The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

The foundation of this assessment is faulty. You're basically working under the belief that "for a race to be interesting, its units must be interesting."

This is easily undermined with 2 things. Zerglings are boring. They're just tiny melee units that do huge damage. Hydralisks are pretty boring too; standard ranged units with ground and air attacks. Ultralisks are just units with lots of HP. And so on. The Zerg were always the least "interesting" race, by the metric you're using. Hell, the only siege-range unit they had was a flying piece of crap called the Guardian; building those things most of the time is a waste of gas. None of these units are as nifty or cute as anything the Terrans have, with their Siege Mode and Spider Mines and Stim Paks and such.

So clearly, what made the Zerg interesting in SC1 was not the coolness of their units.

---

The foundation of your assessment is equally faulty -- you assume that if the units were not directly responsible for the race's appeal in the original game, doing nothing to update them in a sequel ten years newer is acceptable, and does not diminish our interest.

Every unit in SC1 was new. This cannot be overstated, and you must understand that we are NOT talking about the pro game here exclusively. While I believe that the Zerg lack of choice in harassment is a genuine problem for gameplay, revamping units is also necessary to make the game appeal to casual gamers and critics.

The Zerg units should wow me; it is not the Zerg racial identity that their units should be lame. The new ones are hit-and-miss. The old ones don't even try. Not the way the Zerg work, you say? And may I point you to the Roach and Baneling, which, with their Burrow micro, provide great gameplay? May I point you to the Lurker in BW (and still), which was a breath of fresh air and innovative gameplay?

May I point you to all the units that aren't this interesting? The Baneling and Roach prove that the race can be simple and bring new gameplay to the table at the same time. Cliff-walking, because of its micro-intensive potential, is the burrow-equivalent for units that don't have an activated ability, perfect for Zerg. There is absolutely no reason why 3/4 of the Zerg units cannot be as interesting on the battlefield as the Roach. I repeat, having boring units is not and should not be part of the Zerg identity. I can accept that 10 years ago it was more difficult for Blizzard to come up with gameplay for units that was both simple and involving.

This isn't ten years ago anymore. They have all the tools in the world to complete this task.

Quote:

---

The other thing that undermines your point is what actually makes the Zerg an interesting race: their mechanics. Larva production means fast tech switches. Zergling to Hydra/Lurk to Lurker/'Ling, to Ultra/'Ling. Or back and forth. Whatever. It takes nothing for the Zerg to be able to do this kind of dance.

The Zerg in SC1 lived and died by how well the player used the race's mechanics. If you could manage your larva properly, you were doing great. If you couldn't, you're dead. You're as dead as a Protoss player who can't Psi Storm, or a Terran player who can't 'Mech.

In SC2, the Zerg have many new mechanics. Spawn Larva, creep movement speed, Creep spreading + Tier 2 Nydus and so on. Hell, you could even consider having the Overlord speed + drop in one research to be a substantially new mechanic, as it allows for much faster Overlord drop tech (not having to contend with slow drops and other stupid things).

---

What's worse than your underestimating of the value of interesting and fresh gameplay, the mechanics you claim are the heart of the race are lame at best. The only thing that even REMOTELY compares to Warp-In is the Nydus Worm, and that experiment isn't doing so well these days. Last time we heard about it, it was ridiculously overpowered. This time... we don't hear about it at all. What's that say?

If the Zerg are so mechanics-focused as you suggest, they should be putting the other races to shame with their cool new mechanics. Salvage is discussed with more interest than the Nydus Worm these days, let alone any other Zerg "mechanics."

Quote:

---

Mutalisks, cost for cost, ought to be the best harassment in the game. And they're not even dedicated to that task; they have many functions that they can perform.

---

This was addressed on page 1, but you seem to have missed it. Allow me to quote my responses to the "Mutalisk problem":

Quote:

---

1. The Overlord was the ultimate detector, but Blizzard made it lose functionality because that was not good gameplay. Likewise, Medics were replaced higher in the tech tree because having something that WORKS doesn't mean it's something GOOD for the game. If the Mutalisk concept is so detrimental to the Zerg having other harassing options (something I don't believe) it may need to go the way of the Medic.

2. Having more options never hurt anyone. Except the player on the other end. Mutalisks are micro-intensive. Macro players are hard-pressed to find options for a unit that can harass successfully, and don't have as many options that are as viable as the Terrans or Protoss. This is especially counter-intuitive because the Zerg are supposed to be the macro-intensive race, and yet their harassment options are limited completely to micro-intensive stacked hit and runs. It's not a bad thing by any means to offer diversity by offering alternatives... but the Mutalisk is not an alternative. It's practically the only option.

---

Quote:

---

Siege

Siege is something the Zerg have always pretty much had to do without. In SC1, they never had any truly effective form of siege unit.

It's a racial propensity, like how Protoss units have more total Hp per unit cost than most other races. Doing away with this just weakens their niche. The Zerg should be able to deal with things that other races need Siege to deal with. Dark Swarm was the Zerg equivalent of siege.

---

Early-midgame harassment is something the Protoss have always pretty much had to do without. Except now they got the Stalker and the Disurptor, and both of those units are exciting and make Protoss gameplay more interesting. They give the player choices.

Did that addition... weaken their niche?

Did the addition of a unit that doesn't die to AoE (Roach) weaken the Zerg niche? Did the removal of easy detection (Overlord) weaken the Zerg niche?

Just because something was a racial trait the first time around doesn't mean it was so for good reason.

Quote:

---

That's exactly what the Zerg need. A cheap, ranged, massable, unit that can go anywhere. :rolleyes:

It really doesn't get more imbalanced than that. Cheap, generalist ranged (GtG and GtA), and go anywhere are three separate properties. Any unit should only ever two of them. Even the Mutalisk is fairly expensive at 100 gas.

As for Lurker cliff-climbing, especially with a move to Tier 2... seriously, do you want to give other races an actual chance at all?

---

No. What I want is for the Zerg to be able to do things that force a T or P to react dramatically, completely altering their BO... WITHOUT USING MUTAS. A Terran player sees Hydras? He should be scared, he should start getting counters, the same way a Protoss player that sees Siege Tanks starts getting Immortals.

People were scared of tier 1 spellcasters for Protoss. "There's no way to counter this this early!" And you know what? Everyone survived. Except now people see Disruptors, they get worried.

Good.

Quote:

---

Talk about a failure of imagination. Baneling Bombing runs from Overlords into your mineral patch. That's an option. And here's another: Nydus Drop.

Before you start fixing a problem, you should explore the current conditions to see if the problem actually exists.

---

You want to count Baneling Bombs from Overlords? Okay. Prepare to add Medivac Marines as harassing units for Terrans.... Medivac Marauders as harassing units for Terrans.... Matrix'ed Battlecruisers with upgrade for 8x8 attack against workers for Terrans.

This is ridiculous. I have plenty of imagination, but some units are fun to use and others are not. If you cannot tell the difference between Roach micro and Hydralisk lack thereof no amount of imagination is going to help.

Quote:

---

And, more importantly, why call it a Hydralist at all? Why not just make up a unit from scratch?

---

Why call the Ghost a Ghost? No Ghost in SC1 Nuked, let alone Sniped or EMPed. Why call the Overlord an Overlord? Overlords had detection, and didn't have creep drop. The Hydralisk is still an early-game ranged GtG/GtA unit that transforms into a mid-game AoE GtG unit. I'm pretty sure that's a lot more similar to the original than the Ghost.

And I would replace it. It's a dull, uninteresting unit, exactly like its original counterpart when it has no right being that in a game 10 years newer. I'd also replace the Mutalisk, Brood Lord, and Ultralisk (not all together, but any couple of the bunch). Blizzard isn't willing to do this. That much is obvious. Hydras are not going anywhere. It's much more productive to propose changes than it is replacements, because one has a shot of making it into the game (for good reason) and the other does not.

