[AtlasMeCH]

I've been working on putting together my best expression of what I feel to be the zerg problem... I recently posted 4 messages on another forum, I will try to condense them down on to this one.

I'm just really curious what people who actually know what they are talking about think about it.

Message 1:

I've always found it ironic how symmetry is such a major deal when it comes to the map making for melee competition yet when it comes to the balance of race design it seems to be considered very little if any, yet being just as significant if not more important then map design.

Symmetry = Balance

What seems to have been overlooked in Sc2 and just starcraft in general, do not ask me how, is that in order to have 3 unique race designs that are balanced, symmetry is a necessity...

But now there is the issue of achieving an optimal uniqueness of design between all 3 races.

Achieving symmetry between two unique races is simple, you just make the design of each race in opposition to each other by inverting the design and then you have two totally unique races but maintain balance.

3 races is more complex because you can not have 3 totally unique designs, they can now only, at best, be partially (50% unique and 50% similar) to one another.

Because of this, all three races should, if designed well feel totally unique from each other, but at the same time, totally not.

This yes and no principle can be referred to as a paradox.

Paradoxi have been a major root theme to the field of philosophy itself, and this mathematical concept of 3 unique bodies generate paradoxi so purely, it can be used as solid evidence that philosophy has an intimate relationship with math via the number 3.

But because only partial uniqueness between 3 races can be attained, generating an opposite design from one race to the next by a means of inversion becomes somewhat obscure and unclear.

In starcraft, the terran and protoss races produce offense linearly separate from their main base which also produces linearly. Neither economic unit is permanently lost when making defense.

Zerg does not produce linearly, but SHARES production between offense, economy, and overlord...

This is supposed to be made up for by having non linear production, and they do to a degree.

However, when it comes to macro, defensive structures are essential when you are in the "economic" (non warrior) mode of production.

The problem is that you simultaneously must be sacrificing a drone permanently for that defense structure when you make it.

What has been overlooked, is that in order to have symmetry, balance, and beauty, zerg's defense structures, spore and spine crawler, should have produced linearly from the hatchery itself.

It should have always been this way... it should have been this way in broodwar, the sunk and spore colony producing linearly from the hatchery itself.

It utilizes the inversion principle for generating uniqueness between race designs while retaining symmetry.

Terran and protoss produce offense linearly.... zerg produces defense linearly...
Protoss can suddenly warp in mass amounts of defense...
Zerg should not be able to because they have no need to due to being able to generate offense so quickly.

But someone "thought" they were creative when they would give zerg a so called "Defensive" unit (queen) and have it produce from the hatchery thinking that it would be the perfect solution to zerg.

it is simply not, and the fact that the queen costs 150 minerals compared to the 100 mineral spine/spore crawler is sheer insanity.

Message 2:

I also want to add one more VERY SOUND piece of reasoning to support my point.

Through out the game of starcraft, you can notice a pattern of design which exists as 2 similar, 1 different, or 2 same one different.

For example, the barrack and the gateway both cost 150 while the spawning pool costs 200.

Or how the zergling and the zealot are both melee while the marine is missile.

Or how the zergling and the marine are both small while the zealot is medium sized.

Then the question is perhaps, "What do the zealot and the marine share that the zergling does not have?"

You can see this 2 same 1 different pattern woven through out the game, but when it comes to the economic functions of each race

There is no apparent 2 similar 1 different pattern implemented... Why doesn't blizzard adhere to the 2 similar 1 different design pattern on such a basic yet critical level?

Protoss: Warp
Terran: Contruct (Momentary economic loss)
Zerg: Sacrifice (Permanent economic loss)

Now.... if the spine and spore crawler produced linearly at the hatchery, or even the spawning pool... you might say "how does this adhere to the 2 similar 1 different pattern as opposed to drone sacrificing for defense"

Simple.... In the same way that that an scv is occupied for a period of time when constructing a building... zerg would pay the price of having to produce split defense "anti air defense (spore) or anti ground defense (spine crawler)" in a linear fashion from a single building.

The consequence SHOULD NOT be the sacrifice of drone because zerg's defense is already split between anti air and anti ground....

While the marine, although has to fill a bunker, the bunker can be quickly dumped and also repaired.

The marine also has natural defensive ability, but this makes sense because it fits terran's theme.


The truth is and has always been that zerg's design functionality is Critically Flawed and has a MAJOR impact on the game despite being subtle enough that it isn't easily noticeable.

Message 3:


An argument to this might be that zerg, with their multiple hatcheries would be able to match terran and protoss' offense with defense at any given time... thus making the macro of the game stale.

But remember, zerg is still splitting between ground to ground and ground to air defense, Plus, when teching to lair, this would interrupt the defensive production.

But now that zerg have the queen which already produces at the hatchery, it would be too much to have the spine and spore crawler also produce there...

The only and ultimate solution to this would be to have the spine and spore crawler produce at the spawning pool in a linear fashion.

Zerg already gets a slight yet insignificant ground to ground defensive edge with the queen.

But if the spawning pool could be zerg's one building, besides the hatchery, that could be placed anywhere on the map, and had its own creep, and could produce spine and spore crawler in a linear fashion, it would make things ridiculously interesting...

It would

A.) Give zerg an aggressive proximity element to their options...

and

B.) You would be able to place your spawning pool in your allies base which would make abandoning a hatchery that your opponent is focusing on, and still be capable of surviving (by moving your workers to a second base) more viable as your spawning pool would not be stuck at your main... easily being the next building to be taken out.

Final Message:

As a final conclusion my suggestion is a host of changes to the spawning pool and the creep to make this idea the best that it can possibly be.


- The spawning pool can be built anywhere.
- The spawning pool has its own creep
- Creep, now slowly eats away at any structure it comes in to contact with (Just to have its own perks considering it's not as fast as proxy cannon)
- Each spawning pool comes equipped with one creep tumor, creep tumor is removed from the queen.
- The spawning pool can uproot and crawl so that it can potentially be saved as it crawls back to your base and you try to protect it with lings.
- The spawning pool has an upgrade similar to the reactor upgrade for the barracks that gives it 2 slots of production for defense... Spine and spore crawler.
- When a spine/spore crawler is produced from the spawning pool, it emerges from the pool itself already uprooted... The time duration is now applied to uprooting while rooting is now instant.

-Remember, zerg would now no longer be able to make defense structures with the drone, but this is ideal because sacrificing drones for defense structures is not intelligent design function.

I personally feel like that these changes are the only way to function my idea with blizzard's current design functions...

But I feel like it is truly the best Idea that you are going to find out there in regards to correcting zerg.

Quick Comments

	Dox:	Zerg is fine!
	nirvAnA:	nice effort
	ROOT`iaguz:	David Kim?
	syfPhoenix:	i believe you are correct though toss need a buff in some areas 2
	Nvdeth:	so much garbage here, also dont use big words to make yourself look smart. Its Para -doxes, not -doxi.
	dippa:	overthinking things m8
	NvRossi:	wait is this actually David Kim iaguz?
	Frogmite:	Try to cut your left leg and you will understand what is imbalance
	TAhackdZ:	not sure if want....

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

First post wall o' text complaining about balance!!! o_O

I guess I should probably read this so I can comment on it, but from the title, yeah SC2 is an asymmetrical game. There are always going to be advantages/disadvantages to playing different races. If they win ~50% of the time against the other races it's still balanced.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Paradoxi have been a major root theme to the field of philosophy itself, and this mathematical concept of 3 unique bodies generate paradoxi so purely, it can be used as solid evidence that philosophy has an intimate relationship with math via the number 3.

I'm up to here, and I'm not sure whether I should keep on going. This is getting scary already.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But someone "thought" they were creative when they would give zerg a so called "Defensive" unit (queen) and have it produce from the hatchery thinking that it would be the perfect solution to zerg.

A Queen is a MACRO unit, not a DEFENSIVE structure.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

- The spawning pool can be built anywhere.
- The spawning pool has its own creep
- Creep, now slowly eats away at any structure it comes in to contact with (Just to have its own perks considering it's not as fast as proxy cannon)
- Each spawning pool comes equipped with one creep tumor, creep tumor is removed from the queen.
- The spawning pool can uproot and crawl so that it can potentially be saved as it crawls back to your base and you try to protect it with lings.
- The spawning pool has an upgrade similar to the reactor upgrade for the barracks that gives it 2 slots of production for defense... Spine and spore crawler.
- When a spine/spore crawler is produced from the spawning pool, it emerges from the pool itself already uprooted... The time duration is now applied to uprooting while rooting is now instant.

- What, like a creep colony in SC1? Or like a Hatch? I assuming hatch.
- This point would be interesting. Offensive Overlords.
- Meh, this would be annoying as all hell, but it could work.
- It's a pool. If it moved, all of the genetic slush would spill out the sides and then no more Zerglings.
- Why not just give it the Reactor upgrade? That'd be easier right?
- You can distribute the time duration between rooting and uprooting and it will still have the same net effect if you plan on moving them to a specific spot. If you reduce rooting time then you don't have the tension of will I be able to kill of the crawler before it roots and I'm rooted. Also, that is a scary, scary sentence. o_O

Also, I've been massively ed, haven't I?

[Benji]

Step 1: Install Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour
Step 2: Play any of the following matchups: Nuke vs Tank, AirForce vs Vanilla USA, Airforce vs Super Weapon, Toxin vs Vanilla GLA, Toxin vs Stealth, Airforce vs Nuke, Nuke vs Vanilla China, Infantry vs Everything.
Step 3: Realize the balance in SC2 is actually already pretty amazing

Quick Comments

	mGGDaedalus:
	StitcH:	OMG ur so right! C&C Generals the last patch before Zero Hour was pretty alright until they screwed up everything in Zero hour. :(
	EXCL:	nuf said!

