This is something that has been on my mind for a while, and after playing with/against the swarm host for a while, I feel like this needs to be said. I know it is probably too late in the beta to change anything, and I know Blizzard seems to think the swarm host is very "zergy" and generally a good design that they wouldn't want to overhaul. However, I'm here to tell you why it isn't very "zergy" (in my eyes) and why I think this unit will be problematic in the future. I'm a master level player in WoL and HotS, if that is relevant. This will be kind of long.
Zerg already has free units
First, and most obviously, zerg already has the most (and by most, I mean all) the "free units" in the game, namely broodlings (from broodlords primarily) and infested terrans (from infestors). I guess you could maybe count autoturrets as free units, but really it's just getting academic. The point is, zerg has a lot of free units, and we've seen how problematic infested terrans have become (and why they had to be nerfed). Going above the 200 supply cap is a big part of the problem, but ultimately having to trade real units, or at least energy, for free units sort of feels wrong, particularly when you are playing against it. My feeling when going against the swarm host is that killing locusts does absolutely nothing (which it really doesn't). At least before when you held off pressure from zerg you felt like you were at least accomplishing something because you know the zerg had to sacrifice something in order to pressure you. That feeling of "yeah, I held" is now gone, because you know you didn't really accomplish anything, and it will be coming back in like 30 seconds.
As an aside to this, why do protoss still have to pay for interceptors when zerg has all these free units? That sort of leads to my next point.
Free units really aren't "zergy"
I know some of the staff at Blizzard (particularly DB) think free units feel "zergy." I'm here to tell you why it really isn't. Since Brood War, zerg has been, generally speaking, the most cost inefficient race. They had to be, because they had the most streamlined (cheapest) production, the fastest way to reproduce units, and usually the most bases. They won by have bigger economies and more production to make up for having reduced unit cost inefficiency. Units that produce free units completely breaks that paradigm. Units that create free units actually have the ability to become the most cost efficient units in the game, by virtue that they kill a lot of stuff without dying (duh). This is, in part, why broodlord/infestor is so good, and also so boring to watch (it isn't really zerg). It can be incredibly cost efficient because it has two free unit producing units.
It is ok for zerg to have a few cost efficient units, however you now have 3 free unit producers. All on one race. That race also happens to have the cheapest base/infrastructure and the ability to reproduce the fastest. I'm starting to wonder what zerg's real weakness is here, if they have the most cost effective units in the game as well.
It over-incentivises splash damage
The last big problem with all these free units is that it makes splash damage even more appealing (necessary) than it already is. Currently, as protoss, there is only one real way to deal with a significant amount of swarm hosts: colossus. If you catch the problem early enough, you might be able to handle it with air, but after a point, the pressure on your ground base/army will be too much and air is actually the worst to handle it. High templar simply aren't much of a solution; the locusts come faster than they can recharge energy for psi storm. Colossi are really the only answer to this problem. As if you weren't already seeing colossi enough in pvz, prepare to see it more, because not only is it the only answer to swarm hosts, it is the best thing to deal with hydras as well. I honestly think most of the hate this unit garners is really because you see it in almost every game involving protoss, because it is so necessary.
So that wraps up why I think this trend in free units is bad. It creates boring gameplay, breaks the zerg paradigm of cost-inefficientness, and makes splash damage even more appealing than it already is. I know this probably won't change anything in HotS, but at least least I'm trying to do my part as a beta tester.
I'm personally not too happy about having to constantly deal with waves of free units, and I explain why in the post. Do zerg players like all these free units? How does terran deal with it (siege tanks)? I'm concerned what this might mean for the game in the long term.
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.
The problem is range. Zerg units are mainly melee based. In ZvP, roaches are for survival only if you are taking it to late game. Plus zerg range units dont scale well unlike stalkers or marines. If you don't want broodlords or swarm hosts, then buff accordingly. What else can you expect with units that have to be at range 0 to attack. There has to be some way to attack without losing most of your units before they engage.
On the topic of "zergy" I feel that broodlings and locusts are okay and that Infested Terrans, in fact, are the "non-zergy" feeling units. It just doesnt make sense to me... should be locusts or some other ranged creature and not infested Terrans, that seems a little gimmicky. Aside from the aesthetics, at this moment, I feel locusts are tolerable. I'm curious to see how the community feels when more people migrate to the beta/release. (I'm referring to beyond the initial "I dont know how to deal with this unit - zomg it rapes face")
Zerg should be more tier 1 orriented, higher tiers for supporting them, hydras, zerglings and so on should be the units you build the most. Right now its not a swarm feeling about it.
I completely agree with the OP. The free units never felt zergy to me. I've purposely avoided using Infestors and Broodlords for 3 years because I don't like the unit design. In the last year as all other options were nerfed I fell to platinum because I didn't play the standard.
My macro isn't that great. It used to win/lose me games. If I was good macro I could totally outmass. If I was bad macro... that was why I lost. In HotS I can use swarm hosts... have the worst macro ever... apply pressure... expand... and as long as my SH ball hasn't been dealt with (while dealing terrible free damage) I often bank upto 10k mins because I HAVE NO NEED TO MAKE A NEW ARMY!!!
Personally I find this laughable. It means when my opponent finally kills my SH I can remax on BL! It is a silly dynamic and I really think it was the wrong direction for Zerg. It doesn't feel zergy to me.
What's better? Hard to say... but I think swarmy is the way I see Zerg (DB thinks that too) but that is a swarm of units you produced through the unique zerg production mechanic and superior macro... not a tech advantage you got by racing to infestor pit (we need less racing for infestor pit right?). Good post OP. I hope you make waves.
I'm just going to respond to the points I feel I can actually argue. It's kind of pointless to argue with how someone feels about things, so I'm not going to get into that. I'll just say that I think the Swarm Host is a very zergy interpretation of a Siege Unit, and I think a Lair Tech Siege Unit was a good addition to Zerg.
For your point about 'The feeling of "Yeah I held".'. In short, I think you are just having that feeling when you shouldn't. You wouldn't expect to have that feeling while a Tempest is shooting at you from far away, even if you were repairing your units from the damage. You should feel under pressure, because you are under siege. Until you actually break that siege, you shouldn't be having that feeling of "Yeah I held". Because you haven't. Swarm Hosts do have the interesting dynamic of allowing you to hold without even breaking the siege in some way, but simply by accruing enough long range Splash (basically just with Siege Tanks, and to a much lesser extent Colossus). That's when you should have the feeling of "Yeah, I held". Siege Units by their very nature should make this feeling harder to get then simple Ling or Roach pressure, otherwise it wouldn't be a very good Siege Unit now would it?
On the topic of cost-efficiency: You can say the same thing about Air units if the opponent has no anti-air, Cloaked units if the opponent has no detection, or Siege Units if the opponent can't close the distance (because of Terrain, Force Fields, or whatever). They have the potential to be really cost-efficient if they are engaged poorly, or not countered properly.
I would concede that, Fungal in combination with these high range units (it really doesn't have anything to do with the "free units", except for that they all offer a high potential range with their movement), does achieve some stupid cost-efficiency, and all that has to happen is getting "caught" in the fungal once. But this would be true if it were Siege Tanks + Infestors, or Tempests + Infestors. It's really just the nature of Fungal and High Range that makes this the case. This I do find can make for some really poor gameplay sometimes. Things are roughly even, player get's caught in a fungal for a second, and loses thousands of resources for nothing. Very hard to recover from that kind of a trade.
There are more counters to Swarm Hosts than Splash. Gaining Air dominance or abusing mobility is a perfectly effective counter, just as well as Splash.
As far as it making Colossus to common/necessary in the match-up. That's a problem with the Colossus, not the Swarm Host. You can go air and beat Swarm Hosts, you can go Templar and beat them (you just have to beat them all at once), and you can just abuse mobility and beat them. If you don't like using Colossus go for a different strategy that can deal with Swarm Host in another way, because they do exist. If you are turtling, and the Zerg player get's into perfect position with his Swarm Hosts, and you don't have air dominance, yeah, you will probably need to make Colossus. Just like a Terran will probably need to make Siege Tanks.
On January 28 2013 04:33 algorithm0r wrote: I completely agree with the OP. The free units never felt zergy to me. I've purposely avoided using Infestors and Broodlords for 3 years because I don't like the unit design. In the last year as all other options were nerfed I fell to platinum because I didn't play the standard.
My macro isn't that great. It used to win/lose me games. If I was good macro I could totally outmass. If I was bad macro... that was why I lost. In HotS I can use swarm hosts... have the worst macro ever... apply pressure... expand... and as long as my SH ball hasn't been dealt with (while dealing terrible free damage) I often bank upto 10k mins because I HAVE NO NEED TO MAKE A NEW ARMY!!!
Personally I find this laughable. It means when my opponent finally kills my SH I can remax on BL! It is a silly dynamic and I really think it was the wrong direction for Zerg. It doesn't feel zergy to me.
What's better? Hard to say... but I think swarmy is the way I see Zerg (DB thinks that too) but that is a swarm of units you produced through the unique zerg production mechanic and superior macro... not a tech advantage you got by racing to infestor pit (we need less racing for infestor pit right?). Good post OP. I hope you make waves.
zerg in bw was swarmy and you sorta "rushed" for defilers the same way. Tech advantage doesn't really matter because of how different each race utilizes their tier 3 units.
On January 28 2013 04:13 phrenzy wrote: The problem is range. Zerg units are mainly melee based. In ZvP, roaches are for survival only if you are taking it to late game. Plus zerg range units dont scale well unlike stalkers or marines. If you don't want broodlords or swarm hosts, then buff accordingly. What else can you expect with units that have to be at range 0 to attack. There has to be some way to attack without losing most of your units before they engage.
Broodwar Zerg was all about losing 1/3 of your army before they even landed the first hit. Would be happy if we return to those times. But the game is probably to balanced for this. So you kill the first Zerg units when they are already biting at you. But in exchange they don't rip through you if they do get you. It is basically the same thing. But it is easier for the non Zerg to handle the Zerg surround, while it is also easier for the Zerg to not mess up horribly and lose everything.
As for free units, Terran has them as well, Protoss too. I think they aren't to bad for gameplay, they actually create quiet a bit of pressure. And I love my patent mule drop behind the Zerg army to trigger Broodlord fail shots, that might even block the infestors from retreating. Or the 4 probe hallucination to shut down a widow mine field. Of course it is hard to balance them especially if players use them as if they were free, not bothering to optimize them. Still waiting for some pro to waste his apm in a stalemate. That will start to create 3 waves of Broodlings via tumors and send them into the opponents army. Range 30 Broodlords are fun! (especially is you are at 220 supply)
But I think free units shouldn't be able to fight against non free units on their own. They should support Zerg. Broodlings work fine, they melt away withoutout support. But Locust are small roaches, just like Infested Terrans were small hydras.
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.
This is the response b.net posters are making (silver and gold). Take that for what you will.
"Free" may not be the exact term for these units, but everyone knows what I mean. You are just arguing semantics. The issues I raised are still the same, regardless of what you want to call them.
The problem is the threshold for them becoming very cost effective is very low (I'd say roughly two waves of locusts, depending on the situation). That is incredibly cost effective for any race, particularly zerg. That is the real issue.
On January 28 2013 04:45 ZjiublingZ wrote: I'm just going to respond to the points I feel I can actually argue. It's kind of pointless to argue with how someone feels about things, so I'm not going to get into that. I'll just say that I think the Swarm Host is a very zergy interpretation of a Siege Unit, and I think a Lair Tech Siege Unit was a good addition to Zerg.
For your point about 'The feeling of "Yeah I held".'. In short, I think you are just having that feeling when you shouldn't. You wouldn't expect to have that feeling while a Tempest is shooting at you from far away, even if you were repairing your units from the damage. You should feel under pressure, because you are under siege. Until you actually break that siege, you shouldn't be having that feeling of "Yeah I held". Because you haven't. Swarm Hosts do have the interesting dynamic of allowing you to hold without even breaking the siege in some way, but simply by accruing enough long range Splash (basically just with Siege Tanks, and to a much lesser extent Colossus). That's when you should have the feeling of "Yeah, I held". Siege Units by their very nature should make this feeling harder to get then simple Ling or Roach pressure, otherwise it wouldn't be a very good Siege Unit now would it?
On the topic of cost-efficiency: You can say the same thing about Air units if the opponent has no anti-air, Cloaked units if the opponent has no detection, or Siege Units if the opponent can't close the distance (because of Terrain, Force Fields, or whatever). They have the potential to be really cost-efficient if they are engaged poorly, or not countered properly.
I would concede that, Fungal in combination with these high range units (it really doesn't have anything to do with the "free units", except for that they all offer a high potential range with their movement), does achieve some stupid cost-efficiency, and all that has to happen is getting "caught" in the fungal once. But this would be true if it were Siege Tanks + Infestors, or Tempests + Infestors. It's really just the nature of Fungal and High Range that makes this the case. This I do find can make for some really poor gameplay sometimes. Things are roughly even, player get's caught in a fungal for a second, and loses thousands of resources for nothing. Very hard to recover from that kind of a trade.
There are more counters to Swarm Hosts than Splash. Gaining Air dominance or abusing mobility is a perfectly effective counter, just as well as Splash.
As far as it making Colossus to common/necessary in the match-up. That's a problem with the Colossus, not the Swarm Host. You can go air and beat Swarm Hosts, you can go Templar and beat them (you just have to beat them all at once), and you can just abuse mobility and beat them. If you don't like using Colossus go for a different strategy that can deal with Swarm Host in another way, because they do exist. If you are turtling, and the Zerg player get's into perfect position with his Swarm Hosts, and you don't have air dominance, yeah, you will probably need to make Colossus. Just like a Terran will probably need to make Siege Tanks.
First, air isn't an answer to swarm hosts. It just isn't. When HotS first came out and zerg were doing 2 base swarm host rushes with nothing else, yeah air was a good answer. Now they have learned how to better use them(support them), and air is probably the worst thing you can do. The metagame has evolved, and that is good.
The problem is, there is only currently one real answer: colossus. Maybe some genius pros will find other ways of dealing with them, but that isn't clear yet, and it may not happen at all. I think the last thing this game needs is more reasons to make deathballs, and that is exactly what this unit forces protoss to do: build a deathball and overcome the locusts, kill the swarm hosts, and push to the zerg base. All this is a result of having a unit that is very cost effective against anything not-colossus.
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.
This. Of all the "free" units in SC2, locusts are the "least free".
Locusts are to swarm hosts what Particle disruptors are for Stalkers. Yes, Locusts are units and particle disruptors are weapons, yet you get neither of them for "free" as you can only buy them together with their carrier. Also they can both do "infinite" damage over time, when you don't destroy the swarm host/stalker.
In the end it comes down to locusts "kind of" costing 100/50/1.5 and being "kind of" invincible as trade off for the massive costs.
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.
This is the response b.net posters are making (silver and gold). Take that for what you will.
"Free" may not be the exact term for these units, but everyone knows what I mean. You are just arguing semantics. The issues I raised are still the same, regardless of what you want to call them.
The problem is the threshold for them becoming very cost effective is very low (I'd say roughly two waves of locusts, depending on the situation). That is incredibly cost effective for any race, particularly zerg. That is the real issue.
2waves of locusts being costeffective is a problem? That's 50seconds of sieging with a swarm host. You know what happens if a siege tank or a clossus sieges you for 50seconds?
Also, if anything, people are complaining that Swarm Hosts are NOT costeffective enough and they only become useful when you mass them for a very long time. Also, I don't understand this part
That is incredibly cost effective for any race, particularly zerg.
This isn't Broodwar. Zerg needs to be just as costeffective as all the other races in SC2. There is basically no income advantage that zerg gets from taking the whole map against 3-4 bases.
One thing free units do achieve is getting around the problem of Zerg units being less supply-efficient in a game where 3-base saturation is optimal. Any race can saturate 3 bases, and nobody wants to saturate 4, so once you get to 3 bases the 'get a base ahead and swarm with superior economy' mantra fails. Free units (from infestors, broodlords or now swarm hosts) is a way to simulate being ahead in economy - just like free Terran workers (MULEs) is a way for them to pretend the supply cap is higher, both of which serve (in principle) to balance the concentrated might of a maxed Protoss force.
On January 28 2013 05:44 Umpteen wrote: One thing free units do achieve is getting around the problem of Zerg units being less supply-efficient in a game where 3-base saturation is optimal. Any race can saturate 3 bases, and nobody wants to saturate 4, so once you get to 3 bases the 'get a base ahead and swarm with superior economy' mantra fails. Free units (from infestors, broodlords or now swarm hosts) is a way to simulate being ahead in economy - just like free Terran workers (MULEs) is a way for them to pretend the supply cap is higher, both of which serve (in principle) to balance the concentrated might of a maxed Protoss force.
I like that analysis, free units do allow to push the supply cap, it fits zerg to be that swarmy.
Very well put OP, not much more to really say. Bravo. Finally someone realized that these "units that spawn free units" are actually the polar opposite of "zerg-like", because they are by far the most fucking cost-efficient units in the game. It's not "zerg-like" or "swarmy", it's simply a cheap device to create the illusion of being "zergy", I guess because the developers are too lazy to design the race properly the way it was in BW with lings, hydras, etc., so they just make really good cost efficient units and designed their attack to look like units instead of bullets or lasers or whatever and called it a day. Disappointing.
I really liked the point about Interceptors, too. Carriers are far shittier of units, both for cost AND for unit cap, than Broodlords, Swarm Hosts, and even Battlecruisers, all of which are comparable in some way to the Carrier, yet the poor Carrier, the worst of the bunch, requires you to not only pay an insanely high up-front cost AND an absurd build-time for a subpar-bordering-on-useless unit, but to actually pay minerals to build and replace the interceptors to add insult to injury. Really, Blizzard? Either give locusts + broodlings a small mineral cost, or remove the mineral cost of interceptors. You can't fucking have it both ways.
On January 28 2013 05:44 Umpteen wrote: One thing free units do achieve is getting around the problem of Zerg units being less supply-efficient in a game where 3-base saturation is optimal. Any race can saturate 3 bases, and nobody wants to saturate 4, so once you get to 3 bases the 'get a base ahead and swarm with superior economy' mantra fails. Free units (from infestors, broodlords or now swarm hosts) is a way to simulate being ahead in economy - just like free Terran workers (MULEs) is a way for them to pretend the supply cap is higher, both of which serve (in principle) to balance the concentrated might of a maxed Protoss force.
Infestor/BL is perhaps the most supply efficient army in the game, so no. Same thing with Speedlings.
The whole POINT of Zerg is being supply-inefficient; that's why their units are cheap, they can take the whole map and cover it in spine crawlers, cover the map in creep so they have a virtual maphack, and remax an entire army regardless of what it's made up of in a single production cycle. So what the hell are you talking about, Umpteen? If Zerg gets units that "compensate for being supply-inefficient", then fine, but take away the ability to instantly remax with whatever units you want from the same type of building.
Zerg race needed a siege unit before broodlord. Everyone can testify that, even after terrible losses, both protoss and terran could retreat behind their wall and use/abuse their defensive zoning units in order to avoid gettin steamrolled. I'm thinking about tanks/sentries/colo/templar.... All those units made that zerg couldnt/could barely break in Toss/terran base after suffering terrible losses, even if they won the battle decisively, which sounds wrong.
In that extend, addind a siege unit to zerg race, before broodlord (which were the ultimate siege unit (fly + long range + free units)) is a good thing for the game, making it more dynamic and more interesting overall. It also do allow zerg to put earlier pressure on their opponent rather than turtling on their 3/4 bases and get BL/infestor like they used to.
Locust have a fairly low range, which allow the defender to get some defensive shot before being underfire. I guess it's harder for protoss to hold since they havent medivacs/repair to heal their units up. That doesnt necessarily means the unit is bad designed, or op or anything....
The only problem i see with this unit is that it can (as TLO shows/abuse :p) burrow --> send locust --> unburrow immediatly and move. In that extend, it make the units having his "siege attack" on the way, while still moving, thus not having the uncapacity as a tank for instance. For a tank, either you're using the siege, and you trade the mobility for a powerful siege shot (or lurker in BW) or you're in regular mode which is.... what it is...
So maybe the unit should have some couldown on burrow/unburrow to force smart usage (like the tank need 2 second to siege and 2 second to unsiege and you cannot stop the current transformation). right now it feel like burrow, shoot 30 locust, unburrow right away and go far enough to not get punished afterward.
This come from a terran player that has played against swarmhost. I dont necessarily think the unit is achieved yet and may need some twist, but the idea is not a bad design and fulfill a most needed place in the Z arsenal, leading to some innovations and fun play.
(You can also remember that the unit isnt given, it's actually a pretty expensive one. it's not like zerg can make 30 of them in a row.... it's rather like a mechin terran or an immortal protoss, adding those strong units time after time.)
It's also a weak unit in some extend
rather slow pretty big and clunky cannot shot air tend to be stacked (in their current usage)
Try to drop zealot and then warp in with warp prism Try to burrow widow mine in the middle of a swarmhost stack. (i tried the last one, make a lot of good result).
Think it's a bit too early to call that unit imbalanced or bad designed, it hasnt got enough use yet.
Tempest sounds pretty decent at dealing with it too... (and dealing with anything really..)
@OP:I agree with you. Broodlings, Cracklings, Infested terran, it seems they absorb too much damage in ball vs ball battle wherein a sense that you can't even kill half of the Zerg's 'real' army. I agree with the design the Zerg should be a swarming race, outnumbering, overrunning opponents, But hmmm I think Swarm Host is too much? range is pretty far( both locusts attack and lifespan), locust should be uncontrollable at least, so Protoss and terran can at least make a maneuver against the direction of the locusts path.
So maybe the unit should have some couldown on burrow/unburrow to force smart usage (like the tank need 2 second to siege and 2 second to unsiege and you cannot stop the current transformation). right now it feel like burrow, shoot 30 locust, unburrow right away and go far enough to not get punished afterward.
First, you already must make it that all loocusts are left mushrooms fields, or they wil stuck like in this video.
Second, you should remember, that Swarm Host burrow time isn't fast like every zerg unit. SH burrow time is around 2-3 seconds too.
rather slow pretty big and clunky cannot shot air tend to be stacked (in their current usage)
All of these arguments are similar to siege tank ones. And I want to add, that but it becomes more dangerous on creep because of big benefits from it. 40% more speed for Locusts and 2.95 speed for Swarm host itself. It's fast as Stalker.
On creep you gain bigger speed for Locusts which means they can attack at more far distances.
Against hydra/swarm host, Terran needs at least 6 tanks along with a big ground army, and Protoss needs at least 4 high templar with storm finished and a big ground army. Protoss can use Colossus, but they have to prepare for it REALLY early to have a big enough colossus count in time. Against Mutas, Terran needs a lot of marines with stim and turrets and Protoss needs a lot of Phoenixes. So Zerg can force their opponent into their tech path if both players go for 3 bases, or if Zerg goes for 2 base tech. If you don't have a big enough army or the right army composition you just lose. There's no way to delay them to get your army in place except with a big counter attack. Meanwhile, Protoss and Terran can't really force anything with their tech path except spore crawlers to deal with harass unless they all-in. And if Protoss and Terran get a bigger army, Zerg can still delay until they get their army up because they can produce units so much quicker than Protoss and Terran. I'm not sure if it's imbalanced, but Protoss and Terran are now being punished a lot more for their mistakes and Zerg not nearly as much for theirs.
I don't see the problem at all with so called "free units". That's like saying the beams that come out of your Colossus are "free lazors!"
Let's talk about the Swarm Host. It's supposed to be a siege unit, right? Like a Siege Tank. You siege your tank, it starts shooting at whatever enemy structure or unit is in range. The function of it is to deal damage. This damage doesn't cost resources or energy, and you can't avoid it, unless you kill the Tank.
Like the Siege Tank, you siege (burrow) your Swarm Host, and it starts dealing damage to whatever is in range. Just like the Tank, to stop this damage, you need to kill the Swarm Host. The twist here is this, the Swarm Host deals damage indirectly. Instead of firing shots that can't be avoided, it creates Locusts that fire shots. This is actually not an advantage when it comes to dealing damage. The Locusts can be avoided, unlike the Tank's shots. The damage is not instant, and by killing the Locusts themselves, you can actually completely avoid it.
On January 28 2013 10:42 sitromit wrote: I don't see the problem at all with so called "free units". That's like saying the beams that come out of your Colossus are "free lazors!"
Let's talk about the Swarm Host. It's supposed to be a siege unit, right? Like a Siege Tank. You siege your tank, it starts shooting at whatever enemy structure or unit is in range. The function of it is to deal damage. This damage doesn't cost resources or energy, and you can't avoid it, unless you kill the Tank.
Like the Siege Tank, you siege (burrow) your Swarm Host, and it starts dealing damage to whatever is in range. Just like the Tank, to stop this damage, you need to kill the Swarm Host. The twist here is this, the Swarm Host deals damage indirectly. Instead of firing shots that can't be avoided, it creates Locusts that fire shots. This is actually not an advantage when it comes to dealing damage. The Locusts can be avoided, unlike the Tank's shots. The damage is not instant, and by killing the Locusts themselves, you can actually completely avoid it.
Colossus lasers don't have hit points or absorb enemy attacks, or block enemy movement, or chase them down if they run from the colossus.
On January 28 2013 10:42 sitromit wrote: I don't see the problem at all with so called "free units". That's like saying the beams that come out of your Colossus are "free lazors!"
Let's talk about the Swarm Host. It's supposed to be a siege unit, right? Like a Siege Tank. You siege your tank, it starts shooting at whatever enemy structure or unit is in range. The function of it is to deal damage. This damage doesn't cost resources or energy, and you can't avoid it, unless you kill the Tank.
Like the Siege Tank, you siege (burrow) your Swarm Host, and it starts dealing damage to whatever is in range. Just like the Tank, to stop this damage, you need to kill the Swarm Host. The twist here is this, the Swarm Host deals damage indirectly. Instead of firing shots that can't be avoided, it creates Locusts that fire shots. This is actually not an advantage when it comes to dealing damage. The Locusts can be avoided, unlike the Tank's shots. The damage is not instant, and by killing the Locusts themselves, you can actually completely avoid it.
Colossus lasers don't have hit points or absorb enemy attacks, or block enemy movement, or chase them down if they run from the colossus.
Colossus lasers or Tank shots don't absorb enemy attacks, you're right. This is one thing that counterbalances the disadvantages of dealing damage indirectly. If it didn't have any advantages, then it would just be inferior in every way, wouldn't it?
If that was a Tank shot you were trying to run away from, it would have already hit you. You can't escape a Tank shot, or Marine shot, or Colossus lasers that have already been fired. With the Locusts, if you can outrun them, you can, or you can kill the Locusts with ranged units before they do any damage at all.
So to some people, in order to make zerg feel zergly is have 0 cost effective units. I though the whole zergy fill is to have a lots of units to throw at your oppenent and overwelm them with the numbers, even if they are weak.
Swam host is a unit with high risk vs reward. When use properly, it is very strong. When use poorly, you just lose the game outright.
I just dont get it whats the big deal, oh ya Terran cant win 70% of their matchup so they bitch about every damn thing, my bad.
On January 28 2013 10:42 sitromit wrote: I don't see the problem at all with so called "free units". That's like saying the beams that come out of your Colossus are "free lazors!"
Let's talk about the Swarm Host. It's supposed to be a siege unit, right? Like a Siege Tank. You siege your tank, it starts shooting at whatever enemy structure or unit is in range. The function of it is to deal damage. This damage doesn't cost resources or energy, and you can't avoid it, unless you kill the Tank.
Like the Siege Tank, you siege (burrow) your Swarm Host, and it starts dealing damage to whatever is in range. Just like the Tank, to stop this damage, you need to kill the Swarm Host. The twist here is this, the Swarm Host deals damage indirectly. Instead of firing shots that can't be avoided, it creates Locusts that fire shots. This is actually not an advantage when it comes to dealing damage. The Locusts can be avoided, unlike the Tank's shots. The damage is not instant, and by killing the Locusts themselves, you can actually completely avoid it.
Colossus lasers don't have hit points or absorb enemy attacks, or block enemy movement, or chase them down if they run from the colossus.
On January 28 2013 10:42 sitromit wrote: I don't see the problem at all with so called "free units". That's like saying the beams that come out of your Colossus are "free lazors!"
Let's talk about the Swarm Host. It's supposed to be a siege unit, right? Like a Siege Tank. You siege your tank, it starts shooting at whatever enemy structure or unit is in range. The function of it is to deal damage. This damage doesn't cost resources or energy, and you can't avoid it, unless you kill the Tank.
Like the Siege Tank, you siege (burrow) your Swarm Host, and it starts dealing damage to whatever is in range. Just like the Tank, to stop this damage, you need to kill the Swarm Host. The twist here is this, the Swarm Host deals damage indirectly. Instead of firing shots that can't be avoided, it creates Locusts that fire shots. This is actually not an advantage when it comes to dealing damage. The Locusts can be avoided, unlike the Tank's shots. The damage is not instant, and by killing the Locusts themselves, you can actually completely avoid it.
Colossus lasers don't have hit points or absorb enemy attacks, or block enemy movement, or chase them down if they run from the colossus.
Colossus lasers or Tank shots don't absorb enemy attacks, you're right. This is one thing that counterbalances the disadvantages of dealing damage indirectly. If it didn't have any advantages, then it would just be inferior in every way, wouldn't it?
If that was a Tank shot you were trying to run away from, it would have already hit you. You can't escape a Tank shot, or Marine shot, or Colossus lasers that have already been fired. With the Locusts, if you can outrun them, you can, or you can kill the Locusts with ranged units before they do any damage at all.
So what's your point? Yes, free units have some advantages and disadvantages; while regular firing units also have advantages and disadvantages. The fact remains that free units exist and they're the one who absorb limitless amount of damage, block pathing, and create less interesting games.
On January 28 2013 10:42 sitromit wrote: I don't see the problem at all with so called "free units". That's like saying the beams that come out of your Colossus are "free lazors!"
Let's talk about the Swarm Host. It's supposed to be a siege unit, right? Like a Siege Tank. You siege your tank, it starts shooting at whatever enemy structure or unit is in range. The function of it is to deal damage. This damage doesn't cost resources or energy, and you can't avoid it, unless you kill the Tank.
Like the Siege Tank, you siege (burrow) your Swarm Host, and it starts dealing damage to whatever is in range. Just like the Tank, to stop this damage, you need to kill the Swarm Host. The twist here is this, the Swarm Host deals damage indirectly. Instead of firing shots that can't be avoided, it creates Locusts that fire shots. This is actually not an advantage when it comes to dealing damage. The Locusts can be avoided, unlike the Tank's shots. The damage is not instant, and by killing the Locusts themselves, you can actually completely avoid it.
Colossus lasers don't have hit points or absorb enemy attacks, or block enemy movement, or chase them down if they run from the colossus.
Colossus lasers or Tank shots don't absorb enemy attacks, you're right. This is one thing that counterbalances the disadvantages of dealing damage indirectly. If it didn't have any advantages, then it would just be inferior in every way, wouldn't it?
If that was a Tank shot you were trying to run away from, it would have already hit you. You can't escape a Tank shot, or Marine shot, or Colossus lasers that have already been fired. With the Locusts, if you can outrun them, you can, or you can kill the Locusts with ranged units before they do any damage at all.
So what's your point? Yes, free units have some advantages and disadvantages; while regular firing units also have advantages and disadvantages. The fact remains that free units exist and they're the one who absorb limitless amount of damage, block pathing, and create less interesting games.
So you're saying they have advantages and disadvantages, which would mean they're balanced, wouldn't it? Less interesting games is your subjective opinion.
On January 28 2013 11:53 ThePlayer33 wrote: free unitsvare hRd to balance because of spacing in sc2
once space is completely occupied , these free units become most effective
In BW you could cover half the map with zero supply units that dealt as much damage as a reaver. No one complained of imbalance. In fact, people aske to get back zero supply mineral only nukes for Terran and whine when blizz puts the unit at 2 supply.
Zerg, the swarm race, is given weaker zero supply units and suddenly it's TL whine?
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.
Everyone in here is arguing over what free units mean and the focus is all wrong. Instead what we should discuss from the OP is, "are those unit spawning units for zerg making it less fun to watch SC2 at a pro level."
As someone who watches SC2 I feel like the BL infestor combo do make games far less enjoyable. When you consider zerg from 2011 the balance against zerg helped them feel swarmy and fun. I think blizzard can make the units work but have to.just allow the other races an easier time preventing certain combination of units so we don't have these unwatchable situations. Fortunately HOTS will change the dynamic no matter what and I cannot say yet wether its good or bad.
As someone already mentioned, the units aren't "free", and the only way these units are cost effective at all is if they survive long enough to spawn a massive amount of units.
This is especially true when it comes to Swarm Hosts. You know how many times a couple Widow mines OR tanks OR seeker missiles have killed a dozen mutas or lings in one explosion? Complaining about "free units" would be like complaining about how efficient those are in comparison to Zerg having to blow up banelings (which costs gas) for that kind of explosion that kills that many units when Terran can do that much damage WITH RANGE and FOR FREE! But it would be completely silly to complain about that because of the racial advantages and disadvantages...
This isn't considering the fact that a siege unit not having immediate damage is a huge disadvantage, nor the fact that others have mentioned where the "free units" are Zergs form of AoE.
Don't you realize it's intended for Zerg to have to use the free units to protect themselves from AoE because the majority of Zerg units are very vulnerable to AoE? This is the same exact way Hallucinations are supposed to be used, why is this complaint only focused on Zerg when taking that in to consideration?
On the topic of "fun to watch", fun to watch in SC/SC2 most the time is related to events that require micro to work. Broodlords (or any of the massive air units) are not really fun to watch for this reason. But Swarm Hosts? They are quite the opposite, and Swarm Host + Infestor takes quite a bit of micro to play optimally. Which is not only fun to play as, but also fun to watch, since key micro leads to intense plays.
I always thought that Zerg was about being strength in numbers. Cost efficiency of individual units is very low, but when you send in a horde, cost efficiency as a whole increases. Now its just that all the individual cost inefficient units are created by a bigger, more expensive unit for free.
I think this change in direction was intended to make zerg easier to play. You arguably had to have very good macro when playing BW zerg, and this turned alot of newer players away from playing zerg.
Is this a bad change? You could argue either for or against, but this change in design wont be reverted as blizzard is all about encouraging every new SC2 player to ladder.
It's frustrating for both: for the Z because it do not deal damage directly, you have to wait for the unit to spawn the free units which will deal damage. It's frustrating for the opponent because before you can deal with the unit you have to deal with its proxy, the free units.
Is it Zergy? I don't know. To me it's not really free units, it's "damage that blocks the way but that you can kill to avoid it". So in a sense I like it, because I can avoid taking damage, but in another sense I hate it, because I just mostly kill damage-to-be, not units, and have the risk of being overrun if I do not have the proper counter.
I guess it feels zergy because it creates a lot of units, like a swarm. The issue is the cost-efficiency, like the OP outlined: Z cannot have units that are too cost-efficient, otherwise you break the game. So Blizz have to take that into account, and so the swarm host is very expensive and has a long burrow time so it's not too cost-efficient. Which kinda creates a situation where everybody is frustrated: Zerg because SH feels bad (until you have like 12 of them), and the others because they do not like battling units that are not units.
All in all it does not seems too bad, up until it's too cost-efficient, which seems the real issue here.
The notion that the units are not free because the unit that produced them is not is actually flawed. Unit-production structures are not free, but if you can train free units out of them, these units will be free and can not be categorized as "non-free" units. Same applies to units producing units.
On topic, I don't think that the current "free units" are a big problem but certainly things can be better. Note that I would not categorize infested terrans as "free" units since at least you are spending energy to get them. Regardless, my problem with the swarm host is that the "spawn units" mechanic has become too overused and too lame and at this rate maybe next expansion all zerg combat units might spawn from other units ... of course this won't happen but I'm noting that there must be a line somewhere that dictates whether the mechanic is overused or not and I do personally believe that blizzard has crossed that line.
As for the free units I do think that they are a bit too forgiving. With the current resources cost of the "host" unit it might be justified but a more interesting system would have the units cost actual resources, while having the "host" unit a bit cheaper and maybe the units themselves a bit stronger now that they are not free. If balanced well I feel that such system will be much more interesting to watch and make the game a bit more "alive".
That said, free or not, what bothers is how this "unit spawning units" mechanic has become a bit overused.
I agree with the arguments that swarm hosts give opposing players a reason to recreate deathballs (which I hate). I think zerg needs a powerful tool before broodlords, especially one to break sieges, but I still feel that swarm hosts (while theyre kinda fun to use) still feel like nerfed broodlords. I also dislike how theyre not so good for defending and dont add as much micro to zerg as I had hoped. Not saying lurkers are the answer, but if it werent for banelings, they'd look REALLY good right about now.
On January 28 2013 10:42 sitromit wrote: I don't see the problem at all with so called "free units". That's like saying the beams that come out of your Colossus are "free lazors!"
Let's talk about the Swarm Host. It's supposed to be a siege unit, right? Like a Siege Tank. You siege your tank, it starts shooting at whatever enemy structure or unit is in range. The function of it is to deal damage. This damage doesn't cost resources or energy, and you can't avoid it, unless you kill the Tank.
Like the Siege Tank, you siege (burrow) your Swarm Host, and it starts dealing damage to whatever is in range. Just like the Tank, to stop this damage, you need to kill the Swarm Host. The twist here is this, the Swarm Host deals damage indirectly. Instead of firing shots that can't be avoided, it creates Locusts that fire shots. This is actually not an advantage when it comes to dealing damage. The Locusts can be avoided, unlike the Tank's shots. The damage is not instant, and by killing the Locusts themselves, you can actually completely avoid it.
Colossus lasers don't have hit points or absorb enemy attacks, or block enemy movement, or chase them down if they run from the colossus.
Colossus lasers or Tank shots don't absorb enemy attacks, you're right. This is one thing that counterbalances the disadvantages of dealing damage indirectly. If it didn't have any advantages, then it would just be inferior in every way, wouldn't it?
If that was a Tank shot you were trying to run away from, it would have already hit you. You can't escape a Tank shot, or Marine shot, or Colossus lasers that have already been fired. With the Locusts, if you can outrun them, you can, or you can kill the Locusts with ranged units before they do any damage at all.
So what's your point? Yes, free units have some advantages and disadvantages; while regular firing units also have advantages and disadvantages. The fact remains that free units exist and they're the one who absorb limitless amount of damage, block pathing, and create less interesting games.
So you're saying they have advantages and disadvantages, which would mean they're balanced, wouldn't it? Less interesting games is your subjective opinion.
He didn't say the advantages and disadvantages balanced out, he heavily implied that the advantages of units like the broodlord far outweigh the disadvantage of not doing unavoidable damage. The main issue is the damage soaking and the blocking of movement. If they simply spawned units that continued to attack for a given time that didn't block movement so that the overall damage of the attack was pretty high then it wouldn't be so ridiculous. As it is, because the swarm host exists, I can't even consider any sort of low tech opening in PvZ anymore unless it's an all-in. Because there is no ground based army in the game that can deal with brood lords with appropriate support, a ridiculous unit like the tempest had to be added, because no unit in the game can actually get close enough to attack the damn brood lords without getting stomped into oblivion.
In BW there was a need for multitasking and skill. also the things laid down were independent and not controllable afterwards, making every mine a decisive choice. Here the free units are _not costing_ you anything after purchasing the unit, they only need A-move to spread and kill, they are also blocking movement, and they are attached to the unit which means making a bad decision about its usage doesn't effect you so heavily. It's really much more boring in the way it works compared to the BW mines. Lazy design.
On January 28 2013 04:45 ZjiublingZ wrote: I'm just going to respond to the points I feel I can actually argue. It's kind of pointless to argue with how someone feels about things, so I'm not going to get into that. I'll just say that I think the Swarm Host is a very zergy interpretation of a Siege Unit, and I think a Lair Tech Siege Unit was a good addition to Zerg.
For your point about 'The feeling of "Yeah I held".'. In short, I think you are just having that feeling when you shouldn't. You wouldn't expect to have that feeling while a Tempest is shooting at you from far away, even if you were repairing your units from the damage. You should feel under pressure, because you are under siege. Until you actually break that siege, you shouldn't be having that feeling of "Yeah I held". Because you haven't. Swarm Hosts do have the interesting dynamic of allowing you to hold without even breaking the siege in some way, but simply by accruing enough long range Splash (basically just with Siege Tanks, and to a much lesser extent Colossus). That's when you should have the feeling of "Yeah, I held". Siege Units by their very nature should make this feeling harder to get then simple Ling or Roach pressure, otherwise it wouldn't be a very good Siege Unit now would it?
On the topic of cost-efficiency: You can say the same thing about Air units if the opponent has no anti-air, Cloaked units if the opponent has no detection, or Siege Units if the opponent can't close the distance (because of Terrain, Force Fields, or whatever). They have the potential to be really cost-efficient if they are engaged poorly, or not countered properly.
I would concede that, Fungal in combination with these high range units (it really doesn't have anything to do with the "free units", except for that they all offer a high potential range with their movement), does achieve some stupid cost-efficiency, and all that has to happen is getting "caught" in the fungal once. But this would be true if it were Siege Tanks + Infestors, or Tempests + Infestors. It's really just the nature of Fungal and High Range that makes this the case. This I do find can make for some really poor gameplay sometimes. Things are roughly even, player get's caught in a fungal for a second, and loses thousands of resources for nothing. Very hard to recover from that kind of a trade.
There are more counters to Swarm Hosts than Splash. Gaining Air dominance or abusing mobility is a perfectly effective counter, just as well as Splash.
As far as it making Colossus to common/necessary in the match-up. That's a problem with the Colossus, not the Swarm Host. You can go air and beat Swarm Hosts, you can go Templar and beat them (you just have to beat them all at once), and you can just abuse mobility and beat them. If you don't like using Colossus go for a different strategy that can deal with Swarm Host in another way, because they do exist. If you are turtling, and the Zerg player get's into perfect position with his Swarm Hosts, and you don't have air dominance, yeah, you will probably need to make Colossus. Just like a Terran will probably need to make Siege Tanks.
Spot on. Nice to see posts like these. Impartial and well reasoned.
On January 28 2013 05:44 Umpteen wrote: One thing free units do achieve is getting around the problem of Zerg units being less supply-efficient in a game where 3-base saturation is optimal. Any race can saturate 3 bases, and nobody wants to saturate 4, so once you get to 3 bases the 'get a base ahead and swarm with superior economy' mantra fails. Free units (from infestors, broodlords or now swarm hosts) is a way to simulate being ahead in economy - just like free Terran workers (MULEs) is a way for them to pretend the supply cap is higher, both of which serve (in principle) to balance the concentrated might of a maxed Protoss force.
Infestor/BL is perhaps the most supply efficient army in the game, so no. Same thing with Speedlings.
I/BL is supply efficient because of free units. Infested Terrans and Broodlings. Thank you for making my point
The whole POINT of Zerg is being supply-inefficient; that's why their units are cheap, they can take the whole map and cover it in spine crawlers, cover the map in creep so they have a virtual maphack, and remax an entire army regardless of what it's made up of in a single production cycle. So what the hell are you talking about, Umpteen? If Zerg gets units that "compensate for being supply-inefficient", then fine, but take away the ability to instantly remax with whatever units you want from the same type of building.
What I'm talking about is that although Zerg production can be formidable, the underlying Zerg economy has the same limitations as Protoss and Terran. Yes, Zerg can saturate 3 bases quicker, so for part of the game 'more economy and swarm with units' holds true. But once both sides are on three saturated bases that changes.
You talk about 'covering the whole map in spine crawlers' and 'remaxing in a single production cycle' as if it's a given that a Zerg will have enough extra money to do all that. Ignoring production limitations, would a Protoss or Terran have enough money to cover the map in turrets / cannons AND remax instantly? Of course not!
Yes, if both sides sit back when maxed and build up a bank, the Zerg will be able to spend that bank more quickly. But that bank doesn't accumulate more quickly. So while there can come a point in the game where Zerg can pull off that insta-remax and their opponent can't, once their opponent has invested in production facilities (eg mass gateway for Protoss), both sides are back to being able to gather and spend their money just as quickly as each other. The extra money from expanding earlier, and the extra production from larvae, are transient advantages for the Zerg, not permanent ones.
That's where free units come in. They simulate the Zerg having a larger economy than they actually do, extending that racial advantage beyond the point where economy and production would otherwise equalise.
I know some of the staff at Blizzard (particularly DB) think free units feel "zergy." I'm here to tell you why it really isn't. Since Brood War, zerg has been, generally speaking, the most cost inefficient race. They had to be, because they had the most streamlined (cheapest) production, the fastest way to reproduce units, and usually the most bases. They won by have bigger economies and more production to make up for having reduced unit cost inefficiency. Units that produce free units completely breaks that paradigm. Units that create free units actually have the ability to become the most cost efficient units in the game, by virtue that they kill a lot of stuff without dying (duh). This is, in part, why broodlord/infestor is so good, and also so boring to watch (it isn't really zerg). It can be incredibly cost efficient because it has two free unit producing units.
We're not really talking about free units here. These "free" units are shittier versions of the real thing, cost mana and have a limited life span. So you can't really call them free units.
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.
This is the response b.net posters are making (silver and gold). Take that for what you will.
"Free" may not be the exact term for these units, but everyone knows what I mean. You are just arguing semantics. The issues I raised are still the same, regardless of what you want to call them.
The problem is the threshold for them becoming very cost effective is very low (I'd say roughly two waves of locusts, depending on the situation). That is incredibly cost effective for any race, particularly zerg. That is the real issue.
That isn't just semantics.
Even in Starcraft, there is no lunch for free.
You could also argue that any unit does "free" damage: You pay once but the unit can shoot all the time until it dies. But no-one would say that those damage is free. So are the 'free' units not actually free.
I read a lot of posts stating that "zerg really needs a siege unit before the brood lord". Well, just for the sake of the discussion - do they rly? When looking at the different races they do lack certain units to perform any kind of play in a viable fashion during different parts of the game. The classic terran is strong in the midgame, weaker in the late game, or portoss is weaker in the early game but strong in late game etc. ( I know this is WOL-related "truths" but still for the sake of an example).
I mostly tend to focus on the feel of the game when discussing design rather than balance this or imba that. And I can feel that there needs to be a clear definition of intent regarding the races from the developers that also show in the design of the races. Is it so that all races should have the tools to do any kind of strategy/play against any matchup in every aspect of the game? If so, the zergs do need siege units in the mid game, as well the other races need several additions, buffs etc. etc. at other points where they tend to lack.
But in short, the statement that "zerg need mid-game siege", how so?
On January 28 2013 05:44 Umpteen wrote: One thing free units do achieve is getting around the problem of Zerg units being less supply-efficient in a game where 3-base saturation is optimal. Any race can saturate 3 bases, and nobody wants to saturate 4, so once you get to 3 bases the 'get a base ahead and swarm with superior economy' mantra fails. Free units (from infestors, broodlords or now swarm hosts) is a way to simulate being ahead in economy - just like free Terran workers (MULEs) is a way for them to pretend the supply cap is higher, both of which serve (in principle) to balance the concentrated might of a maxed Protoss force.
Infestor/BL is perhaps the most supply efficient army in the game, so no. Same thing with Speedlings.
I/BL is supply efficient because of free units. Infested Terrans and Broodlings. Thank you for making my point
No you mean "cost efficient"; most Zerg units are extremely supply efficient, and also one word: fungal. Thank you for making my point.
On January 28 2013 05:44 Umpteen wrote: One thing free units do achieve is getting around the problem of Zerg units being less supply-efficient in a game where 3-base saturation is optimal. Any race can saturate 3 bases, and nobody wants to saturate 4, so once you get to 3 bases the 'get a base ahead and swarm with superior economy' mantra fails. Free units (from infestors, broodlords or now swarm hosts) is a way to simulate being ahead in economy - just like free Terran workers (MULEs) is a way for them to pretend the supply cap is higher, both of which serve (in principle) to balance the concentrated might of a maxed Protoss force.
Infestor/BL is perhaps the most supply efficient army in the game, so no. Same thing with Speedlings.
I/BL is supply efficient because of free units. Infested Terrans and Broodlings. Thank you for making my point
No you mean "cost efficient"; most Zerg units are extremely supply efficient, and also one word: fungal. Thank you for making my point.
Wait, hold the phone.
Which ones?
Spell casters don't count, spells are supposed to be powerful.
No such thing as "free units". All the spawned units are temporary.
If they cost energy, there is no way to argue they are "free". If ITs are "free marines", than seeker missiles are "free banelings". All in all, the IT could be considered a spell that potentially deals 280 damage (9.3 DPS x 30 seconds lifespan), but that can be avoided or stopped by dealing 50 damage.
The problematic part here, which I agree with, is that 1) more than damage dealers, spawned units are meatshields and 2) they are meatshields which doesn't spend your supply.
But I think the dynamic is interesting. I've seem compelling arguments of how fulgal or FFs are game-breaking and bad design; but the only argument against spawned units seems to be that they are "free" and "weird".
On January 28 2013 05:44 Umpteen wrote: One thing free units do achieve is getting around the problem of Zerg units being less supply-efficient in a game where 3-base saturation is optimal. Any race can saturate 3 bases, and nobody wants to saturate 4, so once you get to 3 bases the 'get a base ahead and swarm with superior economy' mantra fails. Free units (from infestors, broodlords or now swarm hosts) is a way to simulate being ahead in economy - just like free Terran workers (MULEs) is a way for them to pretend the supply cap is higher, both of which serve (in principle) to balance the concentrated might of a maxed Protoss force.
Infestor/BL is perhaps the most supply efficient army in the game, so no. Same thing with Speedlings.
I/BL is supply efficient because of free units. Infested Terrans and Broodlings. Thank you for making my point
No you mean "cost efficient"; most Zerg units are extremely supply efficient, and also one word: fungal. Thank you for making my point.
Wait, hold the phone.
Which ones?
Spell casters don't count, spells are supposed to be powerful.
Dont take him seriously... Somewhere in this thread he said that zerglings are supplyefficient... I mean, with that as reference, we need a new term for something like MMM - which isnt highly supplyefficient either...
I think Swarm Hosts are a difficult unit to face ant that's good. There are different counterstrategies that work for every race. Yet i think that as soon as players get better with using Swarm Host micro, you will hardly ever be able to kill them after they've fired their free units. What i'd like would be to make Swarm Hosts even slower, so that retreating is more difficult.
I really like Zerg free units. Feels quite swarmy and zergy to me )
I wouldn't however mind lower supply for the other Zerg units to enhance the swarm feeling further, for example making roaches and/or hydras 1 supply and nerfing them accordingly.
I have a feeling that fewer and fewer posters are looking at the original content (also possibly because it's only spoilered in the OP).
Also, too many people cannot seem to resist the urge to quote Heinlein's TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). We've heard it once, we've heard it five times now.
Where the problems arise in a game of SC2 is the lack of decision-making involved with free units. Take an example. If you engage with a reaper, blink-stalker, zealot-phoenix, or any of the other ''real units'' then you risk losing the money and time that went into making that unit should you lose the engagement. That's what cost-efficiency is: Opponent-cost minus player-cost. With a free unit, you can take an engagement with increased chances that the player-cost is 0 while the opponent-cost is larger than 0.
Now, there are number of way to argue circumstances. For example, if the player tries to IT harass a worker line and gets the burrowed infestor detected and killed, the player-cost is the infestor and the opponent-cost is 0. So, no, a free unit does not magically give you free damage.
Also, if the infestor expends energy at moment x, and then does not have energy to expend at moment y. Then there has been opportunity-cost. One cannot use that unit at moment y. (This does not apply to broodlord due to the speed of broodling attacks and is only marginally relevant for the swarm host.) There's also opportunity cost in terms of alternative tech choices. Going for infestors by cutting spire-tech is going to go badly against a colossus rush, for example.
But those criticisms of the OP are at the end of the negative spectrum. Free units can also do something that's much more rare in terms of ''real units'', they can do 0 player-cost damage. (This is possible with ''real units'' as well, imagine stalkers picking off units but blinking away before taking hull damage.) For example when infestors fire ITs, kill units with them and retreat. As long as the opponent took enough damage not to be able to attack in the next 30 seconds or so, there was no cost to that engagement. There are a number of cases where this is especially relevant and those are base-races and low-eco games. If both players are on low eco, the opponent cannot punish the energy-weakness because he cannot afford to produce the units fast enough.
As with all things SC2, the question is two-fold. First: can the opponents respond in a reasonable manner, which is basically asking whether the composition is OP or not. I don't want to say anything in response to this.
The second is what the OP seems to be talking about: is this rewarding as a design choice? Is it fun to play with and against? I'd join the OP in saying that it is not. It's more rewarding to make decisions with ''real units'' where your inefficient lings might be able to do counter-attack damage or not; or get a surround or not, depending on your ability to micro. And you also need to be able to keep up your macro to play that style. There are problems with this style in SC2 mainly to do with how easy it is to turtle up (I'm looking at Protoss more than Terran with this).
The free unit mechanism replaces the macro aspect and changes the micro-game too. Instead of trying to micro to get good engagements, you try to avoid damage to your unit-producing-units. It does not matter whether you DO damage or not, as long as your UPU's don't take lethal damage. And that micro is not too fun to watch.
On January 28 2013 22:04 Ghanburighan wrote: I have a feeling that fewer and fewer posters are looking at the original content (also possibly because it's only spoilered in the OP).
Also, too many people cannot seem to resist the urge to quote Heinlein's TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). We've heard it once, we've heard it five times now.
Where the problems arise in a game of SC2 is the lack of decision-making involved with free units. Take an example. If you engage with a reaper, blink-stalker, zealot-phoenix, or any of the other ''real units'' then you risk losing the money and time that went into making that unit should you lose the engagement. That's what cost-efficiency is: Opponent-cost minus player-cost. With a free unit, you can take an engagement with increased chances that the player-cost is 0 while the opponent-cost is larger than 0.
Now, there are number of way to argue circumstances. For example, if the player tries to IT harass a worker line and gets the burrowed infestor detected and killed, the player-cost is the infestor and the opponent-cost is 0. So, no, a free unit does not magically give you free damage.
