pW Solves Zerg in 1 Fell Swoop

[DemolitionSquid]

It's funny how macro leaders always fight between each other and you rarely see micro theorycrafters fight.

Its simply easier to create good micro than to create good macro.

[deadcharm]

I got a couple of questions before I can dislike this.

So What would be the cost to making the ATs?
Zerg gets a Boast on Oppents creep so would the AT be used by other zerg players?
Zerg fight well in open areas would this affect there abbilty to fight in there base if you had about 7 or 8 AT one of each type ( 2 of the spawning pools for the creep )?

I do like the idea that CTs to ATs but I can't say I like effects that you have put out there at this moment.

[newcomplex]

Ugh.

Pure.wasted, there is rational, explainable, reason why this idea has no merit as a suggestion at all. It is simply "cool".

Things in the game have function, and things have form. Form should follow function. Currently, your suggestions present a form that is not the simplest implementation of the function, while providing no additional function as a result of this superfluidity.

This is intended to solve two "problems". One is the "function" of creep tumor(macro tension), one is the "form" of zerg in general (diversity) The function of a tumor is to provide provide additional creep to build stuff on, to give map control, and to give the zerg a defenders advantage and to reward map control with an tangible advantage. It also was intended to create macro tensions. It does not.

Yours may or may not not solve this problem. Thats not the point.

The point is the problem with form. Obviously, the primary intent of this suggestion was not to solve the problem of macro mechanics, because the form of the suggestion is so wildly random that it is simply not the simplest, or even most effective, solution.

The main point was to solve a percieved problem in the form of the zerg (which may or may not exist). Lack of "new stuff".

In SC2, form must always follow function. Any suggestion that deals with form must also deal with function.

This suggestion does not deal with function.

The form of this design does not correlate to any functions what so ever. Instead. You have not defined the function, only the form. For instance, can you rationalize for me why giving zerg a defenders advantage that say, creates broodlings, is different in function from a spine crawler? The differences are extremely minor, and only relational. (I'm assuming you can't move them too far. If you can just continuously stream broodlings at your opponent at no food or mineral cost (beyond its initial cost), that would be stupid beyond belief.)

You cannot. You've created a form which does not correlate function, and does not expand depth. Lets say you create 5 distinct defender/map control advantages for creep, morphed out of a spine crawler. So what? It doesn't change the fact that ultimately, you end up with 3 different kinds of advantages. A statistical advantage (unit buffs of any sort), a static advantage(Static advantages, ie:Spawn broodlings). Opening up options (burrow) is not a workable advantage because that would mean that zerg would either play completely differently on creep then off creep, and hence, inevitably result in imbalance, or simply not be used.

That kind of design has no place in SC. It does not expand the depth of the game, only mechanical complexity. SC is about depth, not mechanical complexity.

[DemolitionSquid]

SC is about depth, not mechanical complexity.

Then please explain the existence of Spawn Larva, MULES, and Chrono Boost.

[newcomplex]

Then please explain the existence of Spawn Larva, MULES, and Chrono Boost.

"Complexity" is the key word here. By this I mean games like Civilization, Sins of the Solar empire, these games are "complex", far moreso then SC. Complex is the amount of rules within any given independent system. Depth can defined as the way mechanics interact that results in choices. Macro mechanics are not complex, but they add depth to the game by requiring the player to multi-task different situations, and preform judgements of value on the relative importance of micro and macro at any given scenario.

In that regard, it adds choice.

It also has the bonus of providing some superficial choice through energy tension. (Which is not present in the zerg, a problem)

[Nicol Bolas]

So it's OK for Creep to be 10 different mechanics, but not OK for Advanced Tumors to be 10 different mechanics? As far as I'm aware, there's no rules or laws around that forbid a race from having two racial mechanics that are comprised of 10 individual sub-mechanics.

You're not seeing the problem. Creep is one mechanic. That is, the fact that creep exists and is produced by Hatcheries, Creep Tumors and Overlords with a Lair. How creep tumors are created is a different mechanic, as is how Hatcheries are created. What needs creep is again, a different mechanic. What benefits a unit gets by standing on the creep is another mechanic. You can label these as all part of some global "Creep is and does this" rubric, but these are all layered on top of each other. They are each simple components that reasonably flow one to the other, and they all make sense together. You can pull out different mechanics and add new ones easily, because each mechanic is separate and fairly modular.

