|
On January 29 2013 08:35 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 08:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 29 2013 08:04 Whitewing wrote:On January 29 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 29 2013 07:10 AndAgain wrote:On January 29 2013 07:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 29 2013 07:00 Whitewing wrote:On January 29 2013 05:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 29 2013 04:47 KimchiNuke wrote:
Free units take away so much from the emphasis on strategy by making cost efficiency irrelevant. Locust and broodlings have no tangible cost and just break the game. And that's exactly why people hate spider mines in BW! Wait... Spider mines had a cost, and weren't free. Each vulture got exactly 3, no more or less. So by paying 75 minerals you got 3 spider mines and a vulture (after the upgrade). Now, if the vulture got to spawn an infinite amount of mines, we'd have a problem. 6 broodlings takes up 6 supply (the Broodlord itself) Without the broodlord, no broodlings. And there can never be more than 6 per Broodlord. Mines are still there even when the Vulture dies--ie it is 0 supply. But a broodlord is capable of spawning an infinite number of broodlings, which is what we're talking about. Stop evading the issue. 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. A broodlord can't have more than 6 broodlings at any given point in time, but it can spawn an unlimited amount of them in a game. The fact of the matter is that you've constructed a unit that is basically a guardian (long range siege unit from the air that is slow but powerful) that also happens to spawn a unit on attack that blocks pathing, continues to deal damage, chases enemies down that run, and absorbs attacks. It is not limited to spawning 3 broodlings that block attacks and then once those are dealt with (like a vulture) it can no longer spawn them. Thus the problem at hand: the broodlings do not cost resources once you've got your brood lord, and continue to function as actual units do, and are unlimited. The vulture did not have unlimited spider mines, and spider mines did splash to your own units giving them a risk and reward paradigm that is simply not present with units that spawn unlimited units that cost no money. If it cost you minerals to spawn a broodling (like it does to spawn an interceptor), we wouldn't be having this issue. They are too cost effective. And reavers were exciting because they were duds half the time, so people were holding their breath to see if the damn unit would actually work or not. 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. The problem is one of the two things: firstly that the unit is too cost effective because broodlings don't cost resources, or that broodlings are too good. Only one of these is a problem, and you can fix it by eliminating either of those issues. Nerf broodlings or make them cost money, and the problem dissapears. You are arguing that the solution is to nerf broodlings, the OP argued that the solution is to make them cost money or to remove them entirely.
Should we also look at free units in terms of synergy with other units? For instance, broodlings murder the Protoss frontline primarily due to fungals locking them in place and the broodlings can freely maximise it's damage. This is similar to fungal used in conjunction with IT's before the patch which created very lopsided battles. I'm not saying whether these units are too powerful or cost effective, i just want to draw attention to the extent of effectiveness when used in conjunction with particular units.
|
On January 29 2013 19:01 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 18:55 drkcid wrote:
Zerg should means "swarm" so I think that from the desing point of view, Z is the race that MUST have "free" units. We can talk about the cost-efficiency and balance, but dont talk about if free units are "zergy". I think balance should come before "feels" of players.
I dont totally agree with that because if you dont manage it correctly, at the end you will have 3 races that are the same: the perfect balance: marines for everyone, just change the model for each race.
I think its better to desing the unique feel of a race and then balance it (thats what betas are for).
Back on topic I think that free units should be way more weak. Specially infested marines and locust.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On January 29 2013 19:15 drkcid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 19:01 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 18:55 drkcid wrote:
Zerg should means "swarm" so I think that from the desing point of view, Z is the race that MUST have "free" units. We can talk about the cost-efficiency and balance, but dont talk about if free units are "zergy". I think balance should come before "feels" of players. I dont totally agree with that because if you dont manage it correctly, at the end you will have 3 races that are the same: the perfect balance: marines for everyone, just change the model for each race. I think its better to desing the unique feel of a race and then balance it (thats what betas are for). Back on topic I think that free units should be way more weak. Specially infested marines and locust.
