I want to discuss 4 things over all in terms of starcraft balance
1.) No creative compensation for zerg's "permeant sacrifice" functionality
2.) No proper defining strength of "the swarm" which would have helped against ranged races on starting position "high to low ground" maps (which is most all) or terran in particular.
3.) No thematic utility elements for all the races which would have helped cover a missing element of zerg's options "legitimate aggression"
4.) Terran has both the best and worst concepts for esports, the tech lab (best) and the planetary fortress (worst) which justifies my argument for why all of the above should be addressed.
**********************************************
1.) The issue with the permanent drone sacrifice could be observed when they took the cost of the extractor which was half of the cost of terran and protoss' gas buildings 50 100 100 and made it 1/3rd the cost 25/75/75
The exactor never got the 6 broodlings or any broodlings at all upon its destruction which made it appear to be classified with defense structures while everyone knows that it obviously is not.
Later, you could play a version of broodwar in the starcraft editor that some skilled people had created.... in their interpretation the extractor didn't cost any gas at all.
This only has shown that there is "suppose" to always be something got out of sacrificing permanently for something, otherwise that something sacrificed for needs to both "do nothing" which the extractor does, cost nothing which the extractor was being pushed to, and last.... have no build time requirement (to prevent the gas trick glitching).
Of course, there are options there to work with and the issue, overall, hasn't been the real significant issue with the sacrifice in regard to defense structures.
Defense Structures and Classification Problems: When they implemented the 2 supply queen that wasn't produced from any larva at all it was a disgrace to the concept of "proper classification" when zerg has to sacrifice a drone for a defense structure that doesn't cost any supply at all you can see how the over all picture is truly broken.
If they were to remove both the supply and the capability of upgrading from the queen and apply it to the spine and spore crawler it would then make proper classification sense. Defense that upgrades I say? Yes... as classification breaking as it sounds in general, it makes proper sense for the fact of what zerg has to sacrifice for. Now... if they want spines and spores to produce linearly at the hatchery and the queen to cost a larva instead, then they would have to make the queen a heavy defense in the classification of the spine and spore as they are now and then make spines and spores cheap and weak. Either way, the picture of justice can be seen now.
Any zerg would tell you that they would rather have a supply costing spinecrawler that can upgrade as opposed to a supply costing queen that can.
2.) To properly define the strength of the swarm you don't say "1 zergling many" (many used to describe the many hit points of life pool, rather, you define the swarm by the phrase "Many zergling 1" that is, many zerglings with 1 hp left. This vision for proper definition of the swarm is illuminated in its uniqueness and difference from the other races using Hegel(the philosopher) concept of "thesis plus anti thesis equals synthesis" that in order to get a 3rd body of uniqueness you combine the opposing factors of the other two. The other two factors in this case are "charge" and "stim pack". Notice that these things are in opposition to each other because you don't want to sacrifice and charge at the enemy simultaneously. But when you combine the two for the sake of the zergling you could use a different application of "leap sacrifice" where the zergling can leap in and sacrifice all its life down to 1 hp, using the life sacrificed as damage to the opponent including the basic damage on the attack.
That is my explanation for how the swarm itself has failed in a defining strength.
3.) No thematic utility elements for the races, but mainly zerg and protoss.
If you notice how they took the shield battery out of the game for protoss and were wondering if it was a nerf compared to the fact that terran can build a bunker which can salvage. Then you were right. There are "thematic utility holes" now in the race designs of zerg and protoss. I will start with how it could have worked with zerg
The swarmwreather: Created by merging the overlord with the spinecrawler (the spinecrawler is unlocked by the pool and not evo, showing its intention to be a part of utility for zerg) This unit is fully mobile everywhere and generally fast. It has the combined hp pools of the spine crawler and overlord but has no natural amor defense to speak of all though it can have its armor upgraded. Ground unit. If the swarmwreather is attacked it releases broodlings per so much life lost. It has no other attack form of its own. Your own units can attack the swarmwreather. The enemy will recognize the swarmwreather as an enemy warrior (fire at it) if it is the only unit of type in the vicinity but as soon as other warriors come in to the vicinity they take the position of priority target.
The swarmwreather can burrow and detonate, however... it can only detonate if an enemy unit is close by and the command of detonation has been acted.
Protoss: Protoss is missing "Quality Utility" thematic. Protoss could have a certain type of building to replace the shield battery which is somewhere between a bunker and swarmwreather, therefore moving around the map in a blink cooldown style that is of substantially different parameter then the stalker blink. Any units inside of the radius of this building have their shields "spirit linked" (wc3 term) or "unitied" (diablo term) to represent the concept of "Semi Mobile Quality" as a differentiating from the other races.
And that leads me to paint the thematic schematic picture over all for all 3 races
4.) I know I haven't said much in terms of what terran should have in regard to the above but terran does have the quick tech unlock with tech lab for esport value and the planetary fortress as a natural defense that can be mass repaired. But if I would say that terran hurts in design anywhere it is with the reactor that parallels the zerg queen and does nothing more at all, costs gas. etc. I will say that when they gave terran the tier 1 marauder that counters zerg's ultra to a decent degree, they might have needed to consider the queen as "strong" against the marauder. But the proper defining of the swarms strength may be sufficient.
