|
Post #23 is Really the Sum Up of this Blog
Some people say that starcraft is a game of rock paper scissors
I say that zerg IS the race of rock paper scissors (Zerg is the Zen of the Trinity)
There is and has always been this assumption that the game of starcraft starts out equal, but how difficult of an achievement is this when the game practically follows a golden ratio design philosophy where 1 race(protoss) is 50% different then another race(terran) and then the 3rd race(zerg) is 100% different from the other two.
The fact that all 3 races start out equally in terms of values might seem balanced but the reality is most likely that it is not and that the race which is 100% different is being FORCED to be like the other two in a despicable kind of discrimination. In the forcing of starting out with the same value(400) as the other two races, it caused an imbalance of concept (start with a supply structure/unit, overlord)
Imagine if you staggered the values at the start instead of the concept....
Zerg Start with 2 Hatcheries (1 at two different expo) and no Overlord = 600
Terran - Command Center and Supply Depot = 500
Protoss - Nexus and Pylon = 500
The problem here is that zerg would only start with 4 supply (2 per each hatchery)
But this would be an opportunity to investigate also the proportioning of supply between hatcheries and overlords. Let's say that each overlord were to yield 6 supply instead of 8 and each hatchery were to yield 3 supply instead of 2. All this would do is stagger the supply between overlord and depot/pylon, once again showing a difference of value, but maybe it is this difference of value that has the potential to truly establish the balance of concept. So zerg would be leaning toward the production of more hatcheries and not overlords. Sounds legit... why is zerg leaning toward the production of a supply UNITS only to represent an offensive aggression that they don't really have and negating the production of additional hatchery which would be part of their play-style philosophy?
So now we actually have something... a zerg that starts with 2 hatchery and 6 supply(600) and a protoss and terran that start with their main + supply structure(500).
But this could actually really mess up the meta... because where are the locations of the starting supply depot and pylon going to be?
Since it is complete insanity to start them off anywhere out of the player's choice, then the starting supply depot and pylon are going to start out in reserve stock to be placed anywhere and immediately completed upon placement.
With this said, imagine how quickly a protoss player could rush a zerg that starts out with 2 hatcheries and no overlord, even if the zerg were to start with 6 supply.
This would then lead to the idea that zerg is actually a tri-optioned race from the start and the 3 different starts that zerg could choose from would be the following....
1. Two hatchery no overlord (600)
2. Hatchery spawning pool no overlord (500)
3. Hatchery two overlord (500)
(opponent not knowing which the zerg has chosen)
This would help to prevent cheese rushing, but I'm still wondering if the game would already be balanced with a zerg that starts out with two hatchery bases and no overlords with hatcheries yielding 3 supply each and overlords yielding 6 supply each and protoss and terran starting out with a reserve stock pylon or supply depot that can be immediately completed by probe or scv by mere placement.
The question would be... does zerg still have a tri-direction of options or do they not? for the sake of keeping the game what it is and has always been....
It is between the two hatchery standard start, or the tri-option start that is the real controversy of zerg and the real controversy of starcraft.
|
Hook me up with your dealer fam, it's good shit he sells you
|
|
|
Typical mech balance thread.
|
Canada8989 Posts
That one should be put in the balance thread all of fame
|
Also continued investigation in to 75 mineral, 150 life overlords that hold 6 supply...
If they are slower then the other race's dropping units, then why don't they just have a speed upgrade only...
Carrying capacity is already there due to the fact that it only holds 6 supply instead of 8 and only has 150 life
PRODUCED FROM PRODUCTION SENSITIVE LARVA
The key here is how and where you put in the speed upgrade....
Just put the speed upgrade in exclusively to each overlord for like 25 gas cost... since the other races have to pay gas for their dropping mechanic....
The probe and the queen have a relationship, they are both macro units. Out of the spirit of macro unit design, the probe can now stream a ground to air attack at long range (similar to how the queen has a short range ground and long range air attack)
The ground to air attack is unlocked by the forge across all probes.
Now protoss can still fast expand with the option of stopping an overlord by-pass, and the overlord would have less life as it is, making it more difficult anyways....
For the record, I've always thought that the scv should be able to quickly turn in to and out of a stationary missile turret in mech fashion, which could be a cost and salvage like the bunker...
The point is, terran have a-typical defense, and should have a-typical defense entirely....