Quote:

---

So, the Hydralisk should be... what exactly? A GtG specialist?[/b] So what do the Zerg use for GtA now?

---

Talk about your lack of imagination. Just earlier on this page we were discussing making the Hydralisk, at least in part, a siege unit. Just give it the range, lengthen its attack cooldown, decrease its movement speed, and you've got yourself a unit that's dangerous around cliffs where it can maneuver, and like a fish out of water on flat terrain. Give it +armored and they become very good at taking out the air units that Corruptors can't -- keep in mind, we do want the Zerg to have to get Corruptors every once in a while. Hydras shouldn't be the Zerg Goliath.

That's just ONE solution. The Hydra gains a far less generic role on the ground, but maintains its unique GtA role as well. Every single thing it does can come with a price, and that's okay. The Roach can't hit air. The Lurker can't stop moving and attack that very second. It's okay for the Hydra to have a distinct disadvantage, too.

Quote:

---

Um, Nydus. You know, one of those harassment methods you're on about?

---

Nydus can't harass. It can lay siege. (and I'm not talking about siege units, I'm talking about totally overrunning an enemy base) By nature of the three-pronged assault, it must inherently be a full on assault. The Zerg are able to do damage because they attack from range, from OUTSIDE of the enemy base, and once the defenders come around to attack... they hop QUICKLY into a Nydus, hope out of another on the other end, and attack. They do this until the enemy splits up his forces to defend both at the same time, at which point the Zerg takes advantage of the fact that his force is combined and his enemy's is divided.

Any of this sound like raiding a mineral line to you?

Quote:

---

Ghosts. Tier 1. Queens. Tier 1. Hell, you can have a Queen out right when 'Lings pop. The Protoss didn't bring the first anything.

---

And what do Ghosts do in Tier 1, exactly? Snipe is no more a caster ability than the Thor's 250mm cannons... unless you wanna call that guy a caster? That leaves EMP shot. Which is useful, in Tier 1, in 1/3 of the match-ups. What a caster. ;) Definitely no difference between him and a guy that casts Hallucination and Force Field.

As for the Queen? Her abilities: Spawn Larvae (macro =! caster), Create Creep Tumor (macro =! caster), Transfusion. So she heals things.

Yes. I can definitely see where people would get confused. There is absolutely no difference between having a macro unit in tier 1, and having a battle spellcaster capable of terrain denial and manipulation on the battlefield.

Obviously you and I have very varying definitions of "spell caster," as pertains to the purposes of this discussion. The point was always that the Protoss brought the first THREATENING spellcaster to Tier 1, a spellcaster that could do things in battle that would require significant countering. Turns out that that it does require countering, but it's not the end of the world, either.

Quote:

---

Technically, the Protoss don't have a cliff-climbing unit at all. They have a teleporting unit. The difference being that, unlike Reaper cliff climbing, Blink is useful for more than going up and down cliffs.

Further, like any good mechanic, the ability to materialize is something that can be stopped. If you don't like them showing up in your base, you should invest in some anti-air to kill those pesky Warp Prisms. Whereas the only way to stop Stalkers from Blinking in is to kill their spotter (if the map requires is such that you need one).

---

(the Colossus can cliff-climb; I knew I wrote all those units out in the original post for a reason!)

So what you're trying to say is that... the Stalker's Blink is much more versatile than cliff-climb, meaning that the Stalker's Blink, available in tier 1, is much more powerful than Hydralisk cliff-walking would be.

Which is obviously the reason you said Hydralisks with cliff-climb would be terribly imbalanced earlier.

Wait, what?

And yes, your argument of pointing out that the Protoss units are even more fun to use than I suggested is greatly succeeding at showing me that Zerg units don't need to be updated at all. Hugely successful there.

Quote:

---

I'll take Nydus over cliff-climbing anything any day of the week. The Zerg are all about cool mechanics. If you don't like that, then go play Terran or something.

---

I'll make sure I go let the Lurker and Roach know that their battle-micro isn't wanted.

Quote:

---

See, that's the difference between a balanced idea (Nydus) and an imbalanced one (Hydralisk cliff-climbing). One of these can actually be fought against, has built-in strengths and weaknesses, and so forth; while the other cannot be stopped.

---

Uh, yeah. According to Dustin Browder, Nydus Worm 3-pronged assault is unstoppable.

Whereas, you know, the maneuverability a unit gains by running over cliffs is obviously so powerful that we can't have any of that in the game. So those Reapers and those Stalkers and all them flying units like Mutalisks, we're gonna have to cut 'em down to size.

Quote:

---

If you nerf the Hydralisk to the point where it's reasonable to make them cliff-climbers, you basically screw up Zerg flexibility. If they want to use an alternate route into someone's base, they have to make these crappy Climbolisks that are either expensive or weak. The only good part about them is that they can cliff climb. This is a useless unit if you're not interested in cliff climbing. That's not how the Zerg work.

---

Zerg flexibility? Um, last I checked, the Marine was more flexible than the Zergling, the Stalker was more flexible than the Hydralisk, the Banshee was more flexible than the Brood Lord, the Viking was more flexible than the Corruptor, and the Thor was more flexible than the Ultralisk.

Is the Lurker flexible? No more than the Siege Tank. Is the Roach any more flexible than the Immortal? And the Baneling is possibly the most un-flexible unit in the game.

The Zerg flexibility has absolutely nothing to do with their units being flexible, and everything with their PRODUCTION BUILDINGS being flexible. But even if, for the sake of argument, I were to grant that the Zerg units are far more flexible than their Terran and Protoss counterparts...

We already had this with the Medics. Just because that's how the game was doesn't mean that's good for the game. If the generalization of specific Zerg units is getting in the way of them acquiring interesting gameplay tactics (and yes, this is true for many, Hydralisk being foremost), then it's time we cut down on that generalization.

Alternately, simply add to it. Nothing was taken from the Battlecruiser. Nothing was taken from the Stalker. Nothing was taken from the Brood Lord (the most revamped of the non-revamped). They all gained functionality, and the price went up or down accordingly.




This is what the logic you're using boils down to: had someone come to you before the original WWI announcement and said "Dragoons get Blink," you would have said, "That's ridiculous, they become overpowered." And had that person gone on to say, "They lose some HP to compensate," you'd respond, "That's even more ridiculous, they're now useless in battle."

You won't know until it's tried. You're trying to tell me that there's something inherently flawed with the concept of a Hydralisk that can cliff-climb, as if tweaking of numbers could never solve anything, and that is beyond absurd.

i already made multiple threads about this since the zerg was revealed. the zerg in sc2 almost feels, looks, and plays like the zerg in sc1.

Seriously this is apparent. and sc1 zerg gameplay fanboys disagree easily and blizzard didn't take much risk on changing the zerg. unfortunately.

PROBLEM IS 6 CORE ZERG ATTACK UNITS FROM SC1 ARE BACK AGAIN IN SC2 with almost similar functions and role. mass hydras and mutualisk again. ATG siege with the broodlord. etc. damn

... I approve of this wall of text... with this much work, you should have sent it into the staff for editorial examination :)

I see the muta listed as a potent harasser, but i dont see it listed as an actual unit. It was counted as a unit though, but I'm wondering where you put it in the change categories.

I do agree that the zerg seem to have been made really boring.

The fun it looked like we could have with nydus worms for example in the start would have been quite enough to make zerg new and exciting without any other unit, but then they went and ruined it.

