pW Solves Zerg in 1 Fell Swoop

[pure.Wasted]

Now, I know this is just an idea, but the fact that you aren't agreeing that 7 tumors is a few too many, shows a little defensiveness.

As Nicol so eloquently put it in the "Blizz to Charge a Bazzillion Dollars for SC2" thread, "I'm not arguing for this, I'm arguing against you."

It is perfectly possible that 7 Advanced Tumors is, indeed, overkill. However, I have yet to see an argument that demonstrates why this must be the case. Right now the Zerg have 5 fewer buildings than Terran.

So they'll have two more. Big deal.

A few people seem to think it is indeed a big deal, but you're gonna have to prove it.

This idea you're presenting is god-damn brilliant! Have you posted this to the beta forums to get possible Blizzard exposure?

There's not really any point. Blizzard isn't going to be thinking about changes like this for as long as the Beta is out. It's only after that they'll be able to focus on where they want to take the game for Heart. But thanks for support. <3

That goes to everyone who sees the potential.

[pure.Wasted]

Just one question, do the effects of the ACT affect your units anywhere or they have to be in a radius/on Creep?

The Tumors definitely work in an AoE-only (most in Siege Tank range, I imagine), which I think is a huge part in making them vulnerable and open to enemy harassment. If you let a Zerg sit around for 20 minutes, he's going to have an entire network of Tumors from his base to every point in the map, so his units can Burrow, Burrow move, be undetectable as they Burrow, and so on and so forth wherever he damn well pleases. He's going to OWN the entire map.

But that's where harassment comes in. Killing most of these is easy as pie, as they have from 100 to 400 HP, and no more. That means that against a good player the Zerg won't ever be able to get this network so completely finished, and will instead be forced to fix dying Tumors over and over and over.

Of course, like anything with the idea, I'm willing to budge on this, if someone presents a good reason why this oughtn't be the case!

[pure.Wasted]

to make a concrete exemplifying suggestion, lets say it works like this: a queen spawns a basic tumor. when finished, this one can either reproduce another basic tumor or morph into an advanced tumor while remaining burrowed. (if morphed, it starts a timer for its death)
if you opt to reprcude a tumor, it can still morph into an advanced tumor after this, but then it will not remain burrowed, but still have a timer.

I'm a little concerned that this, combined with the idea of removing a bunch of the Tumors (as some including you have suggested), actually makes the system much less straight-forward than it is right now. As things stand, there are a few global rules: 1) All ATs are not Burrowed, 2) All tech structures unlock an AT.

By changing 1), you're overcomplicating the production process. Which I'm not necessarily against, but it seems people want this thing to be as simple as possible. By changing 2), (and this isn't just addressed at you Todie) you're making the rules more arbitrary and inelegant than they are right now. Which again people seem to be against.

A Baneling can essentially attack from underground, a roach cant. moving AND attackign while cloaked is what sets DT/basnhee/ghost appart from zerg burrowable units. i think its a good desticntion too.

1. The Baneling can only do this if there is an appropriate Tumor nearby. Don't think of it as "Banelings Burrow move around the entire map exploding where they like." Think of it as "If the Zerg builds Tumor X, which is vulnerable to being destroyed, Banelings can move around while Burrowed near it." It is far less versatile than Cloak.

2. The Infestor could cast while Burrowed, yet nobody complained that it infringed upon the Ghost or the DT's roles. So why the double standard now?

creep wall would be cool, but... um.. its implications are potentially too huge and numerous. for now..

Once again, this is exactly the point I'm trying to achieve! (Well, one of them, anyway) I am not impressed with the Zerg. Where other races have failed to make the transition from 1998 to 2010, it is at least clear that they have tried. The Zerg have not.

I see absolutely no reason to "go easy" on the Zerg. They need revamps, and if there is an opportunity here to provide one -- kill two birds with one stone sort of deal -- I don't see why I shouldn't bring it up. What's the worst that could possibly happen? Blizz doesn't like it and doesn't implement it? Cause, yeah, my hopes are really up for the whole idea anyway.

i feel like we're on to something that could help make zerg more interesting to play. but i fear its too late for Wings of Liberty, for this type of creative solutions... im on the hunt for something more simple & to the point.

peace.

