-
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.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Kerrigan spent 4 years working out how to make ultralisks burrow and forgot to update the other units.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rake
Kerrigan spent 4 years working out how to make ultralisks burrow and forgot to update the other units.
Ultralisks always burrowed! You just didn't ask them nicely.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rake
Kerrigan spent 4 years working out how to make ultralisks burrow and forgot to update the other units.
Actually, she's probably spent 4 years trying to reinvent the control systems the Overmind had, because she slaughtered all the cerebrates.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rake
Kerrigan spent 4 years working out how to make ultralisks burrow and forgot to update the other units.
I LOL'd.
<borat>GREAT success!</borat>
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
from what I know hydralisk main role now is GTA.
The Hydralisk hasn't been primarily GtA since they swapped it with the Roach. It's supposed to be more of a generalist now.
Quote:
You actually get to use a new unit with an awesome model rather than using the hydralisk all over again.
So what you're arguing about isn't even gameplay. It isn't that they're too much like SC1 units. It's names and models.
Spare me. At least pure.Wasted's point was about the gameplay similarities of these units.
Quote:
The thor is kinda the new goliath with a twist. Well the thor indeed feels like a new unit and not a goliath improvement.
That's because it is a new unit. The massive damage it does with each GtG shot, the large well of Hp, and it's special "murder one ground unit" attack. Goliaths had none of that.
The only thing it has in common with the Goliath is that they're both Mechs.
Quote:
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).
Except that the Banshee is 10x more effective than the Wraith in that role. And far more vulnerable to AtA.
In short, they're similar at best.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Actually, comparing the Wraith to the Banshee is like comparing the Dragoon to the Immortal, it doesn't work.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
TL posted a topic about how powerful the Zerg macro mechanic is, I linked it in the macro thread.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
The Hydralisk hasn't been primarily GtA since they swapped it with the Roach. It's supposed to be more of a generalist now.
So what you're arguing about isn't even gameplay. It isn't that they're too much like SC1 units. It's names and models.
Spare me. At least pure.Wasted's point was about the gameplay similarities of these units.
That's because it is a new unit. The massive damage it does with each GtG shot, the large well of Hp, and it's special "murder one ground unit" attack. Goliaths had none of that.
The only thing it has in common with the Goliath is that they're both Mechs.
Except that the Banshee is 10x more effective than the Wraith in that role. And far more vulnerable to AtA.
In short, they're similar at best.
So its a generalist now just like in sc1? scrap it then its boring for another 10 years. scrap it just like the dragoons!
Actually im also arguing about gameplay being the same for the zerg in sc1, i mention it a lot of times actually. Its clear that i said that i want new zerg units and remove most of the old ones. This means having new attack mechanics and roles. Im always in for that.
But since i have no idea or tired of thinking about possible new zerg attack units mechanics and roles, i just made an example evolution about the hydralisk supposedly gta role for sc2.
IF the hydras role is mainly GTA now, then i suggest remove the hydralisk and put a new unit into its role. This unit will obviously feel and is new, with its new role, new look, stat, etc just like the thor. This new unit will not have the same stat with the hydralisk, movement, etc.
Lets say this unit im suggesting is also 10x more stronger against air units than the hydralisk. So just like wraith to banshee, this hydralisk replacement is entirely a new unit as well.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
I don't know. I think above all other units, the 2 units that absolutely have to stay for the zerg are the zergling and the hydralisk. To me, they are the Zerg. Any and every other Zerg unit can be removed/replaced/highly modified but those 2 have to stay. Now thats not to say their function or abilities can't be changed so that gameplay wise they are nothing like themselves but they have to stay in some fasion.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
How about allowing Zerglings to morph into melee flyers once the Lair is in then?
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Lets say this unit im suggesting is also 10x more stronger against air units than the hydralisk. So just like wraith to banshee, this hydralisk replacement is entirely a new unit as well.
Well, the first question I would ask is, "Why are you giving the Zerg such a powerful GtA unit when they already have Corruptors?" Even the GtA version of the Hydralisk was expensive (by Zerg standards: 100/50/2), so you'd see them more in Dragoon numbers than Hydralisk numbers. Hardly the AtG difference between Wraiths and Banshees.
Quote:
How about allowing Zerglings to morph into melee flyers once the Lair is in then?
Zerglings already have a morph. And slapping morphs onto everything is easily the laziest solution to any proposed problem.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
So its a generalist now just like in sc1? scrap it then its boring for another 10 years. scrap it just like the dragoons!
