Zerg and free units - Page 5

On January 29 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:


I'm not evading the issue. A BL can't have anymore than 6 broodlings.

In order for 6 broodlings to exist, 6 supply needs to be taken up.

This 6 supply is a slow moving unit that can only have the 6 broodlings near it.

ie 6 broodlings are chained down by 6 supply worth of hitpoints.

These are facts--not opinions, facts. If your problem is that killing broodlings doesn't feel effective because new ones get made immediately after--then the problem is less to do with the fact that Broodlings are free and more to do with the frequency of their construction. This is not addressed by whining about how free the Broodlings are but by addressing how often they're made. Should the spawn every other shot instead? Should they have a shorter timer? Should their flying animation be slow? Should they spawn beneath the Broodlord and run to their targets? etc....

But to complain about the "freeness" of the unit doesn't actually resolve anything--because being free did not stop spidermines from being useful, has not made "base races" be one sided in the zerg's favor (broodlings from dead zerg structures), etc...

If the problem is that the interaction is boring--that also has nothing to do with how free the unit is.

Now, personally, I wish Broodlords spawned broodlings in a less linear fashion. Instead of shooting two at a time, have them only shoot like guardians but give them an ability to spawn a large number of broodlings at once (at cost)

Why do I want this? Because I like "big effects" that happen rarely as opposed to "cool effects" that happen frequently.

No one is impressed that a medivac heals--people get excited at a properly timed Transfuse. Make broodlings more like transfuse and less like heal and I guarantee it will be sexy. It's kind of like how the reaver's slow 125 attack is exciting but the colossi's fast 30 attack is boring.

I simply think people are looking at the wrong part of the "free unit" dilemma.

On January 29 2013 08:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:


If the problem is the effects of the broodlings then the discussion should be about that--not that the broodlings are free.

Unit pathing, fast respawn rate, chases down wounded units, prevents ground units from fighting back, etc....

A lot of these problems could be solved, for example, if the BL was given 6 range instead of siege range--suddenly stalkers could actually try to fight them, Vikings "actually" outrange them (ie, can keep them at a safe distance from tanks), etc...

It could also be solved by reducing the spawn rate, or forcing them to spawn from beneath the BL and run (this means infestors can't just hide behind broodlings btw), they could come with a reduced timer, etc...

Or do you think having the BL cost 1-10 minerals per attack will make the already boring fights look more exciting? It won't since the problem is the engagement, not that Broodlings respawn quickly. The problem is they stream in too steady a pace not allowing for gaps of weakness. The problem is that BL range + Broodling run speed = fucking long range death machine. The problem is that it keeps units too far away from the Zerg army (even forcefields have to be close enough to actually trap units), etc...

it could also be solved by changing the Broodling mechanic altogether--but simply that the broodling doesn't cost mins/supply is not the reason watching Broodlord fights is boring.

When you watch a carrier lose interceptors no one goes "OMG! That's 1000 minerals lost!" They simply go "Oh no, the carrier is vulnerable now!"

Why? Because interceptors don't block pathing. They're exciting not because they cost 15 minerals but because they have a build time. They're exciting not because they don't take up supply but because you can prebuild 4-8 of them before the fight instead of "building them up" during the fight.

The freeness of a unit is not what makes it exciting.

On January 29 2013 08:35 Cloak wrote:
They're both free and not free. Each spawn is technically free, except time, but everything occupies time. We don't consider a Marine attack costing ~0.86s even though it technically does. They're also not free because the spawner itself occupies resources and supply, and they have their own upgrade/tech that needs to built toward it. They also occupy mindspace if they need to be micro'd. It's more useful to look at them as modifiable attacks or spells that attribute negative stats to the opponent, either a reduction in their DPS by tanking or their HP by hurting.

So ultimately, for balance sake, you would just take different scenarios and see whether or not their attacks are too potent or adaptable to deal with equivalent "standard" units. You would have qualitatively two scenarios, varying resource investment levels (X minerals/X gas), and of course, max supply army where investment count doesn't matter. The difficulty lies in most spawners relying on the long haul to cost effectively trade. There's very little way to predict what the average payoff time should be, it must be empirically deduced. You will still get extremes, where they either die immediately, or break the game when all the resources have run dry, but as long as 95% of the games are accounted for, theoretically there should be no issue with balancing the unit. Blizzard generally balanced the spawners by making glaring weakness, i.e. ground only, hence ITs posed an issue for some time.

This begs the question of whether or not an infinite spawner can be balanced for max supplies then, seeing as most conclude with a deathball vs. deathball in a short interval, which is too short for a balanced infinite spawner to be effective. If even 200 supply armies can work by attrition, then they can reliably occupy a useful niche.