The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

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.

[Aldrius]

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.

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).

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.

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.

[flabortast]

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

[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.

[Norfindel]

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

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.

[flabortast]

I think its mostly because it only takes the queen 25 energy for 4 larvae. I think its balanceable.

[DemolitionSquid]

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.

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

[ArcherofAiur]

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.

[Nicol Bolas]

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.