The terran that mines out an entire expansion and moves his cc in to a new expansion spot and does the same thing with his scv/turrets
A powerful concept that needs completion
|
Came in here wanting to be on your side, left asking myself what the f-ck is this kid talking about
|
Holy mother of Adun, what did I just read?
It's an ... interesting concept to be sure, but I think such drastical changes might be too much for most of the playerbase. 
|
Just trying to tie the original post in with the thematic utility tools concept as previously talked about...
Terran have always had their thematic utility tool, the bunker, and the missile turret fits in with it but the turret cannot be salvaged for reason. Considering that zerg could potentially be threats to primary bases I'm looking at both the thematic utility tool concept. An scv that can transform in to and out of a ground to ground missile turret for a cost and time that can be salvaged when it goes back in to scv form.
This is just for the sake of adding something to the protection of primary bases
Terran have always had the thematic utility tools that represent "positional ability"
Protoss used to be "aggressive quality" in sc1 due to the fact that shield batteries could be used offensively and shields regenerated faster then zerg life.... shields are an additional layer of upgradable armor hence establishing the concept of "aggressive QUALITY"
The problem is that the shield battery should have been replaced with a shield restoring mobile building since they took the medic out... if pylons could be upgraded to a pylon battery which allows mobile shield battery units to be warped in by probes to pylon radius only, then the re-storing of pylons to be re-placed again at home, would not be over powered due to the fact that you have to have pylon radius to make buildings.
Protoss lost its thematic utility tool going in to sc2
Zerg's thematic utility tool would have been a unit that cannot attack but when loses life it releases a corresponding amount of broodlings that eventually die out.... could be made with spawning pool tech.
Strategies such as attacking the unit with your own units is the point.
It would have covered zerg's missing dimension of production if a rule could be in place that you cannot have more then 1 larve mutating in to one of these units at a time per hatchery.
Reactive quantity might be the idea that you can only have 1 of these units per queen that you have, hence fulfilling the concept of a "delayed reactive quantity"
They could detonate from underground in a self destruction sense after a period of time in order to keep the opponent moving out on the field, not necessarily swarm enemy armies in battle advantages.
Just tying the original post in to a full completion of what would both be balanced AND better....
If the life pool of this unit was tied with so many drone life pools, then the unit could have immediate detonation capability and be recognized as a hostile target immediately, if not then it would have to have a delay to its detonation from under ground and not automatically be recognized as a hostile target.
I take back the pylon to battery upgrade, rather a nexus to a nexus battery of some kind...
|
Why don't you make your own RTS, or at the very least a UMS, so that you're not held down by all of these silly things that Blizzard put into their imbalanced game? Sounds like you have plenty of ideas about how things "should" work.
|
Still more coherent than Jordan Peterson.
|
Whoa... whoa whoa..... hold on a minute....
Let's say we don't stagger the values at the start but instead we FLIP the concepts....
Because, let's be realistic here... a hatchery must include the drone that made it, so zerg is starting at 450 value while t and p start at 400 value.
The hatchery has been increasing the supply it holds from sc1 to sc2 from 1 to 2, so let's bump it up to 3 and reduce the overlord down to 6 supply with any other changes to the lord that might be necessary aforementioned...
If each race starts with 6 workers, then T and P would start with 6, their main building and a supply depot/pylon in stock to be immediately completely upon placement of location of choice.
Zerg would start out with 6 workers, and no hatcheries, but would have 2 hatcheries in stock to be immediately completed upon placement of choice, however, it would be implemented in to the game the immediate build of one drone in to a hatch at primary base along side the auto command of mining minerals....
Now one other hatchery is still in stock for placement, and would most likely be placed at natural expo by player choice.
Now the values line up perfectly, while the concepts have merely been inverted....
Hatchery + Hatchery + 4 workers = 800 minerals (starting with 6 total supply mind you)
Command Center + Depot + 6 workers = 800 minerals
Nexus + Pylon + 6 workers = 800 minerals
With the 3 supply hatchery and the 6 supply overlord in place,
It is going to bring up the question once again of why overlords are occupying larva with a role that is not as significant as warrior or worker, and holding capacity/vision is not going to properly justify it...
|
"Giving Zerg and Actual Philosophy while Keeping the Game Balanced"
Ok this guy can't be for real.
|
Lead designer Starcraft 3.
|
On June 04 2018 01:40 AtlasOfMeCH wrote:
Whoa... whoa whoa..... hold on a minute....
