Are the Zerg really Evolved?

[ArcherofAiur]

If I read one more post comparing something to warcraft 3 or chess.....

[Eligor]

Customizable lings with faster attack/speed or higher armor/damage would be interesting but insanely hard to balance.

If Blizzard was open to a sort of 'talent tree' for unit customization, it could work. However, the idea would make it a lot harder to balance. If you chose to make Toughlings instead of Cracklings, you might encounter some situation where cracklings would have been the best counter. This opens up a lot more ways of making mistakes that are hard to learn from, since games become more random based on player choices. It's an idea for players who want choices and don't care about the e-sports balance of classic SC.

The Zerg have three generalist units (Zergling, Hydralisk and Mutalisk) that form the core of their "army" with all other units being ancillary. It seems to me that the problem Blizzard was struggling with is making these generalist units more distinct and specialized (Hydralisks especially (and it's not clear what their status is at the moment), Zerglings are alright as they are (but apparently render the Roach useless, but the problem is really with the Roach), Mutalisks as a result seem to have faded into the background) so as to give a greater role to the new ancillary units. Having those generalist units becoming more specialized as the game progresses opens up more niches for other units to fill. The Zerg are probably the most flexible race in the game having cheap melee gtg, ranged gtg/atg and flying ranged gtg and atg at arm's reach with no special prequisites to be fulfilled, for them changing the make up of their army is not a problem since there's always a backbone of Zerglings/Hydralisks/Mutalisks doing the brunt of the job. The idea is that if you make a mistake in the specialization of one of those three units, there'll always be an ancillary unit (or a specialization of an ancillary unit) to make up for it. As I said before, there'll have to be a lot of thought given to what those specialization upgrades should be and how would they interact (just how hard it will be to balance depends on the upgrades devised, and as long as the whole "talent tree" of upgrades stays reasonably and carefully designed it shoudn't be impossible). In fact I'd happily try and design one the moment I have more free time.

[Santrega]

If I read one more post comparing something to warcraft 3 or chess.....

Some of your posts are about as fun to read as it is to play warcraft 3. I'll let you determine what that means...

The Zerg have three generalist units (Zergling, Hydralisk and Mutalisk) that form the core of their "army" with all other units being ancillary. It seems to me that the problem Blizzard was struggling with is making these generalist units more distinct and specialized (Hydralisks especially (and it's not clear what their status is at the moment), Zerglings are alright as they are (but apparently render the Roach useless, but the problem is really with the Roach), Mutalisks as a result seem to have faded into the background) so as to give a greater role to the new ancillary units. Having those generalist units becoming more specialized as the game progresses opens up more niches for other units to fill. The Zerg are probably the most flexible race in the game having cheap melee gtg, ranged gtg/atg and flying ranged gtg and atg at arm's reach with no special prequisites to be fulfilled, for them changing the make up of their army is not a problem since there's always a backbone of Zerglings/Hydralisks/Mutalisks doing the brunt of the job. The idea is that if you make a mistake in the specialization of one of those three units, there'll always be an ancillary unit (or a specialization of an ancillary unit) to make up for it. As I said before, there'll have to be a lot of thought given to what those specialization upgrades should be and how would they interact (just how hard it will be to balance depends on the upgrades devised, and as long as the whole "talent tree" of upgrades stays reasonably and carefully designed it shoudn't be impossible). In fact I'd happily try and design one the moment I have more free time.

Yeah, I'm really unsure why triceron believes its difficult to do. I dont believe it any more difficult than making a normal tech tree and requiring you to have certain buildings before you can get certain units. Allowing you to go down different paths in game for many units would still allow you to see balance at different points in the game through actual game play. Units aren't really balanced on an individual basis except for it being initially put in. Obviously every tree has to have a need in the game and then when each unit has its use, and races seem evenly matched, then it goes to beta for one of us to break the game.

[Kimera757]

Well the difference between 1v1 Starcraft and Chess is that Chess is perfectly balanced. One player has the same resources as the other.

Hmm, except when you evolve your pawn, in which case, you have to choose between a knight or a queen... and there is no turning back once you choose..

Or whether you go first or second (white or black) can make a difference, too, but it's as close to balanced as you can get in a turn-based game.

[Triceron]

Yeah, I'm really unsure why triceron believes its difficult to do. I dont believe it any more difficult than making a normal tech tree and requiring you to have certain buildings before you can get certain units.

The issue is not only about difficulty. It's whether Blizzard wants this to be a part of SC2's fine balance. They could have added faction customization like other games have (CnC3, Company of Heroes) yet they stuck with a tried and true SC2 style gameplay. This is a major indication that they don't want to go with these kind of choices.

If you think about it, Warcraft 3 already does this through the Hero system, where you can only choose up to 3 Heroes and there are 11 (4 faction + 7 Neutral) choices. Your hero choice takes you down a permanent path through the game that can not be changed. I personally prefer customization over SC-style e-sports balance, since I'm primarily a War3 player. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2 to go down this path, which is my reasoning for this not likely to happen.

[Eligor]

The issue is not only about difficulty. It's whether Blizzard wants this to be a part of SC2's fine balance. They could have added faction customization like other games have (CnC3, Company of Heroes) yet they stuck with a tried and true SC2 style gameplay. This is a major indication that they don't want to go with these kind of choices.

If you think about it, Warcraft 3 already does this through the Hero system, where you can only choose up to 3 Heroes and there are 11 (4 faction + 7 Neutral) choices. Your hero choice takes you down a permanent path through the game that can not be changed. I personally prefer customization over SC-style e-sports balance, since I'm primarily a War3 player. I don't think Blizzard wants SC2 to go down this path, which is my reasoning for this not likely to happen.