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

First post wall o' text complaining about balance!!! o_O

I guess I should probably read this so I can comment on it, but from the title, yeah SC2 is an asymmetrical game. There are always going to be advantages/disadvantages to playing different races. If they win ~50% of the time against the other races it's still balanced.



I'm up to here, and I'm not sure whether I should keep on going. This is getting scary already.



A Queen is a MACRO unit, not a DEFENSIVE structure.

Keep going... and how isn't my point there spot on?

The queen is actually classified as a "Defensive Unit"

But the spine and spore crawler should technically also be considered defensive units because of their mobility... technically.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by xGKingBenji

Step 1: Install Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour
Step 2: Play any of the following matchups: Nuke vs Tank, AirForce vs Vanilla USA, Airforce vs Super Weapon, Toxin vs Vanilla GLA, Toxin vs Stealth, Airforce vs Nuke, Nuke vs Vanilla China, Infantry vs Everything.
Step 3: Realize the balance in SC2 is actually already pretty amazing

The balance of starcraft itself as a whole could be much better with out losing the uniqueness between the races.

The problem, is that in the classroom of "Philosophy of Design"

It is not being taught that Symmetry is the key for a design foundation of balance.

Uniqueness is achieved through the inversion principle in regards to symmetry.

Symmetry IS balance, with out it there can not be a design that is to be taken seriously on a competitive level.

And with that said, I'm very concerned about the competitive scene which is the heart and soul of starcraft.

[|Erasmus|]

Sounds like a zerg player whining about how he can't make nothing but drones from his hatch without dying (while T/P can not cut workers and still get offensive/defensive units).

The only real thing to say to that is: learn to manage your larvae better. If you accidentally overdroned, throw down 3 spines to get up that defensive capability.

Zerg has the ability to make 10 drones at once after you hold a push, and even though you spent one or two cycles on units you often still end up ahead on worker count then.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by |Erasmus|

Sounds like a zerg player whining about how he can't make nothing but drones from his hatch without dying (while T/P can not cut workers and still get offensive/defensive units).

The only real thing to say to that is: learn to manage your larvae better. If you accidentally overdroned, throw down 3 spines to get up that defensive capability.

Zerg has the ability to make 10 drones at once after you hold a push, and even though you spent one or two cycles on units you often still end up ahead on worker count then.

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3341757085

[Satu]

I read through all of it and actually understand what you're saying.

Basically you're saying that drones are used to make spines and spores, but other races have defenses for both air AND ground without having to do permanent economic damage to themselves. While this is true, if you look at that in isolation it looks imbalanced, but its much more balanced than you'd think due to the other mechanics of zerg.

Zerg can create a lot more workers than the other races with a lot more safety. Because of this, not only do you usually have the extra money you could be using on static defences, but you also can sacrifice some of your economy towards defences without it having a noticeable impact on your economy in the long run.

Another thing you don't take into consideration is how cost-effective spines and spores are. Eight zerglings take up 200 minerals and 4 larvae, two spines take up 300 minerals and 2 larvae. Test out the maximum amount of marines each can kill and you'll see that spines are actually more cost-effective than other possible earlygame defences. Spores are pretty essential to hold some timings themselves, and are yet again really cost effective when used correctly. I dont see how either is really underpowered.

In short, I think you're looking at it the wrong way, or just looking at a small part of zerg mechanics in isolation.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:	Unlike overlord theory, i agree with this!
	PiG:	Yes.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/3341757085

I know this is me doubleposting, but please don't link anything from the strategy section of the battle.net forums. They are never reliable, due to usually being made by really biased individuals. A good way of seeing that this is the case is trying to count how many people claim that something is overpowered or imbalanced on the forums.

[Benji]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

The balance of starcraft itself as a whole could be much better with out losing the uniqueness between the races.

The problem, is that in the classroom of "Philosophy of Design"

It is not being taught that Symmetry is the key for a design foundation of balance.

Uniqueness is achieved through the inversion principle in regards to symmetry.

Symmetry IS balance, with out it there can not be a design that is to be taken seriously on a competitive level.

And with that said, I'm very concerned about the competitive scene which is the heart and soul of starcraft.

You quoted my post but completely ignored what I wrote.

Balance discussions are used in 2 situations, the first is in a scenario like I listed above, where some races have something like an 80% winrate.

The other situation is when you lose a game and you cannot admit that you lost simply because your opponant played better. This makes you feel better, but ultimately slows the ability you can learn, and makes you seem like abit of an idiot.

From my point of view the game is fine. When I picked up players for my team, I wasn't going 'Oh this race has a significant advantage, I better get players from X race'. I got players based on their individual skill.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by SatuSPR

I read through all of it and actually understand what you're saying.

Basically you're saying that drones are used to make spines and spores, but other races have defenses for both air AND ground without having to do permanent economic damage to themselves. While this is true, if you look at that in isolation it looks imbalanced, but its much more balanced than you'd think due to the other mechanics of zerg.

Zerg can create a lot more workers than the other races with a lot more safety. Because of this, not only do you usually have the extra money you could be using on static defences, but you also can sacrifice some of your economy towards defences without it having a noticeable impact on your economy in the long run.

Another thing you don't take into consideration is how cost-effective spines and spores are. Eight zerglings take up 200 minerals and 4 larvae, two spines take up 300 minerals and 2 larvae. Test out the maximum amount of marines each can kill and you'll see that spines are actually more cost-effective than other possible earlygame defences. Spores are pretty essential to hold some timings themselves, and are yet again really cost effective when used correctly. I dont see how either is really underpowered.

In short, I think you're looking at it the wrong way, or just looking at a small part of zerg mechanics in isolation.

I don't personally feel like I'm wrong though in an educated sense... as you can tell, my approach to zerg would almost make them "seem" similar to terran and protoss but people do not want that.

I want you to look at it this way though coming from the philospohy of Hegel in generating 3 unique bodies.

Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis.

By having the spine and spore crawler produce linearly from the spawning pool as I said.. it shows a synthesis between protoss and terran.

For example, a pylon has a build radius for cannon, while the spawning pool would have creep (Build radius) for spine/spore.

The pool would produce defense in a linear fashion but have the upgrade for 2 slots.

Marines which are technically defensive produce linearly from the barracks, (They fill bunkers)

So you can see the synthesis there which creates an entirely unique because of the synthesis and inversion yet BALANCED because of the symmetry.

When you say that zerg can "Mass" drones... yes, but you have to remember that t and p are building offense when you're doing this... and B. zerg also shares production with the overlord.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by xGKingBenji

You quoted my post but completely ignored what I wrote.

Balance discussions are used in 2 situations, the first is in a scenario like I listed above, where some races have something like an 80% winrate.

The other situation is when you lose a game and you cannot admit that you lost simply because your opponant played better. This makes you feel better, but ultimately slows the ability you can learn, and makes you seem like abit of an idiot.

From my point of view the game is fine. When I picked up players for my team, I wasn't going 'Oh this race has a significant advantage, I better get players from X race'. I got players based on their individual skill.

Yes, from your point of view... but is your point of view educated?

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Yes, from your point of view... but is your point of view educated?

Considering he's a pretty pro caster and has a kick-ass pro team, I would say yes, his point of view is fairly educated in the realm of SC2.

Quick Comments

lolwut:

I would. TBH I think the OP is either a fail troll or a bronze that doesn't want to admit this game is balanced and all races are unique. Making races the same would be. UUGGHHH

[Satu]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I don't personally feel like I'm wrong though in an educated sense... as you can tell, my approach to zerg would almost make them "seem" similar to terran and protoss but people do not want that.

I want you to look at it this way though coming from the philospohy of Hegel in generating 3 unique bodies.

Thesis + Anti-Thesis = Synthesis.

By having the spine and spore crawler produce linearly from the spawning pool as I said.. it shows a synthesis between protoss and terran.

For example, a pylon has a build radius for cannon, while the spawning pool would have creep (Build radius) for spine/spore.

The pool would produce defense in a linear fashion but have the upgrade for 2 slots.

Marines which are technically defensive produce linearly from the barracks, (They fill bunkers)

So you can see the synthesis there which creates an entirely unique because of the synthesis and inversion yet BALANCED because of the symmetry.

When you say that zerg can "Mass" drones... yes, but you have to remember that t and p are building offense when you're doing this... and B. zerg also shares production with the overlord.

Would it actually make it more balanced if zerg could produce spines and spores without any cost to larvae, though? You'd be able to drone up like a madman and not actually worry about timings at all because you're producing spines super easily from your spawning pool.

I think you're trying to say that making zerg more similar to terran and protoss in the respect of linear production would make it more balanced, but tbh, you'd have to change how drones are produced as well. Larvae is a resource for zerg that has to be taken into consideration on top of minerals, gas and supply. If you suddenly make it so spines and spores do not cost any larvae, then suddenly the zerg race will have a much easier time producing a ton of units.

I think some of your points were valid, but your solution doesn't match up too well with those points when you actually consider the larvae mechanic of zerg.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

Considering he's a pretty pro caster and has a kick-ass pro team, I would say yes, his point of view is fairly educated in the realm of SC2.

Look, I'm asking people, based on a very long journey of analyzing the philospohy of design to keep an open mind that the general balance could actually be very flawed, very poor, and could be much better.