It's not the same as the Dragoon. The Hydralisk isn't as versatile or necessary to the Zerg as the Dragoon was. And again, the Dragoon wasn't really removed from the game. It's art changed and it's stats were reduced, and it gained an ability. Sure it's much more changed than the Zealot or Ultralisk, but it's still basically the same unit.
Quote:
Actually im also arguing about gameplay being the same for the zerg in sc1, i mention it a lot of times actually. Its clear that i said that i want new zerg units and remove most of the old ones. This means having new attack mechanics and roles. Im always in for that.
New roles? None of the replacement units have a new role. They have the same role as the unit they replaced, they just do it differently or have some new option otherwise. (Colossus is a more versatile Reaver, Warp Prism is a shuttle with a new ability) The only new unit with a new role is the Void Ray (at least for Protoss).
Quote:
IF the hydras role is mainly GTA now, then i suggest remove the hydralisk and put a new unit into its role. This unit will obviously feel and is new, with its new role, new look, stat, etc just like the thor. This new unit will not have the same stat with the hydralisk, movement, etc.
I dislike the Thor as a replacement for anything (it's a...ground-based replacement for the Valkyrie), so bringing it up convinces me of nothing. :P
The Viking is the new Goliath more than anything else. Even at the Starport.
Quote:
Lets say this unit im suggesting is also 10x more stronger against air units than the hydralisk. So just like wraith to banshee, this hydralisk replacement is entirely a new unit as well.
Zerg don't do the whole dedicated anti-anything thing, though. Replacing the Hydralisk with a GTA unit would deny the Zerg the key thing they want and need: a SIMPLE ranged unit that can hit both ground and air and isn't over complicated with too many abilities. They have their Zergling, they need their Hydralisk.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Apparently Spawn Larva is pretty OP and completely negates the skill of balancing between economy and warriors for the Zerg.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=101195
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Replacing a hydralisk with some new z unit that has the same function is the same with the broodlord replacing the guardian. But how many people here actually like the broodlord? Its function is basically the same with the guardian.
That's why the hydra is here to stay, but seriously imo the broodlord and lurker needs something new or be replaced.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flabortast
Well, that pretty much confirms that the macro mechanics are a huge piece of crap... I hope that at least they are STFU mechanics to keep some sectors calm, until Blizzard says "well, don't works" and scrap them, because i cannot think of any other *logical* reason of why they continue to exist like this and hadn't been balanced at least a little bit until now.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
I think its mostly because it only takes the queen 25 energy for 4 larvae. I think its balanceable.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Norfindel
Well, that pretty much confirms that the macro mechanics are a huge piece of crap... I hope that at least they are STFU mechanics to keep some sectors calm, until Blizzard says "well, don't works" and scrap them, because i cannot think of any other *logical* reason of why they continue to exist like this and hadn't been balanced at least a little bit until now.
It only confirms its not balanced yet. Up the energy cost to 50, ramp up the Larva growth time from 25 to 40 seconds, cut the 4 Larva down to 2 or 3, and it would be much more balanced.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Well, that pretty much confirms that the macro mechanics are a huge piece of crap...
Um, no.
A quick history of Spawn Larva:
In the very first instance, back at BWWI 08, they added the ability for the Queen to transform a Larva into a Mutant Larva. MLs were units; they could go anywhere that units could go (Nydus Worms, etc). However, being Larva, they could transform into any Zerg unit. Like Warp-In, they also gave a small production speed bonus. In short, it was Zerg Warp-In, only badass.
At BlizzCon 08, Mutant Larva got some changes. Instead of casting it on a Larva, you cast it on a Hatchery. After some production time, you got 3 Mutant Larva, which have similar abilities as outlined above. The main difference here is that ML production did not require losing a regular Larva, as it did at BWWI.
When they introduced the other 2 race's macro mechanics, they modified Mutant Larva again. By removing the Mutant part. Basically, the Queen could make a Hatchery produce more Larva. And that's where we are today. This was probably done because of similarities between the de-localized production of ML and the de-localized production of Warp-In. Or because it made things simpler.
My point in this trip down memory lane is this: Spawn Larva of some form was likely going to be part of the final product. It was the first macro mechanic, so to speak; introduced before the talk of other race-specific mechanics.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
My point in this trip down memory lane is this: Spawn Larva of some form was likely going to be part of the final product. It was the first macro mechanic, so to speak; introduced before the talk of other race-specific mechanics.
Technically, Warp-In was the first macro mechanic. It succeeded because it coupled macro benefit with spatial decision-making.