Yes, but such kind of customization is really relatively limited, and it's up to the designer to establish those limits (and by default, how much it "interferes" with balance). And if you ask me WarCraft 3 wasn't designed with any particular synergy between the Heroes and the units in mind (mainly because you had only three heroes at most and much more units, so there was little in the way of meaningful interaction between abilities). Diablo II skill trees would perhaps be a better analogy, but what I imagine is even more strictly thought out, with every option being useful and having a very definite role, and each decision building on the previous one.

[don]

Just to add to the discussion, another reason I gravitate to the idea is that it could potentially make ZvZ matches a lot more interesting. I think ZvZ in SC1 was the most boring...

[Triceron]

It's good that you mentioned D2's skill trees. Your idea of the tech tree does fall in with the system, and it has many of its good traits. However, like the D2 skill tree system, it has its faults as well.

D2's system was designed to be min-maxed. It has very poor progression and synergy with previous abilities. Its permanancy forces you to focus on the 'perfect build', thinking only about the end and little about the means. This is potentially disastrous for SC's gameplay, which has a very fine tuned early and mid game. Many games are often decided in the first 5 minutes. Tech progression is so tight that the Zergling NEEDS its speed upgrade to compete against other unit upgrades, such as Zealot Charge, Stalker Blink and Terran Infantry's Stim. It just doesn't work giving it more damage and health when it gets out maneuvered/microed and can't surround their targets.

D2's system has a strong focus on customization, but D2's skill trees have no counters or weaknesses. You are not punished in any way for using Charged Bolt over Chain Lightning. You can use Glacial Spike and Firewall to your heart's content with nothing but 'immune' mobs standing in your way.

In Starcraft, any unit you make is used to counter enemy units; and can be countered in some way. If you focus on Toughlings over Cracklings, you get a better unit in straight-up fights, say against M&M or zealots. On the other hand, you lose your effective counter to mass Stalkers and mass Thors. Toughlings wouldn't be effective in chasing and catching highly mobile ground units. They wouldn't be able to maximize positioning and surround enemy units. You would need to depend on something else to deal with all the gaps that are created with each permanent upgrade in the game.

Ultimately, this isn't just one permanent unit upgrade. This will lead to a series of changes being needed, potentially leading to subfactions. This doesn't fit Blizzard's vision of SC2.

[don]

But you wont be using zerglings only in a match. There would be other units with other upgrades as well.

Why cant we have have tough zerglings and higly microable hydralisks for ground? The Hydralisk can have an upgrade path where really fast hydralisk movement disables its armor and range upgrades.

And Blizzard can certainly balance the game to a point where Cracklings+Tough Hydras = Toughlings+Crack-Hydras. Why not stick with one? Well because playing each combination will be significantly different and it will be more fun if you can choose.

As a forethought, Cracklings+Crack-Hydras would be weak against AOE and an all-tough slow ground army would be susceptible to micro tactics... But can still have its niche moments.

As for the other ground units, its upgrades can be parallel to what lings+hydra gets going so it wont affect the overall balance much. Say the Roach can choose between really fast health regen or movement while burrowed while maintaining all other upgrades as the same. The lurker can choose between line attack or a single point attack that slightly slows.

I don't really know the current lineup of units but I think the this can be done across Zerg. And the tech splits don't have to be always about stats. They can be trivial, say the Mutalisk can choose from bounce attack or split attack.. or stategic, say the baneling can choose from instant explosive damage or corrosive damage over time.

Another thought. Currently, because of the Zergling's high-microability, it is not viable to be a cliff climber. And if it stays like that it will never be. But, I imagine, Toughlings would be. So, choosing one upgrade path and denying the other may give each unit an opportunity to get an ability that it would otherwise not get because of ballance isses. (or the other way around if the argument is that the Zergling is too massable, having its armor upgrade disabled or even give it an armor penalty it can get cliff climbing.)

Now i'm seeing the suggestion as a balancing tool.

Ultimately, this isn't just one permanent unit upgrade. This will lead to a series of changes being needed, potentially leading to subfactions. This doesn't fit Blizzard's vision of SC2.

Subfactions would be a different suggestion altogether. I dont see how the suggestion can lead to subfactions. I can see playstyles and build orders would be a lot more varied, but subfactions I dont see. Can you explain?

[Triceron]

Yes, they've done it before. It was called Brood War. All it did was add a couple units to each race, add a couple upgrades and tweak some stats. It took 2+ years to balance right, and it didn't even have exclusive tech trees.

Take the Goliath for example. With just one small upgrade, it was turned from a generally unused, well-rounded unit into the defacto AA specialist. The way you play Terrans in Vanilla is almost completely different from the strategies used in Brood War, and this is due to the addition of the medic and goliath with upgrade.

Making exclusive tech paths is like trying to retrofit SC Vanilla gameplay into Brood War. It's possible to accomplish but you're essentially rebalancing an entire faction within a faction. I don't think you truly understand the scope of what you're asking. Making banelings explode OR giving them acid spore type damage is not something you can address in a patch. These type of changes are on par with adding a new race to the game. SC2 is not War3 where you can just throw around modifiers at will and things will balance out; it's a fine-tuned system with few exclusive variables.

SC1's fine balance was what made competitive gaming so intense. Watching a match between two players came down to pure skill. There were few 'random' factors in the way. Once you add exclusive tech trees with these kind of choices, you make counters unpredictable and strategies unreliable. These exclusive factors conflict with what's already accepted as Starcraft gameplay.