I doubt we're getting any changes to Zerg gameplay in Wings. But, as I said, Heart is just around the corner. That's what I'm shooting for.

[Nicol Bolas]

"You can create Creep, and Creep makes units faster." -- does not explain how Creep is created, which units benefit from +speed and how much, and what Creep's other uses are.
"You can morph Advanced Tumors, and Advanced Tumors give your units passive abilities." -- does not explain AT's pre-req or the benefits they provide.

You're missing the fact that creep speed is itself a single mechanic, defined separately from creep generators, the creep requirement for buildings, etc. For example, you could remove the creep requirement for building production, and this wouldn't touch the creep speed mechanic itself. It might have certain effects on the utility of this mechanic, but the mechanic itself, the specific numbers, would be unchanged.

You could label them all under one heading of "creep mechanics", but they are still many individual mechanics underneath that heading.

Creep speed is one very simple mechanic. Coupled with other mechanics, it creates the desire for the Zerg player to spread creep across the map. Take away creep speed, and you take away the desire. Take away self-replicating creep tumors, and you take away much of the ability. Same goes for Overlords spewing creep.

Each of these is a simple mechanic, but when combined, create interesting play.

What you're proposing is not a simple mechanic. It isn't even a mechanic; it's 10 different mechanics. And you're not even proposing 10 mechanics; you're proposing one mechanic and hand-waving the other 9. This is far more complicated than it needs to be to create an effect.

Once again, Protoss are designed with Warp-In in mind, but this does NOT mean that Protoss pro gamers who don't use Warp-In automatically lose. Many have won handily.

Show me a high-level Protoss game that lasts for more than 20 minutes without the use of Warp Gates.

Furthermore, Warp-In doesn't make units better. It makes units faster, and it makes them in different locations. But no matter how many WGs you have, you're always going to be resource-constrained on your production. X amount of minerals and gas will give you Y units of Z strength. Period.

Putting units on creep in range of these creep powers makes those units better. It makes them more cost efficient than they would be without them. Because if they didn't, you wouldn't bother using these abilities, right?

So, creep powers make your units more cost effective. In order for the game to be balanced, then either your units off of the creep must be less cost effective than the enemy army, or your units on the creep must be more cost effective than the enemy army.

Neither of these is a good idea.

Everything is balance-able.

No, it isn't.

As things stand, Zerg get to be mobile (though Terran and Protoss have both done a LOT of catching up in the last 12 years, so their mobility isn't as big of an advantage as it used to be), but at the cost of having unique racial mechanics that further differentiate their play.

What does Zerg mobility have to do with unique racial mechanics? Your idea is far from the only thing the Zerg could possible have. So I don't know where you're getting this idea that the only way to make the Zerg more unique and further differentiate their play is to add a bunch of creep enhancers.

If* slowing them down is what it takes to make the race really stand out and play in a fundamentally different way from the other two, why shouldn't we do it?

Because it's unnecessary. You're only slowing them down because of your creep idea; this is not the only macro idea.

Why are the Zerg being nerfed so that they're not worthwhile off of the Creep? Whoever suggested that?

It is a necessary outgrowth of your idea, as shown above.

Adding a Medic changed the way Terran played completely.

Absolutely. But this did not affect the Marine's stats. They didn't change the Marine's place in the tech tree, cost, Hp, damage output, etc. They just gave it Medics.

What you're proposing cannot work with the way the units are now.

Just from looking up BW patch logs, you can tell that Adrenal Glands was added as a direct counter to what Medics allowed Marines to do in TvZ.

Adrenal Glands were always part of the Zerg, even in SC1 vanilla. Patch 1.04 made adrenal glands work correctly; there was apparently a bug in it or something. Note that the mention of adrenal glands in 1.04 was not in the balance section.