I'm providing a very real consideration which is probably why it is irritating.

Keep an open mind that this game system you have grown attached to over the years may be much further from perfect then you thought.

And realistically speaking, why shouldn't we at least STRIVE for symmetry?

[Satu]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

And realistically speaking, why shouldn't we at least STRIVE for symmetry?

Because symmetry does not have to exist to have the game close to perfectly balanced.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by SatuSPR

Would it actually make it more balanced if zerg could produce spines and spores without any cost to larvae, though? You'd be able to drone up like a madman and not actually worry about timings at all because you're producing spines super easily from your spawning pool.

I think you're trying to say that making zerg more similar to terran and protoss in the respect of linear production would make it more balanced, but tbh, you'd have to change how drones are produced as well. Larvae is a resource for zerg that has to be taken into consideration on top of minerals, gas and supply. If you suddenly make it so spines and spores do not cost any larvae, then suddenly the zerg race will have a much easier time producing a ton of units.

I think some of your points were valid, but your solution doesn't match up too well with those points when you actually consider the larvae mechanic of zerg.

Edit: Also, that philosophy stuff you said is true in an isolated environment, which this isn't.

Why do you ignore that zerg are also sharing their economy with the overlord?

And no, being able to lineraly produce defense from a single building, that being the spawning pool, would not suddenly allow zerg to mass up drones with out having to make offense.

it's like I said in the original post... if zerg split spine and spore production at the hatchery it would make macro stale because zerg would just be matching in power defense to the offense that t and p always have lying around with dual hatchery production...

But remember, this would also be shared with queen production, and teching so there are some major interruptions there....

This is why a single building with the linear production of defense is the "Degree" that retains interesting functionality of gameplay.

[inFeZa]

The only thing that's imbalanced for zerg is the spawning pool. In SC1 that thing was a Pimpin' in-ground pool. now it's an inflatable kiddy pool.



SC2


SC1

[TABjornbrandr]

I'm at school at the moment and don't feel like writing an essay on an iPhone so I shall edit this post when I'm home, but until then let it be known that from what I can see the issue with the OP is the blurred line between qualitative and quantitative analysis.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

And realistically speaking, why shouldn't we at least STRIVE for symmetry?

Because symmetry is boring. Do we really want just TvT or PvP?

I'd send you over to check out some of David Sirlin's game design articles, but you'd probably just end up trolling there as well.

[Dox]

I read this entire thread and I still don't understand why you think symmetry/homogeny is a critical element in balance. I actually feel a little bit ill now.

[AtlasMeCH]

I'm mostly concerned about pro players who I can very much understand how they feel...

I have a total surpassing 50,000 plus games with zerg going from brood war to sc2.

I can totally understand "The feelings" idra goes through, and those feelings understand on a greater level then what is apparent.

[ProAnnn]

If you want synergy, go play warcraft 2. Its very balanced . Seriously? Symmetry? If you wan just make the game 1 race.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Why do you ignore that zerg are also sharing their economy with the overlord?

And no, being able to lineraly produce defense from a single building, that being the spawning pool, would not suddenly allow zerg to mass up drones with out having to make offense.

it's like I said in the original post... if zerg split spine and spore production at the hatchery it would make macro stale because zerg would just be matching in power defense to the offense that t and p always have lying around with dual hatchery production...

But remember, this would also be shared with queen production, and teching so there are some major interruptions there....

This is why a single building with the linear production of defense is the "Degree" that retains interesting functionality of gameplay.

Ok, I'll go through this post part-by-part.

"Why do you ignore that zerg are also sharing their economy with the overlord?"

I dunno, maybe you made your post that way, where you didnt mention the overlord at all, because its irrelevant to how cost-effective spines and spores are.

"And no, being able to lineraly produce defense from a single building, that being the spawning pool, would not suddenly allow zerg to mass up drones with out having to make offense."

So you're saying that I cant make a huge amount of spines and spores and mass drones while waiting to get to about 80 to 90 drones so I can mass attacking units? Surely that would be easier given your idea, as you'd have the extra larvae. Unless you can tell me how you still use larvae at the same rate with both methods, then Im correct on this one.

"it's like I said in the original post... if zerg split spine and spore production at the hatchery it would make macro stale because zerg would just be matching in power defense to the offense that t and p always have lying around with dual hatchery production..."

You're assuming terran and protoss are stronger than spines and spores, start giving the defensive structures more credit please. Perhaps you dont use them at the correct timings, and thus you think they are weak? Also, Im not saying spines and spores should be produced on the hatchery instead of your idea, Im defending the current state of the game.

"But remember, this would also be shared with queen production, and teching so there are some major interruptions there...."

Yeah, that'd be valid if my train of thought had anything to say with what you're saying is wrong.

"This is why a single building with the linear production of defense is the "Degree" that retains interesting functionality of gameplay."

Surely I dont have to tell you that interesting functionality of gameplay doesnt equal balance. Also, your previous points were either irrelevant or incorrect in this post, so you cant really make any conclusions with any sort of strength off of them. Im also confused at why you had to put the word "Degree" in quotation marks...

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I'm mostly concerned about pro players who I can very much understand how they feel...

I have a total surpassing 50,000 plus games with zerg going from brood war to sc2.

I can totally understand "The feelings" idra goes through, and those feelings understand on a greater level then what is apparent.

Wait, what? This doesn't make any sense at all.

50,000+ games as Zerg over BW and SC2? So that makes you a pro? You can play that many games and still suck. Not sure whether this is that case or not, but I have my suspicions.

As for what Idra goes through, he's very, very good at complaining, but I don't think he cares nearly as much as you think he does, and he would likely hate the changes you are suggesting.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I'm mostly concerned about pro players who I can very much understand how they feel...

I have a total surpassing 50,000 plus games with zerg going from brood war to sc2.

I can totally understand "The feelings" idra goes through, and those feelings understand on a greater level then what is apparent.

The amount of games you've played isnt as important as the level of play you're at. If you've done 50,000 games at a level of play similar to bronze league, then all of your games would have been full with incorrect decisions and reactions, and thus shouldn't be considered as having any kind of weight in an argument.

[|Erasmus|]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Yes, from your point of view... but is your point of view educated?

Benji:

• Plays at a relatively high (masters) level.
• Commentates at a relatively high level.
• Manages a pro team and interacts with high level players.
• Analyses replays and helps his pro team with strategy.

AtlasMeCH:

• Plays in Platinum on NA (according to the account he created today).
• Can't use proper english.

And the winner is...

Quick Comments

	Bugalugs McScruffin:	Erasmus!!! :)
	nirvAnA:	Yea Atlas you shouldn't have went there!
	Zepph:	<3
	TAsCarLet:	is it atlas?
	lolwut:	Yeh pretty sure it's Atlas. Benji has absolutely no chance there
	Mayo:	Cute +1!
	Zealo:	<3

[MazEi]

If what you're saying is true, NesTea should never win any games, IdrA should never have beaten BoxeR at MLG Orlando, the team SlayerS will win every single GSTL, the GM leagues will not have any Zergs and I mean 0 Zergs.

But tell me, how many of the things above are actually happening? Have you taken a look at the statistics from Blizzard about Win/Loss ratios between races?

Are you even qualified to talk about balance? I play Terran and lose a lot of my games against Protoss and Zergs, but that doesn't mean Terran is underpowered or the game is 'unbalanced'. Just means I suck and I should l2p the game. I think you should stop posting and do the same.

I feel as if you're learning game design on what ever college/university course you're taking, heard of this term called symmetry, and wanted to flaunt about it by applying it to every game you play.

[FaDeEvetS]

...I don't wanna be that guy, so I'll just quote some generic battlenet forum messages. "lololol l2p platinum talking about balance lololol"
-DiamondGuy

"lolololol l2p you're not masters"
-Mastersguy

if you really wanna prove imbalance through...questionable 'facts'....use bnet forums
/thread

Quick Comments

Mayo:

Good :)

[AtlasMeCH]

I just simply cannot agree that for a race that "Has to make defense" in order for cost effective macro, but also "Has to make offense" which also interferes with economic production... in order to force their opponent to make defense as well is in a fair state of gameplay.

It can only be labeled as torn mechanics when you factor the overlord in larvae production along with split defense ground to ground and ground to air...

Along with the fact that queens occupy 2 control, where you need to make more overlords using up more larvae that is needed to then compensate for queens.

Queens which are most certainly not cost efficient with their 150 cost, How can it cost 150/2 control when it is terrible compared to spine crawler... at best more comparable to the spore with a somewhat better attack... yet still no where near spore and costing twice as much as spore.

Queens are totally unrealistic to be used offensively ... ultimately..unless you reach the 5 armor ultralisk to transfuse it.

That was at one time my theory as to "The true" and perhaps only strength of zerg... transusion of a 5 armored unit.

Yet transfusion is even degrading zerg production.

[Benji]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Yes, from your point of view... but is your point of view educated?

I am one of, if not THE leading commentator in the region, as well as that I manage and own a professional starcraft 2 team that has some of the most impressive results of any team.

So yes, its educated.