Balance should definitely not come before the feel of the game, if I want to play a game where three things are balanced perfectly I will choose rock, paper, scissors to play.
OT: BW managed to make Zerg feel like a swarm without an abundance of free units and while I think that SC2 core mechanics don't allow for the same solutions, to say that free units is the only way to achieve this is stupid.
|
On January 28 2013 04:07 InfCereal wrote:
They're not technically free.
Their cost is the cost of the unit spawning them, and their price goes down the more waves that are produced. Honestly, 200/100 for 2 temporary units is absolutely horrible. But the longer the swarm hosts are alive, the more they're worth it.
I think it's an interesting dynamic, and I have no problem with it being in sc2.
Mid master zerg opinion. Take that as you will.
They ARE free, because they have their separate hit points and are spawned over and over again. The manner of creating them doesnt come into play, only their actions and behaviour on the battlefield. The Swarm Host is just the worst implementation of the free units, but the Infested Terran of the Infestor is a SERIOUS problem just as much as the machinegun rate of fire of the Broodlords Broodlings.
Just look at if from the other side of the fence and ask yourself "Do I really want to be forced to have to kill lots of stuff that didnt cost anything to create while he gets to kill stuff on my side that costs resources and way more supply?" If you can still say "that is acceptable game design" without lying to yourself then you can keep your interesting dynamic, but I have had a problem with this kind of design since the beginning and I think the Infestor problems of the recent months have shown why that is terrible design.
On January 29 2013 19:01 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 18:55 drkcid wrote:
Zerg should means "swarm" so I think that from the desing point of view, Z is the race that MUST have "free" units. We can talk about the cost-efficiency and balance, but dont talk about if free units are "zergy". I think balance should come before "feels" of players.
No. The game rises and falls with the distinctively different style of the races and the free units are rather terrible, because that makes it interesting. Starcraft only became this popular because the races were different and it kept being interesting even while the multiplayer wasnt really that "balanced". That came later with BW but people were still playing the game, because it was fun. Fun comes first, balancing second.
|
|
|
On January 29 2013 19:32 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 19:23 Targe wrote:On January 29 2013 19:15 drkcid wrote:On January 29 2013 19:01 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 18:55 drkcid wrote:
Zerg should means "swarm" so I think that from the desing point of view, Z is the race that MUST have "free" units. We can talk about the cost-efficiency and balance, but dont talk about if free units are "zergy". I think balance should come before "feels" of players. I dont totally agree with that because if you dont manage it correctly, at the end you will have 3 races that are the same: the perfect balance: marines for everyone, just change the model for each race. I think its better to desing the unique feel of a race and then balance it (thats what betas are for). Back on topic I think that free units should be way more weak. Specially infested marines and locust. Balance should definitely not come before the feel of the game, if I want to play a game where three things are balanced perfectly I will choose rock, paper, scissors to play. OT: BW managed to make Zerg feel like a swarm without an abundance of free units and while I think that SC2 core mechanics don't allow for the same solutions, to say that free units is the only way to achieve this is stupid. And if I wanted to play a poorly balanced rts, I'd play... current SC2, I guess.
You haven't played a poorly balanced game if you think sc2 is poorly balanced.
|
|
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On January 29 2013 19:32 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 19:23 Targe wrote:On January 29 2013 19:15 drkcid wrote:On January 29 2013 19:01 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 18:55 drkcid wrote:
Zerg should means "swarm" so I think that from the desing point of view, Z is the race that MUST have "free" units. We can talk about the cost-efficiency and balance, but dont talk about if free units are "zergy". I think balance should come before "feels" of players. I dont totally agree with that because if you dont manage it correctly, at the end you will have 3 races that are the same: the perfect balance: marines for everyone, just change the model for each race. I think its better to desing the unique feel of a race and then balance it (thats what betas are for). Back on topic I think that free units should be way more weak. Specially infested marines and locust. Balance should definitely not come before the feel of the game, if I want to play a game where three things are balanced perfectly I will choose rock, paper, scissors to play. OT: BW managed to make Zerg feel like a swarm without an abundance of free units and while I think that SC2 core mechanics don't allow for the same solutions, to say that free units is the only way to achieve this is stupid. And if I wanted to play a poorly balanced rts, I'd play... current SC2, I guess.