Also, if the infestor expends energy at moment x, and then does not have energy to expend at moment y. Then there has been opportunity-cost. One cannot use that unit at moment y. (This does not apply to broodlord due to the speed of broodling attacks and is only marginally relevant for the swarm host.) There's also opportunity cost in terms of alternative tech choices. Going for infestors by cutting spire-tech is going to go badly against a colossus rush, for example.
But those criticisms of the OP are at the end of the negative spectrum. Free units can also do something that's much more rare in terms of ''real units'', they can do 0 player-cost damage. (This is possible with ''real units'' as well, imagine stalkers picking off units but blinking away before taking hull damage.) For example when infestors fire ITs, kill units with them and retreat. As long as the opponent took enough damage not to be able to attack in the next 30 seconds or so, there was no cost to that engagement. There are a number of cases where this is especially relevant and those are base-races and low-eco games. If both players are on low eco, the opponent cannot punish the energy-weakness because he cannot afford to produce the units fast enough.
As with all things SC2, the question is two-fold. First: can the opponents respond in a reasonable manner, which is basically asking whether the composition is OP or not. I don't want to say anything in response to this.
The second is what the OP seems to be talking about: is this rewarding as a design choice? Is it fun to play with and against? I'd join the OP in saying that it is not. It's more rewarding to make decisions with ''real units'' where your inefficient lings might be able to do counter-attack damage or not; or get a surround or not, depending on your ability to micro. And you also need to be able to keep up your macro to play that style. There are problems with this style in SC2 mainly to do with how easy it is to turtle up (I'm looking at Protoss more than Terran with this).
The free unit mechanism replaces the macro aspect and changes the micro-game too. Instead of trying to micro to get good engagements, you try to avoid damage to your unit-producing-units. It does not matter whether you DO damage or not, as long as your UPU's don't take lethal damage. And that micro is not too fun to watch.
Carrier micro? Thats exactly what you describe in the last part. Try to avoid damage on the carriers, while letting the interceptors do tge work.
On January 28 2013 22:04 Ghanburighan wrote: I have a feeling that fewer and fewer posters are looking at the original content (also possibly because it's only spoilered in the OP).
Also, too many people cannot seem to resist the urge to quote Heinlein's TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). We've heard it once, we've heard it five times now.
Where the problems arise in a game of SC2 is the lack of decision-making involved with free units. Take an example. If you engage with a reaper, blink-stalker, zealot-phoenix, or any of the other ''real units'' then you risk losing the money and time that went into making that unit should you lose the engagement. That's what cost-efficiency is: Opponent-cost minus player-cost. With a free unit, you can take an engagement with increased chances that the player-cost is 0 while the opponent-cost is larger than 0.
Now, there are number of way to argue circumstances. For example, if the player tries to IT harass a worker line and gets the burrowed infestor detected and killed, the player-cost is the infestor and the opponent-cost is 0. So, no, a free unit does not magically give you free damage.
Also, if the infestor expends energy at moment x, and then does not have energy to expend at moment y. Then there has been opportunity-cost. One cannot use that unit at moment y. (This does not apply to broodlord due to the speed of broodling attacks and is only marginally relevant for the swarm host.) There's also opportunity cost in terms of alternative tech choices. Going for infestors by cutting spire-tech is going to go badly against a colossus rush, for example.
But those criticisms of the OP are at the end of the negative spectrum. Free units can also do something that's much more rare in terms of ''real units'', they can do 0 player-cost damage. (This is possible with ''real units'' as well, imagine stalkers picking off units but blinking away before taking hull damage.) For example when infestors fire ITs, kill units with them and retreat. As long as the opponent took enough damage not to be able to attack in the next 30 seconds or so, there was no cost to that engagement. There are a number of cases where this is especially relevant and those are base-races and low-eco games. If both players are on low eco, the opponent cannot punish the energy-weakness because he cannot afford to produce the units fast enough.
As with all things SC2, the question is two-fold. First: can the opponents respond in a reasonable manner, which is basically asking whether the composition is OP or not. I don't want to say anything in response to this.
The second is what the OP seems to be talking about: is this rewarding as a design choice? Is it fun to play with and against? I'd join the OP in saying that it is not. It's more rewarding to make decisions with ''real units'' where your inefficient lings might be able to do counter-attack damage or not; or get a surround or not, depending on your ability to micro. And you also need to be able to keep up your macro to play that style. There are problems with this style in SC2 mainly to do with how easy it is to turtle up (I'm looking at Protoss more than Terran with this).
The free unit mechanism replaces the macro aspect and changes the micro-game too. Instead of trying to micro to get good engagements, you try to avoid damage to your unit-producing-units. It does not matter whether you DO damage or not, as long as your UPU's don't take lethal damage. And that micro is not too fun to watch.
Carrier micro? Thats exactly what you describe in the last part. Try to avoid damage on the carriers, while letting the interceptors do tge work.
A short response to a short comment: As the actual fun-factor of carrier micro comes from a different game, I don't think it applies here at all. But even if it does interceptors are not free. You can cripple a carrier by destroying the interceptors. So a carrier is the anti-low-eco unit.
On January 28 2013 05:44 Umpteen wrote: One thing free units do achieve is getting around the problem of Zerg units being less supply-efficient in a game where 3-base saturation is optimal. Any race can saturate 3 bases, and nobody wants to saturate 4, so once you get to 3 bases the 'get a base ahead and swarm with superior economy' mantra fails. Free units (from infestors, broodlords or now swarm hosts) is a way to simulate being ahead in economy - just like free Terran workers (MULEs) is a way for them to pretend the supply cap is higher, both of which serve (in principle) to balance the concentrated might of a maxed Protoss force.
Infestor/BL is perhaps the most supply efficient army in the game, so no. Same thing with Speedlings.
I/BL is supply efficient because of free units. Infested Terrans and Broodlings. Thank you for making my point
No you mean "cost efficient"; most Zerg units are extremely supply efficient, and also one word: fungal. Thank you for making my point.
Honestly, I'm not sure I understand what your point is any more. You threw up I/BL as an example of a supply efficient army. I said 'yes it is, because of the free units I/BL spawn'. Take infested terrans away and turn Broodlords into Guardians and you would need to divert supply into other units, yes? Thus I/BL is only a good use of available supply because of free units.
On January 28 2013 04:13 phrenzy wrote: The problem is range. Zerg units are mainly melee based. In ZvP, roaches are for survival only if you are taking it to late game. Plus zerg range units dont scale well unlike stalkers or marines. If you don't want broodlords or swarm hosts, then buff accordingly. What else can you expect with units that have to be at range 0 to attack. There has to be some way to attack without losing most of your units before they engage.
Broodwar Zerg was all about losing 1/3 of your army before they even landed the first hit. Would be happy if we return to those times. But the game is probably to balanced for this. So you kill the first Zerg units when they are already biting at you. But in exchange they don't rip through you if they do get you. It is basically the same thing. But it is easier for the non Zerg to handle the Zerg surround, while it is also easier for the Zerg to not mess up horribly and lose everything.
As for free units, Terran has them as well, Protoss too. I think they aren't to bad for gameplay, they actually create quiet a bit of pressure. And I love my patent mule drop behind the Zerg army to trigger Broodlord fail shots, that might even block the infestors from retreating. Or the 4 probe hallucination to shut down a widow mine field. Of course it is hard to balance them especially if players use them as if they were free, not bothering to optimize them. Still waiting for some pro to waste his apm in a stalemate. That will start to create 3 waves of Broodlings via tumors and send them into the opponents army. Range 30 Broodlords are fun! (especially is you are at 220 supply)
But I think free units shouldn't be able to fight against non free units on their own. They should support Zerg. Broodlings work fine, they melt away withoutout support. But Locust are small roaches, just like Infested Terrans were small hydras.
I think a agree with this, especially the last paragraph. I see the function of 'free' (maybe i'd better call them supplyless) units as them being able to tip the battle in one's favor (because it forces a bad position, or the opponents neglects them altogether), to siege a position or to harass a vital location. In WOL, the it's are used that way, but the problem, i feel, is the sheer amount of units needed to clean it up.
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.
This is the response b.net posters are making (silver and gold). Take that for what you will.
"Free" may not be the exact term for these units, but everyone knows what I mean. You are just arguing semantics. The issues I raised are still the same, regardless of what you want to call them.
The problem is the threshold for them becoming very cost effective is very low (I'd say roughly two waves of locusts, depending on the situation). That is incredibly cost effective for any race, particularly zerg. That is the real issue.
I understand what you mean, but please don't make it personal, it makes you look bad.
I have a feeling that fewer and fewer posters are looking at the original content (also possibly because it's only spoilered in the OP).
Also, too many people cannot seem to resist the urge to quote Heinlein's TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch). We've heard it once, we've heard it five times now.
Where the problems arise in a game of SC2 is the lack of decision-making involved with free units. Take an example. If you engage with a reaper, blink-stalker, zealot-phoenix, or any of the other ''real units'' then you risk losing the money and time that went into making that unit should you lose the engagement. That's what cost-efficiency is: Opponent-cost minus player-cost. With a free unit, you can take an engagement with increased chances that the player-cost is 0 while the opponent-cost is larger than 0.
Now, there are number of way to argue circumstances. For example, if the player tries to IT harass a worker line and gets the burrowed infestor detected and killed, the player-cost is the infestor and the opponent-cost is 0. So, no, a free unit does not magically give you free damage.
Also, if the infestor expends energy at moment x, and then does not have energy to expend at moment y. Then there has been opportunity-cost. One cannot use that unit at moment y. (This does not apply to broodlord due to the speed of broodling attacks and is only marginally relevant for the swarm host.) There's also opportunity cost in terms of alternative tech choices. Going for infestors by cutting spire-tech is going to go badly against a colossus rush, for example.
But those criticisms of the OP are at the end of the negative spectrum. Free units can also do something that's much more rare in terms of ''real units'', they can do 0 player-cost damage. (This is possible with ''real units'' as well, imagine stalkers picking off units but blinking away before taking hull damage.) For example when infestors fire ITs, kill units with them and retreat. As long as the opponent took enough damage not to be able to attack in the next 30 seconds or so, there was no cost to that engagement. There are a number of cases where this is especially relevant and those are base-races and low-eco games. If both players are on low eco, the opponent cannot punish the energy-weakness because he cannot afford to produce the units fast enough.
As with all things SC2, the question is two-fold. First: can the opponents respond in a reasonable manner, which is basically asking whether the composition is OP or not. I don't want to say anything in response to this.
The second is what the OP seems to be talking about: is this rewarding as a design choice? Is it fun to play with and against? I'd join the OP in saying that it is not. It's more rewarding to make decisions with ''real units'' where your inefficient lings might be able to do counter-attack damage or not; or get a surround or not, depending on your ability to micro. And you also need to be able to keep up your macro to play that style. There are problems with this style in SC2 mainly to do with how easy it is to turtle up (I'm looking at Protoss more than Terran with this).
The free unit mechanism replaces the macro aspect and changes the micro-game too. Instead of trying to micro to get good engagements, you try to avoid damage to your unit-producing-units. It does not matter whether you DO damage or not, as long as your UPU's don't take lethal damage. And that micro is not too fun to watch.
Best post in the thread, actually highlights the problems and benefits of the free units and actually read the OP.
One small suggestion for a change to the Swarmhost that I'm hoping will change the "free units" aspect of the Swarmhost is changing the way it spawns units and the units that it spawns. Start by giving the Swarmhost energy which does allow some creative counters (HT's and EMP) Giving the Swarmhost energy allows you to change the ability to spawn units, rather than just spawn 2 free Locusts in certain intervals you spawn Locusts based on energy cost First of all change Locust, them being ranged/slow/high dps is a very poor design for a unit, change the locust to small melee unit with 25 hp, 5 attack damage and 3.2 move speed 1 attack spped (All up to debate) The actual toggle-able ability would cost 3 EPS (Energy Per Second) and spawn 4 locust every 15 seconds. 4 units for 45 energy. 100 hp, 20dps. This allows the SH to feel more "swarmy" with more units/faster units without breaking it by making it spawn stupidly high dps units. Comment Critically please!
Mostly agree with OP. Perhaps HotS is going to be more difficult for us Protoss players; at least there will be fewer PvPs. I have my own opinion as well, but at the end of the day I can only work with the tools they gave me. My lone, neutral observation as it relates to the game in general is this: Swarm Hosts make me get Colossus earlier.
Reasons: - They don't encourage air play (They're really good at base trades vs air) - The threat of sh's almost encourage colossus timing attacks (colossus timing attacks can both preempt sh attacks and handle them!) - I have to play really safe (READ: inefficient) even if I scout infestor pit since infestor/sh require same building, and at teh same time the improved mutalisk is something that punishes robo play even moreso.
On January 29 2013 02:06 DaOrks wrote: One small suggestion for a change to the Swarmhost that I'm hoping will change the "free units" aspect of the Swarmhost is changing the way it spawns units and the units that it spawns. Start by giving the Swarmhost energy which does allow some creative counters (HT's and EMP) Giving the Swarmhost energy allows you to change the ability to spawn units, rather than just spawn 2 free Locusts in certain intervals you spawn Locusts based on energy cost First of all change Locust, them being ranged/slow/high dps is a very poor design for a unit, change the locust to small melee unit with 25 hp, 5 attack damage and 3.2 move speed 1 attack spped (All up to debate) The actual toggle-able ability would cost 3 EPS (Energy Per Second) and spawn 4 locust every 15 seconds. 4 units for 45 energy. 100 hp, 20dps. This allows the SH to feel more "swarmy" with more units/faster units without breaking it by making it spawn stupidly high dps units. Comment Critically please!
This will just make the SH trash... Siege tanks, colossi and HTs don't actually care if the unit spawns 2,3 or 6 locusts. With 25hp all locusts will die in one or 2 shots and will never get to the target, the moving speed doesn't matter in this case. Also feedback and emp just hardcounter 200/100/3 unit... Balancing the game with hardcounters is always bad, in this case this is true too. Swarm Hosts are good units in their current state. They can do serious dmg but only when they are in big numbers. 2 or 3 SH can't do shit. That gives terran and protoss time to answer with tanks or colossi or whatever. On top of that they are not good without support, you can't just leave them in the middle of the map and place your army elsewhere. Zergs have to keep good portion of their army to on top of the HS to protect them. That leaves the back open for drops and warp-ins. One really good strategy against swarm hosts is to just go around them. Yes they can kill your bases, but it will not be fast for sure. Also terrans can try widow mines vs swarm hosts. It's pretty funny match-up actually... Nobody kills anything.
On January 29 2013 02:06 DaOrks wrote: One small suggestion for a change to the Swarmhost that I'm hoping will change the "free units" aspect of the Swarmhost is changing the way it spawns units and the units that it spawns. Start by giving the Swarmhost energy which does allow some creative counters (HT's and EMP) Giving the Swarmhost energy allows you to change the ability to spawn units, rather than just spawn 2 free Locusts in certain intervals you spawn Locusts based on energy cost First of all change Locust, them being ranged/slow/high dps is a very poor design for a unit, change the locust to small melee unit with 25 hp, 5 attack damage and 3.2 move speed 1 attack spped (All up to debate) The actual toggle-able ability would cost 3 EPS (Energy Per Second) and spawn 4 locust every 15 seconds. 4 units for 45 energy. 100 hp, 20dps. This allows the SH to feel more "swarmy" with more units/faster units without breaking it by making it spawn stupidly high dps units. Comment Critically please!
This will just make the SH trash... Siege tanks, colossi and HTs don't actually care if the unit spawns 2,3 or 6 locusts. With 25hp all locusts will die in one or 2 shots and will never get to the target, the moving speed doesn't matter in this case. Also feedback and emp just hardcounter 200/100/3 unit... Balancing the game with hardcounters is always bad, in this case this is true too. Swarm Hosts are good units in their current state. They can do serious dmg but only when they are in big numbers. 2 or 3 SH can't do shit. That gives terran and protoss time to answer with tanks or colossi or whatever. On top of that they are not good without support, you can't just leave them in the middle of the map and place your army elsewhere. Zergs have to keep good portion of their army to on top of the HS to protect them. That leaves the back open for drops and warp-ins. One really good strategy against swarm hosts is to just go around them. Yes they can kill your bases, but it will not be fast for sure. Also terrans can try widow mines vs swarm hosts. It's pretty funny match-up actually... Nobody kills anything.
So....screw the fact that you need 10-20 of these units so they don't suck 100%! Ya that'll make the game more dynamic, SH are boring and trash as they are right now. Once people learn how to beat them they'll be useless
I dit not read all the posts before mine, so i will probably repeat what's already been said. I'm quite fond of BigJ's first page analysis of the thing.
Concerning the question if wheter or not those units are free.
This is not really the question. All units cost something to produce in the game, even if indirectly. Zerg's philosophy fits perfectly, for me, with the idea of units spawning from other units. Actually, it's the concept of baneling, Bl, vigi. So the real problem is the fact they spawn with the conservation of the initial unit, the unit from which they spawn. Well actually if zerg must get over the supply cap to win a 200 vs 200 battle, it's perfectly legit, since zerg units are supposed to be cost inefficient. So even with a maxed army, a zerg army can't face a proper 200 army from another race (terran/toss). Now if you tell that's what the zerg repop is for, consider this : zert repop for cost effective units is hard. That's why if zerg gets beaten in a 200/200, there must be openings for the remaining other army to deal damage to the zerg's eco, BUT he can also use zerg mechanics, if he has the bank, to get a better repop. Equilibrium.
Concerning the forcing-colossus-SH-strat :
So no, those units (SH) are not free. They cost the SH whole pack and tech. If you let the zerg mass SH to the point he can kill you with it, then you are just bad. The real question so is : how i prevent the zerg player, when he does this strat, to kill me ? Well, there are plenty of strats you can imagine.
If you think twice, your question is kinda silly, and looks like this one : how do i stop 20 carriers with a mothership at 15 minutes (assuming it's possible). Well if they are in your base, you don't. You just die.
Now the real question is : IF the SH pack gets next to my base, is there any other solution to it but colossus ? Well, depends of the creep spread for the queens, of the bo, the techs. Pros will find out, if they don't, it will be nerfed.
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.
On January 29 2013 02:06 DaOrks wrote: One small suggestion for a change to the Swarmhost that I'm hoping will change the "free units" aspect of the Swarmhost is changing the way it spawns units and the units that it spawns. Start by giving the Swarmhost energy which does allow some creative counters (HT's and EMP) Giving the Swarmhost energy allows you to change the ability to spawn units, rather than just spawn 2 free Locusts in certain intervals you spawn Locusts based on energy cost First of all change Locust, them being ranged/slow/high dps is a very poor design for a unit, change the locust to small melee unit with 25 hp, 5 attack damage and 3.2 move speed 1 attack spped (All up to debate) The actual toggle-able ability would cost 3 EPS (Energy Per Second) and spawn 4 locust every 15 seconds. 4 units for 45 energy. 100 hp, 20dps. This allows the SH to feel more "swarmy" with more units/faster units without breaking it by making it spawn stupidly high dps units. Comment Critically please!
This will just make the SH trash... Siege tanks, colossi and HTs don't actually care if the unit spawns 2,3 or 6 locusts. With 25hp all locusts will die in one or 2 shots and will never get to the target, the moving speed doesn't matter in this case. Also feedback and emp just hardcounter 200/100/3 unit... Balancing the game with hardcounters is always bad, in this case this is true too. Swarm Hosts are good units in their current state. They can do serious dmg but only when they are in big numbers. 2 or 3 SH can't do shit. That gives terran and protoss time to answer with tanks or colossi or whatever. On top of that they are not good without support, you can't just leave them in the middle of the map and place your army elsewhere. Zergs have to keep good portion of their army to on top of the HS to protect them. That leaves the back open for drops and warp-ins. One really good strategy against swarm hosts is to just go around them. Yes they can kill your bases, but it will not be fast for sure. Also terrans can try widow mines vs swarm hosts. It's pretty funny match-up actually... Nobody kills anything.
So....screw the fact that you need 10-20 of these units so they don't suck 100%! Ya that'll make the game more dynamic, SH are boring and trash as they are right now. Once people learn how to beat them they'll be useless
People learned to beat a lot of things, like Colossi, Sentries, Hellions, but you still see them being used a lot.
I beg to differ, I think that people haven't learn how to use Swarm Hosts yet. We will see, maybe Blizzard will change the Swarm Hosts in some way, but lately, I've seen them being used more often in different ways, and I like them more and more.
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!
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...
In BW there was a need for multitasking and skill. also the things laid down were independent and not controllable afterwards, making every mine a decisive choice. Here the free units are _not costing_ you anything after purchasing the unit, they only need A-move to spread and kill, they are also blocking movement, and they are attached to the unit which means making a bad decision about its usage doesn't effect you so heavily. It's really much more boring in the way it works compared to the BW mines. Lazy design.
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.
This. Of all the "free" units in SC2, locusts are the "least free".
Locusts are to swarm hosts what Particle disruptors are for Stalkers. Yes, Locusts are units and particle disruptors are weapons, yet you get neither of them for "free" as you can only buy them together with their carrier. Also they can both do "infinite" damage over time, when you don't destroy the swarm host/stalker.
In the end it comes down to locusts "kind of" costing 100/50/1.5 and being "kind of" invincible as trade off for the massive costs.
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.
This is the response b.net posters are making (silver and gold). Take that for what you will.
"Free" may not be the exact term for these units, but everyone knows what I mean. You are just arguing semantics. The issues I raised are still the same, regardless of what you want to call them.
The problem is the threshold for them becoming very cost effective is very low (I'd say roughly two waves of locusts, depending on the situation). That is incredibly cost effective for any race, particularly zerg. That is the real issue.
2waves of locusts being costeffective is a problem? That's 50seconds of sieging with a swarm host. You know what happens if a siege tank or a clossus sieges you for 50seconds?
Also, if anything, people are complaining that Swarm Hosts are NOT costeffective enough and they only become useful when you mass them for a very long time. Also, I don't understand this part
That is incredibly cost effective for any race, particularly zerg.
This isn't Broodwar. Zerg needs to be just as costeffective as all the other races in SC2. There is basically no income advantage that zerg gets from taking the whole map against 3-4 bases.
^ this last statement is what has been wrong with SC2 from the get go. A player should be absolutely PUNISHED for turtling in 3-4 bases if the Zerg has the rest of the map under control and actively mining. Sadly this is not the case. What was said is so terribly true and a Terran or Protoss on 3-4 bases is just as mineral rich and has all the minerals needed to turtle up and push out at 200/200. In which case it all comes down to the doom confrontation, even with the zerg re-maxing sometime its still not enough due to cost effectiveness, and the Terran or Protoss can just easily take a 4th or steam roll the Zerg after a bad confrontation.
The Dynamics of the game need to shift drastically, sadly I don't see this happening. The Zerg at Diamond+ is just more of the same old same old. Try and hold Terran/Protoss 3-5 all-in's/mid game pushes and if you can do that successfully without loosing to much teach up to Hive and then try to stop / prevent a 3rd or 4th base in most cases and starve out the Terran/Protoss. As a direct assault in most cases is suicide. The Viper / SH has helped this a bit, but at higher levels they hardly get used as the cost to invest in SH is so high any mid game push out right kills you. Now if you can make it to Hive teach and get a doom squad army then maybe okay, but its no different then waiting to hive and pushing out with 8-12 infestors and the rest broodlords in WoL ** barf
Too me the problem with free units is that the Zerg doesn't give up something to use them. Other races give up supply and time to replace money units to deal with free units. At least infestors lose energy for funguls when they use infested terrans. Hosts on the other hand spew out wave after wave of hard hitting free units. And these things own marines.
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.
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...
In BW there was a need for multitasking and skill. also the things laid down were independent and not controllable afterwards, making every mine a decisive choice. Here the free units are _not costing_ you anything after purchasing the unit, they only need A-move to spread and kill, they are also blocking movement, and they are attached to the unit which means making a bad decision about its usage doesn't effect you so heavily. It's really much more boring in the way it works compared to the BW mines. Lazy design.
I'm not saying that these units are as good as Spidermines, I'm saying the argument is false because it goes against things that are already accepted as good.
Spidermines are 0 supply units that hit as hard as nukes and block off large sections of the map.
Locus block off, a screen? Takes up supply (the SH)? And are temporary.
They hit less hard than mines, locks down less map space than mines, costs more than mines, and takes up supply (unlike mines)
The problem with SH and Locus is not that Locus are free--the problem is that the interaction isn't interesting.
ranged units+detection clearing a minefield while being pulled apart by Vulture runbys are fun to watch--watching wave after wave of locus get blasted by tanks is not. Not because the locus are free, and not because the locus are OP--it's simply boring for the same reason watching a 6gate all-in is boring.
I'm suggesting that the problem is not that Zerg has free units but that the zerg is not given dynamic and multipurpose free units.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are more or less correct, the primary issue is that the unit spawners don't have enough weaknesses. The infestor, for example, is pretty good at everything, and doesn't really have any weaknesses. The broodlord has a weakness in its speed and in its inability to attack air, but the speed isn't an engagement weakness and thus doesn't hinder its cost effectivness. Because zerg can always unburrow spines and walk them with the army, this weakness is insufficient. The inability to attack air is an issue, but zergs anti-air in WoL was always extremely strong due to the power of the infestor, so there simply was no reasonable answer to a broodlord/anti-air army. In other words, broodlords are easy to support. Swarm hosts have a weakness in that they must be stationary while spawning, so they are the least problematic, but the units they spawn are so powerful that in decent numbers you just can't do anything to them (plus corrupters are really good before max army supply).
Unit Spawners are units with amazing potential for cost efficiency, and that has to be tempered by having significant weaknesses that are hard to compensate for.
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.
I don't technically believe that Broodlings need a nerf (any stat reduction needs a stat compensation as well IMHO)--but that's not important. What is important is that I specifically disagree with the idea of the problem with BL being cost--for the same reasons I pointed out with the carrier's interceptors. Never do I feel excited about interceptors because they cost 15 minerals--I'm excited by them because they're exploitable.
I don't get awed by the Spidermine's power because they cost 0 supply and only need a 75 mineral unit to spawn them, I'm awed because they are immobile front loaded damage units that are exploitable.
Both the spidermine and the interceptor can be misused (to hilarious effects) and they both can be abused (to frightening effects)
How much they cost never really pops into my head when I think of those units. And I find it strange that costs pops up when thinking about Broodlord's broodlings.
I do believe Broodlings need to be powerful--but they need to have an exploitable weakness as well. My issue is that the mechanic of the broodling is the problem, not its cost. (For the most part, I don't actually find Broodlords that powerful--its Infestors that bug me; but that's a different discussion)
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.
I don't technically believe that Broodlings need a nerf (any stat reduction needs a stat compensation as well IMHO)--but that's not important. What is important is that I specifically disagree with the idea of the problem with BL being cost--for the same reasons I pointed out with the carrier's interceptors. Never do I feel excited about interceptors because they cost 15 minerals--I'm excited by them because they're exploitable.
I don't get awed by the Spidermine's power because they cost 0 supply and only need a 75 mineral unit to spawn them, I'm awed because they are immobile front loaded damage units that are exploitable.
Both the spidermine and the interceptor can be misused (to hilarious effects) and they both can be abused (to frightening effects)
How much they cost never really pops into my head when I think of those units. And I find it strange that costs pops up when thinking about Broodlord's broodlings.
I do believe Broodlings need to be powerful--but they need to have an exploitable weakness as well. My issue is that the mechanic of the broodling is the problem, not its cost. (For the most part, I don't actually find Broodlords that powerful--its Infestors that bug me; but that's a different discussion)
I like how you emphasize the mechanic itself rather than the numbers. That's what creates spectator value, obvious visual relationships and tension on the screen. Ideally, Widow Mines should optimize this sort of excitement factor, although easier said than done.
On January 28 2013 11:37 Musiq wrote: Every race has free units has free units,Protoss has Hallucination and Terran has Auto Turrets, I don't see a problem
Really, you compared Hallu&AutoTurrets with Locust&Broodling? Are you serious? lol, this is the worst post ever my goodness
I am utterly disheartened by Blizzards direction for StarCraft 2.
They rip the core of the game out, paste some StarCraft 1 remniscent units in and add these weird units. I want to remind Dustin and David that they are messing with the balance of the StarCraft legacy, I could'nt care less for the expansions. This is StarCraft, not Red Alert or Command & Conquer. Sure, they want to give Zerg a ''zergy'' feel with free units, but in StarCraft 1 Zerg was zergy by nature/mechanics, not by gimmick.
Now I got my rage out of the way;
Why is it bad that free units get produced? -You can use your real supply for more infestors/endgame comp -Trading free units for units that actually cost minerals/gas is always an advantageous trade -Sitting back and watching free units being spawned has nothing to do with micro, neither does it please the crowd
What might steer Blizzard away from this horrible decision? -Make the free units cost a small fee, just like Interceptors and Scarabs. -Small changes matter the most, I rather have 20 Zerglings in my base with tier 1 Burrow tech, burrowing and unburrowing around like in BroodWar -Remove them completely and actually make a decent unit with thought out mechanics
If this corrupted and senile balancing direction continues, we will see more NA ladderzergs take out four times GSL Champions.
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.
On January 28 2013 03:59 HardlyNever wrote: ... At least before when you held off pressure from zerg you felt like you were at least accomplishing something because you know the zerg had to sacrifice something in order to pressure you. That feeling of "yeah, I held" is now gone, because you know you didn't really accomplish anything, and it will be coming back in like 30 seconds. ...
you said it doesn't feel like zerg because the swarm host can be extremely cost efficient, but frankly we aren't judging zerg by the cost analysis of its units, we're judging it by the feeling you get when playing against it.
the "wow this is fucking pointless because it's just going to keep coming" feeling is exactly what it's supposed to feel like playing against zerg, and for the zerg player that is what you want to create. the emotion of it is what keeps people interested. not the conceptual economics underlying unit design.
there is a huge misconception here that these units are "free".
Broodlings and locusts are essentially just an extension of the attack of the unit...i also wouldn't consider infested terran "free units" as they do cost energy. As do mules and PDD/turrets.
you said it doesn't feel like zerg because the swarm host can be extremely cost efficient, but frankly we aren't judging zerg by the cost analysis of its units, we're judging it by the feeling you get when playing against it.
the "wow this is fucking pointless because it's just going to keep coming" feeling is exactly what it's supposed to feel like playing against zerg, and for the zerg player that is what you want to create. the emotion of it is what keeps people interested. not the conceptual economics underlying unit design.
I agree with this fully, Zerg are meant to invoke the feeling that their numbers are endless and the so called "free units" help with enforcing that feeling. while playing Zerg your not meant to be going "Hmm is this unit gonna end up being worth its cost" your meant to be going "This will help me mass a scarier force"
Even if we take the feeling out of the equation with out these "free" expendable units how do you expect Zerg to make a stand against these new siege and siege-breaker units like the Tempest and Hellbat what are we meant to lose 90% of our Zerglings to your Hellbats whilst your Siege Tanks slaughter our Ultralisks and the anti-massive damage that the Tempests are putting out completely neutralizes our Brood Lords and Ultralisks. so dont start crying Zerg get too many "free units"
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".
free units are unnecessary and too powerful anyways on units like the BL. They just have no place and a zergy "feel" is less important than good design. Free units so far have been far too powerful on zerg, and create an extra impetus to mass units like infestors as if they're freaking zerglings.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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
On January 30 2013 02:29 Coffee Zombie wrote: 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.
This is true--but sadly I feel that it is working as intended. Play through the campaign again and what you're describing is exactly how Blizzard is trying to push Zerg towards. A slow growing inevitable infection that slowly consumes the map. Of this I have no arguments against other than I think it's what Blizzard is going for.
I don't support Blizzard's decision with it--but if it's what they're aiming for then (I guess) they're succeeding... yay?
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
TCG isnt exactly played like a RTS. Also, even if you call that "definitly skewed", you also mention in the same phrase a limit, in the name of "If given enough time". They are a lot more to "Free unit" in SC2.
Like I said it's like a tank or a colossus slowly poking your army from range, it's about being cost-efficient.
It may look like blizzard want Zerg to be that way but if you look at the WoL metagame closely Zerg moved on from crappy midgame all-in to a super turtle play, hoping to reach the only cost effective Zerg army : Broods/Infestor
So it's clearly something Zerg players want, but they may not want to have to turtle 15min behind spine to get it, so Blizz just gave the Swarm host to fill that hole
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
Good example, but the only unit which has to spend significant time to be able to generate a free unit is the Raven. Autoturrets cost 50 energy (unlike the Infested Terran at 25) and the units generated by the Broodlord and Swarm Host cost nothing. The worst "offender" is obviously the Infestor, who can generate up to 8 Infested Terrans at one time ... basically 8 supplys worth of units for just 2 supply of unit. That is too much "focused power" and the same is true for the Broodlord. The Swarm Host really seems to be almost as bad as the Widow Mine in its inability to support an army with regular fire.
The only differences between "free units" and normal attacks is that the "free units" have HP, which means that they can tank damage and/or screw with pathing.
This also means that units that produce "free units" have a variable amount of damage that they can do. A swarm host 2 locusts have a "potential" of 27.91 DPS, but it usually ends up being much less due to walking or dying before they can actually do damage. For 3 supply, 27.91 DPS is pretty damn high, but it can be mitigated by simply killing the locusts.
There's nothing inherently bad with "free units". ITs are extremely slow and now die extremely easily. Again, they have a "potential" for 265 damage, if they're attacking the entire time, but this usually isn't the case. Forcing an engagement away from your base can cause the Z player to throw out their ITs, then you can simply back off.
Brood lords have really shitty overall DPS, even with the broodlings damage, their power is the range and the flying ability. It's a unique thing for an attack to spawn a unit, it's not inherently bad design.
Anything about cost efficiency can easily be said about almost every unit. A well placed defensive siege tank can rack up a TON of kills. A well-controlled collosus usually gets ridiculously powerful. It's not uncommon for an Immortal to have over 50 kills.
On January 30 2013 04:24 TheSambassador wrote: The only differences between "free units" and normal attacks is that the "free units" have HP, which means that they can tank damage and/or screw with pathing.
This also means that units that produce "free units" have a variable amount of damage that they can do. A swarm host 2 locusts have a "potential" of 27.91 DPS, but it usually ends up being much less due to walking or dying before they can actually do damage. For 3 supply, 27.91 DPS is pretty damn high, but it can be mitigated by simply killing the locusts.
There's nothing inherently bad with "free units". ITs are extremely slow and now die extremely easily. Again, they have a "potential" for 265 damage, if they're attacking the entire time, but this usually isn't the case. Forcing an engagement away from your base can cause the Z player to throw out their ITs, then you can simply back off.
Brood lords have really shitty overall DPS, even with the broodlings damage, their power is the range and the flying ability. It's a unique thing for an attack to spawn a unit, it's not inherently bad design.
Anything about cost efficiency can easily be said about almost every unit. A well placed defensive siege tank can rack up a TON of kills. A well-controlled collosus usually gets ridiculously powerful. It's not uncommon for an Immortal to have over 50 kills.
Are you suggesting that different units work different ways and that we should probably talk about how a unit works more so than whether or not siege tank shots should cost minerals?
On January 30 2013 00:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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.
If broodlings cost money then the Zerg would not be able to create the Broodlord/Infestor ball, it would allow a Terran or Protoss player to chip away at the Zerg economy through drop/warp prism and eventually end the game in their favour that way, that would be exactly how you're supposed to deal with an unstoppable army like that. + Show Spoiler +
I use unstoppable as a figure of speech, not meaning literally unstoppable.
However at the moment it doesn't matter if you destroy the Zerg economy as when you fight the Zerg army they don't have to spend more resources to replace Broodlings and Infested Terrans because they are based off energy/cooldown.
This is the problem with Broodlord/Infestor, Broodlords or infestors aren't bad when combined with other units that cost money to replace however when combined they are too efficient, especially with the typical Zerg economy.
On January 30 2013 00:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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.
If broodlings cost money then the Zerg would not be able to create the Broodlord/Infestor ball, it would allow a Terran or Protoss player to chip away at the Zerg economy through drop/warp prism and eventually end the game in their favour that way, that would be exactly how you're supposed to deal with an unstoppable army like that. + Show Spoiler +
I use unstoppable as a figure of speech, not meaning literally unstoppable.
However at the moment it doesn't matter if you destroy the Zerg economy as when you fight the Zerg army they don't have to spend more resources to replace Broodlings and Infested Terrans because they are based off energy/cooldown.
This is the problem with Broodlord/Infestor, Broodlords or infestors aren't bad when combined with other units that cost money to replace however when combined they are too efficient, especially with the typical Zerg economy.
If you want to make broodling cost money you will have to massively buff them, and in essence, give Zergs the carrier
On a less serious note, let's make every tank shell cost 100min so you can stop a mech push by harrassing the worker line, what a great mechanic
On January 30 2013 00:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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.
If broodlings cost money then the Zerg would not be able to create the Broodlord/Infestor ball, it would allow a Terran or Protoss player to chip away at the Zerg economy through drop/warp prism and eventually end the game in their favour that way, that would be exactly how you're supposed to deal with an unstoppable army like that. + Show Spoiler +
I use unstoppable as a figure of speech, not meaning literally unstoppable.
However at the moment it doesn't matter if you destroy the Zerg economy as when you fight the Zerg army they don't have to spend more resources to replace Broodlings and Infested Terrans because they are based off energy/cooldown.
This is the problem with Broodlord/Infestor, Broodlords or infestors aren't bad when combined with other units that cost money to replace however when combined they are too efficient, especially with the typical Zerg economy.
If you want to make broodling cost money you will have to massively buff them, and in essence, give Zergs the carrier
On a less serious note, let's make every tank shell cost 100min so you can stop a mech push by harrassing the worker line, what a great mechanic
To be honest, an RTS where ammunition is part of costs sounds damn awesome. Zealots and Lings would be premium and the Marine's bayonets would actually make sense as they go melee if you run out of minerals. Units could be buffed to all heck since you don't want to simply make 30+ tanks to eat you out of house and home and so the game is balanced on bringing only 2-3 tanks to a fight.
We could even give all units a stamina bar that gets used up if they run, remains steady if they walk, and regenerates when they stay still to simulate endurance.
Then have wear and tear on mechanical units that need repairs, but require a sleep cycle for biological units.
If you want to make broodling cost money you will have to massively buff them, and in essence, give Zergs the carrier
Not necesseraly : let's say you would have to change some of the mechanics to make them cope with this drawback.
On a less serious note, let's make every tank shell cost 100min so you can stop a mech push by harrassing the worker line, what a great mechanic
As TM says, i also find it interesting, to give to real powerful units attacks that actually cost money.
BUT what is clear is the following. Blizzard want each race of SC2 have different ways to enbody powerful units, see : -Zerg : "free" spawning units, awesome in high numbers but weak ; few expensive monster units (dozen) with high armor direct attack. Note that the effectiveness rate of broodlings gets quite exponentialy high really fast to a saturation point, whereas for the ultralisk, it's rather proportional, and the saturation point is quite low. What i mean is that you can make ultras as much you want, they will most of the time be like, in best case scenario, be 4 or 5 attacking effectively at the same time. -Terran : really expensive units (thor, BC), direct combat capability as created. Mechanic is the same as for zerg : BC can stack to death, thor to a much lesser extent. Can fight every type of attacker with acceptable HP lost/damage inflicted trade. -Protoss : extremely expensive units (with high build time), indirect combat capability (archon must be morphed, colossus get the range to be of some use, carrier needs interceptor). The costs, build time, tech needed for those are so high they are often not to be seen (carrier) or really late in the game and never in big numbers. Carrier is for me the epitome of this : really high build time, no combat ability as created, needs EVEN more money to work, slow. But damn, if you can afford it to the point you can build 8 of them, you probably won the game.
What i mean is that every race is built on some key concepts revolving on a simple equilibrium : Effectiveness/Cost/Build time/Supply. This is the logic. And each race is supposedly equal to the other two. If we build the formula we have quite this to be true (simply put) : E*C*B*S= equivalent terran unit=e zerg unit=e toss unit.
Meaning that if the broodling is free (so cost is tending, but only tending to "cheap"), it must be, to equal the values of the other two races : less supply, less effectiveness, less build time, etc. What's interesting in this configuration is that this does not consider the BLing as a group dynamic (meaning you can't see with this model the exponential effectiveness given the numbers of Blings).
On January 30 2013 00:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: 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.
If broodlings cost money then the Zerg would not be able to create the Broodlord/Infestor ball, it would allow a Terran or Protoss player to chip away at the Zerg economy through drop/warp prism and eventually end the game in their favour that way, that would be exactly how you're supposed to deal with an unstoppable army like that. + Show Spoiler +
I use unstoppable as a figure of speech, not meaning literally unstoppable.
However at the moment it doesn't matter if you destroy the Zerg economy as when you fight the Zerg army they don't have to spend more resources to replace Broodlings and Infested Terrans because they are based off energy/cooldown.
This is the problem with Broodlord/Infestor, Broodlords or infestors aren't bad when combined with other units that cost money to replace however when combined they are too efficient, especially with the typical Zerg economy.
If you want to make broodling cost money you will have to massively buff them, and in essence, give Zergs the carrier
On a less serious note, let's make every tank shell cost 100min so you can stop a mech push by harrassing the worker line, what a great mechanic
You've completely misunderstood the point at hand here, I'm not suggesting that broodlings cost money, I'm stating the effect of broodlings costing money; the entire situation was hypothetical.
On January 30 2013 05:21 Thieving Magpie wrote: To be honest, an RTS where ammunition is part of costs sounds damn awesome. Zealots and Lings would be premium and the Marine's bayonets would actually make sense as they go melee if you run out of minerals. Units could be buffed to all heck since you don't want to simply make 30+ tanks to eat you out of house and home and so the game is balanced on bringing only 2-3 tanks to a fight.
We could even give all units a stamina bar that gets used up if they run, remains steady if they walk, and regenerates when they stay still to simulate endurance.
Then have wear and tear on mechanical units that need repairs, but require a sleep cycle for biological units.
That'd be awesome wouldn't it?
Interesting ideas but more suited for a mod then the core game IMO. It's already hard enough to understand what is going on in a Starcraft game for casual observers and players. Make it too dense and it will become only a game for hardcore and elites.
I believe in terms of marine/IT production, one infestor is about equivalent to one naked barracks. So if you build 10, you have effectively 10 barracks worth of production for free, as long as your ITs are hitting something.
Targe is right. The problem is that you consider temporary units to be spells. Fungal costs energy and does 30 damage in aoe over 4 seconds. Once it lands theres nothing you can do about it. Infested terran costs energy and does x damage over 30 seconds. x can change based on positioning (move away from it) or your choice to kill them. Just because a spell has hitpoints I don't think you should consider it a unit. Units are not temporary.
the only problem I have is that it really clutters the screen with all the timers and health bars.other then that I think it's not that bad and leads to some interesting games
On January 28 2013 07:14 Existor wrote: All of these arguments are similar to siege tank ones. And I want to add, that but it becomes more dangerous on creep because of big benefits from it. 40% more speed for Locusts and 2.95 speed for Swarm host itself. It's fast as Stalker.
On creep you gain bigger speed for Locusts which means they can attack at more far distances.
Then denying creep becomes alot more important so that locusts cant travel that far. But in mid/late game, the middle bases are harder to take and defend for P and T against swarmhosts. Im guessing thats only thing im worried about atm. 1 deathball somewhere and 2 bases are harrased by locusts. It will mean i need to multitask even more
On January 30 2013 10:09 Culture wrote: Why not make broodlings for broodlords an upgrade? That would affect the timings a bit, and give more reason to let the mid tier get slightly buffed.
Delaying something doesnt really change it once it is there and consequently doesnt deal with the problem at all. Broodlings will still block Marines from ever reaching the Broodlords, so nothing will be changed except "the timings". Basing a "counter" to some in game attack around the "don't let them get there" principle is terrible.
On January 30 2013 10:09 Culture wrote: Why not make broodlings for broodlords an upgrade? That would affect the timings a bit, and give more reason to let the mid tier get slightly buffed.
That would make broodlords useless in hots. Broodlords already aren't anywhere near as good in hots as they are in WoL. Both terran and protoss got good counters.
Ravens are now very good and every terran I play makes some especially if they suspect a broodlord tech switch. Tosses can just start making tempests which do 80 damage per shot to broodlords (90 with +3 I believe might be 95).
There is no reason to even bother looking at nerfing a problem that is already solved now in hots due to new units.
There's nothing inherently wrong with "free units" (they aren't really units in the sense people are using it though). It's about how they are balanced and used.
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
Let's be clear about what the problem with broodlord infestor actually is. The broodlord is a siege unit, just like the guardian before it. It is a flying siege unit, unlike the siege units from other races, so it cannot be fought siege vs. siege. Since a siege unit attacks from afar and the other races' siege units cannot shoot at it, a broodlord forces you to approach it before you can attack it.
Meanwhile, the infestor possesses the spell fungal growth, which is a root spell and a damage spell wrapped into one. The damage component is not overly dramatic; it's quite powerful against marines, zealots, sentries, banelings, mutalisks, etc, but it isn't really a very fast DPS. The root is significantly more important, because it enables the zerg to surround with zerglings, land good baneling hits, prevent an army from retreating, prevent an army from advancing, etc.
Combine fungal growth with broodlords, and the opponent finds himself in a position where the only way to fight the opponent's army is to approach and then shoot, but fungal growth prevents any approach, so his units will simply be locked in place and take fire from the broodlords without being able to shoot back.
The broodlings don't have a thing to do with it. The infested terrans don't even really have a thing to do with it. As someone else mentioned, if you combined fungal with tempests or fungal with siege tanks, the effect would be the same: the opponent simply cannot approach to fight the siege unit.
Side note: Zergs don't really sack their workers to build a bigger broodlord infestor army (I mean, I'm sure someone does, but it's not really optimal). Broodlord infestor is actually not all that costly in terms of supply; you can easily build the army in well under 100 food, have a lot of zerglings sitting around for drops and such, and keep a large amount of supply in workers. In fact, it's much more common to add on a lot of drones once you have a broodlord infestor army, partly to build static defense at peripheral expansions, but also to mine a big bank so that if the first BL army dies, they can build another one. In particular, they're stockpiling gas because BL/infestor is a very gas-heavy army; adding a mineral cost to broodlings would not only be silly, but it also wouldn't matter much in most cases, because by this stage of the game Zergs will usually have a large bank of minerals and not much to do with it (you only need so many spine crawlers).
Broodlings have alot to do with it. However as Targe said it isnt because of the damage they do, it is because they really nicely supplement fungal: it creates a wall of units that you can barely get through.
How important that wall is depends on the units you are using. If you got a marine ball for example you will be more worried about fungal than broodlings, since you can clear them away in no time. However try using thors against broodlords, even without infestors. In theory they should be able to shoot the broodlords, in practise they all get stuck due to the broodlings.
On January 30 2013 20:08 Sissors wrote: Broodlings have alot to do with it. However as Targe said it isnt because of the damage they do, it is because they really nicely supplement fungal: it creates a wall of units that you can barely get through.
How important that wall is depends on the units you are using. If you got a marine ball for example you will be more worried about fungal than broodlings, since you can clear them away in no time. However try using thors against broodlords, even without infestors. In theory they should be able to shoot the broodlords, in practise they all get stuck due to the broodlings.
I mean obviously the Zerg is never exactly upset that they have broodlings. I'd say their effect is much more defined against tanks than against thors; it's true thors get a little tripped up by the broodlings, but with tanks it literally forces the tanks to unsiege or kill themselves, as though the range deficit against broodlords weren't obnoxious enough in the first place.
If you have decent army size the broodling wall isn't generally so brutal. For reference, if you've tried the thor response to broodlords, try the thor + hellion response to broodlords. You'll find you have very little problem with broodling walls, even with just a few hellions; even a large BL/infestor army is unlikely to have all that many broodlings out at once, and hellions kill them really quickly.
Then the next thing you'll notice is that thors do virtually no damage to brood lords. Meanwhile the broodlords do quite a bit of damage to the thors, even if the broodlings are killed off immediately, because even without broodlings the broodlord base damage is considerable. And because thors cost 6 supply while broodlords only cost 4, zerg has room to have, say, zerglings or roaches or banelings to toss in. Ultimately thors are not all that effective a response; you're perhaps more inclined to use the thors to target stacked corruptors, and then try to win with vikings. But ultimately the broodlings, while obnoxious, are not the biggest issue with broodlord infestor; as the name suggests, the problem is, in fact, with the broodlord and the infestor.
I hate how broodlings absorbs too much DPS from Protoss army and also blocks/surrounds Stalkers. Imo, broodlings have a lot to do with it. Then I agree with the rest.
On January 30 2013 21:03 shin_toss wrote: I hate how broodlings absorbs too much DPS from Protoss army and also blocks/surrounds Stalkers. Imo, broodlings have a lot to do with it. Then I agree with the rest.
Stalkers are an interesting case. If the problem is that you have to approach broodlords to kill them, and you can't approach, then stalkers seem like a decent answer since they can blink to approach, thus maybe avoiding the fungal. They're one of the better responses protoss has, in fact, and when a Protoss is significantly ahead of a Zerg who managed to reach a broodlord army, you easily may see the Protoss batter down the broodlords with a few waves of stalkers. Of course, this also makes broodlings somewhat less important, just because the big moment is the blink under the broodlords, which broodlings obviously can't prevent.
This is a situation where infested terrans actually do become pretty important; ITs do enough DPS that even if you get a significant stalker force under the broodlords, you're still fighting a losing battle. You blink your whole army under the broodlords, snipe as many as you can, but lose stalkers much faster than he loses broodlords because even if the broodlords weren't there, ITs trade very, very effectively against stalkers.
But even there, the issue isn't really that infested terrans are free. It's that infested terrans have really high DPS. So if you have enough infestors, and don't get a fungal off in time to stop a blink under the broodlords, you just need to be sure you have enough ITs to kill the stalkers off pretty effectively. Then while the Protoss rebuilds his stalker army, you can morph some of the corruptors you undoubtedly have lying around into broodlords to replace those lost and continue the assault.
On January 30 2013 21:03 shin_toss wrote: I hate how broodlings absorbs too much DPS from Protoss army and also blocks/surrounds Stalkers. Imo, broodlings have a lot to do with it. Then I agree with the rest.
This is "the problem", the concept of free zerg units its ok and its something unique for the race. But the free units are a bit unbalanced, and since the begining of WOL, players are become more creative to exploit this.
Right now Z free units absorbs almost 50%-100% DPS of your army and even they manage to deal damage, at the end this is unfair: you have to retreat your army or suffer a lot of damage. A free unit should have A LOT less HP, enough to absorb some DPS but not enough to survive and make a lot of damage to the enemy.
On January 30 2013 21:03 shin_toss wrote: I hate how broodlings absorbs too much DPS from Protoss army and also blocks/surrounds Stalkers. Imo, broodlings have a lot to do with it. Then I agree with the rest.
i do understand your point but its invalid because as protoss you can get tempests well before i can get broodlords and not only can my BLs not atk your tempests but your tempests out range them and do extra damage vs massive so you can't complain that they lock down your stalkers
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
I assume by your nickname we're talking about MTG here.
In MTG, token generators are strong because they can provide what's usually called "card advantage". This is a basic principle in SC2 too: free units (tokens) that trade with non-free units (cards) provide a big advantage. I don't think this is a problem per se and I don't know how can someone think that it doesn't feel zergy.
The problem lies in specific implementations of this concept and more so in their interaction with other units/strategies, namely broodlord/infestor. The concept behind BL and swarm host is very simple: as Zerg, protect them at any cost and let the "tokens" do the job; as the Zerg's opponent, circumvent the "tokens" and go kill the slow, fragile and expensive "token generator". I like it. What I don't like, for example, is that a single spell (fungal) can completely shut down this basic gameplay dynamic.
So, the point is: as of now, can we really punish a Zerg player that badly manages its "token generators"?
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.
This is exactly. Spot on about SH. Really, Infestor is only unit that breaks the game because it can od damage and cast free units. Unlike SH and Broodlord who's value and damage is based upon the units they spawn.
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
I assume by your nickname we're talking about MTG here.
In MTG, token generators are strong because they can provide what's usually called "card advantage". This is a basic principle in SC2 too: free units (tokens) that trade with non-free units (cards) provide a big advantage. I don't think this is a problem per se and I don't know how can someone think that it doesn't feel zergy.
The problem lies in specific implementations of this concept and more so in their interaction with other units/strategies, namely broodlord/infestor. The concept behind BL and swarm host is very simple: as Zerg, protect them at any cost and let the "tokens" do the job; as the Zerg's opponent, circumvent the "tokens" and go kill the slow, fragile and expensive "token generator". I like it. What I don't like, for example, is that a single spell (fungal) can completely shut down this basic gameplay dynamic.
So, the point is: as of now, can we really punish a Zerg player that badly manages its "token generators"?
Ever had a sligh deck get wrathed while a kjeldoran outpost is in play? Because that's what Broodfestor feels like.
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
I assume by your nickname we're talking about MTG here.
In MTG, token generators are strong because they can provide what's usually called "card advantage". This is a basic principle in SC2 too: free units (tokens) that trade with non-free units (cards) provide a big advantage. I don't think this is a problem per se and I don't know how can someone think that it doesn't feel zergy.
The problem lies in specific implementations of this concept and more so in their interaction with other units/strategies, namely broodlord/infestor. The concept behind BL and swarm host is very simple: as Zerg, protect them at any cost and let the "tokens" do the job; as the Zerg's opponent, circumvent the "tokens" and go kill the slow, fragile and expensive "token generator". I like it. What I don't like, for example, is that a single spell (fungal) can completely shut down this basic gameplay dynamic.
So, the point is: as of now, can we really punish a Zerg player that badly manages its "token generators"?
That same simple spell shuts down the whole opposition as well ... and there is hardly any way to get past a combination of both to actually get to the token generator.
Honestly "token generators" are a terrible idea in a game that is so resource focused as Starcraft. With "slow token generators" (Ravens) it might not be such a problem, but there is still the problem of being able to "focus power" and getting a lot more out of it. With the Broodlord you dont even need to "focus" the power because the Broodlings come out at a super fast rate, so killing them on the ground doesnt matter because they get replaced almost instantly. If the Broodlings had a lifespan five times greater but the rate of fire was five times lower it might work, but there is still the Fungal Lockdown to worry about. The easiest way would be to bring back the "tennis ball spewing" Guardian from BW.