Let's say we don't stagger the values
This is the most sane thing you've said in years.
|
I have to apologize for some things said in post # 12, I had forgotten my opinion of the overlord from a long time ago... and my thoughts got away from me....
I left what I believe to be true in post 12 and took out what I believe not to be true, and I would remind and add on to what I had previously said long ago....
Continuing from the end of post 12
It is going to bring up the question once again of why overlords are occupying larva with a role that is not as significant as warrior or worker, and holding capacity/vision is not going to properly justify it...
I had forgotten my opinion of the overlord filling an "trinity extreme role changer" for occupying larva. Those roles being expressed as...
The Glass Harasser (negative armor, high speed, low damage, ranged)
The Meat Shield Exclusive (armored, good life pool, moderate speed, no attack)
The Siege Sacrificing Building Destroyer (maybe sacrificing life pool from high range to attack buildings only)
This only brings me back to my original belief that zerg is missing a thematic utility tool of reactive quantity to complete the linear productive side of their parallel production with larva that crawl back in to the hatchery and produce a unit that I called "swarm wreather" that costs around 150 minerals and has the potential of releasing 150 minerals worth of broodlings by the damage it receives. This might really make transfusion from queens quite meaningful prior to ultralisks. The swarm wreather can be attacked by its own to release the broodlings and can detonate from under ground after a period of time to release all 150 minerals worth of broodlings.
Broodlings regenerate life on creep and lose life off creep
Broodlings that expire on creep are consumed by the creep and recycled as larva output and mineral return.
Terran have the bunker (positional ability)
Protoss have the shield something... (aggressive quality)
Zerg have the swarm wreather (reactive quantity)
Reactive as it would be either unlocked by evolution chamber, or simply just hatchery....
Reactive, knowing that broodlings slowly lose life off creep....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review
All this would mean for starcraft overall is simply 3 things
1. 3 supply hatchery, 6 supply overlord, 6 worker starts, pylon, supply depot ready to be placed down from start, 2 hatchery ready to be placed down from start (no starting overlord) with the option of this auto commanding.
Note: 800 mineral equal value starts from all the races
2. The implementation of thematic utility tools for protoss once again, and for zerg for once with tweaks to perhaps each of the mechanics from the races.
Note:
Terran: Positional Ability (Bunker, Repair, Etc)
Protoss: Agressive Quality (Shield restoring unit or building)
Zerg: Reactive Quantity (Swarm Wreather unit Idea)
3. Overlords capable of filling extreme roles due to occupying larva and the fact that more overlords would be made at 6 supply, 75 minerals, 150 life pool
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all that said, I think that the investigation of drones mutating in to queens should occur, and all races actually paying for their macro mechanics since this would be paying for the macro mechanic, which would then bring the discussion of keeping macro mechanics in the game back out on to the table. But a drone mutating in to a queen makes sense when the queen can attack... natural zerg defense is a boring starcraft game.
|
So how do you account for the fact that Zerg can produce twice as many workers as the other races? Or is that a feature?
|
1 hatchery
Overlords Occupy Larva
Drones Sacrifice for buildings (permanently)
Drones Sacrifice for defense (permanently)
Make twice as many workers only to not make any warriors only to turn around and lose those workers permanently?
I'm glad that you clarified the production of more workers
By saying this you have established that the advantage would theoretically be the production of more workers, and not the mining of more resources.
Zerg are a recovery race when they have the hatcheries to do so.... such as more then one....
If they start out with two and in the hole, they can recover quick and conduct a better push out of the hole.
If there exists no recovery, then there exists no argument for a zerg strength
Their strength is found in the deficit, and this statement is an example of balance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why proportioning is so important:
2 hatchery and 2 overlords used to equal a total of 18 supply which is the same as 1 command center and 1 supply depot
Hatchery = 1, Overlord = 8
This is the proof that zerg is a half race, particularly represented by control/supply
you can't have hatcheries that yield 5 control each with overlords that yield 4 control each to reach the total of 18 because this over pushes for too much building production and not enough unit production for an aggressive game...