However, the hydralisk is a generalist unit because it can attack both air and ground units and has a melee/ranged attack. The archon has the same ability, therefore is a generalist unit as well. The only difference is the range they attack with, but that really doesnt matter.

I dont like the idea of a hydralisk climbing cliffs, and still today would prefer the ability to climb cliffs be given to a zergling upgrade, similar to the baneling upgrade. Bring the wings back and give it to them with cliff climbing. The zerglings would provide a much better swarm feel to coming at all angles with masses of lings, especially with the new pathing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electricmole

PROBLEM IS 6 CORE ZERG ATTACK UNITS FROM SC1 ARE BACK AGAIN IN SC2 with almost similar functions and role. mass hydras and mutualisk again. ATG siege with the broodlord. etc. damn

---

Couldn't agree more. Since the original unveiling the Zerg have been on a steady decline in terms of interesting and fun abilities, and they're getting closer and closer to the Zerg of SC1. This has been a huge disappointment with me and I'm glad this thread was created with such a thorough analysis of the underwhelming composition of the race.

We should create a thread polling SCL readers about their thoughts on the race as a whole. Not on their effectiveness, but rather how fun or interesting they feel in the transition from SC1 to SC2. I can only hope the development team is reading threads like these and is aware of the communities general disinterest of the Zerg of SC2.

Sorry guys, got to agree with Nicol on this one.

i for one would like 65% of the zerg unit line up and battle mechanics overhauled just for the sake of making them more exciting and fun in sc2. both hydralisk and mutualisk are kinda annoying (look, feel, and playstyle) now for me. ultras are awesome now with theier splash damage, but i expected a new bigger monstrosity. yeh that's right the zerg lacks new monstrosity and evolution.

keep the zergling. the small lings are fun no matter what.

i have some crazy zerg ideas but i think im gonna make a new thread for it.

the sc2 walking spore and sunken colony looks sissy as well. i think the need to look bulkier and intimidating just like in sc1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electricmole

i have some crazy zerg ideas but i think im gonna make a new thread for it.

---

Please do! I'd love to see them, and also see what other ideas people on this forum have dreamed up for the Zerg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabortast

Sorry guys, got to agree with Nicol on this one.

---

Yeah, Nicobol provided some decent reasoning. But I’d say it could be valid only about SC1 with Nydus Worm in it.

I can’t estimate how much can cliff-climbing Hydra change the gameplay in positive way (for every race), but without a doubt, the Zerg desperately needs to change in more than one way. And p.Wasted showed it clearly enough.

Quote:

---

Technically, the Protoss don't have a cliff-climbing unit at all. They have a teleporting unit. The difference being that, unlike Reaper cliff climbing, Blink is useful for more than going up and down cliffs.

---

Let the hydralisk move while burrowed. Because thats not climbing anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabortast

Sorry guys, got to agree with Nicol on this one.

---

I couldn't disagree with him more. Thankfully pure.Wasted saved me the trouble of dissecting Nicol's faulty reasoning. Another tip of my hat to you, sir!

Endless debates one way or the other will probably get us nowhere. But beta won't be here, by all accounts, for another three months. So what else is there to do?

I'll be pondering the Zerg Problem (and yes, unless you're really that blind, there really is a Zerg problem) for the next few days, see what I can come up with.

I do, however, anxiously await Nicol's rebuttal. Even if I don't agree with his previous reasoning, he at least is also looking at the issue logically.

Quote:

---

The foundation of your assessment is equally faulty -- you assume that if the units were not directly responsible for the race's appeal in the original game, doing nothing to update them in a sequel ten years newer is acceptable, and does not diminish our interest.

---

I make no such assumption. My statement and argument is that unit "interest" is not the only viable metric for race interest. Thus your claim that the Zerg are uninteresting because their units are uninteresting is incorrect.

Quote:

---

revamping units is also necessary to make the game appeal to casual gamers and critics.

---

StarCraft 2 is going to sell metric assloads even if every Critic gives it a 1.0. Appealing to critics is foolish, for any artform.

Quote:

---

it is not the Zerg racial identity that their units should be lame

---

Actually, it is. Except for Burrow and spellcasters, all Zerg units have no activated abilities. That alone makes it very difficult to make "non-lame" units. Plus there's the fact that the Zerg are typified by having large masses of units, which makes giving units strong passive powers like cliff-climbing a very bad idea.

One of those racial identities has to go before you can start making "interesting" Zerg units.

Quote:

---

Salvage is discussed with more interest than the Nydus Worm these days, let alone any other Zerg "mechanics."

---

Oh please. Everyone panned Neural Parasite until BR3 where they saw it kick ass. The fact that some people can't see the possibility in something in no way negates the value of that proposal.

Quote:

---

Obviously you and I have very varying definitions of "spell caster," as pertains to the purposes of this discussion.

---

That's because I have this silly notion that the meaning of a word should be relatively constant. And if it is to mean something different in the context of a discussion, that difference should be explained beforehand.

When you say "caster", I think, "unit that has a palette of spells it can cast with a shared pool of energy between those spells." If that's not the definition of a caster that you're going for, be upfront about it.

Quote:

---

Just earlier on this page we were discussing making the Hydralisk, at least in part, a siege unit. Just give it the range, lengthen its attack cooldown, decrease its movement speed, and you've got yourself a unit that's dangerous around cliffs where it can maneuver, and like a fish out of water on flat terrain.

---

So you want to not only make the Hydralisk a cliff climber, you want to make it a Siege-ranged cliff climber.

Balance is not a river in Egypt.

Also, exactly what is it that makes it "dangerous" around cliffs but a "fish out of water" in flat terrain? Also, if we accept that this "Cliffulisk" is what you say it is, what are Zerg supposed to do in open terrain for ranged GtG and GtA? Marines and Thors don't have any such open terrain concerns, and neither do Stalkers.

Quote:

---

By nature of the three-pronged assault, it must inherently be a full on assault. The Zerg are able to do damage because they attack from range, from OUTSIDE of the enemy base, and once the defenders come around to attack... they hop QUICKLY into a Nydus, hope out of another on the other end, and attack.

---

It takes maybe 5 seconds to throw up a Nydus. You most certainly can harass with it. What you describe is simply one method for attacking with a Nydus; it is far from the only one.

Quote:

---

So what you're trying to say is that... the Stalker's Blink is much more versatile than cliff-climb, meaning that the Stalker's Blink, available in tier 1, is much more powerful than Hydralisk cliff-walking would be.

Which is obviously the reason you said Hydralisks with cliff-climb would be terribly imbalanced earlier.

---

Yes.

How much stat tweaking do you think the Stalker has undergone? This is a low-tier unit, so it can't be too expensive. Yet in skilled hands, a group of them can be almost unkillable, cost-for-cost. Yet it still needs to be able to be useful in unskilled hands.

At BlizzCon 09, it was reported that going mass Stalkers was a viable strategy for which there was little if any counter. Admittedly a few hours of playtime with a game that's still in development doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. However, it does suggest that it's very easy to make something like a Stalker highly overpowered.

If we're quote mining from Browder, he once said he wasn't sure if the game was actually balanceable. Maybe it's because of things like the Stalker that he feels this way.

Further, there's a difference between "massable for Protoss" and "massable for Zerg". For the only race that can have more than 200 units on the field, massability is a very different thing from a race that can only field an army of, at best, 100 offensive units. Massable for Protoss means you can get them in the 20-40 range. Tier 1 massable for Zerg means swarms: 50+. Great hosts of units that assault the battlefield.

You might be able to get away with Stalkers, where there are fairly few of them. But you can't do that with the Zerg. And you certainly can't do that with Zerg-style production, where every Hatchery can start pumping "Cliffulisks" instantly.

