|
Hello, I've been lurking these boards for about a month now, and I've been in the SC2 beta since day one. I wasn't an SC1 player, nor a spectator, but I played a lot of UMS games (not that that counts for anything). I've become fully engrossed in discussions of balance everywhere I can, and although my mechanical skills keep me playing at silver level, I feel like I've got a really good grasp on the game as a whole. I've played a total of about 600-700 games throughout the beta, almost entirely as Zerg. Although it took me a while to accept, I understand now why people say it takes a very, very long time to fully determine whether something is imbalanced.
What I'd like to discuss here is something that's been bothering me for a while - the upgrade cost of Burrow for the Zerg. Maybe it's just because I got a taste of the cheap burrow upgrade before it got nerfed and have been bitter ever since.
I feel like the original reason for the nerf was because of the roach being a little too powerful too early in the game... it was an indirect nerf that affected the entire race. Since then, the roach has received no less than four direct nerfs that have practically neutered the poor beast. Burrowed roach shenanigans are nowhere near as powerful as they originally were, so the reason for it getting nerfed originally (assuming my assumptions are true), no longer apply.
Originally, Burrow cost 50/50 and 50 seconds to research. Zerg were abusing the low-cost Roaches by double-gassing and teching straight to Lair, after which the burrow upgrade is practically negligible. Since Roaches get more utility out of burrowing than any other unit, Blizzard's approach feels like they completely neglect the fact that ALL zerg ground units can burrow.
I feel like Burrow is one of the strongest defining characteristics of the race, and strategic use of burrow should be strongly encouraged. In a similar fashion, Warp Gate tech is critical for any Protoss that uses gateways (ie, all of them). However, when proxy warpgate rushes were deemed to be too effective, they almost tripled the research time... but left the cost the same. Warp gate research costs 50/50, which is practically negligible. It comes from a structure that costs 150 minerals and no gas. Burrow costs 100/100 and the tech costs 150/100, which is significantly more expensive. Maybe I'm just wrong for even comparing these two mechanics in the first place, but I feel that they have a comparable effect on overall race effectiveness even if they are completely different.
I think reducing the 50/50 resource cost of Burrow while keeping at 100 seconds would be better balanced than it is now, since the original problem of imba-roaches no longer applies. With the cost as it is now, I'm much less inclined to get the upgrade at all in most games, regardless of how much I want it all the time.
Please discuss your thoughts on the subject.
|
ZvZ would become a roachfest again...is that what you want?
User was warned for this post
|
On April 25 2010 14:23 nTooMuch wrote:
ZvZ would become a roachfest again...is that what you want?
Did you even read what he said?
|
The cost is fine. Quit complaining about things which don't affect the game at all.
|
I disagree, burrow is already very strong. Aside from the obvious strengths of burrowed roaches, burrowed zerglings can deny expansions and give scouting info without your opponent knowing. Burrowed hydras can kill harassing air units or set up air units. Burrowed banelings are just wrong. I think 100/100 is a fair price for a very very powerful ability. Don't forget how much mileage zerglings and banelings also got out of fast burrow research.
|
On April 25 2010 14:23 nTooMuch wrote:
ZvZ would become a roachfest again...is that what you want?
Wow what a great argument u got there.
I kinda feel that burrow is still only usefull for roches, maybe its just me starting to play the beta and not having enough apm but every other unit dies way to fast for any kind of burrow micro(expect ultralisk). The thing is something i manage to click on a hydra that is damaged and burrow it but it still takes damage for 1 sec while burrowing.
So to summuarize i wouldnt mind for a lower cost or tech time, but i still think the only unit that will really be using it will be the roach.
|
I don't ever use burrow because 100min/gas is just idk I feel I could spend my resources better if I can research burrow was better when it was 50 min/gas 
|
I honestly can say I have never researched burrow since that patch, and I have almost complete forgotten about it. I recently watched a replay where a zerg burrowed some banelings to a devastating effect, and I it dawned on me that burrow did, infact, still exist. I tried to re-instate this into my play, but every time, I cringe at that cost. I simply cannot commit myself to spend the resources.
I absolutely think they need to lower the cost, even if they increase research time.
|
As opposed to speedling all in? It would still be a risky move to go roach in a ZvZ but it would be viable assuming you have good enough micro to do sufficient burrow saves.
He made a good post, I can only agree that right now burrow is very much underused. I think I've seen 2 replays where it was used, once by Slush, and another time by DIMAGA.
That being said maybe the problem lies in the players and not the cost, banshee cloak upgrade is 200/200 and I still get it for obvious reasons, and DT has a steep enough tech price as well.
|
i agree, burrow should be 50/50 again. There aren't THAT many things burrow can be really useful for, especially when everyone has detection. This would also encourage more burrowed baneling plays which i like seeing. Honestly though i don't think i see enough zergs using burrow.
|
nice op, good reasoning, i agree, and ntoomuch is a tool
|
As a Terran player, having to put up with 150/150 stim or 150/150 ghost cloak or 100/100 reaper speed, I just can't sympathize. Sorry. Just learn to put up with it. It still isn't that expensive.
|
On April 25 2010 14:32 AeroGear wrote:
That being said maybe the problem lies in the players and not the cost, banshee cloak upgrade is 200/200 and I still get it for obvious reasons, and DT has a steep enough tech price as well.
I think burrow is fundamentally different from other cloaking upgrades. Banshee cloak and DTs are justifiably expensive because of the insane damage capabilities that both of these units have, and they're used more to abuse the opponent's lack of detection and/or anti-air.
No units can attack from burrow, and only two of them can even move while burrowed... one insanely slowly and the other requiring an expensive upgrade (150/150, on top of the burrow research cost). Zerg armies are generally weaker than the other two races, but they make up for it with guerrilla tactics, and burrow is just a good way to help that. As I said, burrow is one of the defining characteristics of the race, and the cost is very harsh once you've already spent a lot of gas on lair tech and/or the hydralisk den.
I suppose the contradiction of what I just said in the last paragraph would be banelings. They can detonate from below ground. It's devastating to any ground army above them, but they suicide in the process. If you scout a baneling nest, you shouldn't be cought off guard anyways. Also, baneling burrowing only works once. after that, the terran will scan everywhere they go and just target fire them. They're like the defensive lurkers from SC1, except lurkers could be used again afterwards.
|
I agree, I never get burrow anymore and thats just sad for such a race defining feature.
|
On April 25 2010 14:50 ComradeDover wrote:
As a Terran player, having to put up with 150/150 stim or 150/150 ghost cloak or 100/100 reaper speed, I just can't sympathize. Sorry. Just learn to put up with it. It still isn't that expensive.
These are unit-specific upgrades that dramatically increase the effectiveness of an entire army composition, more than doubling their value in a lot of cases. Zerg has comparable upgrades as well, such as hydralisk range, zergling speed, roach speed, roach burrowed movement, etc. I wish we had more even. That's why I compared burrow to warp gates instead of stim, because burrow doesn't add sheer power to an army, rather it adds utility, and it's practically necessary to fully utilize the entire race effectively. Burrow doesn't add much combat effectiveness to an army, only tactical advantage (as long as the player even knows what to actually do with it). The only possible argument to that would be roach burrow healing, but until they get organic carapace, if a roach burrows to regenerate health, they're probably not coming back for the rest of the fight anyways. Besides, that's the roaches entire identity, and it's almost been stripped away entirely, so I'd like to be able to use burrow on all my other units now too.
|
Burrow being moved to lair tech and cost and time being increased was a blessing to a terran player.
Baneling busts still exist, but the threat of baneling mines pretty much confined me to 1 base or 2 base at most~ before I had a raven to move out.
This was similar to terrans in BW where in a TvZ match up, terran going sk terran couldn't move out until his sci vessels came out or the risk of running into stopped lurkers. It was wait until sci vessel or move with scan and that is totally not an option in sc2.
Basically, I am trying to argue the case to leave burrow research as it is. It has the potential to be absolutely ridiculously strong against anyone in establishing a contain. If you lower the tech requirement to hatch, you have the roach burrow micro too early. If you lower time, you still get it out far faster than even a protoss going straight obs, and if you lower cost, then it does not effect your econ nearly enough for it to be a tactical decision to grab the tech. 50/50 is super cheap. 100/100 would be equivalent to a muta or half of a spire and thats a significant investment for a great tech.
|
In my opinion the strongest use to burrow is for flanking/surround/ambushes, not the regen mechanic. 1 concave is good, but 2 is significantly better not to mention it denies retreat!
Ever so sneaky zergs, I really dread meeting them in ladder should they use borrow to its full extent! (Not that they are easy to deal with in any way otherwise)
Either force your opponment to have observers/overseers at multiple locations, or force terran to be ever more defensive/wait for raven(s), or scan his warpath instead of using mules.
|
On April 25 2010 15:00 Thamoo wrote:
I agree, I never get burrow anymore and thats just sad for such a race defining feature.
QFT. Before it was like "Oh, I'm lair I guess its time to get burrow". But now I'd much rather get overlord speed so I can move them around and spread creep, + its 50/50 and a fast build time.
Burrow is just such a hefty investment with little return in most games. However, the times I do get it I'm usually glad I did, its just sad that they basically forced us to get it much later because of the high cost + build time.
|
Burrow is really a pain
So costly for such little gain
A tiny price nerf
Would double its worth
And make burrow useful again!
|
I never got it since the patch, it's too situational and only benefit burrowed banelings really. Blizzard seems to have forgotten they nerfed roach's regen speed. I am 100% in favor!
|
Baa?21244 Posts
I do agree with this OP. As I see it:
Now that Burrow costs 100/100, extra time, and is Lair, Roach busts are -not- the problem. Banelings do benefit from Burrow, but that usually happens in the midgame when there's little difference between 100/100 and 50/50. It does not come into play early enough for it to be any sort of OP rush tactic. As stands, no one really gets Burrow, even though its a nice feature. If it were lowered to 50/50 but keeps the time and Lair tech requirements, I see nothing wrong with that, and I doubt it would impact anything other than encourage people to Burrow more, which is a nice thing imo.
|
im starting to incorporate burrow play into my games... some examples of things that you need burrow for:
1) burrow out side of enemies natural, and wait for them to move out vs you, unburrow and punish for leaving base
2) Burrow lings in front of natural, have burrowed roaches move into enemies main. Unburrow roaches in mineral patch. When enemy sends army to go save main, run speed lings into my opponents natural
3) burrow lings just out side my choke, wait for opponent to attack my natural, send army minus lings vs their army, unburrow lings and hit from behind as well
4) burrow infestor in defensive positions, or set up ambush. Get in battle, unburrow infestor and take control of the big things from behind their army.
There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win.
|
On April 25 2010 15:59 Insanious wrote:
There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win.
I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow.
|
On April 25 2010 15:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
I do agree with this OP. As I see it:
Now that Burrow costs 100/100, extra time, and is Lair, Roach busts are -not- the problem. Banelings do benefit from Burrow, but that usually happens in the midgame when there's little difference between 100/100 and 50/50. It does not come into play early enough for it to be any sort of OP rush tactic. As stands, no one really gets Burrow, even though its a nice feature. If it were lowered to 50/50 but keeps the time and Lair tech requirements, I see nothing wrong with that, and I doubt it would impact anything other than encourage people to Burrow more, which is a nice thing imo.
