving toss the option of stasis and carriers just when mech 3/3 kicks in, that is balance.
so with these macro mechanics, and with other game balancing issues, i think it's better to not water it down. any "fix" that reduces the relative advantage of one thing over another is bad. Instead, there should be a paper/scissor/rock thing going on at different parts of the game.
for example, maybe zerg has the strongest macro throughout the game, terran has the strongest macro in early stages, and toss has the strongest macro in middle stages. that is fine.
make zerg end game units less effective than terran and or protoss. make protoss early game units strong and mobile. terran can be given the strongest midgame units. however, the timing of when these units are strongest should be slightly offset from the timing of when the race's macro is strongest. that way, there is a back and forth action allowing for timing pushes.
this is just a suggestion of principle. the principle that when things are too balance, its' no longer fun. but when things are not balanced, when at different parts of the game, one race is better off than the other, that allows for timings, strategies to minimize weakness, and displays of skill.
|
On September 12 2009 09:17 zazen wrote:
Not about the macro mechanics itself, but here's something.
In my opinion, it's never good for a RTS to have things that are there just for giggles. This is a problem up to nowadays in BW, and I don't want that in SC2.
I'm talking about many upgrades like "increased Observer sight range", Scouts, All of Medic researchable abilities, Devourers, etc.
It's essential that the Macro mechanics are fair amongst races - but once Blizzard has figured it out, why not make Obelisks/Queens/Terran thing have more uses? 2 energy for 1 mana is RIDICULOUS, seriously, they can't be serious. If I were to balance it would be 1 energy for 2 mana, maybe even more if it's not worth it 9 out of 10 games...
Nice write-up anyways Chill.
bw was intended to be played at normal speed, not fast speed.
at normal speed, many of those things you mention are viable again. if SC was played at normal speed but broadcast at fastest speed, you'll see a lot more nuking action, medic restoration vs plague, scout + shield battery harass, etc etc.
|
nice work!!!!!!
I guess the idea of changeling the larva, and reduce to 2... or 3 is a good idea........
And it is not a hude deal because we r in alfa yet.So in beta they ll balence it very well.
|
On September 12 2009 09:20 Polyphasic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2009 09:17 zazen wrote:
Not about the macro mechanics itself, but here's something.
In my opinion, it's never good for a RTS to have things that are there just for giggles. This is a problem up to nowadays in BW, and I don't want that in SC2.
I'm talking about many upgrades like "increased Observer sight range", Scouts, All of Medic researchable abilities, Devourers, etc.
It's essential that the Macro mechanics are fair amongst races - but once Blizzard has figured it out, why not make Obelisks/Queens/Terran thing have more uses? 2 energy for 1 mana is RIDICULOUS, seriously, they can't be serious. If I were to balance it would be 1 energy for 2 mana, maybe even more if it's not worth it 9 out of 10 games...
Nice write-up anyways Chill. bw was intended to be played at normal speed, not fast speed. at normal speed, many of those things you mention are viable again. if SC was played at normal speed but broadcast at fastest speed, you'll see a lot more nuking action, medic restoration vs plague, scout + shield battery harass, etc etc.
This explains why they were designed in the first place - thanks - but really doesn't explain why they were never fixed and just forgotten to be useless forever, since BW is only played at fastest anyway.
|
|
|
Osaka27134 Posts
On September 12 2009 09:22 zazen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2009 09:20 Polyphasic wrote:On September 12 2009 09:17 zazen wrote:
Not about the macro mechanics itself, but here's something.
In my opinion, it's never good for a RTS to have things that are there just for giggles. This is a problem up to nowadays in BW, and I don't want that in SC2.
I'm talking about many upgrades like "increased Observer sight range", Scouts, All of Medic researchable abilities, Devourers, etc.
It's essential that the Macro mechanics are fair amongst races - but once Blizzard has figured it out, why not make Obelisks/Queens/Terran thing have more uses? 2 energy for 1 mana is RIDICULOUS, seriously, they can't be serious. If I were to balance it would be 1 energy for 2 mana, maybe even more if it's not worth it 9 out of 10 games...