Also, and this comes back to word definitions and such, there is a big difference between saying, "I want the Zerg to have a ranged cliff-climber" and "I want the Hydralisk to be a ranged cliff-climber." Because if you make the changes necessary to make that balanced, it isn't a Hydralisk anymore. It's a Hydralisk in Name Only.

If you don't think that Blizzard will accept your proposal that removes the Hydralisk in favor of something else, then they're probably not going to accept your proposal of making a HINO unit either. None of the other returning units with the same name have changed so drastically from their intended purpose, even if they got a different set of abilities (Ghosts in SC1 were not intended to suck; they just worked out that way in practice). Overlords are, first and foremost food. Ghosts are stealthy spellcasters.

Note that when they decided to give Dragoons Blink, they made it a different unit, with a new name and model.

Quote:

---

Zerg flexibility? Um, last I checked, the Marine was more flexible than the Zergling, the Stalker was more flexible than the Hydralisk, the Banshee was more flexible than the Brood Lord, the Viking was more flexible than the Corruptor, and the Thor was more flexible than the Ultralisk.

---

And that's why you completely fail at understanding the Zerg. The Zerg's flexibility is in combinations of units, and in the ability to switch between them with ease. Terran units have to be more flexible, with multiple roles, because their production abilities are the least flexible.

That's why your entire analysis falls apart: you're looking at one part of the whole (unit "niftiness") in isolation from the other parts. Yes, the Zerg look boring, if you ignore everything that's cool about them. If you take the whole, however, then you see that they're very improved and quite powerful.

Quote:

---

If the generalization of specific Zerg units is getting in the way of them acquiring interesting gameplay tactics (and yes, this is true for many, Hydralisk being foremost), then it's time we cut down on that generalization.

---

Then you want the Zerg to stop being Zerg.

Quote:

---

Let the hydralisk move while burrowed.

---

Hell, Roaches and Infestors can do it. They may as well make it a Tier 2 upgrade for all Zerg units: Greater Burrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Hell, Roaches and Infestors can do it. They may as well make it a Tier 2 upgrade for all Zerg units: Greater Burrow.

---

That's actually not a half-bad idea.

I'll tune in here with my own idea of what's wrong with Zerg: so little has changed, and they still have a Tier 2 problem.

There's a little thing in Balance that must be considered: if something is easier for something and harder for something else, unless it is rectified elsewhere, is an imbalance. At the moment we have a Zerg with a harder-to-survive Tier 2 than both Protoss and Terran. That means imbalance. If Zerg have a powerful Tier 3, if they never make it to Tier 3 it doesn't matter how powerful that Tier 3 ends up being.

In addition to that problem, Zerg still have the least changes, the least that is remarkable about them.

This problem really only needs a few small solutions to fix it. Terran and Protoss have been completely changed, Zerg is the same. Haven't they been sitting in their worlds for 4 years evolving? Where are these evolution changes? Sure there are a few, but not enough to warrant four years of hyper evolution.

something must be done to the Zerg. They have more power than they did, but they still have a Tier 2 problem and an image problem.

I really don't like the idea of greater burrow. Watching huge armies move across the field is a very important aesthetic part of SC. Not to mention it would be OP.

However, I completely agree that some units should be replaced. Personally, I think the lurker and the mutalisk are great targets. Both units have seen wayyyyy to much playtime in the last games and frankly I wouldn't be interested in watching games as much if those units were included. Like seriously, who wants to see MORE muta micro? Mutas look terrible too.

There are so many options when making a new airial harass unit. The mutalisk just wastes all of the potential.

I've personally always thought there should be more morph options, it's Zerg iconic and adds to their overall versatility.

The Zergling morphs, the Hydra morphs, the Muta used to morph...why not Roach? Or go completely crazy...the Drones already morph into buildings, why not let them do a pseudo-morph into a killer creature, for a last-ditch base defense? They can morph for only X amount of seconds and then go back to normal.

Or maybe the Roach can morph into an air-based equivilant, a high-regen unit that's hard to kill but doesn't do a lot of damage? Takes hits from Mutas and distracts, also maybe a good counter to carrier/BC since the scourge is gone

I'd have to run numbers, but at least these are ideas :p

Quote:

---

At the moment we have a Zerg with a harder-to-survive Tier 2 than both Protoss and Terran. That means imbalance. If Zerg have a powerful Tier 3, if they never make it to Tier 3 it doesn't matter how powerful that Tier 3 ends up being.

---

There are a number of points here.

One of the big problems in SC1 with the Zerg's Tier 2 wasn't that it was weak. It was that getting to Tier 3 was so hard. To get to Tier 3 anything, you must:

* Build a Queens Nest. Otherwise a useless building.
* Build a Hive. Otherwise a useless building.
* Research/build your Tier 3 stuff.

SC2 gets around that by (presumably) making the Infestor the prereq for Hive. Now the first building has utility of its own. There are reasons to get an Infestor Pit besides just going for Hive tech, so the effective cost and time of Hive tech is lower.

So one problem is solved.

The real question is the nature of SC2's Zerg Tier 2. There are a lot of Tier 2 units: Roach, Infestor, Mutalisk, Corruptor, Overseer. There are also quite a few Tier 2 mechanics: Overlord Creep Drop, Overlord Transport, Nydus.

So the question is this: is that enough?

Pretty much everyone agrees that the Infestor is pretty cool. The Overseer is starting to shape up into a viable support unit as well; Blizzard clearly wants this unit to be useful as an aerial caster. Creep Drop's utility really depends on how well Nydus works and how good the Zerg Creep movement speed works. If movement speed lets the Zerg win battles they should have lost, then it's worthwhile. If not, then it's just something nice you might use at some point. Overlord Transport synergies well with Banelings, and the fact that speed&transport are the same research is very good.

Corruptors are a purely reactionary unit; you get them to shut down certain enemy strategies. Mutalisks are nice and effective generalist air units.

But then there's the Roach. Ah, the poor, forlorn Roach.

What is this thing, exactly? How do you use a ranged Tank unit with a group of melee units? You can't; they'll stop moving right in the way of your Zerglings. So then you're looking at Roach + Hydra, where the Roach acts as a functional meatshield. This is nice, to a degree, except that they both take gas, which makes using them together a bit awkward.

Zerg Tier 2 in SC2 really seems to be about augmenting what already works in Tier 1. Infestors and Overseers as support, Roaches as Tanks, Mutalisks as harassment and snipers, and so on. Really, I think it's the Roach that's the Tier 2 problem. I'm just not really sure what it's for. Infestors and Overseers can support Hydras just as well as Roaches. I just don't know what would give me a reason to build Roaches.

As to the comparative effectiveness of Zerg Tier 2 to other races, this may be a phantasmal problem. In SC1, because the tech to Tier 3 was so long, involved, and expensive, Zerg players think in terms of sitting on Tier 2 for a while. In SC2, that's just not necessary anymore. Tier 3 is more reachable than ever for the Zerg. Especially the juicy Tier 3 research, like the Crack upgrade or whatever.

Guys, guys, guys, you're looking too hard into the details of what people are saying here and not looking at the message.

The Zerg are the least changed race in Starcraft 2 by far, they are barely different from their starcraft 1 counterparts. Hell, you could probably reinsert the new zerg into starcraft and it would still be basically the same game.

All pure.Wasted is trying to do, is offer suggestions on how the zerg could be improved so that they are not basically the same thing. You may not like his suggestions(I know I don't :)) but that doesn't mean the message is wrong. Try to come up with ways to make the zerg more interesting yourselves and suggest that.

Nicol: a nice look at it. I have to say that I agree: Zerg T2 in SC2 is just about augmentation, it's not about really new stuff. It is still, in my opinion, weaker in pure army strength and diversity, but not as bad as SC1 Zerg T2.

