Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Why? vultures, goliaths, wraiths, dragoons, etc.. were also basic units. but they had it removed.
No, they're not. They're common units, but that's different from what we're talking about here.
As I pointed out earlier, the Zerg have 2 kinds of units: all-purpose units that form the backbone of any army, and support units. The 3 all-purpose units (Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks) are effectively fixed. The Zerg need some kind of spammable melee unit. The Zerg need some kind of spammable ranged ground unit. And the Zerg need some kind of spammable general-purpose air unit.
All other Zerg units are situational. They are used as needed, and they are used to support the other units that do the real damage.
This is the essence of SC1's Zerg unit structure. If you want to change that, fine. But then they're not the Zerg anymore. It's like if you got rid of Larva-based production and instead gave them buildings. They wouldn't be the Zerg.
A sequel has to at least pay some tribute to the previous versions. You can't just go and change everything but a couple of models, slap the same names on it, and call it a sequel.
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
They may have no cliff-walking units, but they do have units that move while burrowed. That's completely unique. Did you consider that?
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Or even better they could make the moving burrowed units be able to cliffwalk.
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Or even better they could make the moving burrowed units be able to cliffwalk.
If the Roach is supposed to be a tank, what good is cliff climbing?
This would be fine for Infestors, though. Might be something you make an upgrade.
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Why? vultures, goliaths, wraiths, dragoons, etc.. were also basic units. but they had it removed.
Out of all of those, the Dragoon is the same kind of unit as the Hydralisk/Zergling/Mutalisk/Ultralisk. While the Vulture, Wraith, Goliath... all (multi-purpose) specialists. The Dragoon filled too large a role, so they split it in half. Into slow sturdy meat-shield (Immortal) and agile high-damaging ranged DPS. (Stalker) But filling a large role is the whole point to the Zerg. You have units which do okay damage for their cost and have okay health for their cost. Most of them move pretty quickly (especially after upgrades), but aren't anymore mobile than their counterparts in the Protoss/Terran. But they're intentional mush. That's why they build so many fewer units than the Protoss and Terrans.
Quote:
The replacements would basically have to just be the exact same unit as it's replacing? Clearly you want the same zerg play style from sc1 in sc2. Vulture, dragoons, etc were effective in sc1 just as any of the 6 zerg units said, and yet they got axed.
4. 4 Zerg units. I'm not talking about the Lurker or Brood Lord, they were free to change those. And Vultures might have been as effective as the Ling/Lisk/Lisk/Lisk but they weren't core. There were CLEARLY other ways of doing the anti-light unit (as Blizzard has proven) and like the Dragoon it was a unit that was clearly too versatile for it's role. The Hellion is a better anti-light unit, and it can still serve as a harassment unit, but it doesn't work as a terrain-control unit. Same with the Dragoon, the Stalker is basically a Dragoon with the blink ability and (somewhat) worse stats. New name and model maybe, (for the better in this case I believe) but it's still essentially a more specialized Dragoon.
But how do you change a basic ranged unit? A basic melee unit? A basic tanking unit? A basic flying unit? There was nothing remarkable about any of these units that was torn in both ways. You can change their abilities around slightly, maybe up their stats, but they're still going to be the same unit pretty much (even more alike from SC1 than the Stalker from the Dragoon, because Zerg combat units don't get active abilities).
Quote:
Very essence of the zerg? since when? imo since starcraft 1, blizzard can easily make NEW zerg "essence" units for sc2 if they wanted to and you will easily forget most of those sc1 zerg units such as the guardian, hydralisk , etc.
They could, but they wouldn't be any different. There's only so much you can do with passive abilities. Do you think charge changes the zealot THAT much? It makes it more exciting, makes it better at what it was already meant to do, but that's it, the units' use has not changed. That's the BIGGEST change they could give to the Zerg four. Outside of maybe a new evolution (Which I actually think they could have done for the Brood Lord at least. Maybe give the Lurker a new attack method) and maybe a fairly simple new passive ability. (Like the Ultralisk's cleaving attack)
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aldrius
But how do you change a basic ranged unit? A basic melee unit? A basic tanking unit? A basic flying unit? There was nothing remarkable about any of these units that was torn in both ways. You can change their abilities around slightly, maybe up their stats, but they're still going to be the same unit pretty much (even more alike from SC1 than the Stalker from the Dragoon, because Zerg combat units don't get active abilities).
Like maybe make a new zerg unit that fits the role of a nerf or buff up hydralisk in sc2 since i assume they will not get the same role and stat just like in sc1 which if yes will make the problem worst. an all purpose unit that is 10 years old, now you will play them for another 10 years. wow. No wonder the dragoon was removed.
