|
I have 2 ideas for the queen, one simple, one more complicated. However I would really appreciate your input on what you think of them.
1. Transfusion: To make transfusion more useful why don't you make it a small AOE ability that heals all damaged units in a certain radius with an energy cost proportional the to amount of health healed. This will make transfuse a more useful ability while keeping it balanced. Maybe like a 4:1 health to energy ratio. Just an idea.
2. This is more of concept that can and should be built off of as there is very little chance my first idea is the best variation of the concept to follow:
First we do a couple radical changes, we remove the queens ability to spawn creep, interact with the hatchery, allow the queen to be built without a spawning pool, as well as remove the ability for drones to turn into spores and spines. "Whoa, what the heck" is probably what most people just thought. Now, instead we give the queen an ability called "Generate Spawn", for 25 energy, the queen lays 2 spawn.
These spawn don't attack, have maybe 40 life and 2 or 3 armor, and move similar to a queen, in that, they move decent speed on creep and slow as crap off creep. These spawn can morph into a couple things; creep tumors, spores, spines, or larva. (Note: spores and spines cost and required tech remain the same)
Now why do I think this could be such an awesome idea? Well here are some cool side affects of this, since spawn make larva and defense buildings, but are limited by energy, it's up to the player to decide if they want to turn all their spawn into larva, make defensive buildings with them, or save them for later. Since they move slow off creep, it prevents zerg players from building static defenses at a new base unless they either make a queen there and some spawn, or they have to have the base connected by creep (since the spawn move so slow off creep). This will encourage creep spread and will make far away expos inherently weak due to their "separation from the swarm". It will also encourage creep spread.
Above all this add's a new dynamic to zerg's macro in that they want to constantly be generating new spawn (which can be done anywhere not just at the hatch) as well as using these spawn. Note, if you turn your spawn into larva, they DO NOT get added to the hatcheries larva count. This forces zerg players to keep up on generating new spawn, converting their spawn, and individual boxing the larvae they created with the spawn. This helps with the problem of zerg macro being so easy using unlimited building selection. When combined with the above transfusion change it, it also gives the queen an option to use all it's energy on healing rather than spawn.
Other thoughts:
Since you can spawn spawn anywhere, a player would have to choose where to have all their spawn in one place for easy larva usage, or spread all over their bases for defense etc.
Since you can build your queen before pool, you should still be able to get a spine down at a normal time.
Should the spawn have a building time? Maybe like 10 or 15 seconds?
Another off shoot that I don't think will work but is interesting to mention is the idea that maybe spawn could also make extractors, forcing a zerg to decide even further how to use their spawn.
A cool down could be applied to the ability so that you can't just instantly spend 200 energy on spawn.
I'm curious as to what others think of this rather radical concept and would be happy to take constructive criticism as to why it wouldn't work and possible how the idea could be improve upon.
|
@Kabel
I was going to make a huge post once I got home from work tonight discussing the flaws of Inject and Larvae mechanics and where to go from here etc. but you already beat me to it with pretty pictures, so awesome. :D
Here's my take:
Any ability affecting larvae spawn rates is fundamentally flawed, because what a larva really is for Zerg is a resource used for unit production. For the other races, if you want more combat units, you build more production facilities, which are an investment of resources. If you want more workers on the other hand, you use your macro abilities, Chrono on Nexus and SCV Calldown on minerals.
For Zerg, we have a conflict between Queens and macro Hatcheries. Macro Hatches are our additional production facilities. We should have to invest money in those to increase possible production, just like the other races. There shouldn't be an alternate energy-driven method to achieve the exact same thing. You don't see Protoss making macro Nexi to Chrono-Boost Gateways when they need an army faster - they just make more Gateways. Terran don't have a "Reactor Calldown" ability they can cast targeting Barracks or Factories etc. they just build them, or build more facilities.
I see now that Inject, in all of its incarnations, needs to disappear forever. I understand that we still need an APM sink to take its place so that Zerg macro is not too simplified, and I am brainstorming possibilities for that. Some people may also say that Inject is too integral to Zerg players coming from SC2 for us to remove. To that I say, ask Protoss players if they had a hard time adjusting without Force Fields. That spell was constantly cited to be the thing Protoss players lived or died by. It is gone entirely in Starbow and I have seen absolutely zero issues stem from that. Good riddance to bad mechanics. Inject should die out the same way.