Quick Comments

	TAsCarLet:	edercation
	Nvdeth:	Sorry but you really need to lower your ego a notch or seven. There is so much wrong with your post.
	TAkrunch:	ewwww
	TADivinity:	Hit by "THE" train
	[TA]LoSt:	Xeria results are because they are amazing players, not you. Enough of the 'MY' team bs?
	dippa:	that is completely unnecessary, show some class for god's sake.
	SilentNoodle:	do you do coaching too?
	TACosmic:	Results of players is the most innacurate representation of a managers skill
	StarScream:	Kelly is better caster by a long shot cum diddy
	iM yang:	Don't recruit players with good results and claim the results were even remotely influenced by you
	NvRossi:	my head hit my desk
	TAriiChard:	HOLY SHIT WE'RE GONNA GET BANNED!
	Dox:	Step the **** back SlayerS
	TAEdgE:	if dox reps i rep
	Danny:	sooo arrogant
	TAnom:	;( You made a girl cry because of your arrogance.
	Fourby:	xGKBenjiLight, xGKBenjiMafia, xGKBenjiiaguz, xGKBenjijazbaz, xGKBenjiBenji. ????
	VoxMSI.Rogue:	lol wtf, mayte, get that ego in check. such a benjamin!
	toneg:	Dude, I'm gonna type as sober as possible, you're honestly pathetic.
	NvPinder:	Holy hell... New low big boy. New low.
	Champi:	you have no, and deserve no respect from our community with your misguided and egotistically arrogant attitude
	Mayo:	That's a little disappointing. Chin up and soldier on.
	kellyMILKIES:	Wow
	cRSenSei:	interesting

[FaDeEvetS]

play some other races, they're hard too!
This form of theory crafting leads to AND accomplishes nothing; Zerg's a good race! build a macro hatch or shh. >

[MazEi]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I just simply cannot agree that for a race that "Has to make defense" in order for cost effective macro, but also "Has to make offense" which also interferes with economic production... in order to force their opponent to make defense as well is in a fair state of gameplay.

It can only be labeled as torn mechanics when you factor the overlord in larvae production along with split defense ground to ground and ground to air...

Along with the fact that queens occupy 2 control, where you need to make more overlords using up more larvae that is needed to then compensate for queens.

Queens which are most certainly not cost efficient with their 150 cost, How can it cost 150/2 control when it is terrible compared to spine crawler... at best more comparable to the spore with a somewhat better attack... yet still no where near spore and costing twice as much as spore.

Queens are totally unrealistic to be used offensively ... ultimately..unless you reach the 5 armor ultralisk to transfuse it.

That was at one time my theory as to "The true" and perhaps only strength of zerg... transusion of a 5 armored unit.

Yet transfusion is even degrading zerg production.

Here is a simple solution, go play some boring game where every race is the same. Just don't play SC2 or even SC:BW(which has been played for about 12 years now and back then there wasn't even inject larvae for Zergs).

[|Erasmus|]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I just simply cannot agree that for a race that "Has to make defense" in order for cost effective macro, but also "Has to make offense" which also interferes with economic production... in order to force their opponent to make defense as well is in a fair state of gameplay.

It can only be labeled as torn mechanics when you factor the overlord in larvae production along with split defense ground to ground and ground to air...

Along with the fact that queens occupy 2 control, where you need to make more overlords using up more larvae that is needed to then compensate for queens.

Queens which are most certainly not cost efficient with their 150 cost, How can it cost 150/2 control when it is terrible compared to spine crawler... at best more comparable to the spore with a somewhat better attack... yet still no where near spore and costing twice as much as spore.

Queens are totally unrealistic to be used offensively unless you reach the 5 armor ultralisk to transfuse it.

That was at one time my theory as to "The true" and perhaps only strength of zerg... transusion of a 5 armored unit.

Yet transfusion is even degrading zerg production.

Queens are insanely cost efficient. This discussion has been raging else where on these forums today. A queen is ~2 extra hatches worth of larvae, and a not terrible defensive unit, for 150 mins.

Other than that, you are rehashing the same points: "I have to use larvae for stuff other than drones, but other races can constantly produce workers". This is NOT a balance issue. You can produce workers at least twice as fast as any other race when left alone. If they -don't- force you to spend half your larvae on defensive units (either making lings, or saccing drones to make spines/spores) then you should be -insanely- far ahead and never lose a game.

That's not balance.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I just simply cannot agree that for a race that "Has to make defense" in order for cost effective macro, but also "Has to make offense" which also interferes with economic production... in order to force their opponent to make defense as well is in a fair state of gameplay.

It can only be labeled as torn mechanics when you factor the overlord in larvae production along with split defense ground to ground and ground to air...

Along with the fact that queens occupy 2 control, where you need to make more overlords using up more larvae that is needed to then compensate for queens.

Queens which are most certainly not cost efficient with their 150 cost, How can it cost 150/2 control when it is terrible compared to spine crawler... at best more comparable to the spore with a somewhat better attack... yet still no where near spore and costing twice as much as spore.

Queens are totally unrealistic to be used offensively ... ultimately..unless you reach the 5 armor ultralisk to transfuse it.

That was at one time my theory as to "The true" and perhaps only strength of zerg... transusion of a 5 armored unit.

Yet transfusion is even degrading zerg production.

1. Zerg doesnt need to produce offense and defense at the same time, so I dont see what the problem there is.

2. Queens give an additional 4 larvae per 40 seconds, on top of what hatcheries already give. That makes them really cost effective. Thats not even considering how they can spread creep, transfuse hurt units, kill air units easily... They are much better than you'd think you should watch spanishiwa play, or even see how zergs are using them in recent ZvTs on GSL. Stop looking at queens as units that are meant to be slow and really strong units that are meant to defend all attacks, and start looking at them as good support units.

3. Tranfusing doesnt degrade zerg production unless you have perfect injects and you have no extra queens.

Read the post above mine for a better summary, though.

[AtlasMeCH]

I do not agree that 1 queen = 2 hatcheries worth of production.

[ikki]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I do not agree that 1 queen = 2 hatcheries worth of production.

not sure if...

[nard]

If Ur not happy playing the game... Why play it then?

[Apth]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Paradoxi have been a major root theme to the field of philosophy itself, and this mathematical concept of 3 unique bodies generate paradoxi so purely, it can be used as solid evidence that philosophy has an intimate relationship with math via the number 3.

This, right here, annoys the crap out of me. It really sounds like you've just finished your first year of Philosophy at uni and want to impress us with big words and fancy concepts.

Paradoxes, dude. Not paradoxi. Paradoxes.

In response to your actual argument, balance in a game as complicated as Starcraft 2 - and it's freakin' complicated - isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. You make some interesting points, but your argument doesn't quite follow, and is hardly convincing.

I suggest instead of presenting your argument as a suggestion, rather than as something that is true and we aren't clever enough to realise, and you'll avoid pissing off a lot of people with your arrogance.

Including me.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by SatuSPR

1. Zerg doesnt need to produce offense and defense at the same time, so I dont see what the problem there is.

Zerg has to be the aggressor and expand... after doing such they can't just magically combine their offense together to make defense as a means of recovery.

Example (4 lings merging together to make a spine crawler) coming back home after having caused the opponent to (hope to god) make defense.


The queen is ultimately not cost effective with their 2 control because it is cutting in to the overall 200 control army, especially, and I mean especially not for 150 minerals.

[ROOT`iaguz]

Oh Christ this thread hurts.

OP. You're wrong. I could get into a LOT of detail why you're wrong and why your Broodwar background doesn't make you less wrong and how Starcraft is actually ASYMMETRICAL (a symmetrical RTS would be Warcraft 2) and how balance does NOT equal design and how your suggestions at the end of the thread are fuckingg retarded and that every possible bullshit aggression strategy can be deflected with spines, queens and lings (and maybe roaches?) with the zerg able to just drone like crazy once they fend it off and that Zergs who lose to such strategies have been outplayed but this seems like too much effort for too little gain.

Quick Comments

PiG:

I'm too nice to say it. But you do it for me ... :P

[DtorR]

If you want symmetry then go back and play warcraft 2 where the only difference between the two races were orge-magis, death knights, paladins and mages. Furthermore, if you feel that zerg is flawed then I would kindly suggest you uninstall sc2 where you won't ever have to worry about balance let alone symmetry.

[AtlasMeCH]

But again... this is why I believe my solution makes the most sense, in regards to symmetry, in regards to balance, the whole thing...

Having zerglings form together in some way to make a spine crawler would never qualify in "Lore sense"

[cRSenSei]

Wow someone complaining with walls of text about zerg being too weak? You have to be joking me mate how much do you play this game? Zerg is OP.

[|Erasmus|]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Zerg has to be the aggressor and expand... after doing such they can't just magically combine their offense together to make defense as a means of recovery.

Example (4 lings merging together to make a spine crawler) coming back home after having caused the opponent to (hope to god) make defense.


The queen is ultimately not cost effective with their 2 control because it is cutting in to the overall 200 control army, especially, and I mean especially not for 150 minerals.

lolwat?

Seriously... ZERG DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE AGRESSOR AND FORCE OTHER RACES TO MAKE DEFENSE. As I said before, your worker production is at least twice as good as any other race. If they are not attacking drone. Make more drones. Nothing but drones. If Idra could drone to 80 before making units, he would, every game. The best zergs are the ones which get away with the fewest lings/spines/spores without dying.

The queen is still good. Normal hatcheries will never go above 3 larvae, so you lose your 200/200 army, and you can't spend half your resources. If you keep up your injects, you remax straight away and go roflstomp what remains of the T/P army after the first engagement. 50 extra supply of units after a battle is generally a worthwhile trade for having 6 -8 supply worth of queens.