I agree with this and the OP
Yea 100/100 is fine if it wasn't lair tech like in BW, but having to tech up to lair 150/100 and then burrow 100/100 and the time for lair and burrow upgrade to finish?
If keep the tech and time the same burrow should just be left at 50/50.
|
On April 25 2010 16:16 MoNoNauT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 15:59 Insanious wrote:
There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win. I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow.
100/100 is not "very costly". It's quite standard and there are only a few abilities that cost less to research. Nobody has taken away your burrow. You still have it. You just have to pay a very reasonable amount to research it. I don't see the problem. Considering the massive utility (Every single ground unit is affected!) the ability provides and how it awards creative play, 100/100 is more than fair.
On April 25 2010 16:25 Rucky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 15:54 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
I do agree with this OP. As I see it:
Now that Burrow costs 100/100, extra time, and is Lair, Roach busts are -not- the problem. Banelings do benefit from Burrow, but that usually happens in the midgame when there's little difference between 100/100 and 50/50. It does not come into play early enough for it to be any sort of OP rush tactic. As stands, no one really gets Burrow, even though its a nice feature. If it were lowered to 50/50 but keeps the time and Lair tech requirements, I see nothing wrong with that, and I doubt it would impact anything other than encourage people to Burrow more, which is a nice thing imo. I agree with this and the OP Yea 100/100 is fine if it wasn't lair tech like in BW, but having to tech up to lair 150/100 and then burrow 100/100 and the time for lair and burrow upgrade to finish?
Because you weren't going to go Lair anyway? Come on. Why don't you add in the cost of the hatchery before you morph it to lair? Or the spawning pool you need to get to the lair? Or the cost of the drones it's going to take to to harvest the resources that you're going to spend on burrow? Get a grip.
|
i think they should lower the cost, I never have gotten it after the patch. 100/100 could be better spent
|
Maybe it's because I tend to play Terran with a smattering of Protoss on the side, but I just don't get it. What are Zerg players using these extra 50 minerals and gas for that's so important and so irreplaceable that they're passing up an ability they clearly care about, or they wouldn't be making complain threads about?
|
On April 25 2010 17:39 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 16:16 MoNoNauT wrote:On April 25 2010 15:59 Insanious wrote:
There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win. I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow. 100/100 is not "very costly". It's quite standard and there are only a few abilities that cost less to research. Nobody has taken away your burrow. You still have it. You just have to pay a very reasonable amount to research it. I don't see the problem. Considering the massive utility (Every single ground unit is affected!) the ability provides and how it awards creative play, 100/100 is more than fair.
I appreciate your view, and I considered it myself for a long time, but I'm just suggesting that for something so important to the viability of the entire race (like the ultra-cheap warp gate tech), it should be a bit more accessible. I'm really glad that all of the other zerg that have responded so far have so accurately reflected my own experiences that have led to this belief... I just never get it anymore because of the high cost. It may seem insignificant on paper, but in practice it's very difficult to get any earlier than 12-15 minutes into the game, especially against an agressive opponent.
|
burrow is extremely strong so i understand the cost. but i rarely see it used to its full potential
|
On April 25 2010 17:44 ComradeDover wrote:
Maybe it's because I tend to play Terran with a smattering of Protoss on the side, but I just don't get it. What are Zerg players using these extra 50 minerals and gas for that's so important and so irreplaceable that they're passing up an ability they clearly care about, or they wouldn't be making complain threads about?
Way to miss the point completly there : Burrow is pretty bad as an ability. 100/100 is too much for it (hence why nobody ever gets it in platinum++). 50/50 is passable for it. If you reduce the cost to 50/50, you don't make zerg much stronger at all (because burrow simply isn't that good, and the 50/50 cost barely justifies it), but you do add an element of customisation/strategy/flavor by having zergs actually teching it, instead of ignoring it 100% of the time.
|
On April 25 2010 17:55 Thamoo wrote:
Burrow is pretty bad as an ability. 100/100 is too much for it
Hmm...
On April 25 2010 17:55 Roniii wrote:
burrow is extremely strong so i understand the cost. but i rarely see it used to its full potential
On April 25 2010 16:16 MoNoNauT wrote:
I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow.
On April 25 2010 15:59 Insanious wrote:
There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win.
On April 25 2010 14:28 newbcake wrote:
I disagree, burrow is already very strong. Aside from the obvious strengths of burrowed roaches, burrowed zerglings can deny expansions and give scouting info without your opponent knowing. Burrowed hydras can kill harassing air units or set up air units. Burrowed banelings are just wrong. I think 100/100 is a fair price for a very very powerful ability. Don't forget how much mileage zerglings and banelings also got out of fast burrow research.
On April 25 2010 15:26 AeroGear wrote:
In my opinion the strongest use to burrow is for flanking/surround/ambushes, not the regen mechanic. 1 concave is good, but 2 is significantly better not to mention it denies retreat!
Ever so sneaky zergs, I really dread meeting them in ladder should they use borrow to its full extent! (Not that they are easy to deal with in any way otherwise)
Either force your opponment to have observers/overseers at multiple locations, or force terran to be ever more defensive/wait for raven(s), or scan his warpath instead of using mules.
It seems these people would disagree with you, Thamoo.
|
Burrow isn't the first thing i jump to upgrade w/ my gas though....so yeah I think working out the strategy for when the upgrade timing should be, is important
|
On April 25 2010 18:03 7 wrote:
Burrow isn't the first thing i jump to upgrade w/ my gas though....so yeah I think working out the strategy for when the upgrade timing should be, is important
Just because it isn't the first thing you jump to upgrade doesn't mean there's a problem, though...
|
hummmmm and 100/100 or 50/50 matters all that much?
i mean... it didn't change anything about the marauder situation either... maybe for 10-20 players at the very top
*shrug*
but i would support any reduction to zealot charge
|
On April 25 2010 18:00 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 17:55 Thamoo wrote:
Burrow is pretty bad as an ability. 100/100 is too much for it Hmm... Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 17:55 Roniii wrote:
burrow is extremely strong so i understand the cost. but i rarely see it used to its full potential Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 16:16 MoNoNauT wrote:
I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow. Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 15:59 Insanious wrote:
There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win. Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 14:28 newbcake wrote:
I disagree, burrow is already very strong. Aside from the obvious strengths of burrowed roaches, burrowed zerglings can deny expansions and give scouting info without your opponent knowing. Burrowed hydras can kill harassing air units or set up air units. Burrowed banelings are just wrong. I think 100/100 is a fair price for a very very powerful ability. Don't forget how much mileage zerglings and banelings also got out of fast burrow research. Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 15:26 AeroGear wrote:
In my opinion the strongest use to burrow is for flanking/surround/ambushes, not the regen mechanic. 1 concave is good, but 2 is significantly better not to mention it denies retreat!
Ever so sneaky zergs, I really dread meeting them in ladder should they use borrow to its full extent! (Not that they are easy to deal with in any way otherwise)
Either force your opponment to have observers/overseers at multiple locations, or force terran to be ever more defensive/wait for raven(s), or scan his warpath instead of using mules. It seems these people would disagree with you, Thamoo.
So its 5 persons against pretty much every top-level players in the world (unless I'm mistaken, but in the hundreds (I wish I were exagerating) of replays I watched I only saw burrow used once and it was for a banneling trap against terran, which did work alright but its still much better to get the banneling speed upgrade instead).
|
I totally agree with this, maybe if they didn't make the roaches able to move while burrowed? idk..
|
Baa?21244 Posts
The point is that right now, Burrow -might- get upgraded after you finished everything else in the tech tree. A slight price increase helps open ip more strategic options. It helps address the "stale Zerg" problem.
|
The main reason I think the cost should be brought back down to 50/50 is because roaches have been thoroughly beaten with the nerf bat enough that early burrow micro isn't an issue, and it's been long enough since the burrow nerf that they seem to have just forgotten about it. They wanted so badly for the roach to work that they just nerfed the entire race instead. Since then, early-game sneaky roach burrowing has pretty much disappeared completely... nerf accomplished. What I find interesting though is that even when concussive shells was given a 100/100/80 upgrade, they surprisingly un-nerfed it even though marauders were still being used just as often.
|
On April 25 2010 18:23 Thamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 18:00 ComradeDover wrote:On April 25 2010 17:55 Thamoo wrote:
Burrow is pretty bad as an ability. 100/100 is too much for it Hmm... On April 25 2010 17:55 Roniii wrote:
burrow is extremely strong so i understand the cost. but i rarely see it used to its full potential On April 25 2010 16:16 MoNoNauT wrote:
I'm not arguing against the utility of burrow in any way, I fully understand that it's a powerful asset for a strategic zerg player... it's just very costly to take advantage of. Also, I'm not a fan of losing to things that my opponent "doesn't know my race can do" - I'd rather just win with solid play, and I'd like for burrow to be more of a threat than it is now. I don't want to sound like "My race should be the best! nerf everything!" but Zerg doesn't really feel like Zerg without burrow. On April 25 2010 15:59 Insanious wrote:
There are tonnes of uses for burrow... just people dont seem to use them. They catch my opponents off guard as usually they forget burrow exists, like it seems most of you do. Its great for doing things your opponent doesnt know you race can do... usually results in a win. On April 25 2010 14:28 newbcake wrote:
I disagree, burrow is already very strong. Aside from the obvious strengths of burrowed roaches, burrowed zerglings can deny expansions and give scouting info without your opponent knowing. Burrowed hydras can kill harassing air units or set up air units. Burrowed banelings are just wrong. I think 100/100 is a fair price for a very very powerful ability. Don't forget how much mileage zerglings and banelings also got out of fast burrow research. On April 25 2010 15:26 AeroGear wrote:
In my opinion the strongest use to burrow is for flanking/surround/ambushes, not the regen mechanic. 1 concave is good, but 2 is significantly better not to mention it denies retreat!
Ever so sneaky zergs, I really dread meeting them in ladder should they use borrow to its full extent! (Not that they are easy to deal with in any way otherwise)
Either force your opponment to have observers/overseers at multiple locations, or force terran to be ever more defensive/wait for raven(s), or scan his warpath instead of using mules. It seems these people would disagree with you, Thamoo. So its 5 persons against pretty much every top-level players in the world (unless I'm mistaken, but in the hundreds (I wish I were exagerating) of replays I watched I only saw burrow used once and it was for a banneling trap against terran, which did work alright but its still much better to get the banneling speed upgrade instead).
But of course you're right. I'm sure every person who supports keeping it the way it is knows about this thread and has posted in it, so it's fair to assume that the number of players who support the status quo is exactly five.
It's also very true that if something isn't seen in the first few months in beta, it is completely unviable and will never be used in high level play ever. Just look at Broodwar, or example.