This post has been edited by Kyfoid: Sep 8 2016, 14:11 PM
Posts: 1
1 User(s) are reading this topic(1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1.) No creative compensation for zerg's "permeant sacrifice" functionality
2.) No proper defining strength of "the swarm" which would have helped against ranged races on starting position "high to low ground" maps (which is most all) or terran in particular.
3.) No thematic utility elements for all the races which would have helped cover a missing element of zerg's options "legitimate aggression"
4.) Terran has both the best and worst concepts for esports, the tech lab (best) and the planetary fortress (worst) which justifies my argument for why all of the above should be addressed.
**********************************************
1.) The issue with the permanent drone sacrifice could be observed when they took the cost of the extractor which was half of the cost of terran and protoss' gas buildings 50 100 100 and made it 1/3rd the cost 25/75/75
The exactor never got the 6 broodlings or any broodlings at all upon its destruction which made it appear to be classified with defense structures while everyone knows that it obviously is not.
Later, you could play a version of broodwar in the starcraft editor that some skilled people had created.... in their interpretation the extractor didn't cost any gas at all.
This only has shown that there is "suppose" to always be something got out of sacrificing permanently for something, otherwise that something sacrificed for needs to both "do nothing" which the extractor does, cost nothing which the extractor was being pushed to, and last.... have no build time requirement (to prevent the gas trick glitching).
Of course, there are options there to work with and the issue, overall, hasn't been the real significant issue with the sacrifice in regard to defense structures.
Defense Structures and Classification Problems: When they implemented the 2 supply queen that wasn't produced from any larva at all it was a disgrace to the concept of "proper classification" when zerg has to sacrifice a drone for a defense structure that doesn't cost any supply at all you can see how the over all picture is truly broken.
If they were to remove both the supply and the capability of upgrading from the queen and apply it to the spine and spore crawler it would then make proper classification sense. Defense that upgrades I say? Yes... as classification breaking as it sounds in general, it makes proper sense for the fact of what zerg has to sacrifice for. Now... if they want spines and spores to produce linearly at the hatchery and the queen to cost a larva instead, then they would have to make the queen a heavy defense in the classification of the spine and spore as they are now and then make spines and spores cheap and weak. Either way, the picture of justice can be seen now.
Any zerg would tell you that they would rather have a supply costing spinecrawler that can upgrade as opposed to a supply costing queen that can.
2.) To properly define the strength of the swarm you don't say "1 zergling many" (many used to describe the many hit points of life pool, rather, you define the swarm by the phrase "Many zergling 1" that is, many zerglings with 1 hp left. This vision for proper definition of the swarm is illuminated in its uniqueness and difference from the other races using Hegel(the philosopher) concept of "thesis plus anti thesis equals synthesis" that in order to get a 3rd body of uniqueness you combine the opposing factors of the other two. The other two factors in this case are "charge" and "stim pack". Notice that these things are in opposition to each other because you don't want to sacrifice and charge at the enemy simultaneously. But when you combine the two for the sake of the zergling you could use a different application of "leap sacrifice" where the zergling can leap in and sacrifice all its life down to 1 hp, using the life sacrificed as damage to the opponent including the basic damage on the attack.
That is my explanation for how the swarm itself has failed in a defining strength.
3.) No thematic utility elements for the races, but mainly zerg and protoss.
If you notice how they took the shield battery out of the game for protoss and were wondering if it was a nerf compared to the fact that terran can build a bunker which can salvage. Then you were right. There are "thematic utility holes" now in the race designs of zerg and protoss. I will start with how it could have worked with zerg
The swarmwreather: Created by merging the overlord with the spinecrawler (the spinecrawler is unlocked by the pool and not evo, showing its intention to be a part of utility for zerg) This unit is fully mobile everywhere and generally fast. It has the combined hp pools of the spine crawler and overlord but has no natural amor defense to speak of all though it can have its armor upgraded. Ground unit. If the swarmwreather is attacked it releases broodlings per so much life lost. It has no other attack form of its own. Your own units can attack the swarmwreather. The enemy will recognize the swarmwreather as an enemy warrior (fire at it) if it is the only unit of type in the vicinity but as soon as other warriors come in to the vicinity they take the position of priority target.
The swarmwreather can burrow and detonate, however... it can only detonate if an enemy unit is close by and the command of detonation has been acted.
Protoss: Protoss is missing "Quality Utility" thematic. Protoss could have a certain type of building to replace the shield battery which is somewhere between a bunker and swarmwreather, therefore moving around the map in a blink cooldown style that is of substantially different parameter then the stalker blink. Any units inside of the radius of this building have their shields "spirit linked" (wc3 term) or "unitied" (diablo term) to represent the concept of "Semi Mobile Quality" as a differentiating from the other races.
And that leads me to paint the thematic schematic picture over all for all 3 races
Bunker (positional utility ability: salvage)
Swarm wreather (mobile utility quantity: broodling)
Shield Uniter (semi mobile utility quality: unified)
4.) I know I haven't said much in terms of what terran should have in regard to the above but terran does have the quick tech unlock with tech lab for esport value and the planetary fortress as a natural defense that can be mass repaired. But if I would say that terran hurts in design anywhere it is with the reactor that parallels the zerg queen and does nothing more at all, costs gas. etc. I will say that when they gave terran the tier 1 marauder that counters zerg's ultra to a decent degree, they might have needed to consider the queen as "strong" against the marauder. But the proper defining of the swarms strength may be sufficient.
This post has been edited by Kyfoid: Sep 8 2016, 14:11 PM
Posts: 1