You obviously have not played a poorly balanced RTS or have incredibly high standards. If SC2 was incredibly unbalanced every single pro would be the same race or there would not even be a pro scene.
|
|
|
On January 29 2013 20:05 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 19:50 Targe wrote:On January 29 2013 19:32 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 19:23 Targe wrote:On January 29 2013 19:15 drkcid wrote:On January 29 2013 19:01 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 18:55 drkcid wrote:
Zerg should means "swarm" so I think that from the desing point of view, Z is the race that MUST have "free" units. We can talk about the cost-efficiency and balance, but dont talk about if free units are "zergy". I think balance should come before "feels" of players. I dont totally agree with that because if you dont manage it correctly, at the end you will have 3 races that are the same: the perfect balance: marines for everyone, just change the model for each race. I think its better to desing the unique feel of a race and then balance it (thats what betas are for). Back on topic I think that free units should be way more weak. Specially infested marines and locust. Balance should definitely not come before the feel of the game, if I want to play a game where three things are balanced perfectly I will choose rock, paper, scissors to play. OT: BW managed to make Zerg feel like a swarm without an abundance of free units and while I think that SC2 core mechanics don't allow for the same solutions, to say that free units is the only way to achieve this is stupid. And if I wanted to play a poorly balanced rts, I'd play... current SC2, I guess. You obviously have not played a poorly balanced RTS or have incredibly high standards. If SC2 was incredibly unbalanced every single pro would be the same race or there would not even be a pro scene. Cease these excuses. Other rts games being terribly balanced too doesn't give any other rts game a free pass at having poor balance, especially when SC2 was better in 2011.
Better for who? For Terran who were dominating EVERYTHING? As much as people bash what happened with Zerg, it definitely had an effect with Z and T being equal.
Played C&C? Played AOE? They are seriously imbalanced games. SC2 is balanced. A game should always be slight unbalanced when there are 3 races, one race has an advantage over the other who has an advantage over the other. Otherwise it would be incredibly dull. For all the glory people pile on BW, playing protoss at pro level was horrible....and they could only win in the fall.
Seriously, SC2 is well balanced, perfect? No....why would you want that. Slight imbalances are what makes it interesting. I mean shit, when I saw fruitdealer in Open Season 1 beat Terran who destroyed everyone, man I went ape shit. Fighting that imbalance is what makes the game glorious!
As for free units, I feel that Zerg needed some more direct damage dealing units, and something that would soak up damage in the mid game. That is why we see SOOOOOO many roaches and infestors, because Zerg has nothing to hold the line...
|
|
|
On January 29 2013 20:29 Scrubwave wrote:
That's cute. At least you showed that it's not worth reading the rest so early.
What is actually cute that you are whining about major imbalance right now while not admitting that Terran were in advantage in 2011. Got nothing to say, you are showing your bias.
|
On January 29 2013 20:29 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 20:18 OptimusYale wrote:On January 29 2013 20:05 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 19:50 Targe wrote:On January 29 2013 19:32 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 19:23 Targe wrote:On January 29 2013 19:15 drkcid wrote:On January 29 2013 19:01 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 18:55 drkcid wrote:
Zerg should means "swarm" so I think that from the desing point of view, Z is the race that MUST have "free" units. We can talk about the cost-efficiency and balance, but dont talk about if free units are "zergy". I think balance should come before "feels" of players. I dont totally agree with that because if you dont manage it correctly, at the end you will have 3 races that are the same: the perfect balance: marines for everyone, just change the model for each race. I think its better to desing the unique feel of a race and then balance it (thats what betas are for). Back on topic I think that free units should be way more weak. Specially infested marines and locust. Balance should definitely not come before the feel of the game, if I want to play a game where three things are balanced perfectly I will choose rock, paper, scissors to play. OT: BW managed to make Zerg feel like a swarm without an abundance of free units and while I think that SC2 core mechanics don't allow for the same solutions, to say that free units is the only way to achieve this is stupid. And if I wanted to play a poorly balanced rts, I'd play... current SC2, I guess. You obviously have not played a poorly balanced RTS or have incredibly high standards. If SC2 was incredibly unbalanced every single pro would be the same race or there would not even be a pro scene. Cease these excuses. Other rts games being terribly balanced too doesn't give any other rts game a free pass at having poor balance, especially when SC2 was better in 2011. Better for who? For Terran who were dominating EVERYTHING? That's cute. At least you showed that it's not worth reading the rest so early.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments
That there looks like a lot of Terran in charge of tournaments.
