Zerg cost as Protoss cost (Last Post)

This is going to be my last post.

I want you guys to try and let go of the past for me on this one, start over fresh, and forget it all.

I want to make a comparison of how zerg should have functioned in the original starcraft to how they will in sc2 having the additional larvae.

It's always been said that zerg's strength is numbers, but this I find hard to believe.

If zerg's strength was truly numbers, then all their units would have to come out of larvae with more then just one unit.

Imagine if zerg production was merely doubled in everything, but for double the cost. It might sound radical and ridiculous at first thought, but I think you would agree that it makes perfect sense if you gave it a fair chance.

You would see that zerg costs would now be in alignment with protoss costs. Rather then 2 lings per larvae for 50 minerals, rather 4 lings per larvae for 100 minerals. Rather then 1 hydra out of an egg for 75 minerals and 25 gas, 2 hydras would come out of 1 larvae for 150 minerals and 50 gas.

Note the alignment with protoss costs. 100 minerals is 4 lings is 1 zealot. 2 hydras is 150 minerals 50 gas, even the dragoon was changed to 125 minerals 50 gas, it's still interesting to note the parallel.

4 scourges out of 1 larvae, 50 minerals 150 gas = 1 high templar.

2 mutas out of 1 larvae = 1 reaver. 200/200

I'm just saying, that if zerg's strength truly was numbers, then at least all warrior units would come out in numbers.


I think that it would simply balance the game once and for all.

 

Zerg already gets enough larva... one hatchery with a queen constantly spawning larva can, on average, make one unit every 5 seconds. I think that's already producing fast enough to make swarms of units.

 

Just saying, if someone is going to remake original starcraft on the sc2 editor, which I'm sure someone will since all the original units should be in the editor...

They can correct the old game once and for all with that simple change.

 

Homogenizing production costs is the worst possible way to balance the game. Consider the characteristics of each unit - The Zealot is a melee unit, but is especially tough and deals high damage, hence the 100 mineral cost. The marine is a ranged unit that deals average damage, but is not as tough as a result, which justifies a 50 mineral cost. Zerglings are fast melee units, but are fragile and deal somewhat low damage per hit, and so are produced in pairs resulting in a net cost of 25 minerals per Zergling.

If Blizzard were to make a pair of Zerglings cost 100 minerals, then they'd need to give them more HP and higher attack damage in order to be effective against Zealots. This would also warrant a health and damage increase for the Marine. Of course, now that the Marine has increased health and damage, it has an unfair advantage because its attack is ranged. In order to ensure that Zerglings and Zealots can effectively counter Marines, Blizzard would have to axe the Marine's ranged attack in favor of melee (not to mention the necessary increase in resource cost). In case you can't see where I'm going with this, all of these balance changes would result in the three races having the exact same units (the same goes for structures). Would it be balanced? Of course it would, because there's no differences between the three "races." It'd be the most boring RTS ever made.

And this is just straight production costs. forcing players to pay in bulk for units bulk not only wastes time (obviously double resource cost means double the waiting time needed) but it the number of units produced may not even be necessary. Who the hell wants to spend 600 Minerals/400 Gas for a pair of Ultralisks when just one is more than an adequate meat shield?

Next is unit roles. Why compare two Mutalisks to a Reaver? They both do completely different things - The Mutalisk is a fast hit-and-run flier, while the Reaver is a slow-moving anti-infantry/siege unit.

After reading your post, I can confidently say that you don't want gameplay balance, you want number balance. You want to see conformity among all the numbers displayed in the game because conformity means order, and order is something humans naturally desire. If you so badly want everything to be the same, then you should only play same-race matchups, on bilaterally symmetrical maps, preferably making sure your opponent has agreed to mimic your build order. Then, the balance will be perfect.

 

You do realize that Zerg can create virtually 4 zerglings at once because there is no que on morphing units right? That's the pros for Zerg production as they can burst create units rather than waiting one by one.

 

Nope, I want thematic balance.

You went off on a huge tangent of a misinterpretation of what I said, just for the sake of seeing writing that sounds good to you.