Most of these mechanics have focused on temporal decision making. This is good but has been hampered by the fact that as you make the other abilities more often used you decrease the amount of macro actions.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Technically, Warp-In was the first macro mechanic.
It's funny how Blizzard comes up with great macro mechanics, but only when they're not trying to. They thought up Warp-In because it sounded Protoss-y and seemed to synergize with Pylons (and later Warp Prisms) reasonably well. They thought up Mutant Larva to delocalize Zerg production and allow them to stockpile Larva for later use.
Whereas Mules and Proton Charge came about because they wanted some macro mechanics.
The lesson: a good macro mechanic is good on its own merits.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArcherofAiur
Technically, Warp-In was the first macro mechanic. It succeeded because it coupled macro benefit with spatial decision-making.
Most of these mechanics have focused on temporal decision making. This is good but has been hampered by the fact that as you make the other abilities more often used you decrease the amount of macro actions.
Sigh, this reminds me of how fantastic your drop pod thread was :( I really wish they'd taken that and ran with it.
I like the new macro stuff, although I kind of wish it wasn't as much of "press this button every 30 seconds" as it seems to be at the moment.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
Well, the first question I would ask is, "Why are you giving the Zerg such a powerful GtA unit when they already have Corruptors?" Even the GtA version of the Hydralisk was expensive (by Zerg standards: 100/50/2), so you'd see them more in Dragoon numbers than Hydralisk numbers. Hardly the AtG difference between Wraiths and Banshees.
Zerglings already have a morph. And slapping morphs onto everything is easily the laziest solution to any proposed problem.
Im not giving the zerg strong gta unit. i don't care about what happens to the zerg gameplay wise. what i want are new units. What im giving are just EXAMPLES. Hydralisk are good against air, aren't they? so i was saying make a new zerg unit that looks like actually is strong against air units. Its hard to imagine hydralisk shooting air units specially in RL anyway.
again, i don't give a damn about stats, gameplay balance, etc blizzard will take care of that... what i care about is having new units thus remove most old units. New gameplay roles and stats will be adjusted later. the only problem right now i see is there isn't much time.
I did not say give the hydralisk a morph. I said just replace the hydralisk with a new unit, that looks like it could take out air units lorewise, and whatever stat changes for the hydralisk in sc2 will be given to this new unit. Or give the hydralisk 2 evolution. Anything as long as it gives something new for the zerg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SoFool
Replacing a hydralisk with some new z unit that has the same function is the same with the broodlord replacing the guardian. But how many people here actually like the broodlord? Its function is basically the same with the guardian.
That's why the hydra is here to stay, but seriously imo the broodlord and lurker needs something new or be replaced.
Well i don't like how hydralisk plays in battle just like in sc1. I don't like to use them again as one of the zerg core attack units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aldrius
It's not the same as the Dragoon. The Hydralisk isn't as versatile or necessary to the Zerg as the Dragoon was. And again, the Dragoon wasn't really removed from the game. It's art changed and it's stats were reduced, and it gained an ability. Sure it's much more changed than the Zealot or Ultralisk, but it's still basically the same unit.
New roles? None of the replacement units have a new role. They have the same role as the unit they replaced, they just do it differently or have some new option otherwise. (Colossus is a more versatile Reaver, Warp Prism is a shuttle with a new ability) The only new unit with a new role is the Void Ray (at least for Protoss).
I dislike the Thor as a replacement for anything (it's a...ground-based replacement for the Valkyrie), so bringing it up convinces me of nothing. :P
The Viking is the new Goliath more than anything else. Even at the Starport.
Zerg don't do the whole dedicated anti-anything thing, though. Replacing the Hydralisk with a GTA unit would deny the Zerg the key thing they want and need: a SIMPLE ranged unit that can hit both ground and air and isn't over complicated with too many abilities. They have their Zergling, they need their Hydralisk.
Hydralisk are versatile and usual in battles in sc1. In most game specially mineral games, mass hydralisk is a must (they are massable, they shoot air, they shoot ground waht more can you ask for).
New units for the toss and terran have new roles. immortal, stalkers, colosus (this ain't no reaver), etc. Why are we talking roles replacement here? who cares!
the topic is about having new units that makes the game more exciting no matter what the role is or waht unit is replaced. Apparently the terran and toss got new exciting units the zerg not so much.
Why are we talking about gameplay effectiveness here about the zerg. Blizzard will take care of that.