Nice write-up anyways Chill. bw was intended to be played at normal speed, not fast speed. at normal speed, many of those things you mention are viable again. if SC was played at normal speed but broadcast at fastest speed, you'll see a lot more nuking action, medic restoration vs plague, scout + shield battery harass, etc etc. This explains why they were designed in the first place - thanks - but really doesn't explain why they were never fixed and just forgotten to be useless forever, since BW is only played at fastest anyway.
The ladder was always played on fast though. It should be obvious to any game designer now though that there should only be one speed in a game, fastest. Nobody outside complete beginners will ever want to play on anything less than that. Certainly not competitive BW.
|
Good article.
Most people who are disagreeing with it are missing these points (from what I've seen in the SC2 forum):
1a. They do not understand the flexibility of zerg to instantly produce military or workers WHEN they need to. Zerg has overlord out so they can see if you're producing military or teching. They have the flexibility to POWER workers THEN switch to military to defend. Thus, zerg are significantly ahead if toss/terran are going for a military/tech build because they can defend aggression at the last possible second.
1b. If toss/terran try for economical build it's OBVIOUS that zerg will out-power them.
2. The speed of lings and pathing on creep kill scouts + queen is just a bonus. The fact that you can power a significant amount of drones or military within a small time frame means they will be at a significant disadvantage that is game breaking in the hands of a good player.
3. Zerg is not going to stay on 1 hatch. They have extra minerals after about 3 minutes into the game to plant ANOTHER hatch (usually at their natural) WITH the pool-queen first build.
Saturation of 30 workers is not going to be reached -- in fact, zerg will have better mineral gathering rates than predicted by Chill's algorithms because they will be on 2 hatches by > 400s into the game.
Chill: there is something you forgot about your build. Using the minerals you have you want to have another queen hatched by the time your second hatchery is up ready to inject larva. This is definitely feasible within the time constrains of your charts (probably around 300-350s or so). Thus, the zerg is only going to get stronger at about ~5 minutes into the game once the second hatch pops.
200s: Plop down an extra hatchery after 1st queen is being made
225s: Build another queen PLUS it will be there for extra defense... how nice
300s: Hatch pops and second queen can inject larva.
At 300-350s, zerg will be able to power more than the chart suggests especially with a hatch at the main AND nat. No saturation of drones gives significant more minerals than predicted by your algorithm, plus significantly more production.
|
Nice article Chill, though I have one important problem with your conclusions.
According to your graphs, by the 5 minute mark Zerg has 1000 minerals, Protoss has 1500 and Terran has 1750 or so. Let's say all sides have made expenditures worth 900 minerals in things such as refineries, supply depots, military and tech.
Well, Terran still has 750 minerals more than the Zerg does. You know what you can get with 750 minerals? A command center and 7 SCVs. Suddenly, 1-hatch Zerg doesn't have the capacity to build workers faster than Terran does. Protoss can get a Nexus and a few workers.
You go on about how Zerg can pump drones super-fast, and the compounding effect of this. Well, it so happens that to make money, you need money. If Terran and Protoss have a whole stash of available minerals that Zerg doesn't... that can easily translate into an expansion and greater income- also leading to a compounding growth in economy.
As to the Zerg's flexibility: Yes, Zerg has a great flexibility. They also have it in Brood Wars, however. In PvZ, you see a Zerg with 3 hatcheries, a spire and a hydra den. Your worker dies, looking at all those morphing zerg eggs, and you don't know whether to expect a hydra all-in, muta harass or massive amounts of drones. Since PvZ in Brood Wars is more or less figured out (compared to SC2 at least), you can assume it's either hydras or mutas. And Zerg can switch tech between those unit types seamlessly. In SC2... it's the same, only you have half as many hatcheries with twice the number of larvae per hatchery.
Is the Zerg in SC2 going for an all-in front door break? Full economy? Somewhere in between? If you can scout it, you can react appropriately to it. Karune claims scouting is not significantly harder in SC2 than it is in Brood Wars, because once ling speed finishes and your scouting probe dies, you can get air units to scout soon after. I haven't actually played any build of SC2, but given all the games he's played, I would tend to believe him.