What was I thinking? -.-"
|
On April 25 2010 18:29 ComradeDover wrote:
But of course you're right. I'm sure every person who supports keeping it the way it is knows about this thread and has posted in it, so it's fair to assume that the number of players who support the status quo are exactly five.
I was merely pointing out that anecdotal data such as 5 random persons dosn't constitute a good basis to draw conclusions from. Trying to debate if its good or not is pointless compared to the high level data we already have.
On April 25 2010 18:29 ComradeDover wrote:
It's also very true that if something isn't seen in the first few months in beta, it is completely unviable and will never be used in high level play ever. Just look at Broodwar, or example.
What was I thinking? -.-"
By reducing the cost we encourage people to try it. In return we have the data to ether nerf it back to 100/100 if we do find a way to abuse it (which is good, because now people will have learnt to use burrow correctly, justifying the cost) or to keep it at 50/50 and add more flavor/depth to the game. Win/Win scenario with no drawback whatsoever!
Please remimber that as far as overall balance is concerned its really not that big of a deal, its still only a 50/50 ressources differance if you do choose to get it. The whole point is to get the mechanic working for flavor/gameplay issues.
|
On April 25 2010 18:35 Thamoo wrote:
I was merely pointing out that anecdotal data such as 5 random persons dosn't constitute a good basis to draw conclusions from.
Then you'll admit that anecdotal data such as "I've seen, like, A MILLION REPLAYS and I've only seen burrow, like, twice" doesn't constitute a good basis to draw conclusions from either.
On April 25 2010 18:35 Thamoo wrote:
By reducing the cost we encourage people to try it. In return we have the data to ether nerf it back to 100/100 if we do find a way to abuse it or to keep it at 50/50 and add more flavor/dept to the game. Win/Win scenario with no drawback whatsoever!
Horrible argument. It would be like me saying "By reducing the cost of Thors to something like 75/25, we encourage people to try it. In return we have the data to either nerf them back to their original price or keep them at 75/25 to add more flavor to the game! Win/Win scenario!".
If it isn't broken, don't fuck with it. The worst possible motive to make changes to an already reasonably balanced and fun game is just to encourage trying something else for no other reason whatsoever. You might say that your anecdotal replay-watching suggests that it is broken because it isn't being used as much as you would like, but we already agreed that's no basis to draw any sort of conclusion from.
On April 25 2010 18:35 Thamoo wrote:
Please remimber that as far as overall balance is concerned its really not that big of a deal, its still only a 50/50 ressources differance if you do choose to get it. The whole point is to get the mechanic working for flavor/gameplay issues.
If it's not a big deal, why does it need to be changed? Zergs are equally capable of researching burrow at 100/100 as they are at 50/50. Those 50 minerals and gas aren't game breaking. The mechanic works fine for flavor issues -- it doesn't ever need to actually be used for it to work for flavor issues.
|
On April 25 2010 18:41 ComradeDover wrote:
Then you'll admit that anecdotal data such as "I've seen, like, A MILLION REPLAYS and I've only seen burrow, like, twice" doesn't constitute a good basis to draw conclusions from either.
I agree. And if I'm wrong and burrow is indeed used in high level games then I rest my case. But if its not currently being used (and I think thats currently the case) theres nothing wrong with buffing it slightly to encourage it.
Your thor argument is flawed, as reducing the burrow's cost to 50/50 is reasonable, reducing thor to 75/25 isn't.
And again the whole point is encouraging people to try stuff with it. Because right now almost nobody uses it and thats a shame for such a well designed and flavorful ability.
On April 25 2010 18:41 ComradeDover wrote:it doesn't ever need to actually be used for it to work for flavor issues.
You'll have to explain this one.
|
you're right, it should be readjusted.
|
On April 25 2010 15:27 Frozz wrote:
Burrow is really a pain
So costly for such little gain
A tiny price nerf
Would double its worth
And make burrow useful again!
hahaha I can't get enough of you. Love these.
|
On April 25 2010 14:50 ComradeDover wrote:
As a Terran player, having to put up with 150/150 stim or 150/150 ghost cloak or 100/100 reaper speed, I just can't sympathize. Sorry. Just learn to put up with it. It still isn't that expensive.
Agreed, and think of the counters.
If its a 50/50 upgrade for the zerg, terran has to either: waste a shitton of scans / turret everywhere / make the lovely 100/200 raven.
Seems a bit cheap for such a "hard" thing to counter, esp since roaches are invisible, not even DT invisible but you cant see them at all, so you basically have to have detection everywhere, and terran detection isnt so easy
Easier for toss that have their invisible little observers, but still.
50/50 is a bit cheap for the utility
edit: i remember pre patch, roaches in my main, roaches at my expos, roaches behind my army :S no fun
at least make them somewhat visible, so you can see where they move if you look hard enough
|
On April 25 2010 18:41 ComradeDover wrote:
If it isn't broken, don't fuck with it.
It wasn't broken before, and they fucked with it anyways. Roaches were broken, and they responded in the wrong way.
On April 25 2010 19:04 Snowfield wrote:edit: i remember pre patch, roaches in my main, roaches at my expos, roaches behind my army :S no fun
As I said, this isn't that much of an issue now that roaches are so significantly weaker, and the 100 seconds delays it also. The only thing you have to do to defend it is add one missile turret to your choke wall.
|
On April 25 2010 14:27 Floophead_III wrote:
The cost is fine. Quit complaining about things which don't affect the game at all.
burrow is zerg's only means for stealth, how does that not effect the game at all?
|
Hi,
I'm not sure the reason why burrow isn't researched much is it's price.
I believe, and I may be wrong, that burrow isn't researched because you have other things to do when it becomes available to research.
By the time burrow becomes available you will mostly have to upgrade your overlord speed as your overlords are getting hunted in some way. You may also have to spawn another queen because you just have been attacked...
I think the main reason is that you have better things to do than to search for burrow and I was just talking about things you can research at lair, but you may want to use your gaz in armour or range or anything too.
|
I just gonna say one thing:
Burrowed Banelings. Oh Yeah. Makes up for the cost alone. Could be a bit faster, but that's just my impatience
|
I really don't understand why zerg say burrow is too expensive.
1. It is usefull for all zerg ground units.
2. Better regen while burrowed.
3. Unburrowing melee units below the feet of ranged units (read: all terran ground units) should save them lots of hp due to not being shot at while engaging from a distance.
4. Delaying expos with burrowed lings.
5. Burrowed lings are cheap scouts.
6. If your army meets a superior army without detection, burrow und reinforce it while opponent has to send detection (ok, this is pretty situational)
7. Someone wrote terrans would just scan all over the place - what do you prefer them doing with energy, using it for mules and having faster income or scanning all over the the place in case zerg might have burrowed something?
I think this could develop into a nice mind game
8. You force your zerg / toss opponent into building detectors (which cost mins and gas) as soon as you hit tier2
To me it seems like burrow is pretty useful and should be tested some more.
Maybe just the availability at lair tech is bad, since zerg have so much options at this point.
But making this update tier 1 would mean absolute mapcontrol for zerg since toss cant have obs that fast and terrans cant afford to constantly scan that early.
|
Hmmm yeah - I wonder perhaps if it's more an issue to do with which units zerg has which are actually useful for burrowing. Banelings certainly makes sense. Lurkers have been scrapped, but they never needed the upgrade in the first place. I'm sure that blizzard will balance this one out, but actually part of me thinks it's ok to have things in the game which are only ever rarely used - it makes it all the more exciting in those exceptional cases when they are utilised effectively! Ala nuke's in sc1...
|
On April 25 2010 19:34 dynamite wrote:
I just gonna say one thing:
Burrowed Banelings. Oh Yeah. Makes up for the cost alone.
Or does it...?
Think of a burrowed baneling as a really shitty spider mine. After you research spider mines for 100/100, it only costs 75 minerals for 3 of them PLUS a fast scout/harassment unit. Banelings cost 50/25 each, and once you blow up a terran army the first time, they'll scan everywhere they go before they get a raven... it's a one-time gimmicky trick, and 100/100 is definitely too much to pay for it.
Even compared to lurkers, the units they were supposed to replace, banelings are pretty terrible. First of all, the suicide-attack makes it an extremely short-term investment, and even if a lurker is detected, it can still attack. If the baneling gets detected, that's 50/25 that the Terran is essentially stealing from you.
|
because you dont use it doesnt mean its bad watch korean vods they rush to burrow vs terran quiet often its very powerfull (one of the reason it was nerfed).and deservs its price.
|
To be fair I think burrow at 100/100 is fine if you're going very heavy roaches for the "healing" after a battle, or if you intend to use it for banneling traps.
The problem is those two are very specific ; I feel that burrow should be something more, for flavor and gameplay issues, than just a gimmick you use once in a blue moon.
Talking about balance is irrelevent, as in the end it comes down to a 50/50 mineral/gaz deficit only, which barely affects balance at all.
cernunnos : The price is the main reason people aren't getting it because generally zerg is on 2 bases when he gets lair, so its easy to get any lair tech you want while getting your 2 queens. Your argument would be valid for a 1 base zerg tho.
|
On April 25 2010 14:20 MoNoNauT wrote:
Originally, Burrow cost 50/50 and 50 seconds to research. Zerg were abusing the low-cost Roaches by double-gassing and teching straight to Lair, after which the burrow upgrade is practically negligible. Since Roaches get more utility out of burrowing than any other unit, Blizzard's approach feels like they completely neglect the fact that ALL zerg ground units can burrow.
I feel like Burrow is one of the strongest defining characteristics of the race, and strategic use of burrow should be strongly encouraged. In a similar fashion, Warp Gate tech is critical for any Protoss that uses gateways (ie, all of them). However, when proxy warpgate rushes were deemed to be too effective, they almost tripled the research time... but left the cost the same. Warp gate research costs 50/50, which is practically negligible. It comes from a structure that costs 150 minerals and no gas. Burrow costs 100/100 and the tech costs 150/100, which is significantly more expensive. Maybe I'm just wrong for even comparing these two mechanics in the first place, but I feel that they have a comparable effect on overall race effectiveness even if they are completely different.
I think reducing the 50/50 resource cost of Burrow while keeping at 100 seconds would be better balanced than it is now, since the original problem of imba-roaches no longer applies. With the cost as it is now, I'm much less inclined to get the upgrade at all in most games, regardless of how much I want it all the time.
Please discuss your thoughts on the subject.
So you are saying that you would never spend the 150/100 to upgrade any Hatchery to a Lair if you didnt want to research burrow? Adding in that cost to that of burrow is ridiculous and an upgrade which works for most of your units is dirt cheap at 100/100.
|
On April 25 2010 14:50 ComradeDover wrote:
As a Terran player, having to put up with 150/150 stim or 150/150 ghost cloak or 100/100 reaper speed, I just can't sympathize. Sorry. Just learn to put up with it. It still isn't that expensive.
You also forgot about the Marine Shield upgrade, that's even more money.