I don't think you can out right take them out of the game for zerg. Because so many awesome games can happen and infestors+infested terrans are a kind of get out of jail card if you need to stall for units to be made while an army is knocking. I like the 2/2 cap Grumbels said. I think swarm hosts are a bit OP in huge numbers and it can be tricky to go out, to get em cause zerg could have lings/hydras/ roaches to keep em safe. I Doubt blizzard will do anything about this issue right away.
nothing is free . you would better open and talk about cost efficiecy since time=money=uits that takes time to spawn units = resources . same for energy , time = energy , time = money , energy = money
I'm so tired of the infested terrans and inject larva. How many games have we not seen where the zerg comes out of a fight just barely winning thanks to that extra 20+supply of IT's and then make a round of roughly 30-90 lings at once and just roll over their opponent? Those games really make me want to kill someone - especially the zerg player for being so damn "skilled" as to produce 100 units in the time i get about 8-10.
On January 31 2013 00:59 xsnac wrote: nothing is free . you would better open and talk about cost efficiecy since time=money=uits that takes time to spawn units = resources . same for energy , time = energy , time = money , energy = money
Sorry, thats rubbish, because the Broodlings spawned by the Broodlord are replaced faster than you can kill them and then you still have the "your units that cost resources to replace die while only stuff that costs no money dies for the opponent" problem. Energy isnt the same as money if you have a "potential ratio" of getting the equivalent of EIGHT stimmed Marines for a fully charged Infestor which just occupies TWO supply ... The potential to focus your power on one point in time is just too much for caster units, but the rate of fire of Broodlords is so high that it replaces the free units it generates as they die. With a lot of Infestors the energy regeneration is pretty high, so energy is not a factor.
Now if there was a "permanent cost" - something like losing hit points for every Broodling dropped - it might work, but there isnt anything like it. In BW the Dark Archon lost all its shields every time it cast Mind Control and that was great.
On January 31 2013 00:51 HeeroFX wrote: I don't think you can out right take them out of the game for zerg. Because so many awesome games can happen and infestors+infested terrans are a kind of get out of jail card if you need to stall for units to be made while an army is knocking. I like the 2/2 cap Grumbels said. I think swarm hosts are a bit OP in huge numbers and it can be tricky to go out, to get em cause zerg could have lings/hydras/ roaches to keep em safe. I Doubt blizzard will do anything about this issue right away.
So basically you are saying that without free units the game cant be awesome? You just have gotten used to it. BW didnt need junk like that and was still awesome. Blizzard wont do anything about it, because they wont bother but it could be easily corrected.
Where is the Terran "get out of jail" card then? It doesnt exist, because anything the Raven can cast is too expensive and the 200 gas is a big chunk more than the gas cost of the Zerg units and Terrans actually need gas more than Zerg for their basic stuff already. The Protoss card is probably Psi Storm, but its harder to use than simply spawning some free units.
On January 31 2013 00:59 xsnac wrote: nothing is free . you would better open and talk about cost efficiecy since time=money=uits that takes time to spawn units = resources . same for energy , time = energy , time = money , energy = money
Sorry, thats rubbish, because the Broodlings spawned by the Broodlord are replaced faster than you can kill them and then you still have the "your units that cost resources to replace die while only stuff that costs no money dies for the opponent" problem. Energy isnt the same as money if you have a "potential ratio" of getting the equivalent of EIGHT stimmed Marines for a fully charged Infestor which just occupies TWO supply ... The potential to focus your power on one point in time is just too much for caster units, but the rate of fire of Broodlords is so high that it replaces the free units it generates as they die. With a lot of Infestors the energy regeneration is pretty high, so energy is not a factor.
Now if there was a "permanent cost" - something like losing hit points for every Broodling dropped - it might work, but there isnt anything like it. In BW the Dark Archon lost all its shields every time it cast Mind Control and that was great.
Sorry, that's rubbish, because you can simply do the math. A Broodlord spawns 1 every 2.5seconds+1extra on the first shot. In a 5second combat, there are 4 Broodlings spawned by a broodlord. That's 120HP. That's less than what 3stimmed marines do damagewise in that time - so easily cleaned up fast by any reasonable marine army. (that's why unsupported broodlords aren't very good vs marines unless you can mass them or get a perfect position)
Sorry, but I don't believe there is any reasonable even scenario in which your statement is true.
What maybe discussable is the "frontload amount of Broodlings spawned" in the first seconds. Meaning that a combat is started on 0cooldown and with 2broodlings that spawn before the opponent can combat the broodlords, due to range (longrange vs air excluded). E.g.: 10 Broodlords spawn 20 broodlings at the beginning of a combat, 30 in the first 2.5seconds.
So in conclusion, it's quite the opposite of what you are talking about that maybe a problem. Broodlords do too much early on in a combat, not in the longrun!
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
I assume by your nickname we're talking about MTG here.
In MTG, token generators are strong because they can provide what's usually called "card advantage". This is a basic principle in SC2 too: free units (tokens) that trade with non-free units (cards) provide a big advantage. I don't think this is a problem per se and I don't know how can someone think that it doesn't feel zergy.
The problem lies in specific implementations of this concept and more so in their interaction with other units/strategies, namely broodlord/infestor. The concept behind BL and swarm host is very simple: as Zerg, protect them at any cost and let the "tokens" do the job; as the Zerg's opponent, circumvent the "tokens" and go kill the slow, fragile and expensive "token generator". I like it. What I don't like, for example, is that a single spell (fungal) can completely shut down this basic gameplay dynamic.
So, the point is: as of now, can we really punish a Zerg player that badly manages its "token generators"?
That same simple spell shuts down the whole opposition as well ... and there is hardly any way to get past a combination of both to actually get to the token generator.
Honestly "token generators" are a terrible idea in a game that is so resource focused as Starcraft. With "slow token generators" (Ravens) it might not be such a problem, but there is still the problem of being able to "focus power" and getting a lot more out of it. With the Broodlord you dont even need to "focus" the power because the Broodlings come out at a super fast rate, so killing them on the ground doesnt matter because they get replaced almost instantly. If the Broodlings had a lifespan five times greater but the rate of fire was five times lower it might work, but there is still the Fungal Lockdown to worry about. The easiest way would be to bring back the "tennis ball spewing" Guardian from BW.
Tokens/Unit Spawns are fine design wise--whether they're interesting or not is arbitrary.
I LOVE spawn generation as after effects such as broodlings popping out of dying zerg structures, broodlings spawned from spawn broodling.
I dislike the idea of using unit generation to create a "swarm" effect. Now, mathematically, thematically, and visually it is accurate. Large numbers of units being thrown to their deaths without costing Zerg money to do it to create the look and feel of an endless swarm of units. The problem is that it isn't mechanically accurate to playing "the swarm race."
You as the player who picked the swarm want to grab a crapload of cheap units and throw it at the enemy. You don't want to babysit high supply siege units that rally tokens at the enemy.
Going back to MTG--Green was the token race, Red was the burn race; but Green never felt as much as a swarm color than red does. Token generation creates a swarm, but it doesn't let you play with a swarm. The same thing is happening in SC2. People are upset that Zerg is the mech race with its slow siege units and Terran is the Swarm race throwing wave after wave of 1 supply units at the enemy.
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
I assume by your nickname we're talking about MTG here.
In MTG, token generators are strong because they can provide what's usually called "card advantage". This is a basic principle in SC2 too: free units (tokens) that trade with non-free units (cards) provide a big advantage. I don't think this is a problem per se and I don't know how can someone think that it doesn't feel zergy.
The problem lies in specific implementations of this concept and more so in their interaction with other units/strategies, namely broodlord/infestor. The concept behind BL and swarm host is very simple: as Zerg, protect them at any cost and let the "tokens" do the job; as the Zerg's opponent, circumvent the "tokens" and go kill the slow, fragile and expensive "token generator". I like it. What I don't like, for example, is that a single spell (fungal) can completely shut down this basic gameplay dynamic.
So, the point is: as of now, can we really punish a Zerg player that badly manages its "token generators"?
That same simple spell shuts down the whole opposition as well ... and there is hardly any way to get past a combination of both to actually get to the token generator.
Honestly "token generators" are a terrible idea in a game that is so resource focused as Starcraft. With "slow token generators" (Ravens) it might not be such a problem, but there is still the problem of being able to "focus power" and getting a lot more out of it. With the Broodlord you dont even need to "focus" the power because the Broodlings come out at a super fast rate, so killing them on the ground doesnt matter because they get replaced almost instantly. If the Broodlings had a lifespan five times greater but the rate of fire was five times lower it might work, but there is still the Fungal Lockdown to worry about. The easiest way would be to bring back the "tennis ball spewing" Guardian from BW.
Tokens/Unit Spawns are fine design wise--whether they're interesting or not is arbitrary.
I LOVE spawn generation as after effects such as broodlings popping out of dying zerg structures, broodlings spawned from spawn broodling.
I dislike the idea of using unit generation to create a "swarm" effect. Now, mathematically, thematically, and visually it is accurate. Large numbers of units being thrown to their deaths without costing Zerg money to do it to create the look and feel of an endless swarm of units. The problem is that it isn't mechanically accurate to playing "the swarm race."
You as the player who picked the swarm want to grab a crapload of cheap units and throw it at the enemy. You don't want to babysit high supply siege units that rally tokens at the enemy.
Going back to MTG--Green was the token race, Red was the burn race; but Green never felt as much as a swarm color than red does. Token generation creates a swarm, but it doesn't let you play with a swarm. The same thing is happening in SC2. People are upset that Zerg is the mech race with its slow siege units and Terran is the Swarm race throwing wave after wave of 1 supply units at the enemy.
First of, isn't White the Token race? Imo whie outshines all other colors by far in (useful) token generation, while I never really liked greens tokens at all. Also there have been quite some useful goblin token generators for red as far as I remember
Back to SC2: The core problem in Zerg using those siege weapons, is that the economy/map layout does allow for incredible turtling. Therefore melee/low range units get very weak options to actually attack with and fast units cannot abuse their speed to attack undefended locations, as there are none. (by metagame/balancing/map layout) So the only reasonable Zerg strategies to attack an opponent that only has 3-4bases (or more accurately, only 2-3 locations to defend) is to build longrange units themselves. On the other hand, Terran only has decently ranged units, so their T1-T2 units do very well when it comes to actually attacking a defensive location. So those units (in names, Marines/Marauders/Hellions) fullfill all the "siege-need" on their own, so you actually can attack with them very well.
On January 30 2013 03:03 Protosnake wrote: 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
oh it's definitely skewed--play a TCG and you'll see just how strong token generators are compared to flesh and bone creatures. Given enough time token generators *will* win. Time they don't always have, but the more they keep things at a standstill the better it is for them.
The thing is, whether you agree with it or not is personal opinion--Blizzard agrees that this should be Zerg's design. In that regard, they're very successful at it.
I assume by your nickname we're talking about MTG here.
In MTG, token generators are strong because they can provide what's usually called "card advantage". This is a basic principle in SC2 too: free units (tokens) that trade with non-free units (cards) provide a big advantage. I don't think this is a problem per se and I don't know how can someone think that it doesn't feel zergy.
The problem lies in specific implementations of this concept and more so in their interaction with other units/strategies, namely broodlord/infestor. The concept behind BL and swarm host is very simple: as Zerg, protect them at any cost and let the "tokens" do the job; as the Zerg's opponent, circumvent the "tokens" and go kill the slow, fragile and expensive "token generator". I like it. What I don't like, for example, is that a single spell (fungal) can completely shut down this basic gameplay dynamic.
So, the point is: as of now, can we really punish a Zerg player that badly manages its "token generators"?
That same simple spell shuts down the whole opposition as well ... and there is hardly any way to get past a combination of both to actually get to the token generator.
Honestly "token generators" are a terrible idea in a game that is so resource focused as Starcraft. With "slow token generators" (Ravens) it might not be such a problem, but there is still the problem of being able to "focus power" and getting a lot more out of it. With the Broodlord you dont even need to "focus" the power because the Broodlings come out at a super fast rate, so killing them on the ground doesnt matter because they get replaced almost instantly. If the Broodlings had a lifespan five times greater but the rate of fire was five times lower it might work, but there is still the Fungal Lockdown to worry about. The easiest way would be to bring back the "tennis ball spewing" Guardian from BW.
Tokens/Unit Spawns are fine design wise--whether they're interesting or not is arbitrary.
I LOVE spawn generation as after effects such as broodlings popping out of dying zerg structures, broodlings spawned from spawn broodling.
I dislike the idea of using unit generation to create a "swarm" effect. Now, mathematically, thematically, and visually it is accurate. Large numbers of units being thrown to their deaths without costing Zerg money to do it to create the look and feel of an endless swarm of units. The problem is that it isn't mechanically accurate to playing "the swarm race."
You as the player who picked the swarm want to grab a crapload of cheap units and throw it at the enemy. You don't want to babysit high supply siege units that rally tokens at the enemy.
Going back to MTG--Green was the token race, Red was the burn race; but Green never felt as much as a swarm color than red does. Token generation creates a swarm, but it doesn't let you play with a swarm. The same thing is happening in SC2. People are upset that Zerg is the mech race with its slow siege units and Terran is the Swarm race throwing wave after wave of 1 supply units at the enemy.
First of, isn't White the Token race? Imo whie outshines all other colors by far in (useful) token generation, while I never really liked greens tokens at all. Also there have been quite some useful goblin token generators for red as far as I remember
Back to SC2: The core problem in Zerg using those siege weapons, is that the economy/map layout does allow for incredible turtling. Therefore melee/low range units get very weak options to actually attack with and fast units cannot abuse their speed to attack undefended locations, as there are none. (by metagame/balancing/map layout) So the only reasonable Zerg strategies to attack an opponent that only has 3-4bases (or more accurately, only 2-3 locations to defend) is to build longrange units themselves. On the other hand, Terran only has decently ranged units, so their T1-T2 units do very well when it comes to actually attacking a defensive location. So those units (in names, Marines/Marauders/Hellions) fullfill all the "siege-need" on their own, so you actually can attack with them very well.
I'm an MTG dinosaur--I'm still off put by the existence of rebels let alone the new paradigm of white getting efficient tokens, red getting after-effect tokens and green getting mass swarms of tokens. (I also dislike that Black now gets big tokens--that's weird to me, but so is the whole Blue getting efficient 1 drop 3 power flying cardboards of death)
But yeah, I definitely agree that we need to make Zerg less siege-y and most likely map changes are needed for that to work (Barrin's reduced mineral patches comes to mind actually--I love the idea that economy gets better with more bases through base inefficiency)
On January 31 2013 00:59 xsnac wrote: nothing is free . you would better open and talk about cost efficiecy since time=money=uits that takes time to spawn units = resources . same for energy , time = energy , time = money , energy = money
Sorry, thats rubbish, because the Broodlings spawned by the Broodlord are replaced faster than you can kill them and then you still have the "your units that cost resources to replace die while only stuff that costs no money dies for the opponent" problem. Energy isnt the same as money if you have a "potential ratio" of getting the equivalent of EIGHT stimmed Marines for a fully charged Infestor which just occupies TWO supply ... The potential to focus your power on one point in time is just too much for caster units, but the rate of fire of Broodlords is so high that it replaces the free units it generates as they die. With a lot of Infestors the energy regeneration is pretty high, so energy is not a factor.
Now if there was a "permanent cost" - something like losing hit points for every Broodling dropped - it might work, but there isnt anything like it. In BW the Dark Archon lost all its shields every time it cast Mind Control and that was great.
Sorry, that's rubbish, because you can simply do the math. A Broodlord spawns 1 every 2.5seconds+1extra on the first shot. In a 5second combat, there are 4 Broodlings spawned by a broodlord. That's 120HP. That's less than what 3stimmed marines do damagewise in that time - so easily cleaned up fast by any reasonable marine army. (that's why unsupported broodlords aren't very good vs marines unless you can mass them or get a perfect position)
Sorry, but I don't believe there is any reasonable even scenario in which your statement is true.
What maybe discussable is the "frontload amount of Broodlings spawned" in the first seconds. Meaning that a combat is started on 0cooldown and with 2broodlings that spawn before the opponent can combat the broodlords, due to range (longrange vs air excluded). E.g.: 10 Broodlords spawn 20 broodlings at the beginning of a combat, 30 in the first 2.5seconds.
So in conclusion, it's quite the opposite of what you are talking about that maybe a problem. Broodlords do too much early on in a combat, not in the longrun!
You didnt think that one quite through and try the idiot way to prove your point by totally ignoring that those Broodlings are killing the Marines while the Marines only kill "free stuff that gets replaced at almost twice the range of the Marine". So your calculations are totally skewed and personally I hate people who try to fake a statistic into proving their point. In any case you have a "1 Broodlord = 3 stimmed Marines" equation and dont include the damage which those 4 Broodlings do to the Marines in the same time; the Broodlord will still be there at the end of the five seconds, but the Marines will be gone (more or less).
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ... at 9.5 range even. Thats basically almost three dead STIMMED Marines.
On January 31 2013 00:59 xsnac wrote: nothing is free . you would better open and talk about cost efficiecy since time=money=uits that takes time to spawn units = resources . same for energy , time = energy , time = money , energy = money
Sorry, thats rubbish, because the Broodlings spawned by the Broodlord are replaced faster than you can kill them and then you still have the "your units that cost resources to replace die while only stuff that costs no money dies for the opponent" problem. Energy isnt the same as money if you have a "potential ratio" of getting the equivalent of EIGHT stimmed Marines for a fully charged Infestor which just occupies TWO supply ... The potential to focus your power on one point in time is just too much for caster units, but the rate of fire of Broodlords is so high that it replaces the free units it generates as they die. With a lot of Infestors the energy regeneration is pretty high, so energy is not a factor.
Now if there was a "permanent cost" - something like losing hit points for every Broodling dropped - it might work, but there isnt anything like it. In BW the Dark Archon lost all its shields every time it cast Mind Control and that was great.
Sorry, that's rubbish, because you can simply do the math. A Broodlord spawns 1 every 2.5seconds+1extra on the first shot. In a 5second combat, there are 4 Broodlings spawned by a broodlord. That's 120HP. That's less than what 3stimmed marines do damagewise in that time - so easily cleaned up fast by any reasonable marine army. (that's why unsupported broodlords aren't very good vs marines unless you can mass them or get a perfect position)
Sorry, but I don't believe there is any reasonable even scenario in which your statement is true.
What maybe discussable is the "frontload amount of Broodlings spawned" in the first seconds. Meaning that a combat is started on 0cooldown and with 2broodlings that spawn before the opponent can combat the broodlords, due to range (longrange vs air excluded). E.g.: 10 Broodlords spawn 20 broodlings at the beginning of a combat, 30 in the first 2.5seconds.
So in conclusion, it's quite the opposite of what you are talking about that maybe a problem. Broodlords do too much early on in a combat, not in the longrun!
You didnt think that one quite through and try the idiot way to prove your point by totally ignoring that those Broodlings are killing the Marines while the Marines only kill "free stuff that gets replaced at almost twice the range of the Marine". So your calculations are totally skewed and personally I hate people who try to fake a statistic into proving their point. In any case you have a "1 Broodlord = 3 stimmed Marines" equation and dont include the damage which those 4 Broodlings do to the Marines in the same time; the Broodlord will still be there at the end of the five seconds, but the Marines will be gone (more or less).
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ... at 9.5 range even. Thats basically almost three dead STIMMED Marines.
Yeah, about the bold part, is that the Broodlings' melee damage? If so, that scenario will never happen. First off, Marines have so high dps that Broodlings are barely living any seconds, and second, if there are mass Broodlords, they are massing a lot of Broodlings at the start of the fight, when they shoot 2 Broodlings at once, that like half of the Broodlings aren't even attacking, they are being blocked by other Broodlings.
And I found your comment "I hate people with fake statistics that try to prove their point" completely ironic and hypocritical since you are almost always doing the same thing, and reading your comments in other threads I am sometimes wondering do you even play this game? Some comments that are not just wrong, but doesn't make any sense whatsoever, with pure hate and constant bashing on SC2.
On January 31 2013 01:03 Ohyra wrote: I'm so tired of the infested terrans and inject larva. How many games have we not seen where the zerg comes out of a fight just barely winning thanks to that extra 20+supply of IT's and then make a round of roughly 30-90 lings at once and just roll over their opponent? Those games really make me want to kill someone - especially the zerg player for being so damn "skilled" as to produce 100 units in the time i get about 8-10.
Oh man and I hate mules. How many times have we seen a terran lose most of his workers but he throws down mules and can keep production while any other race would be dead?
On January 31 2013 01:03 Ohyra wrote: I'm so tired of the infested terrans and inject larva. How many games have we not seen where the zerg comes out of a fight just barely winning thanks to that extra 20+supply of IT's and then make a round of roughly 30-90 lings at once and just roll over their opponent? Those games really make me want to kill someone - especially the zerg player for being so damn "skilled" as to produce 100 units in the time i get about 8-10.
I guess you've never played zerg. Try to keep up with economy and army production without it.
I don't understand why people go completely nuts about every strength that Zerg has as a race. When my friend read about the things you guys are complaining about (who is a Terran player) said "Why can't Zerg have nice things too?".
Zerg's not exactly in the best place balance-wise in HotS, on top of that if you look at the list of full changes in HotS Zerg got by far the least changes, the least buffs, and the most nerfs, and every change aside from Swarm Host and Abduct was basically something from SC BW.
They give us Burrow a bit earlier (which isn't nearly as strong of an early game upgrade as the other races got in HotS) and people complain endlessly about it. Now people are complaining about "free units" (which is straight up twisting the truth) and complaining about compositions that aren't even that strong anymore. Now people are going even farther and saying Zergs SIEGE is too strong??? When Zerg already has the latest siege in the game???
For a long portion of the game Terran and Protoss are literally unbreakable and Zerg in many cases CANT EVEN LEAVE THEIR BASE until late game. And Zergs siege weapons don't even come until RIGHT BEFORE Hive tech... at which point once they finally get the tech that lets them leave their base they do at the earliest point. How could people be acting like Zerg players "turtle with siege" when they don't even have it, and the other races turtle unbreakably the whole game before that. Besides, "Zerg Siege" does not even defend nearly as well as they attack.
People complain about the "free units" taking hits, when that's what they are SUPPOSED to do. Zerg siege doesnt do instant aoe damage and blow everything up in seconds the way other races siege does, but people ignore this fact. It absorbs some hits so that the super weak Zerg units that do small damage in low numbers but big damage in high numbers can actually do that damage. Other races siege can ALREADY do a significant amount of damage even in low numbers and prevents the enemies from even getting close without getting blown up, and Zerg doesn't have any real defensive that can absorb that kind of damage nor do that kind of ranged damage, like the other races can do. If you take that mechanic your basically gimping Zerg (which, by all indications, seems like the goal of every terran/protoss player on the forums).
Then you have the other people saying "Unlike the other races Broodlord is a flying siege unit and you cant fight it siege vs siege"... Okay this is a HotS forum, what about the Tempest??? As mentioned many times, Broodlord/Infestor isn't even that strong of a composition anymore. Why try to use WoL information to balance HotS?
Meanwhile, you have people who complain about ANY early game buff to Zerg saying it will allow them to get to late game too easy, when if Zerg wasnt so weak a majority of the game their late game wouldn't need to be so strong. No matter what Zerg gets, the other races complain. Even objective players who don't play Zerg can see that people just don't want Zerg to have anything good.
You guys are being crazy and completely ridiculous. Why do players of other races want to strip every mechanic of the few mechanics that Zerg has as a strength? Zerg players are lucky Blizzard doesn't listen to topics like this.
On January 31 2013 08:02 Spyridon wrote: I can't believe this topic is still going...
I don't understand why people go completely nuts about every strength that Zerg has as a race. When my friend read about the things you guys are complaining about (who is a Terran player) said "Why can't Zerg have nice things too?".
Zerg's not exactly in the best place balance-wise in HotS, on top of that if you look at the list of full changes in HotS Zerg got by far the least changes, the least buffs, and the most nerfs, and every change aside from Swarm Host and Abduct was basically something from SC BW.
They give us Burrow a bit earlier (which isn't nearly as strong of an early game upgrade as the other races got in HotS) and people complain endlessly about it. Now people are complaining about "free units" (which is straight up twisting the truth) and complaining about compositions that aren't even that strong anymore. Now people are going even farther and saying Zergs SIEGE is too strong??? When Zerg already has the latest siege in the game???
For a long portion of the game Terran and Protoss are literally unbreakable and Zerg in many cases CANT EVEN LEAVE THEIR BASE until late game. And Zergs siege weapons don't even come until RIGHT BEFORE Hive tech... at which point once they finally get the tech that lets them leave their base they do at the earliest point. How could people be acting like Zerg players "turtle with siege" when they don't even have it, and the other races turtle unbreakably the whole game before that. Besides, "Zerg Siege" does not even defend nearly as well as they attack.
People complain about the "free units" taking hits, when that's what they are SUPPOSED to do. Zerg siege doesnt do instant aoe damage and blow everything up in seconds the way other races siege does, but people ignore this fact. It absorbs some hits so that the super weak Zerg units that do small damage in low numbers but big damage in high numbers can actually do that damage. Other races siege can ALREADY do a significant amount of damage even in low numbers and prevents the enemies from even getting close without getting blown up, and Zerg doesn't have any real defensive that can absorb that kind of damage nor do that kind of ranged damage, like the other races can do. If you take that mechanic your basically gimping Zerg (which, by all indications, seems like the goal of every terran/protoss player on the forums).
Then you have the other people saying "Unlike the other races Broodlord is a flying siege unit and you cant fight it siege vs siege"... Okay this is a HotS forum, what about the Tempest??? As mentioned many times, Broodlord/Infestor isn't even that strong of a composition anymore. Why try to use WoL information to balance HotS?
Meanwhile, you have people who complain about ANY early game buff to Zerg saying it will allow them to get to late game too easy, when if Zerg wasnt so weak a majority of the game their late game wouldn't need to be so strong. No matter what Zerg gets, the other races complain. Even objective players who don't play Zerg can see that people just don't want Zerg to have anything good.
You guys are being crazy and completely ridiculous. Why do players of other races want to strip every mechanic of the few mechanics that Zerg has as a strength? Zerg players are lucky Blizzard doesn't listen to topics like this.
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book
Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book
Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book
Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing
But damn was it fun to watch
It was fun to play to. Unfortunately as he said terran/tosses figured it out and we zergs had to do a more boring play style if we want to win consistently.
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
Whats more swarmy then suddenly getting surrounded by a suprise attack when I.T. or locusts engage the main army and the rest of zs army attacks from every side?
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
Whats more swarmy then suddenly getting surrounded by a suprise attack when I.T. or locusts engage the main army and the rest of zs army attacks from every side?
You misunderstood me--as I said in the prior pages, I actually do think it is technically and visually more swarmy
I wanted it to feel swarmy to the player. Babysitting Broodlords/Swarmhosts does not feel like you're commanding the swarm. It looks like it, but it doesn't feel like it.
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book
Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing
But damn was it fun to watch
Sure it was, but since it was the only choice, it wasnt a sustainable metagame Since new midgame aggression are now possible for Z in hots, it may do a great comeback
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
Because of the fungal. That's the point. Broods were considered mediocre before the infestor buff, because they were expensive (they still are) and you couldnt keep them alive
I didn't notice people who are against zerg siege units--but I did mention that I feel it's out of place. Not power wise, I don't really care about the power of units in WoL or HotS, but design wise. I don't like that Zerg uses siege units to act like a swarm--and yes, this is despite me arguing endlessly that free units aren't actually a problem.
I just wish Zerg played swarmy instead of simply looking swarmy.
That's what zerg did for a long time, it was pretty close to all they were doing actually, it created a very mono-dimensional play that could be easily countered by turtling and slow pushing, Zerg were in the gutters and were slowly exhausting every kind of 2/3base play all-in they still had in the book
Then suddenly, broodlords, broodlord everywhere. There was a need for some kind of siege/cost-effective unit before T3, and they managed to make it somewhat swarmy, I dont think adding more options is a bad thing
But damn was it fun to watch
Sure it was, but since it was the only choice, it wasnt a sustainable metagame Since new midgame aggression are now possible for Z in hots, it may do a great comeback
That swarm tactic is only viable with the existence of multiple fast units being able to both keep up and compliment each other (ling/bling, muta/ling, etc...) The problem is that Zerg only has 1 low cost fast unit that is supply efficient. Hydras are too slow for their health and roaches are too supply heavy for their flexibility. A 1 supply fast moving roach/hydra would be a wonderful option and allow for variations in mobile-based play styles that need a different response than muta/ling/bling.
Right now it's either muta/ling/bling or 3base never move out without having built 100 spines game play. It'd be nice if it was Muta/Ling, _______, Turtle play. Whatever "blank" is--so long as it is mobile and makes use of low cost fast units other than lings.
EDIT:: To be honest, this post is very much off topic of the main discussion of the relevance of "free units" in HotS. I'm sorry about that-lets try to shift back to that. I made clear my disagreement of it a page or so back, reference that for my opinions on the matter.
On January 31 2013 08:02 Spyridon wrote: I can't believe this topic is still going...
I don't understand why people go completely nuts about every strength that Zerg has as a race. When my friend read about the things you guys are complaining about (who is a Terran player) said "Why can't Zerg have nice things too?".
Zerg has all manner of strengths as a race, and I don't think most people here are saying they shouldn't or attacking most of them. But if something Zerg has is legitimately imbalanced, shouldn't that be addressed just as much as if Terran or Protoss had an imbalanced unit or strategy in their arsenal?
Zerg's not exactly in the best place balance-wise in HotS, on top of that if you look at the list of full changes in HotS Zerg got by far the least changes, the least buffs, and the most nerfs, and every change aside from Swarm Host and Abduct was basically something from SC BW.
It's way too early to judge HotS from a balance perspective accurately. Zerg's additions in HotS are late-game, while the other races got earlier additions, so one would anticipate that Terran and Protoss would win a bit more often until Zerg learned to properly hold off aggression and defend until hive. Once they do, I'm certain Zerg's winrate will go up a bit, at least against Terran. Protoss's lategame is quite a bit stronger in HotS, but Terran's changes are much less lategame-oriented. I suppose the raven change will be nice, and if that battlecruiser damage buff is still in the game, that should help occasionally.
They give us Burrow a bit earlier (which isn't nearly as strong of an early game upgrade as the other races got in HotS) and people complain endlessly about it. Now people are complaining about "free units" (which is straight up twisting the truth) and complaining about compositions that aren't even that strong anymore. Now people are going even farther and saying Zergs SIEGE is too strong??? When Zerg already has the latest siege in the game???
I must have missed the thread where people complained endlessly about hatch-tech burrow. I remember the thread where it was announced, and comments were mostly positive. There's always someone complaining about anything you can name, especially in this community, but I don't know the overall consensus was negative. Possibly someone expressed concern about the possibility of burrowing banelings at hatch-tech, since baneling landmines are a very powerful tactic that was previously limited by your opponent needing lair before they could get them.
And the issue isn't that zerg siege is too strong in HotS; the problem is that fungal combines with zerg siege to great effect in WoL. Judging the lategame in HotS is waaay too difficult at this stage, since games reach lategame so rarely and there's been so little time to work out compositions and tactics in a lategame scenario.
For a long portion of the game Terran and Protoss are literally unbreakable and Zerg in many cases CANT EVEN LEAVE THEIR BASE until late game. And Zergs siege weapons don't even come until RIGHT BEFORE Hive tech... at which point once they finally get the tech that lets them leave their base they do at the earliest point. How could people be acting like Zerg players "turtle with siege" when they don't even have it, and the other races turtle unbreakably the whole game before that. Besides, "Zerg Siege" does not even defend nearly as well as they attack.
Zerg leave their base all the time. The only time Zerg wasn't really able to leave their base was TvZ pre-queen range buff, when hellions were used to contain the zerg. That was nearly a year ago. As for T and P being unbreakable, that depends on how well they defend. In WoL, Zergs all-in against T and P all the time, mostly because it works fairly often. A huge number of TvZ's end very early because the Terran went 3CC and didn't turtle up enough, and the Zerg just baneling busts with lings or roaches and kills him.
Nobody complains about Zerg turtling with broodlord/infestor. They complain about Zerg attacking with broodlord/infestor. Once Zerg has broodlord/infestor they want to be defending with static defense, not units. This way they can continue their death push while drops and such try to pull them back, but to no avail.
People complain about the "free units" taking hits, when that's what they are SUPPOSED to do. Zerg siege doesnt do instant aoe damage and blow everything up in seconds the way other races siege does, but people ignore this fact. It absorbs some hits so that the super weak Zerg units that do small damage in low numbers but big damage in high numbers can actually do that damage. Other races siege can ALREADY do a significant amount of damage even in low numbers and prevents the enemies from even getting close without getting blown up, and Zerg doesn't have any real defensive that can absorb that kind of damage nor do that kind of ranged damage, like the other races can do. If you take that mechanic your basically gimping Zerg (which, by all indications, seems like the goal of every terran/protoss player on the forums).
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
Then you have the other people saying "Unlike the other races Broodlord is a flying siege unit and you cant fight it siege vs siege"... Okay this is a HotS forum, what about the Tempest??? As mentioned many times, Broodlord/Infestor isn't even that strong of a composition anymore. Why try to use WoL information to balance HotS?
Since that's a direct reference to my post, I assume I'm the one you're responding to. What about the Tempest? I said that siege units are long range, meaning to fight them you have to either approach before you attack, or find a unit equally long-range. In WoL there's nothing with sufficient range to attack the Broodlords, since the other siege units attack ground, so you have to approach. This only becomes a problem because Fungal Growth is specifically designed to prevent the opponent from approaching. The effect is that a) you need to approach the army to fight it, and b) you can't approach it, therefore c) you can't fight it.
The Tempest is also a flying siege unit, but the dynamic is completely different. Yes you have to approach it to fight it, since nothing has the same range as the Tempest, but Protoss also doesn't have fungal growth with which to prevent your approach. Forcefields are obviously good for that, but you'd usually be approaching the Tempest from the air anyway, which you can do. So Protoss can use the Tempest to force you to engage on their terms, which is how siege units are supposed to be used; they cannot attack you while preventing you from engaging at all, which is a capability specific to the BL/infestor composition.
We use WoL information to balance HotS all the time, because we have a lot more data on WoL than HotS and the two are fairly similar. I hear zergs are having a big problem with the tempest/high templar army PvZ; since I play neither P nor Z I haven't experienced many such games, and can't comment on whether there may be an issue there. I'm certain Blizzard wants to let players try to find an answer to the composition before they just throw nerfs at it, which is a valid philosophy. In TvZ, however, BL/infestor is still a very strong composition for all the same reasons as in WoL.
Meanwhile, you have people who complain about ANY early game buff to Zerg saying it will allow them to get to late game too easy, when if Zerg wasnt so weak a majority of the game their late game wouldn't need to be so strong. No matter what Zerg gets, the other races complain. Even objective players who don't play Zerg can see that people just don't want Zerg to have anything good.
Who are these objective players you're referring to? You already confessed that at least 2/3 of the forum is biased against you. Are Zergs that don't see an issue with BL/infestor the only objective ones? What about the Zergs who still think there's a balance issue there, even though they don't appear to have anything to gain from nerfing it?
You guys are being crazy and completely ridiculous. Why do players of other races want to strip every mechanic of the few mechanics that Zerg has as a strength? Zerg players are lucky Blizzard doesn't listen to topics like this.
No really though, this makes you sound really, really paranoid. I think most everyone here who complains about imbalance or bad design does so because they actually think there's a balance or design issue to be fixed that could improve the game. And you don't really have any good reason to believe differently, you're just dismissing everyone's opinions by asserting that they secretly want Zerg to cease to be a viable race so their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
This thread was supposed to point out the design flaw of free units for the swarming race.
Taking a look at BW zerg, you couldn't surround the terran or toss while he was in his base. You could also expand a lot while he was in his base. It was easy to surround the terran or toss when he moved out. Your cost ineffective units became very cost effective when all of them, being melee, could attack him all at once. So you expanded more, thanks to the map control he relinquished so he could survive the early/mid game. This forced your opponent to either move out or lose to your expo advantage. When it came time to attack him if he wasn't moving out, you were supposed to throw units at him, but you could because you were actually mining on 5ish mineral lines at once while he was maximum 3. The economics in BW played a role in how many bases each race needed, zerg included, and map control was given to the race that needed more bases.
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings). This is a design flaw, cost effectiveness is mech's territory and mech, btw, is not about being slow or immobile, its about being cost effective, at the cost of having to always be prepared. Terran design was supposed to be about holding ground and being the most cost effective out of the races. A toss was even far more wasteful than a terran. A zerg only received effective units to attack a fortified position late late in the game, and these units weren't mindless 1A units, bad players were bad with them.
And before you claim there must have been an imbalance, there was. For the race that was supposed to be more wasteful. For the race that was supposed to expand because they were simply were given mechanics that favoured this. In ZvP, zerg tended to win more. In ZvT, zerg tended to win more. In PvT, toss tended to win more.
This imbalance in the statistics is linked solely to which race was expected to take more bases. And everyone was happy with this imbalance.
EDIT: trust me, id love to have zerg compensated for being less cost effective....
On January 31 2013 09:36 ChristianS wrote: Zerg has all manner of strengths as a race, and I don't think most people here are saying they shouldn't or attacking most of them. But if something Zerg has is legitimately imbalanced, shouldn't that be addressed just as much as if Terran or Protoss had an imbalanced unit or strategy in their arsenal?
It's way too early to judge HotS from a balance perspective accurately. Zerg's additions in HotS are late-game, while the other races got earlier additions, so one would anticipate that Terran and Protoss would win a bit more often until Zerg learned to properly hold off aggression and defend until hive. Once they do, I'm certain Zerg's winrate will go up a bit, at least against Terran. Protoss's lategame is quite a bit stronger in HotS, but Terran's changes are much less lategame-oriented. I suppose the raven change will be nice, and if that battlecruiser damage buff is still in the game, that should help occasionally.
Seems your 2nd paragraph contradicts the first? You say if somethings legitimately imbalanced it should be addressed, then say its way too early to judge from a balance perspective...
All there is to go by atm is watching the trends of how Terran and Protoss have changed, and if that's any indication Terran and Protoss are even at higher ranks, with Zerg still far behind.
I'm sure peoples counter argument for this is going to be that the balance is going to change, but lets face it, the current results hold a lot more weight than guesses of what is actually going to happen in the future.
I must have missed the thread where people complained endlessly about hatch-tech burrow. I remember the thread where it was announced, and comments were mostly positive. There's always someone complaining about anything you can name, especially in this community, but I don't know the overall consensus was negative. Possibly someone expressed concern about the possibility of burrowing banelings at hatch-tech, since baneling landmines are a very powerful tactic that was previously limited by your opponent needing lair before they could get them.
Look at pretty much every Zerg thread on the HotS forum. You will find endless amounts of people who say "just get burrow instead of ling speed" who don't even understand the basics of Zerg build orders, or the fact that researching burrow delays either your queens or lair, harming or preventing macro focused builds and leaving some glaring weaknesses to be exploited.
And the issue isn't that zerg siege is too strong in HotS; the problem is that fungal combines with zerg siege to great effect in WoL. Judging the lategame in HotS is waaay too difficult at this stage, since games reach lategame so rarely and there's been so little time to work out compositions and tactics in a lategame scenario.
So why are people (even in this thread) STILL arguing about the WoL metagame on a HotS forum? As I said, shows how ridiculous people are being...
Zerg leave their base all the time. The only time Zerg wasn't really able to leave their base was TvZ pre-queen range buff, when hellions were used to contain the zerg. That was nearly a year ago. As for T and P being unbreakable, that depends on how well they defend. In WoL, Zergs all-in against T and P all the time, mostly because it works fairly often. A huge number of TvZ's end very early because the Terran went 3CC and didn't turtle up enough, and the Zerg just baneling busts with lings or roaches and kills him.
Nobody complains about Zerg turtling with broodlord/infestor. They complain about Zerg attacking with broodlord/infestor. Once Zerg has broodlord/infestor they want to be defending with static defense, not units. This way they can continue their death push while drops and such try to pull them back, but to no avail.
Why do you keep talking about WoL balance when this is supposed to be about HotS?
In response to saying Zerg leave their base all the time, again check out the Zerg threads on the HotS forum. I've even stated to others many times that there are situations you can leave (particuarly in ZvT), but that doesn't change the fact that there still exists builds where Zerg can't safely leave base until lategame tech (heavy tank pushes for example).
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
How could you decide what the best part of getting broodlords are supposed to be? They were the upgrade from Guardians to Broodlords in WoL, and one of the things that made up for Zergs lategame being significantly weaker than it was in BW.
Without completely rebalancing Zerg as a whole, removing broodling and locusts would gimp the whole concept of Zerg siege. Even moreso than BW, Zerg is balanced to be weaker unit per unit in small numbers, but powerful in heavier numbers. This is the only reason the current iteration of Zerg siege works.
But mostly what I was saying, was it's silly that people complain about EVERY single unique strength of the Zerg race. Apparently if something works different from the other races, it's OP.
Since that's a direct reference to my post, I assume I'm the one you're responding to. What about the Tempest? I said that siege units are long range, meaning to fight them you have to either approach before you attack, or find a unit equally long-range. In WoL there's nothing with sufficient range to attack the Broodlords, since the other siege units attack ground, so you have to approach. This only becomes a problem because Fungal Growth is specifically designed to prevent the opponent from approaching. The effect is that a) you need to approach the army to fight it, and b) you can't approach it, therefore c) you can't fight it.
Once again, why are you arguing about WoL balance in a HotS forum, where you even said yourself its too early to judge HotS balance?
We use WoL information to balance HotS all the time, because we have a lot more data on WoL than HotS and the two are fairly similar. I hear zergs are having a big problem with the tempest/high templar army PvZ; since I play neither P nor Z I haven't experienced many such games, and can't comment on whether there may be an issue there. I'm certain Blizzard wants to let players try to find an answer to the composition before they just throw nerfs at it, which is a valid philosophy. In TvZ, however, BL/infestor is still a very strong composition for all the same reasons as in WoL.
But you said yourself, its way too early to judge HotS, so why would you try to from a prior iteration? Hell, even judging from past patches doesn't make sense. 2 balance patches ago the leaderboards were all Protoss, look at what just a couple small changes did.
BL/Infestor is still strong, but nowhere near as strong as it was in WoL, and Terran has not only more and stronger ways to harass to prevent it from getting to that point, but also some new timings that could be exploited.
Who are these objective players you're referring to? You already confessed that at least 2/3 of the forum is biased against you. Are Zergs that don't see an issue with BL/infestor the only objective ones? What about the Zergs who still think there's a balance issue there, even though they don't appear to have anything to gain from nerfing it?
You could call anyone who isnt crying about anything being gamebreakingly OP an objective player, which there are few around these days.
BL/Infestor was an issue in WoL I agree, but this isn't even the same iteration of the game, people need to let that go.
How bout I bring up how OP Terran was at release of WoL (in comparison to the end of WoL) and use that for an argument of balance? How would you feel about that? That's basically what people are doing now with Zerg. It makes no sense to argue balance out of old + outdated information.
No really though, this makes you sound really, really paranoid. I think most everyone here who complains about imbalance or bad design does so because they actually think there's a balance or design issue to be fixed that could improve the game. And you don't really have any good reason to believe differently, you're just dismissing everyone's opinions by asserting that they secretly want Zerg to cease to be a viable race so their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
Not paranoid, just kind of annoyed. You don't see topics popping up for every single buff that Terran and Protoss get, saying free siege and free hallucation are game-breakingly OP and not fun to deal with, yet the few buffs that Zerg got have people complaining that the race is broken, when the results show nothing of the sort.
You say I'm dismissing peoples opinion, I wouldn't mind an argument if you had some sort of information or results to back it up. But instead of that, people are using "opinion" as "fact", when in reality they have no facts to back up their claims. I'm not dismissing their opinions, reality is. If Zerg starts dominating, and these issues people are complaining about actually do become a problem, then I'll have no problem accepting opinions that these issues are a problem. But that's not the reality of the situation.
At least WoL BL/infestor was backed up by results. Now people are complaining about "burrowed banelings" and "free units" with absolutely no results to back that up. Where are all these dominant Zerg players, with their burrowed baneling bombs and unstoppable ultralisks and limitless amount of free units that are "impossible to deal with"?
Zerg isn't in this all-powerful state that people are acting like they are, and definitely not in a state that nerfs should be happening to the few strong aspects of the race that are keeping Zerg working in HotS.
On January 31 2013 09:36 ChristianS wrote: Zerg has all manner of strengths as a race, and I don't think most people here are saying they shouldn't or attacking most of them. But if something Zerg has is legitimately imbalanced, shouldn't that be addressed just as much as if Terran or Protoss had an imbalanced unit or strategy in their arsenal?
It's way too early to judge HotS from a balance perspective accurately. Zerg's additions in HotS are late-game, while the other races got earlier additions, so one would anticipate that Terran and Protoss would win a bit more often until Zerg learned to properly hold off aggression and defend until hive. Once they do, I'm certain Zerg's winrate will go up a bit, at least against Terran. Protoss's lategame is quite a bit stronger in HotS, but Terran's changes are much less lategame-oriented. I suppose the raven change will be nice, and if that battlecruiser damage buff is still in the game, that should help occasionally.
Seems your 2nd paragraph contradicts the first? You say if somethings legitimately imbalanced it should be addressed, then say its way too early to judge from a balance perspective...
All there is to go by atm is watching the trends of how Terran and Protoss have changed, and if that's any indication Terran and Protoss are even at higher ranks, with Zerg still far behind.
I'm sure peoples counter argument for this is going to be that the balance is going to change, but lets face it, the current results hold a lot more weight than guesses of what is actually going to happen in the future.
I must have missed the thread where people complained endlessly about hatch-tech burrow. I remember the thread where it was announced, and comments were mostly positive. There's always someone complaining about anything you can name, especially in this community, but I don't know the overall consensus was negative. Possibly someone expressed concern about the possibility of burrowing banelings at hatch-tech, since baneling landmines are a very powerful tactic that was previously limited by your opponent needing lair before they could get them.
Look at pretty much every Zerg thread on the HotS forum. You will find endless amounts of people who say "just get burrow instead of ling speed" who don't even understand the basics of Zerg build orders, or the fact that researching burrow delays either your queens or lair, harming or preventing macro focused builds and leaving some glaring weaknesses to be exploited.
And the issue isn't that zerg siege is too strong in HotS; the problem is that fungal combines with zerg siege to great effect in WoL. Judging the lategame in HotS is waaay too difficult at this stage, since games reach lategame so rarely and there's been so little time to work out compositions and tactics in a lategame scenario.
So why are people (even in this thread) STILL arguing about the WoL metagame on a HotS forum? As I said, shows how ridiculous people are being...
Zerg leave their base all the time. The only time Zerg wasn't really able to leave their base was TvZ pre-queen range buff, when hellions were used to contain the zerg. That was nearly a year ago. As for T and P being unbreakable, that depends on how well they defend. In WoL, Zergs all-in against T and P all the time, mostly because it works fairly often. A huge number of TvZ's end very early because the Terran went 3CC and didn't turtle up enough, and the Zerg just baneling busts with lings or roaches and kills him.
Nobody complains about Zerg turtling with broodlord/infestor. They complain about Zerg attacking with broodlord/infestor. Once Zerg has broodlord/infestor they want to be defending with static defense, not units. This way they can continue their death push while drops and such try to pull them back, but to no avail.
Why do you keep talking about WoL balance when this is supposed to be about HotS?
In response to saying Zerg leave their base all the time, again check out the Zerg threads on the HotS forum. I've even stated to others many times that there are situations you can leave (particuarly in ZvT), but that doesn't change the fact that there still exists builds where Zerg can't safely leave base until lategame tech (heavy tank pushes for example).
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
How could you decide what the best part of getting broodlords are supposed to be? They were the upgrade from Guardians to Broodlords in WoL, and one of the things that made up for Zergs lategame being significantly weaker than it was in BW.
Without completely rebalancing Zerg as a whole, removing broodling and locusts would gimp the whole concept of Zerg siege. Even moreso than BW, Zerg is balanced to be weaker unit per unit in small numbers, but powerful in heavier numbers. This is the only reason the current iteration of Zerg siege works.
But mostly what I was saying, was it's silly that people complain about EVERY single unique strength of the Zerg race. Apparently if something works different from the other races, it's OP.
Since that's a direct reference to my post, I assume I'm the one you're responding to. What about the Tempest? I said that siege units are long range, meaning to fight them you have to either approach before you attack, or find a unit equally long-range. In WoL there's nothing with sufficient range to attack the Broodlords, since the other siege units attack ground, so you have to approach. This only becomes a problem because Fungal Growth is specifically designed to prevent the opponent from approaching. The effect is that a) you need to approach the army to fight it, and b) you can't approach it, therefore c) you can't fight it.
Once again, why are you arguing about WoL balance in a HotS forum, where you even said yourself its too early to judge HotS balance?
We use WoL information to balance HotS all the time, because we have a lot more data on WoL than HotS and the two are fairly similar. I hear zergs are having a big problem with the tempest/high templar army PvZ; since I play neither P nor Z I haven't experienced many such games, and can't comment on whether there may be an issue there. I'm certain Blizzard wants to let players try to find an answer to the composition before they just throw nerfs at it, which is a valid philosophy. In TvZ, however, BL/infestor is still a very strong composition for all the same reasons as in WoL.
But you said yourself, its way too early to judge HotS, so why would you try to from a prior iteration? Hell, even judging from past patches doesn't make sense. 2 balance patches ago the leaderboards were all Protoss, look at what just a couple small changes did.
BL/Infestor is still strong, but nowhere near as strong as it was in WoL, and Terran has not only more and stronger ways to harass to prevent it from getting to that point, but also some new timings that could be exploited.
Who are these objective players you're referring to? You already confessed that at least 2/3 of the forum is biased against you. Are Zergs that don't see an issue with BL/infestor the only objective ones? What about the Zergs who still think there's a balance issue there, even though they don't appear to have anything to gain from nerfing it?
You could call anyone who isnt crying about anything being gamebreakingly OP an objective player, which there are few around these days.
BL/Infestor was an issue in WoL I agree, but this isn't even the same iteration of the game, people need to let that go.
How bout I bring up how OP Terran was at release of WoL (in comparison to the end of WoL) and use that for an argument of balance? How would you feel about that? That's basically what people are doing now with Zerg. It makes no sense to argue balance out of old + outdated information.
No really though, this makes you sound really, really paranoid. I think most everyone here who complains about imbalance or bad design does so because they actually think there's a balance or design issue to be fixed that could improve the game. And you don't really have any good reason to believe differently, you're just dismissing everyone's opinions by asserting that they secretly want Zerg to cease to be a viable race so their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
Not paranoid, just kind of annoyed. You don't see topics popping up for every single buff that Terran and Protoss get, saying free siege and free hallucation are game-breakingly OP and not fun to deal with, yet the few buffs that Zerg got have people complaining that the race is broken, when the results show nothing of the sort.
You say I'm dismissing peoples opinion, I wouldn't mind an argument if you had some sort of information or results to back it up. But instead of that, people are using "opinion" as "fact", when in reality they have no facts to back up their claims. I'm not dismissing their opinions, reality is. If Zerg starts dominating, and these issues people are complaining about actually do become a problem, then I'll have no problem accepting opinions that these issues are a problem. But that's not the reality of the situation.
At least WoL BL/infestor was backed up by results. Now people are complaining about "burrowed banelings" and "free units" with absolutely no results to back that up. Where are all these dominant Zerg players, with their burrowed baneling bombs and unstoppable ultralisks and limitless amount of free units that are "impossible to deal with"?
Zerg isn't in this all-powerful state that people are acting like they are, and definitely not in a state that nerfs should be happening to the few strong aspects of the race that are keeping Zerg working in HotS.
I think you're in the wrong thread. In fact, I don't know which thread suits you, the website feedback forum might have a thread, or you can make one, in which you complain about how the mods are allowing all this balance whining.
Recall the OP, no-one talks about burrowed banelings. In fact, it's the free units swarm (ie. Its, broodlings and locusts) that are considered unzergy from the perspective that a zerg no longer needs/takes more bases than the other races, instead, they have a very cost-effective army because their UPUs allow them to cost the opponent for no cost of their own.
The main problem people have with this design choice is that it's not fun to play. The swarmy zerg where one builds more bases and more situational cheap units and tries to set up flanks for good engagements is more enjoyable than having the zerg sit somewhere with a bunch of UPUs (one of which can stop any unit from coming close) and the opponent slowly feeding real units into them.
As the main focus of this isn't a balance decision (what would a bunch of forum posters know anyway), it doesn't matter if the zerg strategies are balanced or not. That's something that will ironed out with patches as time goes by. Instead, what matters is that the game is fun to play. And the UPU-based gameplay doesn't feel fun and swarmy to many zerg and other races alike.
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
This thread was supposed to point out the design flaw of free units for the swarming race.
Taking a look at BW zerg, you couldn't surround the terran or toss while he was in his base. You could also expand a lot while he was in his base. It was easy to surround the terran or toss when he moved out. Your cost ineffective units became very cost effective when all of them, being melee, could attack him all at once. So you expanded more, thanks to the map control he relinquished so he could survive the early/mid game. This forced your opponent to either move out or lose to your expo advantage. When it came time to attack him if he wasn't moving out, you were supposed to throw units at him, but you could because you were actually mining on 5ish mineral lines at once while he was maximum 3. The economics in BW played a role in how many bases each race needed, zerg included, and map control was given to the race that needed more bases.
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings). This is a design flaw, cost effectiveness is mech's territory and mech, btw, is not about being slow or immobile, its about being cost effective, at the cost of having to always be prepared. Terran design was supposed to be about holding ground and being the most cost effective out of the races. A toss was even far more wasteful than a terran. A zerg only received effective units to attack a fortified position late late in the game, and these units weren't mindless 1A units, bad players were bad with them.
And before you claim there must have been an imbalance, there was. For the race that was supposed to be more wasteful. For the race that was supposed to expand because they were simply were given mechanics that favoured this. In ZvP, zerg tended to win more. In ZvT, zerg tended to win more. In PvT, toss tended to win more.