So where does that leave Queens? What else do they do?
- Spread Creep.
- (Provide mobile T1 Anti-Air in SC2 - now unremarkable with the return of the Hydra to its proper place.)
- Tank against Anti-Light ground damage until, well, Ultralisks. Lurkers and Infestors are Armored, but definitely not what I would call tanks.
- Heal friendly units and structures.
Note that there is a theme here, given that Creep now increases Zerg unit regeneration. Spreading Creep widens the area that is a safer zone for Zerg. Transfuse heals. Queens themselves tank damage.
Queens are a protective/defensive support unit. They are less like our Orbital Command, and more like our Planetary Fortress. We need to create and modify spells so as to emphasize these aspects in ways that are interesting, and also necessary for proper Zerg gameplay.
Further thoughts on this are forthcoming.
|
@Everyone
I would like to note that making a queen is Not, I repeat Not more cost efficient at making larvae than a hatchery is with the new macro mechanic. this means that for purely larvae production purposes making more hatcheries are always preferable.
queens should be built for other purposes and used for larvae only when you have no better plans for them.
for this reason I do not think inject being "exclusive to hatcheries" is a problem in any way.
to me that sounds a little bit like the following logic: "since chronoboost can only directly aid combat by being used on cannons, it only has one viable target in combat." yea, so? is that a problem?
translation to queen: "since queens can only aid production by injecting hatcheries, it only has one viable target for production." yea, so?
reasoning: a queen provides 50% of the larvae that a hatchery does, but does so in less than 100% of the time, it costs 50% of what a hatchery does.
thus a queen produces less than 50% of the larvaes that hatcheries do for 50% of the cost (excluding population cost)
some variables that might be interesting to slow down zerg acceleration which have not been previously mentioned in the thread:
supply granted by overlords. (to make zergs growing too fast have to spend more money on "infrastructure", this has the side effect of encouraging attacking early since that means you can spend more money on units if some dies in attacks)
overlord cost. (same as above)
cost of tech buildings. (same as above)
cost of upgrades. (same as above)
upgrade buildtime. (same as above)
build time of hatcheries. (to make mass expanding riskier play)
hatchery cost. (same as above)
suggestions previously mentioned in the thread I support:
making tumors not replicate or limit how much they can replicate. (to make queen energy more valuable)
buffing creep bonuses or make creep have more powerful effects. (to increase importance of creep)
@decemberscalm
1. breed which produced eggs on the ground to be used as larvae was scrapped since it was annoying to macro out of those eggs, "they were not hotkeyed to anything" was the biggest concern.
I do not personally agree with that sentiment.
for that matter, it should be fairly easy to create triggers which selects all such eggs that the player controls upon the press of a button.
3. definitely possible, would be interesting, but it rubs me the wrong way to have 2 builders that build different things, so I don't really like it personally.
5. (actually 4?) isn't that what the queen is now?
@Traceback
your radical idea is very close to something which was tried much earlier in development, it was scrapped for being too complicated, yours is even more complicated. I'm sorry, but I don't think it will work out well.
@SmileZerg
I disagree on one crucial point which your line of logic relies upon to be correct:
queen energy is not free.
you spent 150 minerals to get that energy, and that energy isn't even worth 150 minerals of hatcheries when used for production. do you really have idle queens that you can consider having "free" energy? because if you do then you are building too many queens.
making queens is essentially the same thing as making orbital commands which are not placed on an expansion, do you really call that orbitals worker-production being "free"?
and finally as a PS: I do not actively play starbow but I read all posts in the thread and watch all casts and also watch streams when I can/is able to, take that into account if or when I suggest gameplay changes.
think of my perspective as the audience, rather than the player.
//Roblin
|
@Smile. But we do invest for additional production, being the money for the queen itself.
You also seriously underestimate chrono's ability to quickly pump out units when unnecessary. Good P's don't float chrono for a reason.
Toss has an energy driven method of increasing production, what is wrong with that? Even in SC2 zerg players still get macro hatches depending on what they are doing.
You don't have a sound or valid argument that any ability effecting larva rate is fundamentally flawed.
