EPTDustin Browder and Zerg Army Diversity - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ROOTslush
Canada170 Posts
| ||
|
cyllu2
Sweden74 Posts
| ||
|
Jyxz
United States117 Posts
toss has 13 zerg 10 | ||
|
reallogic
United States65 Posts
In broodwar lurkers gave zerg a very tactical T2 unit that allowed for many many options when fighting terran, and protoss. It opened the door for solid containment strategies, harassment options with drop or run bys to areas of the opponents base with out detection. However, the lurker was removed from SC2 due to it "not being used" in internal testing, which personally I feel was due to it's placement at T3. My suggestion is as follows. Put the lurker back in as a T2.5 unit, but instead of upgrading from the hydralisk make it upgrade from the roach, after researching lurker aspect at the roach warren after the lair completes. As for dmg from the lurker I think having 8x3 + 6 vs armored would be a good starting point as it would allow them to 2 shot marines (as per BW) and 3 shot Marauders, it would also mean that the +1 armor upgrade for terran infantry would make them 3 shot marines and 4 shot marauders. This would definitely allow for much more tactical play from zergs than we are currently seeing. It would also open up many more strategies in which roaches are not playing such a dominant role as they are being morphed to lurkers. edit: I also think that this would flesh out T2 enough to allow the infestor to be moved to T3 or to at least have some T3 upgrades to make it a more viable late game caster. Obviously I'm not saying bring back dark swarm but maybe removing infested terran and replacing it with a T3 upgradeable spell would help add even more diversity to the zerg as a whole. I posted this on the beta suggestion forums as well. | ||
|
Postaljester
United States128 Posts
| ||
|
reallogic
United States65 Posts
On April 02 2010 05:18 Postaljester wrote: why do zerg need the same number of combat units as the other races? if protoss wants to switch from ground to air is has to mass up stargates. if zerg wants to they only need to build 1 building. I don't think any one is saying they need the same number of combat units. People are mostly saying that they lack diversity and that the easiest way to introduce more diversity into the zerg race as a whole, at this point, is going to be adding in just one more combat unit. As per my last post, I think that that would open up a lot of options for blizzard to diversify the zerg race on the whole and make it more interesting for everyone to play and play against. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
reallogic
United States65 Posts
On April 02 2010 05:52 LunarC wrote: The key to army diversity isn't more units, it's modifying the existing units to handle much differently from each other and assume different roles. I feel that there's just too much overlap between units and too little diversity of use. Because Zerg is supposed to be the race that is most able to mass up units, there should be a few "core" units that are easily massable and a few "support" units that are used mainly for holding position, casting abilities, or defending expansions. I think the diversity problem arises because Zerg is given too many units that are made to mass and not enough units that are usually fewer in number due to supply cost/tech cost/resource cost but play crucial supporting roles. This also comes from the fact that units are made to be effective enough on their own. LunarC, I pretty much agree with everything you said here. However, I feel that you can't really give each unit completely different roles if you don't have a large enough unit base. I mean you can very well introduce diversity by modifying existing units and re-defining their roles. However, this becomes much easier to do with a larger unit base. The Zerg at the moment have 2 - 3 less combat units than the other races. By adding one unit that offers many tactical options, such as the lurker, you open up a lot of doors for the rest of the units to become more specialized. Personally I don't feel that you can diversify the units Zerg has enough to make the difference we would like to see as a whole, because doing so with so few units would narrow the options the Zerg have in any given situation. To me it just seems because of the limited unit count Zerg has, not adding a unit while specializing each of the Zerg units, that are currently in the game, would lead to more hard counters when that is definitely not what the community on the whole has shown that they want to have happen. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
Hard counters are specific numerical advantages given to a unit, such as the Roach with high hitpoints, attack, and 2 armor. What I mean when I talk about different roles is modifying existing units to have multiple situational uses. For example, in Starcraft 1 the Lurker was used to hold position either outside of the opponent's base, or was used defensively to hold expansions. The Baneling is the best example of a unit that has diverse use, in this case. Right now I think that many of the new units, such as the Roach and the Corruptor, have the potential to really diversify the Zerg race. Each has a special ability, but neither really encourage diverse use of the unit. Perhaps if Blizzard can modify numbers and give them abilities that make them work very differently from other units rather than abilities that encourage cute tactics like sneaking into bases or corrupting buildings, it would make the Zerg race feel more diverse. Example: For Roach, replace Tunneling Claws with Calcification, allowing a Roach to temporarily morph into an immobile Chrysalis with 200 hitpoints and 4 armor. Takes 3 seconds to morph in and out and retains identical percentage damage. A Chrysalis can be burrowed, but a Roach cannot be Calcified when burrowed. Attack priority on a Chrysalis is lowest, as workers should be -,- The Infestor could also stand to have more interesting abilities. It's just that the abilities don't have enough of an impact. Actually, I'd advocate buffing every single ability in the game. | ||