I think 100/100 is OK for burrow, if anything then Terran needs cheaper upgrades. I mean...c'mon - it's like almost 500/500 to get all the upgrades from the Tech Lab. Im not saying it's imba, just that it's alot of money for upgrades.
|
On April 25 2010 20:22 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 14:20 MoNoNauT wrote:
Originally, Burrow cost 50/50 and 50 seconds to research. Zerg were abusing the low-cost Roaches by double-gassing and teching straight to Lair, after which the burrow upgrade is practically negligible. Since Roaches get more utility out of burrowing than any other unit, Blizzard's approach feels like they completely neglect the fact that ALL zerg ground units can burrow.
I feel like Burrow is one of the strongest defining characteristics of the race, and strategic use of burrow should be strongly encouraged. In a similar fashion, Warp Gate tech is critical for any Protoss that uses gateways (ie, all of them). However, when proxy warpgate rushes were deemed to be too effective, they almost tripled the research time... but left the cost the same. Warp gate research costs 50/50, which is practically negligible. It comes from a structure that costs 150 minerals and no gas. Burrow costs 100/100 and the tech costs 150/100, which is significantly more expensive. Maybe I'm just wrong for even comparing these two mechanics in the first place, but I feel that they have a comparable effect on overall race effectiveness even if they are completely different.
I think reducing the 50/50 resource cost of Burrow while keeping at 100 seconds would be better balanced than it is now, since the original problem of imba-roaches no longer applies. With the cost as it is now, I'm much less inclined to get the upgrade at all in most games, regardless of how much I want it all the time.
Please discuss your thoughts on the subject. So you are saying that you would never spend the 150/100 to upgrade any Hatchery to a Lair if you didnt want to research burrow? Adding in that cost to that of burrow is ridiculous and an upgrade which works for most of your units is dirt cheap at 100/100.
I'm not saying that at all, what I'm saying is that after you've spent 100 gas on the lair and then 100 gas on burrow, you're not left with enough gas to build an army and continue teching. Going back to the warp gate comparison, every protoss player is going to get a cyber core, which is 150 minerals... after which, the warp gate upgrade is only 50 gas, leaving them plenty to warp units in with.
|
Yeah the nerfed it in the beginning of the beta because roache regeneration was so imba.
They should have nerf the roach burrow like it's now and not all units burrow.
|
Agree with the OP. Would be cool to see more burrow traps. =)
|
On April 25 2010 20:32 KinosJourney2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 14:50 ComradeDover wrote:
As a Terran player, having to put up with 150/150 stim or 150/150 ghost cloak or 100/100 reaper speed, I just can't sympathize. Sorry. Just learn to put up with it. It still isn't that expensive. You also forgot about the Marine Shield upgrade, that's even more money. I think 100/100 is OK for burrow, if anything then Terran needs cheaper upgrades. I mean...c'mon - it's like almost 500/500 to get all the upgrades from the Tech Lab. Im not saying it's imba, just that it's alot of money for upgrades.
These upgrades all significantly add to your units' combat effectiveness. Burrow doesn't really help in a fight, except for roaches. With the regeneration nerf, it hardly matters anyways because a roach that burrows during a battle isn't coming back before the end. Burrow doesn't help the zerg in the same way any of these upgrades help the Terran player... it just adds utility and makes zerg play more strategic than "mass n' go."
|
One thing thats really frustrated me about burrow is when its being used with drones. Mid game you manage to get an undetected 4 hellion drop off on a Z. Just as your hellions get to the mineral line BAM. All of the drones burrow and unless I have a scansweep up my drop as a whole was a failure.
Another is the ability for banelings to burrow and still explode underground. By lowering the cost/research time you can have banelings burrowed before any early/mid push effectivly stopping any terran in their tracks and that early on you cant really expect them to scansweep every choke or commonly traveled over ground can you =/.
|
Burrow still is useful its just most beneficial for roaches
you can still burrow b-lings and use them as mines
you can burrow your workers when being harrassed
you can burrow your units to flank an incoming push
burrow still works it just takes good micro to use effectively
|
Rather than balance the cost of burrow out with the roach's special burrow-related abilities, I think that the roach's burrow should be treated as something entirely different, just like the lurker's burrow was.
For one thing, I don't think the roach should be invisible when burrowed. Enhanced regeneration and obstacle passing are enough.
To my mind, the ideal roach comes with burrow, and has an overpowered attack which it briefly loses whenever it gets hit by a projectile or melee attack, making it more of a tank than an all-around fighting unit. You have to keep shooting them to stop them from returning fire, but they're tough to kill and their fragile zergling/hydra comrades are doing lots of damage over time themselves while you're busy shooting roaches.
Then again, I'd also like to see zerglings swarming around between ultralisks' legs and being shielded by the ultralisk as if they were in a dark swarm, brood lords getting attacked by their own broodlings and slowly losing health any time they have no targets to fire on, overlords pulling themselves down to the ground to spread creep instead of opening a portal into the Elemental Plane of Goo to fuel their infinite slime waterfalls, phoenixes getting back their area attack as a fleet beacon tech and severely pwning any flying unit except carriers and battlecruisers, and stalkers blasting about four times as much damage on their first shot in an engagement than on their subsequent shots.
|
On April 25 2010 18:49 Thamoo wrote:
I agree. And if I'm wrong and burrow is indeed used in high level games then I rest my case. But if its not currently being used (and I think thats currently the case) theres nothing wrong with buffing it slightly to encourage it.
Except that we have no reason to buff it or encourage except as some kind of experiement, or to put it in laymen terms "just cuz lol"
On April 25 2010 18:49 Thamoo wrote:
Your thor argument is flawed, as reducing the burrow's cost to 50/50 is reasonable, reducing thor to 75/25 isn't.
That's what I'm getting at. Reasonable and unreasonable are subjective. To me, there's nothing reasonable about an upgrade that confers a huge tactical advantage to most of the units of a race costing next to nothing. To you, having Thors cheaper than marauders is unreasonable. Are you getting my point?
On April 25 2010 18:49 Thamoo wrote:
And again the whole point is encouraging people to try stuff with it. Because right now almost nobody uses it and thats a shame for such a well designed and flavorful ability.
According to your million replays watched? Or what?
On April 25 2010 18:49 Thamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 18:41 ComradeDover wrote:
it doesn't ever need to actually be used for it to work for flavor issues. You'll have to explain this one.
It doesn't matter if burrow is used in games or not. It remains part of the racial identity. Nobody used burrow outside of lurkers in high level Brood War either, yet burrow remained part of Zerg's identity and kept it's flavor. Nobody used scouts in high level games, but the idea of powerful air units remained part of the Protoss racial flavor.
On April 25 2010 19:24 MoNoNauT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 18:41 ComradeDover wrote:
If it isn't broken, don't fuck with it. It wasn't broken before, and they fucked with it anyways. Roaches were broken, and they responded in the wrong way.
Arguable.
On April 25 2010 19:24 MoNoNauT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 19:04 Snowfield wrote:edit: i remember pre patch, roaches in my main, roaches at my expos, roaches behind my army :S no fun As I said, this isn't that much of an issue now that roaches are so significantly weaker, and the 100 seconds delays it also. The only thing you have to do to defend it is add one missile turret to your choke wall.
And if you drop them behind the choke wall? If you break down the backdoor (Desert Oasis)? Snipe the one turret with 4-5 mutas or something? How many turrets do we need to build to keep what amounts to cheap spamable Dark Templar out of our base?
On April 25 2010 19:52 MoNoNauT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2010 19:34 dynamite wrote:
I just gonna say one thing:
Burrowed Banelings. Oh Yeah. Makes up for the cost alone. Or does it...?
Yes, it does.
On April 25 2010 19:52 MoNoNauT wrote:
Think of a burrowed baneling as a really shitty spider mine. After you research spider mines for 100/100, it only costs 75 minerals for 3 of them PLUS a fast scout/harassment unit. Banelings cost 50/25 each, and once you blow up a terran army the first time, they'll scan everywhere they go before they get a raven... it's a one-time gimmicky trick, and 100/100 is definitely too much to pay for it.
Obviously they aren't going to be Brood War status spider mines. That shit was ridiculous, and I say this from the perspective of a Terran player.
Also, scanning everywhere and going raven is EXPENSIVE. every scan is 240-270 potential minerals, and the terran isn't going to leave his base until he gets a raven, you're basicly free to double, even triple expand.
On April 25 2010 19:52 MoNoNauT wrote:
Even compared to lurkers, the units they were supposed to replace, banelings are pretty terrible. First of all, the suicide-attack makes it an extremely short-term investment, and even if a lurker is detected, it can still attack. If the baneling gets detected, that's 50/25 that the Terran is essentially stealing from you.
Where did you get the idea that banelings are supposed to replace lurkers?
|
I don't believe that 100/100 is an unreasonable cost for this upgrade, seeing as how it affects so many Zerg units. In the grand scheme of things it's really not that much money for an ability that gives you a remarkable amount of utility.
I suppose since Warp Gates are 50/50 though (right?) and that's a REALLY game-changing upgrade, Burrow might warrant some looking at.
|
On April 26 2010 03:44 TheTuna wrote:
I don't believe that 100/100 is an unreasonable cost for this upgrade, seeing as how it affects so many Zerg units. In the grand scheme of things it's really not that much money for an ability you get a remarkable amount of utility.
I suppose since Warp Gates are 50/50 though (right?) and that's a REALLY game-changing upgrade, Burrow might warrant some looking at.
I think that's the argument at this point. If Protoss has a unit-wide utility upgrade for 50/50, why can't Zerg get that ability back?
Warp Gate tech makes switching up unit composition much much faster for Protoss.
Another thing I may try is just to incorporate burrow into my games, despite of 100/100. Since it's 100/00 I might just have to make the most of each burrowed unit. If it stays at 100/100, would be nice to see a time decrease for the upgrade as an incentive to use it?
|
On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
I think that's the argument at this point. If Protoss has a unit-wide utility upgrade for 50/50, why can't Zerg get that ability back?
Because the races are different. The Protoss and Terran get cliff walking/jumping/blinking abilties, why can't the Zerg get one? Because the races are different. The Protoss and Terran have seperate building queues for workers and combat units, why can't the Zerg? Because the races are different.
On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
Warp Gate tech makes switching up unit composition much much faster for Protoss.
Said the Zerg player. -.-"
On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
Another thing I may try is just to incorporate burrow into my games, despite of 100/100. Since it's 100/00 I might just have to make the most of each burrowed unit. If it stays at 100/100, would be nice to see a time decrease for the upgrade as an incentive to use it?
What are you, a Republican? Why do you need an incentive to use it? If you like it, use it. If you don't, leave it alone.
|
On April 26 2010 03:53 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
I think that's the argument at this point. If Protoss has a unit-wide utility upgrade for 50/50, why can't Zerg get that ability back? Because the races are different. The Protoss and Terran get cliff walking/jumping/blinking abilties, why can't the Zerg get one? Because the races are different. The Protoss and Terran have seperate building queues for workers and combat units, why can't the Zerg? Because the races are different. Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
Warp Gate tech makes switching up unit composition much much faster for Protoss. Said the Zerg player. -.-" Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
Another thing I may try is just to incorporate burrow into my games, despite of 100/100. Since it's 100/00 I might just have to make the most of each burrowed unit. If it stays at 100/100, would be nice to see a time decrease for the upgrade as an incentive to use it? What are you, a Republican? Why do you need an incentive to use it? If you like it, use it. If you don't, leave it alone.