Force field is micro nullifier, inject larva is a macro mechanic, WAAAAAY different.
Will look forward to your ideas on a Zerg APM sink, because right now it is the easiest thing in the world to play because you don't have any sort of macro mechanic recquired.
|
On October 27 2012 14:58 Roblin wrote:
@Traceback
your radical idea is very close to something which was tried much earlier in development, it was scrapped for being too complicated, yours is even more complicated. I'm sorry, but I don't think it will work out well.
//Roblin
Was this complication in regards to implementation or to gameplay?
If it was to implementation, maybe it's more feasible now than it was then.
If it was a gameplay issue, didn't Kabel point out that he felt that zerg macro was too simple? The whole idea of adding more choices to queens will naturally make the gameplay more complicated? I don't see why adding a little complication is such a bad thing. If the idea was tried maybe it should be revised and revisited. Was there any reason it was scrapped besides "it was too complicated" and does my version address any of those issues?
|
On October 27 2012 15:08 decemberscalm wrote:
@Smile. But we do invest for additional production, being the money for the queen itself.
You also seriously underestimate chrono's ability to quickly pump out units when unnecessary. Good P's don't float chrono for a reason.
Toss has an energy driven method of increasing production, what is wrong with that? Even in SC2 zerg players still get macro hatches depending on what they are doing.
You don't have a sound or valid argument that any ability effecting larva rate is fundamentally flawed.
Force field is micro nullifier, inject larva is a macro mechanic, WAAAAAY different.
Will look forward to your ideas on a Zerg APM sink, because right now it is the easiest thing in the world to play because you don't have any sort of macro mechanic recquired.
Chrono Boost doesn't increase potential production, it only speeds up already existing facilities. It also has a substantial opportunity cost in doing so because it can be used for other things. It is great at what it does, but it can't outright replace investing in those facilities.
The investment money for the Queen pays for the unit itself, sure, but once she's been around Injecting for 10 minutes in a game, how much did you really have to pay for all those larvae? And why have two different investments that give you the same direct return? That's the real question.
Again, you have to look at what a larvae really is, from a game mechanics perspective.
The point is that Inject and Macro Hatcheries do the exact same thing. There is no need for such redundancy and none of us have managed to come up with a way to make the spell have any sort of depth.
|
@ Trace
Your idea adds unnecessary steps to the decision-making process of Zerg macro.
Instead of going "do I want to use this Queen energy for Creep Tumors, or option Y or Z", it becomes "always make spawn, all the time, whenever she has 25 energy, ever, no matter what". Then afterwards, "do I use this spawn for Creep Tumors, or option Y or Z?".
There are some other issues, potentially solvable, but that alone makes it completely pointless.
|
Chrono boost speeds up existing facilities, just like Queen does. Chrono gets factored into builds all the time, it can indeed replace investing in production too early in favor of earlier units.
Queens were designed for SC2, and in SC2 the queens were a huge part of the production facilities normal operation. It was required to get enough larva. If you lost a queen, it mattered. Chrono is the same way in terms of being part of the production facilities normal operation, it just has diversity. After key tech is done Toss only uses it for production.
Toss has longer production times, BECAUSE of chrono.
The only reason macro hatches and inject do the same thing is because in Starbow inject is nerfed to the point of redundancy.
All your arguments are based on the fact that Starbow queens are simply bad for their cost investment wise. If they are your main source of getting more larva like sc2, then its an entirely different situation. Its not out of the realm of possibilities to add decision making and depth along side this, so don't treat inject as just a blatantly bad mechanic.
|
On October 27 2012 15:18 Traceback wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 14:58 Roblin wrote:
@Traceback
your radical idea is very close to something which was tried much earlier in development, it was scrapped for being too complicated, yours is even more complicated. I'm sorry, but I don't think it will work out well.