Imagine adding Medics now. Marines, Marauders, Reapers, and Medivacs would all require stat tweaks at the very least

Ignoring the effect of adding a unit that does the exact same thing as another unit (Medivacs), Marines didn't need stat tweaks in BW. So why would they need them now? Indeed, you would be hard-pressed to convince me that anything other than Medivacs would require balance changes in such an eventuality. These units were already designed knowing that healing would be around; the form may change a bit, but the effect doesn't.

WC3's balance problems were not detected in Beta. They manifested once the game was released. We have absolutely no way of knowing what will or won't require huge nerfs or buffs across the board.

Right. TFT was done as a result of major balance problems. There are no balance problems you're trying to solve here.

Not only that, but WC3 added HUGE game mechanics. Player-owned shops, Neutral Heroes, 3 new units and 1 new hero per race... none of THAT had to do with game breaking imbalances.

Because they were going to basically rebuild the multiplayer of the game anyway, they decided to throw in some new stuff too.

Yes, all the criticisms are because it seems "wild" but hey, all new things seemed weird.
A lightbulb seemed weird.

No, it didn't. Good ideas tend to be immediately obviously good. Like Warp-In; it's hard to argue that this is not a good idea. It's mechanically simple, creates lots of interesting play possibilities, etc.

This is not mechanically simple. It doesn't create interesting play; it creates arbitrary positional play (my units are strong here, but weak here). It takes the Zerg, the most mobile and dynamic race in SC and turns them into the SC1 Terrans: immobile, slowly leap-frogging and claiming territory, etc.

Right now the Zerg have 5 fewer buildings than Terran.

No, they don't. The Zerg have 15 buildings, including Hatch/Lair/Hive as 3 separate buildings. The Terrans have 15 buildings,taking the Tech Labs as the same building. Even if you say that the tech labs are different when attached to different things, they're still only up by 2 buildings over the Zerg.

The Infestor could cast while Burrowed, yet nobody complained that it infringed upon the Ghost or the DT's roles. So why the double standard now?

Maybe that's why the Infestor can't anymore.

[Asfastasican]

The effort and creativity that went into these suggestions is great, but Blizzard would never implement that many kinds of tumors all at once. It's goes against one or two of their core design principles. Nicol hacked at it like a lumberjack on roids, but all that needs to be said is that the entire package is too complex to hand to most players. Even if this tumor system was implemented, there might not be much chance of seeing the player have fun with it.

Can I just be honest and say that sc2 zerg are as interesting, if not more interesting, than sc1 zerg? I'm just being honest when I say that sc1 zerg weren't that exciting in the first place? I don't see any problems with how sc2 zerg are in WoL.

[DemolitionSquid]

I think what we need to draw from this is Creep Tumors can be more exciting and promote more macro, yes?

I think that making creep tumors upgrade with the tech level is great.

[pure.Wasted]

You're missing the fact that creep speed is itself a single mechanic, defined separately from creep generators, the creep requirement for buildings, etc. For example, you could remove the creep requirement for building production, and this wouldn't touch the creep speed mechanic itself. It might have certain effects on the utility of this mechanic, but the mechanic itself, the specific numbers, would be unchanged.

You could label them all under one heading of "creep mechanics", but they are still many individual mechanics underneath that heading.

Creep speed is one very simple mechanic. Coupled with other mechanics, it creates the desire for the Zerg player to spread creep across the map. Take away creep speed, and you take away the desire. Take away self-replicating creep tumors, and you take away much of the ability. Same goes for Overlords spewing creep.

Each of these is a simple mechanic, but when combined, create interesting play.

What you're proposing is not a simple mechanic. It isn't even a mechanic; it's 10 different mechanics. And you're not even proposing 10 mechanics; you're proposing one mechanic and hand-waving the other 9. This is far more complicated than it needs to be to create an effect.

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.

Show me a high-level Protoss game that lasts for more than 20 minutes without the use of Warp Gates.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was talking specifically about Warp Prism play. I'm not talking about the time saving aspect of Warp-In (which is admittedly huge). I'm talking about the "make units in his base to destroy his economy" aspect of Warp-In.