TL;DR: Those spare minerals the T and P get are a huge deal. 1-hatch queen isn't necessarily overpowered.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 12 2009 07:39 Scorch wrote:
I respect your effort and everything, but I don't think this article was necessary. If the queen is so obviously broken, they will patch it after the first few beta days to, say, make 3 larvae every 35 seconds instead. No problem at all, that's what beta is for. I'm sure there's a dozen other glaring imbalances which will swiftly be found and eliminated once a broad public gets to play the game on a large scale. In short: no need to cry over presumed imbalances before the beta even hits.
That said, here's an idea to theorize over: What if inject larvae were a channeling spell? (That means the queen can't do anything else while injecting, like for example the archmage's blizzard spell in Warcraft 3) The result is that the queen can't chase scouts with her ranged attack while injecting. The opponent gets to keep his scout alive unless the zerg player foregoes injecting larvae for some time to go scout hunting. Would this help? If it doesn't, what if the queen's ground attack were melee? The effect is essentially the same, the scout lives longer and the opponent can adapt properly to what the zerg does.
How about in order to use the inject larva spell, the queen has to sit down and lay cacoons. Over time the queen produces larva in the same way as the hatcheries do, but is dependent on the amount of hatcheries you had. In this way the queen can't be used for anything else and all you need to know is that they have so many hatcheries and therefore so much larva.
I Think maps will play a big role on whether or not players know what zerg is doing as well.
|
On September 12 2009 09:42 Zato-1 wrote:
Nice article Chill, though I have one important problem with your conclusions.
According to your graphs, by the 5 minute mark Zerg has 1000 minerals, Protoss has 1500 and Terran has 1750 or so. Let's say all sides have made expenditures worth 900 minerals in things such as refineries, supply depots, military and tech.
Well, Terran still has 750 minerals more than the Zerg does. You know what you can get with 750 minerals? A command center and 7 SCVs. Suddenly, 1-hatch Zerg doesn't have the capacity to build workers faster than Terran does. Protoss can get a Nexus and a few workers.
You go on about how Zerg can pump drones super-fast, and the compounding effect of this. Well, it so happens that to make money, you need money. If Terran and Protoss have a whole stash of available minerals that Zerg doesn't... that can easily translate into an expansion and greater income- also leading to a compounding growth in economy.
As to the Zerg's flexibility: Yes, Zerg has a great flexibility. They also have it in Brood Wars, however. In PvZ, you see a Zerg with 3 hatcheries, a spire and a hydra den. Your worker dies, looking at all those morphing zerg eggs, and you don't know whether to expect a hydra all-in, muta harass or massive amounts of drones. Since PvZ in Brood Wars is more or less figured out (compared to SC2 at least), you can assume it's either hydras or mutas. And Zerg can switch tech between those unit types seamlessly. In SC2... it's the same, only you have half as many hatcheries with twice the number of larvae per hatchery.
Is the Zerg in SC2 going for an all-in front door break? Full economy? Somewhere in between? If you can scout it, you can react appropriately to it. Karune claims scouting is not significantly harder in SC2 than it is in Brood Wars, because once ling speed finishes and your scouting probe dies, you can get air units to scout soon after. I haven't actually played any build of SC2, but given all the games he's played, I would tend to believe him.
TL;DR: Those spare minerals the T and P get are a huge deal. 1-hatch queen isn't necessarily overpowered.
There are no extra minerals -- the zerg has the ability with the queen to consume the minerals much faster. Terran and toss will have to use those minerals to plant down extra barracks/gateways/etc. tech off one base.
If the zerg sees that they are skimping on defense to get an extra CC/nexus (aka economy build quicker) then they will build military and overrun you.
That is what Hot Bid's article was about. Terran and toss CANNOT do this because they will get overrun by zerg flexibility.