|
0mgVitaminE
United States1278 Posts
On April 02 2010 02:16 Jyxz wrote: SC1: terran has 12 units toss has 13 zerg 10 Even so, zerg in sc1 was much more diverse than it is in sc2. Each matchup had different unit compositions, and even if you used the same composition how you used each unit changed. Mutas are a great example of this, as their role changes drastically from mid game ZvT to ZvP. | ||
|
reallogic
United States65 Posts
On April 02 2010 10:05 LunarC wrote: Blizzard has already said that the Lurker isn't in place because the Baneling overlaps this role. Do you have a link to where Blizzard said this? As far as I know the only Blizz said about removing the Lurker was that it was due to it being under used. On April 02 2010 10:05 LunarC wrote: Hard counters are specific numerical advantages given to a unit, such as the Roach with high hitpoints, attack, and 2 armor. Yes, I would agree. Hard counters are numerical advantages given to certain units when facing off against other units to such an extent that unless the unit being counters has vastly superior numbers the hard counter is always going to win, ala roach vs immortal. On April 02 2010 10:05 LunarC wrote: What I mean when I talk about different roles is modifying existing units to have multiple situational uses. For example, in Starcraft 1 the Lurker was used to hold position either outside of the opponent's base, or was used defensively to hold expansions. The Baneling is the best example of a unit that has diverse use, in this case. See I don't know if the current Zerg units have the ability to be modified to an extent to allow for the flexibility and tactical diversity that units like the Lurker and even the BW Mutalisk had. Don't get me wrong I have faith that Blizzard will get things worked out as they have proven to be very responsive to the community through out the beta thus far. I just really feel that the small number of units compared to Protoss and Terran is limiting what Blizzard is currently able to do with the Zerg. On April 02 2010 10:05 LunarC wrote: Right now I think that many of the new units, such as the Roach and the Corruptor, have the potential to really diversify the Zerg race. Each has a special ability, but neither really encourage diverse use of the unit. Perhaps if Blizzard can modify numbers and give them abilities that make them work very differently from other units rather than abilities that encourage cute tactics like sneaking into bases or corrupting buildings, it would make the Zerg race feel more diverse. I agree that adding new abilities to current units could definitely help diversity. I also feel that adding in a new unit or the lurker back to T2 as a morphed unit from the roach would be a good start. Like I said before I just don't feel Zerg has enough units to truly have each unit be specialized with out causing them to become hard counters in a lot of situation. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On April 02 2010 10:47 reallogic wrote: See I don't know if the current Zerg units have the ability to be modified to an extent to allow for the flexibility and tactical diversity that units like the Lurker and even the BW Mutalisk had. Don't get me wrong I have faith that Blizzard will get things worked out as they have proven to be very responsive to the community through out the beta thus far. I just really feel that the small number of units compared to Protoss and Terran is limiting what Blizzard is currently able to do with the Zerg. To be totally honest, this is the kind of problem that I would prefer to see solved in an expansion. After all, Lurkers weren't in SC1; they were in SC1's expansion. And didn't the Zerg have the same problems in SC1 compared to BW? A bunch of A-move units, right? Zerglings, Hydralisks, Mutalisks. Queens were useless, so Zerg play centered around surviving Tier 2 to get to Tier 3. The Infestor should get some improvements. A simple buff to Infested Terrans would be a strong start; make them more dangerous. And allowing Neural Parasite to work at longer ranges would also help. But it's current suite of spells is reasonably functional. Even so, I think that the Zerg are a fairly full race at present. They cover all the bases and all of their units seem legitimately useful, if somewhat circumstantial for some (though Corruptors really need a damage buff). I think that the key to dealing with the problem is seeing how Zerg play evolves as players learn how to play Zerg. And beta, unless it's a good year or so long, is probably not long enough to see that. To know what you need to add to the Zerg to make them better, you need to see how the Zerg are currently being used. You need to make sure that the core Zerg units are doing their jobs. Then, you can branch out into more "gimmicky" units, for want of a better term. In short, I would rather that they make the Zerg solid for SC2's release, and then use the expansions to give them more flavor. | ||
|
reallogic
United States65 Posts
On April 02 2010 11:04 NicolBolas wrote: To be totally honest, this is the kind of problem that I would prefer to see solved in an expansion. After all, Lurkers weren't in SC1; they were in SC1's expansion. And didn't the Zerg have the same problems in SC1 compared to BW? A bunch of A-move units, right? Zerglings, Hydralisks, Mutalisks. Queens were useless, so Zerg play centered around surviving Tier 2 to get to Tier 3. Honestly though this is a serious problem that can be solved now and should be before release. Saying that it can be solved in an expansion is a very true statement. However, why would you make all the Zerg players wait a year or more before their race is as diverse and fun to play as Protoss and Terran? | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