I just feel like for an ability upgrade that defines the Zerg race, not a lot of people feel the need to upgrade it and incorporate it into play.
I'm aware that not all three races should have their own colossus or their own viking, but the issue I see is that the ability that makes Zerg so unique faces the problem that it had in the original BW - it just isn't worth getting in every single game.
This is a shame since, as I stated earlier, burrows is one of those abilities that should define Zerg and its playstyle. Something needs to drive players to utilize it more, and the current state that it's in is not providing incentive (THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN) for players to use it.
|
On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 03:44 TheTuna wrote:
I don't believe that 100/100 is an unreasonable cost for this upgrade, seeing as how it affects so many Zerg units. In the grand scheme of things it's really not that much money for an ability you get a remarkable amount of utility.
I suppose since Warp Gates are 50/50 though (right?) and that's a REALLY game-changing upgrade, Burrow might warrant some looking at. I think that's the argument at this point. If Protoss has a unit-wide utility upgrade for 50/50, why can't Zerg get that ability back? Warp Gate tech makes switching up unit composition much much faster for Protoss. Another thing I may try is just to incorporate burrow into my games, despite of 100/100. Since it's 100/00 I might just have to make the most of each burrowed unit. If it stays at 100/100, would be nice to see a time decrease for the upgrade as an incentive to use it?
Well, Warp gate is quite a "OP" Ability, since theres never any reason you would use gateways
|
On April 26 2010 04:03 shindigs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 03:53 ComradeDover wrote:On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
I think that's the argument at this point. If Protoss has a unit-wide utility upgrade for 50/50, why can't Zerg get that ability back? Because the races are different. The Protoss and Terran get cliff walking/jumping/blinking abilties, why can't the Zerg get one? Because the races are different. The Protoss and Terran have seperate building queues for workers and combat units, why can't the Zerg? Because the races are different. On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
Warp Gate tech makes switching up unit composition much much faster for Protoss. Said the Zerg player. -.-" On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
Another thing I may try is just to incorporate burrow into my games, despite of 100/100. Since it's 100/00 I might just have to make the most of each burrowed unit. If it stays at 100/100, would be nice to see a time decrease for the upgrade as an incentive to use it? What are you, a Republican? Why do you need an incentive to use it? If you like it, use it. If you don't, leave it alone. I just feel like for an ability upgrade that defines the Zerg race, not a lot of people feel the need to upgrade it and incorporate it into play. I'm aware that not all three races should have their own colossus or their own viking, but the issue I see is that the ability that makes Zerg so unique faces the problem that it had in the original BW - it just isn't worth getting in every single game. This is a shame since, as I stated earlier, burrows is one of those abilities that should define Zerg and its playstyle. Something needs to drive players to utilize it more, and the current state that it's in is not providing incentive (THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN) for players to use it.
What I'm getting from your reply is "I don't see Zergs using burrow (even though there have been plenty of cited examples of burrow use in this thread already), and this upsets me for some reason that I don't bother explaining, so I'm suggesting a tax cut on burrow."
Is that about right?
|
It's very strong, people will learn to use it when some top players show them the way.
|
I think burrow should be a Hatchery level tech, and remain at 100/100. Having to wait for a Lair to get burrow can really hold you back in some of the strategic options available. I see nothing wrong with being able to micro your Roaches with burrow before they have the ability to move underground. Also being able to burrow your Queen early would really help stop quick Zeal rushes aimed at taking out your Queen and effectively shutting down any chance of macro.
|
On April 26 2010 04:45 SichuanPanda wrote:
I think burrow should be a Hatchery level tech, and remain at 100/100. Having to wait for a Lair to get burrow can really hold you back in some of the strategic options available. I see nothing wrong with being able to micro your Roaches with burrow before they have the ability to move underground. Also being able to burrow your Queen early would really help stop quick Zeal rushes aimed at taking out your Queen and effectively shutting down any chance of macro.
Baneling minefields would come way too early in the game, then. I see nothing wrong with limiting strategic options initially and unlocking them as a zerg player tiers up.
|
On April 26 2010 04:31 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 04:03 shindigs wrote:On April 26 2010 03:53 ComradeDover wrote:On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
I think that's the argument at this point. If Protoss has a unit-wide utility upgrade for 50/50, why can't Zerg get that ability back? Because the races are different. The Protoss and Terran get cliff walking/jumping/blinking abilties, why can't the Zerg get one? Because the races are different. The Protoss and Terran have seperate building queues for workers and combat units, why can't the Zerg? Because the races are different. On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
Warp Gate tech makes switching up unit composition much much faster for Protoss. Said the Zerg player. -.-" On April 26 2010 03:46 shindigs wrote:
Another thing I may try is just to incorporate burrow into my games, despite of 100/100. Since it's 100/00 I might just have to make the most of each burrowed unit. If it stays at 100/100, would be nice to see a time decrease for the upgrade as an incentive to use it? What are you, a Republican? Why do you need an incentive to use it? If you like it, use it. If you don't, leave it alone. I just feel like for an ability upgrade that defines the Zerg race, not a lot of people feel the need to upgrade it and incorporate it into play. I'm aware that not all three races should have their own colossus or their own viking, but the issue I see is that the ability that makes Zerg so unique faces the problem that it had in the original BW - it just isn't worth getting in every single game. This is a shame since, as I stated earlier, burrows is one of those abilities that should define Zerg and its playstyle. Something needs to drive players to utilize it more, and the current state that it's in is not providing incentive (THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN) for players to use it. What I'm getting from your reply is "I don't see Zergs using burrow (even though there have been plenty of cited examples of burrow use in this thread already), and this upsets me for some reason that I don't bother explaining, so I'm suggesting a tax cut on burrow." Is that about right?
It "upsets" me because I see burrow as a really race defining ability for Zerg but it's getting the same treatment as it did in BW where it was ignored for most of the time.
The situation was that burrows wasn't necessary in play for a lot of standard builds. You could go an entire game without having to research burrow and definitely do fine. Yes, there were games where you saw top level players researching burrow for zergling scouting or burrowing drones, but that wasn't part of what people would consider part of the "standard play."
Another big critique of Zerg is that it's just so bland to play. So why not throw in burrow into more everyday play? The problem is that it requires Lair tech AND 100/100, and 100/100 can definitely be minerals/gas well spent in another muta or hydra.
Protoss and Terran mechanics have evolved for SC2 and Zerg is constantly criticized as being the most bland. Lowering burrow cost would help remedy this situation by at least letting players feel less of a burden of incorporating burrow into their play and allows for a variety of more strategies to be deployed.
|
lol, well speak of the devil. XD, just posted someting similar 2 this that might justify the cost a lil, or refocus the application of burrow
On April 26 2010 04:56 skippy2591 wrote:
well, i'm not in the beta at all, but i have spent some time watching casted matches on tl.
well, as everyone knows, its not uncommon in z v p to see centuries (or what ever they are called) pretty much split a massive z army in half w/ force fields, and then procede to kill the closest half while the other half retreats. This got me wondering on why is it not common place (for at least the games i've seen played) to see z just burrow their units untill the force fields ware of?? of course the toss can't see burrowed units untill they have obs, and surly burrowing could keep your units alive in most early mid game toss pushes.
so what do you guyz think? is burrowing vs forcefields viable? or is it just a bad idea/ impratical???
comment on the other post as well plz
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=121582
much appreciated
|
On April 26 2010 05:03 shindigs wrote:
It "upsets" me because I see burrow as a really race defining ability for Zerg but it's getting the same treatment as it did in BW where it was ignored for most of the time.
People love BW. They say it's the perfect RTS. If it's like that in BW, it can't be wrong.
On April 26 2010 05:03 shindigs wrote:
The situation was that burrows wasn't necessary in play for a lot of standard builds. You could go an entire game without having to research burrow and definitely do fine. Yes, there were games where you saw top level players researching burrow for zergling scouting or burrowing drones, but that wasn't part of what people would consider part of the "standard play."
How is this a problem?
On April 26 2010 05:03 shindigs wrote:
Another big critique of Zerg is that it's just so bland to play. So why not throw in burrow into more everyday play? The problem is that it requires Lair tech AND 100/100, and 100/100 can definitely be minerals/gas well spent in another muta or hydra.
If you're given the choice between an upgrade for your 24+ roaches or building one muta, and you choose building one muta, you've made the wrong choice.
On April 26 2010 05:03 shindigs wrote:
Protoss and Terran mechanics have evolved for SC2 and Zerg is constantly criticized as being the most bland. Lowering burrow cost would help remedy this situation by at least letting players feel less of a burden of incorporating burrow into their play and allows for a variety of more strategies to be deployed.
It isn't a burden now. 100/100 is dirt cheap. 100/100 is less than what Terrans would pay for one siege tank, never mind the siege mode upgrade or the cost of getting your mech infrastructure up. If zerg players choose not to get burrow (And make no mistake, they ARE making a choice), they have nobody to blame but themselves.
|
agreeing with comradeDover
burrow is a choice, its cheep, and is the lack of one unit really more of a drawback then the lack of an upgrade that you'll have for the rest of the game?
surly one unit can make the diffrence, but one unit can die, and upgrades arn't always just a one time thing, especially not burrow; late game ambushes can be deadly (imo)... just depends on how u use it though.
|
With current maps, I only see burrow used for roach regeneration, mostly in ZvZ.
If there was larger macro maps we could try cute ambushes or use burrow to defend against harassment (drones).
But the current small maps promote A)"1base timed push" or B)"1 expand + camp"
In case A) the game is decided in ~10 minutes. You use your gas for tier 2 buildings and units like hydra, muta or infestor to counter those timed attacks.
In case B) this is useless.
The problem is the maps.
|
On April 26 2010 05:26 HubertFelix wrote:
With current maps, I only see burrow used for roach regeneration, mostly in ZvZ.
If there was larger macro maps we could try cute ambushes or use burrow to defend against harassment (drones).
But the current small maps promote A)"1base timed push" or B)"1 expand + camp"
In case A) the game is decided in ~10 minutes. You use your gas for tier 2 buildings and units like hydra, muta or infestor to counter those timed attacks.
In case B) this is useless.
The problem is the maps.