It's a nice thought, but it doesn't work.
|
On September 12 2009 09:18 Polyphasic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2009 06:00 heyoka wrote:Good article, and the best banner I've seen in ages The model is pretty interesting, and is probably a good avenue to go down as we near beta to try to find results for theorycrafting. I suspect we have a lot to learn with that kind of methodology. Step 4: Test it under the premise that good players are going to abuse it. Return to Step 1. This seems to be the biggest problem with balancing before a beta. Developers don't have the same kind of drive to abuse mechanics and competitive spirit that shines light on just how serious (or not serious) problems like this are for balance. Until beta actually hits I would expect this kind of issue to be relatively unchecked, not by direct fault from blizzard but because the talent pool doing the testing won't be good enough until the public has their hands on it. should point out that balancing something is different from watering it down. in SC1, with MM+tank>all, watering it down would be to make tanks do less damage. balancing it would be having swarm kick in right when MM+tanks are unstoppable. same in PvT in SC1. watering down mech 3/3 upgrades is bad. but giving toss the option of stasis and carriers just when mech 3/3 kicks in, that is balance. so with these macro mechanics, and with other game balancing issues, i think it's better to not water it down. any "fix" that reduces the relative advantage of one thing over another is bad. Instead, there should be a paper/scissor/rock thing going on at different parts of the game. for example, maybe zerg has the strongest macro throughout the game, terran has the strongest macro in early stages, and toss has the strongest macro in middle stages. that is fine. make zerg end game units less effective than terran and or protoss. make protoss early game units strong and mobile. terran can be given the strongest midgame units. however, the timing of when these units are strongest should be slightly offset from the timing of when the race's macro is strongest. that way, there is a back and forth action allowing for timing pushes. this is just a suggestion of principle. the principle that when things are too balance, its' no longer fun. but when things are not balanced, when at different parts of the game, one race is better off than the other, that allows for timings, strategies to minimize weakness, and displays of skill.
you make a very good point. I just want to QFT
|
On September 12 2009 09:42 Zato-1 wrote:
Nice article Chill, though I have one important problem with your conclusions.
According to your graphs, by the 5 minute mark Zerg has 1000 minerals, Protoss has 1500 and Terran has 1750 or so. Let's say all sides have made expenditures worth 900 minerals in things such as refineries, supply depots, military and tech.
Well, Terran still has 750 minerals more than the Zerg does. You know what you can get with 750 minerals? A command center and 7 SCVs. Suddenly, 1-hatch Zerg doesn't have the capacity to build workers faster than Terran does. Protoss can get a Nexus and a few workers.
You go on about how Zerg can pump drones super-fast, and the compounding effect of this. Well, it so happens that to make money, you need money. If Terran and Protoss have a whole stash of available minerals that Zerg doesn't... that can easily translate into an expansion and greater income- also leading to a compounding growth in economy.
As to the Zerg's flexibility: Yes, Zerg has a great flexibility. They also have it in Brood Wars, however. In PvZ, you see a Zerg with 3 hatcheries, a spire and a hydra den. Your worker dies, looking at all those morphing zerg eggs, and you don't know whether to expect a hydra all-in, muta harass or massive amounts of drones. Since PvZ in Brood Wars is more or less figured out (compared to SC2 at least), you can assume it's either hydras or mutas. And Zerg can switch tech between those unit types seamlessly. In SC2... it's the same, only you have half as many hatcheries with twice the number of larvae per hatchery.
Is the Zerg in SC2 going for an all-in front door break? Full economy? Somewhere in between? If you can scout it, you can react appropriately to it. Karune claims scouting is not significantly harder in SC2 than it is in Brood Wars, because once ling speed finishes and your scouting probe dies, you can get air units to scout soon after. I haven't actually played any build of SC2, but given all the games he's played, I would tend to believe him.
TL;DR: Those spare minerals the T and P get are a huge deal. 1-hatch queen isn't necessarily overpowered.