[Malik]

hm read through this and these are my thoughts on each of ur messages.

message 1-thoughts

symmetry is not the same as balance as somthing can have a specific symmetry but at the same time it can not be balanced in a practical way. e.g. a map my be symmetrical however there is an inate positional inbaolance unless croos positoions are enforced as in any othedr position one player has a diferrent relative position to the other player therefore one of them must gain or lack an advantage that the other player has.

u dont make two uniquie races by inverting one all u have is a mirror image of ur original creation.

protoss do not produce units linearly on the contary the trend is for a non linear structure due to chrono boost which allows for the ramping up of avaliable production when required.

this is also true of protoss economic angle where they can increase production of workers in order to keep up with the zerg. the terran who must produce workers at all times linearly gets mules which give short term boosts to income resulting in a none linear income stream.

the sharing of production is actuallity a false veiw in itself as in theory u should be spending all monies as they come in thus any sharing of production is irrelevant as if u made drones instead of zerglings then u would still have zero money and thus be unable to do the other.

the 'sacrificing' of the drone has been discussed to death but broadly the cost of a hatchery for example ius the same as a nexus and a cc as 300+50+50 = 400. with the added advantage that one gains the economic output of a worker before it is used.

has broodwar been patched or something as i dont remeber sunkens being build from the hatcery.

a spine crawler costs 200 minerals net while a queen costs 150 with no larvae also queens tend to be like siege tanks in that as the number increases they get stronger at a nonlinear rate as well as the queen allows the provision of map vision increased production and the ability to increase the effectiveness of defensive structures via transfuse.

message 2: my thoughts

the cost of the spawning pool is proberbly a hang over from broodwar when early pool strats were much stronger or overpowered (depending on ur perspective ^^)

i like how u compare each of the individual races by trying to find something similar wow the zergling and the marine are small vs medium zealot a clear evidence of imbalance here. lol

pretty much u are just pulling arbitary examples out to support a thesis rather then using facts to support a thesis thus this is opinion not anylsis.

another point is that zerg is not split between air defence and ground defence it is usually one or the other depending on what the oponent is doing and if they are doing both then it is either that they are ahead economically or that they are doing a half arsed strategy which u dont know how to deal with.

message 3

same point as in message above there is no splitting of air and ground defence as ur opponenent has to split his forces in order for u to split ur defence.

btw queens are not an insignificant ground to ground defensive edge they provide they ability to hold off pushs by making ur units more cost effective. They give u map mobility and site so that u can accurately pick the times to make units and alternatively to make drones.

but yeah i find opinion peices interesting especially when thinnk that are essays that use "facts" to back them up.

[AtlasMeCH]

Symmetry = Balance in all cases.

And, inversion is the principle of opposition and is impossible to not take in to consideration when trying to achieve optimal uniqueness and balance.

Quick Comments

	Apth:	Speak plainly. You will receive better responses.
	LennX:	Go back to playing Dune.
	ProAnnn:	Symmetry = Balance but sc2 is not a symmetrical game. If yuo want a symmetrical game, go play chess(Even chess is not balanced since white start first).

[MazEi]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Symmetry = Balance in all cases.

And, inversion is the principle of opposition and is impossible to not take in to consideration when trying to achieve optimal uniqueness and balance.

As some of us have suggested, go play Warcraft 2, its made for you.

[x5_Bard]

OP you are forgetting that offensive pressure isn't the only type of pressure in this game. Economic pressure is also very important and is something that zerg excels at.

And never quote or use Idra in a balance argument. The guy plays insanely greedy and when he loses blames his opponents race or some stupid mechanic when the fact is he took a third and built nothing but drones for 8 mins.

[bigshow]

I think that the main reason u have to sacrifice a drone to build buildings is because u can build multiple drones at once. T/P can only build 1 at a time.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by Malik

u dont make two uniquie races by inverting one all u have is a mirror image of ur original creation.

Oh really? Take the primary colors red, blue, and yellow.

All 3 colors are both in opposition to each other but also not. (Unlike black and white which are totally in opposition to each other)

Now simply take the colors blue and yellow... they are in opposition to each other...

But strangely enough, when you invert blue, you get yellow.

How can this be true if they are in opposition to each other?

Clearly, inversion is the function of design uniqueness as it achieves opposition.

[Apth]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Oh really? Take the primary colors red, blue, and yellow.

All 3 colors are both in opposition to each other but also not. (Unlike black and white which are totally in opposition to each other)

Now simply take the colors blue and yellow... they are in opposition to each other...

But strangely enough, when you invert blue, you get yellow.

How can this be true if they are in opposition to each other?

Clearly, inversion is the function of design uniqueness as it achieves opposition.

Show's over guys, we're officially being trolled. Back to laddering.

Quick Comments

PiG:

yeah its either trolling or a first-year phil student, the worst kind.

[ROOT`iaguz]

oh thank christ I didn't waste too much time on this. NIRV! DROP THE BANHAMMER!

[AtlasMeCH]

No no... blue and yellow are in opposition to each other...

Yet when you invert blue you get yellow, and when you invert yellow you get blue.

Inversion is a means of achieving uniqueness as it achieves opposition in a 3 body system.

It represents the design philosophy (Approach) one would take for achieving optimal uniqueness with optimal balance of a 3 race system.

[AtlasMeCH]

And finally, when you invert red, which is in opposition to blue and yellow....

You get cyan, which happens to be the synthesis of blue and yellow.

Therefore, inverting red achieves the opposition to the synthesis of blue and yellow.

Expirament with your paint programs or try to search it on google.

[Tom]

I think you're getting trolled

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by Tom

I think you're getting trolled

Download the primary color overlapping imagine with a program that can invert and see for yourself.

http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/pi_ima...reecolors1.jpg

had the wrong image for the primary colors posted for a minute.

[MazEi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design#...dies_of_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCra...ngs_of_Liberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ue&redirect=no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antithesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

No no... blue and yellow are in opposition to each other...

Yet when you invert blue you get yellow, and when you invert yellow you get blue.

Inversion is a means of achieving uniqueness as it achieves opposition in a 3 body system.

It represents the design philosophy (Approach) one would take for achieving optimal uniqueness with optimal balance of a 3 race system.

Hehe, this is just hilarious at this point.

Quick question, is chess symmetrical?

Quick Comments

ProAnnn:

Chess is not cause white starts first!

[AtlasMeCH]

No wait...

What I meant to say is that red, also being the opposition of blue and yellow is the inversion of the synthesis of blue and yellow (Green)

So what the primary colors represents as far as using inversion to generate unique AND balance is quite complex.

All 3 primary colors are in opposition to each other...

When you invert yellow you get blue, when you invert blue you get yellow.

When you invert the synthesis of blue and yellow(green) you get red.

It's some kind of complex inverting function that generates 3 unique bodies yet retains balance.

And it does follow a pattern of 2 similar or same and 1 different.

Clearly in this case, red is the odd color out.

[Zepph]

Originally Posted by xGKingiaguz

oh thank christ I didn't waste too much time on this. NIRV! DROP THE BANHAMMER!

what he said

[Cyanide]

I think at this point, no one cares anymore AtlasMech. You can stop trying already.

[syfMiley]

I don't think you understand life bro.

[AtlasMeCH]

ah **** it... never mind, i'm wrong, you guys win.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

No wait...

What I meant to say is that red, also being the opposition of blue and yellow is the inversion of the synthesis of blue and yellow (Green)

So what the primary colors represents as far as using inversion to generate unique AND balance is quite complex.

All 3 primary colors are in opposition to each other...

When you invert yellow you get blue, when you invert blue you get yellow.

When you invert the synthesis of blue and yellow(green) you get red.

It's some kind of complex inverting function that generates 3 unique bodies yet retains balance.

And it does follow a pattern of 2 similar or same and 1 different.

Clearly in this case, red is the odd color out.

Atlas, do you know why the inversions of colours work that way? It's because someone decided that this was the simplest and most straight-forward way to invert colours. What does this have to do with game design? I honesty don't know.

Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you want to make me cry?

The question, again...
Is Chess symmetrical?

[PiG]

If you worded your posts better I would bother arguing with you. A true philosopher can communicate his ideas alot clearer then what you have done here AtlasMech. This is not a philosophy lecture you need to work on getting your communication clearer.

[Satu]

I no longer like the post ranking system how your avatar effectively levels up on this website... It could make people actually believe that AtlasMECH has actually progressed while hes spent time on these forums.

After reading all that off-topic stuff about colours, Im now 100% sure that the OP said his original opinion and then went out on a witchhunt to prove everyone else wrong, instead of thinking it through...

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by SatuSPR

I no longer like the post ranking system how your avatar effectively levels up on this website... It could make people actually believe that AtlasMECH has actually progressed while hes spent time on these forums.

After reading all that off-topic stuff about colours, Im now 100% sure that the OP said his original opinion and then went out on a witchhunt to prove everyone else wrong, instead of thinking it through...

"The truth is a trap, you cannot get it with out it getting you" - Soren Kierkegaard

[Meatex]

obvious troll thread
He says he wants to hear from people who know what they're talking about yet doesn't himself
anyone who disagrees with his reasoning of rewording the same sentence and using it as evidence of the previous is is said to not know what they're talking about
OP also a terrible waste of time to anyone who has to read it. Had to read it twice just to figure out what you were trying to say

Think about what you write and proof read it. Then think about your ideas
fail troll is fail

Quick Comments

PiG:

>3 you bro, well said.

[ROOT`iaguz]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

"The truth is a trap, you cannot get it with out it getting you" - Soren Kierkegaard

"

"You're a ******* moron" - iaguz

"

-iaguz.