//Roblin Was this complication in regards to implementation or to gameplay? If it was to implementation, maybe it's more feasible now than it was then. If it was a gameplay issue, didn't Kabel point out that he felt that zerg macro was too simple? The whole idea of adding more choices to queens will naturally make the gameplay more complicated? I don't see why adding a little complication is such a bad thing. If the idea was tried maybe it should be revised and revisited. Was there any reason it was scrapped besides "it was too complicated" and does my version address any of those issues?
the thing which was tried was the following ability:
Breed
25 energy
create an egg on the ground which can be used as a larvae to produce units.
it is the same one as was mentioned in my reply to decemberscalm, and the issue was that it was hard to efficiently use the larvae, partially since they had no hotkey.
while the hotkey issue could be fixed with a simple trigger, there are 2 other things which makes me think your idea wouldn't work well, 1 of which also applies to the old breed, and 1 of which does not.
1. its not different from normal inject for production purposes in any meaningful way.
we found with the old breed that people just found a spot in front of their base, gathered all of their queens there and spammed the eggs there. so how was that really different from normal inject? it wasn't, really.
I see the same problem arising with your suggestion.
2. seperate builders.
as mentioned in my reply to decemberscalm, it rubs me the wrong way.
but this is not just a feeling, it has a sensible reason to why its weird.
its complicated and unnecessary.
complicated because there are several steps to completing the building (spawn things, build buildings), and these steps are not done with the help of the standard builder which otherwise takes care of all the buildings.
its much simpler to just leaving it on the drone.
so yes, "it's too complicated" is a simplification of the issue and there were other reasons as well, and no, your version adrresses none of those.
//Roblin
edit:
also as a note, inject exists in this game for one reason and one reason only:
because new players felt the queen was just wrong without it.
basically, its so iconic for the queen that one cannot make a queen without inject, simply because new players expect it to be there and become immedietly hostile towards the game itself when they notice it is not.
so kabel decided to put it in but nerf it so much that, sure, you can make queens for production, but it won't be necessary. and it is not something which must at all costs be a major part of the game.
it simply exists for the sake of existing.
|
On October 27 2012 15:30 decemberscalm wrote:
Chrono boost speeds up existing facilities, just like Queen does. Chrono gets factored into builds all the time, it can indeed replace investing in production too early in favor of earlier units.
Queens were designed for SC2, and in SC2 the queens were a huge part of the production facilities normal operation. It was required to get enough larva. If you lost a queen, it mattered. Chrono is the same way in terms of being part of the production facilities normal operation, it just has diversity. After key tech is done Toss only uses it for production.
Toss has longer production times, BECAUSE of chrono.
The only reason macro hatches and inject do the same thing is because in Starbow inject is nerfed to the point of redundancy.
All your arguments are based on the fact that Starbow queens are simply bad for their cost investment wise. If they are your main source of getting more larva like sc2, then its an entirely different situation. Its not out of the realm of possibilities to add decision making and depth along side this, so don't treat inject as just a blatantly bad mechanic.
My argument isn't just that Inject is bad cost-investment wise, but that it is fundamentally redundant, regardless of costs. It doesn't accomplish anything you can't also do with macro Hatches. Chrono Boost is never redundant. Yes you can use it on production facilities early to avoid having to make additional ones, however, it can also speed along research and provide an aid in defense with Cannons. But most importantly, it can not be used before investing in producing the units you actually want.
For example, as Protoss, you decide to make X Zealots and Y Stalkers out of your N Gateways. Chrono can be used to speed along the return on this investment, after the fact. It cannot be used to increase value N before you start a production cycle.
As Zerg, with Inject, you are not speeding along or increasing a return on any investment. You are just adding more possible slots with which to invest in at a future point. But why have that be a possibility, if making more production facilities (in this case hatcheries), already does that? Why have the redundancy of two game mechanics with no substantial differentiation do the same thing? The cost-effectiveness is not the issue. We can change the values, but we will still end up with either:
A) Macro hatches are better, so Queens are largely unnecessary, or B) Queens using Inject are better, so macro hatches are largely unnecessary.
Mathematically the whole thing is just a mess, and in my opinion we are far better off scrapping it and starting anew. I think we can find better ways to make Zerg macro work, and we don't need to cling to an old mechanic just because it was already established in SC2.
I do agree that, until we come up with a replacement, we need to leave Inject purely as the APM dump. But we should all be working towards brainstorming said replacement.
|
@smilezerg
see the edit of my latest post.