What about LT? -.-"
|
I always get burrow in ZvZ as well as Roaches move while burrowing. Just won a game right now with it. Even if they get an overseer, they rarely get two, and they typically take one with them when they push out if they know you have burrow, leaving around a squad of 10 roaches (this is mid-late game) to raid mineral lines (5 at each) as well as snipe queens. Even if it doesn't work, merely forcing the opponent to spend 100 gas on multiple overseers doesn't put you back much.
|
I don't see why blizzard didnt just leave burrow at 50/50 cost, and then make the length of roach upgrade alot longer, because ya.. i never see anyone burrow anymore :/
|
On April 26 2010 05:49 Templar. wrote:
I don't see why blizzard didnt just leave burrow at 50/50 cost, and then make the length of roach upgrade alot longer, because ya.. i never see anyone burrow anymore :/
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. There's a truckload of people complaining that Protoss are underpowered and lose a ton of games, when statistically they have a 5% winrate advantage on Terrans as of the last patch.
|
On April 26 2010 05:49 Templar. wrote:
I don't see why blizzard didnt just leave burrow at 50/50 cost, and then make the length of roach upgrade alot longer, because ya.. i never see anyone burrow anymore :/
yea, like i said earlier, i haven't played sc2 at all, and my opinion is one of an outsider player looking in. that said, why should it matter the price if macro is used properly?? a price change just means you have to adjust the time you research burrow, it dosen't necessairly mean that its impossible to use anymore.
maybe pplz were so close to a standardized build that as soon as the cost went up, pplz begain to claim that it ruined the use of burrow...
To the people who think that above though: that is not true, ur just jumping the gun if your thinking that way. all a price change means is that you'll have to dramatically alter the build ur use to, and find another one more optimized to take advantage of the upgrade while remaining relative to everything else.
|
Agreed, burrow is definitely underused now that roaches aren't much of a threat off 1 base. The underground movement speed even got nerfed.
|
why should it matter the price if macro is used properly?? a price change just means you have to adjust the time you research burrow, it dosen't necessairly mean that its impossible to use anymore.
It's not impossible to use, but based of your assumptions of "using macro properly" it seems that cost doesn't matter at all in anything if you "macro properly." This is simply not the case.
Burrow costs something just like everything else. Macroing properly consists of allocating your resources wisely and that requires good decision making. It's not about just playing with good mechanics, it means you have to think and consider what you're doing, and there's tension in that consideration since all those resources can possibly be spent elsewhere.
EDIT SIDE NOTE: It's good that you're seeing counters to problems you've been watching on the streams, but unfortunately I think you'd just have to play the game to see why burrow may be a bit underused against forcefields.
Again, I want to emphasize you're idea isn't a bad one, but it seems that this thread is making it seem like a simple decision to avoid mass sentry forcefields. It's not, and that's why it's been avoided.
|
burrow roaches just arent worth it, you have to tech all the way up to lair and get two more upgrades before you can even use it, by then your opponents can easily get detectors to counter it
the roach concept is just plain stupid, and we all knew it from the beginning, but instead of letting it go they stuck with it and end up with a poorly designed unit that needs 4 upgrades to be balanced.
if you need 500/500 just to fully upgrade a unit its just plain wrong, especially with all the hard counters in this game, so what do players do? they only get the upgrade that doesnt involve burrow and ditch the other 3 about burrow
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On April 26 2010 05:55 skippy2591 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 05:49 Templar. wrote:
I don't see why blizzard didnt just leave burrow at 50/50 cost, and then make the length of roach upgrade alot longer, because ya.. i never see anyone burrow anymore :/ yea, like i said earlier, i haven't played sc2 at all, and my opinion is one of an outsider player looking in. that said, why should it matter the price if macro is used properly?? a price change just means you have to adjust the time you research burrow, it dosen't necessairly mean that its impossible to use anymore. maybe pplz were so close to a standardized build that as soon as the cost went up, pplz begain to claim that it ruined the use of burrow... To the people who think that above though: that is not true, ur just jumping the gun if your thinking that way. all a price change means is that you'll have to dramatically alter the build ur use to, and find another one more optimized to take advantage of the upgrade while remaining relative to everything else.
I don't think your opinion is very valid then if you haven't even played.
As I said before, 100/100 means that there are 10000 things you're going ot upgrade before Burrow because they'll provide more utility. The tradeoff of cost-gain is simply too high for Burrow. Reducing it to 50/50 encourages more people to upgrade it, without making it overpowered in an way, shape, or form, which honestly is the only concern of all the Terran/Toss icons whining in this thread
|
On April 26 2010 06:18 poor newb wrote:
burrow roaches just arent worth it, you have to tech all the way up to lair and get two more upgrades before you can even use it, by then your oopponents can easily get detectors to counter it
the roach concept is just plain stupid, and we all knew it from the beginning, but instead of letting it go they stuck with it and end up with a poorly designed unit that needs 4 upgrades to be balanced. if you need 500/500 just to fully upgrade a unit its just plain wrong, especially with all the hard counters in this game
500/500 is in the ballpark of what it costs to fully upgrade marines. In fact, it costs more if you consider the bunker space upgrade to be an upgrade for the marine. And with colossi and fungal growth and tanks, there are plenty of things "hard countering" (Whatever the fuck that means) marines. I guess we should scrap the unit concept of the marine, too.
On April 26 2010 06:21 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
As I said before, 100/100 means that there are 10000 things you're going ot upgrade before Burrow because they'll provide more utility. The tradeoff of cost-gain is simply too high for Burrow. Reducing it to 50/50 encourages more people to upgrade it, without making it overpowered in an way, shape, or form, which honestly is the only concern of all the Terran/Toss icons whining in this thread
Then the Zerg players choose to get those 10000 things rather than going burrow. They've made their own choices. Why are they now trying to stack the decks in their favor, over a choice they themselves made?
|
On April 26 2010 06:02 shindigs wrote:Show nested quote +why should it matter the price if macro is used properly?? a price change just means you have to adjust the time you research burrow, it dosen't necessairly mean that its impossible to use anymore. It's not impossible to use, but based of your assumptions of "using macro properly" it seems that cost doesn't matter at all in anything if you "macro properly." This is simply not the case. Burrow costs something just like everything else. Macroing properly consists of allocating your resources wisely and that requires good decision making. It's not about just playing with good mechanics, it means you have to think and consider what you're doing, and there's tension in that consideration since all those resources can possibly be spent elsewhere. EDIT SIDE NOTE: It's good that you're seeing counters to problems you've been watching on the streams, but unfortunately I think you'd just have to play the game to see why burrow may be a bit underused against forcefields. Again, I want to emphasize you're idea isn't a bad one, but it seems that this thread is making it seem like a simple decision to avoid mass sentry forcefields. It's not, and that's why it's been avoided.
ok, 2 things i have to address
alright, alright, you have a point on the statements that you made on my rathere "jaded" sense of using macro properly, and i do understand what your pov of macroing properly consist of (which is a little more grounded than mine might i add
On ur edited side note, I'll first say that i know there is a big diffrence between knowing about something and actually experienceing it, and thats why i made it clear that i waz just an outside person looking in.
Addressing the second half of what you stated, i will say that i think u may be mistaking a few of the posters statements as oversimplifications of the issue, and, while there are a few suggesting that this is the end all be all solution, i'm pretty sure we all do know that this is beyond a simple decision for zergs dealing with force fields. That said, this does not by any means mean that we should completly take this option off the table, but we should rather take it into consideration, throw the idea around a little, and hopefully some gosu player will take it from there and revolutionize the game
we could trigger someones upbringing just by a simple argument ^^ how awsome
|
On April 26 2010 06:21 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 05:55 skippy2591 wrote:On April 26 2010 05:49 Templar. wrote:
I don't see why blizzard didnt just leave burrow at 50/50 cost, and then make the length of roach upgrade alot longer, because ya.. i never see anyone burrow anymore :/ yea, like i said earlier, i haven't played sc2 at all, and my opinion is one of an outsider player looking in. that said, why should it matter the price if macro is used properly?? a price change just means you have to adjust the time you research burrow, it dosen't necessairly mean that its impossible to use anymore. maybe pplz were so close to a standardized build that as soon as the cost went up, pplz begain to claim that it ruined the use of burrow... To the people who think that above though: that is not true, ur just jumping the gun if your thinking that way. all a price change means is that you'll have to dramatically alter the build ur use to, and find another one more optimized to take advantage of the upgrade while remaining relative to everything else. I don't think your opinion is very valid then if you haven't even played. As I said before, 100/100 means that there are 10000 things you're going ot upgrade before Burrow because they'll provide more utility. The tradeoff of cost-gain is simply too high for Burrow. Reducing it to 50/50 encourages more people to upgrade it, without making it overpowered in an way, shape, or form, which honestly is the only concern of all the Terran/Toss icons whining in this thread
Not playing the game denies you of how heavy some decisions can be. It's easy for any of us to watch a stream and say "Why couldn't player A counter Player B with so and so counter?" but the reality is that Player A was most likely weighing a load of other options in his head, which Player B could respond to. There's definitely mind games to everything you watch which doesn't make everything as straightforward as it seems.
ok, 2 things i have to address
alright, alright, you have a point on the statements that you made on my rathere "jaded" sense of using macro properly, and i do understand what your pov of macroing properly consist of (which is a little more grounded than mine might i add
On ur edited side note, I'll first say that i know there is a big diffrence between knowing about something and actually experienceing it, and thats why i made it clear that i waz just an outside person looking in.
Addressing the second half of what you stated, i will say that i think u may be mistaking a few of the posters statements as oversimplifications of the issue, and, while there are a few suggesting that this is the end all be all solution, i'm pretty sure we all do know that this is beyond a simple decision for zergs dealing with force fields. That said, this does not by any means mean that we should completly take this option off the table, but we should rather take it into consideration, throw the idea around a little, and hopefully some gosu player will take it from there and revolutionize the game
we could trigger someones upbringing just by a simple argument ^^ how awsome
Like I said, it's good that you are trying to formulate counters to some situations you see appearing on the streams. It means you're thinking and strategical along with the player while watching the streams, and that is never a bad thing!
I'll agree with you that we shouldn't take this option off the table completely. It's something I definitely want to try, but personally for me, if I find myself in that situation again I just wouldn't research burrow if I was trying to win due to all the oppurtunity cost arguments stated before.
Personally when I attempt to imagine a game where you obtain burrow, a lot of other factors flood into my mind of what could counter my decision, and all those counters are outweighing the benefits. Of course, that puts me in the same situation as you, where I haven't even tried it and I'm making assumptions about it.
In the end, I think I'm going to conclude that burrow needs to be 50/50 before it becomes part of Standard Play for the Zerg, which I think it should. At 100/100, it's not completely useless, but researching it means you're gonna be using it for some specific strategy outside of standard play (which isn't bad, it's just no obvious as you want it to be). Also keep in mind Standard Play is constantly evolving, so even that argument is questionable, and you definitely have a place to disagree with me. The beauty of StarCraft is that something we may consider not viable at one time may be standard play in a next paradigm.
This is just my perception is a Zerg player, and I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate. From my experience, there are just so many other options that I could consider that will benefit me in the long run rather than burrow, such as melee or range upgrades.