This imbalance in the statistics is linked solely to which race was expected to take more bases. And everyone was happy with this imbalance.
EDIT: trust me, id love to have zerg compensated for being less cost effective....
Taking a look at BW zerg, pretty much every unit was cost effective, Zergling were insanely strong and so were hydralisk and defilers, the larva mechanic was more limiting the number of unit than increasing it
Why shouldnt zerg be cost-effective ? Did you missed the part where it was the case for most of WoL and their winrates plummeted because of how predictable and easy to counter it was ? "Cost-effectiveness should be the territory of Mech", but yet Terran can still play Zerg style by going full bio ? This isnt broodwar, there should be more than 1 comp available to every race, and it is.
Winrates were changing every year and if Z was statistically favored in ZvP it wasnt the case at all for ZvT : http://i.imgur.com/gmXwO.png
On January 31 2013 00:59 xsnac wrote: nothing is free . you would better open and talk about cost efficiecy since time=money=uits that takes time to spawn units = resources . same for energy , time = energy , time = money , energy = money
Sorry, thats rubbish, because the Broodlings spawned by the Broodlord are replaced faster than you can kill them and then you still have the "your units that cost resources to replace die while only stuff that costs no money dies for the opponent" problem. Energy isnt the same as money if you have a "potential ratio" of getting the equivalent of EIGHT stimmed Marines for a fully charged Infestor which just occupies TWO supply ... The potential to focus your power on one point in time is just too much for caster units, but the rate of fire of Broodlords is so high that it replaces the free units it generates as they die. With a lot of Infestors the energy regeneration is pretty high, so energy is not a factor.
Now if there was a "permanent cost" - something like losing hit points for every Broodling dropped - it might work, but there isnt anything like it. In BW the Dark Archon lost all its shields every time it cast Mind Control and that was great.
Sorry, that's rubbish, because you can simply do the math. A Broodlord spawns 1 every 2.5seconds+1extra on the first shot. In a 5second combat, there are 4 Broodlings spawned by a broodlord. That's 120HP. That's less than what 3stimmed marines do damagewise in that time - so easily cleaned up fast by any reasonable marine army. (that's why unsupported broodlords aren't very good vs marines unless you can mass them or get a perfect position)
Sorry, but I don't believe there is any reasonable even scenario in which your statement is true.
What maybe discussable is the "frontload amount of Broodlings spawned" in the first seconds. Meaning that a combat is started on 0cooldown and with 2broodlings that spawn before the opponent can combat the broodlords, due to range (longrange vs air excluded). E.g.: 10 Broodlords spawn 20 broodlings at the beginning of a combat, 30 in the first 2.5seconds.
So in conclusion, it's quite the opposite of what you are talking about that maybe a problem. Broodlords do too much early on in a combat, not in the longrun!
You didnt think that one quite through and try the idiot way to prove your point by totally ignoring that those Broodlings are killing the Marines while the Marines only kill "free stuff that gets replaced at almost twice the range of the Marine". So your calculations are totally skewed and personally I hate people who try to fake a statistic into proving their point. In any case you have a "1 Broodlord = 3 stimmed Marines" equation and dont include the damage which those 4 Broodlings do to the Marines in the same time; the Broodlord will still be there at the end of the five seconds, but the Marines will be gone (more or less).
If your "calculation" was correct, why arent we seeing Marines advancing on Broodlords and killing them then anyways?
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ... at 9.5 range even. Thats basically almost three dead STIMMED Marines.
Wohoo 1 strawman per sentence, a new record!!! If you think I was implying that 3marines=1broodlord then you should read again. I said 3marines are easily enough to clean up the broodlings spawned. Nowhere did I say that they wouldn't take damage (mostly from the Broodlord, not from the Broodlings), wouldn't die or would win the combat. That's just strawman bullshit you made up. The crux is that with a reasonable compostion and army concentration in the combat, you can clean up the Broodlings very fast and advance only slightly slowed towards the Broodlords. Whst is really hindering you, is the army under the broodlords and the infestors. Not the broodlings. They are a nonissue, unless you want to take on 10Broodlords with 10marines...
You know, what you are discussing above is whether marines counter broodlords. What I was replying to, was that Broodlords produce Broodlings faster than they can possibly get killed (something you stated). Yes they can. You can do the math or watch any reasonable Broodlord vs reasonable composition combat. + Show Spoiler +
And yeah, Marines are quite good vs unsupported Broodlords, unless we are talking about 20Broodlords+ or something like that. The reason why we don't see that "running up to the Broodlords and killing them" very often, or however you put it, is that Broodlords usually get supported by a ton of other stuff (stuff that is in its way much more durable than Broodlings) that kills Marines on the way there, blocks their way there or most famously roots them on their way there.
Even though it has nothing to do with the discussion above, I just had to comment on this:
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ...
From Wikipedia, Swarm Seeds, the ability of the Broodlord: Spawns Broodlings upon each of the Brood Lord's attacks. Somewhere I must be missing the fact that BROODLINGS do impact damage...
So there are two different units that deal damage to your units during the combat. The Broodlord and the Broodling. The whole discussion is about the Broodling, so I really have no clue why you would add the initial impact damage of the Broodlord to that discussion... It is completely independend of the Broodling. If you don't believe me, check Liquipedia WoL Beta Balance Patch 7, that changed the Broodlords damage but didn't have any effect on Broodlings.
Furthermore, I really have no clue what (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 should be... A Broodling has 6.2dps, but I don't get the rest. Your example featured 4 Broodlings and every Broodling lives up to 8seconds. So if you want to calculate the total possible damage by 4 Broodlord attacks+4Broodlings over their lifespawn (which it seems like you were aiming for), the approximation is 6.2*8*4+20*4 = 198.4=278.4. If you want to calculate the total damage done upon impact of the Broodlords projectile and the Broodlings first attack, it's 4*20+4*4=96 (as a Broodling has 6.2dps, but only 4damage per hit)
Zerg free unit from a desing point of view are ok. Lets put an example: a bunker full of marines. Lets suppose that Z needs a siege unit, what unit would be? a siege tank with acid and legs? a bigger roach? that would be boring. What you imagine when see videos about the Z is a swarm of "aliens" attacking the bunker. Now, if you make basic Z units more cost-efective it will broke all the balance right now because they will be cost-effective not only on siege situations, also in every situation. The easiest way to deal with it is free units that acts like proyectiles we should see broodlings or swarm host like "missiles" that can be destroyed. The problem is when those free units are enough powerful to replace basic Z units, like infested marines, but thats more a problem of balance than desing from my point of view.
On January 31 2013 09:36 ChristianS wrote: Zerg has all manner of strengths as a race, and I don't think most people here are saying they shouldn't or attacking most of them. But if something Zerg has is legitimately imbalanced, shouldn't that be addressed just as much as if Terran or Protoss had an imbalanced unit or strategy in their arsenal?
It's way too early to judge HotS from a balance perspective accurately. Zerg's additions in HotS are late-game, while the other races got earlier additions, so one would anticipate that Terran and Protoss would win a bit more often until Zerg learned to properly hold off aggression and defend until hive. Once they do, I'm certain Zerg's winrate will go up a bit, at least against Terran. Protoss's lategame is quite a bit stronger in HotS, but Terran's changes are much less lategame-oriented. I suppose the raven change will be nice, and if that battlecruiser damage buff is still in the game, that should help occasionally.
Seems your 2nd paragraph contradicts the first? You say if somethings legitimately imbalanced it should be addressed, then say its way too early to judge from a balance perspective...
All there is to go by atm is watching the trends of how Terran and Protoss have changed, and if that's any indication Terran and Protoss are even at higher ranks, with Zerg still far behind.
I'm sure peoples counter argument for this is going to be that the balance is going to change, but lets face it, the current results hold a lot more weight than guesses of what is actually going to happen in the future.
There's no contradiction between saying "there could be imbalances" and "I think it's too soon to say Zerg as a race is underpowered in HotS." I haven't even seen any statistics on winrates in HotS; even if there were any, they would largely be meaningless, because the game changes pretty much every week. Blizzard is largely making changes based on what they think makes for better gameplay at the moment, because there really isn't a good way to measure global balance at this point.
I must have missed the thread where people complained endlessly about hatch-tech burrow. I remember the thread where it was announced, and comments were mostly positive. There's always someone complaining about anything you can name, especially in this community, but I don't know the overall consensus was negative. Possibly someone expressed concern about the possibility of burrowing banelings at hatch-tech, since baneling landmines are a very powerful tactic that was previously limited by your opponent needing lair before they could get them.
Look at pretty much every Zerg thread on the HotS forum. You will find endless amounts of people who say "just get burrow instead of ling speed" who don't even understand the basics of Zerg build orders, or the fact that researching burrow delays either your queens or lair, harming or preventing macro focused builds and leaving some glaring weaknesses to be exploited.
People whine; this is the internet. But some subjects generate a huge uproar (evidence of maphacking, Orb saying the n word, etc.) while other subjects only get whiners here and there. In any change like moving burrow to hatch tech, there will be some people in favor and some people opposed; why are you so offended that the people who are opposed are vocal about it?
And the issue isn't that zerg siege is too strong in HotS; the problem is that fungal combines with zerg siege to great effect in WoL. Judging the lategame in HotS is waaay too difficult at this stage, since games reach lategame so rarely and there's been so little time to work out compositions and tactics in a lategame scenario.
So why are people (even in this thread) STILL arguing about the WoL metagame on a HotS forum? As I said, shows how ridiculous people are being...
Because we have to consider the lategame design during beta, and there's very little evidence so far as to what lategame HotS actually looks like, so we have to guess based on the more well-explored WoL lategame and what we know about the new units. For example, someone might have the concern that viper/broodlord would be a difficult composition to deal with because the vipers can blinding cloud anything that gets in range of the broodlords, thus preventing them or the vipers from ever being hit. That's a potentially legitimate concern, but we wouldn't have seen it much yet because lategame HotS games are rare. So we compare it to the existing WoL metagame and try to decide just how troublesome this new composition really would be.
Zerg leave their base all the time. The only time Zerg wasn't really able to leave their base was TvZ pre-queen range buff, when hellions were used to contain the zerg. That was nearly a year ago. As for T and P being unbreakable, that depends on how well they defend. In WoL, Zergs all-in against T and P all the time, mostly because it works fairly often. A huge number of TvZ's end very early because the Terran went 3CC and didn't turtle up enough, and the Zerg just baneling busts with lings or roaches and kills him.
Nobody complains about Zerg turtling with broodlord/infestor. They complain about Zerg attacking with broodlord/infestor. Once Zerg has broodlord/infestor they want to be defending with static defense, not units. This way they can continue their death push while drops and such try to pull them back, but to no avail.
Why do you keep talking about WoL balance when this is supposed to be about HotS?
In response to saying Zerg leave their base all the time, again check out the Zerg threads on the HotS forum. I've even stated to others many times that there are situations you can leave (particuarly in ZvT), but that doesn't change the fact that there still exists builds where Zerg can't safely leave base until lategame tech (heavy tank pushes for example).
While I'm unaware of any tank pushes that make it unsafe for zerg to ever leave their base from game start to hive tech, I'll take your word for it. Even if there are effective contain strategies against zerg, so what? If one player dedicates resources to containing the other, and then the other player is temporarily contained, that sounds like how the game is supposed to work to me. If you dedicate the resources to breaking out (say, building mutalisks), then you are no longer contained.
What strikes me as odd about this is that Zerg has BY FAR the easiest time maintaining map presence of any of the races. Protoss probably has the hardest time, unless you count observers (and that's not really map presence). In general map control usually goes to the player with the faster units, which is nearly always the zerg player. So you complaining about Zerg's many woes of being unable to move out on the map is, well... I don't know how else to describe it, other than patently untrue.
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
How could you decide what the best part of getting broodlords are supposed to be? They were the upgrade from Guardians to Broodlords in WoL, and one of the things that made up for Zergs lategame being significantly weaker than it was in BW.
Without completely rebalancing Zerg as a whole, removing broodling and locusts would gimp the whole concept of Zerg siege. Even moreso than BW, Zerg is balanced to be weaker unit per unit in small numbers, but powerful in heavier numbers. This is the only reason the current iteration of Zerg siege works.
But mostly what I was saying, was it's silly that people complain about EVERY single unique strength of the Zerg race. Apparently if something works different from the other races, it's OP.
I didn't decide it. I observed it, based on playing and watching Starcraft. Broodlings have nice little advantages like forcing tanks to unsiege, but when it comes down to it, they're not that powerful and they have fairly little to do with why BL/infestor is so strong. I know broodlings aren't that important compared to fungal combined with siege range, because if the problem were the broodlings, it wouldn't be very difficult to deal with. If you've ever fought a BL/infestor army with 4-8 hellions in your own army, you know that the broodlings are virtually a non-issue. It's really easy to kill off the broodlings; but when you do, there's still a broodlord infestor army driving toward your base that you haven't done anything about, because the broodlings aren't that important.
In general Zerg is designed to be weak in small numbers but strong in overwhelming numbers, but broodlord infestor does not follow this rule. The infestor is one of the most cost-efficient units in the game, and if you manage broodlord infestor right, you can easily do it without losing a single broodlord, or at least force your opponent to trade 50+ supply to kill one or two broodlords that you immediately replace. That's not winning through strength by numbers; that's winning through having a more cost-efficient army than your opponent.
Again, it's the internet, there's always somebody complaining about everything. But most people aren't really complaining about most of the strengths of the Zerg race. Zerg has larvae-based production, which makes them vastly different from the other races. This has disadvantages like making it more difficult to produce army and economy simultaneously, but it can also be a huge advantage, like when you scout that your opponent has a giant carrier army that will be in your base inside of a minute, and you still easily have time to pump out enough corruptors to defend yourself. I'm not complaining; I'm stating generally accepted facts. People will bring up these strengths when they address issues with lategame zerg, like when they say "The problem isn't just broodlord/infestor, it's that because of Zerg's production mechanics you can never take air superiority to kill off the broodlord/infestor, since Zerg can easily produce 50+ corruptors on a whim if the situation calls for it." They're not complaining about the strength of the Zerg race per se, they're complaining about broodlord/infestor, and noting that this particular strength of the Zerg race exacerbates the problem.
Since that's a direct reference to my post, I assume I'm the one you're responding to. What about the Tempest? I said that siege units are long range, meaning to fight them you have to either approach before you attack, or find a unit equally long-range. In WoL there's nothing with sufficient range to attack the Broodlords, since the other siege units attack ground, so you have to approach. This only becomes a problem because Fungal Growth is specifically designed to prevent the opponent from approaching. The effect is that a) you need to approach the army to fight it, and b) you can't approach it, therefore c) you can't fight it.
Once again, why are you arguing about WoL balance in a HotS forum, where you even said yourself its too early to judge HotS balance?
What's Wings of Liberty about this? People were talking about the problems with broodlord/infestor, and saying the Swarm Host exacerbates them. I was disagreeing, and said the real problem was that the broodlord is an air siege unit that you need to approach in order to fight, and you can't approach because of fungal growth. Then you said what about the Tempest, since that's an air siege unit too; and I said that's true, but Protoss doesn't have fungal growth to stop the enemy from ever approaching their Tempests.
I don't actually know why you disagree with me so strongly. I only stepped into this forum trying to clarify what the real issue with broodlord/infestor really is, since people seemed to think it was free units that make it difficult to deal with. I tried to make clear that this is not, in fact, the issue with broodlord/infestor, and that the Swarm Host doesn't really suffer from any of the problems broodlord/infestor does.
We use WoL information to balance HotS all the time, because we have a lot more data on WoL than HotS and the two are fairly similar. I hear zergs are having a big problem with the tempest/high templar army PvZ; since I play neither P nor Z I haven't experienced many such games, and can't comment on whether there may be an issue there. I'm certain Blizzard wants to let players try to find an answer to the composition before they just throw nerfs at it, which is a valid philosophy. In TvZ, however, BL/infestor is still a very strong composition for all the same reasons as in WoL.
But you said yourself, its way too early to judge HotS, so why would you try to from a prior iteration? Hell, even judging from past patches doesn't make sense. 2 balance patches ago the leaderboards were all Protoss, look at what just a couple small changes did.
BL/Infestor is still strong, but nowhere near as strong as it was in WoL, and Terran has not only more and stronger ways to harass to prevent it from getting to that point, but also some new timings that could be exploited.
It most certainly is too early to make any general statements about global balance of the game. Most of the gamespace is still completely unexplored, and most players are still just using WoL builds and seeing if they still work. And most of them continue using these WoL builds because their opponents are also still using WoL builds. How can you possibly judge the balance of a new game, when most people haven't even really stopped using the strategies from the old game yet?
But Blizzard is doing all kinds of local balancing. That is, they're not throwing a nerf bat at one race because it's performing too well, but they are nerfing individual units if it seems like in gameplay it's working a little too well. The widow mine got a nerf to primary damage, not because the Terran win rate was too high, but because if you watched widow mine gameplay against the other races, it seemed like it was doing a little more damage than it should.
This is where balancing by comparison to WoL comes in. If the Warhound is significantly stronger than every WoL unit was, the Warhound is probably OP. If Swarm Host pushes are doing a lot more damage than Zerg pushes in WoL typically did, it might be that the Swarm Host is a little too strong.
Giving Terran more options and timings to attack Zerg before broodlord infestor comes out does not address the broodlord infestor issue, and let's not pretend for a second that it does. The problem isn't even exactly that the matchup's win rate is skewed, although it may be; the problem is that if the Terran's win condition is to kill Zerg before hive tech, and the Zerg's win condition is to reach hive tech, then that's bad game design, regardless of win rates.
Who are these objective players you're referring to? You already confessed that at least 2/3 of the forum is biased against you. Are Zergs that don't see an issue with BL/infestor the only objective ones? What about the Zergs who still think there's a balance issue there, even though they don't appear to have anything to gain from nerfing it?
You could call anyone who isnt crying about anything being gamebreakingly OP an objective player, which there are few around these days.
BL/Infestor was an issue in WoL I agree, but this isn't even the same iteration of the game, people need to let that go.
How bout I bring up how OP Terran was at release of WoL (in comparison to the end of WoL) and use that for an argument of balance? How would you feel about that? That's basically what people are doing now with Zerg. It makes no sense to argue balance out of old + outdated information.
Actually, I'm not crying about anything being gamebreakingly OP. I'm not even 100% convinced BL/infestor is overpowered in Wings of Liberty. I guess by your standards that makes me an objective player, although I don't at all come to the conclusion that you said "any objective player" would.
In designing HotS, Blizzard is trying to fix the problems they see with Wings of Liberty. Since BL/infestor is obviously still in the game, then they need to make sure there are responses to it, and in TvZ they haven't really added one. That's not a matter of "letting go" of previous iterations of the game. That's a matter of acknowledging a problem that was present in a previous iteration of the game, noting that it hasn't been addressed, and concluding quite obviously that the unaddressed problem will still be a problem.
No really though, this makes you sound really, really paranoid. I think most everyone here who complains about imbalance or bad design does so because they actually think there's a balance or design issue to be fixed that could improve the game. And you don't really have any good reason to believe differently, you're just dismissing everyone's opinions by asserting that they secretly want Zerg to cease to be a viable race so their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.
Not paranoid, just kind of annoyed. You don't see topics popping up for every single buff that Terran and Protoss get, saying free siege and free hallucation are game-breakingly OP and not fun to deal with, yet the few buffs that Zerg got have people complaining that the race is broken, when the results show nothing of the sort.
You say I'm dismissing peoples opinion, I wouldn't mind an argument if you had some sort of information or results to back it up. But instead of that, people are using "opinion" as "fact", when in reality they have no facts to back up their claims. I'm not dismissing their opinions, reality is. If Zerg starts dominating, and these issues people are complaining about actually do become a problem, then I'll have no problem accepting opinions that these issues are a problem. But that's not the reality of the situation.
At least WoL BL/infestor was backed up by results. Now people are complaining about "burrowed banelings" and "free units" with absolutely no results to back that up. Where are all these dominant Zerg players, with their burrowed baneling bombs and unstoppable ultralisks and limitless amount of free units that are "impossible to deal with"?
Zerg isn't in this all-powerful state that people are acting like they are, and definitely not in a state that nerfs should be happening to the few strong aspects of the race that are keeping Zerg working in HotS.
You've made quite clear that a) you think Zerg is probably UP in HotS, and b) you think the forum is systematically biased against Zerg. But actually, there was a thread complaining about the free siege upgrade. When the widow mine was buffed, there were complaints about it. When the caduceus reactor and emergency thrusters buffs came down, everyone was in an uproar about it. Just recently there was a thread built on the premise that Zerg, as a race, is underpowered (I didn't follow the thread, but I suspect you were somewhat in favor of the premise). I don't see any evidence that the community is especially biased against Zerg or any other race; it's just people giving feedback about the game, which is what a beta is for.
If you think the world is against you, and they're actually not, that's paranoid.
If you think the world is against you, and they're actually not, that's paranoid.
It's not about the world, it's about you.
Zerg was the swarm all-in race for a long time, spamming cost-ineffective units out of 2/3 base until it stopped working because of how mono-dimensional and predictable it was So they needed to transition into something able to be cost effective : infestor/broodlords, that created a lot of issue, gameplay and balance wise, mostly because since it was the only real way of being aggressive and cost-effective, it was hard to nerf without breaking the entire race
Now they are trying to fix that by giving Zerg more aggressive options at more various timing, and you want to deny that right, probably thinking that early WoL Z was a good idea, so in the end you somewhat want Z to get nerfed
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ...
From Wikipedia, Swarm Seeds, the ability of the Broodlord: Spawns Broodlings upon each of the Brood Lord's attacks. Somewhere I must be missing the fact that BROODLINGS do impact damage...
So there are two different units that deal damage to your units during the combat. The Broodlord and the Broodling. The whole discussion is about the Broodling, so I really have no clue why you would add the initial impact damage of the Broodlord to that discussion... It is completely independend of the Broodling. If you don't believe me, check Liquipedia WoL Beta Balance Patch 7, that changed the Broodlords damage but didn't have any effect on Broodlings.
Furthermore, I really have no clue what (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 should be... A Broodling has 6.2dps, but I don't get the rest. Your example featured 4 Broodlings and every Broodling lives up to 8seconds. So if you want to calculate the total possible damage by 4 Broodlord attacks+4Broodlings over their lifespawn (which it seems like you were aiming for), the approximation is 6.2*8*4+20*4 = 198.4=278.4. If you want to calculate the total damage done upon impact of the Broodlords projectile and the Broodlings first attack, it's 4*20+4*4=96 (as a Broodling has 6.2dps, but only 4damage per hit)
For the damage over 5 seconds you take the damage per SECOND (6.2) - which is bigger than the individual attack since the cooldown is less than 1 - and multiply it by the number of "Broodling seconds". Here I noticed that I made a mistake in the calculation, because there are two Broodlings which last the full five seconds (I only counted one) and another one joins them after 2.5 seconds, so the total "Broodling seconds" isnt 7.5 but rather 12.5 for a total of 6.2 * 12.5 = 77,5 damage. Add this to the 4 * 20 = 80 damage from the initial impact of the four Broodlings and you get 157.5 damage of one Broodlord against those Marines, which means the three Marines would all be dead before the five seconds are up, thus one Broodlord deals with more than that easily and even if any remaining Marines could reach the Broodlords they still have to travel a distance of 4.5 before doing that and there would be new Broodlings all the time, so the Terran has lost quite a lot before the first "real hit point" is lost by the Zerg. In addition there are rarely any "unsupported Broodlords" in a game ever and this support - usually in the form of Infestors - can make the "getting there" part a bit tricky.
Obviously there is some sort of adjustment in this due to the defensive / offensive upgrades, but the fact remains that Broodlords deal a huge amount of damage through endlessly generating free units while preventing any ground based AA units from getting there (unless they have Blink) and the ones that actually get into range are usually dealt with by the support units of the Broodlords.
If you think the world is against you, and they're actually not, that's paranoid.
It's not about the world, it's about you.
Zerg was the swarm all-in race for a long time, spamming cost-ineffective units out of 2/3 base until it stopped working because of how mono-dimensional and predictable it was So they needed to transition into something able to be cost effective : infestor/broodlords, that created a lot of issue, gameplay and balance wise, mostly because since it was the only real way of being aggressive and cost-effective, it was hard to nerf without breaking the entire race
Now they are trying to fix that by giving Zerg more aggressive options at more various timing, and you want to deny that right, probably thinking that early WoL Z was a good idea, so in the end you somewhat want Z to get nerfed
Me? What about me? I haven't advocated any Zerg nerfs. I'm not even certain broodlord infestor is so bad as everyone says; I almost wish HotS weren't coming so soon so there was a little more time to try to find an answer to it before the whole gamespace resets to unknown.
I also never said anything about wanting to remove Zerg's early-game options in HotS. I'm not even sure what early-game options you're referring to; Zerg play is mostly unchanged for early game, and swarm host isn't really any faster than the aggressive options Zerg has now with infestors or mutas.
That's also a pretty inaccurate description of Zerg's metagame history in WoL. I mean all three races had various 1-, 2-, and 3-base all-ins throughout the development of the game, but Zerg was hardly defined as the all-in race before infestor broodlord. They did make a lot more play of their midgame armies, certainly; consider the days of mutalisk play TvZ before infestors became popular. I'm talking 2-base ling muta, taking a third while harassing on maps like Tal'Darim Altar and Metalopolis, back when we had MMA mass dropping Zergs to victory off of 2 bases. That's the sort of thing the metagame was made of before broodlord infestor became the defining characteristic of every Z matchup, and it was in no way all-inish; far from it, actually. It was defined by expanding all over the map, if anything.
On January 31 2013 19:02 ChristianS wrote: There's no contradiction between saying "there could be imbalances" and "I think it's too soon to say Zerg as a race is underpowered in HotS." I haven't even seen any statistics on winrates in HotS; even if there were any, they would largely be meaningless, because the game changes pretty much every week. Blizzard is largely making changes based on what they think makes for better gameplay at the moment, because there really isn't a good way to measure global balance at this point.
Before I respond, I find it quite ironic that you say you actually agree with me and others here on some points, yet for some reason you are arguing some of the points you claim to agree with.
In response, your quotes of your self... that's not what you said man. Your exact words were "If Zerg has something that is legitimately imbalanced it should be addressed". Then your next paragraph "It's way too early to HotS balance perspective accurately".
Taking that in to consideration, you DID contradict yourself. Now your saying "its too soon to say Zerg as a race is underpowered". If that's the case, it should be too early to judge if something is imbalanced as well. Yet for some reason your talking about legitimate imbalance? Contradiction.
why are you so offended that the people who are opposed are vocal about it?
Because we have to consider the lategame design during beta, and there's very little evidence so far as to what lategame HotS actually looks like, so we have to guess based on the more well-explored WoL lategame and what we know about the new units. For example, someone might have the concern that viper/broodlord would be a difficult composition to deal with because the vipers can blinding cloud anything that gets in range of the broodlords, thus preventing them or the vipers from ever being hit. That's a potentially legitimate concern, but we wouldn't have seen it much yet because lategame HotS games are rare. So we compare it to the existing WoL metagame and try to decide just how troublesome this new composition really would be.
How don't you see this is still contradicting your earlier comments? You say you can't judge HotS balance, you say right here that theres little evidence of endgame... So you try to guess from WoL and extrapolate what's going to happen in HotS?
How about waiting until imbalance actually happens before complaining about it? You ask why I'm so offended? Because of exactly what you are doing here. People (including you) are straight up making guesses about what's going to happen, and claiming theres "legitimate imbalance".
Right now, things are not imbalanced. And you tell me I'm paranoid?? I'm not the one talking about legitimate imbalance when the numbers don't show it... now THAT'S paranoid.
While I'm unaware of any tank pushes that make it unsafe for zerg to ever leave their base from game start to hive tech, I'll take your word for it. Even if there are effective contain strategies against zerg, so what? If one player dedicates resources to containing the other, and then the other player is temporarily contained, that sounds like how the game is supposed to work to me. If you dedicate the resources to breaking out (say, building mutalisks), then you are no longer contained.
What strikes me as odd about this is that Zerg has BY FAR the easiest time maintaining map presence of any of the races. Protoss probably has the hardest time, unless you count observers (and that's not really map presence). In general map control usually goes to the player with the faster units, which is nearly always the zerg player. So you complaining about Zerg's many woes of being unable to move out on the map is, well... I don't know how else to describe it, other than patently untrue.
As I mentioned in the last message, there are situations you can leave, and theres situations you can't. And I don't really have a problem with that. I just find it ironic that other races act like Zerg is anywhere near the best race at turtling, when the other races do it better. The melodramatics are annoying.
I didn't decide it. I observed it, based on playing and watching Starcraft. Broodlings have nice little advantages like forcing tanks to unsiege, but when it comes down to it, they're not that powerful and they have fairly little to do with why BL/infestor is so strong. I know broodlings aren't that important compared to fungal combined with siege range, because if the problem were the broodlings, it wouldn't be very difficult to deal with. If you've ever fought a BL/infestor army with 4-8 hellions in your own army, you know that the broodlings are virtually a non-issue. It's really easy to kill off the broodlings; but when you do, there's still a broodlord infestor army driving toward your base that you haven't done anything about, because the broodlings aren't that important.
In general Zerg is designed to be weak in small numbers but strong in overwhelming numbers, but broodlord infestor does not follow this rule. The infestor is one of the most cost-efficient units in the game, and if you manage broodlord infestor right, you can easily do it without losing a single broodlord, or at least force your opponent to trade 50+ supply to kill one or two broodlords that you immediately replace. That's not winning through strength by numbers; that's winning through having a more cost-efficient army than your opponent.
Again man... that's not what you said. Your exact words " Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake.".Where, exactly, did you "observe" Blizzard saying Broodlords were just supposed to be icing on the cake? .
And once again, who are YOU to judge the intent of Broodlords? You didn't design them. If it wasn't their intent to be used how they are, why would they have nerfed infestors instead of Broodlords? They changed Guardians in to Broodlords for a reason... Obviously it fits Blizzards intent. You are just in denial.
Also I agree Zerg in general is designed to be weak in small numbers and overwhelming in high numbers. And your right again, Broodlord/Infestor does not follow this rule. What you fail to realize is this is INTENDED. These units are designed to take the damage for the other units, basically functioning how a "defensive" unit would work for the other races. Except they do it in a swarmy way.
Do you really think Roaches fit a swarmy defensive "tanking" role better than Broodlords or Swarm hosts?
And you are still bringing WoL balance in to this. Straight up, WoL has no place in a discussion about HotS balance. Most of the playerbase has already admit BL/Infestor isn't a problem yet, except you.
I don't actually know why you disagree with me so strongly. I only stepped into this forum trying to clarify what the real issue with broodlord/infestor really is, since people seemed to think it was free units that make it difficult to deal with. I tried to make clear that this is not, in fact, the issue with broodlord/infestor, and that the Swarm Host doesn't really suffer from any of the problems broodlord/infestor does.
I can ask you the same question - why are you disagreeing with me so strongly?
The reason I'm disagreeing with you so strongly is you are arguing WoL balance in the HotS forum and saying silly things like Broodlords are the only air siege unit, when that's not the case in HotS, and we're on the HotS forum.
Your comments about the Swarm Host that I just quoted... That's exactly my point.
How can you possibly judge the balance of a new game, when most people haven't even really stopped using the strategies from the old game yet?
Actually, most people are experimenting with the new stuff, not playing the old game. But this comment shows the mentality that you are stuck in... playing the old game.
This is where balancing by comparison to WoL comes in. If the Warhound is significantly stronger than every WoL unit was, the Warhound is probably OP. If Swarm Host pushes are doing a lot more damage than Zerg pushes in WoL typically did, it might be that the Swarm Host is a little too strong.
Except Warhound wasn't just removed for its strength - the numbers could have been rebalanced. They stated it was removed because it overlapped with too many units.
Also, it was recognized that one of Zergs problems was no mid-game siege unit. It was designed so that Zerg midgame pushes were able to break the wall that was previously unbreakable. And it's far easier to counter than BL/Infestor was. So what's the problem?
Giving Terran more options and timings to attack Zerg before broodlord infestor comes out does not address the broodlord infestor issue, and let's not pretend for a second that it does. The problem isn't even exactly that the matchup's win rate is skewed, although it may be; the problem is that if the Terran's win condition is to kill Zerg before hive tech, and the Zerg's win condition is to reach hive tech, then that's bad game design, regardless of win rates.
Some advice... Stop playing WoL Terran. Your the only Terran I've seen on here lately that's still acting like Broodlord/Infestor is a major problem. You said yourself that you think people are still playing like WoL, break that cycle.
In response to your complaints about the game design, I can agree with you to a point, because you have to understand, the grass is always greener, and if that's how the balance ends up being in the end, don't think it's going to be fun for Zerg either. It's not fun to lose a game unless you manage to make it to Hive.
I've said before I would love it if they gave Zerg some early game power, that way they would be able to loosen up on the late game power a bit. The problem is (which I was trying to explain to you before) any buffs they do to Zerg early game (such as burrow, which wasn't even a major buff to early game since you sacrifice economy or tech for it) and you have loads of people complaining "Now Zerg has it even easier to get to hive tech, omgwtf!". If they did that for just burrow, imagine what would happen if they did it with some stronger tech? That's exactly why it's never going to happen, and that's exactly why I'm annoyed by it.
To stress that again to make the point clear. We're in agreement about a potential problem here if the balance ends up like that. But those changes are not going to happen specifically because of all the people complaining about any buff to Zerg early game. That's why I'm bothered by the complaints. It's bad feedback and stopping them from designing the balance better.
And I'll be honest now, your complaints, especially when it comes to bringing up WoL balance in HotS, isn't helping the situation at all.
You've made quite clear that a) you think Zerg is probably UP in HotS, and b) you think the forum is systematically biased against Zerg. But actually, there was a thread complaining about the free siege upgrade. When the widow mine was buffed, there were complaints about it. When the caduceus reactor and emergency thrusters buffs came down, everyone was in an uproar about it. Just recently there was a thread built on the premise that Zerg, as a race, is underpowered (I didn't follow the thread, but I suspect you were somewhat in favor of the premise). I don't see any evidence that the community is especially biased against Zerg or any other race; it's just people giving feedback about the game, which is what a beta is for.
If you think the world is against you, and they're actually not, that's paranoid.
I'm not saying Zerg is UP, nor am I saying any of the other races are OP. What I am saying is there is no evidence to support Zerg being OP, the only (little bit) of evidence we have says otherwise, and with that in consideration, it's not the time to be discussing making Zerg weaker.
As you said, and I agree, it's too early to tell balance for sure. So it strikes me as out of place that you are bringing up "legitimate imbalance" on the HotS forum with WoL info, when theres no evidence to back that up right now, and contrary to your belief Infestor/BL isn't unstoppable, nor is it even the best strategy to use in HotS.
Responding to you talking about the threads, once again I explain that there is a clear difference, because the complaints about Zerg is the bad feedback making them reluctant from making Zerg early game stronger and lategame weaker.
Let me try explaining it in a way you would understand. How would you feel if the general tone of feedback for Terran was saying how their early and mid game need to be nerfed, and their late game made stronger instead, knowing Terran as a race is designed with the most options for early game harassment in mind? Would you really want to give up the strengths Terran has, just to be in the same exact situation Zerg was in on WoL? That type of balance isnt fun for everyone, and the complaints I'm mentioning are the ones keeping it that way.
In response to calling me paranoid, I say the same thing I said before. Your the one talking about "legitimate imbalance" when you have no evidence, not me. That's paranoid.
On January 31 2013 18:04 Big J wrote: Even though it has nothing to do with the discussion above, I just had to comment on this:
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ...
From Wikipedia, Swarm Seeds, the ability of the Broodlord: Spawns Broodlings upon each of the Brood Lord's attacks. Somewhere I must be missing the fact that BROODLINGS do impact damage...
So there are two different units that deal damage to your units during the combat. The Broodlord and the Broodling. The whole discussion is about the Broodling, so I really have no clue why you would add the initial impact damage of the Broodlord to that discussion... It is completely independend of the Broodling. If you don't believe me, check Liquipedia WoL Beta Balance Patch 7, that changed the Broodlords damage but didn't have any effect on Broodlings.
Furthermore, I really have no clue what (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 should be... A Broodling has 6.2dps, but I don't get the rest. Your example featured 4 Broodlings and every Broodling lives up to 8seconds. So if you want to calculate the total possible damage by 4 Broodlord attacks+4Broodlings over their lifespawn (which it seems like you were aiming for), the approximation is 6.2*8*4+20*4 = 198.4=278.4. If you want to calculate the total damage done upon impact of the Broodlords projectile and the Broodlings first attack, it's 4*20+4*4=96 (as a Broodling has 6.2dps, but only 4damage per hit)
Yes. For the Broodlord. It has nothing to do with the Broodling effect. It's completly independend. I don't know why you would add this to the Broodlings balance.
On January 31 2013 19:55 Rabiator wrote:For the damage over 5 seconds you take the damage per SECOND (6.2) - which is bigger than the individual attack since the cooldown is less than 1 - and multiply it by the number of "Broodling seconds". Here I noticed that I made a mistake in the calculation, because there are two Broodlings which last the full five seconds (I only counted one) and another one joins them after 2.5 seconds, so the total "Broodling seconds" isnt 7.5 but rather 12.5 for a total of 6.2 * 12.5 = 77,5 damage. Add this to the 4 * 20 = 80 damage from the initial impact of the four Broodlings and you get 157.5 damage of one Broodlord against those Marines, which means the three Marines would all be dead before the five seconds are up, thus one Broodlord deals with more than that easily and even if any remaining Marines could reach the Broodlords they still have to travel a distance of 4.5 before doing that and there would be new Broodlings all the time, so the Terran has lost quite a lot before the first "real hit point" is lost by the Zerg. In addition there are rarely any "unsupported Broodlords" in a game ever and this support - usually in the form of Infestors - can make the "getting there" part a bit tricky.
Again, the Broodlings don't have any initial damage. It's the Broodlord that does that damage. Even more, I don't get how you get to four times 20. It's two or three times twenty, depending whether you treat the 5th second attack as inside or outside the 5second intervall.
On January 31 2013 19:55 Rabiator wrote: Obviously there is some sort of adjustment in this due to the defensive / offensive upgrades, but the fact remains that Broodlords deal a huge amount of damage through endlessly generating free units while preventing any ground based AA units from getting there (unless they have Blink) and the ones that actually get into range are usually dealt with by the support units of the Broodlords.
No. The Broodlord does 20damage. As a sideeffect it creates 1 (or two) Broodlings. You keep on mixing those two things together and putting it as if the Broodlings do the 20damage. They don't. This is important. The thread is about the created units and what effects they have on the game, not whether the 20damage per shot of the Broodlord are too strong.
On January 31 2013 18:04 Big J wrote: Even though it has nothing to do with the discussion above, I just had to comment on this:
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ...
From Wikipedia, Swarm Seeds, the ability of the Broodlord: Spawns Broodlings upon each of the Brood Lord's attacks. Somewhere I must be missing the fact that BROODLINGS do impact damage...
So there are two different units that deal damage to your units during the combat. The Broodlord and the Broodling. The whole discussion is about the Broodling, so I really have no clue why you would add the initial impact damage of the Broodlord to that discussion... It is completely independend of the Broodling. If you don't believe me, check Liquipedia WoL Beta Balance Patch 7, that changed the Broodlords damage but didn't have any effect on Broodlings.
Furthermore, I really have no clue what (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 should be... A Broodling has 6.2dps, but I don't get the rest. Your example featured 4 Broodlings and every Broodling lives up to 8seconds. So if you want to calculate the total possible damage by 4 Broodlord attacks+4Broodlings over their lifespawn (which it seems like you were aiming for), the approximation is 6.2*8*4+20*4 = 198.4=278.4. If you want to calculate the total damage done upon impact of the Broodlords projectile and the Broodlings first attack, it's 4*20+4*4=96 (as a Broodling has 6.2dps, but only 4damage per hit)
Yes. For the Broodlord. It has nothing to do with the Broodling effect. It's completly independend. I don't know why you would add this to the Broodlings balance.
On January 31 2013 19:55 Rabiator wrote:For the damage over 5 seconds you take the damage per SECOND (6.2) - which is bigger than the individual attack since the cooldown is less than 1 - and multiply it by the number of "Broodling seconds". Here I noticed that I made a mistake in the calculation, because there are two Broodlings which last the full five seconds (I only counted one) and another one joins them after 2.5 seconds, so the total "Broodling seconds" isnt 7.5 but rather 12.5 for a total of 6.2 * 12.5 = 77,5 damage. Add this to the 4 * 20 = 80 damage from the initial impact of the four Broodlings and you get 157.5 damage of one Broodlord against those Marines, which means the three Marines would all be dead before the five seconds are up, thus one Broodlord deals with more than that easily and even if any remaining Marines could reach the Broodlords they still have to travel a distance of 4.5 before doing that and there would be new Broodlings all the time, so the Terran has lost quite a lot before the first "real hit point" is lost by the Zerg. In addition there are rarely any "unsupported Broodlords" in a game ever and this support - usually in the form of Infestors - can make the "getting there" part a bit tricky.
Again, the Broodlings don't have any initial damage. It's the Broodlord that does that damage. Even more, I don't get how you get to four times 20. It's two or three times twenty, depending whether you treat the 5th second attack as inside or outside the 5second intervall.
On January 31 2013 19:55 Rabiator wrote: Obviously there is some sort of adjustment in this due to the defensive / offensive upgrades, but the fact remains that Broodlords deal a huge amount of damage through endlessly generating free units while preventing any ground based AA units from getting there (unless they have Blink) and the ones that actually get into range are usually dealt with by the support units of the Broodlords.
No. The Broodlord does 20damage. As a sideeffect it creates 1 (or two) Broodlings. You keep on mixing those two things together and putting it as if the Broodlings do the 20damage. They don't. This is important. The thread is about the created units and what effects they have on the game, not whether the 20damage per shot of the Broodlord are too strong.
Rofl ... not including the initial damage into the equasion is stupid, because it is the total of all the attacks of the Broodlord which counts. You are trying hard to fake the statistic in your favour by not including everything ...
You also called me out as using "strawman arguments" eariler ... you might want to rethink that, because I dont leave anything out and saying "the initial 20 damage is the Broodlord attack and doesnt belong to the Broodling" is nitpicking. Its the sum of the attack which counts and this includes both initial and ongoing damage dealt by the Broodlings; they are not separate.
The original comparison was between 3 stimmed Marines and a single Broodlord over a time of 5 seconds. You have 2 initial Broodlings for 40 damage, another at 2.5 seconds (the delay of the Broodlord) and then the last one at 5 seconds. Thus you come up with 4 * 20 damage in that 5 second period.
On January 31 2013 18:04 Big J wrote: Even though it has nothing to do with the discussion above, I just had to comment on this:
4 Broodlings deal 80 damage for initial impact and (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 for a total of 126,5 damage ...
From Wikipedia, Swarm Seeds, the ability of the Broodlord: Spawns Broodlings upon each of the Brood Lord's attacks. Somewhere I must be missing the fact that BROODLINGS do impact damage...
So there are two different units that deal damage to your units during the combat. The Broodlord and the Broodling. The whole discussion is about the Broodling, so I really have no clue why you would add the initial impact damage of the Broodlord to that discussion... It is completely independend of the Broodling. If you don't believe me, check Liquipedia WoL Beta Balance Patch 7, that changed the Broodlords damage but didn't have any effect on Broodlings.
Furthermore, I really have no clue what (6.2 * 7.5) = 46,5 should be... A Broodling has 6.2dps, but I don't get the rest. Your example featured 4 Broodlings and every Broodling lives up to 8seconds. So if you want to calculate the total possible damage by 4 Broodlord attacks+4Broodlings over their lifespawn (which it seems like you were aiming for), the approximation is 6.2*8*4+20*4 = 198.4=278.4. If you want to calculate the total damage done upon impact of the Broodlords projectile and the Broodlings first attack, it's 4*20+4*4=96 (as a Broodling has 6.2dps, but only 4damage per hit)
Yes. For the Broodlord. It has nothing to do with the Broodling effect. It's completly independend. I don't know why you would add this to the Broodlings balance.
On January 31 2013 19:55 Rabiator wrote:For the damage over 5 seconds you take the damage per SECOND (6.2) - which is bigger than the individual attack since the cooldown is less than 1 - and multiply it by the number of "Broodling seconds". Here I noticed that I made a mistake in the calculation, because there are two Broodlings which last the full five seconds (I only counted one) and another one joins them after 2.5 seconds, so the total "Broodling seconds" isnt 7.5 but rather 12.5 for a total of 6.2 * 12.5 = 77,5 damage. Add this to the 4 * 20 = 80 damage from the initial impact of the four Broodlings and you get 157.5 damage of one Broodlord against those Marines, which means the three Marines would all be dead before the five seconds are up, thus one Broodlord deals with more than that easily and even if any remaining Marines could reach the Broodlords they still have to travel a distance of 4.5 before doing that and there would be new Broodlings all the time, so the Terran has lost quite a lot before the first "real hit point" is lost by the Zerg. In addition there are rarely any "unsupported Broodlords" in a game ever and this support - usually in the form of Infestors - can make the "getting there" part a bit tricky.
Again, the Broodlings don't have any initial damage. It's the Broodlord that does that damage. Even more, I don't get how you get to four times 20. It's two or three times twenty, depending whether you treat the 5th second attack as inside or outside the 5second intervall.
On January 31 2013 19:55 Rabiator wrote: Obviously there is some sort of adjustment in this due to the defensive / offensive upgrades, but the fact remains that Broodlords deal a huge amount of damage through endlessly generating free units while preventing any ground based AA units from getting there (unless they have Blink) and the ones that actually get into range are usually dealt with by the support units of the Broodlords.
No. The Broodlord does 20damage. As a sideeffect it creates 1 (or two) Broodlings. You keep on mixing those two things together and putting it as if the Broodlings do the 20damage. They don't. This is important. The thread is about the created units and what effects they have on the game, not whether the 20damage per shot of the Broodlord are too strong.
Rofl ... not including the initial damage into the equasion is stupid, because it is the total of all the attacks of the Broodlord which counts. You are trying hard to fake the statistic in your favour by not including everything ...
You also called me out as using "strawman arguments" eariler ... you might want to rethink that, because I dont leave anything out and saying "the initial 20 damage is the Broodlord attack and doesnt belong to the Broodling" is nitpicking. Its the sum of the attack which counts and this includes both initial and ongoing damage dealt by the Broodlings; they are not separate.
The original comparison was between 3 stimmed Marines and a single Broodlord over a time of 5 seconds. You have 2 initial Broodlings for 40 damage, another at 2.5 seconds (the delay of the Broodlord) and then the last one at 5 seconds. Thus you come up with 4 * 20 damage in that 5 second period.
No. The intial comparison was that 3stimmed marines have enough dps to kill the broodlings faster than they spawn. It was not a comparison whether they beat a broodlord or not. It was simply an arguement that you kill the Broodlings faster than they spawn if you have any reasonable army. 3shooting marine per shooting broodlord are needed. But if you only have 3marines per broodlord, you fucked up extremly before.
Thread starts suggesting unit generating units should be redesigned to be more fun--defensive zerg players whine that we're trying to nerf Broodlords...
My understanding of this thread has been a discussion on the mechanics of the Zerg race--specifically it's ability to spawn temporary units. I don't know what this sudden surge of "don't nerf BL please, Zerg so weak!" came from...
The problem is not that Broodfestor is too strong, the problem people are having is that Zerg acts more like a mech player than Terran does. And I'm not talking about efficiency, I'm talking game style. Broodfestor players literally leapfrog spines like tanks, they're literally playing mech. Instead of tanks they use infestors, instead of minefields they use spine walls, instead of bunkers/vultures they use broodlings to defend they're tankfestors. Blizzard made mech work--they just gave it to the wrong race.
Why? Because token generation is slow and requires a buildup in order to be powerful. They're efficiency comes from longevity, not from kills/second. So giving Zerg that mechanic forces them to do exactly what Terran in BW did when they were given efficient free units (Spidermines) they turtle and spawn as many free units as possible.
This is not about balance or whether Zerg would be weak or not--this is gameplay, and how Zerg is playing too much like Terran and Terran playing too much like Zerg. So can we please stop trying to protect broodlords from nerfs that aren't even talked about! Could we not misunderstand "bring back old style ZvX" as needing broodlords and instead see it as a request to change the units so that they play more like how Zerg played in 2011 when sc2 was at its strongest.
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
This thread was supposed to point out the design flaw of free units for the swarming race.
Taking a look at BW zerg, you couldn't surround the terran or toss while he was in his base. You could also expand a lot while he was in his base. It was easy to surround the terran or toss when he moved out. Your cost ineffective units became very cost effective when all of them, being melee, could attack him all at once. So you expanded more, thanks to the map control he relinquished so he could survive the early/mid game. This forced your opponent to either move out or lose to your expo advantage. When it came time to attack him if he wasn't moving out, you were supposed to throw units at him, but you could because you were actually mining on 5ish mineral lines at once while he was maximum 3. The economics in BW played a role in how many bases each race needed, zerg included, and map control was given to the race that needed more bases.
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings). This is a design flaw, cost effectiveness is mech's territory and mech, btw, is not about being slow or immobile, its about being cost effective, at the cost of having to always be prepared. Terran design was supposed to be about holding ground and being the most cost effective out of the races. A toss was even far more wasteful than a terran. A zerg only received effective units to attack a fortified position late late in the game, and these units weren't mindless 1A units, bad players were bad with them.
And before you claim there must have been an imbalance, there was. For the race that was supposed to be more wasteful. For the race that was supposed to expand because they were simply were given mechanics that favoured this. In ZvP, zerg tended to win more. In ZvT, zerg tended to win more. In PvT, toss tended to win more.
This imbalance in the statistics is linked solely to which race was expected to take more bases. And everyone was happy with this imbalance.
EDIT: trust me, id love to have zerg compensated for being less cost effective....
Taking a look at BW zerg, pretty much every unit was cost effective, Zergling were insanely strong and so were hydralisk and defilers, the larva mechanic was more limiting the number of unit than increasing it
Why shouldnt zerg be cost-effective ? Did you missed the part where it was the case for most of WoL and their winrates plummeted because of how predictable and easy to counter it was ? "Cost-effectiveness should be the territory of Mech", but yet Terran can still play Zerg style by going full bio ? This isnt broodwar, there should be more than 1 comp available to every race, and it is.
Winrates were changing every year and if Z was statistically favored in ZvP it wasnt the case at all for ZvT : http://i.imgur.com/gmXwO.png
You did not read my post, evidently.
The statistic you've also provided is unrelated to the statistic i gave, yours shows 3 month trends, i meant overall but that apparently wasn't clear enough.
Zerg was cost ineffective when it came to attacking a defensive toss/terran position. they had to expo a lot to over come that defensive position. It was easy to expo a lot cause they tended to have map control. People liked this style of gameplay much more. Zerg felt much more zerg. Now they dont. Now, they build units that are extremely cost effective, not just decent cost effectiveness, but extremely cost effective. Extreme cost effectiveness while they still have superior map control mechanics, its actually disappointing to see how less skillful zerg is from BW zerg.
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
This thread was supposed to point out the design flaw of free units for the swarming race.
Taking a look at BW zerg, you couldn't surround the terran or toss while he was in his base. You could also expand a lot while he was in his base. It was easy to surround the terran or toss when he moved out. Your cost ineffective units became very cost effective when all of them, being melee, could attack him all at once. So you expanded more, thanks to the map control he relinquished so he could survive the early/mid game. This forced your opponent to either move out or lose to your expo advantage. When it came time to attack him if he wasn't moving out, you were supposed to throw units at him, but you could because you were actually mining on 5ish mineral lines at once while he was maximum 3. The economics in BW played a role in how many bases each race needed, zerg included, and map control was given to the race that needed more bases.
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings). This is a design flaw, cost effectiveness is mech's territory and mech, btw, is not about being slow or immobile, its about being cost effective, at the cost of having to always be prepared. Terran design was supposed to be about holding ground and being the most cost effective out of the races. A toss was even far more wasteful than a terran. A zerg only received effective units to attack a fortified position late late in the game, and these units weren't mindless 1A units, bad players were bad with them.
And before you claim there must have been an imbalance, there was. For the race that was supposed to be more wasteful. For the race that was supposed to expand because they were simply were given mechanics that favoured this. In ZvP, zerg tended to win more. In ZvT, zerg tended to win more. In PvT, toss tended to win more.
This imbalance in the statistics is linked solely to which race was expected to take more bases. And everyone was happy with this imbalance.
EDIT: trust me, id love to have zerg compensated for being less cost effective....
Taking a look at BW zerg, pretty much every unit was cost effective, Zergling were insanely strong and so were hydralisk and defilers, the larva mechanic was more limiting the number of unit than increasing it
Why shouldnt zerg be cost-effective ? Did you missed the part where it was the case for most of WoL and their winrates plummeted because of how predictable and easy to counter it was ? "Cost-effectiveness should be the territory of Mech", but yet Terran can still play Zerg style by going full bio ? This isnt broodwar, there should be more than 1 comp available to every race, and it is.
Winrates were changing every year and if Z was statistically favored in ZvP it wasnt the case at all for ZvT : http://i.imgur.com/gmXwO.png
You did not read my post, evidently.
The statistic you've also provided is unrelated to the statistic i gave, yours shows 3 month trends, i meant overall but that apparently wasn't clear enough.
Zerg was cost ineffective when it came to attacking a defensive toss/terran position. they had to expo a lot to over come that defensive position. It was easy to expo a lot cause they tended to have map control. People liked this style of gameplay much more. Zerg felt much more zerg. Now they dont. Now, they build units that are extremely cost effective, not just decent cost effectiveness, but extremely cost effective. Extreme cost effectiveness while they still have superior map control mechanics, its actually disappointing to see how less skillful zerg is from BW zerg.
Yes and that is what zergs tried for a long time. But apperantly, a Terran with 3-4bases and 3-4mules mines more overall than a zerg on 5,6,7,8 or whatever number of bases in Starcraft2. The only advantage incomewise you get from more bases, is that you can have a better gas income. Guess what more gas leads to? You can produce more high tech units than your opponent. That's the advantage zerg has, nothing else. Hell, in TvZ Terran basic units are better than Zerg basic units open field. You must field infestors to combat MMM costefficiently, at least when the Terran starts to go for multipronged attacks, against which banelings are incredibly bad. So not only do Marines and Marauders with medivac support beat ling/roach/hydra/baneling/mutalisk/queen based play, Terran also gets more of them due to higher mineral income from mules.
