EPTsomething likes this :
hatch - 1-2
lair 2-3
hive 3-4
not sure which would balance better, the lower or higher value
[D] Zerg and Spawn Larva - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fulmetljaket
482 Posts
something likes this : hatch - 1-2 lair 2-3 hive 3-4 not sure which would balance better, the lower or higher value | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21243 Posts
On April 09 2010 14:53 Ryuu314 wrote: Or you could, you know, actually read more than one or two threads where we aren't throwing the nerf stick at Zerg. In fact Floop actually wanted to nerf Protoss in some of his posts.. Then it's obvious that Floop plays Terran ^_____^ | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On April 09 2010 15:05 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Then it's obvious that Floop plays Terran ^_____^ Right now I do actually =P However, I have played as all 3 races. I only stopped playing zerg cause of the state of ZvZ. 90% winrate or something ridiculous in that matchup because it was broken and if you knew how to play it you couldn't lose. Now it's very very different though imo. | ||
|
MLG_Wiggin
United States767 Posts
On April 09 2010 14:55 Floophead_III wrote: I feel like BW zerg was actually more reliant on tech units and tech advantages than any other race. Look at ZvT nowadays. Players build mostly tech units early which function with maximum efficiency per larva so they can drone. Why can't players do that in SC2 as well. Right now all SC2 zerg play seems to be is make tons of units and attackmove. Just watch Idra. The guy literally is the king of mass macro zerg right now. He also has a ridiculous ladder winrate and is dominating quite a bit in tournaments. All he seems to do is not die to stupid cheese and macro. Is this really what we want zerg to be in SC2? Reducing the amount of available larva means you have to pick the most EFFICIENT means of fighting. Sure you can beat someone with mass speedling, but wouldn't a few infestors and banelings be a better use of your larva? What about just making 8 mutas instead of those 50 speedling? Obviously just random examples, but the point is that zerg was always about finding the most efficient way to use larva. In SC2 it's only about finding the most efficient way to use money by making the right army composition and massing it. That makes for really uninteresting play and will completely kill the lifespan of this game. I think that the reason Zerg players are more inclined to, for example, spend Larvae and Min/Gas on 50 Speedlings (or more realistically Hydra/Roach) compared to a few infestor/baneling or Mutas is twofold. Effectiveness of the enemy counters to Zerg units and Zerg unit health. If you put yourself in the Zerg players shoes for a minute, you might find that the majority of Zerg player complaints is that units that counter Zerg units do it almost too effectively. Particularly Terran units. A critical mass of Hellions (not all that many for their cost) can effectively "counter" a near infinite number of Zerglings (and a pretty high number of Hydras) in a realistic mixed-unit battle. Mutalisks in particularly have been hit hard recently, and are generally considered nigh unusable against Terran players at cost due to splash damage from Thor's and the Turret buff (mostly the Thor thing though. Watching a few Thor's just decimate an entire group of Mutas is quite depressing). The particularly interesting units, such as Infestor's, are really un-tenably weak and easily destroyed. Those paper thin, slow Infestor's pretty much explode if something sneezes on them. Banelings are dominated by splash damage or "run away then attack" micro. Zerg players have to use them anyway to keep up often, but they aren't an acceptable alternative to "meat of the army" spamming simply because Zerg units die fast and are on a whole less micro-able then in SC1. Hydras in particular are greviously slow off of creep. I would argue that if you reduce Larvae then there is no EFFICIENT means of fighting for the Zerg player. I don't mind and SC2 that's about good unit composition, clever harass, and out-expanding an opponent and trying you damndest to figure out a way to fight an army without getting your entire force facerolled by a smaller supply enemy. If you change Zerg combat units, I wouldn't mind seeing a change to Spawn Larvae I suppose. But I maintain that you can't have your cake and eat it too on this; pick "weak Zerg units that are easily killed" or "Zerg unit production that matches other races". If you combine the two, you get weak Zerg units that get facerolled and can't be replaced. Quite frankly a lot of matches are frustrating enough from a Zerg perspective, especially against a good Terran mech build, because it relies on me literally drowning the Terran army in the blood of my units. | ||
|
Daerthalus
Canada73 Posts