Here's the problem though - 1-hatch queen HAS to be somewhat overpowered as a universal strategy, because T and P are going to get at least that much of a mineral advantage and Zerg can apparently keep up in the overall game flow. Since Z's macro build is both eco and rush-friendly, they are going to go it 100% and have a scouting advantage over T and P. That means 1hatch Queen has to be able to keep up with a macro build from P or T, at least in terms of overall effectiveness (total minerals isnt really an accurate representation of effectiveness, as Zerg play in SC1 goes to show).
However, it almost certainly stands to reason that if P or T does NOT use that extra money to plop down an extra expansion at the earliest possible convenience, they will be far behind Z in overall effectiveness - Z can produce a ton more troops faster off one base and earlier in a game than T or P, so they'd be hurting in a straight up tier-1 push when Z can delay production of combat units to the last possible second. Since larvae inject allows for a very fluid, last-second transition playstyle, they will definitely be ahead economically unless T/P drop that superfast expo and power workers.
But THAT invites the problem that, assuming T/P uses that money for superfast eco/expansion, Z can flip to full military production WAYYYYY faster than either of the two races. Using the numbers you presumed, T spends the 700 minerals grabbing extra workers and a second CC. Zerg spots this and drops 24 lings in a 30 second window. T has no good way of knowing if this is happening without suiciding multiple SCVs, which reduces their advantage even further.
Another thing to remember is that if Z instead drops a second hatch, the ability to rapidly throw 30 drones at the second expo will very quickly erase that mineral advantage T tried to get. Since that second hatch also gives Z a ridiculous supply of extra larvae, this means T/P dropping a quick second base may actually put them further BEHIND the race to a huge army, even if they get it up before Z, since Z is going to be earning back mineral cost faster at a brand new expo (more drones faster) and then gets such a huge larvae boost for immediately building a huge army (which it can once again delay to the last second).
|
nice banner. and great article. blizzard has a lotta work to do to fix this
|
|
|
On September 12 2009 09:50 eshlow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2009 09:42 Zato-1 wrote:
Nice article Chill, though I have one important problem with your conclusions.
According to your graphs, by the 5 minute mark Zerg has 1000 minerals, Protoss has 1500 and Terran has 1750 or so. Let's say all sides have made expenditures worth 900 minerals in things such as refineries, supply depots, military and tech.
Well, Terran still has 750 minerals more than the Zerg does. You know what you can get with 750 minerals? A command center and 7 SCVs. Suddenly, 1-hatch Zerg doesn't have the capacity to build workers faster than Terran does. Protoss can get a Nexus and a few workers.
You go on about how Zerg can pump drones super-fast, and the compounding effect of this. Well, it so happens that to make money, you need money. If Terran and Protoss have a whole stash of available minerals that Zerg doesn't... that can easily translate into an expansion and greater income- also leading to a compounding growth in economy.
As to the Zerg's flexibility: Yes, Zerg has a great flexibility. They also have it in Brood Wars, however. In PvZ, you see a Zerg with 3 hatcheries, a spire and a hydra den. Your worker dies, looking at all those morphing zerg eggs, and you don't know whether to expect a hydra all-in, muta harass or massive amounts of drones. Since PvZ in Brood Wars is more or less figured out (compared to SC2 at least), you can assume it's either hydras or mutas. And Zerg can switch tech between those unit types seamlessly. In SC2... it's the same, only you have half as many hatcheries with twice the number of larvae per hatchery.
Is the Zerg in SC2 going for an all-in front door break? Full economy? Somewhere in between? If you can scout it, you can react appropriately to it. Karune claims scouting is not significantly harder in SC2 than it is in Brood Wars, because once ling speed finishes and your scouting probe dies, you can get air units to scout soon after. I haven't actually played any build of SC2, but given all the games he's played, I would tend to believe him.
TL;DR: Those spare minerals the T and P get are a huge deal. 1-hatch queen isn't necessarily overpowered. There are no extra minerals -- the zerg has the ability with the queen to consume the minerals much faster. Terran and toss will have to use those minerals to plant down extra barracks/gateways/etc. tech off one base. If the zerg sees that they are skimping on defense to get an extra CC/nexus (aka economy build quicker) then they will build military and overrun you. That is what Hot Bid's article was about. Terran and toss CANNOT do this because they will get overrun by zerg flexibility. It's a nice thought, but it doesn't work.