 

That is a terrible idea, to put it mildly.

That would make zerg weak when it comes to reacting "i made 2 larva into 8 zergling and they send a helion at me! well thats 2 larva wasted!" or "they are making banshees! better make some mutalisks, except i need to wait because i cant just get one, they come in pairs so i dont have the money!" Not to mention the annoyingly inflexible impact this would have on food, you cant just make 1 of ____ because you need more food to cover the 2 your idea is forcing anyone to make.

and for what? To satisfy your idea of how zerg should swarm? whether it is production in annoyingly large batches or a strong steady stream, zerg would operate the same way as far as numbers are concerned. You are just interpreting large batches as hugely different than a steady stream.

 

This is your third time posting about this. Once again people are reacting negatively to your idea..for the third time in a row.

 

This is your default defence when faced with opposition. Consistently, you fail to adequately respond to constructive criticism of your analytical diagrams --diagrams which the rest of us can hardly follow since you present your material ipso facto. For example, what do you mean by "thematic balance"? It's not at all self-evident, yet you offer no definition. Atlas, the chief problem with your ideas is that you have no methodology, as I pointed out in your preceding thread. Without a strong methodology, your ideas are not well ordered, your ideas are inconsistent, and as a result, you come across as unintelligible. You don't even write in proper paragraphs! So, consider university; it would do you a lot of good.

Please note that I am in no way suggesting you're a fool. You have original, albeit flawed, ideas; not many people can think originally. Some of your gameplay suggestions (hatchery as a universal building) are actually good, and should be explored. But where you are weak is accepting that others have demonstrated that your ideas are unsound. This means one of two things: 1) you are arrogant, or 2) you do not understand the criticism being levelled at your ideas. Having sparred with you on a number of occasions, I believe that while you are an adamant fellow (and that's something I admire, incidentally), you simply do not understand structured arguments because you are incapable of formulating them yourself. And that's where university could help you. Best of luck to ye.

 

Never saw any of your other posts; but after reading, I'm glad this is your last.

You don't understand the game or themes. The good folk posting before me have explained why.


Oh, and it's not you last post when you reply to it.

 

dont be so harsh on him...i think he meant last topic

 

lol, I'll be harsh on whoever I like.

The reply to his "last post" is only the frost on the iceberg anyways.

 

I'm just going to hop on the bandwagon here. Some things came to mind: (this is simply a 'hmmm..' not an argument saying I'm right or this is how it should be etc., it's simply thinking out loud)

Hypothesis: 'Zerg strength is in their numbers'
Logical consequence: The other races (Terran, Protoss) their strength is not in their numbers.

Looking at it from a cost and building perspective: (I'm going to disregard the Queen for simplicities sake and compare with Terran)

- 1 Hatchery, 3 larvae, 200 minerals (Spawning Pool), no que(e?)
- 1 Barracks, addon, 200 (and some gas?) minerals, allows two units to be produced at once

Now the thing is, Zerg players do not often tend to build additional Hatcheries as a production building , they build them as expos.
Terran players usually have give or take 3 Barracks on 1 base.

Imagine the following (imo quite realistic) situation:

Zerg vs. Terran
Zerg has an expo, and therefore 2 Hatcheries = 6 larvae (that could be produced at once)
Terran has no expo, three Barracks with addons = 6 units (that could be produced at once)

Besides Zerg having a better economy, unit wise they are on par.

Bring the Queen back in = additional larvea
Realistically a Terran player would not only have three Barracks, most likely he also has at least 1 Factory (with/out addon) and 1 Starport (with/out addon). This fairly compensates for the additional larvae imo.

So for the discussions sake lets say unit production wise they are more or less on par. Lets assume that the units counter each other properly. That would make the Zerg strength not in their numbers, but in their economy - macro wise.

I probably have made countless thinking errors, I do not have much experience playing Zerg, I'm not a pro, you may flame me, ban me for my ignorance, or better yet; correct me where I'm wrong so we can all learn something.

