The Zerg Problem -- Statistical Analysis

[FrozenArbiter]

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.

[electricmole]

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.

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.

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.

[Alzarath]

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.

[electricmole]

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.

[Norfindel]

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?

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[SoFool]

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.

[Aldrius]

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

[MetalHeadClan]

"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.

[electricmole]

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.

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.

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.

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.