As to whether there are extra minerals: Yes, I understand 1-hatch + queen can spend minerals faster than 1 Nexus / CC. However, T and P can spend those "extra" minerals that they can't spend on their initial Nexus / CC, either in their military buildings or getting an expansion, which will allow them to catch up to 1-hatch queen build in terms of worker production, i.e. how fast you can spend your minerals for additional workers. My point was, if all you're doing is racing to 30 workers like Chill's model assumes, P and T have a whole bunch of minerals left over- this means the model isn't fair to those 2 races because they can get a whole bunch of stuff with those minerals that the model doesn't consider (one of these things they could get would be an expansion- I'd be interested to see the model in a race to 60 workers or so, assuming the races expand whenever their mineral stores allow).
You, sir, are also assuming that the Zerg has perfect scouting and their opponent has no scouting. Sure, if we're playing rock-paper-scissors and I get to play after I see your hand, I'll always win! That's not how it goes, though. Yes, Zerg has overlords. T has floating barracks, medivac, reapers, scan- several ways to scout after speedlings kill the first SCV. Protoss can get a phoenix or an observer. I'm also not sure how long the scouting overlords can stay alive hidden on a ledge in SC2.
|
On September 12 2009 09:42 Zato-1 wrote:
Nice article Chill, though I have one important problem with your conclusions.
According to your graphs, by the 5 minute mark Zerg has 1000 minerals, Protoss has 1500 and Terran has 1750 or so. Let's say all sides have made expenditures worth 900 minerals in things such as refineries, supply depots, military and tech.
Well, Terran still has 750 minerals more than the Zerg does. You know what you can get with 750 minerals? A command center and 7 SCVs. Suddenly, 1-hatch Zerg doesn't have the capacity to build workers faster than Terran does. Protoss can get a Nexus and a few workers.
You go on about how Zerg can pump drones super-fast, and the compounding effect of this. Well, it so happens that to make money, you need money. If Terran and Protoss have a whole stash of available minerals that Zerg doesn't... that can easily translate into an expansion and greater income- also leading to a compounding growth in economy.
As to the Zerg's flexibility: Yes, Zerg has a great flexibility. They also have it in Brood Wars, however. In PvZ, you see a Zerg with 3 hatcheries, a spire and a hydra den. Your worker dies, looking at all those morphing zerg eggs, and you don't know whether to expect a hydra all-in, muta harass or massive amounts of drones. Since PvZ in Brood Wars is more or less figured out (compared to SC2 at least), you can assume it's either hydras or mutas. And Zerg can switch tech between those unit types seamlessly. In SC2... it's the same, only you have half as many hatcheries with twice the number of larvae per hatchery.
Is the Zerg in SC2 going for an all-in front door break? Full economy? Somewhere in between? If you can scout it, you can react appropriately to it. Karune claims scouting is not significantly harder in SC2 than it is in Brood Wars, because once ling speed finishes and your scouting probe dies, you can get air units to scout soon after. I haven't actually played any build of SC2, but given all the games he's played, I would tend to believe him.
TL;DR: Those spare minerals the T and P get are a huge deal. 1-hatch queen isn't necessarily overpowered.
And than the zerg builds 10 lings on the next larvae injection round and you die, because larvae can build military units but CC's and Nexii can not. That is the real imbalance with the queen's larvae injection. Not to mention the overlord sitting above your nat seeing that you aren't building any military production buildings, so you die even earlier.
Edit: To above.
You will not have air units at 3-5 minutes into the game. Karune's reply to this issue in http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=101716 completely missed the point. In the first 5 or so minutes (as an estimation, I'm guessing the real number will be higher, since a straight up fast tech build has it's own problems), the zerg can scout you for free while you have to either fast tech or proxy buildings to float? You don't see a problem with that? Also, don't forget that by the time you have another nexus + CC zerg will easily have a 2nd hatch + 2nd queen, thus only compounding the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