EDIT: It looks like I actually agree with the OP on some level, but the difference is that I don't think the mechanic should be changed.
EDIT2: Rereading my post I realise it's a waste of space.

 

Ok, thematic balance comes down to things which exist outside of units their unique function, and upgrades.

Spells, and things like spider mines/ reavers, and abilities, stimpack, repair.

Spider mines and reavers for example are designed for destroying numbers in the first place. That is kind of funny because zerg don't even really have a strength of numbers.

Perhaps what I am saying is, if protoss have a unit that produces ammo for a cost and that ammo ignores zerg defense, same with the spider mine...

Then where is the zerg's themed attack that ignores enemy defenses?

Terran's strength is ability, protoss' strength is spell and a 3rd armor....

I insist that zerg's thematic strength is non existent.

I'll give an example... Almost all of terran's units have "Abilities" medic heals, firebat/marine stimpack.

When you factor for example, the ability for a firebat to be healed, coupled with stimpacks, splash damage, and the fact that 1 attack upgrade adds plus two damage, it's overkill...

It would be like a lurker that is mobile, that can be healed, and can use a stimpack... consider +1 attack upgrade also adds plus 2.

and so, we see a sort of thematic power of ability... but if zerg's thematic strength is number... where is it?

Protoss' strength, attacks that are designed for DESTROYING masses and running around clumps of warriors with a 2nd armor.

 

I can play that way too:

 

I lol'd.

 

Have you even played SC2? In the late-game Zerg can entirely remake their army in seconds. To me, that screams "numbers" and "swarm".

Your idea completely breaks the game.

Also I think everyone would disagree that BW needs any kind of "fixing".

 

I don't think any of Atlas's ideas, taken individually, would break the game. But they all basically amount to fixing stuff that isn't broken in the first place.

A lot of the stuff Atlas has proposed is stuff I've thought of independently. I, like he does, find "balancing the numbers" to be appealing. But it just doesn't work that way.

Take the idea of 4 Zerglings per larva at 100 minerals. This is something I've personally wanted for a while- because early-game, Zerg players can either go Roach-heavy, or Zergling-heavy. Roach-heavy can be done from a single Hatchery, with a Queen, because roaches burn through a lot of minerals (and supply) for the amount of Larva they consume. With a single base, you can make Roaches about as fast as you can mine the resources to build them. The larva spawn rate and income rates are fairly close.
With a Zergling-oriented strategy, you can't spend all of your resources with a single Hatchery. You have to make another.

So, it would be nice if Zerglings were 4-for-100. But is it needed? Is there a problem with having to build a second hatch for a Zergling strategy? This is where Atlas and I would differ. For Atlas, having to expand for one strategy, but not, for another, would be too ugly. Never minding that it doesn't actually have a huge impact on balance.

When I thought of 4-for-100, I thought, okay, this would probably make it even easier for a Roach-heavy Zerg player to overwhelm a Zergling-heavy Zerg player. Maybe the doubling should be an upgrade, then? Like Adrenal glands- something that you get if you're going to use the unit a lot, but not if you're going for some other unit entirely. But it would also be relevant late-game, since the larva:utility ratio only gets worse as you unlock stronger units. It would make Zerglings less of a burden on your Larva economy.

His solution would be interesting. In all, I would say that it is something that would make the game a little better. It would indeed make Zerg look more different. But why? He's made tons of posts going on about how Zerg are the odd race out. Why keep proposing things that are intended to make them stick out even more?
He is concerned about making units come in fatter batches. It doesn't even fix the problem he was setting out to fix (reinforcing the theme of "strength in numbers." If units spawned in larger numbers per Larva, Zerg players would not make more units- they already make as many units as they have the resources for- they would make fewer Hatcheries, they would be a little less OCD about keeping up with their Queens.

My problem with his approach is that he shows no concern for how the units actually behave in the game. As far as I can tell, he played the number-balancing game, and, by accident, came up with something that could improve things he's not even aware of =/

--

Now, say you for some reason did want to enhance the theme of "strength in numbers."
Here's how to do it: make the units cheaper. Make the units weaker to balance cost.
Really. That's about all there is to it. Now Zerg would be even more vulnerable to splash damage, but there you have it.