Finally, some posts about burrow comes off to me as an oversimplification of obtaining it. Not all, but some, but it's good to know that you understand the decisions that go into Lair tech.
|
On April 26 2010 06:23 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 06:18 poor newb wrote:
burrow roaches just arent worth it, you have to tech all the way up to lair and get two more upgrades before you can even use it, by then your oopponents can easily get detectors to counter it
the roach concept is just plain stupid, and we all knew it from the beginning, but instead of letting it go they stuck with it and end up with a poorly designed unit that needs 4 upgrades to be balanced. if you need 500/500 just to fully upgrade a unit its just plain wrong, especially with all the hard counters in this game 500/500 is in the ballpark of what it costs to fully upgrade marines. In fact, it costs more if you consider the bunker space upgrade to be an upgrade for the marine. And with colossi and fungal growth and tanks, there are plenty of things "hard countering" (Whatever the fuck that means) marines. I guess we should scrap the unit concept of the marine, too.
get your numbers right
it takes 150/150 for marines, 150/150 for stim which upgrades marauders as well, 100/100 is for bunkers not for marines
you have to spend 400/400 just on roaches, and 100/100 on burrow
|
On April 26 2010 06:21 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 05:55 skippy2591 wrote:On April 26 2010 05:49 Templar. wrote:
I don't see why blizzard didnt just leave burrow at 50/50 cost, and then make the length of roach upgrade alot longer, because ya.. i never see anyone burrow anymore :/ yea, like i said earlier, i haven't played sc2 at all, and my opinion is one of an outsider player looking in. that said, why should it matter the price if macro is used properly?? a price change just means you have to adjust the time you research burrow, it dosen't necessairly mean that its impossible to use anymore. maybe pplz were so close to a standardized build that as soon as the cost went up, pplz begain to claim that it ruined the use of burrow... To the people who think that above though: that is not true, ur just jumping the gun if your thinking that way. all a price change means is that you'll have to dramatically alter the build ur use to, and find another one more optimized to take advantage of the upgrade while remaining relative to everything else. I don't think your opinion is very valid then if you haven't even played. As I said before, 100/100 means that there are 10000 things you're going ot upgrade before Burrow because they'll provide more utility. The tradeoff of cost-gain is simply too high for Burrow. Reducing it to 50/50 encourages more people to upgrade it, without making it overpowered in an way, shape, or form, which honestly is the only concern of all the Terran/Toss icons whining in this thread
sorry sir, i still fail to see a reasonable justification on why my opinion is not valid. last i checked i waz free to state my opinions, and just because i havn't played the game dosen't mean i can't engage in a conversation about certain aspects of the game. yes, true, my opinion may be off because i didn't play the game, but i still fail to see what justifies the absolute throwing out of my opinion in this matter. Besides, as long as i'm not just spewing out retaurtedly stupid remarks, I don't see much issue with my statements.
some of the bigest critics of pro american football players are the very people who can't qualify for a local team themselves, yet you don't hear them cutting their toungs often in a football discussion now do you.
|
So all the arguments of comradedover can be used to defend warpgates cost being increased to 100/100? It is easy to argue for the way it is. If burrow was 50/50 how can you argue that it should be increased to 100/100? If warpgates was 100/100, how can you argue that it should be 50/50? The answer is you can't. The burden of proof is on the side that wants the change and since the threshold for change on small adjustments are so high, there will never be any change.
It's only 50/50 more, no big deal.
It's only 50/50 less, no big deal.
|
There are a lot of questions and concerns in this thread that need addressing.
1: On the cost of burrow vs. the cost of other cloaking (DT tech, Banshee cloak, etc).
There are many fundamental differences between these and burrow. One of the most important is that the units that have these forms of cloak are a lot more flexible than the Zerg units that can burrow. Banshees are flying units; they can attack from any angle. Whereas Roaches and Infestors are ground units, they must obey land constraints. Thus, it is easier to keep out Roaches & Infestors than Banshees.
DTs are very much the same. DTs can be warp-in cloaked; all you see is a Warp Prism in Psi mode. Is he dropping DTs or is it a fake? Roach/Infestor drops aren't like that. If you see an Overlord, it might be a drop, but you'll know it's a drop when the Roaches/Infestors come out of it. You never have that moment of "Oh crap, I need detection to know if this is fake or not!"
You might notice that I didn't mention other burrowed units. That's for a very good reason; all other burrowed units are static. Unlike Ghosts, DTs, or any of the rest, burrowed units can't move. They can't attack you. And they cannot attack you while burrowed, with the notable exception of the baneling.
In short, these abilities/units cost more than burrow because they're more useful than burrow.
2: On the utility of Burrow.
Burrow sucks. Period. Let's go through the burrowing units and see how useful burrow is:
Zerglings: The most you can do with burrowed Zerglings is lay some burrow traps. Unfortunately, any Protoss worth their salt will have an Observer with their army. Terran players have to pay for their scans early game, but by the mid-to-late game, when they have 3 or more OCs, scan's don't hurt. So the best you can say is that Zergling burrowing has utility in the early game.
However, it should be noted that Zerglings are the most mobile unit in the Zerg army. Making them immobile basically takes away any of the advantages from the 100/100 Zergling speed upgrade.
Banelings: This is the classic trap. However, there are some fundamental problems with it.
Banelings are only cost effective against certain units. Against the Protoss, they're a waste of money unless you're specifically using them to bust a wall. Against Terrans, they're only useful against a Marine-heavy MMM ball. A Marauder-heavy ball, or just Hellion/Marauders/Thors has little to fear from immobile Banelings.
Better to spend that 100/100 on an Infestation Pit.
And of course, burrowed Banelings are stopped by the same things that stop burrowed Zerglings: detection.
Hydralisks: No point. Burrowed Hydralisks are of no tactical value.
Drones: Oh, it's nice to save your Drones from Hellion harassment. But if they throw down a scan, it's all over.
Roaches: This used to be the go-to unit for burrow. This was why you bothered to research it, even when it was practically free.
Times have changed. Burrowed regen has been nerfed, a lot. So in-combat burrow micro is only useful for saving damaged Roaches. The regen rate is only useful in the sense of rebuilding units that survived the battle. Burrowed movement has been nerfed hard as well. Not only does it cost 150/150, but it's excruciatingly slow. Trying to move Roaches in to harass or prepare a flank while burrowed takes way too long. By the time flanking burrowed Roaches get into position, the tactical battlefield will have changed.
Simply put, it just doesn't matter anymore. Burrowed movement isn't worth 150/150, and regen isn't enough for 100/100. And Organic Carapace definitely isn't worth 150/150.
Infestors: Burrowed movement for these units was always about keeping them alive. They can't cast while burrowed, so it's mainly a defensive tactic. The problems with this are many.
Burrowed movement is too slow to keep up with the Zerg army. The upgraded burrow move speed is an added expense; you could get the +25 starting energy upgrade, which is much more valuable. Especially for a unit that can be quickly focused and killed.
Ultralisks: Haha! That's a good one.
Oh, you were being serious. Really? Building Ultralisks is a mistake in and of itself. And now you want to make them immobile. Why? So that you can spring a trap and have your Ultralisks die all the sooner?
100 Minerals 100 Gas at the Lair can build you an Infestation Pit. It can build you a Hydralisk Den. It's half of a Spire. Any of these other buildings provide far greater utility than burrow.
3: Better alternatives to Burrow.
Overlord drops can do much of what burrow can. They can drop units into the middle of the enemy ball. If an army composition is susceptible to Banelings, Overlords are going to be more effective at delivering Banelings on target than burrow is.
Yes, drop costs 250/250. Yes, it endangers the Zerg's food. But it is far more effective, because it is far harder to stop. And it can do far more than burrow.
You can't set Overlord traps, this is true. But burrow traps are simply not a particularly effective use of the ability against most races.
So that's my argument for dropping the cost of burrow.
|
On April 26 2010 06:29 Rucky wrote:
So all the arguments of comradedover can be used to defend warpgates cost being increased to 100/100? It is easy to argue for the way it is. If burrow was 50/50 how can you argue that it should be increased to 100/100? If warpgates was 100/100, how can you argue that it should be 50/50? The answer is you can't. The burden of proof is on the side that wants the change and since the threshold for change on small adjustments are so high, there will never be any change.
It's only 50/50 more, no big deal.
It's only 50/50 less, no big deal.
Whatever. I don't care either way. Balance is good right now. I'd rather we don't fuck with it.
Like you said. The burden of proof is on those that want a change. If you want to fuck with the good balance we have now, you better have a damn good reason.
|
On April 26 2010 05:09 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 05:03 shindigs wrote:
It "upsets" me because I see burrow as a really race defining ability for Zerg but it's getting the same treatment as it did in BW where it was ignored for most of the time. People love BW. They say it's the perfect RTS. If it's like that in BW, it can't be wrong. Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 05:03 shindigs wrote:
The situation was that burrows wasn't necessary in play for a lot of standard builds. You could go an entire game without having to research burrow and definitely do fine. Yes, there were games where you saw top level players researching burrow for zergling scouting or burrowing drones, but that wasn't part of what people would consider part of the "standard play." How is this a problem? Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 05:03 shindigs wrote:
Another big critique of Zerg is that it's just so bland to play. So why not throw in burrow into more everyday play? The problem is that it requires Lair tech AND 100/100, and 100/100 can definitely be minerals/gas well spent in another muta or hydra. If you're given the choice between an upgrade for your 24+ roaches or building one muta, and you choose building one muta, you've made the wrong choice. Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 05:03 shindigs wrote:
Protoss and Terran mechanics have evolved for SC2 and Zerg is constantly criticized as being the most bland. Lowering burrow cost would help remedy this situation by at least letting players feel less of a burden of incorporating burrow into their play and allows for a variety of more strategies to be deployed. It isn't a burden now. 100/100 is dirt cheap. 100/100 is less than what Terrans would pay for one siege tank, never mind the siege mode upgrade or the cost of getting your mech infrastructure up. If zerg players choose not to get burrow (And make no mistake, they ARE making a choice), they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Very good points that show the apparent unwillingness of Zerg players to look beyond their own plate. Compared to BW the Zerg have become lazy and complacent, because in BW they almost had to outbase the enemy by at least one base. Due to the Queen and getting enough larvae this isnt done in SC2, but it might be a mistake by the Zerg. They have the lowest cost for a new Harchery and the fastest method of saturating it with workers and yet they dont do it, because they are stuck in their "must-build-horde-and-ATTAACCCKKK" mode. Zerg could easily outresource all the others and with Spine Crawlers they also have the perfect static defenses to defend without troops. If they dont do it they shouldnt complain about the cost of a rather cheap upgrade. Burrow opens new attack methods (Baneling mines, Roach harrass, Infestor harrass) and forcing opponents to build lots of static defenses he didnt want to build to detect intruders is always a good thing ... at least thats what Day[9] tells us on a regular basis. Its your own fault if you dont do it and then get rather boring games. Sure the Roaches need their tunneling claws to move while burrowed, but Infestors dont and they have become very strong with the last patch.
|
The only time I ever use borrow is for baneling traps. I don't think its the price thats the issue but them limited use of it.
|
On April 26 2010 06:57 NicolBolas wrote:
3: Better alternatives to Burrow.
Overlord drops can do much of what burrow can. They can drop units into the middle of the enemy ball. If an army composition is susceptible to Banelings, Overlords are going to be more effective at delivering Banelings on target than burrow is.
Yes, drop costs 250/250. Yes, it endangers the Zerg's food. But it is far more effective, because it is far harder to stop. And it can do far more than burrow.