It's very simple. Terran basic units are better than zerg basic units in direct confrontations, so zerg has to build something else or try to outnumber the Terran. You can outnumber a Terran with 3vs2bases, but you cannot do it with Xvs3bases. So the only actual option is to build something else. It's actually disappointing how people don't see that the viability of low tier bio compositions is the reason why the other races HAVE TO deathball vs Terran. You get worn down if you try to play active vs it and you get destroyed in ball vs ball fights unless you field massive amounts of high tech units. Not gonna start about TvP. Protoss deathball kills all non-EMP ground play in the lategame. Nothing more to say.
Also, as this is HotS: I believe Vipers and buffed ultras in trade for weaker infestors is a step in the right direction, because with those units zerg low tier units become a lot more potent and Zerg might actually be capable of staying groundbased vs Protoss.
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
This thread was supposed to point out the design flaw of free units for the swarming race.
Taking a look at BW zerg, you couldn't surround the terran or toss while he was in his base. You could also expand a lot while he was in his base. It was easy to surround the terran or toss when he moved out. Your cost ineffective units became very cost effective when all of them, being melee, could attack him all at once. So you expanded more, thanks to the map control he relinquished so he could survive the early/mid game. This forced your opponent to either move out or lose to your expo advantage. When it came time to attack him if he wasn't moving out, you were supposed to throw units at him, but you could because you were actually mining on 5ish mineral lines at once while he was maximum 3. The economics in BW played a role in how many bases each race needed, zerg included, and map control was given to the race that needed more bases.
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings). This is a design flaw, cost effectiveness is mech's territory and mech, btw, is not about being slow or immobile, its about being cost effective, at the cost of having to always be prepared. Terran design was supposed to be about holding ground and being the most cost effective out of the races. A toss was even far more wasteful than a terran. A zerg only received effective units to attack a fortified position late late in the game, and these units weren't mindless 1A units, bad players were bad with them.
And before you claim there must have been an imbalance, there was. For the race that was supposed to be more wasteful. For the race that was supposed to expand because they were simply were given mechanics that favoured this. In ZvP, zerg tended to win more. In ZvT, zerg tended to win more. In PvT, toss tended to win more.
This imbalance in the statistics is linked solely to which race was expected to take more bases. And everyone was happy with this imbalance.
EDIT: trust me, id love to have zerg compensated for being less cost effective....
Taking a look at BW zerg, pretty much every unit was cost effective, Zergling were insanely strong and so were hydralisk and defilers, the larva mechanic was more limiting the number of unit than increasing it
Why shouldnt zerg be cost-effective ? Did you missed the part where it was the case for most of WoL and their winrates plummeted because of how predictable and easy to counter it was ? "Cost-effectiveness should be the territory of Mech", but yet Terran can still play Zerg style by going full bio ? This isnt broodwar, there should be more than 1 comp available to every race, and it is.
Winrates were changing every year and if Z was statistically favored in ZvP it wasnt the case at all for ZvT : http://i.imgur.com/gmXwO.png
You did not read my post, evidently.
The statistic you've also provided is unrelated to the statistic i gave, yours shows 3 month trends, i meant overall but that apparently wasn't clear enough.
Zerg was cost ineffective when it came to attacking a defensive toss/terran position. they had to expo a lot to over come that defensive position. It was easy to expo a lot cause they tended to have map control. People liked this style of gameplay much more. Zerg felt much more zerg. Now they dont. Now, they build units that are extremely cost effective, not just decent cost effectiveness, but extremely cost effective. Extreme cost effectiveness while they still have superior map control mechanics, its actually disappointing to see how less skillful zerg is from BW zerg.
Yes and that is what zergs tried for a long time. But apperantly, a Terran with 3-4bases and 3-4mules mines more overall than a zerg on 5,6,7,8 or whatever number of bases in Starcraft2. The only advantage incomewise you get from more bases, is that you can have a better gas income. Guess what more gas leads to? You can produce more high tech units than your opponent. That's the advantage zerg has, nothing else. Hell, in TvZ Terran basic units are better than Zerg basic units open field. You must field infestors to combat MMM costefficiently, at least when the Terran starts to go for multipronged attacks, against which banelings are incredibly bad. So not only do Marines and Marauders with medivac support beat ling/roach/hydra/baneling/mutalisk/queen based play, Terran also gets more of them due to higher mineral income from mules.
It's very simple. Terran basic units are better than zerg basic units in direct confrontations, so zerg has to build something else or try to outnumber the Terran. You can outnumber a Terran with 3vs2bases, but you cannot do it with Xvs3bases. So the only actual option is to build something else. It's actually disappointing how people don't see that the viability of low tier bio compositions is the reason why the other races HAVE TO deathball vs Terran. You get worn down if you try to play active vs it and you get destroyed in ball vs ball fights unless you field massive amounts of high tech units. Not gonna start about TvP. Protoss deathball kills all non-EMP ground play in the lategame. Nothing more to say.
Also, as this is HotS: I believe Vipers and buffed ultras in trade for weaker infestors is a step in the right direction, because with those units zerg low tier units become a lot more potent and Zerg might actually be capable of staying groundbased vs Protoss.
To be honest... Ling/Infestor looks fun to watch and is (for the most part) fun to play. It's when Broods, Spine Walls, and turtling happens that it sucks.
But maybe the problem is the lack of good gas heavy options?
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings).
I disagree about the cause. A lot of the defunk people are alluding to about Zerg you can squarely blame Roach/Ling for. Zerg was never meant to have a powerful 75/25 so early without taking a beating in other areas and screwing up the maps. The same with Zerglings, which actually got the biggest buff (although Marines get really strong midgame) of the 3 basics since BW. It's now a lot easier to right+stop click for perfect surrounds, and their fluidity made their strength go up significantly. Terran has Hellbat, and Protoss has Sentry, but the limitations those counters bring leads to the problems I'll outline. Zealots, I'd argue are worse than their BW version, and Marines got better. Not claiming imba, just following the threads to where we end up today with 3rd's needing to be taken easily, because Roach/Ling needs to be defendable, and why 2 base Zerg does fine. And why the Zerg Sauron strat of BW loses its luster in SC2, because 3 bases saturates income/production, and everyone can take 3 bases. Protoss and Terran can take their thirds unopposed, and Zerg has no recourse but to turtle even further. So you get really lame games where both sides turtle turtle turtle until the deathball. The end effect is that Zerg can use its unfettered macro for the BLs and the SHs and Infestors, so they're more the symptom, not the cause.
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings).
I disagree about the cause. A lot of the defunk people are alluding to about Zerg you can squarely blame Roach/Ling for. Zerg was never meant to have a powerful 75/25 so early without taking a beating in other areas and screwing up the maps. The same with Zerglings, which actually got the biggest buff (although Marines get really strong midgame) of the 3 basics since BW. It's now a lot easier to right+stop click for perfect surrounds, and their fluidity made their strength go up significantly. Terran has Hellbat, and Protoss has Sentry, but the limitations those counters bring leads to the problems I'll outline. Zealots, I'd argue are worse than their BW version, and Marines got better. Not claiming imba, just following the threads to where we end up today with 3rd's needing to be taken easily, because Roach/Ling needs to be defendable, and why 2 base Zerg does fine. And why the Zerg Sauron strat of BW loses its luster in SC2, because 3 bases saturates income/production, and everyone can take 3 bases. Protoss and Terran can take their thirds unopposed, and Zerg has no recourse but to turtle even further. So you get really lame games where both sides turtle turtle turtle until the deathball. The end effect is that Zerg can use its unfettered macro for the BLs and the SHs and Infestors, so they're more the symptom, not the cause.
Well... managing 3 bases in BW was also about as taxing as marine splits.... Its like having to inject every 17 seconds without using hotkeys.
So even the "act" of turtling on 3 bases is impressive in BW and lead to having worse army control which allowed 2 base to more easily double expand to 4 base which is even harder to manage and so on and so forth...
But since it was so hard to manage that many bases, even "ineffectual" attacks like sniping a depot or two was huge since the person looking away from his macro for that long actually hurt him unlike in sc2.
Just saying that's what they're SUPPOSED to do doesn't really say anything about whether it's good for the game or not. Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake. Broodlords are good because they do good base damage from a distance from the air; putting broodlings in the opponent's army is just a nice bonus. Removing broodlings (while I don't advocate for this in the slightest) would not gimp the Zerg army, and insisting the rest of the forum is out to nerf Zerg into oblivion is just making you sound paranoid.
This is completely wrong, broodlings are the main feature of getting BL : Cost effective army, siege capability, friendly tank-fire, actual meatshied potential. They are everything. If you look closely, BL are slow, expensive and dont do a lot damage for their cost, but they do much more than that
It's the Zerg way of being cost effective, other race do it with lasers and shell, Zerg do it with units
Edit : I dont think you realize how and how much they'd have to compensate Zerg if they removed free units, I dont think anyone want a brand new flying colossus on steroids, in the end "free waves of units" versus "massive range and damage" is a very good trade for the game
This thread was supposed to point out the design flaw of free units for the swarming race.
Taking a look at BW zerg, you couldn't surround the terran or toss while he was in his base. You could also expand a lot while he was in his base. It was easy to surround the terran or toss when he moved out. Your cost ineffective units became very cost effective when all of them, being melee, could attack him all at once. So you expanded more, thanks to the map control he relinquished so he could survive the early/mid game. This forced your opponent to either move out or lose to your expo advantage. When it came time to attack him if he wasn't moving out, you were supposed to throw units at him, but you could because you were actually mining on 5ish mineral lines at once while he was maximum 3. The economics in BW played a role in how many bases each race needed, zerg included, and map control was given to the race that needed more bases.
Now zergs can win on fewer bases because of the cost effectiveness of their free units. This should never be the case. Even with many of the same map control mechanics they were given in BW (speed lings). This is a design flaw, cost effectiveness is mech's territory and mech, btw, is not about being slow or immobile, its about being cost effective, at the cost of having to always be prepared. Terran design was supposed to be about holding ground and being the most cost effective out of the races. A toss was even far more wasteful than a terran. A zerg only received effective units to attack a fortified position late late in the game, and these units weren't mindless 1A units, bad players were bad with them.
And before you claim there must have been an imbalance, there was. For the race that was supposed to be more wasteful. For the race that was supposed to expand because they were simply were given mechanics that favoured this. In ZvP, zerg tended to win more. In ZvT, zerg tended to win more. In PvT, toss tended to win more.
This imbalance in the statistics is linked solely to which race was expected to take more bases. And everyone was happy with this imbalance.
EDIT: trust me, id love to have zerg compensated for being less cost effective....
Taking a look at BW zerg, pretty much every unit was cost effective, Zergling were insanely strong and so were hydralisk and defilers, the larva mechanic was more limiting the number of unit than increasing it
Why shouldnt zerg be cost-effective ? Did you missed the part where it was the case for most of WoL and their winrates plummeted because of how predictable and easy to counter it was ? "Cost-effectiveness should be the territory of Mech", but yet Terran can still play Zerg style by going full bio ? This isnt broodwar, there should be more than 1 comp available to every race, and it is.
Winrates were changing every year and if Z was statistically favored in ZvP it wasnt the case at all for ZvT : http://i.imgur.com/gmXwO.png
You did not read my post, evidently.
The statistic you've also provided is unrelated to the statistic i gave, yours shows 3 month trends, i meant overall but that apparently wasn't clear enough.
Zerg was cost ineffective when it came to attacking a defensive toss/terran position. they had to expo a lot to over come that defensive position. It was easy to expo a lot cause they tended to have map control. People liked this style of gameplay much more. Zerg felt much more zerg. Now they dont. Now, they build units that are extremely cost effective, not just decent cost effectiveness, but extremely cost effective. Extreme cost effectiveness while they still have superior map control mechanics, its actually disappointing to see how less skillful zerg is from BW zerg.
Yes and that is what zergs tried for a long time. But apperantly, a Terran with 3-4bases and 3-4mules mines more overall than a zerg on 5,6,7,8 or whatever number of bases in Starcraft2. The only advantage incomewise you get from more bases, is that you can have a better gas income. Guess what more gas leads to? You can produce more high tech units than your opponent. That's the advantage zerg has, nothing else. Hell, in TvZ Terran basic units are better than Zerg basic units open field. You must field infestors to combat MMM costefficiently, at least when the Terran starts to go for multipronged attacks, against which banelings are incredibly bad. So not only do Marines and Marauders with medivac support beat ling/roach/hydra/baneling/mutalisk/queen based play, Terran also gets more of them due to higher mineral income from mules.
It's very simple. Terran basic units are better than zerg basic units in direct confrontations, so zerg has to build something else or try to outnumber the Terran. You can outnumber a Terran with 3vs2bases, but you cannot do it with Xvs3bases. So the only actual option is to build something else. It's actually disappointing how people don't see that the viability of low tier bio compositions is the reason why the other races HAVE TO deathball vs Terran. You get worn down if you try to play active vs it and you get destroyed in ball vs ball fights unless you field massive amounts of high tech units. Not gonna start about TvP. Protoss deathball kills all non-EMP ground play in the lategame. Nothing more to say.
Also, as this is HotS: I believe Vipers and buffed ultras in trade for weaker infestors is a step in the right direction, because with those units zerg low tier units become a lot more potent and Zerg might actually be capable of staying groundbased vs Protoss.
In my first post i stated id love for zerg to be compensated for this lack of cost effectiveness. Thanks for your input, but i hate the viability of tier 1 units, from all the races.
And mules aren't that good, they're only worth 3 workers and you lose out on the build time of 2 workers to upgrade the CC, and although they ignore saturation they don't just pull minerals out from no where, the node is still worth X amount of resources. The economy in this game doesn't help the racial design either, Id much rather see a loss in efficiency after 1 workers per mineral patch.
On February 01 2013 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote: Thread starts suggesting unit generating units should be redesigned to be more fun--defensive zerg players whine that we're trying to nerf Broodlords...
My understanding of this thread has been a discussion on the mechanics of the Zerg race--specifically it's ability to spawn temporary units. I don't know what this sudden surge of "don't nerf BL please, Zerg so weak!" came from...
The problem is not that Broodfestor is too strong, the problem people are having is that Zerg acts more like a mech player than Terran does. And I'm not talking about efficiency, I'm talking game style. Broodfestor players literally leapfrog spines like tanks, they're literally playing mech. Instead of tanks they use infestors, instead of minefields they use spine walls, instead of bunkers/vultures they use broodlings to defend they're tankfestors. Blizzard made mech work--they just gave it to the wrong race.
Why? Because token generation is slow and requires a buildup in order to be powerful. They're efficiency comes from longevity, not from kills/second. So giving Zerg that mechanic forces them to do exactly what Terran in BW did when they were given efficient free units (Spidermines) they turtle and spawn as many free units as possible.
This is not about balance or whether Zerg would be weak or not--this is gameplay, and how Zerg is playing too much like Terran and Terran playing too much like Zerg. So can we please stop trying to protect broodlords from nerfs that aren't even talked about! Could we not misunderstand "bring back old style ZvX" as needing broodlords and instead see it as a request to change the units so that they play more like how Zerg played in 2011 when sc2 was at its strongest.
I very much like this post. It's in stark contrast to the many posts that followed arguing that X is too strong, or Y is too weak.
Even though it's correct, as was later pointed out, that terran might have a mineral mining advantage at certain stages of the game due to mules, and a good mineral dump (marines), the fact that terran has less map control and slower units on the one hand, and slower saturation of bases on the other, does not allow the roles of zerg and terran to be fully reversed. Nor do I think they should be.
And I think it's clear that current HotS or WoL zerg and terran don't play the way zerg played in 2011 in the heyday of DRG (who was a beast before the turtle composition came about and remains a beast now without it). But HotS zerg is on the knife's edge. IdrA seems to make roach hydra viper work quite well which plays much more akin to 2011 zerg. On the other hand, the development team has not been focusing on a roach, hydra, viper composition; leaving those units relatively untouched for a while. So, this discussion will hopefully demonstrate that there are a number of people that prefer a different design choice than the one they are currently making, and if we believe LR over the past months threads, it's a sizeable part of the community that wants zerg to play different.
On February 01 2013 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote: Thread starts suggesting unit generating units should be redesigned to be more fun--defensive zerg players whine that we're trying to nerf Broodlords...
My understanding of this thread has been a discussion on the mechanics of the Zerg race--specifically it's ability to spawn temporary units. I don't know what this sudden surge of "don't nerf BL please, Zerg so weak!" came from...
The problem is not that Broodfestor is too strong, the problem people are having is that Zerg acts more like a mech player than Terran does. And I'm not talking about efficiency, I'm talking game style. Broodfestor players literally leapfrog spines like tanks, they're literally playing mech. Instead of tanks they use infestors, instead of minefields they use spine walls, instead of bunkers/vultures they use broodlings to defend they're tankfestors. Blizzard made mech work--they just gave it to the wrong race.
Why? Because token generation is slow and requires a buildup in order to be powerful. They're efficiency comes from longevity, not from kills/second. So giving Zerg that mechanic forces them to do exactly what Terran in BW did when they were given efficient free units (Spidermines) they turtle and spawn as many free units as possible.
This is not about balance or whether Zerg would be weak or not--this is gameplay, and how Zerg is playing too much like Terran and Terran playing too much like Zerg. So can we please stop trying to protect broodlords from nerfs that aren't even talked about! Could we not misunderstand "bring back old style ZvX" as needing broodlords and instead see it as a request to change the units so that they play more like how Zerg played in 2011 when sc2 was at its strongest.
I very much like this post. It's in stark contrast to the many posts that followed arguing that X is too strong, or Y is too weak.
Even though it's correct, as was later pointed out, that terran might have a mineral mining advantage at certain stages of the game due to mules, and a good mineral dump (marines), the fact that terran has less map control and slower units on the one hand, and slower saturation of bases on the other, does not allow the roles of zerg and terran to be fully reversed. Nor do I think they should be.
And I think it's clear that current HotS or WoL zerg and terran don't play the way zerg played in 2011 in the heyday of DRG (who was a beast before the turtle composition came about and remains a beast now without it). But HotS zerg is on the knife's edge. IdrA seems to make roach hydra viper work quite well which plays much more akin to 2011 zerg. On the other hand, the development team has not been focusing on a roach, hydra, viper composition; leaving those units relatively untouched for a while. So, this discussion will hopefully demonstrate that there are a number of people that prefer a different design choice than the one they are currently making, and if we believe LR over the past months threads, it's a sizeable part of the community that wants zerg to play different.
I for one fear that the swarm host will be a grave mistake, one that come release, blizz will refuse to change. Lurkers were so much cooler, funner, niche-er, loveable, zergy....etc... i can see the design intent of swarm hosts, but how they're used doesnt sit comfortably with me. I think blizz intends it to be a unit that you use to tank siege tank fire for hydras to poke at the wall with but ATM it appears like players just start spamming them until they have 40 of them.
Just going over the whole thread I have to say I love the battle between Spyridon and Christian. It is actually pretty fun to read two people who actually have decently well thought out arguments for both sides (regardless of my personal opinion on the matter.) The side discussion on the numbers of the BroodLord between proto and unsa does not feel entertaining, helpful, or really relevant to the main point on of the thread, but at least it's not just 10yr olds whining because "I just lost to X nerf plox this game sux," -__-.
Even though the Spyri and Christian debate is very thought provoking and well constructed, (and well mannered despite the blatant insults ) I also don't feel like your discussion on the balance of BroodLords and BroodLings is the main point of the thread.
On January 28 2013 03:59 HardlyNever wrote:
So that wraps up why I think this trend in free units is bad. It creates boring gameplay, breaks the zerg paradigm of cost-inefficientness, and makes splash damage even more appealing than it already is. I know this probably won't change anything in HotS, but at least least I'm trying to do my part as a beta tester.
I'm personally not too happy about having to constantly deal with waves of free units, and I explain why in the post. Do zerg players like all these free units? How does terran deal with it (siege tanks)? I'm concerned what this might mean for the game in the long term.
From trying to be as impartial to the thread as I can, I feel as though Thieving MagPie (awesome name btw ) is closest on the core of the issue in that the way zerg's unit generators work, it doesn't FEEL as though you are playing the SWARM race. You are babysitting a few ultra expensive, slow, and extremely cost efficient units that can hold it's own against NEARLY any other composition thrown against it. The addition of Tempests has the POTENTIAL to create a similar situation for protoss, but as a race you are supposed to be babysitting a few ultra expensive and cost efficient units. Terrans have the most versatility in what they can do (mech vs bio vs biomech etc) because Blizzard had intended for Terrans to be the most versatile race since the beginning of SC2. They even mentioned that Terran's felt like "the most complete race" in terms of design, and they wanted Heart of the Swarm especially to help fill in some of the design gaps they felt that zerg had.
Zergs were meant to be inefficient, but so great in number and territory that losses didn't matter. I don't care one way or another about balance in so far as this thread is concerned, the OP point is that the DESIGN of zerg, (specifically the hyper efficient unit generators BroodLords and Infestors,) makes it so that it is not fun to play or watch the race that is supposed to overwhelm in numbers like a swarm of bugs play more like WarCraft heroes, where it is a few hero units (broodlords) and spellcasters (infestors) that do the heavy work.
Yeah there are some players (thank you Idra <3 <3) who tend to steer away from the hyper efficient, low expanding infestor spine broodlord with more aggressive mid-games like Roach Hydra Viper or Ling Bane Muta -> Ultra, but when the easiest AND safest way to play is the ultra efficient style that is completely opposite to how the design of the race was supposed to function, then we have a serious DESIGN flaw. (If its not fun to play, or fun to watch, what does it matter how well balanced it is? Tic Tac Toe is the most balanced real time game I can think of, but I don't watch casts of proffesional Tic Tac Toe players because ITS NOT FUN.)
'DB and co. wants zerg to be able to put pressure in a very "zergy" way. Well it's not "zergy," that all you do is babysit a few hyper efficient units, it only looks that way because the method of attack is a wave(SH) / stream(BL) / burst(Inf) of dispensable units.'
I can't help but recall the Lings of Liberty post where it suggests that Blizz wants foreigners to beat koreans, and the way to do that is to make a race easy enough and strong enough that they had a chance. Flashy and 'cool' looking eye candy makes more sales, so applied to this post they will be keeping the 'zergy' Hosts, Infestors, and Broodlords beacuse it LOOKS appealing... but we know that post was only satire doesn't apply to anything really right?.... Right???
I think that the StarBow solution to the BroodLords in particular is an interesting solution that is at least a step in the right direction. The SBow BLrd is essentially a Guardian, but instead of a basic attack or a constant stream of 'tokens,' each attack applies a parasite to the target unit that last for a small amount of time. If the unit dies with the parasite active, then the unit spawns broodlings (stackable on units with enough hp to tank more than a couple hits.) While this might not be the greatest for SC2, I feel like it is definitely a much more FUN and appealing way to design BroodLords while retaining the 'zergy' look. Now it just has a (more) 'zergy' FEEL to it as well.
Just my thoughts on the discussion so far. It's been enlightening and I hope to keep reading these types of debates, since the overall goal of most everybody is that WE WANT SC2 TO BE AS GOOD AS AND BETTER THAN BROODWAR, even if we can't quite agree on what exactly needs to happen.
On January 31 2013 19:02 ChristianS wrote: There's no contradiction between saying "there could be imbalances" and "I think it's too soon to say Zerg as a race is underpowered in HotS." I haven't even seen any statistics on winrates in HotS; even if there were any, they would largely be meaningless, because the game changes pretty much every week. Blizzard is largely making changes based on what they think makes for better gameplay at the moment, because there really isn't a good way to measure global balance at this point.
Before I respond, I find it quite ironic that you say you actually agree with me and others here on some points, yet for some reason you are arguing some of the points you claim to agree with.
In response, your quotes of your self... that's not what you said man. Your exact words were "If Zerg has something that is legitimately imbalanced it should be addressed". Then your next paragraph "It's way too early to HotS balance perspective accurately".
Taking that in to consideration, you DID contradict yourself. Now your saying "its too soon to say Zerg as a race is underpowered". If that's the case, it should be too early to judge if something is imbalanced as well. Yet for some reason your talking about legitimate imbalance? Contradiction.
Because we have to consider the lategame design during beta, and there's very little evidence so far as to what lategame HotS actually looks like, so we have to guess based on the more well-explored WoL lategame and what we know about the new units. For example, someone might have the concern that viper/broodlord would be a difficult composition to deal with because the vipers can blinding cloud anything that gets in range of the broodlords, thus preventing them or the vipers from ever being hit. That's a potentially legitimate concern, but we wouldn't have seen it much yet because lategame HotS games are rare. So we compare it to the existing WoL metagame and try to decide just how troublesome this new composition really would be.
How don't you see this is still contradicting your earlier comments? You say you can't judge HotS balance, you say right here that theres little evidence of endgame... So you try to guess from WoL and extrapolate what's going to happen in HotS?
How about waiting until imbalance actually happens before complaining about it? You ask why I'm so offended? Because of exactly what you are doing here. People (including you) are straight up making guesses about what's going to happen, and claiming theres "legitimate imbalance".
Right now, things are not imbalanced. And you tell me I'm paranoid?? I'm not the one talking about legitimate imbalance when the numbers don't show it... now THAT'S paranoid.
While I'm unaware of any tank pushes that make it unsafe for zerg to ever leave their base from game start to hive tech, I'll take your word for it. Even if there are effective contain strategies against zerg, so what? If one player dedicates resources to containing the other, and then the other player is temporarily contained, that sounds like how the game is supposed to work to me. If you dedicate the resources to breaking out (say, building mutalisks), then you are no longer contained.
What strikes me as odd about this is that Zerg has BY FAR the easiest time maintaining map presence of any of the races. Protoss probably has the hardest time, unless you count observers (and that's not really map presence). In general map control usually goes to the player with the faster units, which is nearly always the zerg player. So you complaining about Zerg's many woes of being unable to move out on the map is, well... I don't know how else to describe it, other than patently untrue.
As I mentioned in the last message, there are situations you can leave, and theres situations you can't. And I don't really have a problem with that. I just find it ironic that other races act like Zerg is anywhere near the best race at turtling, when the other races do it better. The melodramatics are annoying.
I didn't decide it. I observed it, based on playing and watching Starcraft. Broodlings have nice little advantages like forcing tanks to unsiege, but when it comes down to it, they're not that powerful and they have fairly little to do with why BL/infestor is so strong. I know broodlings aren't that important compared to fungal combined with siege range, because if the problem were the broodlings, it wouldn't be very difficult to deal with. If you've ever fought a BL/infestor army with 4-8 hellions in your own army, you know that the broodlings are virtually a non-issue. It's really easy to kill off the broodlings; but when you do, there's still a broodlord infestor army driving toward your base that you haven't done anything about, because the broodlings aren't that important.
In general Zerg is designed to be weak in small numbers but strong in overwhelming numbers, but broodlord infestor does not follow this rule. The infestor is one of the most cost-efficient units in the game, and if you manage broodlord infestor right, you can easily do it without losing a single broodlord, or at least force your opponent to trade 50+ supply to kill one or two broodlords that you immediately replace. That's not winning through strength by numbers; that's winning through having a more cost-efficient army than your opponent.
Again man... that's not what you said. Your exact words " Broodlings aren't really supposed to be the best part of getting broodlords; they're mostly just icing on the cake.".Where, exactly, did you "observe" Blizzard saying Broodlords were just supposed to be icing on the cake? .
And once again, who are YOU to judge the intent of Broodlords? You didn't design them. If it wasn't their intent to be used how they are, why would they have nerfed infestors instead of Broodlords? They changed Guardians in to Broodlords for a reason... Obviously it fits Blizzards intent. You are just in denial.
Also I agree Zerg in general is designed to be weak in small numbers and overwhelming in high numbers. And your right again, Broodlord/Infestor does not follow this rule. What you fail to realize is this is INTENDED. These units are designed to take the damage for the other units, basically functioning how a "defensive" unit would work for the other races. Except they do it in a swarmy way.
Do you really think Roaches fit a swarmy defensive "tanking" role better than Broodlords or Swarm hosts?
And you are still bringing WoL balance in to this. Straight up, WoL has no place in a discussion about HotS balance. Most of the playerbase has already admit BL/Infestor isn't a problem yet, except you.
I don't actually know why you disagree with me so strongly. I only stepped into this forum trying to clarify what the real issue with broodlord/infestor really is, since people seemed to think it was free units that make it difficult to deal with. I tried to make clear that this is not, in fact, the issue with broodlord/infestor, and that the Swarm Host doesn't really suffer from any of the problems broodlord/infestor does.
I can ask you the same question - why are you disagreeing with me so strongly?
The reason I'm disagreeing with you so strongly is you are arguing WoL balance in the HotS forum and saying silly things like Broodlords are the only air siege unit, when that's not the case in HotS, and we're on the HotS forum.
Your comments about the Swarm Host that I just quoted... That's exactly my point.
How can you possibly judge the balance of a new game, when most people haven't even really stopped using the strategies from the old game yet?
Actually, most people are experimenting with the new stuff, not playing the old game. But this comment shows the mentality that you are stuck in... playing the old game.
This is where balancing by comparison to WoL comes in. If the Warhound is significantly stronger than every WoL unit was, the Warhound is probably OP. If Swarm Host pushes are doing a lot more damage than Zerg pushes in WoL typically did, it might be that the Swarm Host is a little too strong.
Except Warhound wasn't just removed for its strength - the numbers could have been rebalanced. They stated it was removed because it overlapped with too many units.
Also, it was recognized that one of Zergs problems was no mid-game siege unit. It was designed so that Zerg midgame pushes were able to break the wall that was previously unbreakable. And it's far easier to counter than BL/Infestor was. So what's the problem?
Giving Terran more options and timings to attack Zerg before broodlord infestor comes out does not address the broodlord infestor issue, and let's not pretend for a second that it does. The problem isn't even exactly that the matchup's win rate is skewed, although it may be; the problem is that if the Terran's win condition is to kill Zerg before hive tech, and the Zerg's win condition is to reach hive tech, then that's bad game design, regardless of win rates.
Some advice... Stop playing WoL Terran. Your the only Terran I've seen on here lately that's still acting like Broodlord/Infestor is a major problem. You said yourself that you think people are still playing like WoL, break that cycle.
In response to your complaints about the game design, I can agree with you to a point, because you have to understand, the grass is always greener, and if that's how the balance ends up being in the end, don't think it's going to be fun for Zerg either. It's not fun to lose a game unless you manage to make it to Hive.
I've said before I would love it if they gave Zerg some early game power, that way they would be able to loosen up on the late game power a bit. The problem is (which I was trying to explain to you before) any buffs they do to Zerg early game (such as burrow, which wasn't even a major buff to early game since you sacrifice economy or tech for it) and you have loads of people complaining "Now Zerg has it even easier to get to hive tech, omgwtf!". If they did that for just burrow, imagine what would happen if they did it with some stronger tech? That's exactly why it's never going to happen, and that's exactly why I'm annoyed by it.
To stress that again to make the point clear. We're in agreement about a potential problem here if the balance ends up like that. But those changes are not going to happen specifically because of all the people complaining about any buff to Zerg early game. That's why I'm bothered by the complaints. It's bad feedback and stopping them from designing the balance better.
And I'll be honest now, your complaints, especially when it comes to bringing up WoL balance in HotS, isn't helping the situation at all.
You've made quite clear that a) you think Zerg is probably UP in HotS, and b) you think the forum is systematically biased against Zerg. But actually, there was a thread complaining about the free siege upgrade. When the widow mine was buffed, there were complaints about it. When the caduceus reactor and emergency thrusters buffs came down, everyone was in an uproar about it. Just recently there was a thread built on the premise that Zerg, as a race, is underpowered (I didn't follow the thread, but I suspect you were somewhat in favor of the premise). I don't see any evidence that the community is especially biased against Zerg or any other race; it's just people giving feedback about the game, which is what a beta is for.
If you think the world is against you, and they're actually not, that's paranoid.
I'm not saying Zerg is UP, nor am I saying any of the other races are OP. What I am saying is there is no evidence to support Zerg being OP, the only (little bit) of evidence we have says otherwise, and with that in consideration, it's not the time to be discussing making Zerg weaker.
As you said, and I agree, it's too early to tell balance for sure. So it strikes me as out of place that you are bringing up "legitimate imbalance" on the HotS forum with WoL info, when theres no evidence to back that up right now, and contrary to your belief Infestor/BL isn't unstoppable, nor is it even the best strategy to use in HotS.
Responding to you talking about the threads, once again I explain that there is a clear difference, because the complaints about Zerg is the bad feedback making them reluctant from making Zerg early game stronger and lategame weaker.
Let me try explaining it in a way you would understand. How would you feel if the general tone of feedback for Terran was saying how their early and mid game need to be nerfed, and their late game made stronger instead, knowing Terran as a race is designed with the most options for early game harassment in mind? Would you really want to give up the strengths Terran has, just to be in the same exact situation Zerg was in on WoL? That type of balance isnt fun for everyone, and the complaints I'm mentioning are the ones keeping it that way.
In response to calling me paranoid, I say the same thing I said before. Your the one talking about "legitimate imbalance" when you have no evidence, not me. That's paranoid.
These are getting a little too lengthy, so I'll try to keep it brief.
-Local imbalance and global imbalance are very different things. People are complaining about local imbalances like "Swarm Host seems too strong now" or "The widow mine has no good counter." That's exactly what betas are for, and there's nothing wrong with this kind of feedback. If, on the other hand, someone says "Zerg is clearly UP until lategame because Zerg can never win unless they have hive" is stating a global imbalance, which is much, MUCH more difficult to measure; win rates are the only very effective measure, and I don't know if win rate statistics even exist yet. So me saying "it's too soon to judge balance for HotS" was in response to you saying "Zerg isn't exactly in the best place right now in HotS," which was a complaint of global imbalance. If, on the other hand, someone is just arguing that the Swarm Host is too strong or something, that's something we can judge based on what we've seen of the Swarm Host.
-I only brought up WoL balance in the context of Broodlord/Infestor because people were arguing about the problems Broodlord/Infestor had, and they were misrepresenting it. As for the issue about broodlings, it doesn't matter what Blizzard INTENDED two and a half years ago for whether the siege range or broodling was more valuable. Frankly they didn't intend anything on the matter; they just intended to revamp an old unit to make it cooler and more interesting for players and spectators. When I said broodlings aren't supposed to be the biggest benefit of getting broodlords, I was stating that they are not, in fact, the biggest part of what makes broodlords strong. Regardless of what Blizzard intended them to be, they simply aren't. Broodlord infestor isn't so strong because it has units to tank for it, or because broodlings do such incredible DPS that nothing can compete. They're strong because it's difficult to even reach a point where you're able to shoot at hte broodlords, because fungal zones you out.
-I never claimed there are balance issues in current HotS. Nor do I play a WoL style in current HotS. And if you don't think Zerg is UP in HotS, then I'm sorry for misrepresenting you; I thought you made pretty clear that you thought Zerg was in a bad place in HotS, and that Protoss and Terran complaints about Zerg were only stemming from a secret desire to gimp the Zerg race until it was completely ineffectual. I considered both those sentiments paranoid, since there's not enough evidence to claim global imbalance yet, and there's no reason to assume ulterior motives on the part of your fellow forumgoers.
-Early-game buffs to Zerg would not do anything to make late-game Zerg more balanced. Zerg actually has plenty of fairly strong early- and mid-game attacks; they just don't use them much because their lategame is so much better. I hear this dynamic has changed in PvZ, but in TvZ it definitely hasn't.
On February 01 2013 10:27 Doominator10 wrote: Even though the Spyri and Christian debate is very thought provoking and well constructed, (and well mannered despite the blatant insults ) I also don't feel like your discussion on the balance of BroodLords and BroodLings is the main point of the thread.
lol.. I can agree that the conversation did get sidetracked a bit.
In response to what you said about efficiency... Zerg "in general" isn't about efficient units. But some people have the misconceptions about it.
First misconception: Zerg units are always inefficient. This isn't true, even for the most inefficient Zerg units in the game. In SC2, what is inefficient in small numbers becomes more and more efficient in big numbers. The more you have, the more efficient you are.
Second misconception: All Zerg units are designed to be efficient. This is not true, even in WoL. The majority of Zerg units are inefficient, but once you get to late game tech they are more efficient, and the spellcasters (even in WoL) are designed to make the other units more efficient.
When it comes to Broodlords and Swarm Hosts, this is kind of a different issue as well. Siege units, by design, are very efficient units. Also, Siege units, by design, have to be protected by other units.
Taking that in to consideration, either Zerg doesn't have a siege unit, or their siege unit is going to be efficient. Even Lurkers were super efficient. Every other races Siege units are efficient. Swarm Hosts are actually the least efficient of them all, which is why they are weak in small numbers. But going along with the Zerg ideal explained in the first misconception, they gain efficiency as they go in to large numbers.
If this is such a problem, how would anyone else solve the problem of both making a siege unit that's not efficient in low numbers, but is efficient in large numbers, and synergizes by providing protection to make other Zerg units more efficient, which is the ideal of Zerg as a race?
On February 01 2013 10:37 ChristianS wrote: These are getting a little too lengthy, so I'll try to keep it brief.
Agreed there as well. I'll respond briefer too.
Sure, local and global imbalance are different things. But instead of actually responding to what I said, you are ignoring it and displacing the conversation back on to me. I already explained to you that by the results right now, Zerg isn't in the best spot. Yet even though that should have been understood by now, you keep putting on the act as if I was arguing about Zerg being underpowered - something I have stated I don't think is true.
The crazy part about this converation? You already have been quoted of talking about global imbalance multiple times, yet you keep ignoring that fact and displacing back on to me as if I was the one to do that. You said Zerg had a legitimate imbalance. I said by the results Zerg aren't in the best place right now. How could you act like I was the one arguing about balance, and denying that you did?
Back on the WoL discussion you mention, again you still are backtracking what you actually said. You specifically stated "Broodlings aren't supposed to be the best part of getting a Broodlord, they are only supposed to be icing on the cake". That's completely contradictory and a completely different conversation from what you just said. And this is still ignoring the fact that the discussion you brought up has nothing to do with HotS balance, which was my problem with it from the beginning. Instead of responding to what I've been saying with you, you are denying what you said, same as you have to other people in this post. Seems that whenever someone quotes what you say, you just respond and argue with them, rather than actually respond to the conversation at hand.
If you never claimed there are balance issues in current HotS, then why were you arguing in this very topic (a HotS topic)? Because you brought WoL balance issue in to here. And my point was that doesn't belong here, but instead of accepting it you keep denying you did it at all, when you DID claim "legitimate imbalance". And yes, I did say Zerg aren't in the best place, and when you inquired what I meant about that I mentioned by the current results.
I also explained the issue with Protoss and Terran complaints very clearly last time too. I even gave an example you would understand from a Terran perspective. The global tone of complaints about Zerg is negative feedback that is preventing Blizzard from changing the metagame from a situation that both you and I have said is not ideal. What are the motives of that? Who knows. All I know is you can look at any of the changes that have happened to Zerg, even the earliest game one (burrow) and see nothing but endless feedback of "Oh great now Zerg can get to late game even easier!". How is anyone supposed to force Blizzards hand to change things when that is the #1 feedback they get?
And responding to your last part, the problem with most the earlier game attacks is most fall along the line of all-ins, rather than timing attacks. Most of this problem (which has been discussed since WoL) is because there's not ways to break siege or break turtle walls until later game. That's one of the top reasons Zergs rushed to Broodlords, and it's still the top reason Zergs are rushing to Vipers or Swarm Hosts now.
But this brings us back to the siege problem discussed in my response to Doominator above. It seems people have an issue with Zerg having these efficient units that need to be "babysitted", but siege by nature is efficient, and Zerg by nature gains efficiency in bigger numbers. People have many complaints, but all the solutions provided either would not work with the Zerg design that needs the the new siege units to be A) A siege unit, B) Inefficient in low numbers but efficient in high numbers, and C) Offer the synergy of both needing to be protecting by other units as is sieges nature, as well as providing synergy of protecting the Zerg units to make them more efficient..... If you don't have a unit that answers for these 3 problems it won't fit in and work with the Zerg dynamic and would leave "holes" in the Zerg design.
On February 01 2013 10:27 Doominator10 wrote: Even though the Spyri and Christian debate is very thought provoking and well constructed, (and well mannered despite the blatant insults ) I also don't feel like your discussion on the balance of BroodLords and BroodLings is the main point of the thread.
lol.. I can agree that the conversation did get sidetracked a bit.
In response to what you said about efficiency... Zerg "in general" isn't about efficient units. But some people have the misconceptions about it.
First misconception: Zerg units are always inefficient. This isn't true, even for the most inefficient Zerg units in the game. In SC2, what is inefficient in small numbers becomes more and more efficient in big numbers. The more you have, the more efficient you are.
Second misconception: All Zerg units are designed to be efficient. This is not true, even in WoL. The majority of Zerg units are inefficient, but once you get to late game tech they are more efficient, and the spellcasters (even in WoL) are designed to make the other units more efficient.
When it comes to Broodlords and Swarm Hosts, this is kind of a different issue as well. Siege units, by design, are very efficient units. Also, Siege units, by design, have to be protected by other units.
Taking that in to consideration, either Zerg doesn't have a siege unit, or their siege unit is going to be efficient. Even Lurkers were super efficient. Every other races Siege units are efficient. Swarm Hosts are actually the least efficient of them all, which is why they are weak in small numbers. But going along with the Zerg ideal explained in the first misconception, they gain efficiency as they go in to large numbers.
If this is such a problem, how would anyone else solve the problem of both making a siege unit that's not efficient in low numbers, but is efficient in large numbers, and synergizes by providing protection to make other Zerg units more efficient, which is the ideal of Zerg as a race?
On February 01 2013 10:37 ChristianS wrote: These are getting a little too lengthy, so I'll try to keep it brief.
Agreed there as well. I'll respond briefer too.
Sure, local and global imbalance are different things. But instead of actually responding to what I said, you are ignoring it and displacing the conversation back on to me. I already explained to you that by the results right now, Zerg isn't in the best spot. Yet even though that should have been understood by now, you keep putting on the act as if I was arguing about Zerg being underpowered - something I have stated I don't think is true.
The crazy part about this converation? You already have been quoted of talking about global imbalance multiple times, yet you keep ignoring that fact and displacing back on to me as if I was the one to do that. You said Zerg had a legitimate imbalance. I said by the results Zerg aren't in the best place right now. How could you act like I was the one arguing about balance, and denying that you did?
Back on the WoL discussion you mention, again you still are backtracking what you actually said. You specifically stated "Broodlings aren't supposed to be the best part of getting a Broodlord, they are only supposed to be icing on the cake". That's completely contradictory and a completely different conversation from what you just said. And this is still ignoring the fact that the discussion you brought up has nothing to do with HotS balance, which was my problem with it from the beginning. Instead of responding to what I've been saying with you, you are denying what you said, same as you have to other people in this post. Seems that whenever someone quotes what you say, you just respond and argue with them, rather than actually respond to the conversation at hand.
If you never claimed there are balance issues in current HotS, then why were you arguing in this very topic (a HotS topic)? Because you brought WoL balance issue in to here. And my point was that doesn't belong here, but instead of accepting it you keep denying you did it at all, when you DID claim "legitimate imbalance". And yes, I did say Zerg aren't in the best place, and when you inquired what I meant about that I mentioned by the current results.
I also explained the issue with Protoss and Terran complaints very clearly last time too. I even gave an example you would understand from a Terran perspective. The global tone of complaints about Zerg is negative feedback that is preventing Blizzard from changing the metagame from a situation that both you and I have said is not ideal. What are the motives of that? Who knows. All I know is you can look at any of the changes that have happened to Zerg, even the earliest game one (burrow) and see nothing but endless feedback of "Oh great now Zerg can get to late game even easier!". How is anyone supposed to force Blizzards hand to change things when that is the #1 feedback they get?
And responding to your last part, the problem with most the earlier game attacks is most fall along the line of all-ins, rather than timing attacks. Most of this problem (which has been discussed since WoL) is because there's not ways to break siege or break turtle walls until later game. That's one of the top reasons Zergs rushed to Broodlords, and it's still the top reason Zergs are rushing to Vipers or Swarm Hosts now.
But this brings us back to the siege problem discussed in my response to Doominator above. It seems people have an issue with Zerg having these efficient units that need to be "babysitted", but siege by nature is efficient, and Zerg by nature gains efficiency in bigger numbers. People have many complaints, but all the solutions provided either would not work with the Zerg design that needs the the new siege units to be A) A siege unit, B) Inefficient in low numbers but efficient in high numbers, and C) Offer the synergy of both needing to be protecting by other units as is sieges nature, as well as providing synergy of protecting the Zerg units to make them more efficient..... If you don't have a unit that answers for these 3 problems it won't fit in and work with the Zerg dynamic and would leave "holes" in the Zerg design.
Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean. It sounds like you're looking at something like race distribution in HotS GM league and arguing from there that Zerg must be underperforming, to which I would say that's an atrocious measure of balance (not entirely unlike when people would try to argue balance based on the race distribution in Code S). As for myself asserting global imbalances, I'm certain either I misspoke or you misunderstood me; I'm not even convinced they're OP as a race in WoL, and as for HotS, I wouldn't even begin to guess which race is strongest under the current rules. I certainly was, however, trying to clarify the situation regarding Zerg's alleged imbalance WoL, since it seemed to me that a few people were misunderstanding it.
As for that quote from me about broodlings not "supposed" to be this or that, I'll try to be as clear as I possibly can this time: I do not claim, and never intended to claim, that I have some magical knowledge of Blizzard's intentions in authoring the unit. I suspect their intentions were never even specific enough to have a firm stance on how important the broodlings should be compared to the normal attack. But Blizzard's intention aside, my intention in writing that sentence was to convey that when broodlord/infestor is actually used, the broodlings are a fairly small part of what makes it so powerful. They're certainly annoying, but it's not all that difficult to take measures to negate the broodlings, and when you do, you're still hardly any closer to dealing with the broodlord/infestor army. If I inadvertently conveyed anything else by that statement, I assure you it was only a miscommunication.
The connection to HotS, since this has been often questioned: -The original thread complains about the concept of free units (not free in the sense of having no opportunity cost, but free in the sense of being replenishable without spending minerals or gas), saying this concept is inherently flawed, and the Swarm Host is an example of this problem.
-Some people made connections to the often-discussed broodlord infestor problem from WoL, saying that free units are what make broodlord infestor so powerful, allegedly to an imbalanced degree. They use this as support for the original claim that free units are inherently flawed, and the Swarm Host is therefore bad design.
-I comment in the thread, arguing against this claim by saying that free units (whether they are inherently bad design or not) are not the reason broodlord infestor was so powerful. I argue that the broodlord infestor combination is powerful mostly because the broodlord, by nature of its design, cannot be engaged until the enemy first approaches it, while the infestor, by nature of its design, is ideally equipped to prevent any kind of approach. This combination is what makes broodlord infestor so powerful; free units have got fairly little to do with it.
If I'm understanding correctly, your solution to the perceived problem with Zerg lategame is a two step plan of a) buff Zerg early game so they have more aggressive options earlier in the game, and b) nerf Zerg lategame now that they have more alternatives. I have my doubts about this plan, though, because I don't think the reason Zerg early aggression is always all-in has to do with the strength of the units. Early attacks, no matter their strength, suffer from the essential problem that unlike the other races, Zerg attacks unavoidably come at the cost of drones. This means that any early attack from Zerg inherently comes at the cost of economy. This could be acceptable if the attack is meant to damage the opponent's economy without necessarily killing them outright; but in most cases in order to kill the economy you have to kill the army first. That means most attacks have one of two outcomes: 1) The Terran or Protoss is killed outright by the Zerg attack, and the game ends. 2) The Terran or Protoss defends, and the Zerg is economically behind. In other words, most attacks are inherently all-in. The only exceptions would be if the attack either enables the Zerg to make an economic investment they otherwise couldn't make, or puts a dent in the opponent's economy to make up for the economic sacrifice Zerg made in order to attack. Pretty much all non-all-in Zerg attacks fall into one of these two categories, or both. 2-base mutalisks were designed to harass the opponent, keep them holed up in their base defending, and enable Zerg to take more expansions while the opponent defends. Zergling runbys are designed to delay opponents' attacks, scout the enemy composition, and do economic damage to make up for the larvae spent on zerglings.
On February 01 2013 01:34 Thieving Magpie wrote: Thread starts suggesting unit generating units should be redesigned to be more fun--defensive zerg players whine that we're trying to nerf Broodlords...
My understanding of this thread has been a discussion on the mechanics of the Zerg race--specifically it's ability to spawn temporary units. I don't know what this sudden surge of "don't nerf BL please, Zerg so weak!" came from...
The problem is not that Broodfestor is too strong, the problem people are having is that Zerg acts more like a mech player than Terran does. And I'm not talking about efficiency, I'm talking game style. Broodfestor players literally leapfrog spines like tanks, they're literally playing mech. Instead of tanks they use infestors, instead of minefields they use spine walls, instead of bunkers/vultures they use broodlings to defend they're tankfestors. Blizzard made mech work--they just gave it to the wrong race.
Why? Because token generation is slow and requires a buildup in order to be powerful. They're efficiency comes from longevity, not from kills/second. So giving Zerg that mechanic forces them to do exactly what Terran in BW did when they were given efficient free units (Spidermines) they turtle and spawn as many free units as possible.
This is not about balance or whether Zerg would be weak or not--this is gameplay, and how Zerg is playing too much like Terran and Terran playing too much like Zerg. So can we please stop trying to protect broodlords from nerfs that aren't even talked about! Could we not misunderstand "bring back old style ZvX" as needing broodlords and instead see it as a request to change the units so that they play more like how Zerg played in 2011 when sc2 was at its strongest.
I very much like this post. It's in stark contrast to the many posts that followed arguing that X is too strong, or Y is too weak.
Even though it's correct, as was later pointed out, that terran might have a mineral mining advantage at certain stages of the game due to mules, and a good mineral dump (marines), the fact that terran has less map control and slower units on the one hand, and slower saturation of bases on the other, does not allow the roles of zerg and terran to be fully reversed. Nor do I think they should be.
And I think it's clear that current HotS or WoL zerg and terran don't play the way zerg played in 2011 in the heyday of DRG (who was a beast before the turtle composition came about and remains a beast now without it). But HotS zerg is on the knife's edge. IdrA seems to make roach hydra viper work quite well which plays much more akin to 2011 zerg. On the other hand, the development team has not been focusing on a roach, hydra, viper composition; leaving those units relatively untouched for a while. So, this discussion will hopefully demonstrate that there are a number of people that prefer a different design choice than the one they are currently making, and if we believe LR over the past months threads, it's a sizeable part of the community that wants zerg to play different.
I for one fear that the swarm host will be a grave mistake, one that come release, blizz will refuse to change. Lurkers were so much cooler, funner, niche-er, loveable, zergy....etc... i can see the design intent of swarm hosts, but how they're used doesnt sit comfortably with me. I think blizz intends it to be a unit that you use to tank siege tank fire for hydras to poke at the wall with but ATM it appears like players just start spamming them until they have 40 of them.
I agree, players were just massing them at the start. But better players(GM and Pros) started to use them differently, and don't commit to them too much while being constantly active with them. Watch all of those replays, they are very good and against some well-known players like LG.IM-Seed, TT1 etc. I also was afraid that players will just use them mindlessly, but vs. good players, you have to be active with them, otherwise, they will die, or he will just drop the hell out of you if you just stand there and throw locusts on him.
On February 01 2013 10:27 Doominator10 wrote: Even though the Spyri and Christian debate is very thought provoking and well constructed, (and well mannered despite the blatant insults ) I also don't feel like your discussion on the balance of BroodLords and BroodLings is the main point of the thread.
lol.. I can agree that the conversation did get sidetracked a bit.
In response to what you said about efficiency... Zerg "in general" isn't about efficient units. But some people have the misconceptions about it.
First misconception: Zerg units are always inefficient. This isn't true, even for the most inefficient Zerg units in the game. In SC2, what is inefficient in small numbers becomes more and more efficient in big numbers. The more you have, the more efficient you are.
Second misconception: All Zerg units are designed to be efficient. This is not true, even in WoL. The majority of Zerg units are inefficient, but once you get to late game tech they are more efficient, and the spellcasters (even in WoL) are designed to make the other units more efficient.
When it comes to Broodlords and Swarm Hosts, this is kind of a different issue as well. Siege units, by design, are very efficient units. Also, Siege units, by design, have to be protected by other units.
Taking that in to consideration, either Zerg doesn't have a siege unit, or their siege unit is going to be efficient. Even Lurkers were super efficient. Every other races Siege units are efficient. Swarm Hosts are actually the least efficient of them all, which is why they are weak in small numbers. But going along with the Zerg ideal explained in the first misconception, they gain efficiency as they go in to large numbers.
If this is such a problem, how would anyone else solve the problem of both making a siege unit that's not efficient in low numbers, but is efficient in large numbers, and synergizes by providing protection to make other Zerg units more efficient, which is the ideal of Zerg as a race?
On February 01 2013 10:37 ChristianS wrote: These are getting a little too lengthy, so I'll try to keep it brief.
Agreed there as well. I'll respond briefer too.
Sure, local and global imbalance are different things. But instead of actually responding to what I said, you are ignoring it and displacing the conversation back on to me. I already explained to you that by the results right now, Zerg isn't in the best spot. Yet even though that should have been understood by now, you keep putting on the act as if I was arguing about Zerg being underpowered - something I have stated I don't think is true.
The crazy part about this converation? You already have been quoted of talking about global imbalance multiple times, yet you keep ignoring that fact and displacing back on to me as if I was the one to do that. You said Zerg had a legitimate imbalance. I said by the results Zerg aren't in the best place right now. How could you act like I was the one arguing about balance, and denying that you did?