The point is they lack NEW CORE attack units for the zerg! Dont you agree and think this is obvious? I assume you and others agree, but you are all just satisfied since the old 6 zerg attack untis are still effective for sc2 and think some major changes will give them many flaws. So you don't want any more major changes for the zerg. Is this correct?
dragoons, vultures, etc, are obviously effective in sc2 as well, but they got axed so that new battle mechanics will fit in.
Why can't you give possible new zerg units a chance? Do you really think they will not be effective in sc2? i doubt it, and im all for it just to make the sc2 zerg newer.
Just check out the marauders, reapers, thor, banshee, viking, hellion,they are very effective in sc2, and most important they are NEW exciting fresh core attack units for the terran.
How about the zerg? Only the roach and corruptor? wow.
New unit means remove some among the 6 old zerg units and make new ones with new roles, stats, etc....
I dont want to sacrifice new zerg units with new roles and gameplay mechanics in sc2 for nostalgic sc1 zerg multiplayer gameplay.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
I can't honestly say I'd like many replacements for the Zerg. I mean ya, new units are awesome and all, but so many of them just seem iconic. Specifically the ling, hydra, and ultra.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
yes i know they are iconic just like vulture, goliath, corsiar, dragoon, etc. Well new zerg units for sc2 can be iconic as well if introduced specially as core attack units. ANy of the 6 even will easily be forgotten if the new units lives up the expectation.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
It only confirms its not balanced yet. Up the energy cost to 50, ramp up the Larva growth time from 25 to 40 seconds, cut the 4 Larva down to 2 or 3, and it would be much more balanced.
Oh, sorry, i mean't they're currently a huge piece of crap.
But seriously, the Zerg was the race that always had the most powerful macro, the fastest rush, and always needed more resources. Why on the Earth they gave them a mechanic for faster unit production, instead of an increased mining mechanic?
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
i don't care about what happens to the zerg gameplay wise. what i want are new units.
Oh. So to hell with finding good ideas; you just want different ones.
Quote:
Hydralisk are versatile and usual in battles in sc1. In most game specially mineral games, mass hydralisk is a must
What are "mineral games?"
And against which race are you saying that "mass hydralisk is a must" against? Zerg? No; ZvZ is 'Ling, Scourge, and Muta. Terran M&M? No; Lurker/Ling is the preferred one. Only vs. Terran Mech or Protoss is mass Hydralisk a preferred strategy. And even then, it transitions back into 'Lings in Tier 3.
Quote:
The point is they lack NEW CORE attack units for the zerg! Dont you agree and think this is obvious?
No. Because of the construction of the Zerg is different from other races.
The Zerg have a few general-purpose units and a lot of very specialized support units. Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks are general-purpose, and the rest are all support units.
So, if you are going to retain that essential flavor of the Zerg, a few generalists and the rest support, how exactly is it that you're going to make them? And how do you do it in a way that keeps the general Zerg massable feeling? And how do you do all of that without using the old units?
So, you have one ground attack specialist, one ground ranged generalist, and one air ranged generalist. Design these 3 units so that they're not essentially minor changes to Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks, within the above constraints.
Quote:
But seriously, the Zerg was the race that always had the most powerful macro, the fastest rush, and always needed more resources. Why on the Earth they gave them a mechanic for faster unit production, instead of an increased mining mechanic?
Um, because I want more larva. As a Zerg player, more larva is the foundation of every decision that I make. More money means nothing without the larva to produce it. If I'm still having to decide between Drones and units, what does it matter if I've got 300 minerals? Whereas more larva gives me more money.
The Zerg needed more resources because the Zerg had the slowest worker production. Terrans and Protoss can pump workers constantly; the Zerg cannot. Certainly not early game. The Zerg have to squeeze out a worker here and there. Indeed, the reason Zerg have to say at least one expo ahead of the others in SC1 is precisely because of larva crunch. You need a second Hatchery just to produce stuff, so you may as well put it in your natural.
The Zerg may have had the most powerful macro, but they also have the hardest in terms of decision-making.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
And against which race are you saying that "mass hydralisk is a must" against? Zerg? No; ZvZ is 'Ling, Scourge, and Muta. Terran M&M? No; Lurker/Ling is the preferred one. Only vs. Terran Mech or Protoss is mass Hydralisk a preferred strategy. And even then, it transitions back into 'Lings in Tier 3.
No. Because of the construction of the Zerg is different from other races.
The Zerg have a few general-purpose units and a lot of very specialized support units. Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks are general-purpose, and the rest are all support units.