GSL
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_Sony_Ericsson_Global_StarCraft_II_League_January/Code_S
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_2nd_Generation_Intel®_Core™_Global_StarCraft_II_League_March/Code_S
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_LG_Cinema_3D_Global_StarCraft_II_League_May/Code_S
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_Global_StarCraft_II_League_July/Code_S
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_Global_StarCraft_II_League_August/Code_S
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_Global_StarCraft_II_League_October/Code_S
^GomTvT^
By novemeber, GSL evened out alright
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_Global_StarCraft_II_League_November#Racial_Distribution
Foreign Tournaments
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Dallas Heavily terran favored,
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/North_American_Star_League_Season_1 Kinda even
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Columbus Zerg dominated tournament
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Anaheim Terran had 10 more than other races, Top 4 all terran
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Raleigh Protoss heavily under represented in the top 32
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/North_American_Star_League_Season_2 Protoss heavy, but kinda balanced.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/IGN_ProLeague_Season_3 Starting to get later in the year, October ish balancing out
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Providence Zerg heavy, November
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/DreamHack_Winter_2011 Zerg heavy, very balanced at the top November
Most of 2011 was terran favored, with the other races duking it out towards the end. It was very flip and floppy with races changing their distribution at the end, not a bad sign. It was kind of balanced, but how much can we just attribute to the better players winning and nothing to do with racial balance?
And at the end, these were the major balance changes
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Patch_1.4.2
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Patch_1.4.0<Infestor Nerf, when Z started to show prominence in tournaments
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Patch_1.3.3
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Patch_1.3.0 <Infestor buff, early in the year when T were still well represented in the game
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Patch_1.2.0
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On January 29 2013 20:05 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 19:50 Targe wrote:On January 29 2013 19:32 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 19:23 Targe wrote:On January 29 2013 19:15 drkcid wrote:On January 29 2013 19:01 Scrubwave wrote:On January 29 2013 18:55 drkcid wrote:
Zerg should means "swarm" so I think that from the desing point of view, Z is the race that MUST have "free" units. We can talk about the cost-efficiency and balance, but dont talk about if free units are "zergy". I think balance should come before "feels" of players. I dont totally agree with that because if you dont manage it correctly, at the end you will have 3 races that are the same: the perfect balance: marines for everyone, just change the model for each race. I think its better to desing the unique feel of a race and then balance it (thats what betas are for). Back on topic I think that free units should be way more weak. Specially infested marines and locust. Balance should definitely not come before the feel of the game, if I want to play a game where three things are balanced perfectly I will choose rock, paper, scissors to play. OT: BW managed to make Zerg feel like a swarm without an abundance of free units and while I think that SC2 core mechanics don't allow for the same solutions, to say that free units is the only way to achieve this is stupid. And if I wanted to play a poorly balanced rts, I'd play... current SC2, I guess. You obviously have not played a poorly balanced RTS or have incredibly high standards. If SC2 was incredibly unbalanced every single pro would be the same race or there would not even be a pro scene. Cease these excuses. Other rts games being terribly balanced too doesn't give any other rts game a free pass at having poor balance, especially when SC2 was better in 2011.