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.

So why is it Protoss get to have a straight up advantage, but Zerg have to balance it out with all sorts of disadvantages? Remember, you're the one arguing that this is somehow inherently necessary; if Protoss got away without it, I don't see how it's inherently anything.

Furthermore, Warp-In doesn't make units better. It makes units faster, and it makes them in different locations. But no matter how many WGs you have, you're always going to be resource-constrained on your production. X amount of minerals and gas will give you Y units of Z strength. Period.

Putting units on creep in range of these creep powers makes those units better. It makes them more cost efficient than they would be without them. Because if they didn't, you wouldn't bother using these abilities, right?

Does it make them better? I'm not sure you actually read the abilities we're discussing. Four (Fungal, Deviant [one of the most popular], Brood, and Pulmonic [another popular one]) don't affect units at all. Many of the others grant USEFUL but not strictly BUFFING abilities. Morphing underground -- well, sure, it adds security for Zerglings trying to morph into Banelings, but in no way whatsoever is it NECESSARY for a Zergling player. In no way does it mean instant destruction for the Terran or overpowered Banelings for the Zerg. In no way whatsoever would it force Zergling/Baneling stats to change.

Same goes for Burrowing Mutalisks. Sure, it might save your Mutalisks if you're fast on your feet and have one prepared in a handy location to escape to -- but in no way whatsoever would it require changes to the units themselves.

So, creep powers make your units more cost effective. In order for the game to be balanced, then either your units off of the creep must be less cost effective than the enemy army, or your units on the creep must be more cost effective than the enemy army.

Now, let's imagine for a second that you're talking strictly about three -- the one that allows Burrow, the one that allows Burrow movement, and the one that makes Burrowed units undetectable. They're the ones that make your units more cost effective.

Well, yes and no. Let's compare Burrow AT to Burrow. Burrow AT costs Queen energy and a lot of time and effort to maintain (must be replaced with new CTs when upgraded, must be replaced with new CTs when destroyed). It is counterable by the enemy -- a measly 250 HP on the AT itself. AND it has a radius, outside of which the ability is useless. Burrow on the other hand is a one-time investment of 100/100 and from then on acts as a GLOBAL upgrade that the enemy can do absolutely nothing to counter.

And the AT is overpowered, not Burrow. In fact, as you claim, not only is it overpowered, it is SO overpowered that it is inherently not possible to balance the ability without reworking all of the Zerg units. Right.

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.

There is absolutely nothing imbalanced about this. If Cloaking Field is fine, then Cloaking Field minus nearly all of its utility, but earlier in the tech tree to compensate, is fine too. Burden of proof is on you to prove that this is somehow inherently imbalanced and requiring of major tweaks across the entire board, and you're not going to be able to do that with such a direct parallel already in the game and working subpar.

Just because I'm teching to MGM doesn't mean I'm not harassing you with Reapers in the meantime. Just because I'm building up my AT network doesn't mean my Zerglings are sitting in my base, scared to go out. They're no weaker than before. They don't have to be.

There's less of them, due to loss of SL, but they're not weaker.

What you're proposing cannot work with the way the units are now.

Sorry on the Adrenal Glands faux pas, Battle.net seemed to suggest otherwise. In any case, I'm not convinced this is the case.

These units were already designed knowing that healing would be around; the form may change a bit, but the effect doesn't.

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. And I sincerely wish those Zealots trying to get through my Marauder wall without Charge the best of luck.

Right. TFT was done as a result of major balance problems. There are no balance problems you're trying to solve here.

[...]

Because they were going to basically rebuild the multiplayer of the game anyway, they decided to throw in some new stuff too.

The last bit is correct. They were in fact rebuilding the multiplayer so changing up other stuff didn't really have as huge an impact. That's just common sense. However, you've fallen into a bit of a trap. Yes, TFT was done as a result of major balance problems. 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.

This is that content (or one form of it, anyway; as you point out, it's not the only macro mechanic possible).