--

Realistically, Zerg's thing isn't "strength in numbers." Not in that way. Most Zerg units are on-par with Terran and Protoss units of similar cost. They can take as much damage, and they can deal it out just as fast. If Zerg has a theme that is different than Protoss and Terran, it is that, with just about all of their units, they are better used in hit-and-run scenarios, than they are in face-to-face battle. Banelings can detonate while burrowed. Zerglings can show up, instantly surround, pick off units, then leave, Mutalisks can do all kinds of crazy things, Roaches can regenerate health faster while burrowed, etc.
Zerglings are basically the only units that really go for the "strength in numbers" thing, which is why they already spawn in pairs.

-- Shifting to 2nd person --

@Atlas:

This is further evidence that you have a shaky idea of what you're talking about.

1) You don't really make it clear what you mean about "ignores Zerg defenses"
The only things Scarabs have in common with Spider Mines are... the fact that you can't control them, and the fact that they do quite a lot of splash damage. I am going to assume the effect of the Mines/Scarabs suddenly appearing and blowing up large groups of units is what you're concerned about when you say "ignores defenses."

2) You don't make it clear as to why other than that you think it would be more elegant, the Zerg need something like that in order to be balanced. Really- this is what everyone is asking you to provide. We're all (or, some of us) acknowledging that what you suggest isn't inherently bad, but you keep insisting that the game absolutely needs these changes, or else it will be broken forever.
You've not convinced anyone that it even is broken. You've stated your reasons for thinking it is broken, but nobody agrees with those reasons. If your solutions are based on reasons we reject, why do you think we'll embrace the solution? Again, we're not even seeing the situation as needing a solution, what with not being broken, and all.

3) You're wrong anyway, because the Zerg have units/abilities that have the same net effect as Spider Mines and Reavers. Lurkers provide sudden, unavoidable splash damage. It's damage in a line, in smaller amounts- but the unit can do it over and over again. Defilers provide sudden, unavoidable splash damage, in the form of Plague. It's expensive to cast, but if you have one Defiler, you can cast it over and over.

 

You only made two points with all that crap you wrote.

-That units coming in pairs/lings in quad would not give zerg strength in numbers.

But it does give zerg strength in numbers the further you get in to the game, because you have more drones to get more minerals with the extra larvae.

-Your argument is that the lurker does large amounts of "Unavoidable" splash damage.
and then you went on to say that plague is comparable to spider mine and scarab.

This is where you proved that you don't even play starcraft as marines are full capable of avoiding the attacks of lurkers, lurkers attacks are upgraded... and plague is a spell... which doesn't get you anywhere...

You should have said that the zerg equivalent to the spider mine and the scarab is the scourge.

The scourge in my opinion shouldn't be 25/75, comparable to 3 free spider mines, and producible ammo for 25 a pop.... Scourge cost too much gas, not to mention how the scourge coming in pairs and being suicidal is stupid as 1 scourge is almost always wasted on the same suicide.

The comparing of the cost of the scourge to the reaver and spider mine, with also a comparing and contrasting of the effectiveness between them, as scourge are very often easily wasted says a lot.

 

The parallel is not surprising really. This is how balance works.

Balance is often said to be an arcane and esoteric thing, but it revolves around a relatively simple idea: that how much damage 100 minerals worth of units can do before they die, is made roughly the same across all races. And this is scaled proportionally with the rate of production.

So 4 zerglings and 1 zealot cost the same because they can damage each other just as hard.

What makes the numbers balance is because zerglings and zealots are both melee units, so neither has a ranged attack advantage over the other. Speed differences are also much less relevant than they are vs terran because with zerglings vs zealots there is no ranged attack to counter with speed.

Fast units typically have disproportionately less hitpoints, otherwise they are too difficult to catch and kill. Ranged units typically do disproportionately lower dps, otherwise their focus fire makes them too strong to counter.

But these disadvantages of lower hp or lower dps are able to be made up with good micromanagement that is possible with speed and range.