I have the idea of moving the Roach to Tier 1.5 (which would give it better use, I think) and giving it a Tier 2 flying morph.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

The Zerg are the least changed race in Starcraft 2 by far, they are barely different from their starcraft 1 counterparts.

---

Only if you only count new/different units. If you count new game mechanics, the Zerg are the most mechanically changed race.

So it all balances out.

Quote:

---

I have the idea of moving the Roach to Tier 1.5 (which would give it better use, I think) and giving it a Tier 2 flying morph.

---

That's a lot of Tier 1 units though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

That's a lot of Tier 1 units though.

---

Perhaps that will be one of Zerg's strengths. Otherwise it could go Tier 2 roach / tier 2.5 upgrade to a morphable flying unit.

Would a flying unit with high survivabililty, low attack help offset the loss of the scourge? I think it might find a good niche, actually, as a meat shield for Mutalisks/corruptors and later as a distraction for brood lords.

All we have to do is call it...*wait for it*...the FLYING COCKROACH!

:p

...or, be the only zerg unit that can morph automatically, without need for an upgrade. That way you have a lot of options available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

Perhaps that will be one of Zerg's strengths. Otherwise it could go Tier 2 roach / tier 2.5 upgrade to a morphable flying unit.

Would a flying unit with high survivabililty, low attack help offset the loss of the scourge? I think it might find a good niche, actually, as a meat shield for Mutalisks/corruptors and later as a distraction for brood lords.

All we have to do is call it...*wait for it*...the FLYING COCKROACH!

:p

...or, be the only zerg unit that can morph automatically, without need for an upgrade. That way you have a lot of options available.

---

Damn, you might be on to something with this. Give the Roach a morph upgrade that allows it hop up and glide for a very brief period of time...essentially allowing it to traverse cliffs and pounce over units. This gain in mobility comes at a cost in that the unit can no longer burrow. So players who prefer raid attacks can launch in with their roaches, unleash some damage, and they fly away to safety. Those who prefer an aggressive play style could continue to use the burrowed roaches which can pop up and down to avoid hazards.

Now Zerg players have one more choice in Tier 2 which synergizes well with the morph theme.

-or-

If the hopping/gliding adjustment is too similar to the Reaper, then allow the Roach to hover for a very brief period of time during which you can control its flight but cannot attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

What is this thing, exactly? How do you use a ranged Tank unit with a group of melee units? You can't; they'll stop moving right in the way of your Zerglings. So then you're looking at Roach + Hydra, where the Roach acts as a functional meatshield. This is nice, to a degree, except that they both take gas, which makes using them together a bit awkward.

---

Aside from the Roach Warren, the Roach costs 100 minerals 2 control, how's that awkward in conjunction with Hydralisks?

There's also a trait they might possess in the latest "latest" build, that is Burrow Movement: http://starfeeder.gameriot.com/blogs...2-review/page5


-Psi

Quote:

---

the Roach costs 100 minerals 2 control, how's that awkward in conjunction with Hydralisks?

---

Is that from recent info, or is that back when the Roach was Tier 1?

If this is recent, this makes no sense. So Roaches can cost no gas, but Medivacs cost 100 gas? How does any of this make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I make no such assumption. My statement and argument is that unit "interest" is not the only viable metric for race interest. Thus your claim that the Zerg are uninteresting because their units are uninteresting is incorrect.

---

Well, I love your black-and-white approach. The argument between us boils down to two separate points. The first is the "inherent lameness" of the Zerg race, which you seem to think is unavoidable. I already addressed this point many times in the last thread; unfortunately and, I suppose, typically, you chose to ignore all of them.

Roaches are not boring. Lurkers are not boring. Lurkers are from the BW era. Roaches are from the S2 era. So are Banelings, which also take far more skill to use than A+click.

That means it is possible to make Zerg units take involved amounts of micro in battle -- and not "move away/surround/attack/move away" kind of micro; ANY unit has the potential for that, so this does not count. Do the Roaches and Lurkers compromise the Zerg identity? No, they do not. Nobody's ever complained about the micro requirements of either, even when Lurkers make up a great deal of ZvT and ZvP, and Roaches have been in the spotlight as bread-and-butter units for a long time.

This is what I want. -- no more, no less: a Zerg unit tree that is as involving to play as the Lurker and the Roach. There is absolutely no reason it cannot be done. NONE. It would not compromise the Zerg racial identity because it's already been tried, successfully, and found completely in line with that racial identity.

"How does a Cliffalisk solve this problem?" would be the next logical question, and this specific approach is the second point that needs addressing. For one thing, it breathes new life and identity into the Hydralisk; even if it is still A+click, the potential provided by cliff-walk makes the Hydra seem exciting all over again. But it's not as simple as A+click, because if the stats are tweaked to compensate while "keeping its damage" is a core idea, what the unit ends up losing out on is attack speed and HP. In combined armies, the Hydra is no less devastating than ever before. However, in unit vs. unit showdowns, it becomes much less straight-forward, as the Hydra is obviously weak against a foe that is going out of his way to kill it.

That's where cliff-climb comes in, opening up strategies that Reapers and Colossi wouldn't know about because they are hardly as massable. Consider this Hydralisk vs. Zealot battle. The Zealots have always been more powerful, which makes this showdown even worse for the Z. But as his Hydras start dying, he sends them, one by one, to climb the nearby cliffs. Now, there's one Hydra above low ground that the Zealots can't get to, but they still have an advantage, right? They're not going to run away just 'cause there's one Hydra attacking from an unassailable position, right?

Then there's 2 up and only 10 down. Then there's 3 up and only 9 down. 4 and 8. 5 up and 7. 6 and 6. And at this point, the Zerg tells all of his remaining Hydras to climb up; the Zealots can't fight this, so they start running off while still taking a pounding from those Hydras already perched on the cliffs. At what point should the Protoss have disengaged?

Notice how much more involved the unit got in just this ONE example of THE MOST BASIC one vs. one unit showdown scenario, without becoming complicated and bogged down with abilities? Now add Roaches to the above scenario; the amount of Hydras below gets smaller and smaller while it still appears that there is an army left to fight. But add Stalkers to the Protoss, and suddenly the Protoss might be able to follow the Zerg around, rendering the cliff-climb advantage only a change of circumstance for the Zerg, as opposed to a clear-cut improvement.

We didn't even need to add an activated ability!

Quote:

---

Actually, it is. Except for Burrow and spellcasters, all Zerg units have no activated abilities. That alone makes it very difficult to make "non-lame" units.

---

Look at your own signature!!!

Blizzard should not settle for fine! I don't care that it's "very difficult." They haven't even been trying. And they have the tools available to them now.

Quote:

---

Plus there's the fact that the Zerg are typified by having large masses of units, which makes giving units strong passive powers like cliff-climbing a very bad idea.

---

"Plus there's the fact that the Zerg are typified by having large masses of units, which makes giving units strong passive powers like flight a very bad idea."

Doesn't stop Blizzard though, does it? Mutas are the most massable air unit in the game AND THAT'S OK! That's part of their identity! They also have AoE damage!!! So Hydras would be the most massable cliff-climbing unit in the game! Why can't that be part of their identity?

Quote:

---

So you want to not only make the Hydralisk a cliff climber, you want to make it a Siege-ranged cliff climber.

---

It is not absolutely necessary to do both at the same time. I believe that there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a unit being both a cliff-climber and having siege range, especially if one or both require an upgrade. However, IF I am wrong and there is something inherently imbalanced about the concept that the tweaking of numbers cannot fix (very, very doubtful), then giving it either one would already be more interesting than what we have... though I'd prefer cliff-climb, of the two, as it is more micro-intensive.