I think race to race each one has a macro mechanic to enable to them to do something faster. Build Units, Mine Minerals, Research Tech/Build Units. This only issue that I feel has any ground to stand on is the one regarding the saving up of production. If Terran build 4 starports and doesn't build units with it for 10 minutes he can't go back to his base and build a ton of banshee all at once. Terrans and protoss especially with warp gates have to manage their production such that their facility are producing units efficiently. If you use 4 Stargates at 50% , why not make 2 and use them at 100% efficiency. (Obviously there are advantages to having 4 ports even if u don't use them). Zerg do not have to worry about building the right amount of buildings. You just need some larva and you can go from a 40 ling army to a 20 Hydra army provided you have the larva. Personally a reduction in the MAX larva per hatchery would result in Zerg not losing production since your larva regen at the same rate and your queen injects just as much larva every CD. BUT you'd have to pay attention to make sure you are using your larva, just like Toss has to make sure they use their Warp Gates on CD, and Terran/Protoss have to make sure their production buildings aren't idle. Frequently players will engage in harassment or a battle and their resources will pile up. A good player would have his buildings on hotkeys and Q production while fighting/scouting or harassing. Zerg doesn't have to do that. They can take a 5 minute break from their macro, and as long as u hit Spawn larva when it's available you are not penalized for not building units while your mind is focused on fighting. Essentially you require less attention to your macro while you're microing. This is a advantage no other race has. SC1 required you to use your larva effectively. You had some leeway since ur hatches could have 3 larva waiting, but if you had 3 and didn't use them you didn't get anymore, much like if your terran factory isn't producing any units you lost that production time and your army will be delayed. This was a skill you need to have as zerg since not having it, meant you would be behind army wise compared to someone who did. Also a large stockpile of larva make your options far greater than any other race. Not sure what I'm building, no worries stock up your larva while you figure it out, all you need to do is build your buildings IE Hydra Den, Spire, etc. and if I'm going immortals, you can easily build mutas instead of roaches. If you didn't have an option to pile up larva you would have to build something while you waited or lose those larva. Every other race has to keep producing units or they will fall behind, zerg does not. Unit count only matters IF/WHEN a battle occurs. You don't need 20 Roaches in your base chilling if you're not attacking me and I'm not attacking you. As long as those roaches are made B4 I arrive you're all set. If I show up with Immortals or Marauders ...you build Lings or Mutas instead... | ||
|
Daerthalus
Canada73 Posts
Hatchery Changes: - Hatchery Maximum - Hatchery now have a maximum # of larva they can hold or sustain around them. Beyond that number the Hatchery ceases to produce anymore larva. (Hatch: 3, Lair: 4, Hive: 5) Hatchery's also indicate the number of larva currently held/sustained by them in their selection box. This way you an click on a hatchery and see if you need to build units now or you can still wait a little bit since you're not at max yet. Spawn Larva: No Change to the ability, except you cannot use it on a Hatchery with MORE than it's Maximum larva. You can use it on a maxed out hatchery, but due to the Hatchery Maximum the action of spawning larva prevent that hatchery from spawning larva unit it has less larva than it's maximum and after doing so you will not be able to use spawn larva again until those excess larva are used up. What does this change accomplish. - Well your ability to produce units does not change, provided you pay attention and use your larva and don't let your hatcheries exceed their maximum. - Your Queen still allows you to produce extra larva, but those larva are for you to use. Ideally you'd use them immediately and your hatchery would keep producing larva. Essentially you'd still produce the same # of units as before, except you couldn't stockpile unused production. - Net effect: You'd have to pay attention and make sure you were using the larva you were producing. Why this Change? No other race can stock pile production of units. An unused Factory does not build standardized parts over time, such that it would have X seconds of saved up production time. IE: I didn't use it for the past 3 minutes thus I can produce 5 Siege tanks in 45s. Why 5? Tanks have a build time of 45s so essentially his 3 minutes of save time allows an extra tank to be build for each 45s of saved time. Essentially 180s / 45 = 4 + 1 for the current production queue. (I am not suggesting they implement this). Even the protoss with their Chrono boots cannot, apply a Chrono boost to a building not producing units and expect that CB to increase the speed of the NEXT unit to be built. Or apply 4x Boosts and it it affect the stucture for the next 80s starting ONLY when the building is producing a unit. So you shouldn't be able to "zerg chono boost" aka spawn larva your hatchery and not use your boost until later. Nor should you be able to save up more than a small maximum of larva. So as long as your hatchery larva are used b4 the 4th larva spawns you experience no change from the way things are right now. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