10char

Quick Comments

	|Erasmus|:	The words of very wise man.
	Daboo:	Seconded! LOL

[Meatex]

I would suggest this thread be promptly locked but thats just me

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by FaDeMeatex

obvious troll thread
He says he wants to hear from people who know what they're talking about yet doesn't himself
anyone who disagrees with his reasoning of rewording the same sentence and using it as evidence of the previous is is said to not know what they're talking about
OP also a terrible waste of time to anyone who has to read it. Had to read it twice just to figure out what you were trying to say

Think about what you write and proof read it. Then think about your ideas
fail troll is fail

Nah, the truth is the truth, with out inversion/synthesis for the purpose of achieving symmetrical balance in a 3 race system...

All is truly lost, and the game simply can not and should not be taken seriously on a competitive level.

To everyone who considers taking this game seriously on a competitive level, don't... it's counter intuitive because the game doesn't strive for general balance.... play it simply to have fun and be stupid.

It isn't anywhere near an accurate measure of doing something special.

[ZergGirl]

I didn't like the part where people said queens are a useless defensive unit.

I liked the part where people said queens are a useful defensive unit.

I will say I thought based on the title, this would have been about spawn locations and how people who spawn at the top/side of the maps are at a disadvantage. Thinking about all that wasted mining time because your units spawn at the bottom of the hatchery and walk to the top to mine, whereas if you spawn at the bottom of the map.. your units spawn at the bottom.. then walk down to mine which is much faster.

Clearly we need this addressed.

Quick Comments

Bugalugs McScruffin:

Best thread commentary ever.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

All is truly lost, and the game simply can not and should not be taken seriously on a competitive level.

This is, wait, what? So possibly the most successful eSport ever created, which has lasted for 12 years so far should not be taken seriously on a competitive level?!?

Also, you're gonna make me cry. Just answer my question. Is Chess symmetrical?

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

This is, wait, what? So possibly the most successful eSport ever created, which has lasted for 12 years so far should not be taken seriously on a competitive level?!?

Also, you're gonna make me cry. Just answer my question. Is Chess symmetrical?

Yes, chess is symmetrical

But that is one race...

the question is, how to you divide 1 in to 3? 3 unique and retain symmetry.

all 3 races are one and the same, all 3 are totally different.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Yes, chess is symmetrical

But that is one race...

the question is, how to you divide 1 in to 3? 3 unique and retain symmetry.

all 3 races are one and the same, all 3 are totally different.

Okay, second question. Is Chess balanced?

[mGGDaedalus]

To the OP, I understand where you're coming from, although I don't really agree with the conclusions you draw from it. One other thing you need to consider though, is what most people refer to as the meta-game, and the discovery of new strategies, builds, and new uses for/combinations of units. For the game to be designed in complete symmetry, it is implied that the game designers know and understand entirely from the outset how the game will be played and all the different variations that can be achieved out of different playstyles and matchups. Yet even today people are innovating with new builds and the game is constantly evolving. It's a little too complex to simply achieve basic inverted symmetry, unless you want to make the game less diverse, and in my opinion, more boring.

[syfChadMann]

I'm thinking someone doesn't know how to handle early harass in SC2? and Maybe you keep getting your pool sniped?
Firstly, sc2 is quite balanced - it would be boring if all the units were exactly the same but for each race, they simply looked different. That would suck.
Personally, I would love to have a tier one unit like the marine.. but while they are a potent unit - they die easy too.
there are units in the game (for each race) that have a significant potency in particular match ups. But there is a simple and effective way to kill these units from every race.
Like banelings v Marines (or burrowed.. which is amazingly effective).
or storm, collo or well placed forcefields v Marines.

These methods of killing units and microing to counter the enemy units benefits are the skills players need to learn to get better at the game.. so if your having trouble with something - like, say Banshee harass or cannon rush.. learn how to scout it and if you see it how to counter it.
I know I got cheesed a ton in silver and I was stuck there for ages.. Until I worked out it really was a free win if they invested that much into cheese (those players at that level often don't have a transition planed - or if they do, its incredibly stupid.. like after the cannon rush they go for a 1 base mass void ray or something dumb)
Anyway, when you stop QQing and thinking about how to make spawning pools ridiculously weird and OP. Then try booting up the game and work out how to stop the things that are troubling you.. there are ways to do it. otherwise i suggest just un-installing SC2 and playing a more balanced game - like Solitaire or minesweeper?....

[AtlasMeCH]

If it is turn based? probably not as the player making the first move would suggestively have the advantage.

In a dancing sense? Perhaps...

In a real time sense where you both make your moves at the same time and dance... probably.

[mGGDaedalus]

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

Okay, second question. Is Chess balanced?

Technically chess is not balanced, since white always gets to play first

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

If it is turn based? probably not as the player making the first move would suggestively have the advantage.

In a dancing sense? Perhaps...

In a real time sense where you both make your moves at the same time and dance... probably.

As joshboy said after you, chess is not balanced. o_O

But wait, it's symmetrical.

And symmetry = balance.

But, but... hmmmm.

Also, what does dancing have to do with Chess?

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by joshboy

To the OP, I understand where you're coming from, although I don't really agree with the conclusions you draw from it. One other thing you need to consider though, is what most people refer to as the meta-game, and the discovery of new strategies, builds, and new uses for/combinations of units. For the game to be designed in complete symmetry, it is implied that the game designers know and understand entirely from the outset how the game will be played and all the different variations that can be achieved out of different playstyles and matchups. Yet even today people are innovating with new builds and the game is constantly evolving. It's a little too complex to simply achieve basic inverted symmetry, unless you want to make the game less diverse, and in my opinion, more boring.

Well, I'm going to say then that it should AT LEAST be symmetrical and utilize an inversion principle to some DEGREE.

I don't believe the game can just be thrown together with out adhering to some kind of philosophy.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by Bugalugs McScruffin

As joshboy said after you, chess is not balanced. o_O

But wait, it's symmetrical.

And symmetry = balance.

But, but... hmmmm.

Also, what does dancing have to do with Chess?

Chess is balanced if it's in real time.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Well, I'm going to say then that it should AT LEAST be symmetrical and utilize an inversion principle to some DEGREE.

I don't believe the game can just be thrown together with out adhering to some kind of philosophy.

I believe they did stick to a philosophy. The wanted an asymmetrical eSport. As far as you are concerned that is impossible, yet they seem to have achieved their goal.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Chess is balanced if it's in real time.

But it's not in real-time. And it's symmetrical. And it is not balanced.

[ToR.Arnor]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Chess is balanced if it's in real time.

Do the world a huge favor mate and NEVER reproduce

*EDIT this isnt in reply to the above comment but to all the comments youve made since you slithered out of your mothers birth canal

[AtlasMeCH]

It is balanced and it is symmetrical

and it is balanced because it is symmetrical

You can start playing asymmetrical maps then and start seeing how much people complain imbalance.


There as to be A DEGREE of symmetry for there to be balance worthy of taking seriously.

[Meatex]

lets look at baduk (also known as igo)
its a board game involving placing black or white stones on a board to surround empty space (territory)
In an even game black will go first - to offset this advantage white player gets around 7 points
Hundreds of years of testing has lead to the conclusion that first move advantage is worth 7 points or so and the game is balanced.

You are completely ignoring game design offsetting advantages with disadvantages.
Warping building doesn't require worker after the action - this is offset by needing a pylon
You are systematically ignoring good points people make with childish and ill formed rebuttals

Truth is truth

Just because you say it is so does not make it truth. You have provided no evidence to anything you have said and cry foul at anyone who disagrees with you. You are not welcome in this community if you are going to continue such blatant trolling/attention whoring
Check your attitude or leave

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Hey, thanks Atlas, I'm now a Hellion.

As for the balanced because it's symmetrical, there have been massive balance discussions surrounding Chess for years and years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-m...ntage_in_chess

As people get better it seems like it's getting harder and harder to win as Black in Chess, though it's getting easier to force a draw. This would suggest that the game is not balanced.

Go check out a couple of balance articles on sirlin.net. This guy was the guy that re-balanced Super Street Fighter II Turbo when he created HD Remix (with the help of a dev team of course ). He has every balance decision he made documented, how they came up with the different ideas and all of the failed balance attempts as well. Street Fighter is an incredibly asymmetrical game, but he managed to achieve a fairly good balance. You'll notice that when he talks about different match-ups, he doesn't talk about symmetry or inversion, just about what tools each character has and what they need added or taken away to give the other characters a fair go.

[Bendy]

I get the feeling OP has recently taken a class in design and learned some new words...

You're speaking on such a high level of abstraction it's hard to comprehend what you're actually arguing.

[Tom]

I am experiencing deja vu with this chess discussion.

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

If it is turn based? probably not as the player making the first move would suggestively have the advantage.

In a dancing sense? Perhaps...

In a real time sense where you both make your moves at the same time and dance... probably.

Okay - So now Chess isn't balanced -_-

Try Go.. that game is the closest thing to balance.

[Cyanide]

ZvT ZvP TvP ZvZ PvP TvT

This game is balanced 50% of the time. Close enough.

Quick Comments

xGKingdelete:

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by Tom

I am experiencing deja vu with this chess discussion.

Sorry, Tom, I just thought it was pertinent to the current discussion.

[Satu]

Well, I think the main problem in this thread was that no one agreed with your points or the conclusion of the changes that should be made. But I stumbled across something that could possibly be a better change in the game than what you've said. Here, you won't believe it...

You Tube

You Tube

Giraffes are going to save esports. Thankyou Atlas, we will be forever greatful that you led us down the path of finding this most intelligent solution.