On April 02 2010 10:47 reallogic wrote: Do you have a link to where Blizzard said this? As far as I know the only Blizz said about removing the Lurker was that it was due to it being under used. The 9th post: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23766988609&sid=3000 Text: + Show Spoiler + The developers say that Lurkers were taken out because their goal is to keep the unit count of the game as small as possible so that players know their choices and understand their enemy choices as well. They feel that the Roach uses the Lurker's burrow ability well, while Ultralisks and Banelings have the splash damage covered. Many units took over Lurkers’ roles over the period of development, so they didn't think they were as valuable anymore. But we all do miss them! Well this is our point of view. I think that Lurkers should not really be Tier2 in the current build, because they don't really fit in there and they wouldn't really be a good counter to Roaches, given the fact that ZvZ is a very dynamic matchup and you would probably still prefer Ultralisks or Broodlords at T3. What do you think about it? RTS Community Team Blizzard Europe I agree with the devs except for the fact that Lurkers were placed in a position on the tech-tree that allowed Zerg to smoothly transition into other units rather than having to devote an entire building to it, and that while Lurkers are fairly long-lived and effective in relatively small numbers for offensive and defensive purposes, Banelings demand constant production, using up precious larvae and resources. The main difference between Lurkers and Banelings is that Banelings require much more commitment and are more difficult to transition out of. The Ultralisk is placed at a very high position in the tech tree and requires many bases to produce in effective numbers. This defeats the purpose of the Lurker which was used either to secure Zerg bases or to restrict the opponent's movements until higher tech units could be produced. Ideally, I want to see the Roach modified to fit the previous role of the Lurker: Restricting army movement and protecting expansions. The Calcification ability I proposed does exactly this. | ||
|
IaniAniaN
Canada555 Posts
There's no reason lurkers and banelings can't over-lap slightly so long as they are products of diverging tech trees, I mean this happens already with say roaches and hydras to an extent. 'Course I kinda doubt they'll even try to make this kind of change until the next expansion, with the game in this state they can observe the meta-game evolve before deciding on what to add to either spice up, or balance the game further. | ||
|
newbcake
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
For example, looking at the protoss tech tree we can say that collosus and templar serve the same role: killing masses of light/small units. However, both of them are produced and are products of diverging tech trees, that of templar and that of the robo-bay, and they function with different mechnics/skills. True. But this is as much a function of race differences. Protoss will have a lot of Gateways/WarpGates. Every Robo Facility they make is one (or more) fewer Gateways. And because their tech tree diverges, if you get down to the support Bay, you have gotten no closer to High Templar. Likeways, if you have a Templar Archives, you are no closer than you were before to Colossi. Zerg do not work like that. They cannot work like that. Their tech tree does not branch. Each building allows the production of one unit, two in a few rare cases. Upgraded units require researching something, morphing a building, or making a new building outright. Upgrading units is the closest thing the Zerg have to a branching tech tree. And even that is fairly minimal, compared to Protoss having divergent tech choices. Protoss need some overlap between the three trees. Similarly, Terrans need some degree of coverage of the basics from each of the three production buildings; this allows them to pick a building and mass them up, using only a few supporting units from the other buildings. The Zerg have no such need because their tech tree and production mechanics are fundamentally different. Centralized production means that there is no need to pick what production building to use beforehand; you make your choices when you produce the unit. Because of this, each Zerg unit needs to have a specific function, a single purpose that no other unit steps on or messes with. Remember, for any given tech level, the Zerg are almost always one building away from being able to mass produce that unit (resource limitations apply, of course). Now, you could restructure the Zerg tech tree. But if you haven't noticed, the basic structure of the tech trees is something that Blizzard has tried very hard to leave unchanged. So they're almost certainly not going to suddenly break the Zerg tree into some Protoss like fork. It also isn't useful towards the Zerg's nature; it doesn't synergize well with centralized production and so forth. | ||
|
Sigge
Sweden14 Posts
I posted something similar amongst my first thoughts on the beta on the official forums a while a go. Either way, I'm currently playing platinum 1on1 and I've got quite some plat 2on2 experience as well and I must say that even though I love Zerg, they are by far the least interesting/fun race to play right now. They lack diversity and interesting skills for their units. I really have to agree with the people who suggested to tone down hydras, put them in T1 and give us Lurkers back for T2! It's really not that strange that they where hardly used before, seeing as they were T3! We need an offensive spell caster in the lines of the defiler, would be sorta cool to be able to evolve an Infestor into something else T3 which has an offensive set of spells. Although, already by bringing lurkers back I could already see fungal growth becoming a lot cooler for obvious reasons! Last but not least I just had to mention the fact that Ultralisks feel quite week/squishy for their cost which is sort of a disappointment.. | ||
|
Koffiegast
Netherlands346 Posts
hydra to t1 with small dmg nerf roach to t3 with some tank capacities (better regen/armor) ultralisk to t2 with some hp/armor nerf and dmg adjusted for t2. Just a random thought i had 5 secs ago. | ||
| ||