Quote:

---

Also, if we accept that this "Cliffulisk" is what you say it is, what are Zerg supposed to do in open terrain for ranged GtG and GtA? Marines and Thors don't have any such open terrain concerns, and neither do Stalkers.

---

As I explained above, ranged GtG and GtA becomes a non-issue because the Zerg should be swarming different types of units, not simply relying on a mass of Hydras to get the job done. One unit fits all is not what we want, and the fact that this needs to be voiced at all I find very disconcerting.

If the Hydra's damage goes up and its attack speed goes down, its DPS remains the same, but the unit becomes much more vulnerable to fighting alone. At the same time, its GtA capabilities only increase -- every single shot they get off on a flying unit flying past them deals that much more damage, and has that much higher of a chance to kill it. In any case, the Corruptor being as reactionary as you say, I think it's a pretty good idea to give the Zerg as many excuses to use the unit as we can. If that excuse is that Hydras are no longer the be-all, end-all, then we should be happy that an otherwise useless (read: significantly limited) new unit that takes up an entire slot in the Zerg line-up, a line-up that is already so underwhelming, will see more action than it otherwise would.

Quote:

---

It takes maybe 5 seconds to throw up a Nydus. You most certainly can harass with it. What you describe is simply one method for attacking with a Nydus; it is far from the only one.

---

Sigh. Yes, someone can harass with a Nydus. And what units would they use to harass from a Nydus? Zerglings. The same ground unit they would use to harass anything, anyway. The Nydus has 100 HP, building it in the middle of an enemy base is absurd; if you've done that, you're already on your way to winning the game Nydus or not. It's not like the Overseer is going to be dodging Missile Turret attacks with its high speed or anything. The Warp Ray is faster... before its speed upgrade. The Warp Prism is faster. So I'd like to see this harassment that can be done by one of the slowest air units in the game.

So, again, if you manage to get your Nydus into his base to get Roaches/Banelings in and out at your leisure, you're doing more than harassing. You're destroying. And if you can't get it into his base directly, then it isn't going to magically make your Hydralisks capable of harassment when they couldn't do it before.

Quote:

---

At BlizzCon 09, it was reported that going mass Stalkers was a viable strategy for which there was little if any counter. Admittedly a few hours of playtime with a game that's still in development doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. However, it does suggest that it's very easy to make something like a Stalker highly overpowered.

---

This problem never came up in previous BlizzCons, when PC was non-existent and the Protoss did not have a significant economy advantage over the Terran and Zerg.

See the connection? I'm sure you do, because we were just talking about it in Supersonic's thread a few days ago. There's nothing inherently imbalanced about it even IF I grant that it may be difficult to find that golden middle.

1. They should still try. They haven't been.
2. We never heard that Stalkers were imbalanced until now. Good, yes. Imbalanced? No.

Quote:

---

If we're quote mining from Browder, he once said he wasn't sure if the game was actually balanceable. Maybe it's because of things like the Stalker that he feels this way.

---

Or maybe not! But I love how you use the most ambiguous line imaginable as actual support of your argument. That takes audacity of a very admirable level.

Quote:

---

If you don't think that Blizzard will accept your proposal that removes the Hydralisk in favor of something else, then they're probably not going to accept your proposal of making a HINO unit either.

---

You don't think I realize that the chances of success are low? Chances are low with macro mechanics getting swapped, too. That doesn't mean I'm going to shut up about either. There's a higher chance of a Hydra being CHANGED than REPLACED at this point; if even by 1%, then it's worth suggesting this rather than the alternative.

Quote:

---

None of the other returning units with the same name have changed so drastically from their intended purpose, even if they got a different set of abilities (Ghosts in SC1 were not intended to suck; they just worked out that way in practice).

---

And the Lurker becoming a siege unit with siege range? That's already in the game. And the Overlord losing its ... oh, wait, you're getting into that now!

Quote:

---

Overlords are, first and foremost food. Ghosts are stealthy spellcasters.

---

Overlords are, first and foremost food, huh? So a unit can retain its primary characteristic and gain a secondary one?! It IS possible?!

Overlords gained Creep Drop, they became a macro unit. The Hydra gaining cliff-climb would still be a very capable GtA unit. Air units aren't balanced the same way ground units are; less than half of ground units can attack them, and that's reflected in their lower HP:cost ratio. That means that EVEN if the Hydra was forced to take a damage reduction (not necessary as long as its damage goes up and its rate goes down), it could still be viable against air even when it is not against ground (hardly necessary; the Stalker's still viable against everything).

Quote:

---

That's why your entire analysis falls apart: you're looking at one part of the whole (unit "niftiness") in isolation from the other parts. Yes, the Zerg look boring, if you ignore everything that's cool about them. If you take the whole, however, then you see that they're very improved and quite powerful.

---

Well, let's see here. Nydus Worm at best balances out Warp-In. And then... what are those "mechanics" that I'm isolating niftiness from, that are supposed to make them very improved and quite powerful?

Quote:

---

Hell, Roaches and Infestors can do it. They may as well make it a Tier 2 upgrade for all Zerg units: Greater Burrow.

---

That you think this would be balanced (or is not so difficult to balance as to render the idea null and void before it came out of your fingers) and a Hydralisk that climbs cliffs cannot be boggles the mind. Seriously.

You think that one (or two) cliff-climbing units would be more imbalanced than units that can move around the map completely undetected. This is your idea of balance.

Oh, but I forget. You also think Stalkers are not inherently overpowered, and Mutalisks are not inherently overpowered, but Hydralisks would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RODTHEGOD

Guys, guys, guys, you're looking too hard into the details of what people are saying here and not looking at the message.

The Zerg are the least changed race in Starcraft 2 by far, they are barely different from their starcraft 1 counterparts. Hell, you could probably reinsert the new zerg into starcraft and it would still be basically the same game.

All pure.Wasted is trying to do, is offer suggestions on how the zerg could be improved so that they are not basically the same thing. You may not like his suggestions(I know I don't :)) but that doesn't mean the message is wrong. Try to come up with ways to make the zerg more interesting yourselves and suggest that.

---

yes, ideas are just idea. no one should take it seriously and be afraid that blizzard might actually use it. it just an idea for people and blizzard to realize, well if it gets implemented then good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraziliak

I really don't like the idea of greater burrow. Watching huge armies move across the field is a very important aesthetic part of SC. Not to mention it would be OP.

However, I completely agree that some units should be replaced. Personally, I think the lurker and the mutalisk are great targets. Both units have seen wayyyyy to much playtime in the last games and frankly I wouldn't be interested in watching games as much if those units were included. Like seriously, who wants to see MORE muta micro? Mutas look terrible too.

There are so many options when making a new airial harass unit. The mutalisk just wastes all of the potential.

---

i have to say this but no bats in starcraft. hahha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Only if you only count new/different units. If you count new game mechanics, the Zerg are the most mechanically changed race.

---

i don't know but swarming zerg basic unit and just command attack them is the usual thing you do with the zerg than using any of their new mechanics like nydus, creep drops by overlord, tumor etc. So basically its build hydralisk, roach, zerglings, etc, move, attack, move, attack, and the new zerg mechanics are just strategical support which all other races also have like warp, mule, supply drop, etc.

So the main point is what are the interesting new changes in each races core attack units. Terran and toss got many new core attack units, which have fresh roles and mechanics. How about the zerg? its only the roach and corruptor. banelings is just like a zergling suicide skill, i like banelings though i sc2. So the zerg play style have not change a lot in terms of their basic attack units, you will still use hydras, mutuas, lurker, broodlord (guardian), and ultras, which are predictable and very sc1 like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blazur

Please do! I'd love to see them, and also see what other ideas people on this forum have dreamed up for the Zerg.