(Its a joke...)

[mGGDaedalus]

Originally Posted by FaDeMeatex

lets look at baduk (also known as igo)
its a board game involving placing black or white stones on a board to surround empty space (territory)
In an even game black will go first - to offset this advantage white player gets around 7 points
Hundreds of years of testing has lead to the conclusion that first move advantage is worth 7 points or so and the game is balanced.

dude I bought this game on iphone and I gotta say, it makes starcraft seem like a walk in the park lol, makes my brain hurt.

Also, back on topic, in many ways the mirror matches to me seem at least as hard (if not harder) to balance as the other matchups, which kind of goes against the theory of achieving complete symmetry between the races. Balance is not only about giving the different sides the same options, it's about making sure that each race has viable options to deal with anything thrown at them so that all races have a chance of winning.

To say that starcraft dev team threw together starcraft design with no philosophies in mind is both inaccurate and ignorant I think.

[Cyanide]

Originally Posted by satuspr

well, i think the main problem in this thread was that no one agreed with your points or the conclusion of the changes that should be made. But i stumbled across something that could possibly be a better change in the game than what you've said. Here, you won't believe it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyl-vube9o

giraffes are going to save esports. Thankyou atlas, we will be forever greatful that you led us down the path of finding this most intelligent solution.

http://i.imgur.com/v8l77.jpg

(its a joke...)

nooooooooo jimmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!

[Dox]

**** YOU INTERNET. Why do you give people like this a voice?

[syfChadMann]

Originally Posted by Dox

**** YOU INTERNET. Why do you give people like this a voice?

Everyone should be permitted to have an opinion.. this guy is just misinformed noob that needs to learn the game before he becomes a balance designer.

Quick Comments

Dox:

I don't think you realise which person I was referring to. ;)

[TAEdgE]

Originally Posted by vtx.DB_SenSei

Wow someone complaining with walls of text about zerg being too weak? You have to be joking me mate how much do you play this game? Zerg is OP.

don't be retarded

[syfMiley]

I don't EVEN know where this thread is going now.

[ToRDeathsFang]

hmm, 100 posts in just under 8 hours. I declare this a new record.

In my opinion, i think everybody who posted about balance in this thread and got pissed off at this guy just got 'd extremely hard.

[TABjornbrandr]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

What seems to have been overlooked in Sc2 and just starcraft in general, do not ask me how, is that in order to have 3 unique race designs that are balanced, symmetry is a necessity...

By definition, if the races share an absolute 3 way symmetry, they cannot be unique.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But now there is the issue of achieving an optimal uniqueness of design between all 3 races.

Optimal uniqueness is not a term; to be unique is to be different to everything else. You'll looking for the ideal variations of mechanics and playstyles between races.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Achieving symmetry between two unique races is simple, you just make the design of each race in opposition to each other by inverting the design and then you have two totally unique races but maintain balance.

This is not at all correct; mathematically, with n and 1/n being reciprocals, they are not symmetrical. If you plot f(n) and f(1/n) you will find that the two functions do not share symmetry.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

3 races is more complex because you can not have 3 totally unique designs, they can now only, at best, be partially (50% unique and 50% similar) to one another.

Again, you cannot be a percentage or fraction unique. By definition, you are either unique or not. As for mechanics, qualitatively a similarity/difference comparison is acceptable, but quantitatively one would have to ascertain the magnitude of the change in performance that different mechanic and unit variations would provide. In short, just because you've changed x/10 mechanics for race one, x/10 mechanics for race two and x/10 mechanics for race 3, not all races have been changed to an equal magnitude, due to the varying interactions between the changes of design.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

This yes and no principle can be referred to as a paradox.

Incorrect; a paradox is an occurence that requires the end product to initiate the original component in order to result in the final product. Being sort of like x race, but not quite like x race, is not a paradox.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Paradoxi have been a major root theme to the field of philosophy itself, and this mathematical concept of 3 unique bodies generate paradoxi so purely, it can be used as solid evidence that philosophy has an intimate relationship with math via the number 3.

Mathematically, not philosophically, you will find the number three interesting when you consider co-dependant variables in pure mathematics or competing equilibria in chemistry, or simultaneous equations when solving for three unknown variables, but there is nothing inherently philosophical about the number three. Of all the numbers, 1, 0 and i are probably the most 'game-changing'.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But because only partial uniqueness between 3 races can be attained, generating an opposite design from one race to the next by a means of inversion becomes somewhat obscure and unclear.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding the mathematical application of inverting a function. A reciprocal function is a reciprocal only to the original function. The original function is a reciprocal to the reciprocal function. That is all there is to it mathematically. You are attempting to use a qualitative analysis for a quantitative response; it is not the same thing and cannot be treated as such.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

In starcraft, the terran and protoss races produce offense linearly separate from their main base which also produces linearly. Neither economic unit is permanently lost when making defense.

Zerg does not produce linearly, but SHARES production between offense, economy, and overlord...

This is supposed to be made up for by having non linear production, and they do to a degree.

However, when it comes to macro, defensive structures are essential when you are in the "economic" (non warrior) mode of production.

This point here is where you shall have to forgive my relative lack of experience compared to the higher and much more accomplished players in the region/world, but my points will stand none-the-less.
The Zerg economy is based around the concept of inject cycles and changing between varying degrees of drone and unit production. Defensive structures are essential to any race when defending something of a magnitude that cannot be held off without said structures, such as spore crawlers to help against cloak banshee when still on hatch tech. However, when not facing a composition that demands a particular structural response, the best way to drone up is to maintain map control. One can just as easily argue that for the Zerg to drone up, they must have sufficient units to command the progression of the game. This is the format I subscribe to and I believe most/all professional players will tell you the same thing. Just because you cannot drone non-stop does not mean that you must have defensive structures in order to drone up.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

The problem is that you simultaneously must be sacrificing a drone permanently for that defense structure when you make it.

What has been overlooked, is that in order to have symmetry, balance, and beauty, zerg's defense structures, spore and spine crawler, should have produced linearly from the hatchery itself.

It should have always been this way... it should have been this way in broodwar, the sunk and spore colony producing linearly from the hatchery itself.

The first issue here is that you're equating the loss of the drone to being able to build defensive structures from the hatchery. However, the important point to note is that these structures have ZERO larva cost from your total 200/200. Whilst you lose your drone, you free up the opportunity to reproduce that drone. For a race that is larva centric, the current system is essential in producing a respectable balance.
Furthermore, by producing from the hatchery, one may find insufficient time to place spines for holding off an all-in attack without pre-producing, a concept that directly contravenes the reactive play-style of the Zerg race. This pre-production would also gimp the economy to a greater magnitude than the current system.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

It utilizes the inversion principle for generating uniqueness between race designs while retaining symmetry.

No, I'm afraid that simply isn't true. There is no inversion principle at work here at all. Again, you are using the completely wrong term for what you endeavor to say.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Terran and protoss produce offense linearly.... zerg produces defense linearly...
Protoss can suddenly warp in mass amounts of defense...
Zerg should not be able to because they have no need to due to being able to generate offense so quickly.

Zerg does not produce defence in a linear fashion. Please do not use a term that you cannot comprehend.
The Protoss warp-in mechanic is a 'burst production' that provides relatively immediate reinforcement. Similar to the Larva Inject of the Zerg. Similar to Reactors (to a lesser extent) from Terran. That is why Zerg doesn't have a warp-in mechanic.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But someone "thought" they were creative when they would give zerg a so called "Defensive" unit (queen) and have it produce from the hatchery thinking that it would be the perfect solution to zerg.

it is simply not, and the fact that the queen costs 150 minerals compared to the 100 mineral spine/spore crawler is sheer insanity.

The queen offers mobility with defense that cannot be achieved with spore/spine crawlers. I'd rather have two queens to kill a void ray than 2 spore crawlers. Perhaps you're just using the Queen in the wrong way. Keep in mind the Queen also provides the macro mechanic for Zerg, as well as creep spread; a highly important component in base defense - another thing you are selectively ignoring. Creep provides a huge defensive boon due to the extended mobility and vision.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I also want to add one more VERY SOUND piece of reasoning to support my point.

Through out the game of starcraft, you can notice a pattern of design which exists as 2 similar, 1 different, or 2 same one different.

For example, the barrack and the gateway both cost 150 while the spawning pool costs 200.

Or how the zergling and the zealot are both melee while the marine is missile.

Or how the zergling and the marine are both small while the zealot is medium sized.

There is a concept design for each race. Each race is given a Tier 1 unit. In order to maintain balance, the arbitrary qualities of melee/ranged must be balanced by a mathematical constraint; that is the build time of the production facility, the built time of the unit itself, the cost of the production facility and the cost of the unit. These constraints arise because of the inherent design of the units, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Then the question is perhaps, "What do the zealot and the marine share that the zergling does not have?"

Here you are reading into the situation far deeper than you should, keep in mind what is said above about the arbitrary qualities determining the constraints for unit production.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

You can see this 2 same 1 different pattern woven through out the game, but when it comes to the economic functions of each race

There is no apparent 2 similar 1 different pattern implemented... Why doesn't blizzard adhere to the 2 similar 1 different design pattern on such a basic yet critical level?