(the post before yours)
|
On October 27 2012 15:32 Roblin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 27 2012 15:18 Traceback wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 14:58 Roblin wrote:
@Traceback
your radical idea is very close to something which was tried much earlier in development, it was scrapped for being too complicated, yours is even more complicated. I'm sorry, but I don't think it will work out well.
//Roblin Was this complication in regards to implementation or to gameplay? If it was to implementation, maybe it's more feasible now than it was then. If it was a gameplay issue, didn't Kabel point out that he felt that zerg macro was too simple? The whole idea of adding more choices to queens will naturally make the gameplay more complicated? I don't see why adding a little complication is such a bad thing. If the idea was tried maybe it should be revised and revisited. Was there any reason it was scrapped besides "it was too complicated" and does my version address any of those issues? the thing which was tried was the following ability: Breed 25 energy create an egg on the ground which can be used as a larvae to produce units. it is the same one as was mentioned in my reply to decemberscalm, and the issue was that it was hard to efficiently use the larvae, partially since they had no hotkey. while the hotkey issue could be fixed with a simple trigger, there are 2 other things which makes me think your idea wouldn't work well, 1 of which also applies to the old breed, and 1 of which does not. 1. its not different from normal inject for production purposes in any meaningful way. we found with the old breed that people just found a spot in front of their base, gathered all of their queens there and spammed the eggs there. so how was that really different from normal inject? it wasn't, really. I see the same problem arising with your suggestion. 2. seperate builders. as mentioned in my reply to decemberscalm, it rubs me the wrong way. but this is not just a feeling, it has a sensible reason to why its weird. its complicated and unnecessary. complicated because there are several steps to completing the building (spawn things, build buildings), and these steps are not done with the help of the standard builder which otherwise takes care of all the buildings. its much simpler to just leaving it on the drone. so yes, "it's too complicated" is a simplifaction of the issue and there were other reasons as well, and no, your version adrresses none of those. //Roblin edit: also as a note, inject exists in this game for one reason and one reason only: because new players felt the queen was just wrong without it. basically, its so iconic for the queen that one cannot make a queen without inject, simply because new players expect it to be there and become immedietly hostile towards the game itself when they notice it is not. so kabel decided to put it in but nerf it so much that, sure, you can make queens for production, but it won't be necessary. and it is not something which must at all costs be a major part of the game. it simply exists for the sake of existing.
Valid points. Still though, something has to be done to weaken the mass expand style. Limiting larva is probably a good first step but I think we might need to think outside the box a bit to come up with a satisfactory solution.
|
On October 27 2012 15:54 Traceback wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 15:32 Roblin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 27 2012 15:18 Traceback wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 14:58 Roblin wrote:
@Traceback
your radical idea is very close to something which was tried much earlier in development, it was scrapped for being too complicated, yours is even more complicated. I'm sorry, but I don't think it will work out well.
//Roblin Was this complication in regards to implementation or to gameplay? If it was to implementation, maybe it's more feasible now than it was then. If it was a gameplay issue, didn't Kabel point out that he felt that zerg macro was too simple? The whole idea of adding more choices to queens will naturally make the gameplay more complicated? I don't see why adding a little complication is such a bad thing. If the idea was tried maybe it should be revised and revisited. Was there any reason it was scrapped besides "it was too complicated" and does my version address any of those issues? the thing which was tried was the following ability: Breed 25 energy create an egg on the ground which can be used as a larvae to produce units. it is the same one as was mentioned in my reply to decemberscalm, and the issue was that it was hard to efficiently use the larvae, partially since they had no hotkey. while the hotkey issue could be fixed with a simple trigger, there are 2 other things which makes me think your idea wouldn't work well, 1 of which also applies to the old breed, and 1 of which does not. 1. its not different from normal inject for production purposes in any meaningful way. we found with the old breed that people just found a spot in front of their base, gathered all of their queens there and spammed the eggs there. so how was that really different from normal inject? it wasn't, really. I see the same problem arising with your suggestion. 2. seperate builders. as mentioned in my reply to decemberscalm, it rubs me the wrong way. but this is not just a feeling, it has a sensible reason to why its weird. its complicated and unnecessary. complicated because there are several steps to completing the building (spawn things, build buildings), and these steps are not done with the help of the standard builder which otherwise takes care of all the buildings. its much simpler to just leaving it on the drone. so yes, "it's too complicated" is a simplifaction of the issue and there were other reasons as well, and no, your version adrresses none of those. //Roblin edit: also as a note, inject exists in this game for one reason and one reason only: because new players felt the queen was just wrong without it. basically, its so iconic for the queen that one cannot make a queen without inject, simply because new players expect it to be there and become immedietly hostile towards the game itself when they notice it is not. so kabel decided to put it in but nerf it so much that, sure, you can make queens for production, but it won't be necessary. and it is not something which must at all costs be a major part of the game. it simply exists for the sake of existing. Valid points. Still though, something has to be done to weaken the mass expand style. Limiting larva is probably a good first step but I think we might need to think outside the box a bit to come up with a satisfactory solution.