I'm not giving any excuses, you can only judge how balanced sc2 is relative to the balance levels in other games. sc2 is balanced in comparison to many RTS games and so can be considered a well balanced game.
|
The problem is you literally cant be supply inefficient in game where 3base is maximum mining you can get .. I could probably go with cheap inefficient units provided my 4/5th base would actually grant me any income over my 3base opponent .. well it doesnt only possible income you can get is gas and gas leads to infestor/bls not to roaches hydras or lings.
Theres plenty of theards showcasing how the mining worked in BW and how it does in SC2; And as long as this remains broken zerg has to have a cost efficiency or they just get rolled over because they simply CANT get better economy.
EDIT: I hope people realize this is the real problem not the actual units as they are just a mere consequence.
|
On January 29 2013 16:52 Ghanburighan wrote:
Thieving magpie made 7 posts arguing semantics. But no-one is arguing about whether SH, BL and infestor create free units or not, or whether they are free in terms of money, supply, time, opportunity, etc. Instead, the discussion regards replacing the fast eco quick max-to-remax zerg style with a turtly mix where the emphasis is on UPUs.
Semantics? Which part of my argument is merely semantics? I'm sayin that people who are stuck on how free a unit is is wrong. I'm literally telling people that spawning broodlings for 0 minerals is not problematic and using the evidence that spider mines costing zero minerals to spawn is not problematic. I'm literally saying that if we made broodlings cost resources to cast that we would not care one bit more about them.
Do you get excited by infested terrans because they cost energy?
Do you get excited by interceptors because they cost minerals?
Neither are made more or less impressive by their cost--a unit's cost is merely a stop gap to control the frequency and availability of a unit. The problem with (some) free units in SC2 is how their mechanics produce them.
A carrier can pre-make 8 units even before combat begins. So long as these units don't die, the carrier never has to make them again. Because these units are, in essence, permanent, they're give. The drawback of construction time and mineral cost.
Broodlords make 2 units that have a short lifespan. Can't have more than 6, and has to continually create these units otherwise they self destruct. They have to build up to 6 broodlings and they can't stop creating them or they'll automatically disappear. That is their drawback.
The problem is that the Broodlord drawback is insufficient because it can't be exploited. When the only to exploit it is to not let it fight--then you end up having to run away or face broodlings. Since interceptors have a build time, you can kill them and suddenly the carrier is vulnerable as it slowly rebuilds interceptors. Interceptors being flying units also means you could take a risk and run past interceptors to kill the carrier. This means there are two exploitable weaknesses to a carrier that you can try to fight. The broodlord doesn't have something to exploit. It linearly spawns units by fighting so as long as its fighting you can't break through its spawns. The broodlings spawn so fast that killing them doesn't give you an advantage. They spawn from such a long range that staying away from BL does not offer an advantage. When they only way to exploit a unit is to not fight it then there is a problem with the mechanic. At no point is the problem that broodlings are "free" the problem is that you can't gain an advantage by killing them.