So, if you are going to retain that essential flavor of the Zerg, a few generalists and the rest support, how exactly is it that you're going to make them? And how do you do it in a way that keeps the general Zerg massable feeling? And how do you do all of that without using the old units?
So, you have one ground attack specialist, one ground ranged generalist, and one air ranged generalist. Design these 3 units so that they're not essentially minor changes to Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks, within the above constraints.
Word~
p/s: electricmole I got no beef with you but I'm tired of reading your reasoning, you just don't understand Z as a race at all. So I'm gonna just skip your posts here in your thread, laterz.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
Hydralisk are versatile and usual in battles in sc1. In most game specially mineral games, mass hydralisk is a must (they are massable, they shoot air, they shoot ground waht more can you ask for).
Hydralisks can see use in both ZvP and ZvT, but they're not a REQUIREMENT the way Dragoons were (it depends on your opponents build more than anything). Any game, any Protoss match-up that got past tier 1 REQUIRED you to build Dragoons. TvP? Vultures will annihilate you without Dragoons. ZvP? You don't need them as much as you do in TvP but they're still very necessary. PvP? Dragoon/Reaver is the whole name of the game.
If you want to compare something to the Dragoon, try the Mutalisk, but even that isn't a completely fair comparison. (Mutalisks don't have the Dragoons' strength in a straight-up fight.)
Quote:
New units for the toss and terran have new roles. immortal, stalkers, colosus (this ain't no reaver), etc. Why are we talking roles replacement here? who cares!
Stalkers don't provide a new role. They're your main ranged attacker. They've improved it's mobility from the Dragoon, at the cost of it's durability and offensive strength, but it's still basically a Dragoon. And Colossus may not be Reavers, but they serve the same purpose: anti-light. Just, much like the Stalker, with a lot more mobility. But it's still the same basic role.
Immortal, though, I will mostly give you. (He got half the Dragoon's role and ran with it like crazy.)
Quote:
the topic is about having new units that makes the game more exciting no matter what the role is or waht unit is replaced. Apparently the terran and toss got new exciting units the zerg not so much.
The point is, the new unit needs to serve a purpose, rather than just arbitrarily shoving new units into the game. The Reaver was a fun unit, but a little too limited offensively, and probably was too hard to learn for newer players. So the colossus was invented, just as difficult to master but easier to learn. Dragoon, as I've stated, a little too necessary for the Protoss, they fill a few too many roles, so they brought in the Stalker and Immortal, to fill the same roles but in separate more specialized capacities.
And the Zerg DO have new units. They're just not core attack units. There's the Queen, Overseer and Infestor. All of which have A LOT of potential, but due to the development process, don't have their abilities locked in yet, and we haven't seen anything super-inspiring from them in the battle reports, so there's nothing to get super-interested in unless you're a hardcore macro fanatic. Then there's the Corrupter, which is another unit we just haven't seen anything particularly impressive from yet. And of course the Roach, which we've seen A LOT of, but they feel need changes... for whatever reason that I don't understand. The Roach is the last place they should be looking to make the Zerg more impressive.
Quote:
Why are we talking about gameplay effectiveness here about the zerg. Blizzard will take care of that.
Nobody is talking about balance. I'm certainly not. I'm just saying that right now the Zerg have the potential to be exciting.
Quote:
The point is they lack NEW CORE attack units for the zerg! Dont you agree and think this is obvious? I assume you and others agree, but you are all just satisfied since the old 6 zerg attack untis are still effective for sc2 and think some major changes will give them many flaws. So you don't want any more major changes for the zerg. Is this correct?
4. Not 6. The Lurker and Brood Lord are both support units. (And I think the Lurker could actually use some more work to make it exciting... instead of just bumping it up a tier.) I don't think we'll be seeing any major changes until the expansion really. Maybe we'll get one or two new units in the beta, but otherwise...? I don't think the Zerg need MAJOR changes, no. I think the line-up is fine it just needs some re-working. In fact the only race that I think needs a new unit at this point is the Terrans. That's it.
Quote:
Why can't you give possible new zerg units a chance? Do you really think they will not be effective in sc2? i doubt it, and im all for it just to make the sc2 zerg newer.
I'm all for giving new Zerg units a chance.
If they're necessary and provide something that's truly new.
Instead of just going 'oh well I guess we need to put SOMETHING in there.'
Quote:
Just check out the marauders, reapers, thor, banshee, viking, hellion,they are very effective in sc2, and most important they are NEW exciting fresh core attack units for the terran.
Out of everything you just listed, the reaper and hellion are not 'core attack units'. They're both support units. The Viking is another one of those units, much like the Stalker that's new but it's not THAT new.