---

yeh lets make all crazy ideas for the zerg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by electricmole

So the main point is what are the interesting new changes in each races core attack units. Terran and toss got many new core attack units, which have fresh roles and mechanics. How about the zerg? its only the roach and corruptor. banelings is just like a zergling suicide skill, i like banelings though i sc2. So the zerg play style have not change a lot in terms of their basic attack units, you will still use hydras, mutuas, lurker, broodlord (guardian), and ultras, which are predictable and very sc1 like.

---

Nicol thinks that that's the way the Zerg MUST be and so if we don't like it, the race wasn't meant for us.

Which is the most ridiculous thing imaginable. No one in their right mind could have guessed that the Protoss would gain so many harassment options and become as maneuverable as they have; maneuverability was far from a racial trait for them in SC1 -- Reavers, anyone? But it has only created fun and interesting gameplay and everybody is pleased with it, Blizzard first and foremost.

Fun Stalker + Fun Warp-In = Fun x2
Fun Roach + Fun Nydus = Fun x2
Lame Hydra + Fun Nydus = Fun x1

It's in the math, really. ;)

Hydras are awesome o.0 wtfisgoingonhere

Quote:

---

Roaches are not boring. Lurkers are not boring. Lurkers are from the BW era. Roaches are from the S2 era. So are Banelings, which also take far more skill to use than A+click.

---

What do Lurkers and Roaches have in common? They're both support units.

The Zerg essentially have 2 kinds of units: massable generalists, and support units. They have a stronger divide between these than any other race.

Look at how Mutalisks and Devourers interact. Devourers are terrible units on their own, even against their natural prey (Corsairs). But throw in some Mutalisks, and suddenly those Acid Spores really add up.

You aren't going to win with Devourers, Lurkers, or Defilers. You're going to win with Zerglings, Hydralisks, and/or Mutalisks.

Quote:

---

But it's not as simple as A+click, because if the stats are tweaked to compensate while "keeping its damage" is a core idea, what the unit ends up losing out on is attack speed and HP. In combined armies, the Hydra is no less devastating than ever before.

---

So, you want the Hydralisk to keep it's effective damage over time, but do more damage in fewer shots.

In short, you want to turn the Hydralisk into a Dragoon.

This falls prey to racial identity yet again. No Zerg unit in SC1 did more than 25 damage in a single shot, and that was the Devourer. Other than him, only Ultralisks and Lurkers hit 20 damage per shot. Everything else was lower than this.

Zerg are all about the damage over time, not single-shot damage. Not slow cooldowns.

Now maybe you'll turn to dropping their Hp. Well, then they're Marines; glass cannons.

Quote:

---

Look at your own signature!!!

Blizzard should not settle for fine! I don't care that it's "very difficult." They haven't even been trying. And they have the tools available to them now.

---

My point is that this is the way the Zerg are for a reason. The whole generalist vs. specialist thing. It synergies very, very well with Zerg production flexibility.

Quote:

---

Doesn't stop Blizzard though, does it? Mutas are the most massable air unit in the game AND THAT'S OK! That's part of their identity! They also have AoE damage!!! So Hydras would be the most massable cliff-climbing unit in the game! Why can't that be part of their identity?

---

Are you honestly comparing the massability of Hydralisks to Mutalisks?

Even ignoring that in SC1, the 12-unit selection limited the utility of large swarms of Muta, there is only so much massability you can get out of a unit that costs 100 Gas and 2 food. Mutas are massable like Dragoons (less, even); Hydralisks are massable like Hydralisks.

And it should also be pointed out that Mutas have a crippling weakness: all AoE kills them quick and bloody (for their cost). Hydralisks are defined by having no weaknesses. No real strengths either.

Quote:

---

There's a higher chance of a Hydra being CHANGED than REPLACED at this point

---

First, I don't support changing or replacing the Hydra.

Second, as you point out, Blizzard shouldn't settle for fine. If the right course of action is to replace the Hydralisk, changing is by comparison the wrong course of action and they should therefore not take it. So suggesting that they do the prudent thing instead of the right thing is wrongheaded.

Quote:

---

Well, let's see here. Nydus Worm at best balances out Warp-In. And then... what are those "mechanics" that I'm isolating niftiness from, that are supposed to make them very improved and quite powerful?

---

If you want, I'll do it your way:

New/Significantly Changed Terran Mechanics:

1: TechLab vs. Reactor.
2: OCC.
3: Salvage.

New/Significantly Changed Protoss Mechanics:

1: Warp-In.
2: Warp Prism with Warp-In.
3: Obelisk.

New/Significantly Changed Zerg Mechanics:

1: Queens (Spawn Larva and Creep Tumors).
2: Overlord Creep Drop.
3: Creep Movement Speed.
4: Semi-mobile defensive buildings.
5: Nydus Canals at Tier 2.

The Zerg have almost as many new mechanics as the other two races put together. And this should be taken with the fact that the Zerg already had the most unusual mechanics in SC1.

Quote:

---

You think that one (or two) cliff-climbing units would be more imbalanced than units that can move around the map completely undetected. This is your idea of balance.

---

Nobody said that burrowed movement was particularly fast. Just fast enough to matter.

Quote:

---

i don't know but swarming zerg basic unit and just command attack them is the usual thing you do with the zerg than using any of their new mechanics like nydus, creep drops by overlord, tumor etc. So basically its build hydralisk, roach, zerglings, etc, move, attack, move, attack, and the new zerg mechanics are just strategical support which all other races also have like warp, mule, supply drop, etc.

---

Um, was there a sentence in there somewhere?

The basic gist I get is that you don't think that the new Zerg mechanics matter. Um, so?

Quote:

---

Lame Hydra + Fun Nydus = Fun x1

---

What's so lame about the Hydralisk? Why must every unit have some stupid gimmick in order to be not "lame"? Indeed, SC2 is so full of gimmick units that the Hydralisk not having a gimmick is itself a gimmick.

im in this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Um, was there a sentence in there somewhere?

The basic gist I get is that you don't think that the new Zerg mechanics matter. Um, so?



What's so lame about the Hydralisk? Why must every unit have some stupid gimmick in order to be not "lame"? Indeed, SC2 is so full of gimmick units that the Hydralisk not having a gimmick is itself a gimmick.

---

they don't matter much bcoz both toss and terran also have new mechanics. so that makes them more or less equal in that department.

Now lets go to each races basic core attack units that you will always use in battles, the zerg got all 6 back from sc1 and that is less fun and exciting that the other races in sc2.

I agree that zerg should be like this as you said, just like they were in sc1. But why not make new units and introduce new roles to make them look and feel exciting in sc2. Why do you want to play most of the old zerg main attack units again for another 10 years?

dragoons were removed in place of new ones like stalkers and immortals. scout, corsair and reavers as well.

vultures, goliaths, valkyrie, firebat and wraith were removed.

What was remove in sc1 zerg attack units? only the devourer. and thats the problem.

Hydaralisk were not like marines and zealots. they are kinda imba in sc1 and seems like it again in sc2. imba in this case means always usable/effective in most if not all battles and the one unit that you will always use which makes other units useless most of the time.

zergling (not hydra) = zealot = marines are the basic, most iconic thus needs to stay forever. Hydras are iconic but overrated imo and i don't mind them getting a new evolution or completely remove.

Hydras arent so imba when they face mnm in sc1, with that I can't imagine them facing the new mnm (marine, marauder or medivac combo) in sc2 ><

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoFool

Hydras arent so imba when they face mnm in sc1, with that I can't imagine them facing the new mnm (marine, marauder or medivac combo) in sc2 ><

---

haaaaa I'ma noob and can't read =]



IMO I don't think Zerg should have a cliff walking unit, I want the races to be as different as possible...