in a post above I gave these suggestions:
nerfing:
supply granted by overlords. (to make zergs growing too fast have to spend more money on "infrastructure", this has the side effect of encouraging attacking early since that means you can spend more money on units if some dies in attacks)
overlord cost. (same as above)
cost of tech buildings. (same as above)
cost of upgrades. (same as above)
upgrade buildtime. (same as above)
build time of hatcheries. (to make mass expanding riskier play)
hatchery cost. (same as above)
basically, the thinking here is that there is no need to limit the larvae production if you instead limit the money you would have spent on said larvae.
limited larvae production is easy to overcome ingame, just build more hatcheries.
limited money is a lot harder to overcome, you need more bases, which equals more territory, which equals danger.
|
On October 27 2012 15:51 Roblin wrote:
@smilezerg
see the edit of my latest post.
***
also as a note, inject exists in this game for one reason and one reason only:
because new players felt the queen was just wrong without it.
basically, its so iconic for the queen that one cannot make a queen without inject, simply because new players expect it to be there and become immedietly hostile towards the game itself when they notice it is not.
so kabel decided to put it in but nerf it so much that, sure, you can make queens for production, but it won't be necessary. and it is not something which must at all costs be a major part of the game.
it simply exists for the sake of existing.
That is a concern, yes. But we are still probably better off cutting it regardless, and sucking up the collateral damage it causes to the Mod's image for newcomers. Blame Blizzard for making a really horrendous mechanic so intrinsic to Zerg gameplay.
If someone manages to suggest a really brilliant fix that allows us to retain Queen's larvae-affecting role while expanding the depth of the mechanic then I would support it. But I don't see that happening, which is really the gist of my current argument.
|
On October 27 2012 14:58 Roblin wrote:
in a post above I gave these suggestions:
nerfing:
supply granted by overlords. (to make zergs growing too fast have to spend more money on "infrastructure", this has the side effect of encouraging attacking early since that means you can spend more money on units if some dies in attacks)
overlord cost. (same as above)
cost of tech buildings. (same as above)
cost of upgrades. (same as above)
upgrade buildtime. (same as above)
build time of hatcheries. (to make mass expanding riskier play)
hatchery cost. (same as above)
basically, the thinking here is that there is no need to limit the larvae production if you instead limit the money you would have spent on said larvae.
limited larvae production is easy to overcome ingame, just build more hatcheries.
limited money is a lot harder to overcome, you need more bases, which equals more territory, which equals danger.
Although I honestly feel like it would feel weird to have overlords grant less supply or cost a different amount, I think that this may solve the issue with zergs expanding unopposed. It is an awkward fix, but it should work. Perhaps also make overlords more important to use as scouters by allowing them to spread 1 creep tumour that is non-reproducible (upon lair tech), comes with creep spew)?
Really though, I do not think it is the "fix" we are looking for. It is lazy and leaves a lot to be asked for in terms of zerg design. Just a thought, though.
EDIT: Other thoughts: how about we try putting back BW life stats for the hatchery, lair, and hive? 1250, 1800, and 2500, respectively. Makes it much more risky to expand. In addition, I think we should also try
extractor = 75 minerals
evolution chamber = 100 minerals
We just need to slow down zerg's early game a bit. I believe, with the combination of the risk of lower HP hatcheries as well as slight increase in cost for buildings, it could work. I know we still want to make zerg an interesting and skill-rewarding race, but just a thought that can be tested. Putting risk to expanding makes breed more important but not as one-sided as inject in terms of choice. It's really late, so these reasons are probably not making sense. I will try and fix/add more tomorrow (later today).
|
Good morning
I will try to respond to your statements/suggestions one by one. Some of your thoughts have already been answeared by others. It might be hard for those who have not followed the discussion so I will try to "explain" my answear so everyone knows what I am referring to.