What you're talking about isn't even a functional mechanic unless you have all of the parts and pieces in place. That is, upgrading creep tumors and the effects of what they upgrade into. It is not a complete mechanic without being integrally complex. It isn't made of simple components that can easily be pulled and replaced.

I'm talking about the "make units in his base to destroy his economy" aspect of Warp-In.

That is an inevitable outgrowth of a combination of two distinct and separate mechanics: Warp-In, and the Warp Prism's Psi mode.

Neither the Zealot nor the HT nor the DT were substantially changed from their SC1 counterparts as a result of being able to warp in at a Proxy Pylon, let alone the middle of the enemy base. The Protoss have huge new mobility... at no cost. Whatsoever.

"No cost" is incorrect. There is a cost. For several seconds, a warping in unit is vulnerable to attack. If the enemy sees it coming, or pushes your army back to your source of Psi, then you've got problems. They'll be able to get free hits on your warping units.

Furthermore, mobility does not make these units more powerful a priori. It does not make Zealots hit harder or absorb more damage. It simply puts them in a different place. That alone can be strong or weak, but that is determined by other circumstances.

Four (Fungal, Deviant [one of the most popular], Brood, and Pulmonic [another popular one]) don't affect units at all.

Oh really?

Fungal: Creep speed is reliant on, you know, Creep. As are the other Creep tumor powers. Having a single tumor that can spread creep farther very much affects units, even if you're not using other tumors.

Or why do you think top Zergs waste a Spawn Larva cycle or two to plant Creep Tumors these days? They're certainly not doing it to feel more "Zergy"; they want the speed bonus.

Deviant: Why would you create a wall if you're not going to stand behind it and shoot stuff? And what does the shooting? Units. If Fungal Wall doesn't make units better, then I must be imagining the fact that Sentries and Force Fields are killing my Roach/Ling defenses vs. Protoss.

Brood: It creates units. How can this not affect units?

Pulmonic: Affects units by proxy: it hides the things that affect units.

Which brings me to the other point: if they're not making your army better, why would you ever bother to use them? Spreading Creep takes time and effort. If these things don't help make your units more cost-effective, then you simply won't bother to use them. If burrowing air units isn't useful, that tumor will simply never be used. Same goes for the burrowed movement one.

So in the end, only the abilities that make your army more cost-effective will be used. If there aren't any such abilities, then I guess advanced CTs won't be used.

Now let's take the other one -- all Zerg units can move while Burrowed. First of all, this AT has even shorter a range than the Burrow AT. It has even less HP (125). It's even easier to destroy and counter, wasting the Zerg's time and efforts. You know how the Mothership's Cloaking Field isn't overpowered? "But pW, the Mothership is UNIQUE, and at the VERY END of the tech tree for a reason!" Yeah, and that reason is all the things Cloaking Field does that ATs could never dream to: Burrow moving units cannot attack, they can only ambush and retreat. Burrowing and Unburrowing takes time. The AT is easy to destroy. And finally, they can only do this around their IMMOBILE AT.

So... what you're saying is that nobody will ever bother to build it. I don't see how this is helping your case.

They, like Tier 1 Zerg and Tier 1 Protoss, were designed knowing that healing would be around come Tier 3. If one less Reaper is all it took for me to make a Medic to augment my early MM ball versus Protoss, you best believe I'll take that Medic.

Oh please. Even in SC1, it required a post-Barracks building to make Medics. And "Tier 3" for the Terrans is about the same timing as a StarGate or a Hydralisk Den is for any other race. Hell, it's probably earlier than a Den. In short, you're looking at a savings of maybe one building for the Terrans. Not to mention the tech lab you have to build on the Barracks needed to make them.

No, we don't know that such major balance problems won't be caused by Wings, or by Heart, or by Void. I've already said that I am absolutely positive that they will. Three+ years of extensive additions and balance work cannot lead to anything less. And if Blizzard is going to have to change everything at some point, they might as well start thinking of the content they'll add along the way.

So we have two data points: SC1->BW, and WC3->TFT. In the former case, we got units, abilities, and a few minor tweaks. In the latter case, we got a major game restructuring, almost page-1 rewrite.