The reason is because I'd rather have a Zerg that has units that can actually be micro'd and useable than having a mechanic that allows the Zerg to create weak, unmicro-able units at a ridiculous rate. The Hydralisk is my best example. Rather than having a hydralisk that dies incredibly quickly due to the lack of micro capability off creep, I'd rather face a hydralisk that takes more than two seconds to kill. It adds more micro depth to the game. With the spawn larva mechanic as it is, it simply reinforces the fact that Zerg is the 1a2a3a race of SC2. Losing an army for Zerg has almost no repercussions. At least not nearly as much as it was in SCBW or in comparison to the other races. Daerthalus touched on what I think is the biggest issue with spawn larva. The other races can build very quickly with their macro mechanics (chrono and reactors) but you can't neglect the cost and build time of all the production buildings that Protoss and Terran must build. Zerg on the other hand, just has to build 1 or 2 hatcheries and 1 or 2 queens and they have all the production facilities they will realistically need. This puts them at a pretty big advantage. I absolutely hate the way Zerg can switch tech so quickly on you, but I feel that that's a key element of Zerg. I do not in any way want to take that part of Zerg away. Rather, I feel that the spawn larva mechanic not only makes it easy for Zerg to switch tech, but it makes it almost too easy and too effective for Zerg to switch tech. A big nerf isn't necessary to spawn larva, I think. Probably all it needs is a reduction of the number of larva spawned from 4 to something like 2 or 3. Putting a cap on the number of larva a hatchery/lair/hive can have limits the Zerg's new macro advantage too much. I personally feel that if you somehow let a Zerg mass up to 19-20 larva on each of their hatcheries you're doing something wrong. That shouldn't every really happen. I thinkt hat capping the amount of larva would either be so extreme that it would ruin the new Zerg macro mechanic or it'd just be redundant. Another way to balance this would be to maybe give each individual larva a specific time limit before they die. An expiration date if you will. This will still allow Zerg to mass up larva, but after they are unused for X amount of time, they die thus wasting the larva. This will prevent Zerg from massing up too many larva at their hatcheries and will also punish bad macro. The one downside to this would be that it may become too complex for many players to realistically handle as keeping track of every larva's "time limit" may be too demanding. | ||
|
MLG_Wiggin
United States767 Posts
On April 09 2010 16:39 Ryuu314 wrote: + Show Spoiler + Ender's point about changing spawn larva at the cost of buffing Zerg units is, I think, the best one. The reason is because I'd rather have a Zerg that has units that can actually be micro'd and useable than having a mechanic that allows the Zerg to create weak, unmicro-able units at a ridiculous rate. The Hydralisk is my best example. Rather than having a hydralisk that dies incredibly quickly due to the lack of micro capability off creep, I'd rather face a hydralisk that takes more than two seconds to kill. It adds more micro depth to the game. With the spawn larva mechanic as it is, it simply reinforces the fact that Zerg is the 1a2a3a race of SC2. Losing an army for Zerg has almost no repercussions. At least not nearly as much as it was in SCBW or in comparison to the other races. Daerthalus touched on what I think is the biggest issue with spawn larva. The other races can build very quickly with their macro mechanics (chrono and reactors) but you can't neglect the cost and build time of all the production buildings that Protoss and Terran must build. Zerg on the other hand, just has to build 1 or 2 hatcheries and 1 or 2 queens and they have all the production facilities they will realistically need. This puts them at a pretty big advantage. I absolutely hate the way Zerg can switch tech so quickly on you, but I feel that that's a key element of Zerg. I do not in any way want to take that part of Zerg away. Rather, I feel that the spawn larva mechanic not only makes it easy for Zerg to switch tech, but it makes it almost too easy and too effective for Zerg to switch tech. A big nerf isn't necessary to spawn larva, I think. Probably all it needs is a reduction of the number of larva spawned from 4 to something like 2 or 3. Putting a cap on the number of larva a hatchery/lair/hive can have limits the Zerg's new macro advantage too much. I personally feel that if you somehow let a Zerg mass up to 19-20 larva on each of their hatcheries you're doing something wrong. That shouldn't every really happen. I thinkt hat capping the amount of larva would either be so extreme that it would ruin the new Zerg macro mechanic or it'd just be redundant. I feel like that would be completely reasonable, and I would happily trade my ability to stock up 19 Larvae (especially since it rarely happens) or lose a few Larvae per Spawn for more microable units. Hell, I really hope they do that, even if it just means a Hydra movement speed upgrade. | ||