Back on the WoL discussion you mention, again you still are backtracking what you actually said. You specifically stated "Broodlings aren't supposed to be the best part of getting a Broodlord, they are only supposed to be icing on the cake". That's completely contradictory and a completely different conversation from what you just said. And this is still ignoring the fact that the discussion you brought up has nothing to do with HotS balance, which was my problem with it from the beginning. Instead of responding to what I've been saying with you, you are denying what you said, same as you have to other people in this post. Seems that whenever someone quotes what you say, you just respond and argue with them, rather than actually respond to the conversation at hand.
If you never claimed there are balance issues in current HotS, then why were you arguing in this very topic (a HotS topic)? Because you brought WoL balance issue in to here. And my point was that doesn't belong here, but instead of accepting it you keep denying you did it at all, when you DID claim "legitimate imbalance". And yes, I did say Zerg aren't in the best place, and when you inquired what I meant about that I mentioned by the current results.
I also explained the issue with Protoss and Terran complaints very clearly last time too. I even gave an example you would understand from a Terran perspective. The global tone of complaints about Zerg is negative feedback that is preventing Blizzard from changing the metagame from a situation that both you and I have said is not ideal. What are the motives of that? Who knows. All I know is you can look at any of the changes that have happened to Zerg, even the earliest game one (burrow) and see nothing but endless feedback of "Oh great now Zerg can get to late game even easier!". How is anyone supposed to force Blizzards hand to change things when that is the #1 feedback they get?
And responding to your last part, the problem with most the earlier game attacks is most fall along the line of all-ins, rather than timing attacks. Most of this problem (which has been discussed since WoL) is because there's not ways to break siege or break turtle walls until later game. That's one of the top reasons Zergs rushed to Broodlords, and it's still the top reason Zergs are rushing to Vipers or Swarm Hosts now.
But this brings us back to the siege problem discussed in my response to Doominator above. It seems people have an issue with Zerg having these efficient units that need to be "babysitted", but siege by nature is efficient, and Zerg by nature gains efficiency in bigger numbers. People have many complaints, but all the solutions provided either would not work with the Zerg design that needs the the new siege units to be A) A siege unit, B) Inefficient in low numbers but efficient in high numbers, and C) Offer the synergy of both needing to be protecting by other units as is sieges nature, as well as providing synergy of protecting the Zerg units to make them more efficient..... If you don't have a unit that answers for these 3 problems it won't fit in and work with the Zerg dynamic and would leave "holes" in the Zerg design.
I don't see how anything in this post is thought provoking.
Playing Red Alert 2 when I was 11, I knew that spending 200 credits on 1 GDI was a very inefficient decision. The GDI wouldn't do any damage and would just die. However, spending 2000 credits on 10 GDI's and sandbagging them or bunkering them throws cost-inefficiency out of the window when they are busy wrecking whole armies and getting promoted.
Everyone knows this, why would you write a long wall of text to explain basic RTS mechanics?
Zerglings won't do shit 1-on-1 with most units in the game. But give them metabolic boost, Adrenal Glands and a few other Zergling friends and they tear through anything that doesn't have AoE. Everybody knows this.
In fact, I don't think cost-efficiency is a valid argument in any sense when talking about SC2 seeing as it has elements of mass production.
I like the swarm host, not because it is swarmy, but because it isnt. Either I can go ling bane with infestors, melee ups and keeping lings on the map. Or I envision myself playing a zerg race with focus on the "hive" (as in the nest, not "tier 2"). With spine crawlers moving around on the ever spreading creep, mobile crawlers who spew forth more unit to assault opponents defences and small groups of unit ready to bolster the defences when opponents engage to try to kill my swarm hosts. What I like is that he styles are so different. What I like is that swarm host is not easy to transition to, they cost much and dont do much only themselves and I would love to see new and clever ways to transition into them in the pro scene. They "should" discourage turtling, since they are godawful to move out with if the opponent have units out on the map. They should encourage completely new styles of play since their mechanic is completely different from previous zerg styles. They (can) require good crisis management from the opponent and Im sure there are many ingenious ways to hunt them (ive used baneling autoexplode in swarmhost fields before detection, that was cool). If zerg can choose a clumsy static army, then the opponent can split up his army into smaller pieces and move around more freely (since less fast ling bane groups to hunt them).
I say diversity is good.
Any theorycrafting argument for why it is too good or not is just silly. Is it crushing opposition in GM league? I havn't heard of any such claims. Any argument about balance must be based on the state of the game, not some 4 line reasoning based on how zerg is supposed to be played in BW.
On February 01 2013 15:02 ChristianS wrote: Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean.
I've explained that a few times already. I'm not complaining about balance, just hinting that due to performance there's no reason that Blizz should be considering nerfs for Zerg. It's not like a few patches ago when Protoss were all of a sudden moving up in droves and dominating every matchup using the same strategy - that's indicative of a problem. At the moment Zerg aren't dominant.
It sounds like you're looking at something like race distribution in HotS GM league and arguing from there that Zerg must be underperforming, to which I would say that's an atrocious measure of balance (not entirely unlike when people would try to argue balance based on the race distribution in Code S). As for myself asserting global imbalances, I'm certain either I misspoke or you misunderstood me; I'm not even convinced they're OP as a race in WoL, and as for HotS, I wouldn't even begin to guess which race is strongest under the current rules. I certainly was, however, trying to clarify the situation regarding Zerg's alleged imbalance WoL, since it seemed to me that a few people were misunderstanding it.
Of course it's not an accurate measure of balance if your just taking it as a static leaderboard. But it's good to show the current trends. For example, as I mentioned a few patches ago Protoss were moving up in droves and wiping all the other races out - that trend (rightfully) indicated a problem in that case.
Then after the patch that tweaked Terran timings for Siege etc, the new trend was Terrans were all of a sudden evening out with Protoss. Which showed the balance state was at least somewhat better between the 2, but Zerg was nearly missing.
And actually, recently, Zergs are starting to make more of an appearance. Right now there's 7 Protoss, 5 Zerg, and 4 Terran. This indicates balance is actually somewhat decent right now. If it were up to me, I wouldn't say any race was overpowered at the moment, especially since things are moving.
You can tell a lot from the trend. If Terrans continue to start disappearing, they may need some help. If Zergs happen to keep moving up and wiping the other races off the leaderboards then yes, Zerg may be overpowered.
But my point is, with what little statistics we're provided (of the massive amounts of Blizzard has on their own game) it doesn't seem that we should be discussing nerfs for any race atm.
The above posters last paragraph is exactly what I'm saying.
-I comment in the thread, arguing against this claim by saying that free units (whether they are inherently bad design or not) are not the reason broodlord infestor was so powerful. I argue that the broodlord infestor combination is powerful mostly because the broodlord, by nature of its design, cannot be engaged until the enemy first approaches it, while the infestor, by nature of its design, is ideally equipped to prevent any kind of approach. This combination is what makes broodlord infestor so powerful; free units have got fairly little to do with it.
That's something I can agree with, and it seems Blizzard would agree too, considering what they targeted when nerfing infestor/BL.
Well, that somewhat described the perceived problem imo, but not my proposed solution.
The problem in my opinion, and many others opinion that I have seen on these forums (if I remember correctly you may have mentioned something similar at some point in this convo?), have stated that if the balance comes to "Kill Zerg before lategame tech, or else late game they are near unstoppable" (which is similar to the situation many have described when facing WoL infestor/BL, or many people have said similar about Viper/Ultra so far in HotS).
If the balance comes to that, it's not fun for anyone. Not the Zerg player, or the one fighting Zerg. And honestly, since WoL beta Zerg players have been wishing for some options of early aggression that aren't all-in. Even Blizzard has stated they are aware of Zerg not having very many options for early aggression that aren't all in, and mentioned it as their reason for considering removing Burrow upgrades.
But it's not just the actual state of SC2, but many long-time Zerg players just feel Zerg (more than the other races) does not play like its SC1/BW incarnation. Zerg used to have one of the strongest early games in BW. But in SC2 early game options for Terran skyrocketed from BW and now the timing windows of early game are in Terrans favor. Early windows in Protoss isn't very different from an offensive perspective for Zerg, but defending was a bit more problematic at the start of WoL with the addition of warpgates and cannon pushes being harder to handle (although not as bad now). But overall the other races early games vs Zerg were similar with some upgrades. While Zerg only lost ground with early aggression. Which kept long time Zerg players wishing for BW style early game.
In WoL at release, Zergs was in a pretty bad state of balance overall. No mid game siege unit, and late game was actually a lot weaker than the BW incarnation as well. But in time with Blizz's balance changes, the only way they could fix it is they eventually made things like they did in late WoL - where Zerg was rushing to Infestor/BL and was near unstoppable lategame. The only reason they had to make the late-game so strong like this was because there wasn't many options lategame.
I know you argued against this earlier, but just refer back to some of the posts about the "Zerg Deathball" and you'll see many people complaining about the same thing. That was the only way they could "fix" Zerg by tweaking the numbers without any major changes (and of course Blizz only does the major changes in expansions).
Now for my proposed solution? Buffing early game, nerfing lategame is somewhat of a dumbed down version. But as I just explained, the only reason late-game had to be buffed to be so powerful was due to the early game being relatively weak. They made it so Zergs units were inefficient "until a point", and then once you reached that point they were super efficient.
My proposed solution isn't just "buff X unit though"... It's to use what was learned from SC BW. Let's think back to ZvT in BW. It's more about the timings rather than just "buff X unit". Early game, mid game, to late game, both races had an awesome dynamic where the timings consistently went back and forth.
Early game Zerg was actually the stronger one, at least until Terran started teching, then Terran was stronger until midgame, where Zerg was stronger once they got Mutas out, then Terran had a chance to push back, then back to Zerg, then the final push for Lategame, at which point Zerg was pretty damn scary once they got defilers/lurker/Ultras out.
If you compare the SC2 HotS timings to that... It's more like Terran have advantage in timings until Mutas, then Terran has a chance to strike back again, then once the Hive is finished Zerg's game is even stronger than before. This is much less dynamic than the timings of BW, and the biggest difference is in the early game.
On the bright side... HotS requires a lot more micro to be successful in the late-game, and this is more along the lines of BW. Micro is always a good thing. But earlygame is the big thing missing.
I feel the actual timings should be tweaked a bit, to more resemble the timings of BW. Both players should have vulnerable timings at early game, mid game, and late game.... Rather than having to skip past entire phases of the game as quick as possible.
In ZvT in particular, this means some offensive options that are not all-in or leaving themselves super vulnerable. This is actually really hard compared to BW. Because of A) The economy favoring later hatchery/pools, B) The reliance on Queens for economy and early defense, C) being reliant on Lair tech for anti air AND detection, and D) Roaches not transitioning in to more useful late game compositions like Hydras did in to Lurkers.
About ZvP... Well this match was always slow early game. I also feel this match is the most boring Zerg matchup in both WoL and HotS. Timings are even worse in this matchup than they are in ZvT. I've always felt more dynamic timings for this match would be more healthy for the game as a whole, but Protoss in general seems to be focused on somewhat safely building their chosen timing attack as soon as possible, and their HotS additions just reinforce this.
I'm not sure if you played BW much, but if you look in to it a bit (or refresh your memory) you will find that your statements about all attacks being all-in isn't necessarily true, assuming the timings are dynamic enough. In BW, each stage of the game could leave one player or the other after each stage of the game, and usually both players went back and forth doing as much damage as they could in the process. But if one stage of the game failed, unless you failed miserably or got outplayed, it didn't end the game.
HotS goes a long way in making SC2 a lot more like BW (especially for Zerg), but the timings still need work - particularly in the early game. Now mid-game and late-game timings both resemble BW for Zerg, and they both require micro to succeed. But early game is the only missing part.
This, btw is one reason I'm against discussions like this one about Swarm Host being bad for the game. No siege unit was a big downfall in Zerg timings and gave no way to break the walls that cause so many problems to Zerg for more than the first half of the game. It also makes things more similar to BW in the sense that you can now transition from Muta to Siege + Casters, same as you transitioned from Muta to Lurker + Defilers in BW. This fixes one of the major problems holding back Zerg timings from BW-SC2. If they were to remove that they would be taking a step back again.
On February 01 2013 15:02 ChristianS wrote: Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean.
I've explained that a few times already. I'm not complaining about balance, just hinting that due to performance there's no reason that Blizz should be considering nerfs for Zerg. It's not like a few patches ago when Protoss were all of a sudden moving up in droves and dominating every matchup using the same strategy - that's indicative of a problem. At the moment Zerg aren't dominant.
The problem isnt balance or nerfing Zerg but rather that "free units" is a bad design concept. The worst two examples are the Broodlord and the Infestor. The Infestor for their ability to "create up to eight stimmed Marines" for a short time, which is a lot of concentrated firepower for a 2 supply unit. The Broodlord is problematic for creating a constant stream of Broodlings which block any ground forces from engaging them and thus making them somewhat "invulnerable". Alone this might be ok, but Zerg also has the lockdown of Fungal Growth to "patch up holes in the Broodling screen". Thus it would be better to get rid of all those free unit generation abilities, because it just provides too much "blocking power" ... just as Forcefields and Fungal can.
Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather about allowing more things - like Marines / Hydras - to be viable against Broodlords. The tennisball-chucking Guardians in BW didnt block any ground based units and was still deadly ...
On February 01 2013 15:02 ChristianS wrote: Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean.
I've explained that a few times already. I'm not complaining about balance, just hinting that due to performance there's no reason that Blizz should be considering nerfs for Zerg. It's not like a few patches ago when Protoss were all of a sudden moving up in droves and dominating every matchup using the same strategy - that's indicative of a problem. At the moment Zerg aren't dominant.
The problem isnt balance or nerfing Zerg but rather that "free units" is a bad design concept. The worst two examples are the Broodlord and the Infestor. The Infestor for their ability to "create up to eight stimmed Marines" for a short time, which is a lot of concentrated firepower for a 2 supply unit. The Broodlord is problematic for creating a constant stream of Broodlings which block any ground forces from engaging them and thus making them somewhat "invulnerable". Alone this might be ok, but Zerg also has the lockdown of Fungal Growth to "patch up holes in the Broodling screen". Thus it would be better to get rid of all those free unit generation abilities, because it just provides too much "blocking power" ... just as Forcefields and Fungal can.
Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather about allowing more things - like Marines / Hydras - to be viable against Broodlords. The tennisball-chucking Guardians in BW didnt block any ground based units and was still deadly ...
So you think the units that are intended to provide protection for the Zerg army, specifically naming 2 of the only 3 Zerg units that are actually somewhat efficient, should be removed? Even though Infestors "ability to create eight stimmed marines" already has an easy micro counter (unlike the other races spells) and even though Broodlords are one of the least mobile units in the game?
And you think that won't harm Zergs design?
I could give many examples of the other races having a lot of concentrated firepower in low supply, it's all dependent on situation. As well I could explain to you how Guardians didn't need a mechanic to help defend the other units for synergy since the BW Zerg army as a whole was much more efficient than the SC2 incarnation.
What your saying goes beyond "free units being bad design". Considering Zerg is reliant on these units for protection and efficiency, your basically saying the design of Zerg as a whole is bad design. With that said, your solution would do nothing but make Zergs design even worse.
Each race has their own mechanics for holding the line and "zoning" the enemy. Removing the "free unit" (as you call it) mechanic would be a bad idea without doing a complete redesign of Zerg. In which case you might as well just take all the huge amounts of Terran AoE that helps them stand their ground in the process. Because that's what Terran is intended to do as a race as well, and removing Zergs little bit of efficiency and protection would be just as harmful to Zerg as removing Terrans frontloaded AoE.
Spells in general are very efficient if you don't micro to counter them anyway, a couple well placed seeker missiles could be basically undodgeable if you use your army to block the enemies movement properly and are capable of doing thousands of resources worth of double with just a couple missiles - far more than u'll see any infested terrans doing. Protoss shields and hallucination straight up destroys their ability to micro and surround which shuts down the opponent if used properly as well.
What your proposing isn't fair to the Zerg army, as you want to remove their strength with zoning, but keep the other races...
Guardians may have worked in BW, but that's becuase Zerg was designed completely differently, if you tried getting close to the Guardians youd be sucking up a lot of frontloaded AoE (lurkers if you were attacking ground, scourge if you were attacking air) almost similar to current Terran mechanics. Without that, Zerg needs something to both provide some protection and zoning ability. And Zerg as a whole was far stronger in early-mid game then they are now, which is one of the reasons they need those efficient units to provide protection, as that's how the race as a whole was designed.
If we're going to remove Zergs "free units", then how about we remove Terrans frontloaded AoE since that's their version of zoning and protection - no moreseeker missiles, tanks, widow mines. Then we take Protoss's shields and hallucinations. Even then, it still wouldn't be a fair trade (at least for Protoss, since that's not nearly as big of a loss for how the race plays). I could be of the opinion that all those things are bad design too... But even if I felt that way, I would never propose for them to be removed, considering the races are reliant on those mechanics for success.
And if any race had a complete redesign, I would say Protoss would need it most. If you wonder why, the XvP matchups in general aren't nearly as dynamic as the others, and refer to the Protoss Deathball post on this forum to see how many Protoss feel their race in incredible boring.
On February 01 2013 15:02 ChristianS wrote: Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean.
I've explained that a few times already. I'm not complaining about balance, just hinting that due to performance there's no reason that Blizz should be considering nerfs for Zerg. It's not like a few patches ago when Protoss were all of a sudden moving up in droves and dominating every matchup using the same strategy - that's indicative of a problem. At the moment Zerg aren't dominant.
The problem isnt balance or nerfing Zerg but rather that "free units" is a bad design concept. The worst two examples are the Broodlord and the Infestor. The Infestor for their ability to "create up to eight stimmed Marines" for a short time, which is a lot of concentrated firepower for a 2 supply unit. The Broodlord is problematic for creating a constant stream of Broodlings which block any ground forces from engaging them and thus making them somewhat "invulnerable". Alone this might be ok, but Zerg also has the lockdown of Fungal Growth to "patch up holes in the Broodling screen". Thus it would be better to get rid of all those free unit generation abilities, because it just provides too much "blocking power" ... just as Forcefields and Fungal can.
Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather about allowing more things - like Marines / Hydras - to be viable against Broodlords. The tennisball-chucking Guardians in BW didnt block any ground based units and was still deadly ...
So you think the units that are intended to provide protection for the Zerg army, specifically naming 2 of the only 3 Zerg units that are actually somewhat efficient, should be removed? Even though Infestors "ability to create eight stimmed marines" already has an easy micro counter (unlike the other races spells) and even though Broodlords are one of the least mobile units in the game?
And you think that won't harm Zergs design?
I could give many examples of the other races having a lot of concentrated firepower in low supply, it's all dependent on situation. As well I could explain to you how Guardians didn't need a mechanic to help defend the other units for synergy since the BW Zerg army as a whole was much more efficient than the SC2 incarnation.
Each race has their own mechanics for holding the line and "zoning" the enemy. Removing the "free unit" (as you call it) mechanic would be a bad idea without doing a complete redesign of Zerg. In which case you might as well just take all the huge amounts of Terran AoE that helps them stand their ground in the process. Because that's what Terran is intended to do as a race as well, and removing Zergs little bit of efficiency and protection would be just as harmful to Zerg as removing Terrans frontloaded AoE.
What your proposing isn't fair to the Zerg army, as you want to remove their strength with zoning, but keep the other races...
Guardians may have worked in BW, but that's becuase Zerg was designed completely differently, if you tried getting close to the Guardians youd be sucking up a lot of frontloaded AoE (lurkers if you were attacking ground, scourge if you were attacking air) almost similar to current Terran mechanics. Without that, Zerg needs something to both provide some protection and zoning ability. And Zerg as a whole was far stronger in early-mid game then they are now, which is one of the reasons they need those efficient units to provide protection, as that's how the race as a whole was designed.
If we're going to remove Zergs "free units", then how about we remove Terrans frontloaded AoE since that's their version of zoning and protection - no moreseeker missiles, tanks, widow mines. Then we take Protoss's shields and hallucinations. Even then, it still wouldn't be a fair trade (at least for Protoss, since that's not nearly as big of a loss for how the race plays). I could be of the opinion that all those things are bad design too... But even if I felt that way, I would never propose for them to be removed, considering the races are reliant on those mechanics for success.
And if any race had a complete redesign, I would say Protoss would need it most. If you wonder why, the XvP matchups in general aren't nearly as dynamic as the others, and refer to the Protoss Deathball post on this forum to see how many Protoss feel their race in incredible boring.
-Just because they're intended to do that (this time actually by Blizzard) doesn't mean the game wouldn't be better without them.
-Zerg's zoning, fungal growth in particular, is A LOT stronger than the other races'. I don't really even know what zoning you're referring to from Terran, other than constructing buildings or trying to position your army to be able to fire well before the enemy reaches you. The widow mine could kind of be called zoning — but only kind of, since it doesn't actually block the opponent from moving there, it just does some damage if they do. Protoss, of course, has force field, which is certainly very strong zoning; but for the price of one fungal, you can stop a clump of units from either advancing or retreating; A similar task from Protoss will take several force fields to prevent advancement, and several more to prevent retreat, not to mention it (unlike fungal) doesn't work on massive units, and it (unlike fungal) cannot target air.
Despite those points, I don't really think Infested Terrans or broodlings should be removed, nor do I think Blizzard has any intention of doing so. I understand infested terrans are more of a problem in ZvP than they are in TvZ; but my experience has always been that I'm overjoyed if I can make the Zerg use up his fungal energy on infested Terrans. I suppose they're somewhat obnoxious when you have a raven/viking army to fight the broodlords, and then you keep losing point defense drones to infested terrans, but all things considered, I don't really think infested Terrans are all that overpowered. In PvZ as well as TvZ, they promote good positioning and army mobility against the Zerg; kind of like Zergs try to burn Protoss forcefields by engaging across the map and retreating, similar effects can be achieved against Zergs who depend too heavily on infested terrans in the final battle. And as I've discussed before, I don't think broodlings are terribly problematic, either.
I don't think Blizzard has any intention of removing these units, both because they already worked hard to balance them, and because they're not especially problematic; and in this case, I think that analysis from Blizzard would be entirely accurate.
On February 01 2013 15:02 ChristianS wrote: Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean.
I've explained that a few times already. I'm not complaining about balance, just hinting that due to performance there's no reason that Blizz should be considering nerfs for Zerg. It's not like a few patches ago when Protoss were all of a sudden moving up in droves and dominating every matchup using the same strategy - that's indicative of a problem. At the moment Zerg aren't dominant.
The problem isnt balance or nerfing Zerg but rather that "free units" is a bad design concept. The worst two examples are the Broodlord and the Infestor. The Infestor for their ability to "create up to eight stimmed Marines" for a short time, which is a lot of concentrated firepower for a 2 supply unit. The Broodlord is problematic for creating a constant stream of Broodlings which block any ground forces from engaging them and thus making them somewhat "invulnerable". Alone this might be ok, but Zerg also has the lockdown of Fungal Growth to "patch up holes in the Broodling screen". Thus it would be better to get rid of all those free unit generation abilities, because it just provides too much "blocking power" ... just as Forcefields and Fungal can.
Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather about allowing more things - like Marines / Hydras - to be viable against Broodlords. The tennisball-chucking Guardians in BW didnt block any ground based units and was still deadly ...
So you think the units that are intended to provide protection for the Zerg army, specifically naming 2 of the only 3 Zerg units that are actually somewhat efficient, should be removed? Even though Infestors "ability to create eight stimmed marines" already has an easy micro counter (unlike the other races spells) and even though Broodlords are one of the least mobile units in the game?
And you think that won't harm Zergs design?
I could give many examples of the other races having a lot of concentrated firepower in low supply, it's all dependent on situation. As well I could explain to you how Guardians didn't need a mechanic to help defend the other units for synergy since the BW Zerg army as a whole was much more efficient than the SC2 incarnation.
Each race has their own mechanics for holding the line and "zoning" the enemy. Removing the "free unit" (as you call it) mechanic would be a bad idea without doing a complete redesign of Zerg. In which case you might as well just take all the huge amounts of Terran AoE that helps them stand their ground in the process. Because that's what Terran is intended to do as a race as well, and removing Zergs little bit of efficiency and protection would be just as harmful to Zerg as removing Terrans frontloaded AoE.
What your proposing isn't fair to the Zerg army, as you want to remove their strength with zoning, but keep the other races...
Guardians may have worked in BW, but that's becuase Zerg was designed completely differently, if you tried getting close to the Guardians youd be sucking up a lot of frontloaded AoE (lurkers if you were attacking ground, scourge if you were attacking air) almost similar to current Terran mechanics. Without that, Zerg needs something to both provide some protection and zoning ability. And Zerg as a whole was far stronger in early-mid game then they are now, which is one of the reasons they need those efficient units to provide protection, as that's how the race as a whole was designed.
If we're going to remove Zergs "free units", then how about we remove Terrans frontloaded AoE since that's their version of zoning and protection - no moreseeker missiles, tanks, widow mines. Then we take Protoss's shields and hallucinations. Even then, it still wouldn't be a fair trade (at least for Protoss, since that's not nearly as big of a loss for how the race plays). I could be of the opinion that all those things are bad design too... But even if I felt that way, I would never propose for them to be removed, considering the races are reliant on those mechanics for success.
And if any race had a complete redesign, I would say Protoss would need it most. If you wonder why, the XvP matchups in general aren't nearly as dynamic as the others, and refer to the Protoss Deathball post on this forum to see how many Protoss feel their race in incredible boring.
-Just because they're intended to do that (this time actually by Blizzard) doesn't mean the game wouldn't be better without them.
-Zerg's zoning, fungal growth in particular, is A LOT stronger than the other races'. I don't really even know what zoning you're referring to from Terran, other than constructing buildings or trying to position your army to be able to fire well before the enemy reaches you. The widow mine could kind of be called zoning — but only kind of, since it doesn't actually block the opponent from moving there, it just does some damage if they do. Protoss, of course, has force field, which is certainly very strong zoning; but for the price of one fungal, you can stop a clump of units from either advancing or retreating; A similar task from Protoss will take several force fields to prevent advancement, and several more to prevent retreat, not to mention it (unlike fungal) doesn't work on massive units, and it (unlike fungal) cannot target air.
Sure the game may or may not be better without them, but to remove them would require a redesign of the race as a whole is my point.
About the zoning, zoning probably isn't the best term, since it's more than just that. More along the lines of "space control and defensive mechanics" would be a better term. Each race has their own way of controlling space to keep themselves alive.
For Terran, they control space with their huge amounts of ranged damage + AoE damage, and if you go inside their range you will be taking huge amounts of frontloaded damage. Meaning your getting hit with siege tanks, widow mines, on top of the MMM ball. Even their primary spellcaster atm (Raven) provides huge AoE damage. Terran basically goes along the lines of "the best defense is a good offense" with their space control. Even Stim follows this rule to a point, since they can stay away while doing bigger damage. Zoning probably wasn't the best term to describe this since they don't actually alter the movement of the enemies.
Protoss's version of this is mostly their sentry shield, psionic storms, blink, their shields, as well as hallucination toys with the opponents micro therefore reducing damage. This is more along the lines of blocking their paths to restrict their movement, rather than the direct damage of Terran. But Protoss also share the highest HP/shield units as well, and as a race as designed to safely build up a strong push, so once you do catch up to them they are relatively quite survivable.
Zerg used to be more similar to Terran in SC1, but their combat units were made far less efficient in SC2. That's why they are reliant on fungal + their "free units" + creep to protect them, block enemies path, and prevent the enemy from catching up. They don't have the damage to control space like Terran do, nor do they block the path and have high HP like Protoss do. Whether we like it or not, Zerg is reliant on this mechanic, and it would take a redesign of the race as a whole to change this reliance.
On February 01 2013 15:02 ChristianS wrote: Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean.
I've explained that a few times already. I'm not complaining about balance, just hinting that due to performance there's no reason that Blizz should be considering nerfs for Zerg. It's not like a few patches ago when Protoss were all of a sudden moving up in droves and dominating every matchup using the same strategy - that's indicative of a problem. At the moment Zerg aren't dominant.
The problem isnt balance or nerfing Zerg but rather that "free units" is a bad design concept. The worst two examples are the Broodlord and the Infestor. The Infestor for their ability to "create up to eight stimmed Marines" for a short time, which is a lot of concentrated firepower for a 2 supply unit. The Broodlord is problematic for creating a constant stream of Broodlings which block any ground forces from engaging them and thus making them somewhat "invulnerable". Alone this might be ok, but Zerg also has the lockdown of Fungal Growth to "patch up holes in the Broodling screen". Thus it would be better to get rid of all those free unit generation abilities, because it just provides too much "blocking power" ... just as Forcefields and Fungal can.
Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather about allowing more things - like Marines / Hydras - to be viable against Broodlords. The tennisball-chucking Guardians in BW didnt block any ground based units and was still deadly ...
So you think the units that are intended to provide protection for the Zerg army, specifically naming 2 of the only 3 Zerg units that are actually somewhat efficient, should be removed? Even though Infestors "ability to create eight stimmed marines" already has an easy micro counter (unlike the other races spells) and even though Broodlords are one of the least mobile units in the game?
And you think that won't harm Zergs design?
I could give many examples of the other races having a lot of concentrated firepower in low supply, it's all dependent on situation. As well I could explain to you how Guardians didn't need a mechanic to help defend the other units for synergy since the BW Zerg army as a whole was much more efficient than the SC2 incarnation.
Each race has their own mechanics for holding the line and "zoning" the enemy. Removing the "free unit" (as you call it) mechanic would be a bad idea without doing a complete redesign of Zerg. In which case you might as well just take all the huge amounts of Terran AoE that helps them stand their ground in the process. Because that's what Terran is intended to do as a race as well, and removing Zergs little bit of efficiency and protection would be just as harmful to Zerg as removing Terrans frontloaded AoE.
What your proposing isn't fair to the Zerg army, as you want to remove their strength with zoning, but keep the other races...
Guardians may have worked in BW, but that's becuase Zerg was designed completely differently, if you tried getting close to the Guardians youd be sucking up a lot of frontloaded AoE (lurkers if you were attacking ground, scourge if you were attacking air) almost similar to current Terran mechanics. Without that, Zerg needs something to both provide some protection and zoning ability. And Zerg as a whole was far stronger in early-mid game then they are now, which is one of the reasons they need those efficient units to provide protection, as that's how the race as a whole was designed.
If we're going to remove Zergs "free units", then how about we remove Terrans frontloaded AoE since that's their version of zoning and protection - no moreseeker missiles, tanks, widow mines. Then we take Protoss's shields and hallucinations. Even then, it still wouldn't be a fair trade (at least for Protoss, since that's not nearly as big of a loss for how the race plays). I could be of the opinion that all those things are bad design too... But even if I felt that way, I would never propose for them to be removed, considering the races are reliant on those mechanics for success.
And if any race had a complete redesign, I would say Protoss would need it most. If you wonder why, the XvP matchups in general aren't nearly as dynamic as the others, and refer to the Protoss Deathball post on this forum to see how many Protoss feel their race in incredible boring.
-Just because they're intended to do that (this time actually by Blizzard) doesn't mean the game wouldn't be better without them.
-Zerg's zoning, fungal growth in particular, is A LOT stronger than the other races'. I don't really even know what zoning you're referring to from Terran, other than constructing buildings or trying to position your army to be able to fire well before the enemy reaches you. The widow mine could kind of be called zoning — but only kind of, since it doesn't actually block the opponent from moving there, it just does some damage if they do. Protoss, of course, has force field, which is certainly very strong zoning; but for the price of one fungal, you can stop a clump of units from either advancing or retreating; A similar task from Protoss will take several force fields to prevent advancement, and several more to prevent retreat, not to mention it (unlike fungal) doesn't work on massive units, and it (unlike fungal) cannot target air.
Sure the game may or may not be better without them, but to remove them would require a redesign of the race as a whole is my point.
About the zoning, zoning probably isn't the best term, since it's more than just that. More along the lines of "space control and defensive mechanics" would be a better term. Each race has their own way of controlling space to keep themselves alive.
For Terran, they control space with their huge amounts of ranged damage + AoE damage, and if you go inside their range you will be taking huge amounts of frontloaded damage. Meaning your getting hit with siege tanks, widow mines, on top of the MMM ball. Even their primary spellcaster atm (Raven) provides huge AoE damage. Terran basically goes along the lines of "the best defense is a good offense" with their space control. Even Stim follows this rule to a point, since they can stay away while doing bigger damage. Zoning probably wasn't the best term to describe this since they don't actually alter the movement of the enemies.
Protoss's version of this is mostly their sentry shield, psionic storms, blink, their shields, as well as hallucination toys with the opponents micro therefore reducing damage. This is more along the lines of blocking their paths to restrict their movement, rather than the direct damage of Terran. But Protoss also share the highest HP/shield units as well, and as a race as designed to safely build up a strong push, so once you do catch up to them they are relatively quite survivable.
Zerg used to be more similar to Terran in SC1, but their combat units were made far less efficient in SC2. That's why they are reliant on fungal + their "free units" + creep to protect them, block enemies path, and prevent the enemy from catching up. They don't have the damage to control space like Terran do, nor do they block the path and have high HP like Protoss do. Whether we like it or not, Zerg is reliant on this mechanic, and it would take a redesign of the race as a whole to change this reliance.
Wait, designing by comparison to BW is okay, but it's not okay to make WoL comparisons?
Most of the dynamics you're talking about aren't actually all that essential to the WoL races. Terran has easily the worst AoE in WoL; tanks are obviously AoE, but not as strong an AoE as colossus, baneling+fungal, psi storm, etc. Terran in WoL is defined by a) maintaining a range advantage, and b) massive DPS. Even maintaining constant aggression isn't really all that essential; mech, for instance, is a much more defensive style, and marine tank favors slow, concentrated, deliberate pushes rather than constant aggression all around the map. It's only additions like the widow mine or the new raven that make Terran more AoE-focused, and one of the main reasons the AoE additions were necessary was to give some reasonable Terran response to, for example, large numbers of locusts.
And WoL zerg doesn't depend on free units almost at all. Broodlings and infested terrans are the only real examples (unless you're trying to call creep tumors "free units," which is a bit of a stretch). Broodlings don't even enter the equation until broodlords are out, so for 90% of the game Zerg gets by fine without them. And infested terrans are usually only used as additional DPS in the final engagement; if you were just trying to zone out your opponent, you'd probably use fungal rather than IT's. Even in HotS, Zerg only really depends on free units if they're getting a bunch of Swarm Hosts. If they favor mutas, or infestors, or vipers, or even hydras, there's no real need for free units in Zerg strategy. There's no "reliance."
The reason the Swarm Host, broodling, and infested terran should stay is because it's an interesting unit and the design isn't so atrocious as a lot of people in this thread would argue, NOT because Zerg is so incredibly dependent on them that the race would fall apart without them.
On February 02 2013 07:41 ChristianS wrote: Wait, designing by comparison to BW is okay, but it's not okay to make WoL comparisons?
lol, your really reaching now and just trying to argue. My mentioning how Zerg were more more similar to Terran in SC1 isn't trying to judge SC2's balance, only pointing out differences in the design. You really want to argue, huh?
Most of the dynamics you're talking about aren't actually all that essential to the WoL races. Terran has easily the worst AoE in WoL; tanks are obviously AoE, but not as strong an AoE as colossus, baneling+fungal, psi storm, etc. Terran in WoL is defined by a) maintaining a range advantage, and b) massive DPS. Even maintaining constant aggression isn't really all that essential; mech, for instance, is a much more defensive style, and marine tank favors slow, concentrated, deliberate pushes rather than constant aggression all around the map.
You say it's the "worst AoE" but at the end of the paragraph gave a great example of the strength of a "slow Terran push". That's an exact example of the space control style I was talking about. Yeah they move slow, but if you move in to their radius you take a large amount of frontloaded damage. Colossus don't instagib large amounts of units as soon as you come in to range of them, especailly since their AoE is a line rather than a circular radius.
And WoL zerg doesn't depend on free units almost at all. Broodlings and infested terrans are the only real examples (unless you're trying to call creep tumors "free units," which is a bit of a stretch). Broodlings don't even enter the equation until broodlords are out, so for 90% of the game Zerg gets by fine without them. And infested terrans are usually only used as additional DPS in the final engagement; if you were just trying to zone out your opponent, you'd probably use fungal rather than IT's. Even in HotS, Zerg only really depends on free units if they're getting a bunch of Swarm Hosts. If they favor mutas, or infestors, or vipers, or even hydras, there's no real need for free units in Zerg strategy. There's no "reliance."
The reason the Swarm Host, broodling, and infested terran should stay is because it's an interesting unit and the design isn't so atrocious as a lot of people in this thread would argue, NOT because Zerg is so incredibly dependent on them that the race would fall apart without them.
It's really getting redundant that your saying a lot of things in agreement with me, but still arguing with me for some reason. If your really in agreement that the free units aren't an issue, as you have said many times, why do you keep arguing with everyone who is saying the same thing?
You can say they aren't reliant on those units all you want. But if a Terran was turtled up in their base and Zerg wasn't drastically ahead, when was the next point of the game that you seen the Zerg push out? When they got BL. Why do you think the reason for that was?
All of Zergs siege, in WoL or HotS, is all the "free units". Their siege mechanics are dependent on it. Hydra/Infestor wasn't a successful composition for a reason.
Without those units, Zerg has to fight the other armies on the field to win, rather than being able to push their base.
On February 01 2013 15:02 ChristianS wrote: Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean.
I've explained that a few times already. I'm not complaining about balance, just hinting that due to performance there's no reason that Blizz should be considering nerfs for Zerg. It's not like a few patches ago when Protoss were all of a sudden moving up in droves and dominating every matchup using the same strategy - that's indicative of a problem. At the moment Zerg aren't dominant.
The problem isnt balance or nerfing Zerg but rather that "free units" is a bad design concept. The worst two examples are the Broodlord and the Infestor. The Infestor for their ability to "create up to eight stimmed Marines" for a short time, which is a lot of concentrated firepower for a 2 supply unit. The Broodlord is problematic for creating a constant stream of Broodlings which block any ground forces from engaging them and thus making them somewhat "invulnerable". Alone this might be ok, but Zerg also has the lockdown of Fungal Growth to "patch up holes in the Broodling screen". Thus it would be better to get rid of all those free unit generation abilities, because it just provides too much "blocking power" ... just as Forcefields and Fungal can.
Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather about allowing more things - like Marines / Hydras - to be viable against Broodlords. The tennisball-chucking Guardians in BW didnt block any ground based units and was still deadly ...
So you think the units that are intended to provide protection for the Zerg army, specifically naming 2 of the only 3 Zerg units that are actually somewhat efficient, should be removed? Even though Infestors "ability to create eight stimmed marines" already has an easy micro counter (unlike the other races spells) and even though Broodlords are one of the least mobile units in the game?
I could give many examples of the other races having a lot of concentrated firepower in low supply, it's all dependent on situation. As well I could explain to you how Guardians didn't need a mechanic to help defend the other units for synergy since the BW Zerg army as a whole was much more efficient than the SC2 incarnation.
What your saying goes beyond "free units being bad design". Considering Zerg is reliant on these units for protection and efficiency, your basically saying the design of Zerg as a whole is bad design. With that said, your solution would do nothing but make Zergs design even worse.
Each race has their own mechanics for holding the line and "zoning" the enemy. Removing the "free unit" (as you call it) mechanic would be a bad idea without doing a complete redesign of Zerg. In which case you might as well just take all the huge amounts of Terran AoE that helps them stand their ground in the process. Because that's what Terran is intended to do as a race as well, and removing Zergs little bit of efficiency and protection would be just as harmful to Zerg as removing Terrans frontloaded AoE.
Spells in general are very efficient if you don't micro to counter them anyway, a couple well placed seeker missiles could be basically undodgeable if you use your army to block the enemies movement properly and are capable of doing thousands of resources worth of double with just a couple missiles - far more than u'll see any infested terrans doing. Protoss shields and hallucination straight up destroys their ability to micro and surround which shuts down the opponent if used properly as well.
What your proposing isn't fair to the Zerg army, as you want to remove their strength with zoning, but keep the other races...
Guardians may have worked in BW, but that's becuase Zerg was designed completely differently, if you tried getting close to the Guardians youd be sucking up a lot of frontloaded AoE (lurkers if you were attacking ground, scourge if you were attacking air) almost similar to current Terran mechanics. Without that, Zerg needs something to both provide some protection and zoning ability. And Zerg as a whole was far stronger in early-mid game then they are now, which is one of the reasons they need those efficient units to provide protection, as that's how the race as a whole was designed.
If we're going to remove Zergs "free units", then how about we remove Terrans frontloaded AoE since that's their version of zoning and protection - no moreseeker missiles, tanks, widow mines. Then we take Protoss's shields and hallucinations. Even then, it still wouldn't be a fair trade (at least for Protoss, since that's not nearly as big of a loss for how the race plays). I could be of the opinion that all those things are bad design too... But even if I felt that way, I would never propose for them to be removed, considering the races are reliant on those mechanics for success.
And if any race had a complete redesign, I would say Protoss would need it most. If you wonder why, the XvP matchups in general aren't nearly as dynamic as the others, and refer to the Protoss Deathball post on this forum to see how many Protoss feel their race in incredible boring.
The whole problem of giving one race a huge number of "free hit points" is the same as with Forcefield and the lockdown component of Fungal. This gives some races (Zerg and Protoss mainly) the ability to control the battlefield ... and that is a really bad thing in a strategy game which should be about the ability to CONTROL your own units. Denying the opposing player the ability to use his units as well as he could is BAD and that can be seen easily in WoW PvP, which had any lockdown ability seriously nerfed because it was neither fair nor fun.
In an "us against the NPCs" game like Everquest the Enchanter (a class based around stuns and dealing the lowest damage of them all) really worked well and was an absolute blast to play, but in WoW - which had PvP in its core goals - that was not something you would want to have. The same is true for Starcraft ... but Blizzard doesnt seem to have learned.
Obviously Zerg (and Protoss) would need a really serious redesign, but I would say the game would be better off without any "battlefield shaping abilities". This wont happen, but it would still be a good thing from a common sense perspective. Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather getting rid of stuff that is "anti-fun" and "anti-skill".
On February 01 2013 15:02 ChristianS wrote: Is "Zerg isn't in the best spot right now" not meant to hint at imbalance? If not I've been consistently reading that entirely wrong; but I don't really know what else it could mean.
I've explained that a few times already. I'm not complaining about balance, just hinting that due to performance there's no reason that Blizz should be considering nerfs for Zerg. It's not like a few patches ago when Protoss were all of a sudden moving up in droves and dominating every matchup using the same strategy - that's indicative of a problem. At the moment Zerg aren't dominant.
The problem isnt balance or nerfing Zerg but rather that "free units" is a bad design concept. The worst two examples are the Broodlord and the Infestor. The Infestor for their ability to "create up to eight stimmed Marines" for a short time, which is a lot of concentrated firepower for a 2 supply unit. The Broodlord is problematic for creating a constant stream of Broodlings which block any ground forces from engaging them and thus making them somewhat "invulnerable". Alone this might be ok, but Zerg also has the lockdown of Fungal Growth to "patch up holes in the Broodling screen". Thus it would be better to get rid of all those free unit generation abilities, because it just provides too much "blocking power" ... just as Forcefields and Fungal can.
Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather about allowing more things - like Marines / Hydras - to be viable against Broodlords. The tennisball-chucking Guardians in BW didnt block any ground based units and was still deadly ...
So you think the units that are intended to provide protection for the Zerg army, specifically naming 2 of the only 3 Zerg units that are actually somewhat efficient, should be removed? Even though Infestors "ability to create eight stimmed marines" already has an easy micro counter (unlike the other races spells) and even though Broodlords are one of the least mobile units in the game?
I could give many examples of the other races having a lot of concentrated firepower in low supply, it's all dependent on situation. As well I could explain to you how Guardians didn't need a mechanic to help defend the other units for synergy since the BW Zerg army as a whole was much more efficient than the SC2 incarnation.
What your saying goes beyond "free units being bad design". Considering Zerg is reliant on these units for protection and efficiency, your basically saying the design of Zerg as a whole is bad design. With that said, your solution would do nothing but make Zergs design even worse.
Each race has their own mechanics for holding the line and "zoning" the enemy. Removing the "free unit" (as you call it) mechanic would be a bad idea without doing a complete redesign of Zerg. In which case you might as well just take all the huge amounts of Terran AoE that helps them stand their ground in the process. Because that's what Terran is intended to do as a race as well, and removing Zergs little bit of efficiency and protection would be just as harmful to Zerg as removing Terrans frontloaded AoE.
Spells in general are very efficient if you don't micro to counter them anyway, a couple well placed seeker missiles could be basically undodgeable if you use your army to block the enemies movement properly and are capable of doing thousands of resources worth of double with just a couple missiles - far more than u'll see any infested terrans doing. Protoss shields and hallucination straight up destroys their ability to micro and surround which shuts down the opponent if used properly as well.
What your proposing isn't fair to the Zerg army, as you want to remove their strength with zoning, but keep the other races...
Guardians may have worked in BW, but that's becuase Zerg was designed completely differently, if you tried getting close to the Guardians youd be sucking up a lot of frontloaded AoE (lurkers if you were attacking ground, scourge if you were attacking air) almost similar to current Terran mechanics. Without that, Zerg needs something to both provide some protection and zoning ability. And Zerg as a whole was far stronger in early-mid game then they are now, which is one of the reasons they need those efficient units to provide protection, as that's how the race as a whole was designed.
If we're going to remove Zergs "free units", then how about we remove Terrans frontloaded AoE since that's their version of zoning and protection - no moreseeker missiles, tanks, widow mines. Then we take Protoss's shields and hallucinations. Even then, it still wouldn't be a fair trade (at least for Protoss, since that's not nearly as big of a loss for how the race plays). I could be of the opinion that all those things are bad design too... But even if I felt that way, I would never propose for them to be removed, considering the races are reliant on those mechanics for success.
And if any race had a complete redesign, I would say Protoss would need it most. If you wonder why, the XvP matchups in general aren't nearly as dynamic as the others, and refer to the Protoss Deathball post on this forum to see how many Protoss feel their race in incredible boring.
The whole problem of giving one race a huge number of "free hit points" is the same as with Forcefield and the lockdown component of Fungal. This gives some races (Zerg and Protoss mainly) the ability to control the battlefield ... and that is a really bad thing in a strategy game which should be about the ability to CONTROL your own units. Denying the opposing player the ability to use his units as well as he could is BAD and that can be seen easily in WoW PvP, which had any lockdown ability seriously nerfed because it was neither fair nor fun.
In an "us against the NPCs" game like Everquest the Enchanter (a class based around stuns and dealing the lowest damage of them all) really worked well and was an absolute blast to play, but in WoW - which had PvP in its core goals - that was not something you would want to have. The same is true for Starcraft ... but Blizzard doesnt seem to have learned.
Obviously Zerg (and Protoss) would need a really serious redesign, but I would say the game would be better off without any "battlefield shaping abilities". This wont happen, but it would still be a good thing from a common sense perspective. Its not about nerfing Zerg but rather getting rid of stuff that is "anti-fun" and "anti-skill".
i dont really get your point here. it sounds like you argue that zerg and protoss have the ability to control the battlefield and how the battle will take place rather than controlling their own units. now i can agree with you that Z and P have abilities to control a battle, but so do terrans. i mean siege tanks and widow mines do exactely that. the widow mine (guess its the redesigned shredder) were specifically created to give terrans the posibility to control the battlefield (the ability to zone out stuff). so if you keep in mind that all three races basically have the ability to control how a battle will take place, i dont see your point of it beeing a problem that Z and P can do this. as of now i'd actually agrue, that terrans have the best units to zone out space and control the battlefield.
i also dont really get the WoW comparison. in WoW the fundamental problem with stuns, snares and roots is that it completely locks down your ability to do ANYTHING at all (espacially stuns) since you control only ONE single unit. in SC2 you have control over an entire army. there is nothing that prevents you from controlling your troops, it might just get harder. it requires more skill to engage a protoss who has FF, than just A-moving into a protoss army that has no FF. so i dont really see how removing those abilities would increase the skill lvl required to play SC2
Zerg has to have near EQUAL efficiency when it reaches end game anyways. SC2 mining mechanics do no give the side with more bases significantly more mineral income per worker, due to pathing changes, so a end game Zerg will only reach near parity mineral income with Protoss and worst then a Terran. The faster remax. more gas with tech switches is the only thing that allows zerg to have any less efficiency and the gap is far smaller then SCBW.
As for battlefield shaping abilities, I thought those were very well liked AS LONG AS is it does not impede enemy's control of his own units, especially on retreat? Defensive/blocking abilities like Vulture Mines, Lurkers have been desirable features, and no one ever complained about wall ins and likes. It is lockdown abilities like force field, fungal and concussive shell that is annoying because the remove the option to retreat and give the attacker the advantage that is annoying.
On February 02 2013 21:47 SWPIGWANG wrote: As for battlefield shaping abilities, I thought those were very well liked AS LONG AS is it does not impede enemy's control of his own units, especially on retreat? Defensive/blocking abilities like Vulture Mines, Lurkers have been desirable features, and no one ever complained about wall ins and likes. It is lockdown abilities like force field, fungal and concussive shell that is annoying because the remove the option to retreat and give the attacker the advantage that is annoying.
Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army.
"Free units" would be fine ... if they were far and few between, but in SC2 everything comes in HUGE NUMBERS. That is the reason why the free units are actually terrible, because they wouldnt fall into the terrible "battlefield shaping category" if there were just 3-4 on a screen every time.
the swarmhost spawns two broodlings (or locus or whatever) at a time. you need quite a high number of SH to actually have a huge number of "free" units. so the units are not acutally free, but they become cheaper the more waves of broodlings the SH can generate (which i guess was alrady said in this thread).
BL are pretty much dead in the ZvP match up at the moment and infested terrans have been nerfed quite severly, as has fungal. so again, i cant really agree with you.
Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army.
For a long time BeSt dominated BW PvP at a crazy high level by basically rushing to arbiter and abusing stasis in a manner very similar to how forcefields get used in SC2, so there is some precedent from BW for hard crowd control playing a major role for some builds and matchups.
As a zerg player I've always been somewhat suspect of the unit but as time goes by I like it less and less. I hate the idea of the unit because it feels like I'm playing a custom map of tug-of-war or something. Beyond that it becomes a snore fest in certain situations. For instance I just watched two games of ZVT (Zenio VS Goody) with Goody playing mech and Zenio trying not to die with swarmhosts. I wanted to jam forks in my eyes it was so boring because you have constant waves of free units spawning into constant tank fire where they would all die before even getting to the tanks. It got slightly more interesting when Zenio tried to use vipers and some mutas to snipe tanks but that was also quickly shut down. basically you just get a split map stand-off that feels like it goes forever until the map is mined out or until someone is so bored they just give up and try to make something happen which usually ends in their death because they broke first.
I Really Really Really Really hope that Mech VS Swarmhost never becomes the dominant meta game.
Edit: Also, when playing with them the only time I have felt like they were actually useful in a way that couldn't have been better done with another unit is in ZVP in the specific situation where you are trying to be aggressive and snipe a toss 3rd or 4th. It allows you to throw away you'r roach/ling army basically guaranteeing you'll at least snipe the expo with the relative safety of rebuilding swarmhost/corrupter and sitting in your fixed defense until you can morph in some broodlords. That is of course assuming toss didn't go sky toss. Nydus plus swarmhost can be fun to play and watch but it's gimmicky and won't work if scouted. I just don't see enough non-boring uses for it to make me wanna either play or watch anyone play with them. I feel like it is the wrong direction for zerg. Viper yes, swarm-host no!
On February 02 2013 21:47 SWPIGWANG wrote: As for battlefield shaping abilities, I thought those were very well liked AS LONG AS is it does not impede enemy's control of his own units, especially on retreat? Defensive/blocking abilities like Vulture Mines, Lurkers have been desirable features, and no one ever complained about wall ins and likes. It is lockdown abilities like force field, fungal and concussive shell that is annoying because the remove the option to retreat and give the attacker the advantage that is annoying.
Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army.
"Free units" would be fine ... if they were far and few between, but in SC2 everything comes in HUGE NUMBERS. That is the reason why the free units are actually terrible, because they wouldnt fall into the terrible "battlefield shaping category" if there were just 3-4 on a screen every time.
As I (and others) have explained already, Terrans form of space control is with raw firepower. You seem to be trying to convince others that tanks, widow mines, etc, do not shape the battlefield... if that's the case then how come you have to approach Terran far differently than you have to for other races? It's 100% true that they do shape the battlefield.
Furthermore, you say Lurkers didn't shape the battlefield, this is ignorant to the fact that many of the key BW strategies revolved around good Lurker usage and they were one of the strongest timings Zerg had in the game. That's shaping the battlefield for sure too.
These Terran units not only cause you to have to approach them far differently for the entire rest of the game, but they give Terran some dominant timings during the game? That's the key factor that you need in a unit to make it a strong unit that controls the battlefield - give it some dominant timings and some usage for the entire game - what else do you really want more than that?
Your also ignoring how strong the new HSM is at controlling a battlefield. If you do a high number HSM at once you force the enemy to back out or die. Again, controlling space with raw firepower.
Also, your completely twisting the reality of the situation. "Fungals and nearly endless supplys of Infested Terrans"... That's like saying Ravens have HSM and nearly endless supplies of Auto Turrets. If that really possible when you use energy on one or the other? Not to mention you can destroy the eggs before they hatch pretty easily, and even though the turrets cost more energy they have 3x more health and do more damage. Not to mention you can't stick around to even attempt to destroy them with a number of HSM coming at you.
Maybe when HSM was more easily dodgeable you would have an argument, but with the current HSM's range and targeting if used correctly you CAN CONTROL THE BATTLEFIELD. This isn't even taking in to consideration that you can flank with hellions or drop hellbats or drop turrets behind the enemy to guarantee they can't get out of range of a number of HSM.
Your posts have so much Terran bias it's ridiculous. Terran doesn't only control space, but also has free units of their own, yet you apparently despise how Zerg and Protoss (both) control space and (both) have their own forms of free units.
On February 02 2013 21:47 SWPIGWANG wrote: As for battlefield shaping abilities, I thought those were very well liked AS LONG AS is it does not impede enemy's control of his own units, especially on retreat? Defensive/blocking abilities like Vulture Mines, Lurkers have been desirable features, and no one ever complained about wall ins and likes. It is lockdown abilities like force field, fungal and concussive shell that is annoying because the remove the option to retreat and give the attacker the advantage that is annoying.
Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army.
"Free units" would be fine ... if they were far and few between, but in SC2 everything comes in HUGE NUMBERS. That is the reason why the free units are actually terrible, because they wouldnt fall into the terrible "battlefield shaping category" if there were just 3-4 on a screen every time.
As I (and others) have explained already, Terrans form of space control is with raw firepower. You seem to be trying to convince others that tanks, widow mines, etc, do not shape the battlefield... if that's the case then how come you have to approach Terran far differently than you have to for other races? It's 100% true that they do shape the battlefield.
Siege Tanks and Lurkers DONT shape the battlefield, because YOU can CHOOSE to run into them. You can NOT choose to "bypass a Forcefield" or "run through a wall of Broodlings" or "run out of the Fungal lock". That is a HUGE difference, because CHOICE is NOT GIVEN for the Broodlings/ITs, Forcefield and Fungal while IT EXISTS for Siege Tank and Lurker.
Get your definitions right, because a threat does not prevent you from doing an "unwise thing" and thus Siege Tanks and Lurkers are not shaping the battlefield. They allow you to control space, but that is a totally different thing.
Its all about CHOICE really and abilities which deny choice are bad but rather plentiful in SC2. The only regularly used "total denial ability" in BW was Stasis and that was kinda acceptable because the Arbiters werent mass-produced like Infestors or Broodlords but rather support units AND it provided full immunity to the affected units.
Spider Mines and Lurkers do NOT shape the battlefield like Forcefield, Fungal and a "nearly endless" supply of Broodlings or Infested Terrans can. Thus there is a complete difference between "scare the enemy zone-control units" [which are fine] and "lockdown / blocking abilities" [which are terrible]. The BW stuff you mention are units which can be killed and they arent blocking the whole path of a big chunk of your army.
For a long time BeSt dominated BW PvP at a crazy high level by basically rushing to arbiter and abusing stasis in a manner very similar to how forcefields get used in SC2, so there is some precedent from BW for hard crowd control playing a major role for some builds and matchups.
The Arbiter is a hugely expensive unit which doesnt really do much damage on its own. Compare this with the Infestor or Broodlord and you have two CORE UNITS with hard crowd control and that is a totally different ballgame. SC2 suffers A LOT from having "massive numbers of units" and being able to generate them in huge numbers really bad due to the ability to deny and block an opponent.
As I said somewhere above ... free units wouldnt be such a problem if they were far and few inbetween, but since Blizzard has chosen to design SC2 around massive numbers of units they are.
On February 03 2013 16:42 Rabiator wrote: Siege Tanks and Lurkers DONT shape the battlefield, because YOU can CHOOSE to run into them. You can NOT choose to "bypass a Forcefield" or "run through a wall of Broodlings" or "run out of the Fungal lock". That is a HUGE difference, because CHOICE is NOT GIVEN for the Broodlings/ITs, Forcefield and Fungal while IT EXISTS for Siege Tank and Lurker.
Get your definitions right, because a threat does not prevent you from doing an "unwise thing" and thus Siege Tanks and Lurkers are not shaping the battlefield. They allow you to control space, but that is a totally different thing.
Its all about CHOICE really and abilities which deny choice are bad but rather plentiful in SC2. The only regularly used "total denial ability" in BW was Stasis and that was kinda acceptable because the Arbiters werent mass-produced like Infestors or Broodlords but rather support units AND it provided full immunity to the affected units.
It is shaping the battlefield, just in a different way. Are you really trying deny that the terms of the battlefield don't change immensely once those 4 tanks on top of the hill go in to siege mode, or those Lurkers burrow? That's not even taking in to consideration that both Lurkers and Siege tanks could be used in many methods where you will be taking damage without yet seeing the units.
If you want to try to act like choice makes a difference in the matter, then I could say you can "choose" to go in range of those Sentrys or those Infestors too. You know the spells are coming, same as Zerg and Protoss know the Terran AoE is coming. So you have a choice all the same.
And I see you ignored the entire part I posted about Raven. It forces the opponent to back the hell off or get blown the hell up. Notice how you couldn't even claim they don't shape a battlefield? And HSM is not only space control, but a HUGE amount of firepower, all in 1 spell - more than you can say for the current Fungal by far. But you selectively stayed quiet about that just to try to make Terran look like they are at a disadvantage in this aspect. Funny...
Well, I guess by your definition, maybe you could say they don't shape a battlefield either because you can "choose" to not run and have your entire army blown up? Yet even that's not true, because good use of them makes sure they can't get out of range of the explosion.
The Arbiter is a hugely expensive unit which doesnt really do much damage on its own. Compare this with the Infestor or Broodlord and you have two CORE UNITS with hard crowd control and that is a totally different ballgame. SC2 suffers A LOT from having "massive numbers of units" and being able to generate them in huge numbers really bad due to the ability to deny and block an opponent.
Are you seriously comparing a non combat unit to two combat spellcasters? Is that supposed to be a valid or logical comparison? That's like comparing a Warp Prism to a Raven... Would that be a logical comparison?
How about comparing the Infestor to the Terran equivalent, Raven. Infestor has a space controlling ability and a "free unit" ability. Raven has a space controlling ability and a "free unit" ability. Where, exactly, is the problem?
Furthermore, as I explained in an earlier post, the proper term in this game would be "space control" rather than crowd control. Terran controls space through raw AoE firepower for anything coming in to the area that they have deployed (HSM is a perfect example, along with tanks, widows, etc). The other races space control doesn't do anywhere near the frontloaded direct damage such as this. That is the trade off.
And a Broodlord is completely NOT the definition of "hard crowd control".
As I said somewhere above ... free units wouldnt be such a problem if they were far and few inbetween, but since Blizzard has chosen to design SC2 around massive numbers of units they are.
I notice you also ignored the fact that Ravens can make free units with 3x the health, more damage, lasts for 6x the duration (more with upgrades), and doesn't have a buffer time that they could be destroyed like infestor eggs do. Oh, and they work great for guaranteeing the enemy army can't evade HSM.
If free units are such a problem to handle, maybe you should start using them more. You can block a path far better with those than you could with the squishy Infested Terrans...
On February 03 2013 23:17 Spyridon wrote: I notice you also ignored the fact that Ravens can make free units with 3x the health, more damage, lasts for 6x the duration (more with upgrades), and doesn't have a buffer time that they could be destroyed like infestor eggs do. Oh, and they work great for guaranteeing the enemy army can't evade HSM.
If free units are such a problem to handle, maybe you should start using them more. You can block a path far better with those than you could with the squishy Infested Terrans...
Auto-turrets aren't good at any of those things. This is actually somewhat illuminating in the free units discussion: auto-turrets, because of their size, can never get very good DPS (partly because you can't clump them tightly, and partly because of the high energy cost. They should, however, be better for walling; After all, Just 4-8 auto-turrets should be able to block most ramps.
But no one uses them for that, or for any other purpose really. Part of that is because they're hard to place, since you have to click in the exact right places on the building grid, so it would be really difficult to throw down clutch auto-turrets in the heat of battle. But a much bigger part is because while many people in this thread are making a big deal of how free units can wall off space and constrict movement, they're virtually always more useful for DPS than walling. Sure that one Zerg blocked that one Protoss from getting his archons into the vortex by throwing down a wall of infested Terrans between them, but usually you just toss out a clump of infested terrans and let them do damage.
I wasn't gonna post again, but I had to disagree on this point: auto-turrets do not work great for ensuring your opponent cannot evade HSM. That's such a convoluted and absurd micro trick. Maybe if your opponent is retreating up a ramp with nothing at the top, sure. But for 99% of cases that's completely impractical.
On February 03 2013 23:17 Spyridon wrote: I notice you also ignored the fact that Ravens can make free units with 3x the health, more damage, lasts for 6x the duration (more with upgrades), and doesn't have a buffer time that they could be destroyed like infestor eggs do. Oh, and they work great for guaranteeing the enemy army can't evade HSM.
If free units are such a problem to handle, maybe you should start using them more. You can block a path far better with those than you could with the squishy Infested Terrans...
Auto-turrets aren't good at any of those things. This is actually somewhat illuminating in the free units discussion: auto-turrets, because of their size, can never get very good DPS (partly because you can't clump them tightly, and partly because of the high energy cost. They should, however, be better for walling; After all, Just 4-8 auto-turrets should be able to block most ramps.
That's one of my points exactly. The complaints here were about them blocking path, and even going so far as to say it's "hard CC". Yet the turrets block a path far better than Infested Terrans do.
Part of that is because they're hard to place, since you have to click in the exact right places on the building grid, so it would be really difficult to throw down clutch auto-turrets in the heat of battle. But a much bigger part is because while many people in this thread are making a big deal of how free units can wall off space and constrict movement, they're virtually always more useful for DPS than walling. Sure that one Zerg blocked that one Protoss from getting his archons into the vortex by throwing down a wall of infested Terrans between them, but usually you just toss out a clump of infested terrans and let them do damage.
I wasn't gonna post again, but I had to disagree on this point: auto-turrets do not work great for ensuring your opponent cannot evade HSM. That's such a convoluted and absurd micro trick. Maybe if your opponent is retreating up a ramp with nothing at the top, sure. But for 99% of cases that's completely impractical.
That's really not true. You can shift queue a line of 6 or so of them as easily as you can a line of infestors, which these people obviously have had happen to them before if we're to believe what they claim is true. Except as you said, its far easier to wall off with the Turrets since they are way bigger, and even block the path of all units between them unless you have holes, and a 1 distance hole is only going to let Lings escape anyway and no other units.
More importantly, if you have more than 1 or 2 seekers coming at you, realize you only have 5 seconds to attempt to separate ALL the targets from the others. You don't even need to fully block a solid path behind the opponent - same way as a protoss player doesn't have to fully block the escape path with shields. If there's holes in the wall that's completely fine, because all the units will bunch up trying to escape from the same one.
Try pointing out 5+ different units that have a HSM coming at them and escaping thru a wall, even with holes in it, within 5 seconds.
Try it in an AI game or a unranked game. Make like 5-6 Ravens, when your opponent attacks flank your opponent and shift queue a line of like 5-6 turrets, then use the rest of your energy on HSM each on different targets while your enemys stuck behind your units and your turrets. Not very hard to do, and watch the results.
Raven really is an amazing spellcaster unit now, possibly even more deadly than a Science Vessel used to be, since it's not limited to only bio units. And so far from what I've seen, they seem to be a staple in both Z and P matchups now. It's not only proven very useful vs Zerg (1-2 of them are enough to kill the primary AA units that will be used to kill the science vessels), but from the TvP replays I've seen they been the best method of fighting the Protoss air ball.
It is shaping the battlefield, just in a different way
That difference is a substantial one however. Rather than shaping the battlefield, another way of describing what is happening is I am controlling your units. That is a complete FF surround boxes in your units so now I control your units and you have no control over them. (They can't move.) Or Stasis- I freeze your units. I control them, you can't move them at all. Any slow ability operates on the same idea. You lose some (not complete) control of your unit and I dictate the speed of your units by casting Fungal. Similarly my Broodlords control your units because it mucks up the pathing making it difficult for your units to push through.
Lurkers and Siege Tanks do no such thing. Certainly they project power on the field and force reactions from players. No-one will deny that. But what they do not do is physically control your units either by outright stopping them or slowing them down. Very different, very different.
The argument follows that these abilities are not bad in and of themselves. But if too much of the game is me controlling your units, then it becomes a frustrating experience. Even if you in turn spend your time controlling my units, neither of us feel like we can properly control our own army because it is always being interfered with.
The difference between this and Stasis or lockdown for instance is how easy and how prevalent it is in SC2.
It is shaping the battlefield, just in a different way
That difference is a substantial one however. Rather than shaping the battlefield, another way of describing what is happening is I am controlling your units. That is a complete FF surround boxes in your units so now I control your units and you have no control over them. (They can't move.) Or Stasis- I freeze your units. I control them, you can't move them at all. Any slow ability operates on the same idea. You lose some (not complete) control of your unit and I dictate the speed of your units by casting Fungal. Similarly my Broodlords control your units because it mucks up the pathing making it difficult for your units to push through.
But you also have to factor in HSM on top of the Terran units such as Siege Tank or Widows. That is a substantial difference for the Terrans side as well, which has seemed to have been ignored in all of the Terran responses.
If Terran was able to freeze or root units with that type of ability, it would basically be an unavoidable nuke blowing up your whole army. Zerg nor Protoss has nothing that's capable of that type of destruction, that's a Terran exclusive strength to their way of controlling space.
Also, think of the synergy with the units such as Tank that you just described. Sure, if you have a line of HSM coming at you, you can move, but if the HSM are shot as the battle is starting to engage, the choice is A) stay and get blown up, or B) Run (which, btw, is Terran having control over your units) and attempt to get every unit that was targeted away from the rest of your army).
This problem is compounded by the fact that the Zergs path could be blocked, or with appropriate positioning you could trap the Zerg player on the terrain. Fitting in with Terrans theme of "positional advantage".
Also lets not forget what was just discussed above, that Terran can use turrets to physically block pathing as well.
Taking all of these Terran unit/abilities alone won't seem like a strong advantage at controlling space. But look at how every single one of these units mentioned has a huge amount of Synergy with each other. As a whole, Terran has a huge amount of space control in HotS.
I keep saying it, properly used Ravens are amazing now, and were probably by far the biggest buff Terran received in HotS. Their very strong vs Zerg, their very strong vs the Protoss deathball. And I wouldn't be surprised if they were amazing in TvT as well since Terran aren't exactly known for their mobility.
I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing. It is immaterial to me whether Terran has similar abilities or not. I don't think I was dealing with balance issues. The issue I was jumping in on was whether a constant stream of free units/ FF/ Fungals had the same impact on unit control as Siege Tanks and Lurkers.
And the answer to that is a resounding no. In no way does a tank shot hinder your ability to micro your unit (unless it dies of course, but that's to be expected.) Even HSM doesn't control your units in that way. The ideal would be to run and spread out just as the ideal against tanks would be to spread. But here is the crux of the difference. HSM does nothing hinder doing you that. It forces a goal upon you. (Run and spread.) But it doesn't effect the means to do so. Slow or Freeze in place.
And that's the issue I was having in your argument against Rabiator. 'Forcing' (it actually isn't forced per se, you can choose not to react) a reaction (new goal) is very different than preventing you from carrying out that goal (means) by physically gumming up your units with free unit that mess up pathing or slow spells or stun spells. No choice at all. Especially with stuns, you just gotta hope after the stuns where off you still have some units.
Consider the difference between Thor splash and Fungal vs Muta. Thor splash forces the reaction for Muta to split to avoid damage. (New goal.) Fungal prevents you from doing so (means). One you can continue microing to your hearts content. The other, the other player is actually controlling your units and directly preventing them from moving.
Now free units have their place, but it seems to me that they have become too predominant. Not in terms of balance. We will always find a new balance. But in terms of how much free units dictate gameplay.
On February 04 2013 13:17 Falling wrote: I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing. It is immaterial to me whether Terran has similar abilities or not. I don't think I was dealing with balance issues. The issue I was jumping in on was whether a constant stream of free units/ FF/ Fungals had the same impact on unit control as Siege Tanks and Lurkers.
And the answer to that is a resounding no. In no way does a tank shot hinder your ability to micro your unit (unless it dies of course, but that's to be expected.) Even HSM doesn't control your units in that way. The ideal would be to run and spread out just as the ideal against tanks would be to spread. But here is the crux of the difference. HSM does nothing hinder doing you that. It forces a goal upon you. (Run and spread.) But it doesn't effect the means to do so. Slow or Freeze in place.
And that's the issue I was having in your argument against Rabiator. 'Forcing' (it actually isn't forced per se, you can choose not to react) a reaction (new goal) is very different than preventing you from carrying out that goal (means) by physically gumming up your units with free unit that mess up pathing or slow spells or stun spells. No choice at all. Especially with stuns, you just gotta hope after the stuns where off you still have some units.
Consider the difference between Thor splash and Fungal vs Muta. Thor splash forces the reaction for Muta to split to avoid damage. (New goal.) Fungal prevents you from doing so (means). One you can continue microing to your hearts content. The other, the other player is actually controlling your units and directly preventing them from moving.
Now free units have their place, but it seems to me that they have become too predominant. Not in terms of balance. We will always find a new balance. But in terms of how much free units dictate gameplay.
You can argue that it doesn't hinder your ability to move, which is true, but as I said a number of times that's against the whole concept of Terrans space control as a race. Terran control space through direct damage, raw firepower, and positional strength, rather than with CC.
The difference is, with Terran, if you don't move (or if your not able to move), your dead. You can say that's a choice, but it really isn't. This is also ignoring the fact that you can physically block their path. If you say that's a choice, then I can say you simply have the choice to avoid all the Zerg "free units".
Comparing to Zerg here, Zerg doesn't have spells that do instant damage such as this. Fungal does 30 damage. HSM does over 3x as much with a single missile. And the more HSM you shoot at once it gets exponentially more dangerous, because it puts the opponent in a spot where it's impossible to avoid all of them, leading to huge casualties.
Also your Thor vs Fungal comparison is a little bit illogical, considering in both situations, unless ur fighting a single thor or infestor, it's ideal to spread BEFORE you enter the fight, not after, otherwise the frontloaded damage would be done already when facing a Terran. Same with Mutas vs Widows. Both races are in the same ideal situation - if you don't spread first you are putting yourself in danger.
Furthermore, back to the free unit argument when it comes to using free units as CC, how come it's focused on Zergs free units, when time and time again it's been brought up that Terrans free units block a path far better, with more hp, for a longer duration, and even if you just buy yourself 1-2 seconds it guarantees that HSM will hit effectively making the Terran form of controlling space superior if you micro correctly? Not to mention if you use your positional advantage correctly, the enemy won't be able to avoid the HSM even without turrets?
So then there is a difference as Terran is about controlling space through damage (well not really if it's bio, but whatever) and how many of the stun spells that P and Z are designed around. The point is the heavy emphasis on stun/pathing CC in SC2 is not as fun to play against. It's alright, but it should be toned down a bit.
Thor and Fungal comparison works perfectly well. Yes the ideal situation would be to spread prior to contact. But supposing you don't, against the Thor you can still pull out albeit somewhat damaged. The same is not true with Fungal. Once caught, you're caught and you need to wait. Similar example. Muta stack and Irradiate. Naturally the ideal thing would be to separate before you are irradiated, but because stacked muta are so good, the Science Vessel can often catch the mutas stacked. So the Zerg must separate during/ after Irradiate is damaging their units. And they can do that because they haven't been stunned or slowed. As fast as you can separate is as fast as you can minimize the damage. And there is nothing hindering the means to do so.
And that's the problem with a heavy emphasis on stun/pathing CC. Everything must be pre-split, pre spread or BAM you are caught and stuck. It lends itself to very ON/OFF abilities rather than continued micro. The interesting thing is continued micro from beginning to end rather than micro, battle starts, spells lockdown units and you are forced to micro your remaining units and hope for the best. In general, the longer you can micro your own units throughout the entire battle (not just pre-battle) the more crazy shenanigans and comebacks are possible.
Again, not to say there is no place for CC. The place has simply grown overlarge.
Why Z and free units? Maybe because they have three units built around spawning them? If it is about stun/pathing CC in general, then I am very happy to talk about FF's, concussive shells and the like. (And Vortex's- thank goodness those are getting nixed.)
On February 03 2013 16:42 Rabiator wrote: Siege Tanks and Lurkers DONT shape the battlefield, because YOU can CHOOSE to run into them. You can NOT choose to "bypass a Forcefield" or "run through a wall of Broodlings" or "run out of the Fungal lock". That is a HUGE difference, because CHOICE is NOT GIVEN for the Broodlings/ITs, Forcefield and Fungal while IT EXISTS for Siege Tank and Lurker.
Get your definitions right, because a threat does not prevent you from doing an "unwise thing" and thus Siege Tanks and Lurkers are not shaping the battlefield. They allow you to control space, but that is a totally different thing.
Its all about CHOICE really and abilities which deny choice are bad but rather plentiful in SC2. The only regularly used "total denial ability" in BW was Stasis and that was kinda acceptable because the Arbiters werent mass-produced like Infestors or Broodlords but rather support units AND it provided full immunity to the affected units.
It is shaping the battlefield, just in a different way. Are you really trying deny that the terms of the battlefield don't change immensely once those 4 tanks on top of the hill go in to siege mode, or those Lurkers burrow? That's not even taking in to consideration that both Lurkers and Siege tanks could be used in many methods where you will be taking damage without yet seeing the units.
Great ... lets just explain for you then since you seem to have problems with the term of "battlefield" and what it means ...
The BATTLEFIELD consists of the map and on it there are cliffs, ramps and "untraversable areas". Thus the BATTLEFIELD defines where ground units can go and can not go.
Consequently "battlefield shaping abilities" are those which block / restrict movement like Forcefield (which makes it obvious by creating a big dome of crystal) but also includes Fungal Growth (which locks down friendly units and makes an area unpassable for other of your units) AND also includes Broodlings from a Broodlord (which surround a clump of your units and thus prevent them from moving).
Now before you argue that "surrounded units being immobile is the same as if they were surrounded by Zerglings" I would say that the Zerglings are a) not in an endless supply and b) did cost resources.
So any of your "off-topic arguments" about the Seeker Missile (which ISNT a Heat Seeker or Hunter Seeker Missile btw.) are useless. This is strictly about free units and why they are terrible in SC2. They are, because there are too many of them and in that amount they behave exactly like a "battlefield shaping Forcefield" by blocking passage.
People have complained about the Forcefield since the "beginning of time" (about three years ago) and it still is a problem because it limits the creativity of mapmakers, because narrow chokes become too powerful of a weapon for the Protoss. The same is true for the stupid Broodlings and Infested Terrans and Swarm Host free stuff (which is only kept in check by spawning only once in a blue moon, but that makes it weak again). A decent number of Broodlords doesnt even need a choke to block off a large number of opposite units and they are easily supported by the "leak-closing Infestors" and their two battlefield shaping abilities.
Battlefield shaping abilities are anti-fun, because they are based on "denial of skill" of your opponent. Thats the whole point ...
On February 04 2013 14:06 Falling wrote: So then there is a difference as Terran is about controlling space through damage (well not really if it's bio, but whatever) and how many of the stun spells that P and Z are designed around.
I've been saying since the beginning it's controlling space, just in a different way. Rabiator said the argument of it not being hard CC, but in all iterations of Starcraft (SC1, BW, WoL, or HotS) the proper term would be controlling space rather than CC.
Thor and Fungal comparison works perfectly well. Yes the ideal situation would be to spread prior to contact. But supposing you don't, against the Thor you can still pull out albeit somewhat damaged.
Not true if you have more than 2 Thors, that equals instant death. Or if you have a Widow along with a Thor or 2.
Regardless, if you have a substantial amount of Infestors or Thors, it's ideal to spread first.
And that's the problem with a heavy emphasis on stun/pathing CC. Everything must be pre-split, pre spread or BAM you are caught and stuck. It lends itself to very ON/OFF abilities rather than continued micro. The interesting thing is continued micro from beginning to end rather than micro, battle starts, spells lockdown units and you are forced to micro your remaining units and hope for the best. In general, the longer you can micro your own units throughout the entire battle (not just pre-battle) the more crazy shenanigans and comebacks are possible.
Again, not to say there is no place for CC. The place has simply grown overlarge.
Why Z and free units? Maybe because they have three units built around spawning them? If it is about stun/pathing CC in general, then I am very happy to talk about FF's, concussive shells and the like. (And Vortex's- thank goodness those are getting nixed.)
It's ideal for all races to be pre-split, not just against Zerg. Even DB mentioned this in the most recent video. According to him it's intended to be that way. Watch the 3rd vid in the recent HotS preview on this site.
Just because Zerg has multiple units that spawn them doesn't mean their the best at using it for CC, especially when the topic is about using them to block paths.
In response to your lalst paragraph it shouldn't be "just" about stun/pathing CC, it should be about how the overall concept and mechanics of controlling space for each race works as a whole. That's the only way this would be a valid argument against Zerg or any other race, and if you look at how the race works at a whole, all three races having their forms of free units as protection that fits the concepts of the races as a whole, their unique versions of space control forms an interesting dynamic with how each races strengths clash with each other, rewards opponents for splitting their armies, and encourages micro for both sides (even though some of you here are disagreeing with this, spreading your units before you go in to combat is micro, and leads to more micro throughout the battle).
On February 04 2013 14:23 Rabiator wrote: So any of your "off-topic arguments" about the Seeker Missile (which ISNT a Heat Seeker or Hunter Seeker Missile btw.) are useless. This is strictly about free units and why they are terrible in SC2. They are, because there are too many of them and in that amount they behave exactly like a "battlefield shaping Forcefield" by blocking passage.
That shows nothing but ignorance about how HotS works. Because the free units are Zergs method of space control, so if you want to do a valid comparison between races, you have to take that in to consideration against Terrans methods.
That's the problem here. You don't like the way Zergs space control works and want it to change, but have no problem with Terrans method of space control, which includes free units. You go so far as to claim it's an off topic argument, when it's the Terran equivalent. That's nothing but Terran bias.
On February 04 2013 14:32 Spyridon wrote: all three races having their forms of free units as protection
Which one is the "Terran free unit"?
Please dont bother with "autoturret", because it simply costs too much to be useable. Its twice the energy of an Infested Terran AND the unit is more expensive than an Infestor AND it has less useful other abilities. Thus the Raven isnt mass-produced as the Infestor is and cant be mass produced as Zerg can because Terrans only get one out for every Starport with Tech Lab - which cost a lot of gas to build in the first place - every cycle, which is MUCH slower than "1 for every larvae I have".
On February 04 2013 14:32 Spyridon wrote: all three races having their forms of free units as protection
Which one is the "Terran free unit"?
Please dont bother with "autoturret", because it simply costs too much to be useable. Its twice the energy of an Infested Terran AND the unit is more expensive than an Infestor AND it has less useful other abilities. Thus the Raven isnt mass-produced as the Infestor is and cant be mass produced as Zerg can because Terrans only get one out for every Starport with Tech Lab - which cost a lot of gas to build in the first place - every cycle, which is MUCH slower than "1 for every larvae I have".
Twice the energy, but 3x the hp, no 4-5 second spawn time with the eggs that they can be destroyed, much larger area blocked by it, and lasts for over 6x the duration, meaning energy for energy they block paths far better, and Ravens cost only 50 more gas than an Infestor. Yeah its a little more cost, but they block a path far better as well with the same amounts of energy so the extra cost is earned.
Ravens are much more common, and much stronger, in HotS than they were in WoL, and will help you immensely in both TvZ and TvP (unsure about TvT).
And the Missile is an incredibly strong ability, your insane to say it has less useful other abilities. Just goes to show you haven't taken advantage of them in HotS yet, which may be why you have so many complaints about them. Because your missiles do both control space and a huge amount of damage, which is even stronger than pre-nerf Fungal used to be, and has an incredible amount of synergy with Ravens other abilities.
BTW, as I suggested before, try an unranked game making 5-6 Ravens with your army, flank your opponent with them, shift queue a line of 5-6 turrets behind your opponent, sandwiching them between your enemy and the turrets/army, and use the rest on missiles on different targets. Watch how it goes. Until you see this in action, you really shouldn't be complaining about free units OR space control.
Also, just drop 5-6 turrets alone in ur base, and try to walk through them, and watch how much room each covers and how well they block paths.
I don't get why people keep making these flimsy arguments for free units. It undermines the need for economy and gives zerg FAR too much value for their mineral/gas expenditure. I just don't get the fun in having massable SUPPORT units and broodlings immobilizing or distorting pathing for entire armies. It goes back to people arguing to keep FFs. People are broken down to thinking that because they like watching units being killed with no room to react that those things are good design and belong in the game. There is almost no value to things like broodlings or massable ITs or FFs. It's always something really dubious being used to argue for those things.
It's not about watching big armies smash into other blobs of big armies and huge aoe affects. Sooner or later you need to design a well made RTS with solid fundamentals. Making it harder to express individual skill in a FUN and enjoyable way for both the players and viewers should be the biggest goals, then statistical balance within those confines of good design. Starcraft 2 at times feels like a big elaborate presentation where all the fancy effects and visuals were added first, then someone told blizzard they need some substance and added the actual information the night before it was due.
@Spyridon. If turrets really have become as spammable as broodlings and infested terran, than I would/will argue against it just as much. I don't particularly care who has the spammable free units that block pathing. This is not racial balance to me. All I care is there is too many things hindering micro during the battle. (And perhaps terrible, terrible damage is another cause- but that's a separate issue. Regardless, critical mass that one shots units is not in opposition to my point. It stands to reason that if a unit doesn't exist anymore one can't micro it. That has nothing to do with pre-critical mass.)
Pre-battle split micro is great. I love it. It exists in most RTS'. But micro during the battle is just as important rather than having controlability come to a grinding halt due to spammable stuns, slows, and free units.
On February 04 2013 15:01 Serpico wrote: I don't get why people keep making these flimsy arguments for free units. It undermines the need for economy and gives zerg FAR too much value for their mineral/gas expenditure. I just don't get the fun in having massable SUPPORT units and broodlings immobilizing or distorting pathing for entire armies. It goes back to people arguing to keep FFs. People are broken down to thinking that because they like watching units being killed with no room to react that those things are good design and belong in the game. There is almost no value to things like broodlings or massable ITs or FFs. It's always something really dubious being used to argue for those things.
Dubious, in my opinion, is arguing about the other races versions of space control, but having no problem with their own.
I'd call an argument against free units (which is zergs version of space control) that doesn't take in to consideration their own races versions, a flimsy argument against free units.
I'm still waiting for one that mentions Terrans free units, plus Terrans free workers (mules), plus their own mechanics for controlling space, as well as the power of their newly revamped spellcaster, which is arguably more powerful than all the other races equivalents, and that unit itself creates free units as well.
In other words, you want both Zerg and Protoss to function exactly how Terran works, which would mean both other races play "Terrans" game of fighting with frontloaded raw firepower. You really think that would be fair, or entertaining to watch, if all races had similar functionality and played Terrans current gameplan?
On February 04 2013 15:01 Serpico wrote: I don't get why people keep making these flimsy arguments for free units. It undermines the need for economy and gives zerg FAR too much value for their mineral/gas expenditure. I just don't get the fun in having massable SUPPORT units and broodlings immobilizing or distorting pathing for entire armies. It goes back to people arguing to keep FFs. People are broken down to thinking that because they like watching units being killed with no room to react that those things are good design and belong in the game. There is almost no value to things like broodlings or massable ITs or FFs. It's always something really dubious being used to argue for those things.
Dubious, in my opinion, is arguing about the other races versions of space control, but having no problem with their own.
I'd call an argument against free units (which is zergs version of space control) that doesn't take in to consideration their own races versions, a flimsy argument against free units.
I'm still waiting for one that mentions Terrans free units, plus Terrans free workers (mules), plus their own mechanics for controlling space, as well as the power of their newly revamped spellcaster, which is arguably more powerful than all the other races equivalents, and that unit itself creates free units as well.
In other words, you want both Zerg and Protoss to function exactly how Terran works, which would mean both other races play "Terrans" game of fighting with frontloaded raw firepower. You really think that would be fair, or entertaining to watch, if all races had similar functionality and played Terrans current gameplan?
You're making some sloppy comparisons that don't really support your point. Interrupting pathing and even the ability to move is absurd. You're also creating this completely false and fictitious danger to the game, that if you don't have free units that act as space control you homogenize the races and get a boring game. Space control is an integral, but not all important, balancing dominating part of the game. You also need to stop putting words in people's mouths to suit your argument. No one is saying things like mules are great for the game while broodlings are, either. I don't know where you're getting these things.
@Spyridon You are framing this all as though it is some kind of balance complaint. It stands to reason that if Zerg is changed then the other races would have to change accordingly. It wouldn't be a change in a vacuum.
But getting rid of free spammable units wouldn't make Zerg more Terran-like. If anything, it might force Blizzard to change Tier 1/ 1.5 Zerg units to be more swarmy. (Whatever happened to a 1 supply Zerg unit?) And Broodlings are doing exactly what lategame cracklings ought to be doing in my opinion.
On February 04 2013 15:10 Falling wrote: @Spyridon. If turrets really have become as spammable as broodlings and infested terran, than I would/will argue against it just as much. I don't particularly care who has the spammable free units that block pathing. This is not racial balance to me. All I care is there is too many things hindering micro during the battle. (And perhaps terrible, terrible damage is another cause- but that's a separate issue. Regardless, critical mass that one shots units is not in opposition to my point. It stands to reason that if a unit doesn't exist anymore one can't micro it. That has nothing to do with pre-critical mass.)
Pre-battle split micro is great. I love it. It exists in most RTS'. But micro during the battle is just as important rather than having controlability come to a grinding halt due to spammable stuns, slows, and free units.
You don't make as many turrets as IT of course, but a turret does the job of 3 IT's of HP, and blocks far more area, lasts far longer, for only double the cost. And making more than 1-2 Ravens is super useful nowdays with how strong their missiles are.
You don't really need critical mass to one shot units either, 1-2 missiles will take out the entire Zerg army, 3+ makes it nearly impossible to dodge, even without Terran using positional or micro advantages.. It's not like Swarm Hosts where you need 10-12+ to even be useful, you don't even need as many as how many Infestors you typically need for a battle.
The reason I believe it's relevant is because it's an ability that is designed to be used while hindering your opponents micro, and Ravens just happen to have an ability that's a free unit that hinders movement. It wasn't that useful before, but with the new missile mechanics, it's immensely useful. Meaning Terran is now a culprit of all these complaints just as much as Zerg and Protoss.
Really, give the Ravens a good testing, and you will see how silly this whole topic is, being focused on Zerg, free units, blocking space, and being able to do damage while blocking space. In a few months time if things aren't rebalanced, you will see people coming up with complaints about Terran doing this, not Zerg or Protoss. Not that I think it's an issue since each race has their strengths... but if you guys think the current iteration of Zergs bad... Just try it out.
That is not an argument against. That simply means the problem has spread to Terran as well. I and others are opposed to its current predominance regardless of who happens to have it. If a balance patch came out and Protoss' Collosi lasers instead shot out maniac probes like the Broodlords I would see that as expanding the problem not fixing it.
(The critical mass comment had to do with the Muta vs Thor micro comparisn )
On February 04 2013 15:32 Falling wrote: That is not an argument against. That simply means the problem has spread to Terran as well. I and others are opposed to its current predominance regardless of who happens to have it. If a balance patch came out and Protoss' Collosi lasers instead shot out maniac probes like the Broodlords I would see that as expanding the problem not fixing it.
(The critical mass comment had to do with the Muta vs Thor micro comparisn )
It's an argument against this topic, which is for some reason focused on Zerg, yet noone who is complaining has mentioned a problem with Terran.
"It exists somewhere else" isn't an argument against something. It simply is an argument to include it in discussion which I think is fair enough. But it doesn't counter any argument that sees free units as fundamentally problematic to game design if it dominates the gameplay too much. It just adds to the argument that the problem is widespread.
On February 04 2013 14:32 Spyridon wrote: all three races having their forms of free units as protection
Which one is the "Terran free unit"?
Please dont bother with "autoturret", because it simply costs too much to be useable. Its twice the energy of an Infested Terran AND the unit is more expensive than an Infestor AND it has less useful other abilities. Thus the Raven isnt mass-produced as the Infestor is and cant be mass produced as Zerg can because Terrans only get one out for every Starport with Tech Lab - which cost a lot of gas to build in the first place - every cycle, which is MUCH slower than "1 for every larvae I have".
Twice the energy, but 3x the hp, no 4-5 second spawn time with the eggs that they can be destroyed, much larger area blocked by it, and lasts for over 6x the duration, meaning energy for energy they block paths far better, and Ravens cost only 50 more gas than an Infestor. Yeah its a little more cost, but they block a path far better as well with the same amounts of energy so the extra cost is earned.
Ravens are much more common, and much stronger, in HotS than they were in WoL, and will help you immensely in both TvZ and TvP (unsure about TvT).
And the Missile is an incredibly strong ability, your insane to say it has less useful other abilities. Just goes to show you haven't taken advantage of them in HotS yet, which may be why you have so many complaints about them. Because your missiles do both control space and a huge amount of damage, which is even stronger than pre-nerf Fungal used to be, and has an incredible amount of synergy with Ravens other abilities.
BTW, as I suggested before, try an unranked game making 5-6 Ravens with your army, flank your opponent with them, shift queue a line of 5-6 turrets behind your opponent, sandwiching them between your enemy and the turrets/army, and use the rest on missiles on different targets. Watch how it goes. Until you see this in action, you really shouldn't be complaining about free units OR space control.
Also, just drop 5-6 turrets alone in ur base, and try to walk through them, and watch how much room each covers and how well they block paths.
1. The "missile" a) has been nerfed to a single-target ability and that is bad and b) again costs more than the "other Zerg ability".
2. You "kindly" forgot to include the RANGE in your comparisons of Infested Terran and Autoturret ... - Infested Terran: Range 9 - Autoturret: Range 3 Ravens have to endanger themselves when casting the turret and that isnt what Infestors have to do and there are hardly ever games where 20 Ravens are going to be the tactic of choice.
The duration doesnt matter because you only need those units for a maximum of 30 seconds AND the autoturret has the drawback of not being mobile, which can block your own units in while the Infested Terrans can move out of the way for your own stuff. Lets also not forget that you can cast the Infested Terran while burrowed ...
On February 04 2013 15:32 Falling wrote: That is not an argument against. That simply means the problem has spread to Terran as well. I and others are opposed to its current predominance regardless of who happens to have it. If a balance patch came out and Protoss' Collosi lasers instead shot out maniac probes like the Broodlords I would see that as expanding the problem not fixing it.
(The critical mass comment had to do with the Muta vs Thor micro comparisn )
This is exactly the point ... spammable junk is terrible and if Spyridon's argument were true that Terrans could use autoturrets the same way Zerg use Infested Terrans then they need to be gotten rid of / changed as well.
On February 04 2013 15:44 Falling wrote: "It exists somewhere else" isn't an argument against something. It simply is an argument to include it in discussion which I think is fair enough. But it doesn't counter any argument that sees free units as fundamentally problematic to game design if it dominates the gameplay too much. It just adds to the argument that the problem is widespread.
Yep ... someone else shooting people with a gun / someone else cheating his customers with bad stock dealings / someone else sleeping with someone else's wife isnt a good excuse to do it yourself.
----
Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing?
Broadly speaking, free units undermine the importance of economy. In many situations, having infestors for example is actually equivalent to having a better economy. Perhaps it's an energy cap issue (i.e. amount of free units). I think this is the biggest issue in SC2. A Zerg down to one mining base but with 10 infestors is actually much better off than the other two races with one mining base.
Perhaps this is my personal experience, but I'd economy (i.e. minerals and gas spent) to define the state/value of a player in a game, +/- 30% max. The variance is affected by things like unit composition, micro, positioning, etc.
Anti-micro spells, and more generally the "one-player" aspects of the game (i.e. creep spread granting permanent vision) are really bad for the game, but that's another issue...
On February 04 2013 16:08 Rabiator wrote: 1. The "missile" a) has been nerfed to a single-target ability and that is bad and b) again costs more than the "other Zerg ability".
Wow.... That shows how out of touch you are with this whole situation. It was nerfed to a single target abiltiy in the past, but since about a month ago it was rebuffed, so that it still targets a specific unit rather than an area, but again does AoE damage. This makes it far harder to avoid, because yeah in low numbers you can pull that single unit away from the rest of your army, but if you have 3+ missiles coming out and only 5 seconds to all of them away, it's not going to happen. Especially with a Zerg army where the units are smaller and harder to point out, even harder with Terrans using positional advantage and blocking the Zergs path.
Refer to patch 11 notes....
Or better yet... TRY IT FOR YOURSELF. It's always immensely frustrating when dealing with people on forums who argue something, yet won't even take the time to try things for themselves. All you did is prove that your out of touch with what you are trying to talk about, and that you will argue things before you even attempt them. Yet you expect people to believe you know what you are talking about?
Oh and by the way, it costs the same amount of energy as Fungal....
2. You "kindly" forgot to include the RANGE in your comparisons of Infested Terran and Autoturret ... - Infested Terran: Range 9 - Autoturret: Range 3 Ravens have to endanger themselves when casting the turret and that isnt what Infestors have to do and there are hardly ever games where 20 Ravens are going to be the tactic of choice.
You can do it easily with 5-6 Ravens, no need for 20, and range isn't an issue.
Once again try the tactic for yourself! Don't argue something you have never even attempted!
This is exactly the point ... spammable junk is terrible and if Spyridon's argument were true that Terrans could use autoturrets the same way Zerg use Infested Terrans then they need to be gotten rid of / changed as well.
Nice to see you can admit that, but it's a shame to see you spend so much more time arguing something you don't really know about, when you could test it in less time than it took to write this post.
Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing?
As I've stated probably a dozen times now, in the context of the current balance, they are the only Zerg units intended to be both economical and a siege unit. Blocking stuff isn't even the top priority for them, absorbing a few shots is the key for Zerg players, as their space control mechanic involves the weaker units taking the fire since all the other units are not economical. Without that, they would have to redesign the units for the entire race from all being non economical, or add some other form of "defensive/tanking" and "siege" units. Whether anyone likes it or not, the races iteration in SC2 is designed around them taking hits, not blocking paths.
That's precisely why it's so ridiculous that the primary complaints are about them blocking paths, when the Terran free units are the free units designed for being strong at blocking paths, not Zergs. If you don't think that's a good mechanic, this topic should be called "Terrans and free units". Because trying to say the problem with Zergs units is that they block paths is a blatant misunderstanding of how the units and race are used.
Swarm hosts are like Siege tanks that have 40 range. It's really, really stupid from a design standpoint, balanced or not. Whatever, I guess Dustin Browder thinks it's Zergy™.
I can just see Dustin and Dayvie sitting at the computer with Swarm Hosts and Brood Lords geekin out, "d0000d there r so many units its AWESOMEEE!!!!!!11111"
I have found one and only one thing that consistently deals with swarm hosts when I play Terran.
RAVENS
Seriously people, stop being pussies, build ravens out of 2 starports ASAP, I have found the new HSM to be good against pretty much... everything, lol. Go blow some shit up and vent that rage
On February 05 2013 05:19 hangarninetysix wrote: Swarm hosts are like Siege tanks that have 40 range. It's really, really stupid from a design standpoint, balanced or not. Whatever, I guess Dustin Browder thinks it's Zergy™.
I can just see Dustin and Dayvie sitting at the computer with Swarm Hosts and Brood Lords geekin out, "d0000d there r so many units its AWESOMEEE!!!!!!11111"
I can tell you right now that if you can kill siege tank shells before they land on the clump of marines, people would find siege tanks the worse units in the game.
Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing?
As I've stated probably a dozen times now, in the context of the current balance, they are the only Zerg units intended to be both economical and a siege unit. Blocking stuff isn't even the top priority for them, absorbing a few shots is the key for Zerg players, as their space control mechanic involves the weaker units taking the fire since all the other units are not economical. Without that, they would have to redesign the units for the entire race from all being non economical, or add some other form of "defensive/tanking" and "siege" units. Whether anyone likes it or not, the races iteration in SC2 is designed around them taking hits, not blocking paths.
That's precisely why it's so ridiculous that the primary complaints are about them blocking paths, when the Terran free units are the free units designed for being strong at blocking paths, not Zergs. If you don't think that's a good mechanic, this topic should be called "Terrans and free units". Because trying to say the problem with Zergs units is that they block paths is a blatant misunderstanding of how the units and race are used.
Yet again you are "arguing" about in the whinging kids mode "but Terran stuff is stronger" ... which it isnt, because Ravens are harder to mass than either Infestors or Broodlords.
The point is that this "free unit generation" seems the become the "Zerg trick" more and more and while whatever you say about it being necessary is probably true that doesnt make it good. Necessary <> good!
Lets explaine the problem of "battlefield shaping abilities" again. This is NOT the same as SIEGE units (and I dont know why you bring that up all the time). Lets imagine you are playing a game of football and you are clearly in the better team. Would you think it is a "fair deal" when the opposing team can rather suddenly build long walls to block your way while you cant? How about a race, where you are faster but the other runner can throw sticks between your legs to "deny your skill"?
DENIAL OF SKILL SUCKS! You should win with greater skill and not by being able to negate the skill of your opponent. Thats why Forcefield and Fungal are terrible and why massive numbers of free units are terrible. If these things are "necessary" they need to be changed, but I suspect Browder doesnt really care in the same way he doesnt *really* want to get rid of the deathball ... which many people hate with a passion.
----
Yep, I missed that Raven de-nerfing, but the single target version was total junk and showed how much they have "no clue". In the "new incarnation" the Seeker Missile has still become rather boring and I prefered the cooler "slow and beeping" one. Although you say "you dont need 20 Ravens" that isnt entirely true, because you "need" 20 Infestors (a high number anyways) to always have enough energy to be able to cast your spells ... one of the Infestors will have the energy for a Fungal or two and most of them will have the energy for the dirt cheap Infested Terran. With just 3 Ravens you could do it ONCE, but would have to wait minutes to be able to do it again. That isnt what I would call "viable".
Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing?
As I've stated probably a dozen times now, in the context of the current balance, they are the only Zerg units intended to be both economical and a siege unit. Blocking stuff isn't even the top priority for them, absorbing a few shots is the key for Zerg players, as their space control mechanic involves the weaker units taking the fire since all the other units are not economical. Without that, they would have to redesign the units for the entire race from all being non economical, or add some other form of "defensive/tanking" and "siege" units. Whether anyone likes it or not, the races iteration in SC2 is designed around them taking hits, not blocking paths.
That's precisely why it's so ridiculous that the primary complaints are about them blocking paths, when the Terran free units are the free units designed for being strong at blocking paths, not Zergs. If you don't think that's a good mechanic, this topic should be called "Terrans and free units". Because trying to say the problem with Zergs units is that they block paths is a blatant misunderstanding of how the units and race are used.
Yet again you are "arguing" about in the whinging kids mode "but Terran stuff is stronger" ... which it isnt, because Ravens are harder to mass than either Infestors or Broodlords.
The point is that this "free unit generation" seems the become the "Zerg trick" more and more and while whatever you say about it being necessary is probably true that doesnt make it good. Necessary <> good!
Lets explaine the problem of "battlefield shaping abilities" again. This is NOT the same as SIEGE units (and I dont know why you bring that up all the time). Lets imagine you are playing a game of football and you are clearly in the better team. Would you think it is a "fair deal" when the opposing team can rather suddenly build long walls to block your way while you cant? How about a race, where you are faster but the other runner can throw sticks between your legs to "deny your skill"?
DENIAL OF SKILL SUCKS! You should win with greater skill and not by being able to negate the skill of your opponent. Thats why Forcefield and Fungal are terrible and why massive numbers of free units are terrible. If these things are "necessary" they need to be changed, but I suspect Browder doesnt really care in the same way he doesnt *really* want to get rid of the deathball ... which many people hate with a passion.
----
Yep, I missed that Raven de-nerfing, but the single target version was total junk and showed how much they have "no clue". In the "new incarnation" the Seeker Missile has still become rather boring and I prefered the cooler "slow and beeping" one. Although you say "you dont need 20 Ravens" that isnt entirely true, because you "need" 20 Infestors (a high number anyways) to always have enough energy to be able to cast your spells ... one of the Infestors will have the energy for a Fungal or two and most of them will have the energy for the dirt cheap Infested Terran. With just 3 Ravens you could do it ONCE, but would have to wait minutes to be able to do it again. That isnt what I would call "viable".
Bad analogy--because it'd be even less fun if the other team could just shoot your runner dead.
They both create the same effect--one more forgiving than the other.
Run in range of a tank/lurker/reaver/colossus/storm/etc... line, you lose most/part of your army as you retreat. But you save some number of troops.
Run in range of an infestor/broodlord/SH/Sentry etc... line, you get most/part of your army trapped as you retreat. But you save some number of troops.
They're exactly the same although executed properly. The difference? Sexiness.
Tanks/Reavers/lurkers blow up/shred the enemy in blood and glory as you retreat the survivors saving them from doom. That looks and sounds cool.
vs
Green stuff lands on some of your troops and we get to watch them stand around for 30 seconds or so and they suddenly die. Or, white bubbles form on the map, units glitch out as their trapped by forcefields spazzaming like retards as they get shot helplessly by stalkers. Yeah, it's about as exciting watching it as it is reading a description of it.
Explosions, cool. Watching units stand around slowly losing hitpoints, not cool.
Neither one is all that different from the other--but one definitely feels and looks more annoying than the other. This isn't really "skill denial" since those units are as dead as when they run into a reaver shot. But watching them fritz out helpless as they lose hitpoints feels frustrating and looks silly.
And yes, Zerg is getting free units as its gimmick, and yes, it technically makes sense--but damn does it look boring to watch
On February 05 2013 15:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: And yes, Zerg is getting free units as its gimmick, and yes, it technically makes sense--but damn does it look boring to watch
Tell that to PLAGUUUUUUU.
Not to say that Fungal is in any way the same, but Plague was red goo that never actually killed things and people got plenty hyped for that (and please, don't let this start some BW>SC2 crap). "Excitement" can be half-attributed to the casters.
why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless.
On February 05 2013 15:53 Thieving Magpie wrote: And yes, Zerg is getting free units as its gimmick, and yes, it technically makes sense--but damn does it look boring to watch
Tell that to PLAGUUUUUUU.
Not to say that Fungal is in any way the same, but Plague was red goo that never actually killed things and people got plenty hyped for that (and please, don't let this start some BW>SC2 crap). "Excitement" can be half-attributed to the casters.
Actually, plaguu by itself is boring. But the defiler as a unit is interesting because it is dynamic.
It eats lings so it can cast overcosted spells that don't kill things on their own. Plagu weakens big units so your army finishes it off. Plague gimps their army so your army finishes them off.
Fungal is the shotgun that wins. Why make non-infestors when it cuts into you fungals? If plague was just a 300 damage spell people would hate it. But its a spell that creates combat. It encourages it. Hence it is exciting.
On February 05 2013 16:06 looken wrote: why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless.
The thing about Forcefield is that it limits mapmakers by making choke points too powerful. Sure you can siege up on them, but that doesnt make them 100% impassable; Forcefield does. Yes, there are ways to crush that Forcefield, but when exactly are Zergs getting Ultralisks? About an age later than Protoss get Forcefield. Thors arent the pinnacle of mobility either, so they arent really a "counter" to Forcefields. Its also not about your skill but rather the opportunity to screw up the skill of your opponent. Skill denial is bad if you have an asymmetric system like Starcraft. It was bad in WoW PvP and should be considered just as terrible here in SC2.
Please, Spyridon, talk about the ISSUE of free units being able to block stuff instead of pointing out that all races can do it. Why are free units a GOOD thing?
As I've stated probably a dozen times now, in the context of the current balance, they are the only Zerg units intended to be both economical and a siege unit. Blocking stuff isn't even the top priority for them, absorbing a few shots is the key for Zerg players, as their space control mechanic involves the weaker units taking the fire since all the other units are not economical. Without that, they would have to redesign the units for the entire race from all being non economical, or add some other form of "defensive/tanking" and "siege" units. Whether anyone likes it or not, the races iteration in SC2 is designed around them taking hits, not blocking paths.
That's precisely why it's so ridiculous that the primary complaints are about them blocking paths, when the Terran free units are the free units designed for being strong at blocking paths, not Zergs. If you don't think that's a good mechanic, this topic should be called "Terrans and free units". Because trying to say the problem with Zergs units is that they block paths is a blatant misunderstanding of how the units and race are used.
Yet again you are "arguing" about in the whinging kids mode "but Terran stuff is stronger" ... which it isnt, because Ravens are harder to mass than either Infestors or Broodlords.
The point is that this "free unit generation" seems the become the "Zerg trick" more and more and while whatever you say about it being necessary is probably true that doesnt make it good. Necessary <> good!
Lets explaine the problem of "battlefield shaping abilities" again. This is NOT the same as SIEGE units (and I dont know why you bring that up all the time). Lets imagine you are playing a game of football and you are clearly in the better team. Would you think it is a "fair deal" when the opposing team can rather suddenly build long walls to block your way while you cant? How about a race, where you are faster but the other runner can throw sticks between your legs to "deny your skill"?
DENIAL OF SKILL SUCKS! You should win with greater skill and not by being able to negate the skill of your opponent. Thats why Forcefield and Fungal are terrible and why massive numbers of free units are terrible. If these things are "necessary" they need to be changed, but I suspect Browder doesnt really care in the same way he doesnt *really* want to get rid of the deathball ... which many people hate with a passion.
----
Yep, I missed that Raven de-nerfing, but the single target version was total junk and showed how much they have "no clue". In the "new incarnation" the Seeker Missile has still become rather boring and I prefered the cooler "slow and beeping" one. Although you say "you dont need 20 Ravens" that isnt entirely true, because you "need" 20 Infestors (a high number anyways) to always have enough energy to be able to cast your spells ... one of the Infestors will have the energy for a Fungal or two and most of them will have the energy for the dirt cheap Infested Terran. With just 3 Ravens you could do it ONCE, but would have to wait minutes to be able to do it again. That isnt what I would call "viable".
Bad analogy--because it'd be even less fun if the other team could just shoot your runner dead.
They both create the same effect--one more forgiving than the other.
Run in range of a tank/lurker/reaver/colossus/storm/etc... line, you lose most/part of your army as you retreat. But you save some number of troops.
Run in range of an infestor/broodlord/SH/Sentry etc... line, you get most/part of your army trapped as you retreat. But you save some number of troops.
They're exactly the same although executed properly. The difference? Sexiness.
Tanks/Reavers/lurkers blow up/shred the enemy in blood and glory as you retreat the survivors saving them from doom. That looks and sounds cool.
vs
Green stuff lands on some of your troops and we get to watch them stand around for 30 seconds or so and they suddenly die. Or, white bubbles form on the map, units glitch out as their trapped by forcefields spazzaming like retards as they get shot helplessly by stalkers. Yeah, it's about as exciting watching it as it is reading a description of it.