On the other hand you don't want too much overlord production because that would diminish the offense in a legitimate way, zerg can't just be a harassing race the whole game (by the proper re-evaluation of overlords, their capabilities, role significance for occupying larva)
The proportioning is a critical and delicate thing...
Hatcheries that yield 3 supply and Overlords that yield 6, I believe is the proper proportioning and still establishes zerg as a half race in terms of comparable structures.
If zerg is a half race then
2.5 races in starcraft
4 races in their role playing strategy game
2.5/4 = the golden ratio
There are actually 6.5 colors in the color spectrum and not 7
|
|
|
Going to move through some afterwards points real quick here...
I never bought LOTV but I see that apparently the hatchery control yield was increased to 6 up from 2.
Change history-
Hatch supply = 1 - Wrong
Hatch supply = 2 - Better but not good enough
Hatch supply = 6 - Showing us that based on the cost of the hatchery vs the command center and the nexus, the hatchery would technically need to yield 6 control but the changes to the supply of the overlord would be too dramatic to compensate for such a drastic change, however, they did it anyways.
If 6 control was always what the hatchery should have yielded based on its cost and output, then cutting the supply from 6 to 3 would call for a cost reduction. From 300 to 250 would show what the hatchery should have always cost for the following reason.... (with reconsideration of build times and larva output rates of course)
All races starting with 800 minerals worth of structures and units
2 hatcheries in the pocket, 6 starting works, 2 auto command to make a hatch at main and natural, completed upon placement.
= 800 minerals worth of structures and units (2 hatchery = 500 + 100 (drones) = 600 + 4 starting drones to mine = 800 minerals
1 nexus, 6 workers, 1 pylon in the pocket to be completed upon placement = 800 minerals
1 command center, 6 workers, 1 supply depot in the pocket to be completed upon placement = 800 minerals
With a hatchery that yields 3 control and an overlord that yields 6 control, as one would think a proper balance and proportioning would be considering the original design and intention of the original game of starcraft, then more overlord would need to be made, which would call for the re-evaluation of why overlords occupy larva, at which point, becomes fixed by the option to mutate the overlord in to any of the 3 "extreme roles" aforementioned.
1. So with the proper costs, proportioning of control, build times, and outputs etc. etc. Zerg, Terran, and Protoss can start at the proper and equal 800 mineral start.
2. The overlord can attain its original purpose for the establishment of a zerg play style philosophy with the 3 extreme role mutation options.
3. The implementation of thematic utility tools,
Protoss: Aggressive Quality
I want to review protoss' original and missing aggressive quality thematic utility tool from sc1 to sc2.
If protoss could just naturally have warp in warriors with pylons and also have the 100 mineral shield battery, and pylons could also be restored back in to the pocket as an ability (to be completed elsewhere upon placement). It should be fine with all the other changes in place and each race having their thematic utility tool.
Imagine a protoss rush, pylon proxied, by production, but the first pylon in the pocket immediately placed to make 2 gateways. A shield battery is made for 100 minerals, and 2 zealots are warped in. The zealots move in to attack the opponent's base, they lose their shields and then fall back to the shield battery.
But if the tactic needs to be abandoned then the pylon can be restored back in to storage to be immediately replaced. Psi is lost while back in storage.
It should be perfectly fine for a pylon to be held in a storage sense because you need pylons on the map to construct your buildings.... make your units, etc.
This would be the perfect example of aggressive quality achieved with the thematic utility tool. Warriors warped in, aggressively, warriors shield restored, quality (as shields represent quality as a 2nd layer of armor)
The shield battery would probably not return home with the pylon, and would most likely be lost, but that is all that would be lost, promoting the playstyle option.
Terran- Positional ability
Bunker, Scv Repair
Zerg- Reactive Quantity
The reactive part has always been tricky to grasp here but when zerg's "Other Side" of their production dimension is completed with a thematic utility tool such as a unit that costs 150 minerals, out puts as much power as 150 minerals worth of zerglings as broodlings that die off after a duration, the unit produced at hatchery, linearly, by a larva crawling back in to the hatchery to produce. Broodlings released corresponding to health lost (unit does not attack on its own)
Then yes, reactive quantity is achieved because the 150 mineral unit would still likely take as long to produce as 150 minerals worth of zerglings therefor establishing the concept of...
"Delayed Reactive Quantity"
Hence why reaction is the virtual opposition to aggression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