|
Daerthalus
Canada73 Posts
Assuming the zerg are "perfectly" balanced based on incredibly awesome macro, then reducing their macro would require a buff elsewhere, but the changes I proposed are not weakening their macro. In fact I already noticed that keeping track of larva would be difficult and factored that in by suggesting each hatchery show the # of larva it has and it's max (eg. 1/3). This way you can click or hotkey + tab through your hatcheries and see which one you need to build from and which you can afford to wait on. You'll still have better reactive abilities than other players and better macro, but you won't be able to stockpile larva. A Hatchery Maximum wouldn't make you produce units slower, it would just necessitate extra attention being paid to your production buildings, aka Hatcheries, Lair(s) and Hive(s). If you use your larva before they reach max, you wouldn't notice a difference in the # of units you have, nor anything else. If you slack off, or get distracted you'd be subject to a penalty just as every other race suffers if they let their resource numbers soar while their production buildings are idle. If you play properly, you'd just be doing more work for the same results you had before. Obviously no one wants to do more work for the same result, so they ask for something to compensate them. That doesn't mean they should get it. A guy is getting paid 100k per year to sit around doing next to nothing. His company restructures and changes his job. They say, he'll keep the same salary BUT he'll have to do more work. Obviously he's upset, he had it made: 100K per year and no need to do much work. He'd tell himself and them that he'll do more work but they'd have to pay him 150K instead. Thing is he won't get 150k, they aren't asking him to do $150K worth of work for $100K, they just expect him to work equivalent to what they are paying him. They are fixing an imbalance, not offering him a trade or deal. The suggested change would serve the purpose of injecting some skill back into the decisions zerg players make, since you couldn't rely on the current larva safety net in place. Skilled players with good macro skills would be able to keep track of their hatchery production and insure that they don't lose larva unnecessarily. This is a positive change, since skilled players want their skill to make a difference in the match, rather than have their winning or losing based entirely on game mechanics. | ||
|
RaiZ
2813 Posts
The only advantage i see from a z is just that we can afford to forget to macro for a little time. But that's all, really. | ||
|
BillyMole
United States118 Posts
On April 09 2010 01:35 Floophead_III wrote: + Show Spoiler + Zerg has access to infinite larva once he gets 2 hatch 2 queen. I have trouble spending my larva with 2 hatch 1 queen, adding a second means I'll be able to make infinity of anything I want provided i have the money. I have various problems with the way Zerg are implemented right now, but spawn larvae is not one of them. I don't know how you're playing, I haven't seen your replays, but 2 hatch 2 queen is nowhere near enough larvae, ever. Even when I'm only on one base early game with a FE, I'm still having to make the hard choice between drones and army. If I balance it right and manage to saturate the expansion, 2 hatcheries with a queen each is no longer anywhere near enough. I've had some games where I have 3 or 4 expos going, one of which is gold, and 5 hatcheries w/ queens is not enough either. Spawn larva is strong, don't get me wrong. But so are chrono boost and MULE. | ||
|
TwilightStar
United States649 Posts
| ||
|
BillyMole
United States118 Posts
On April 09 2010 15:17 w_Ender_w wrote:+ Show Spoiler + I think that the reason Zerg players are more inclined to, for example, spend Larvae and Min/Gas on 50 Speedlings (or more realistically Hydra/Roach) compared to a few infestor/baneling or Mutas is twofold. Effectiveness of the enemy counters to Zerg units and Zerg unit health. If you put yourself in the Zerg players shoes for a minute, you might find that the majority of Zerg player complaints is that units that counter Zerg units do it almost too effectively. Particularly Terran units. A critical mass of Hellions (not all that many for their cost) can effectively "counter" a near infinite number of Zerglings (and a pretty high number of Hydras) in a realistic mixed-unit battle. Mutalisks in particularly have been hit hard recently, and are generally considered nigh unusable against Terran players at cost due to splash damage from Thor's and the Turret buff (mostly the Thor thing though. Watching a few Thor's just decimate an entire group of Mutas is quite depressing). The particularly