@ Inject - Should it be or not be?
And why have two different investments that give you the same direct return?
( About Hatcheries and Inject doing the same thing)
Inject is so far the best idea for a APM sink. Without it, a cruical skill level is removed in Zerg macro. Everyone can have superior macro. So far no idea in this thread have presented any better method.
Thats why it is important to find out in what way Starbow-Inject should work. Even poop can be used to sculpt a beatiful statue. Example of a solution:
- Inject makes a hatchery spawn larvas twice as fast. A hatchery can only store 3 larvas. Inject just "reloads" the hatchery so it can be used again.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cny5S.jpg)
Suddenly there are two reasons to build macro hatcheries instead of Queens:
1) Its automatic larva production so you must not waste APM on it
2) It allows you to have many larvas at the same time, if you prefer to play reactive to what the opponent does.
Obviously the best players would still choose Queens almost every time instead of macro hatcheries. I use this to just indicate that Inject and macro hatcheries must not be the same thing. Maybe there are other ways to design Inject to not make it completely "overlap" with hatcheries.
@Queens earlier ability to spawn individual eggs on the ground that could spawn individual units.. (Called Breed.. Note that I call all weird Queen abilities for Breed ^^)
The reason behind that ability was to give a stronger local effect to Queen. You could spawn eggs wherever you wanted! Wow!
But in reality there was no reason to place the eggs anywhere but in the base... next to the hatchery... Zerg units are so fast anyways. It was however a APM sink but had no other purpose. Unfortunatly. I liked the eggs : /
[b]
@Zerg having disposable units whos purpose is to fight hard and live short
we could make creep tumors have a much bigger radius, and give something better than HP regen for units on creep. HP regen makes no sense on disposable units sent to die anyways. I've seen it save a hydra or two, a few lurkers, but really. Its ZERG.
Its the essence of Zerg lore. But there are some game design issues involved in it - it makes micro redundant on units in combat if they are replacable to a high degree and have low HP. That equals less time for players to interact and use them in combat and less reasons to care if they live or die..
If we look at BW, Zerg had to be careful with his units in the early and midgame. Zerg had to micro his units as much as the other races. It was the "tools" Zerg had to use in order to reach and secure a overwhelming position in the game... Aka a superior macro economy. Once he reached that state he could overwhelm and swarm the enemy without caring too much about their individual lifes..
In Starbow Zerg reaches "macro mode" very easy. We still have this situation where Zerg can rally point his hatcheries from 3-4 bases and overwhelm the attacking army with newly spawned units. And those units are so massable that there is little need to control them.
The problem with the current HP regeneration system on creep is that there are few units that benefits from it.
Zerglings dies within seconds. Hydras too. Zerg can replace them anyways since cash is king..
Remeber, it regenerates 4 HP per second on creep if a unit has NOT taken damage within 5 seconds. Imagine how this system would encourage Zerg micro if :
1) units lived a little longer so Zerg could actually micro them in and out of combat to increase their efficeny on creep..
2) It was harder for Zerg to replace their units in the early and maybe midgame - either because units are more expensive or there are fewer larvas...
Note: I am not saying that Zerg units shall be beefy or defeat Protoss units 1v1. I am just saying that Z should be able to get more value out of their units with proper micro.
So what must be done with the Queen?
When HoTS is released maybe there will be Zerg models or abilities in the editor that can be incorporated into Starbow. (The lurker, goliath etc were models found in the map editor altough they are not in the actual game. ) The game can only be shaped depending on what kind of material I have at my disposal. I have a lot of limitaions to fight against. So maybe will some other kind of macro mechanic be applied in the future, based on stuff in HoTS.
I have to do the best of this situation. For the time being I think that some kind of modified Inject ability will be enough as a macro mechanic for Zerg. It can be interesting if it shares the energy pool with other useful Queen abilties.