Quote:

---

Now lets go to each races basic core attack units that you will always use in battles, the zerg got all 6 back from sc1 and that is less fun and exciting that the other races in sc2.

---

The Zerg have all four. The four basic Zerg units are the Zergling, Hydralisk, Ultralisk and Mutalisk. One's basic melee, ones a tank, one's a basic flyer, one's basic ranged. Lurker and Guardian/Brood Lord are both support units.

But here's the thing: you can't really replace these basic units. They're the very essence of the Zerg. You can improve them, (such as giving the Ultalisk a cleaving attack or giving the Zergling a new morph) but you can't replace them. (The replacements would basically have to just be the exact same unit as it's replacing.)

The main issue I think the Zerg have right now is their casters. Without Spore Cloud the Overseer is pretty bland, and Neural Parasite is the only cool spell the Infestor has got (Fungal whatever looks promising, though). The Queen is okay as far as a macro mechanic, but as a spellcaster/base defense unit she's bland as heck.

And this is so weird, because in SC1 the Terrans big problem was it's infantry, the Protoss' biggest problem was it's lack of interesting later-tier main army units. And they fixed both of those issues big time. Yet Zerg casters are still just as limited and bland.

If this has already been address, my apologies, I didn't feel like reading through 8 pages of the article, call me lazy but...

I think the oringal purpose of the article isn't to state that zerg isn't powerful as we all know that balance changes can make any race better, more dmg to the zergling for example would change the gameplay drastically. I think the original intent is the lack of reinvisioning or redesign of the race. For a race that was suppose to evolve for 4 years, and this being the zerg a lot of changes could have taken place, the zerg still feels the same from what it sounds like.

Now we still have some months until the beta and new units could be added using existing existing wireframes to perhaps change the face/value of the zerg. I'm not saying to give Zerg its own way to traverse cliffs just like Protoss/Terran. I think its actually smart that zerg doesn't have that ability as it gives each race its own unique edge and feel. I'm still looking to find something that is distcintly zerg in the early/mid game. I think banelings was suppose to fill that role but I never grow attached to suiciding units...

Perhaps the latest build will change that. The rumored roach ability to move while burrowed should play very nicely into that. Lets just hope they don't get burrow movement happy and have them burrow up/down cliffs unless its very late game. Keeping each race unqiue yet balanced will be an on going task, espically when they open it up to a larger sample size.

In SC 1, zergs had their most usefull units at tiers 1 (all purpose hydralisk and zergling), and tier 2 technologies gave zerg the abilities they needed to end the game (mass mobility and detection with overlord upgrades and Queen's parasite, mobile defense with lurkers, cheap and effective harass with mutalisk, air control with scourges).

In SC1, tier-3 technologies werent usualy needed for a player to end the game. Upgraded overlords would allow the player full access to the map, thus circumventing ennemy defenses and siege units, the Queen's broolings could severly undermine an ennemy's siege units and spellcasters, while mass producing hydralisk would do the rest.

Now, in SC2, it seems blizzard wants to force the player to tech to tier-3 technologies in other to compete with the protoss and terran.

Pretty sure you needed swarm to close out most games o.0

It depends on the player's style. I tried to last as long as I could with lings, would rely on upgraded overlords for map control, and would use queen's spawn broolings and web to compete against terrans with medic or siege tank.

Quote:

---

they are kinda imba in sc1

---

I'm sorry, what? Did you say that Hydralisks in SC1 are imbalanced? Really, you're sticking with that.

If Hydralisks were imbalanced, ZvZ would be Hydralisk matches. And yet, Hydralisks are the only Tier 1 unit in ZvZ to not see playtime. If Hydralisks were imbalanced, Lurker/Ling would not be preferable to Hydra/Lurk vs Terran. And yet, it is (unless the Terran's going for Mech). And so on.

Hydralisks are not the solution to every Zerg problem. They weren't in SC1, and they're not in SC2.

Quote:

---

with that I can't imagine them facing the new mnm (marine, marauder or medivac combo) in sc2

---

Hydralisks weren't good at M&M because:

1: Zerglings are really good at M&M.

2: They did explosive damage, so they got their 10 damage cut in half vs. small units. Like M&M.

5 damage from a Hydralisk is nothing compared to 5 damage from a Zergling. 'Lings are cheaper, cost no gas, and out-damage Hydras vs M&M. They're also faster. So they win.

Hydras in SC2, at BlizzCon 09, did 8+4 vs. Armored. That's 3 extra damage to Marines, and 7 extra vs. Marauders. While I'd probably still invest in Banelings (AoE), Hydras aren't quite as bad against M&M as they used to be.

Quote:

---

But here's the thing: you can't really replace these basic units. They're the very essence of the Zerg. You can improve them, (such as giving the Ultalisk a cleaving attack or giving the Zergling a new morph) but you can't replace them. (The replacements would basically have to just be the exact same unit as it's replacing.)

---

Finally, finally, someone gets it!

Quote:

---

Without Spore Cloud the Overseer is pretty bland, and Neural Parasite is the only cool spell the Infestor has got (Fungal whatever looks promising, though). The Queen is okay as far as a macro mechanic, but as a spellcaster/base defense unit she's bland as heck.

---

I'm still a bit iffy on it, but the Overseer's acid-spore like ability is something to be investigated. My main problem with it is the lack of an appropriate AoE unit to exploit it. You might be able to combo them with Mutalisks, but it'd be good if there was a ground unit to do it (Baneling's don't count, because they only attack once).

I will say this: Blizzard clearly is working on the Zerg spellcaster abilities. So it's not like they seem satisfied or anything.

Quote:

---

Now, in SC2, it seems blizzard wants to force the player to tech to tier-3 technologies in other to compete with the protoss and terran.

---

To be fair, it was not the intention of Blizzard to make SC1's Zerg so reliant on Tier 2.

As I stated before, Zerg in SC1 rely on it so much because teching to Tier 3 is so costly. You have to build a useless building (Queen's Nest), another useless building (Hive), and then, finally, you can get what you were actually trying.

With Infestors being so much more useful than SC1 Queens, I'm fairly sure you're going to see the Zerg having a lot more access to Tier 3 than before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Hydralisks weren't good at M&M because:

1: Zerglings are really good at M&M.

2: They did explosive damage, so they got their 10 damage cut in half vs. small units. Like M&M.

5 damage from a Hydralisk is nothing compared to 5 damage from a Zergling. 'Lings are cheaper, cost no gas, and out-damage Hydras vs M&M. They're also faster. So they win.

Hydras in SC2, at BlizzCon 09, did 8+4 vs. Armored. That's 3 extra damage to Marines, and 7 extra vs. Marauders. While I'd probably still invest in Banelings (AoE), Hydras aren't quite as bad against M&M as they used to be.

---

Yea I already know they don't deal full dmg to smaller units, that's why mnm kinda pwn them.
I forgot about the current sc2 hydra's bonus dmg vs armored units, thx for reminding me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldrius

But here's the thing: you can't really replace these basic units. They're the very essence of the Zerg. You can improve them, (such as giving the Ultalisk a cleaving attack or giving the Zergling a new morph) but you can't replace them. (The replacements would basically have to just be the exact same unit as it's replacing.)

---

Why? vultures, goliaths, wraiths, dragoons, etc.. were also basic units. but they had it removed.

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.

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.

but unfortunately, blizzard did not take much risk changing most of the zerg lineup in sc2 unlike for both toss and terran.

i can't believe there was'nt much of new zerg evolution after 4 years lorewise and 10 years gameplay wise. :(