No, it didn't. Good ideas tend to be immediately obviously good. Like Warp-In; it's hard to argue that this is not a good idea. It's mechanically simple, creates lots of interesting play possibilities, etc.

Warp-In is not "obviously good." While it is mechanically simple, compared to the AT system, it is also ludicrously overpowered on paper. That is WHY Blizzard took a liking to it to begin with.

"What if we did this? What if Protoss could just warp in stuff anywhere they wanted to? That sounds insanely powerful." That came out of one of Rob Pardo's ideas, of him looking at the Terran, Protoss, and the Zerg, and realizing that the Zerg build in a very unique way, but the Protoss and the Terran build kind of the same; it's the same mechanic. He said we should do something different. "What could the Protoss do? What if they could teleport to the battlefield? That seems like it would have all sorts of applications." When we first put it in, everybody freaked out. People said we ruined the game, that it was too powerful. Everyone freaked out, people were saying we ruined the game. "WATCH WHAT I CAN DO! WATCH WHAT I CAN DO! I CAN END THE GAME RIGHT NOW!" Yes, we know, we don't care. We're going to work the problem now. Now that we've got it in, we're going to work the problem and figure it out. Can we make this work? And, at least in pre-beta, mission accomplished, right? It's pretty cool, it's pretty powerful, but it's also pretty different.

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.

It doesn't create interesting play; it creates arbitrary positional play (my units are strong here, but weak here).

Huh. An effect in only a certain area is arbitrary.

Guess Proxy Pylons are pretty arbitrary too, since Protoss are more powerful around them than elsewhere.

No, they don't. The Zerg have 15 buildings, including Hatch/Lair/Hive as 3 separate buildings. The Terrans have 15 buildings,taking the Tech Labs as the same building. Even if you say that the tech labs are different when attached to different things, they're still only up by 2 buildings over the Zerg.

All right, you've convinced me. Terrans have 2 buildings over. Nothing wrong with that, right? Let's say we only add 5 ATs. Now Zerg are 3 buildings over. Nothing wrong with that, either.

Maybe that's why the Infestor can't anymore.

Uh, no, it isn't. Not unless you want to point me to a SINGLE post, ANYWHERE, where the Infestor is compared disfavorably to the Ghost because it infringes on the Ghost's mechanic.

Fans cry about anything and everything. The fact that they didn't cry about this, at all, is a pretty good indicator that it actually didn't bother... ANYBODY.


edit: I seem to have forgot to directly address your "static Zerg" complaint. A Protoss is much more powerful next to his Proxy Pylon in the middle of the map than in your base. Tell me, does that stop Protoss from attacking... and doing so often? Does it make the Protoss stationary? No, it doesn'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.

[pure.Wasted]

Can I just be honest and say that sc2 zerg are as interesting, if not more interesting, than sc1 zerg? I'm just being honest when I say that sc1 zerg weren't that exciting in the first place? I don't see any problems with how sc2 zerg are in WoL.

1. Zerg are more interesting in SC2 than SC1, agreed.
2. Zerg in SC1 were not interesting, not so agreed (they were by far the most different race, if nothing else).
3. Zerg being more interesting in SC2 than in SC1 is enough. Disagreed. Strongly. Violently. They have to be more interesting by 12 years of game development time. Making creep increase unit movement speed is equivalent to WC3's Undead Blight increasing regeneration speed. Ten years ago.

I think what we need to draw from this is Creep Tumors can be more exciting and promote more macro, yes?

I think that making creep tumors upgrade with the tech level is great.

This is by far the most important thing someone can take away from this thread. I love discussion and debate of specific ideas, and I welcome it wholly, but I would like to remind everyone to not get distracted by the specifics, which are easily alterable. DS's got the right idea.

[MattII]

An interesting, if not new, idea, although I agree with most of it and would rather suggest my own, whereby the Tumor is cloaked at all stages:
Brood Tumor - Autospawns and stores up to 5 Broodlings which it releases when an enemy unit is detected nearby.
Acid Tumor - Enemy units within 3 range of the tumor take 2 DpS

[Arkalis]

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