interesting units, such as Infestor's, are really un-tenably weak and easily destroyed. Those paper thin, slow Infestor's pretty much explode if something sneezes on them. Banelings are dominated by splash damage or "run away then attack" micro. Zerg players have to use them anyway to keep up often, but they aren't an acceptable alternative to "meat of the army" spamming simply because Zerg units die fast and are on a whole less micro-able then in SC1. Hydras in particular are greviously slow off of creep. I would argue that if you reduce Larvae then there is no EFFICIENT means of fighting for the Zerg player. I don't mind and SC2 that's about good unit composition, clever harass, and out-expanding an opponent and trying you damndest to figure out a way to fight an army without getting your entire force facerolled by a smaller supply enemy. If you change Zerg combat units, I wouldn't mind seeing a change to Spawn Larvae I suppose. But I maintain that you can't have your cake and eat it too on this; pick "weak Zerg units that are easily killed" or "Zerg unit production that matches other races". If you combine the two, you get weak Zerg units that get facerolled and can't be replaced. Quite frankly a lot of matches are frustrating enough from a Zerg perspective, especially against a good Terran mech build, because it relies on me literally drowning the Terran army in the blood of my units. This hits the nail on the head, it really does. Zerg lost the Lurker, lost the Defiler, and lost the Spawn Broodling Queen. Literally the only unit they have right now that is even remotely designed to counter a mass of units is the Infestor (I'm obvously ignoring the currently-worthless Ultralisk). And even Fungal Growth is only useful in a very small number of situations. This means that the Zerg currently have no choice but to out-macro the opponent, and swarm them under with a bigger (sometimes much bigger) mass of units. Looking from the other side, Terran have Hellions, Tanks, Thors (anti-mass-air now), EMP for protoss, and Ravens. All of these things are good anti-mass units (some more specialized than others). Protoss have Sentry, Colossus, High Templar. Fewer choices, but all of them pretty godlike. Using any of these with the proper application of micro and skill, you can defeat larger, or even significantly larger, armies with a smaller force. The same cannot be said for Zerg. You can dodge storms all day, avoid HSMs, etc etc, but at the end of the day it still comes down to whether your mass was big enough to swarm them under. There's no strategic placement of Lurkers, no sniping of tanks/HTs with Queens, no hiding under Dark Swarm. It's straight up dodging his anti-mass abilities and then praying you still have enough units to win the attack-move war. | ||
|
MiyaviTeddy
Canada697 Posts
| ||
|
goszar
Belarus119 Posts
ZvP matchup can also be played the same way, but also there is an option of Zerg being agressive. I think OP is fooled by his "Terran mentality" - I admit I was fooled as well and thought that Zerg macroing and defending timings/cheeses/all-ins is a bad thing. But after I have played about 100 games as T, 150 as P and over 400 as Z, I understand that it's just a way the game is designed. Please don't nerf Spawn Larva, please don't dumb the game down. What Zerg needs is more diversity, particularly Infestor buff and return of the Lurker. | ||
|
Daerthalus
Canada73 Posts
I don't know how you're playing, I haven't seen your replays, but 2 hatch 2 queen is nowhere near enough larvae, ever. Even when I'm only on one base early game with a FE, I'm still having to make the hard choice between drones and army. If I balance it right and manage to saturate the expansion, 2 hatcheries with a queen each is no longer anywhere near enough. I've had some games where I have 3 or 4 expos going, one of which is gold, and 5 hatcheries w/ queens is not enough either. Spawn larva is strong, don't get me wrong. But so are chrono boost and MULE. If you don't have enough larva then that means you're using them, which means a change to the stacking of larva mechanic would not actually have an effect on you, since the larva creation rate in my suggestion would not change from the way it is right now. Thus, why are you against it? | ||
|
fly.stat
United States449 Posts
| ||
|
BillyMole
United States118 Posts
On April 09 2010 22:12 Daerthalus wrote: + Show Spoiler + If you don't have enough larva then that means you're using them, which means a change to the stacking of larva mechanic would not actually have an effect on you, since the larva creation rate in my suggestion would not change from the way it is right now. Thus, why are you against it? I was responding to the suggestions saying it should reduce the number of larvae spawned. I don't care about reducing the stacking of larvae to 10 or something. The only time I've ever seen a decent player stack larvae for something is if the spire is building. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
If nothing else, at least change the cap, 19 is like wtf. | ||
|
HTX
Germany265 Posts
| ||
| ||