They could, but they wouldn't be any different. There's only so much you can do with passive abilities. Do you think charge changes the zealot THAT much? It makes it more exciting, makes it better at what it was already meant to do, but that's it, the units' use has not changed. That's the BIGGEST change they could give to the Zerg four. Outside of maybe a new evolution (Which I actually think they could have done for the Brood Lord at least. Maybe give the Lurker a new attack method) and maybe a fairly simple new passive ability. (Like the Ultralisk's cleaving attack)
FOr example if they are planning to make the hydralisk now more stronger again air units and vulnerable against ground for balance, then why not just invent a so called hydralisk evolution with a completely new look and name to make it look exciting and more fun. This is not like the broodlord=guardian since this new unit (hydra replacement) is meant for ATG, with a look that it could actually take down air units.
Thor is nothing like the old goliath. From the name itself, look, some functions, and stats. This could easily be well done with the ultralisk, now with splash damage. Make a giant turtle or crab like zerg and call it omega lisk with spash damage and shoots acidic bomb close up on buildings (any as long as something different from the head butt attack). there. more new exciting and fun zerg feel in sc2.
and zealot is fine, hey are just like zerglings, not an all around unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
No, they're not. They're common units, but that's different from what we're talking about here.
As I pointed out earlier, the Zerg have 2 kinds of units: all-purpose units that form the backbone of any army, and support units. The 3 all-purpose units (Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks) are effectively fixed. The Zerg need some kind of spammable melee unit. The Zerg need some kind of spammable ranged ground unit. And the Zerg need some kind of spammable general-purpose air unit.
All other Zerg units are situational. They are used as needed, and they are used to support the other units that do the real damage.
This is the essence of SC1's Zerg unit structure. If you want to change that, fine. But then they're not the Zerg anymore. It's like if you got rid of Larva-based production and instead gave them buildings. They wouldn't be the Zerg.
A sequel has to at least pay some tribute to the previous versions. You can't just go and change everything but a couple of models, slap the same names on it, and call it a sequel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
No, they're not. They're common units, but that's different from what we're talking about here.
As I pointed out earlier, the Zerg have 2 kinds of units: all-purpose units that form the backbone of any army, and support units. The 3 all-purpose units (Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks) are effectively fixed. The Zerg need some kind of spammable melee unit. The Zerg need some kind of spammable ranged ground unit. And the Zerg need some kind of spammable general-purpose air unit.
All other Zerg units are situational. They are used as needed, and they are used to support the other units that do the real damage.
This is the essence of SC1's Zerg unit structure. If you want to change that, fine. But then they're not the Zerg anymore. It's like if you got rid of Larva-based production and instead gave them buildings. They wouldn't be the Zerg.
A sequel has to at least pay some tribute to the previous versions. You can't just go and change everything but a couple of models, slap the same names on it, and call it a sequel.
Common units? how about the goliath? dragoon? they are both just like hydralisk goliath shoots air and ground units as well.
so it is ok for you if any any of the these 3 units lurker, guardian, and ultralisk get axe. ok, great. But i prefer to remove just one among the 3, and completely change either the hydralisk and mutualisk.
the problem which makes the zerg less exciting is the two essence backbone multipurpose units of the zerg, the hydralisk and mutualisk. The dragoon was removed for obvious reason, hydralisk is just like a dragoon, while mutualisk are actually like flying dragoons. They are very effective in ANY battle which is good but problem is they have the same role in sc2.
Hydralisk and mutualisk are just like the protoss stalker, an all around unit, but problem is they are both 10 YEARS OLD and you get to play them almost all the time again in battle (since their "core" just like they were in sc1) if your zerg in sc2. I don't see that a good thing.
Hell a new zerg unit like maybe an evolution of the hydralisk with a new name, which looks like it can actually shoot and strong against air units will be easily a new essence of zerg or will still be a "zerg" in sc2 and is more exciting.
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
If any race in SC could have scrapped all its units and replaced them, its the Zerg. Thats the nature of their evolution. Seeing them have the highest amount of returning unit has been a personal insult to me from the get-go.
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
if they are planning to make the hydralisk now more stronger again air units and vulnerable against ground for balance, then why not just invent a so called hydralisk evolution with a completely new look and name to make it look exciting and more fun.
Because a unit that mutates from something else is very different from a regular Larva-produced unit. Production of evolved units require more time than the production of regular units. It lowers production flexibility, since you have to have one, then the other. And you have to do research or build a new building to get them.
Quote:
Common units? how about the goliath? dragoon? they are both just like hydralisk goliath shoots air and ground units as well.