You can't set Overlord traps, this is true. But burrow traps are simply not a particularly effective use of the ability against most races.
So that's my argument for dropping the cost of burrow.
I don't know how I missed this before.
I'm sorry, but it looks like here, you're advocating researching an even more expensive ability than burrow, then loading up gas-heavy units into fragile air units and flying them into the middle of marine balls. If this is your argument against burrow, then I'd hate to have you be my attorney in court.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Nobody can be this stupid.
|
Yeah, but you can't move your opponent's scv line into your burrowed banelings, you can drop banelings into the scv line though.
|
I you are going to change burrow, make it more expensive and more useful, not cheaper.
SC2 will not be benefited by having lots of extremely cheap upgrades that everyone gets, because that reduces strategic variation. If everyone researches burrow immediately after getting lair, what's the point in making it an upgrade? You might as well just include it with the lair.
Warpgates are a problem in this regard. Everyone will research it as soon as their cybercore finishes, because it is so cheap. Right now the only reason it exists is to delay when protoss gets warpgates rather than introduce strategic variation to the game... it would be practically identical if you just added a rule to the game which enabled warpgates 2 minutes after the core finished.
Think about goon range in scbw. Yes, it was gotten almost every game, but it was expensive. It was worth not upgrading sometimes to get resources to execute some other strategy quickly. See, here's the thing with the costs of choices: things like warpgates that are cheap but take a long time to research don't have strategic tension with anything else besides the building they're occupying (so, you'd sacrifice warpgates to research hallu, for instance). Things which are expensive in terms of resources have strategic tension with every other fucking option. You need to give up eco, or units, or other tech to do it, and take a risk in that regard.
That's not to say that time-based penalties aren't useful. The long time for weap/armor upgrades made for a good balance in scbw (but then again, this is mostly because the long time forced you to spend the $ for starting upgrades early, when it was hard to afford). But the trend for really cheap tech paths in sc2 is problematic, in my view. Warpgates are too critical to balance to change at this point, and I think concussive shells might be as well. But I hope the balancers at blizzard done go further down this path.
Look, it the "value" of an upgrade is truly only 50/50, then it doesn't belong in the game. Is it seriously the extra 50/50 that is causing you to not use the ability to save your drones from harassment, plant baneling mines, move infestors under armies to get at the thor/colossi, move under forcefields, or have cloaked scouts? No, of course not. It is instead your inability to use burrow to make a meaningful difference in the game. Maybe burrow needs to be improved; maybe you need to learn to use it better. But the problem is certainly not the cost.
|
On April 26 2010 15:44 Spaceninja wrote:
The only time I ever use borrow is for baneling traps. I don't think its the price thats the issue but them limited use of it.
"Limited use"? Well Zerg are complaining about not having many options and this skill gives one to them. You can sneak in a few Roaches and kill the worker if the opponent doesnt bother with detection and this could give you an advantage. Do we see Zerg ever do it? No, because they dont like sneaky stuff and only have a mind for masses of units and big straight up battles. Not every Platinum player gets detection, especially many Terrans. They are relying on scans to skip Ravens and Turrets to get more Marauders out and you can sneak into their base often enough. Protoss rely on their Observers for detection instead of investing in cannons and Observers arent everywhere, so getting into the bases should be doable. No Protoss gets a guarantee that his DTs will kill more than their cost, but they still get them every once in a while. It would be a nice change of pace to see Zerg starting to harrass with something a little more sneaky than an onrushing horde of Speedlings.
|
On April 26 2010 20:23 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 15:44 Spaceninja wrote:
The only time I ever use borrow is for baneling traps. I don't think its the price thats the issue but them limited use of it. "Limited use"? Well Zerg are complaining about not having many options and this skill gives one to them. You can sneak in a few Roaches and kill the worker if the opponent doesnt bother with detection and this could give you an advantage. Do we see Zerg ever do it? No, because they dont like sneaky stuff and only have a mind for masses of units and big straight up battles. Not every Platinum player gets detection, especially many Terrans. They are relying on scans to skip Ravens and Turrets to get more Marauders out and you can sneak into their base often enough. Protoss rely on their Observers for detection instead of investing in cannons and Observers arent everywhere, so getting into the bases should be doable. No Protoss gets a guarantee that his DTs will kill more than their cost, but they still get them every once in a while. It would be a nice change of pace to see Zerg starting to harrass with something a little more sneaky than an onrushing horde of Speedlings.
"Sneaking in Roaches" is an all in.. You waste basically 250-200 on the tech and alot of time.
It was tested alot at the start of the beta when roaches were much much stronger and its very easy to counter if your oponent just suspects something. Now that roaches are worse its just logical that its not such a good strat.
Good protoss will go robo bay in 80% of the games and will have an observer anyways observers will run with the army. Good protoss will never be suprised of burrowed roaches if they have an observer.
Good terrans will build at least one rocket tower at the choke once Zerg techs to t2 with roaches out.
Speedling harrase is very cost efficient, roach burrow ai isnt. You have to kill alot of worker and get out alive to make it even money.
|
I only get burrow in a couple cases.
For roach vs roach, you'll want burrow.
But is it worth is vs other races?
Make sure your consideration is thorough.
I think it's useful for a scouting ling.
You can monitor when they take their second base.
Or use burrow to block it to be annoying.
That'll put a big grin on your face.
As for roach/infestor burrow move attacks,
It can sometimes outright win you games.
If he knows you have burrow, he can't relax,
Or you'll be kicking ass and taking names.
But is 100 way too expensive?
That's what it costed in Brood War.
It gives you another tool to be offensive,
And I wouldn't want it costing less or more.
|
I like how people write this thread off as pointless complaining on the Zerg's part. Yet we have a full running thread on giving SCVs some health back.
I'm not gonna argue on either point here, but I think a large factor such as burrow is much more worthy to talk about balance than some measly 5 HP that people want given to their SCVs. That said I don't really upgrade burrow until mid-late game either. I'll try using it much earlier and see if its economically viable, not sure.
|
i see burrow as more of a complimentary upgrade. not a necessity. "it would be nice to have my units able to burrow"
after you spend your gas on midgame: tech buildings, army, hatches running, upgrades... then with excess money (your income should be flowing, cost of burrow shouldn't be a problem anymore) do i get the upgrade.
unless you have a build order/strat that involves direct use of burrow in midgame, you don't need to upgrade it early on (where money/cost is an issue)
|
The reason I would like it costing 50/50 like warpgate is to encourage Zerg to use burrow(a race defining feature) earlier into the game. Or perhaps keep it 100 but let it not require lair. Getting burrow when I already have obs everywhere just isn't worth 100
|
On April 26 2010 17:19 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 06:57 NicolBolas wrote:
3: Better alternatives to Burrow.
Overlord drops can do much of what burrow can. They can drop units into the middle of the enemy ball. If an army composition is susceptible to Banelings, Overlords are going to be more effective at delivering Banelings on target than burrow is.
Yes, drop costs 250/250. Yes, it endangers the Zerg's food. But it is far more effective, because it is far harder to stop. And it can do far more than burrow.
You can't set Overlord traps, this is true. But burrow traps are simply not a particularly effective use of the ability against most races.
So that's my argument for dropping the cost of burrow. I don't know how I missed this before. I'm sorry, but it looks like here, you're advocating researching an even more expensive ability than burrow, then loading up gas-heavy units into fragile air units and flying them into the middle of marine balls. If this is your argument against burrow, then I'd hate to have you be my attorney in court. Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Nobody can be this stupid.
My point is that Overlord drops are more versatile. You can do most of the stuff you can do with burrow, while still being able to do much more.
And no, I don't advocate loading up on Banelings and flying them into Marines. But that'd be a lot more effective than burrowing those Banelings. Burrowed Banelings only works once; then they get detection and your 100/100 is useless. You can always add some empty Overlords as decoys, to throw the enemy off.
Also, Terrans don't use Marine balls against Zerg, precisely because of Banelings. They tend towards Marauders with a few Marines to deal with air.
|
Keeping it at Lair tech and reducing it to 50/50 would provide more incentive to use it without making it too strong. People who are against it overestimate how useful burrow is. It CAN be useful, but requires extra effort and attention for something that isn't guaranteed and may actually hurt your overall play with too much focus. Reducing it to 50/50 would not affect balance noticeably but would provide zergs the incentive to use it more.
|
I will start off by saying that I am a gold level Terran player. I have played Zerg probably a couple dozen times in SC2 and fairly extensively in SC1. I have read every comment in this thread so far and would like to offer my opinion.
First off, when discussing any ability or any unit or any mechanic in the game it is vitally important that you consider the effects which will ripple throughout the game. Burrow is a game changing mechanic. Once a Zerg player brings Burrow to the table, their opponent is forced to spend resources to counter it. (You should also note that using the argument "I shouldn't do X because they can just counter it with Y" reveals an extreme narrow-mindedness, as "Why build an army at all when they can just counter it with their army" becomes a valid argument). Even if you never use Burrow extensively in combat, simply revealing it to your opponent will result in a noticeable change in their resource allocation.
Secondly, if players are not using Burrow extensively right now (and let's face it, they aren't) then give it time, some creative player will make a name for themselves using it eventually. I will admit that this is speculation and may never come true but that doesn't mean a mechanic should be overhauled or have its price altered.
Thirdly, regarding the mechanic as a whole, there are a myriad of uses for the ability which many players simply do not incorporate into their style of play. If you "force" it into your build order then you will eventually come up with new uses for it and you will be that much better of a player for it even if you decide to discontinue using it post-experiment.
Lastly, if the 100/100 cost of Burrow is so extremely pricey that you find it impossible to afford because you would lose the game by not getting out that additional Mutalisk or what have you (and not because you simply made the conscious decision to not research it) then the problem lies not with the mechanic, but with the race as a whole.
As a student in Game Development there is much more I would like to say on the matter but I do not have time (nor do I expect you to have the time to read it all) to write it all out here.
|
burrow is pretty much useless atm :\
|
On April 27 2010 05:03 NicolBolas wrote:
My point is that Overlord drops are more versatile. You can do most of the stuff you can do with burrow, while still being able to do much more.
I suppose it's possible to lose 8 banelings at once with an overlord drop. It's really tough to do that with burrow, so I guess you have a point.
On April 27 2010 05:03 NicolBolas wrote:
And no, I don't advocate loading up on Banelings and flying them into Marines. But that'd be a lot more effective than burrowing those Banelings. Burrowed Banelings only works once; then they get detection and your 100/100 is useless. You can always add some empty Overlords as decoys, to throw the enemy off.
Burrowed banelings may work once, but flying overlords into globs of marines works never.
And if you have the cash to buy overlords and suicide them en masse into the enemy army in hopes that they don't shoot down the one with stuff in it, you're not allowed not allowed to complain about the cost. Of anything. Ever. Especially not something that's a one-time investment equal in mineral costs to one of those overlords you're so loose with.
On April 27 2010 05:03 NicolBolas wrote:
Also, Terrans don't use Marine balls against Zerg, precisely because of Banelings. They tend towards Marauders with a few Marines to deal with air.
lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