And as for the Marauder. The Marauder fills something that the Terrans lacked that the other two races had at tier 1: a tier 1 core attack unit. In SC1 the Protoss had the Zealot and the Dragoon. The Zerg had the Zergling and the Hydralisk. The Terrans? They had the marine, which was useful in TvZ and next to useless in every other match-up. And the Firebat which... was able to beat Zerglings? They totally lacked a tier 1.5 unit that was a good compliment to the marine while also being a solid, versatile unit in of itself.
The Hydralisk is not insufficient to fill this role, it can stay, there is no point or need to replace it other than to replace it arbitrarily which they should not do.
Quote:
How about the zerg? Only the roach and corruptor? wow.
The Roach, Corruptor, Queen, Infestor and Overseer. None of those are core attack units, though. All of them are support.
Quote:
New unit means remove some among the 6 old zerg units and make new ones with new roles, stats, etc....
I dont want to sacrifice new zerg units with new roles and gameplay mechanics in sc2 for nostalgic sc1 zerg multiplayer gameplay.
It's not ABOUT nostalgia. It's about there not being a NEED for new units. They didn't get rid of the Zealot because there was no point in replacing it. The same goes for the Siege Tank, Marine, Observer, Carrier, High Templar, Dark Templar, Battlecruiser and Ghost. They were already either good enough at whatever they were supposed to do, without being TOO good, or they had awesome flavour that needed to be honored. (In the case of the Queen and the Ghost) For the Zerg, there just happened to be more units that fit into this 'usable and fun but not TOO usable' parameter.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
"Do I give Protoss the "1" harasser for Warp Prism, which enables other units to harass, or do I give them a point each for Zealots, High Templar, and Immortals, who can now appear in the middle of an enemy base at a second's notice?"
Immortals cant be warped in anymore :O you train them from the robotic factory.
-
Re: The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
Oh. So to hell with finding good ideas; you just want different ones.
different ones which are good ones.
[QUOTE=Nicol Bolas;27479]
What are "mineral games?"
games with unlimited minerals. They always mass hydralisk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
No. Because of the construction of the Zerg is different from other races.
The Zerg have a few general-purpose units and a lot of very specialized support units. Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks are general-purpose, and the rest are all support units.
goliaths, goliaths, and wraiths (strong ATA with decent ATG with cloak) were general purpose as well. and they got cut.
Its not about having few or more general purpose and support unit its all about having NEW units that will be fit in either as a general pupose or a support unit. If you say zerg makes them zerg bcoz they only got 3 general purpose unit, then remove at least one or from it and replace buy a new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
So, if you are going to retain that essential flavor of the Zerg, a few generalists and the rest support, how exactly is it that you're going to make them? And how do you do it in a way that keeps the general Zerg massable feeling? And how do you do all of that without using the old units?
So, you have one ground attack specialist, one ground ranged generalist, and one air ranged generalist. Design these 3 units so that they're not essentially minor changes to Zerglings, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks, within the above constraints.
I don't really have a good idea right now but i can always invent some crazy idea.
Like make the roach as the core massable GTG of the zerg as it is kinda now. Then make a hydralisk replacement, something like a hydralisk evolution lorewise, a bigger serpent bug like monster which is decent against air units but very weak against ground units.
Give the ultralisk (make it tier 2.5 maybe) a morph ability, it turns into a slow moving zerg ground turtle hive which allows you to make 3 more kind of zerg units, one of it is the zerg scourge. This unit use also shoots a green ball that ensnares units after it explodes.
Note, this is just an example on how to change the zerg more in sc2.
I have no idea right now on how to make the air zerg units new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
Um, because I want more larva. As a Zerg player, more larva is the foundation of every decision that I make. More money means nothing without the larva to produce it. If I'm still having to decide between Drones and units, what does it matter if I've got 300 minerals? Whereas more larva gives me more money.
The Zerg needed more resources because the Zerg had the slowest worker production. Terrans and Protoss can pump workers constantly; the Zerg cannot. Certainly not early game. The Zerg have to squeeze out a worker here and there. Indeed, the reason Zerg have to say at least one expo ahead of the others in SC1 is precisely because of larva crunch. You need a second Hatchery just to produce stuff, so you may as well put it in your natural.
The Zerg may have had the most powerful macro, but they also have the hardest in terms of decision-making.
too much gameplay related discussion. I really dont care, but i have to agree zerg is all about fast building units and having a lot of them in the battlefied.