You quoted me twice yet didn't read it once. I spelled out very clearly how the Zerg unit structure works. The Terran and Protoss unit structure doesn't rely on this; they do things differently.
The point is that it's not about how "common" a unit might be; it's how the race uses those units.
Quote:
so it is ok for you if any any of the these 3 units lurker, guardian, and ultralisk get axe.
Well, the Ultralisk should stay because it's awesome (and burrowing Ultralisks is pretty cool too). But the others? They obviously fulfill some need, so whatever replaces them should fill that need.
Quote:
problem is they are both 10 YEARS OLD and you get to play them almost all the time again in battle (since their "core" just like they were in sc1) if your zerg in sc2. I don't see that a good thing.
I keep hearing this about how Mutas and Hydras are seen in every game, but I don't see it. Hydras don't even show up in 1/3rd of all Zerg matches (ZvZ). While Hydras are a common anti-Protoss weapon, they're only useful vs. Terran if they're going Mech. Hydras only show up there because they're needed for Lurkers. And while Mutas are a stable of ZvZ, they see limited use vs Protoss (Scourge being the main reason why you throw down a Spire).
Is it likely that you'll see Hydras or Mutas in every match? Somewhat. But I don't see how that's a problem.
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
FOr example if they are planning to make the hydralisk now more stronger again air units and vulnerable against ground for balance, then why not just invent a so called hydralisk evolution with a completely new look and name to make it look exciting and more fun. This is not like the broodlord=guardian since this new unit (hydra replacement) is meant for ATG, with a look that it could actually take down air units.
Well. It's not a bad idea. It's just a bit unnecessary. I don't really like units that are dedicated GTA personally. (Thor is sort of unnecessary as far as I'm concerned, though an interesting enough idea.)
It's really the existing units that need work rather than needing anything new just for the sake of adding something new. I just don't think something as radical as making it a cliffwalker is the solution to improve the Hydralisk and Lurker.
Quote:
Thor is nothing like the old goliath. From the name itself, look, some functions, and stats. This could easily be well done with the ultralisk, now with splash damage. Make a giant turtle or crab like zerg and call it omega lisk with spash damage and shoots acidic bomb close up on buildings (any as long as something different from the head butt attack). there. more new exciting and fun zerg feel in sc2.
That's what I mean by the units that are being replaced having to basically be the unit it's replacing. What you're suggesting here is BASICALLY the Ultralisk with different art. There's no point in replacing the Ultralisk if you're just giving it new art. That's how we end up with silliness like the Brood Lord. Yeah, the Brood Lord is a 'new unit!!'.
Quote:
and zealot is fine, hey are just like zerglings, not an all around unit.
That wasn't my point in bringing up the zealot. My point is the zealot is a unit that was brought from SC1 to SC2 successfully. Making it feel new and exciting without changing it a lick practically.
It's something they haven't done with the Hydralisk/Mutalisk/Lurker but have done with the Ultralisk/Zergling/Brood Lord. Making an old unit feel brand new. So the answer is simple, improve the Hydralisk, Mutalisk and Lurker until they feel as new and interesting as the Zealot and Ultralisk do.
Quote:
If any race in SC could have scrapped all its units and replaced them, its the Zerg. Thats the nature of their evolution. Seeing them have the highest amount of returning unit has been a personal insult to me from the get-go.
Eh. If anything I'd say just the reverse. Zerg don't 'scrap' biological data, they just add to it. Now why they'd lose the Defiler and Scourge, I'm not sure! But oh well whatever. (Note I'm not asking them to bring back the Defiler and Scourge.)
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
If any race in SC could have scrapped all its units and replaced them, its the Zerg. Thats the nature of their evolution. Seeing them have the highest amount of returning unit has been a personal insult to me from the get-go.
Absolutely, I can’t believe it. Zergling, hydralisk, mutualisk, ultralisk, guardian (broodlord), and lurker all over again! Wow. What so special and exciting about these units in sc2 if you can actually invent potentially new iconic zerg units.
Most who want the old zerg back basically just care all about the gameplay effectiveness of the old zerg and they want it to bring it back in sc2. Why not move on? The terran and toss are different now with most of their core attack units.
Don’t be afraid, blizzard is so good that they can make new potential zerg attack units as balance and effective as the old zerg. Trust me, take a risk and sc2 zerg will be more fun and exciting unlike the current zerg setup now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
Because a unit that mutates from something else is very different from a regular Larva-produced unit. Production of evolved units require more time than the production of regular units. It lowers production flexibility, since you have to have one, then the other. And you have to do research or build a new building to get them.