The mere fact that the SC1->BW path exists shows that it is very much possible to get things mostly right the first time, such that you don't have to take a sledgehammer to everything to fix the balance.

I would also point out that TFT's balance is not exactly... strong. If you think SC1's maps require too many commonalities and tropes to be balanced, they can't even introduce new maps in TFT, because the balance is on such a razor's edge that even a small change kills everything. Meanwhile, SC1 can support fairly disparate map styles. Even SC2 shows this, with maps like Desert Oasis being abnormal, requiring different strategies, but thus far not unbalanced (or at least, not heavily so).

While it is mechanically simple, compared to the AT system, it is also ludicrously overpowered on paper.

Really? Says who? Oh, some people on a forum may have said this, but more rational and level-headed folk immediately annihilated such "arguments."

So no, Warp-In is not overpowered on paper.

Your retro-analysis of Warp-In is not congruent with Blizzard's admitted first impressions of the idea. It was overpowered. They made it work without nerfing the Zealot, High Templar, or Dark Templar.

The same is true of ATs.

You're still missing the fundamental difference: Warp-In doesn't make units better. ATs do.

Mobility and straight-up combat enhancements are two different things. They have two different effects on the game's balance.

A Protoss is much more powerful next to his Proxy Pylon in the middle of the map than in your base.

No, they aren't. A Zealot next to a Pylon is no more dangerous than a Zealot in your base. Warp-In simply allows you to make more Zealots or whatever next to that Pylon. You still need money to do this.

A Hydralisk behind a Fungal Wall is much more powerful than a Hydralisk standing alone. You do not need money to do this.

Do you see the difference? One is hampered by a resource. One can be directly harassed (by destroying the pylon) or indirectly (by base harassment). The other is a one-trick pony: you either have the buff or you don't.

The whole point of increasing utility of Burrow and making Burrow move possible is to increase Zerg mobility tremendously. If you're not actively countering those ATs, you have absolutely no way to know which side they're gonna come at you from, and if Protoss play is any indication, come at you they will.

Oh please. You can see the creep. This isn't like Warp-In, where they can drop X WarpGates worth of units on you. You can see it coming, and you know what the full extent of their burrowed range is. Hell, a Terran can just drop a nuke on the Creep and kill everything without bothering to even scan.

Just a general "all Zerg units can burrow-move" upgrade would be far better, simpler, more effective, more useful, and more balanceable.

[SCpollo]

"This is one of the coolest ideas I've seen for the Zerg"
in a while

I think that the number of tumor types should be limited to something like 3 (one for each hatchery's form).

this

the advanced tumors have to cost a small portion of resources however.
to make creep more worth while make nydus worms have to creat a network on creep. this doesnt impeed non creep users however because ovys still got creep drop

Queen uses transfusion Heals a building or speeds up a building time. giving you access to more units quickly. Juggling this ability with a *energy based* Spawn Mutant larvae that Can move anywhere on the map and move snake-like fast. (possible upgrade)

Move the ability to spawn creep tumor to the overseer

creep tumor Hatch(burrowed but would be visible while upgrading) visible as muddy parts of creep: AOE reduce enemy movement ground speed.

Creep tumor Lair (requires baneling nest): visible acid spire jutting out of creep. It does modest DOT within a cloud of acid. reduces line of sight for opponent. would self destruct upon death

creep tumor Hive: (Visible as organ, Aoe creep is blood red and veiny): units can be upgraded or built underground (requires burrow) medium to small sized units can move at 1/2 speed 3/4 underground respectively

[KadajSouba]

Well lets honest. If somebody told us about something like the roach as a game suggestion before we knew about it, hed be changing his adresss because all the hate mail.

Open your minds to new posibilities.

[Nicol Bolas]

Well lets honest. If somebody told us about something like the roach as a game suggestion before we knew about it, hed be changing his adresss because all the hate mail.

Um, why? The Roach has been in the game since at least the Zerg reveal, and likely longer. There wasn't any of the outcry that you're talking about here.

[newcomplex]

Well, if you reduce this concept enough, down to core components.

Remove creep tumor sporogenesis, require queen to respawn, morphs into basic functions (static defense/passive defense/).

It still isn't a good concept because you would just end up making a second queen to spam tumors. And strong passive defense is bad imo, makes zerg too positional and will inevitably decrease viable early offensives against zerg, or for zerg.