So I don't know why'd you think I'm arguing semantics--I'm literally sayin that the OP and its supporters are for the most part completely wrong.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On January 29 2013 23:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 16:52 Ghanburighan wrote:
Thieving magpie made 7 posts arguing semantics. But no-one is arguing about whether SH, BL and infestor create free units or not, or whether they are free in terms of money, supply, time, opportunity, etc. Instead, the discussion regards replacing the fast eco quick max-to-remax zerg style with a turtly mix where the emphasis is on UPUs. Semantics? Which part of my argument is merely semantics? I'm sayin that people who are stuck on how free a unit is is wrong. I'm literally telling people that spawning broodlings for 0 minerals is not problematic and using the evidence that spider mines costing zero minerals to spawn is not problematic. I'm literally saying that if we made broodlings cost resources to cast that we would not care one bit more about them. Do you get excited by infested terrans because they cost energy? Do you get excited by interceptors because they cost minerals? Neither are made more or less impressive by their cost--a unit's cost is merely a stop gap to control the frequency and availability of a unit. The problem with (some) free units in SC2 is how their mechanics produce them. A carrier can pre-make 8 units even before combat begins. So long as these units don't die, the carrier never has to make them again. Because these units are, in essence, permanent, they're give. The drawback of construction time and mineral cost. Broodlords make 2 units that have a short lifespan. Can't have more than 6, and has to continually create these units otherwise they self destruct. They have to build up to 6 broodlings and they can't stop creating them or they'll automatically disappear. That is their drawback. The problem is that the Broodlord drawback is insufficient because it can't be exploited. When the only to exploit it is to not let it fight--then you end up having to run away or face broodlings. Since interceptors have a build time, you can kill them and suddenly the carrier is vulnerable as it slowly rebuilds interceptors. Interceptors being flying units also means you could take a risk and run past interceptors to kill the carrier. This means there are two exploitable weaknesses to a carrier that you can try to fight. The broodlord doesn't have something to exploit. It linearly spawns units by fighting so as long as its fighting you can't break through its spawns. The broodlings spawn so fast that killing them doesn't give you an advantage. They spawn from such a long range that staying away from BL does not offer an advantage. When they only way to exploit a unit is to not fight it then there is a problem with the mechanic. At no point is the problem that broodlings are "free" the problem is that you can't gain an advantage by killing them. So I don't know why'd you think I'm arguing semantics--I'm literally sayin that the OP and its supporters are for the most part completely wrong.
If broodlings were to cost then Zerg would not be able to build a huge bank and sack a bunch of workers to just rely on a large infestor broodlord ball.
The problem of the broodlord is that when infestors are below it, it is impossible to get in the range to attack the broodlords due to either fungal, the wall of broodlings or infested terrans. This, combined with the fact that maps like Daybreak and Ohana where you can easily bounce from left to right with the slow broodlord army to protect all your bases, means that broodlords are stronger than intended.
Edit: Commas
|
But that's the thing--if broodlings cost money the fight would still look boring!
There is no back and forth, no ebb and flow. The broodlings costing money would make remaxxing harder/impossible/whatever--but it won't actually change the actual face to face fight which right now is either "do you have enough Vikings? GG" or "did you land the vortex? GG"
Fighting BL needs to have an ebb and flow, a moment when the BL is too strong, then suddenly has a moment of weakness that can be abused. It doesn't have this now--making the broods cost money won't change it. The fight remains the same the remax simply sucks.
|
The core issue is a very, very simple one: Real units need money to be made. You need bases to have income. To trade cost-inefficiently you have to take the map. The resources are limited. You can't turtle on a few bases and spam units, because the bases will eventually run dry. Again, you have the urge to take the map.
Infestors and Swarm Hosts, and to a lesser extent Broodlords, break this. To use the Infestor as an example, it doesn't mind turtling and standoffs. It just generates energy. In army clashes, you trade Infestor mana and Locusts for opposing money. You don't mind. They're free, all you need is time. Taking the map is just a consequence that further solifies the grip of these units. Infestor dies, no matter, new ones pop up ready to Fungal and spam ITs or make Locusts. Again, time to spend the cooldown and regenerate mana is the only thing that fundamentally matters here. If you can beat the opponent back enough that he can't attack for a while, you win because you have the inevitability of infinite resources at your side.
See bio vs. mech in TvT, and you can get a glimpse for how stuff ought to work. It's less polarized and constrained by SC2's inane 3 base cap (which T can thankfully circumvent with Mules to an extent), but it's illustrative.
There's little else to it. Free units have inevitability on their side, and have ultimate strategic superiority. Traditional Sauron style doesn't have inevitability on their side, they have a time of might and then wane, and much harsher requirements to boot. You can actually slowly starve them to death.
|
If both units have the same stats but one of those is free, the winner will be quite clear
Thanksfully, there is no such thing in SC2, "Free unit" spawner all cost a lot, are slow and have built-in limits to their arsenal, right because of that, because they can spam free unit
The "infinite cost-efficience" argument isnt exclusive to them, colossus and siege tank do that quite easily since WoL, they just throw free shell and laser instead of units, so I dont think the "concept" is skewed
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