I am not saying that we should stop inventing ideas for the Queen. Please do. Its nice to read ^^
But I want to get some progress in this project. And Zerg really needs both love and learn how to behave >.<
Ps. The reason I started to mess around with Inject ca 2 weeks ago was because it was just a strict worse version of normal Inject. Everything with Zerg was just nerfs... worse larva spawn, worse inject, worse spells, worse stats on units.. I wanted to find out if Inject could still be "worse" compared to SC2 Inject, but at the same time provide something more interesting for Zerg players.
|
Well, one minor thing I can definitely commit to suggesting is scaling down Transfuse, by which I mean, lower both the cost and effectiveness so it can be used more frequently and have more viable targets.
Costing 25 energy to heal 75 HP should work perfectly. The cost-effectiveness is buffed by 20% but since there are less Queens available in Starbow anyway I think it's fine. This way it wouldn't be a waste to cast the spell on Hydralisks and it will be twice as APM intensive to use.
As to Inject mechanics, if we keep the maximum larvae per Hatch capped at 3, then there will be less redundancy between the spell and macro Hatches as you've said. But it still leaves two different ways to get larvae faster, so I still dislike it. Also I'm actually a fan of the aesthetics of tons of larvae swarming around Hatches rather than merely three at a time but I'm not sure how we could make that work...
WAIT I'VE GOT AN IDEA:
What if we make Larvae timed life units, but remove the maximum number available per Hatchery? Then give Queens an AoE spell they can cast on timed life units that resets their timer.
Set the values so that, left to their own devices, by the time a Hatchery would ever spawn a fourth larva, the first one would die. But with correct timing using the Queen spell, you can build up a larger stockpile. However, this won't be necessary if you're keeping up with spending your larvae as they spawn, but if you're supply blocked, low on cash, or maxed out, you have to keep up with the spell so that you have the production available afterwards.
This spell would also be castable on Broodlings and Locusts in the future. Maybe even institute long (I'm talking like several minutes) timed life counters for REGULAR Zerg units like lings, hydras and mutas, so every once in awhile they need to run back to a Queen and get renewed! This could be the new APM sink activity if it turns out not to be too annoying in practice.
Thoughts?
Edit
Additional musings on the timed life idea:
- Make the timer tick down slower on Creep.
- Bring back some sort of Frenzy spell like the SG had that increases attack speed but speeds up the life timer, like a Zerg Stim only not self-cast. Not sure who to put it on, maybe Queens, maybe Overseers or something?
- Add upgrades to unit structures or evo chambers that increases the maximum lifespan of either specific Zerg units or Zerg as a whole.
- Definitely bring back Consume on units rather than buildings for the Viper (and possibly other casters) so they can make the most of Zerg at the end of their lifespans.
- We can even put it on Drones so that Queens need to keep your harvester lines going steady, and players can use the older ones or any they miss with the renew casting as their building morphers.
|
Transfuse already costs 25 energy and heals 75 life.
The reset-the-timer spell on larvas is the same thing as Inject... just done in a different way and with a narrow purpose.
No I will not add a life-timer to each Zerg unit... -_-
|
I had this old map lying around that i made a year ago, which never got anyhwere because it was considered too choked and bases too far apart. So I thought this might fit better into starbow with some modifications. Thoughts?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 27 2012 21:13 lefix wrote:I had this old map lying around that i made a year ago, which never got anyhwere because it was considered too choked and bases too far apart. So I thought this might fit better into starbow with some modifications. Thoughts? + Show Spoiler +
Seems fancy, although with such short rush distances, it's either cross pos or you cannot take a third. Would love to play it at some point though.
Also, Roblin's suggestions and unreproducible creep tumors sound like the way to go. I suppose it's Kabel's current goal to make Zerg interesting, but I believe that by limiting Zs options early, you will do exactly that, as involving more difficult, crucial decisions does in fact make the game more interesting. Also, if we remove Queen's injects altogether as SmileZerg suggested, I'd go as far as to remove all macro mechanics, but I guess that wouldn't work now that we can bunch up multiple buildings into a single control group.
As a personal request to everyone, try commenting and focusing on existing suggestions before you post another one - this brainstorming without actual conclusions will not lead us anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OEZfc.jpg)