You quoted me twice yet didn't read it once. I spelled out very clearly how the Zerg unit structure works. The Terran and Protoss unit structure doesn't rely on this; they do things differently.
The point is that it's not about how "common" a unit might be; it's how the race uses those units.
Well, the Ultralisk should stay because it's awesome (and burrowing Ultralisks is pretty cool too). But the others? They obviously fulfill some need, so whatever replaces them should fill that need.
I keep hearing this about how Mutas and Hydras are seen in every game, but I don't see it. Hydras don't even show up in 1/3rd of all Zerg matches (ZvZ). While Hydras are a common anti-Protoss weapon, they're only useful vs. Terran if they're going Mech. Hydras only show up there because they're needed for Lurkers. And while Mutas are a stable of ZvZ, they see limited use vs Protoss (Scourge being the main reason why you throw down a Spire).
Is it likely that you'll see Hydras or Mutas in every match? Somewhat. But I don't see how that's a problem.
I didn’t mean it that way. What I meant was lorewise, the hydras are now obsolete and they evolved into zerg mantalisk which are very effective against air units in sc2. Yes something like that. New unit, new stat, new role, new feel, new iconic zerg attack unit.
Well, i believe new zerg units could easily fit in any zerg mechanics if only blizzard didn’t care much with most of the returning 6 attack units and actually replace them.
The problem it gets tiring to used them all over again. Why not you? Do you really think zerg will become weak if any of these units mention get replaced by new ones. I doubt it, I believe blizzard balancing principles and every new zerg units and mechanics will be 99% perfect before release.
The point is im open and more excited if the zerg actually gets more new units with new mechanics while removing most of the old ones just like the toss and terran turned into in sc2. Don’t you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aldrius
Well. It's not a bad idea. It's just a bit unnecessary. I don't really like units that are dedicated GTA personally. (Thor is sort of unnecessary as far as I'm concerned, though an interesting enough idea.)
It's really the existing units that need work rather than needing anything new just for the sake of adding something new. I just don't think something as radical as making it a cliffwalker is the solution to improve the Hydralisk and Lurker.
That's what I mean by the units that are being replaced having to basically be the unit it's replacing. What you're suggesting here is BASICALLY the Ultralisk with different art. There's no point in replacing the Ultralisk if you're just giving it new art. That's how we end up with silliness like the Brood Lord. Yeah, the Brood Lord is a 'new unit!!'.
That wasn't my point in bringing up the zealot. My point is the zealot is a unit that was brought from SC1 to SC2 successfully. Making it feel new and exciting without changing it a lick practically.
It's something they haven't done with the Hydralisk/Mutalisk/Lurker but have done with the Ultralisk/Zergling/Brood Lord. Making an old unit feel brand new. So the answer is simple, improve the Hydralisk, Mutalisk and Lurker until they feel as new and interesting as the Zealot and Ultralisk do.
Eh. If anything I'd say just the reverse. Zerg don't 'scrap' biological data, they just add to it. Now why they'd lose the Defiler and Scourge, I'm not sure! But oh well whatever. (Note I'm not asking them to bring back the Defiler and Scourge.)
It was an example, from what I know hydralisk main role now is GTA. So I was saying remove the hydralisk model and make a new one for its role (zerg new GTA unit that is weak with GTG just like hydralisk now) just for the sake of having another new unit which makes the zerg in sc2 +1 newer, more fun and exciting. You actually get to use a new unit with an awesome model rather than using the hydralisk all over again. Theres nothing to lose going this way than keeping it the same makes the zerg feels boring and the same as before unlike the new terran and toss.
The thor is kinda the new goliath with a twist. Well the thor indeed feels like a new unit and not a goliath improvement. Now if a giant crab like monster is too replace the ultralisk with splash and crashing head attack on buildings is obviously have a new feel as well. Just like my idea for the hydralisk replacement.
Also the Wraith are gone, but the banshee (obviously is also a new unit) have almost similar role with the wraith (cloak and ATG attack).
Now why can’t the ultralisk or hydralisk get the same changing process? Its not pointless as it actually introduced a new unit and a new fresher feel for the zerg in sc2.
Broodlord is just like a guardian as it is also a Zerg heavy tier ATG siege flyer no matter the look.
So you may say how about the giant crab ain’t it a tank just like the ultralisk? This is where another change will take place again, maybe make the giant crab have fewer health but with splash and bonus building damage. Now you can choose between these two behemoths in battle. This is just an example by the way on how new units that will be introduced will drastically change the current zerg tech and mechanics and im open for it than stick with the current one which is very similar to sc1 zerg.