Explosions, cool. Watching units stand around slowly losing hitpoints, not cool.
Neither one is all that different from the other--but one definitely feels and looks more annoying than the other. This isn't really "skill denial" since those units are as dead as when they run into a reaver shot. But watching them fritz out helpless as they lose hitpoints feels frustrating and looks silly.
And yes, Zerg is getting free units as its gimmick, and yes, it technically makes sense--but damn does it look boring to watch
The analogies were given to show how terrible a "denial of skill" type of play is when it is done in an unequal setting. Shooting the "other player" is something which both sides can do (with different kinds of guns and such) and its all about the denial part, which enables the worse player to screw the better player.
A game of "american football" or "Rugby" is ok only because both teams are allowed the same amount of dirty tricks, but what happens if you pitch a rugby team against a regular football (soccer) team and each would have to abide by their normal rules? That would be kinda terrible and a bad rugby team would probably wipe the floor with any football team.
Denial of skill abilities just waste time and the game needs to be adjusted to enable Protoss to fight without Forcefield (they cant really atm) and Zerg to fight without their massive numbers of free units. Broodlings could be changed to last longer and the rate of fire of a Broodlord could be adjusted to that and you simply wouldnt have that self-replenishing wall of free units anymore (roughly 1 Broodling for every Broodlord is ok, but not 3 at the same time); Infested Terrans could be "lobbed as the egg but pop right upon landing" for 50 energy for example and this would cut the number of ITs in half. There are ways to make Zergs free units work without a complete redesign, but the big wall of free units is a terrible idea.
On February 05 2013 18:04 Rabiator wrote: Infested Terrans could be "lobbed as the egg but pop right upon landing" for 50 energy for example and this would cut the number of ITs in half. There are ways to make Zergs free units work without a complete redesign, but the big wall of free units is a terrible idea.
Note that you are still ignoring the fact that the auto turrets cost 50 energy, and block as much room as 3 infested terrans, at higher health. (Actually, they block more room than 3 infested terrans, almost as much as a 3x3 block of IT's)
You keep targeting Zergs free units, which aren't even designed for, or good at, making a "wall". Zergs units are best at absorbing a single attack and do a little damage if you don't target them, NOT making a wall. How come you have absolutely nothing to say about Terrans free units, you know... the ones that are designed for making a wall?
If you had such a problem with free units that block paths, you would be targeting your own race. Which goes to show that you are just biased, and most likely still didn't even try Ravens for yourself, or else you would know the race that could make a "wall of free units" best is Terran.
BTW, your Rugby example is a bad one too, because you describe it as if the "dirty tricks" are the only factor. When in reality, Terran vs a Forcefield is more like one team is allowed to have weapons, and the other team is allowed to set up barricades to block your path. They each have their own dirty tricks.
I honestly question if you even play HotS. Because Broodlords and Infestors aren't even ideal anymore, especially in ZvT. Plus the fact that you aren't even aware of how Ravens Seeker Missile has changed, and seem to be completely unwilling to attempt one of the strongest new compositions.... Do you even play HotS?
On February 05 2013 16:06 looken wrote: why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless.
The thing about Forcefield is that it limits mapmakers by making choke points too powerful. Sure you can siege up on them, but that doesnt make them 100% impassable; Forcefield does. Yes, there are ways to crush that Forcefield, but when exactly are Zergs getting Ultralisks? About an age later than Protoss get Forcefield. Thors arent the pinnacle of mobility either, so they arent really a "counter" to Forcefields. Its also not about your skill but rather the opportunity to screw up the skill of your opponent. Skill denial is bad if you have an asymmetric system like Starcraft. It was bad in WoW PvP and should be considered just as terrible here in SC2. [...]
it does not? O_o well i mean yeah you can engage and lose all your stuff for nothing, but the same argument can be made for FF and fungal. the skill is to know HOW you have to engage that situation is it not? it denies a-moving into an army, i give you that, but then again, a-moving doesent require that much skill now, does it?
why do you compare sc2 to WoW? RTS vs MMORPG..? next thing is a comparison with CS or what? btw, as in sc2 you were able to force your opponent to use his stuns and snares insituations he did not actually want to use them in WoW. that was what separated a good PvPer from an excellent PvPer...
On February 05 2013 16:06 looken wrote: why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless.
The thing about Forcefield is that it limits mapmakers by making choke points too powerful. Sure you can siege up on them, but that doesnt make them 100% impassable; Forcefield does. Yes, there are ways to crush that Forcefield, but when exactly are Zergs getting Ultralisks? About an age later than Protoss get Forcefield. Thors arent the pinnacle of mobility either, so they arent really a "counter" to Forcefields. Its also not about your skill but rather the opportunity to screw up the skill of your opponent. Skill denial is bad if you have an asymmetric system like Starcraft. It was bad in WoW PvP and should be considered just as terrible here in SC2. [...]
it does not? O_o well i mean yeah you can engage and lose all your stuff for nothing, but the same argument can be made for FF and fungal. the skill is to know HOW you have to engage that situation is it not? it denies a-moving into an army, i give you that, but then again, a-moving doesent require that much skill now, does it?
why do you compare sc2 to WoW? RTS vs MMORPG..? next thing is a comparison with CS or what? btw, as in sc2 you were able to force your opponent to use his stuns and snares insituations he did not actually want to use them in WoW. that was what separated a good PvPer from an excellent PvPer...
He is merely unable to properly explain what he's experiencing. He thinks that the reason he dislikes forcefields and Fungals is because it "takes away micro" moreso than killing units take away micro. The reason he thinks this is because when siege tanks and spidermines kill units--it looks like a legitimate and fair way to "take away micro" while (since you can still see them) forcefields and fungals are unfair ways to take away micro.
Now (in my opinion) he is right that it looks boring/unfair to watch units die to forcefield blocks. It *looks* ridiculous to watch a clump of 15 vikings die to fungals as they helpless float there losing hitpoints. It doesn't matter that when fungals hit they deal less damage than a siege tank shot--at least a siege tank shot looks like a fair way to deal 35-50 damage while fungal looks like a cheesy way to deal 30-40 damage. He's right on that--he's simply wrong on the *why* it is so.
On February 05 2013 16:06 looken wrote: why do you guys still argue that it takes no skill to use these battle field shaping abilities? have you ever tried to hit good FF while your army was engaging at the same time, or to set up a flank, let everything run it at the same time and hit good fungals? its maybe boring to watch, but it takes hell of a lot of skill to actually hit those abilities correctely
and why do you think those abilities take away your skill? have you ever watched a pro game match? ppl try to bate FF and fungals to burn through the energy of sentrys and infestors. i'd say it takes quite a bit of skill to do that. it is just another kind of skill. it's not that "set up a flank and rush in" typ of skill but skill nonetheless.
The thing about Forcefield is that it limits mapmakers by making choke points too powerful. Sure you can siege up on them, but that doesnt make them 100% impassable; Forcefield does. Yes, there are ways to crush that Forcefield, but when exactly are Zergs getting Ultralisks? About an age later than Protoss get Forcefield. Thors arent the pinnacle of mobility either, so they arent really a "counter" to Forcefields. Its also not about your skill but rather the opportunity to screw up the skill of your opponent. Skill denial is bad if you have an asymmetric system like Starcraft. It was bad in WoW PvP and should be considered just as terrible here in SC2. [...]
it does not? O_o well i mean yeah you can engage and lose all your stuff for nothing, but the same argument can be made for FF and fungal. the skill is to know HOW you have to engage that situation is it not? it denies a-moving into an army, i give you that, but then again, a-moving doesent require that much skill now, does it?
why do you compare sc2 to WoW? RTS vs MMORPG..? next thing is a comparison with CS or what? btw, as in sc2 you were able to force your opponent to use his stuns and snares insituations he did not actually want to use them in WoW. that was what separated a good PvPer from an excellent PvPer...
He is merely unable to properly explain what he's experiencing. He thinks that the reason he dislikes forcefields and Fungals is because it "takes away micro" moreso than killing units take away micro. The reason he thinks this is because when siege tanks and spidermines kill units--it looks like a legitimate and fair way to "take away micro" while (since you can still see them) forcefields and fungals are unfair ways to take away micro.
Now (in my opinion) he is right that it looks boring/unfair to watch units die to forcefield blocks. It *looks* ridiculous to watch a clump of 15 vikings die to fungals as they helpless float there losing hitpoints. It doesn't matter that when fungals hit they deal less damage than a siege tank shot--at least a siege tank shot looks like a fair way to deal 35-50 damage while fungal looks like a cheesy way to deal 30-40 damage. He's right on that--he's simply wrong on the *why* it is so.
First off, I want to give you credit for actually not being sensationalist (that seems to be rare in this topic), which means I can actually respect your opinion on the matter, since you actually have a logical and well thought out opinion. At least you understand the roles of the abilities and their synergy with the race without being bias.
But I'd like to point out that he's went far beyond just that lol. He's not just talking about looks, he's been saying it's too powerful because of too much blocking power, and said so much pure bias ridiculousness in this topic, including some blatantly untrue information, and even ignored information that could have potentially helped him if he even plays HotS (which at this point seems highly unlikely).
Ignoring the Seeker Missile (since it would be understandable if he missed the change in patch notes - though this does make it suspect if he even plays HotS - and if he doesn't it's kind of messed up that he's argued in this topic so much)...
He's called free units "hard CC", He's claimed Ravens are harder to mass than Broodlords (meanwhile Broodlords are later in tech, each cost 3x the minerals, 100 more gas, take more time to morph, and cost double the supply - even with zerg having eggs it's such a big investment and later in tech so Terran can reach 5 to 10 easier and earlier). He's tried to compare non-combat units to Infestors. He's consistently argued about Zerg units being used in ways that doesn't even work for the race, and ignored the fact that his own races free units are designed for the precise reason he's complaining about. He's tried to call Ravens spells "off topic arguments". He's said that free unit and shield abilities "dont take skill they just prevent the opponents skill". He's said it's a "battlefield shaping ability and not a siege unit". He's said Fungal costs less energy than Missiles. When I pointed out the strengths of each race he called me a "whining kid talking about Terrans stuff is stronger" when he's the only one who has a problem with the noted strengths and weaknesses.
Now, after all that I'm not going to claim I know exactly what his motive is, but obviously he has some deeper issue than the micro situation, that even goes far beyond the topic of this thread.
As a Masters zerg in woL (havent done ranked in hots) I dont particularly enjoy swarm hosts. I dont like the immobility of the units, and I think they are very limited in use right now. They are really slow, and the time between waves feels like they can easily take damage. I enjoy playing with mobile units much more than just sitting around waiting to do enough damage. This is why I particularly enjoy playing ling bling muta in zvz and zvt. With the regen effect on mutas I already like them so much more than in WoL, to the point where they have late game use. A small pack of mutas harassing late game does alot of damage when used enough and health regen gives them them a way to constantly be annoying. I really think the locusts are too powerful aswell. They do considerable damage to units. I think it should be more of a tanky unit with less damage output to be honest. The only times I use swarm hosts are when I need to buffer free units for my main army, much like current day bl infestor. This is just my preliminary take on it. Ill post more when Ive have more time to use them.
On February 06 2013 04:03 Garoodah wrote: I think it should be more of a tanky unit with less damage output to be honest.
I'd personally find them more useful if that was the case. But if people are complaining about them now, imagine what would happen if they actually changed them like this?
The Hosts are actually most useful in ZvP, where a lategame composition of Hydra/Host/Corruptor with ranged upgrades is hard for them to handle. Terran can handle them pretty easily, they only work well on Terran very situationally unless you are very far ahead (mostly if they are turtling).
Which, btw, is one of the reasons the complaints about free units are a bit ridiculous. Especially coming from Terrans. Ling/Bling/Muta/Viper/Ultra is by far the most effective and common composition atm in HotS ZvT. Not SH nor Infestor/BL. They fit a specific niche of basically siege or countering siege only, and that's only necessary when you can't break a wall without them.
On January 28 2013 04:13 phrenzy wrote: The problem is range. Zerg units are mainly melee based..
I'm going to stop you right there and stomp this terrible internet rumor before it spreads any further. As we can see from this list, that simply saying "zerg is a melee army" is a gross over assumption.
List of Zerg units [Melee]
Drone (worker)
Zergling
Baneling
Ultralisk
List of Zerg units [Ranged]
Queen (also has Melee)
Roach
Hydra
Infestor (Spell caster that can kill units)
Infested Terran [Free unit]
Swarm Host [Free units]
Mutalisk
Corruptor
Broodlord [Free units]
*I did not need to list the Viper because it doesn't actually attack. Its a spell caster the deal damage indirectly. **It should also be noted that the [Free units] are basically Zerg's AOE. I'm not disagreeing with the "free unit" concept at all. But I want to make painfully clear that Zerg is not some melee exclusive race.
On February 06 2013 04:03 Garoodah wrote: As a Masters zerg in woL (havent done ranked in hots) I dont particularly enjoy swarm hosts. I dont like the immobility of the units, and I think they are very limited in use right now. They are really slow, and the time between waves feels like they can easily take damage.
You have essentially described the core of Terran Mech and what they've been dealing with for two years.
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.
Typical Zerg thinking. These locusts are free because they're generated, if you've taken economics in school you would know that if the benefits out weight the cost the units practically pay for themselves right off the bat with just pressure and forcing tech. Take for example a marine, it has a limited amount of health and can only generate so many kills/damage over the course of the 55hp, however, a swarm host is burrowed and can produce fighting unit/army at a distance, the locusts will always be beefy enuf to land a couple of hits and because they're "free" losing them technically does not cost you anything. Thus, YES THEY ARE FREE.
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.
Typical Zerg thinking. These locusts are free because they're generated, if you've taken economics in school you would know that if the benefits out weight the cost the units practically pay for themselves right off the bat with just pressure and forcing tech. Take for example a marine, it has a limited amount of health and can only generate so many kills/damage over the course of the 55hp, however, a swarm host is burrowed and can produce fighting unit/army at a distance, the locusts will always be beefy enuf to land a couple of hits and because they're "free" losing them technically does not cost you anything. Thus, YES THEY ARE FREE.
Typical toss thinking. They aren't free until they do damage. If for example you make 5 swarmhosts and you let loose locusts but they do 0 damage and you lose all 5 yeah you just wasted 1k minerals 500 gas. Sure this is an extreme example but it's an example non the less. They are free once they pay for their costs. So once they do 200 minerals/100 gas worth of damage then yes I agree they are "free" as you so put it.
Their initial waves aren't free as you just paid a pretty hefty amount to get them .
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.
Typical Zerg thinking. These locusts are free because they're generated, if you've taken economics in school you would know that if the benefits out weight the cost the units practically pay for themselves right off the bat with just pressure and forcing tech. Take for example a marine, it has a limited amount of health and can only generate so many kills/damage over the course of the 55hp, however, a swarm host is burrowed and can produce fighting unit/army at a distance, the locusts will always be beefy enuf to land a couple of hits and because they're "free" losing them technically does not cost you anything. Thus, YES THEY ARE FREE.
So marines are free when you have medivacs healing them? In theory, unlimited HP.
When you believe Swarmhosts produce "free" units you might as well say a Siegetank produces free banelings and teleports them right into your army in an instant.
"Omg he is fighting against FREE units!!" is just something bad casters like to shout because it sounds like something exciting/clever was going on.
Infested Terrans aren't free either. It's just the Infestor's attack much like Psionic Storm is the Templar's attack.
All the "omg free units!!"-nonsense aside, people simply need to learn how to deal with Swarmhosts correctly. The possibilities to do so have already been desribed in lenght in this thread, so I won't repeat everything in this post. Just realize that standing at your ramp and fighting locust over and over is not the right way. You are supposed to die if that's all you do. That's like standing around in Siege Tank fire, not doing anything.
On January 28 2013 04:13 phrenzy wrote: The problem is range. Zerg units are mainly melee based..
I'm going to stop you right there and stomp this terrible internet rumor before it spreads any further. As we can see from this list, that simply saying "zerg is a melee army" is a gross over assumption.
List of Zerg units [Melee]
Drone (worker)
Zergling
Baneling
Ultralisk
List of Zerg units [Ranged]
Queen (also has Melee)
Roach
Hydra
Infestor (Spell caster that can kill units)
Infested Terran [Free unit]
Swarm Host [Free units]
Mutalisk
Corruptor
Broodlord [Free units]
*I did not need to list the Viper because it doesn't actually attack. Its a spell caster the deal damage indirectly. **It should also be noted that the [Free units] are basically Zerg's AOE. I'm not disagreeing with the "free unit" concept at all. But I want to make painfully clear that Zerg is not some melee exclusive race.
On February 06 2013 04:03 Garoodah wrote: As a Masters zerg in woL (havent done ranked in hots) I dont particularly enjoy swarm hosts. I dont like the immobility of the units, and I think they are very limited in use right now. They are really slow, and the time between waves feels like they can easily take damage.
You have essentially described the core of Terran Mech and what they've been dealing with for two years.
And quite frankly, Ultralisks are seen in 80% ZvTs and Zerglings are seen in every MU, and are our most reliable T1 unit that we use throughout the game, same like Marine, same like Zealot. Banelings are around when Terran is going bio, so that's around 40% of the games I've played in HotS, since most Terrans like mech nowadays.
So, yeah, we do have a lot of melee units. Since the core of our army is melee.
I've always (and made multiple posts) been against this kind of free units. The whole idea of auto throwing free units is just wrong. Zerg has the ability to force an oponent to make a move while he does none, just waits.
IT are fine (especially after latest nerfs), but BL and now Swarm hosts will always be on my black list.
I really think the title of the thread needs to be changed or something because the term "free units" is completely inaccurate and even appears to be brainwashing people in this thread.
This is a much better way to look at a Swarm Host: HP: 290 (SH + Locust) DPS: 27.9 (maximum) - Regenerates 130 HP every 25 seconds (locust respawn)
The locusts dying and respawning is almost exactly the same as just having HP regen in some ways similar to Marines being healed via medivacs. A similar argument can be made for Brood Lords and Infesters. It's not OP and they're not "free". I personally enjoy watching the interesting dynamics that these units create and it does feel "swarm-ish" to me.
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.
Typical Zerg thinking. These locusts are free because they're generated, if you've taken economics in school you would know that if the benefits out weight the cost the units practically pay for themselves right off the bat with just pressure and forcing tech. Take for example a marine, it has a limited amount of health and can only generate so many kills/damage over the course of the 55hp, however, a swarm host is burrowed and can produce fighting unit/army at a distance, the locusts will always be beefy enuf to land a couple of hits and because they're "free" losing them technically does not cost you anything. Thus, YES THEY ARE FREE.
How are you going to play the "if you've taken economics in school" card and then completely ignore the actual economics doctrine on the issue? According to economics, NOTHING is free. There's always costs; if you haven't found them, you're not looking hard enough. When people say "free" in this thread they're using it in a colloquial, non-economics sense, which is fine. But if you bring up the economics on the issue, don't misrepresent them.
On February 06 2013 11:57 vRadiatioNv wrote: I really think the title of the thread needs to be changed or something because the term "free units" is completely inaccurate and even appears to be brainwashing people in this thread.
This is true. And to make it even worse, all 3 units in question are completely different, yet they are all being bunched up in to the same category.
Swarm Hosts, as was just stated, their units ARE their attack, so it's basically like 2 regenerating locusts that are "leashed" to a distance between their origin location. Plus they have very clear weaknesses - immobility, huge time between waves. Their main function is as a siege unit, and require other backup to even be useful.
Infestors units are just a little bit of DPS in emergencies, and hopefully cause a little bit of confusion to anyone who isn't focus firing. You also have to give up Fungal (the primary defensive spell for Zerg) in order to use them. After all the nerfs they are typically only good as some flash AA or a surprise attack on an undefended area. Very similar in utility to Hallucination except with a little bit of damage. Theres also clear weaknesses - limited energy, Infestors also don't have their own inherent attacks, etc.
Broodlords are a late game (possibly the latest game) siege unit, that spawns a couple Broodlings at a time. The broodlings do a little damage, but mostly function the same way as the Locusts do. Broodlords, by default, don't do the best damage, nor do they have as large range as the other siege units in the game for the other races. They also have very clear weaknesses - they are extremely immobile, are one of the most expensive units in the game (300 mins, 250 gas, 4 supply) even more expensive than a tempest (which does more damage and has damage bonuses, from farther away, and moves faster).
All three function very differently, especially when it comes to the intent of their "free units". All are limited in some way and use them as their primary attacks.
For some reason people are coming here acting like there is an endless supply, and do nothing but block paths with endless crowd control, when this is simply not true. Just the fact that BL and SH are limited in how many spawn at once means that the units supply of 3-4 (which is very high for Zerg units) means each of those units it spawns takes more than 1 supply. Considering how late game tech they are, the huge gas/supply costs, this is exactly why they have an ability of "Regenerating health".
People are also talking like the Zerg army is made up by nothing but these units, and talking like they are nothing but crowd control, when that's simply not true. Infestor/Broodlord is a shadow of its old self and is overshadowed by other compositions, and you need other backup than just these units together as they all share the same weaknesses.
And the post above is correct. If we're talking economics here, how about factoring the gas cost, supply costs, and how all these units listed share the same inherent weaknesses, and are not ideal together?
Free units are just horrible in spectators point of view. Can you imagine the amazing swarm host micro by the best players in code s? They set the rally point to the exact right spot and the casters go crazy! Same a-move shit as with broodlords, except you don't even have to a-move anymore, just set rally point.
I've played against swarm hosts only a couple of times and they didn't seem that good to me. Haven't used them yet myself so don't know, but i'll guess it isn't that fun either.
Enough of this free units garbage. The cost of locusts is exactly equal to the cost of the swarm host that is producing it divided by the amount of locusts it spawns. Thus, if the swarm host lives a long time, the cost of locusts approaches 0 fairly quickly. However, it is non-0. The cost of broodlings spawned by a broodlord? Exactly the cost of the broodlord divided by the amount of total broodlings it spawned.
Instead, this should be complaining about the absurd cost efficiency of such units rather than the false notion of 'free'. The issue is that these spawned units are vastly superior to the attacks of most other units.
Regardless of whether the spawned units should be considered 'free' or not, can it least be agreed that they spawn a lot of things that clutter the screen visually in a way that strictly damage units do not and that they also affect pathing of other units to some extent?
On February 06 2013 14:30 Falling wrote: Regardless of whether the spawned units should be considered 'free' or not, can it least be agreed that they spawn a lot of things that clutter the screen visually in a way that strictly damage units do not and that they also affect pathing of other units to some extent?
Agreed. The major issue of these units is that they are more micro restricting abilities. Imagine if you would, if siege tank attacks spawned a small mecha unit that looks like an scv which then beats shit over the face. Would that be absolutely ridiculous? Of course it would, and it would make getting near the siege tanks much harder.
On February 06 2013 14:30 Falling wrote: Regardless of whether the spawned units should be considered 'free' or not, can it least be agreed that they spawn a lot of things that clutter the screen visually in a way that strictly damage units do not and that they also affect pathing of other units to some extent?
Agreed. The major issue of these units is that they are more micro restricting abilities. Imagine if you would, if siege tank attacks spawned a small mecha unit that looks like an scv which then beats shit over the face. Would that be absolutely ridiculous? Of course it would, and it would make getting near the siege tanks much harder.
You know, as a zerg I'd almost prefer that as it would mean tanks would deal way less damage and no splash. Banelings are also pretty cool for breaking that sort of artificial barrier. :p
On February 06 2013 13:57 Jarree wrote: Free units are just horrible in spectators point of view. Can you imagine the amazing swarm host micro by the best players in code s? They set the rally point to the exact right spot and the casters go crazy! Same a-move shit as with broodlords, except you don't even have to a-move anymore, just set rally point.
I've played against swarm hosts only a couple of times and they didn't seem that good to me. Haven't used them yet myself so don't know, but i'll guess it isn't that fun either.
So your complaining about a unit you havent used? Funny how so many people are doing this..
Swarm hosts actually require quite a bit of micro - more micro than the siege units of all the other classes.
Also the Locusts move fairly decent speed on creep, and could be manually controlled, basically the locusts themselves require the same amount of micro as Roaches.
Funny that people are complaining about them from spectators view, when micro is what makes things entertaining for spectators since it can lead to big plays, and properly using Swarm Hosts is one of the more micro intensive units the race has.
People should really wait until they see some pro players using SH before complaining about spectators perspective of units they haven't seen played. Shows the credibility of most of the complaints here....
On February 06 2013 14:50 Whitewing wrote: Imagine if you would, if siege tank attacks spawned a small mecha unit that looks like an scv which then beats shit over the face. Would that be absolutely ridiculous? Of course it would, and it would make getting near the siege tanks much harder.
Funny.. As someone said earlier if they took Terrans AoE blasts and gave that instead Terran would be saying they were too weak as a unit. Especially considering they can't even shoot over hills, considering how much that's used to Terrans advantage w/ siege tanks.
On February 06 2013 15:48 Spyridon wrote: more micro than the siege units of all the other classes.
I micro my siege tanks all the time, not only do i try to spread them out the best i can, (avoid clumping, getting an areas full width, covering rows well, finding the best positions, aggressively moving them) but i also target fire units, a lot. I tell them to target infestors, higher energy ones too, i target fire units towards the inside of clumps to maximize splash. I pick my targets wisely, saving lower health tanks to a simple A move command thats gotten up close, allowing full health tanks to take some damage while saving others, often in the red from death. Unsieged early game i also find a ton of micro through hair line repair/SCV pulling. I try to fire away from immortals and let other units deal with them, unless ive EMP'd the immortals. Ive had zealots on my tanks, and ive not friendly fired, ive even shot my own orbital to prevent friendly fire. etc...
EDIT A Phrase was supposed to be deleted.
EDIT2: i wouldn't have known about carrier micro until some one else showed me, and i see a very huge difference in the effectiveness of carriers when micro'd properly. Broods can be rather hard to control being so immobile, really once you engage with them you are often committed entirely to that attack, and with raven buff and to some extent thors clumping bro's is costly. And, then perhaps colossi, but even a good spread is required when using 5+ (although that is a sight much more common in WOL) and even tempests need to effectively dance VS vikings.
On February 06 2013 15:48 Spyridon wrote: more micro than the siege units of all the other classes.
I micro my siege tanks all the time, not only do i try to spread them out the best i can, (avoid clumping, getting an areas full width, covering rows well, finding the best positions, aggressively moving them) but i also target fire units, a lot. I tell them to target infestors, higher energy ones too, i target fire units towards the inside of clumps to maximize splash. I pick my targets wisely, saving lower health tanks to a simple A move command thats gotten up close, allowing full health tanks to take some damage while saving others, often in the red from death. Unsieged early game i also find a ton of micro through hair line repair/SCV pulling. I try to fire away from immortals and let other units deal with them, unless ive EMP'd the immortals. Ive had zealots on my tanks, and ive not friendly fired, ive even shot my own orbital to prevent friendly fire. etc...
EDIT A Phrase was supposed to be deleted.
EDIT2: i wouldn't have known about carrier micro until some one else showed me, and i see a very huge difference in the effectiveness of carriers when micro'd properly. Broods can be rather hard to control being so immobile, really once you engage with them you are often committed entirely to that attack, and with raven buff and to some extent thors clumping bro's is costly. And, then perhaps colossi, but even a good spread is required when using 5+ (although that is a sight much more common in WOL) and even tempests need to effectively dance VS vikings.
Not saying they dont take "any" micro, but their design doesn't require as much.
It's more important for SH to be spread than Siege Tanks because unspread SH will die in 1 volley even if the tanks are not spread.. Also SH are designed (backed up by Blizz's posts) for being microed between shots (unlike tanks). Also the locusts then need to be microed to not just target priority targets, but maneuvered in to close range (Roach range) while still keeping them as spread as possible. And just like roaches, you need to attack-move-attack-move closer, or else the locusts behind won't be able to get in range to attack. This is in addition to aggressively moving up and dancing away from enemy units and choosing targets.
Everything you named needs to be done except for being able to shoot out of siege (which is a disadvantage), in exchange for moving between shots, guiding the shots, and a-move micro up close to maximize damage. More micro than a siege tank, and both tanks and SH need more micro than a tempest.
I don't see how broodlings are 'free' units.. It's the only way that big expensive thing (broodlord) can deal damage. Broodling shot = tank shot, just in a different form. Why would the attack of a broodlord be any different than the one from a siege tank, although they look different? If a tank shot a marine which exploded on impact, would it be called a free unit? Because a tank can fire infinite shots, basically.
On February 06 2013 13:57 Jarree wrote: Free units are just horrible in spectators point of view. Can you imagine the amazing swarm host micro by the best players in code s? They set the rally point to the exact right spot and the casters go crazy! Same a-move shit as with broodlords, except you don't even have to a-move anymore, just set rally point.
I've played against swarm hosts only a couple of times and they didn't seem that good to me. Haven't used them yet myself so don't know, but i'll guess it isn't that fun either.
So your complaining about a unit you havent used? Funny how so many people are doing this..
Swarm hosts actually require quite a bit of micro - more micro than the siege units of all the other classes.
Also the Locusts move fairly decent speed on creep, and could be manually controlled, basically the locusts themselves require the same amount of micro as Roaches.
Funny that people are complaining about them from spectators view, when micro is what makes things entertaining for spectators since it can lead to big plays, and properly using Swarm Hosts is one of the more micro intensive units the race has.
People should really wait until they see some pro players using SH before complaining about spectators perspective of units they haven't seen played. Shows the credibility of most of the complaints here....
On February 06 2013 14:50 Whitewing wrote: Imagine if you would, if siege tank attacks spawned a small mecha unit that looks like an scv which then beats shit over the face. Would that be absolutely ridiculous? Of course it would, and it would make getting near the siege tanks much harder.
Funny.. As someone said earlier if they took Terrans AoE blasts and gave that instead Terran would be saying they were too weak as a unit. Especially considering they can't even shoot over hills, considering how much that's used to Terrans advantage w/ siege tanks.
I meant it in the sense of the broodlord, who has an attack that deals significant damage. I meant if you just took the normal siege tank attack and then added that unit in. Maybe reduce the overall damage a little to compensate. You get 10 tanks firing those things and you're not reaching them.
On February 06 2013 13:57 Jarree wrote: Free units are just horrible in spectators point of view. Can you imagine the amazing swarm host micro by the best players in code s? They set the rally point to the exact right spot and the casters go crazy! Same a-move shit as with broodlords, except you don't even have to a-move anymore, just set rally point.
I've played against swarm hosts only a couple of times and they didn't seem that good to me. Haven't used them yet myself so don't know, but i'll guess it isn't that fun either.
So your complaining about a unit you havent used? Funny how so many people are doing this..
Swarm hosts actually require quite a bit of micro - more micro than the siege units of all the other classes.
Also the Locusts move fairly decent speed on creep, and could be manually controlled, basically the locusts themselves require the same amount of micro as Roaches.
Funny that people are complaining about them from spectators view, when micro is what makes things entertaining for spectators since it can lead to big plays, and properly using Swarm Hosts is one of the more micro intensive units the race has.
People should really wait until they see some pro players using SH before complaining about spectators perspective of units they haven't seen played. Shows the credibility of most of the complaints here....
On February 06 2013 14:50 Whitewing wrote: Imagine if you would, if siege tank attacks spawned a small mecha unit that looks like an scv which then beats shit over the face. Would that be absolutely ridiculous? Of course it would, and it would make getting near the siege tanks much harder.
Funny.. As someone said earlier if they took Terrans AoE blasts and gave that instead Terran would be saying they were too weak as a unit. Especially considering they can't even shoot over hills, considering how much that's used to Terrans advantage w/ siege tanks.
I meant it in the sense of the broodlord, who has an attack that deals significant damage. I meant if you just took the normal siege tank attack and then added that unit in. Maybe reduce the overall damage a little to compensate. You get 10 tanks firing those things and you're not reaching them.
If you've got 10 tanks firing, you still won't reach them. They deal a ton of damage compared to the initial hit of a broodling strike. Not to mention you can flank swarmhosts and take zero damage.
On February 06 2013 13:57 Jarree wrote: Free units are just horrible in spectators point of view. Can you imagine the amazing swarm host micro by the best players in code s? They set the rally point to the exact right spot and the casters go crazy! Same a-move shit as with broodlords, except you don't even have to a-move anymore, just set rally point.
I've played against swarm hosts only a couple of times and they didn't seem that good to me. Haven't used them yet myself so don't know, but i'll guess it isn't that fun either.
So your complaining about a unit you havent used? Funny how so many people are doing this..
Swarm hosts actually require quite a bit of micro - more micro than the siege units of all the other classes.
Also the Locusts move fairly decent speed on creep, and could be manually controlled, basically the locusts themselves require the same amount of micro as Roaches.
Funny that people are complaining about them from spectators view, when micro is what makes things entertaining for spectators since it can lead to big plays, and properly using Swarm Hosts is one of the more micro intensive units the race has.
People should really wait until they see some pro players using SH before complaining about spectators perspective of units they haven't seen played. Shows the credibility of most of the complaints here....
On February 06 2013 14:50 Whitewing wrote: Imagine if you would, if siege tank attacks spawned a small mecha unit that looks like an scv which then beats shit over the face. Would that be absolutely ridiculous? Of course it would, and it would make getting near the siege tanks much harder.
Funny.. As someone said earlier if they took Terrans AoE blasts and gave that instead Terran would be saying they were too weak as a unit. Especially considering they can't even shoot over hills, considering how much that's used to Terrans advantage w/ siege tanks.
I meant it in the sense of the broodlord, who has an attack that deals significant damage. I meant if you just took the normal siege tank attack and then added that unit in. Maybe reduce the overall damage a little to compensate. You get 10 tanks firing those things and you're not reaching them.
If you've got 10 tanks firing, you still won't reach them. They deal a ton of damage compared to the initial hit of a broodling strike. Not to mention you can flank swarmhosts and take zero damage.
Mass ling/ultra/baneling flanks crush such armies all the time in game, but if you put something in the way, suddenly they can't. Autoturrets were envisioned to do this, but they can't because they're too difficult to actually place due to being buildings. I suppose players can build supply depot walls but that makes pushes too slow.
On February 06 2013 13:57 Jarree wrote: Free units are just horrible in spectators point of view. Can you imagine the amazing swarm host micro by the best players in code s? They set the rally point to the exact right spot and the casters go crazy! Same a-move shit as with broodlords, except you don't even have to a-move anymore, just set rally point.
I've played against swarm hosts only a couple of times and they didn't seem that good to me. Haven't used them yet myself so don't know, but i'll guess it isn't that fun either.
So your complaining about a unit you havent used? Funny how so many people are doing this..
Swarm hosts actually require quite a bit of micro - more micro than the siege units of all the other classes.
Also the Locusts move fairly decent speed on creep, and could be manually controlled, basically the locusts themselves require the same amount of micro as Roaches.
Funny that people are complaining about them from spectators view, when micro is what makes things entertaining for spectators since it can lead to big plays, and properly using Swarm Hosts is one of the more micro intensive units the race has.
People should really wait until they see some pro players using SH before complaining about spectators perspective of units they haven't seen played. Shows the credibility of most of the complaints here....
On February 06 2013 14:50 Whitewing wrote: Imagine if you would, if siege tank attacks spawned a small mecha unit that looks like an scv which then beats shit over the face. Would that be absolutely ridiculous? Of course it would, and it would make getting near the siege tanks much harder.
Funny.. As someone said earlier if they took Terrans AoE blasts and gave that instead Terran would be saying they were too weak as a unit. Especially considering they can't even shoot over hills, considering how much that's used to Terrans advantage w/ siege tanks.
I meant it in the sense of the broodlord, who has an attack that deals significant damage. I meant if you just took the normal siege tank attack and then added that unit in. Maybe reduce the overall damage a little to compensate. You get 10 tanks firing those things and you're not reaching them.
If you've got 10 tanks firing, you still won't reach them. They deal a ton of damage compared to the initial hit of a broodling strike. Not to mention you can flank swarmhosts and take zero damage.
Mass ling/ultra/baneling flanks crush such armies all the time in game, but if you put something in the way, suddenly they can't. Autoturrets were envisioned to do this, but they can't because they're too difficult to actually place due to being buildings. I suppose players can build supply depot walls but that makes pushes too slow.
That's a numbers issue, not a design one. Numbers wise it works in TvT (Can't really charge into a tank line in TvT) but not in TvP or TvZ. Not because the design does not work (it's why it works in TvT) but because the numbers aren't right. Give tanks 70 flat damage and see how "easy" it is to break those lines.
(70 means that the targeted ling and all lings in an archon sized area die in clumps to the siege tank shots. Zealots would also be 2-shot instead of 4-shot)
On February 06 2013 14:30 Falling wrote: Regardless of whether the spawned units should be considered 'free' or not, can it least be agreed that they spawn a lot of things that clutter the screen visually in a way that strictly damage units do not and that they also affect pathing of other units to some extent?
A good way to fix a lot of this clutter would be to nerf the # of broodlings from a broodlord. Their first attack after a period of no attacking summons 2 broodlings instead of the standard 1. So if you have 15 brood lords you just summoned 30 broodlings with just a few seconds of autoattacks.
Having it always summon 1 broodling would make the broodlord more of a supplementary army unit instead of the main army unit. You could even buff the broodling's damage by 1 or so to help the zerg out if this nerf is too severe
On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote: Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes.
Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better?
Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^
I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race.
On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote: Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes.
Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better?
Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^
I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race.
I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit.
I've been lurking on this thread for a while now, and I constantly see the argument about "free" units being misrepresented. The best way to explain free units is not by comparing them to mines or interceptors like certain people in this thread are saying, or even siege tanks. The best comparison that I can think for locust and infested terran is with orbital command and mules. Now before you guys act out and start telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, just think about it. Here we have something with an initial cost (mineral and gas cost, delayed scv production, etc.) in order to get "free" burst of something that we need (minerals, high dps units). Now I know there are differences (mules for economy, locust/IT for cannon fodder and damage), but what I'm focusing is the fundamentals. Anything you can get in "free" bursts will always be cost effective enough to pay for any initial cost, and then some (as long as if it's used properly). Yes, technically locust, infested terrans and broodlings are not free. But because of the mechanic that revolves around them, they are too cost efficient for what they are, on a race that is supposed to be about "mobile, cost-inefficiency".
The other thing that makes me facepalm is how people keep comparing the swarm host to the siege tank. You could not have any more of an "apples and oranges" argument but here goes. The "attack" of the siege tank comes from the siege tank, the "attack" of the swarm host DOES NOT come from the swarm host. That makes a huge difference. The thing is when you use a siege tank, you are exposing your siege tank to a variety of risks. "Is my tank in the right position? Can they fire in a spot that can do the most damage to my opponent? Am I putting enough distance between me and my opponent where my siege tanks get sniped?" are just a few of the many things you have to worry about because the utility of the siege tank is TIED TO THE SIEGE TANK. With swarm host, all you have to do is plant them in a spot where they can't get hit, and where the locust can get to whatever target they need to get to in time. Then you can do whatever the heck you want with the swarm host because the utility of the swarm host does not come from the swarm host, it comes from keeping the swarm host alive and in a position where they can spawn locusts. Swarm hosts are not "siege" units. Sometimes I feel like swarm hosts are more like mobile spawning points than actual units.
Another thing I'm seeing is how mines and interceptors are being used to justify the existence of locust/IT. Again, another "apple and oranges" scenario. First of all, mines are limited by the number of vultures you produce. You do not "regenerate" mines, you have to constantly "buy" them by buying the vulture. Second of all, like the siege tank, the use of the interceptor is directly tied to the carrier. If you move the carrier, the interceptors don't attack. If you attack a specific unit with a carrier, the interceptors focus on that specific unit. If you attack something out of the carrier's range, the interceptor doesn't even come out of the carrier. Each interceptor doesn't have a mind of it own, you control the interceptor by controlling the carrier. That's why they call it "carrier micro", not "interceptor micro". "Infestor micro" basically boils down to: "Spawn the infested terran, run the F*** away." At least with the broodlord you actually have to be attacking to spawn broodlings.
So the biggest question here is: Are "free units" balanced? To that all I can say is: meh, kinda? I guess if you make it so it's harder to spawn free units and the free units aren't that strong it's kind of balanced. However, something I can say for sure is that I feel that the way "free units" are being implemented now is extremely gimmicky and shouldn't belong in Starcraft. Like other gimmicky mechanics in SC2, once the novelty of locusts and infested terrans (OMG I CAN SPAWN FREE UNITS LEIK WHENEVER I WANT) wears off, it becomes clear how limiting and broken such units really are. The only real "strategy" that really comes from "free units" is that they're free with large amounts of dps. They have no real utility except for exacerbating and making cost-efficient tools that zerg already had. I feel like if there ever happens to be a day where skytoss and skyterran is nerfed, and zergs learn how to use swarm host effectively, then we're going to have another scenario where all zergs are doing is trying to mass up the most abusive thing available to them by being as passive as possible before moving out. (BTW I don't like autoturrents either but I wanted to focus on the zerg "free units")
On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote: Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes.
Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better?
Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^
I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race.
I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit.
It's too early to make a balance judgment on it, but I hestitate to agree with you. The fact is that zerg has the fastest units in the game, a creep mechanic for more speed boosts, the easiest time expanding and holding expansions, the greatest economy and easiest time making workers, and has the fastest production mechanic and best tech switching. Thus, the more options a zerg has to put on pressure of various kind, the more broken it will become than in the hands of terran or protoss because of how much easier it is to switch into and out of it. A zerg can open mutalisk, harass for a few minutes while expanding, then transition into 10 swarm hosts at the same time to really pressure the front. No terran can open banshee harass to cover an expansion and then a few minutes later build 10 tanks out of nowhere. No protoss can go from sky toss to 6-8 colossi in just a few minutes, and certainly not while expanding rapidly and making workers at an intense speed.
On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote: Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes.
Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better?
Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^
I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race.
I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit.
It's too early to make a balance judgment on it, but I hestitate to agree with you. The fact is that zerg has the fastest units in the game, a creep mechanic for more speed boosts, the easiest time expanding and holding expansions, the greatest economy and easiest time making workers, and has the fastest production mechanic and best tech switching. Thus, the more options a zerg has to put on pressure of various kind, the more broken it will become than in the hands of terran or protoss because of how much easier it is to switch into and out of it. A zerg can open mutalisk, harass for a few minutes while expanding, then transition into 10 swarm hosts at the same time to really pressure the front. No terran can open banshee harass to cover an expansion and then a few minutes later build 10 tanks out of nowhere. No protoss can go from sky toss to 6-8 colossi in just a few minutes, and certainly not while expanding rapidly and making workers at an intense speed.
You can't simply look at units in a vacuum.
Oh! Don't misunderstand--if you look a several pages back I actually said that I think Zerg getting awesome siege units is dumb and contradictory to what Zerg is supposed to embody and I wish that Blizzard was at good at making mech work in terran as opposed to making mech work in Zerg.
I personally think Zerg having Widow Mines and Broodlords is dumb and antithetical to who they are as an identity.
I'm mostly defending whether or not SH or BL are OP/Fair/Unfair because I don't actually think that they're "broken."
Their design is fair--although their numbers aren't quite right. But I do agree with you completely that Zerg shouldn't have such Protoss-y units.
On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote: Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes.
Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better?
Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^
I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race.
I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit.
It's too early to make a balance judgment on it, but I hestitate to agree with you. The fact is that zerg has the fastest units in the game, a creep mechanic for more speed boosts, the easiest time expanding and holding expansions, the greatest economy and easiest time making workers, and has the fastest production mechanic and best tech switching. Thus, the more options a zerg has to put on pressure of various kind, the more broken it will become than in the hands of terran or protoss because of how much easier it is to switch into and out of it. A zerg can open mutalisk, harass for a few minutes while expanding, then transition into 10 swarm hosts at the same time to really pressure the front. No terran can open banshee harass to cover an expansion and then a few minutes later build 10 tanks out of nowhere. No protoss can go from sky toss to 6-8 colossi in just a few minutes, and certainly not while expanding rapidly and making workers at an intense speed.
You can't simply look at units in a vacuum.
Except switching to Swarm Hosts at that stage of the game would slow your tech to Hive too much and not be as optimal.
I've attempted it many times. It's far harder to take a base with SH than it is with Ultras. If you want to use SH at all, you'll make maybe 10 of them while teching to Ultras, and save the rest of your gas for Ultras.
On February 07 2013 02:52 Whitewing wrote: I meant it in the sense of the broodlord, who has an attack that deals significant damage. I meant if you just took the normal siege tank attack and then added that unit in. Maybe reduce the overall damage a little to compensate. You get 10 tanks firing those things and you're not reaching them.
This is funny. You know a single siege tank does more damage than a Broodlord AND the damage is AoE? And costs under half the resources to create. And costs less supply. Think of the Broodlings as making up for the loss of damage and as the AoE damage. Which is very litttle in exchange for the extra tech + extra cost + extra supply.
Even if you go by your example, would you be willing to give up the tanks AoE for firing units, make them cost double the resources, and more supply, and put them just as late in tech as a battle cruiser? I would think not....
I really wish people knew what they were talking about before posting balance complaints with illogical information.
On February 07 2013 06:39 Whitewing wrote: Mass ling/ultra/baneling flanks crush such armies all the time in game, but if you put something in the way, suddenly they can't. Autoturrets were envisioned to do this, but they can't because they're too difficult to actually place due to being buildings.
People keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense. Shift queueing a line of turrets is easy as hell. People have been claiming you can do it with infestors and its far easier to make a wall of turrets than infestors. What exactly makes turrets hard to place when A) they are so big its easy to line them up in a line, and B) you don't even have to 100% block everything becuase even if theres a small hole in the wall, only lings or marines will be able to pass through, and if all the units have to run towards a choke point to try to get through that's even better for you.
Why are people even arguing about ravens and autoturrents? The only reason why ravens and autoturrents aren't a problem now is because ravens weren't as easy to mass as infestors were and ravens couldn't get their full utility until AFTER you researched all their upgrades. Yeah, you could technically create a wall of autoturrents, but the question is WHY would you? Unlike locusts, IT and broodlings, autoturrets are immobile, meaning once you place it, it's stuck there. Plus using an autoturret would take energy away from your more useful energy expensive spells. You don't plant an autoturret to kill things, you plant it to be an annoying threat. The problem now is that with the ridiculous way seeker missile is now, you have a problem similar to the infestor, lots of "free" units that do damage and an aoe spell that makes it so that you can't go near that unit unless you want to take lots damage. The fact that we're even trying to talk and justify mass autoturret usage just goes to show how bad this "free unit" mentality has seeped into Starcraft.
On February 07 2013 13:35 KamikazeDurrrp wrote: Yeah, you could technically create a wall of autoturrents, but the question is WHY would you?
Because that has a perfect synergy with the new Seeker Missile functionality. The new one is designed to where if you can't split every unit that has been targeted off from your main army, you will get blown up.
Flanking with Hellbat drops + autoturrets = sandwich the enemy in an inescapable barrage of missiles. Plus this is a natural transition from the common Terran openers, since you will already have dropships and hellbats/widows/etc.
On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote: Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes.
Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better?
Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^
I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race.
I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit.
It's too early to make a balance judgment on it, but I hestitate to agree with you. The fact is that zerg has the fastest units in the game, a creep mechanic for more speed boosts, the easiest time expanding and holding expansions, the greatest economy and easiest time making workers, and has the fastest production mechanic and best tech switching. Thus, the more options a zerg has to put on pressure of various kind, the more broken it will become than in the hands of terran or protoss because of how much easier it is to switch into and out of it. A zerg can open mutalisk, harass for a few minutes while expanding, then transition into 10 swarm hosts at the same time to really pressure the front. No terran can open banshee harass to cover an expansion and then a few minutes later build 10 tanks out of nowhere. No protoss can go from sky toss to 6-8 colossi in just a few minutes, and certainly not while expanding rapidly and making workers at an intense speed.
You can't simply look at units in a vacuum.
Except switching to Swarm Hosts at that stage of the game would slow your tech to Hive too much and not be as optimal.
I've attempted it many times. It's far harder to take a base with SH than it is with Ultras. If you want to use SH at all, you'll make maybe 10 of them while teching to Ultras, and save the rest of your gas for Ultras.
On February 07 2013 02:52 Whitewing wrote: I meant it in the sense of the broodlord, who has an attack that deals significant damage. I meant if you just took the normal siege tank attack and then added that unit in. Maybe reduce the overall damage a little to compensate. You get 10 tanks firing those things and you're not reaching them.
This is funny. You know a single siege tank does more damage than a Broodlord AND the damage is AoE? And costs under half the resources to create. And costs less supply. Think of the Broodlings as making up for the loss of damage and as the AoE damage. Which is very litttle in exchange for the extra tech + extra cost + extra supply.
Even if you go by your example, would you be willing to give up the tanks AoE for firing units, make them cost double the resources, and more supply, and put them just as late in tech as a battle cruiser? I would think not....
I really wish people knew what they were talking about before posting balance complaints with illogical information.
On February 07 2013 06:39 Whitewing wrote: Mass ling/ultra/baneling flanks crush such armies all the time in game, but if you put something in the way, suddenly they can't. Autoturrets were envisioned to do this, but they can't because they're too difficult to actually place due to being buildings.
People keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense. Shift queueing a line of turrets is easy as hell. People have been claiming you can do it with infestors and its far easier to make a wall of turrets than infestors. What exactly makes turrets hard to place when A) they are so big its easy to line them up in a line, and B) you don't even have to 100% block everything becuase even if theres a small hole in the wall, only lings or marines will be able to pass through, and if all the units have to run towards a choke point to try to get through that's even better for you.
Siege tanks and broodlords aren't remotely comparable, my entire point was that spawning units during battle that block pathing continuously is problematic, not that it wouldn't be horrifically broken on the siege tanks. The point is, actually, that it would in fact be broken on tanks. Broodlords and Siege Tanks are comparable only in the sense that they both are siege units. Broodlords are frankly superior however, despite their lower damage output, due to their mobility and the fact that they are air units that also generate their own wall.
None of this has been a balance complaint either, but a comment about poor game design. Design =/= balance. Tic Tac Toe is a perfectly balanced game that always results in a draw if the players aren't idiots, but it has a terrible design.
Auto-turrets are very difficult to place during battles because the raven takes forever to get there, and by the time it does there are usually units in the way. While IT's will be thrown down in the nearest possible location to the place you click, if the auto-turret doesn't have 4 completely cleared hexes it will not be dropped. You don't want to drop them before the battle either since it prevents you from moving forward and hinders your own micro and aggression. If the enemy backs off rather than engaging, you still want to be able to continue leap frogging tanks forwards etc.
Trust me, there isn't a single professional terran doing it because it simply can't be done reliably, not because they're all to stupid to come up with the idea.
On February 07 2013 15:10 Whitewing wrote: Siege tanks and broodlords aren't remotely comparable, my entire point was that spawning units during battle that block pathing continuously is problematic, not that it wouldn't be horrifically broken on the siege tanks. The point is, actually, that it would in fact be broken on tanks. Broodlords and Siege Tanks are comparable only in the sense that they both are siege units. Broodlords are frankly superior however, despite their lower damage output, due to their mobility and the fact that they are air units that also generate their own wall.
If they aren't comparable then why did you start comparing them?
Furthermore, my mention of Broodlords was in response to your claims that they do "significant damage" and claims that their damage should be reduced. For a 4 supply unit that's one of the most expensive units in the game their attack does very little damage, especially for a shot without any AoE. An unupgraded stimmed marine does more damage.
You do know the Broodlings are there for damage more than the Broodlords actual shot... right?
None of this has been a balance complaint either, but a comment about poor game design. Design =/= balance. Tic Tac Toe is a perfectly balanced game that always results in a draw if the players aren't idiots, but it has a terrible design.
Every single quote I responded to that you wrote was a balance complaint. If you have a problem with the design then how about actually discussing why the design is bad rather than talking about "reducing units damage", false statements about SH being used in ways they aren't particuarly strong at, complaints about unit speed when we're talking about some of the slowest units in the game.
And most of all your complaints show complete ignorance about how the Zerg mechanics work that are obvious by you talking about doing tech switches mid game that would require the Zerg player to already have a significant lead on you. You can't tech switch like you are saying unless you have thousands of resources saved up. No matter what race you are, if the enemy has that much of a lead on you, and has unquestioned map control like that, chances are you lost already.
Auto-turrets are very difficult to place during battles because the raven takes forever to get there, and by the time it does there are usually units in the way. While IT's will be thrown down in the nearest possible location to the place you click, if the auto-turret doesn't have 4 completely cleared hexes it will not be dropped. You don't want to drop them before the battle either since it prevents you from moving forward and hinders your own micro and aggression. If the enemy backs off rather than engaging, you still want to be able to continue leap frogging tanks forwards etc.
Trust me, there isn't a single professional terran doing it because it simply can't be done reliably, not because they're all to stupid to come up with the idea.
Auto turrets are easier to place than drops since they can be targeted and don't have the timeout. Furthermore, you directly claimed they are hard to place because they are buildings, which is what I questioned because it makes no sense at all, and now your switching up and claiming you meant something else without explaining your original statement.
If you have watched any top players at all (as if you claim), can you honestly say you haven't seen Terran players do Hellbat drops to flank the enemy and take out their light units mid-late game? That's been a common tactic for awhile now ever since Hellbat openers became popular.
And players are starting to integrate Ravens in to that. It's just that for some reason all the Terran players who come to this topic don't even want to admit that Ravens are one of their biggest upgrades they have received (probably because they have a free unit mechanic and would nullify their own argument).
EPT
) I also don't feel like your discussion on the balance of BroodLords and BroodLings is the main point of the thread.
) is closest on the core of the issue in that the way zerg's unit generators work, it doesn't FEEL as though you are playing the SWARM race. You are babysitting a few ultra expensive, slow, and extremely cost efficient units that can hold it's own against NEARLY any other composition thrown against it. The addition of Tempests has the POTENTIAL to create a similar situation for protoss, but as a race you are supposed to be babysitting a few ultra expensive and cost efficient units. Terrans have the most versatility in what they can do (mech vs bio vs biomech etc) because Blizzard had intended for Terrans to be the most versatile race since the beginning of SC2. They even mentioned that Terran's felt like "the most complete race" in terms of design, and they wanted Heart of the Swarm especially to help fill in some of the design gaps they felt that zerg had.