Just for the moment I will pretend your argument has weight and simply say "Protoss and Terran build workers from the main building one at a time, Zerg doesn't." There's your '2 similar 1 different' pattern that you wanted.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Protoss: Warp
Terran: Contruct (Momentary economic loss)
Zerg: Sacrifice (Permanent economic loss)

Note that the 'permanent economic loss' for Zerg also results in free larva. This free larva creates a surplus of supply and therefore overlord production is lessened, thus resulting in a reduction in cost for maintaining supply - not an economic loss when considered to the full extent.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Now.... if the spine and spore crawler produced linearly at the hatchery, or even the spawning pool... you might say "how does this adhere to the 2 similar 1 different pattern as opposed to drone sacrificing for defense"

Simple.... In the same way that that an scv is occupied for a period of time when constructing a building... zerg would pay the price of having to produce split defense "anti air defense (spore) or anti ground defense (spine crawler)" in a linear fashion from a single building.

The consequence SHOULD NOT be the sacrifice of drone because zerg's defense is already split between anti air and anti ground....

This creates a time constraint for the Zerg player in addition to the constraints arising from the Terran or Protoss unit production; as such, if these constraints create a window for a 'build order loss', you are in fact disadvantaging the Zerg player to a greater degree than the lost drone.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

While the marine, although has to fill a bunker, the bunker can be quickly dumped and also repaired.

The bunker also cannot move.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

The marine also has natural defensive ability, but this makes sense because it fits terran's theme.

As does the drone that you spent on the spine/spore crawler. Drones are a huge economic and military gain - by producing drones you strengthen your army by allowing for a quicker reinforcement due to the Zerg Larva Mechanic: This is the point you have selectively ignored

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

The truth is and has always been that zerg's design functionality is Critically Flawed and has a MAJOR impact on the game despite being subtle enough that it isn't easily noticeable.

This is personal opinion and has not been proved to the slightest in what you have said above.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Message 3:


An argument to this might be that zerg, with their multiple hatcheries would be able to match terran and protoss' offense with defense at any given time... thus making the macro of the game stale.

Or the Zerg has creep spread as well as Overlord placement and as such can identify when the opponent is likely to push and respond in the correct manner to the opponent's play.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But remember, zerg is still splitting between ground to ground and ground to air defense, Plus, when teching to lair, this would interrupt the defensive production.

Not all defense is from buildings; the best defense in SC2 is to know your limitations, respond to your opponent and have enough to just kill his army when he attacks; not to be able to thwart any attack with purely defensive structures.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But now that zerg have the queen which already produces at the hatchery, it would be too much to have the spine and spore crawler also produce there...

The only and ultimate solution to this would be to have the spine and spore crawler produce at the spawning pool in a linear fashion.

This is the most absurd deduction you have made so far. There is nothing inherent with the Spawning Pool design that makes it an ideal applicant for producing defensive strucutres. This is still ignoring the fact that the current system works and is, lest I say it, balanced.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Zerg already gets a slight yet insignificant ground to ground defensive edge with the queen.

If it's insignificant, then please do not bother mentioning it in your arugment. The Queen is, first and foremost, a macro enabling unit that provides mobile early-game defense, unit support and map vision via creep spread.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

But if the spawning pool could be zerg's one building, besides the hatchery, that could be placed anywhere on the map, and had its own creep, and could produce spine and spore crawler in a linear fashion, it would make things ridiculously interesting...

Consider dropping Overlord creep for NesTea spine crawler rushes. Also, money spent on a spawning pool is money that could be spent on other facets of the Zerg player's set-up.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

It would

A.) Give zerg an aggressive proximity element to their options...

Overlord creep.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

B.) You would be able to place your spawning pool in your allies base which would make abandoning a hatchery that your opponent is focusing on, and still be capable of surviving (by moving your workers to a second base) more viable as your spawning pool would not be stuck at your main... easily being the next building to be taken out.

Also limiting building placement of your ally. Keep in mind that a clutch save with your spawning pool singular defensive structure production would require knowing that your opponents would be attacking at least however many seconds it takes to get the drone there, build the pool and make sufficient defensive structures to hold off that attack. More than enough time for you to just build units and your ally to build sufficient defense himself/herself

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Final Message:

As a final conclusion my suggestion is a host of changes to the spawning pool and the creep to make this idea the best that it can possibly be.

- The spawning pool can be built anywhere.
- The spawning pool has its own creep
- Creep, now slowly eats away at any structure it comes in to contact with (Just to have its own perks considering it's not as fast as proxy cannon)
- Each spawning pool comes equipped with one creep tumor, creep tumor is removed from the queen.
- The spawning pool can uproot and crawl so that it can potentially be saved as it crawls back to your base and you try to protect it with lings.
- The spawning pool has an upgrade similar to the reactor upgrade for the barracks that gives it 2 slots of production for defense... Spine and spore crawler.
- When a spine/spore crawler is produced from the spawning pool, it emerges from the pool itself already uprooted... The time duration is now applied to uprooting while rooting is now instant.

Ignoring completely the absurb suggestions, please take into account that all that you wish to achieve with the above can easily be achieved with the current Zerg design. Furthermore, whilst your argument is for symmetry, I cannot see anywhere in the terran and protoss designs that there is an aoe based damage resulting from building placement relative to other buildings, nor bunkers and cannons that are built from arbitrary buildings that can place themselves wherever the want with no time penalty.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

-Remember, zerg would now no longer be able to make defense structures with the drone, but this is ideal because sacrificing drones for defense structures is not intelligent design function.

Please read what I posted with regards to the lost drone; your argument is not only incorrect, it is stupid.

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

I personally feel like that these changes are the only way to function my idea with blizzard's current design functions...

But I feel like it is truly the best Idea that you are going to find out there in regards to correcting zerg.

No.


All in all, not sure if trolling or just stupid...

Quick Comments

	neon:	well written :)
	Tjalnar:	^
	bswhunter:	Nice work. Pretty much agree with all your points.
	:	You deserve rep for your effort :)
	Daboo:	Wow, you actually took the time to read all his posts and reply?

[crAzerk]

Oh man that link from bugalugs is so interesting! (sirlin) I wish SC2 had someone like that writing about the balance process, these things are always fun to read (are there such existing stuff? I know WoW blue posters always do it)

as for the present discussion, domislong beat me to what I wanted to say- it seems like the OP is speaking in an unnecessarily abstract manner which merely distorts and dilutes what he is trying to say. Often I've no idea what his point is.

[Cyanide]

Originally Posted by crAzerk

Often I've no idea what his point is.

The point is, he's trolling. Got really obvious when he starting going on and on about colours.

[syfMiley]

Stop feeding this guy, he is obviously getting off on it.

[bswhunter]

Being able to write long winded articles is the sign of a scrub zerg player.
Look at IdrA, he writes 1 liners without an grammer and then goes out and owns people up.

Anyway, I think zerg is fine. The only issue I see with zerg is lack of decent, stable GTA and our detection for attacks is easy to remove. But these things force you to play differently, and do not make the race flawed.
Also, corrupters. I would like to see corruption become more noticable or somthing. Right now its probally the least noticable ability in the game.

[TAEdgE]

Originally Posted by xGKingiaguz

Oh Christ this thread hurts.

OP. You're wrong. I could get into a LOT of detail why you're wrong and why your Broodwar background doesn't make you less wrong and how Starcraft is actually ASYMMETRICAL (a symmetrical RTS would be Warcraft 2) and how balance does NOT equal design and how your suggestions at the end of the thread are fuckingg retarded and that every possible bullshit aggression strategy can be deflected with spines, queens and lings (and maybe roaches?) with the zerg able to just drone like crazy once they fend it off and that Zergs who lose to such strategies have been outplayed but this seems like too much effort for too little gain.

Hi

10char

[TADivinity]

Why are you talking about team game balance - i.e. building spawning pools in your ally's base?
Team games are fun and I respect that people exclusively play team games because they enjoy it..

...But 1v1 is where its at, and that is what balance should revolve around.

[AtlasMeCH]

Here is what I want to leave this thread off with.
If I am wrong, which, I personally don't believe that I am, but if I am, here is what I think has been the problem with zerg the whole time...

The spawning pool is not a defense structure, and cannot be upgraded to a defense structure.

I was actually royally upset when terran got the planetary fortress in starcraft 2 because my idea for correcting zerg in broodwar consisted of upgrading the hatchery to a defensive structure, or upgrading the overlord to a defensive structure considering it occupied larvae.

But apparently that is TOTALLY out of the question now because terran got this ability which I knew was the missing function of zerg play. With out it, zerg are missing the key to their balance.

So imagine the spawning pool... just the spawning pool being able to upgrade to a defensive building and also perhaps being able to uproot moving around on the creep (Forget any previous pool changes I made)

My question is this... "How in God's name is this imbalanced considering that terran have the planetary fortress and can upgrade to the PF with multiple cc.

How... in... God's... name?

Look, if I'm off that the spawning pool should produce defense linearly... then maybe I'm more right in the sense that the spawning pool should have been a defensive building or been able to upgrade to one, perhaps that is what my feelings are getting at, this relationship between defense and the spawning pool.

If a change like this is made, I personally believe that only at that point would it be worth it to take zerg seriously.

And I will be left wondering... where has this been for the last 13-14 years?

Why has blizzard stolen 13-14 years of my life by stressing me mentally over this, by stressing out even professional players over this?

So my prediction for what blizzard should do if they are even remotely concerned about balance will be one of the two ideas with the spawning pool that I am proposing on this thread.

And honestly if blizzard makes one of those two changes, I'm seriously going to quit starcraft and spend my spare time that I have playing diablo 3.

I'm 26 years old... I simply can't take the feeling of disgust with this game any more with out it beginning to deteriorate my physical body.

One more thing...

There is at least a high degree of symmetry between Terran and Protoss...

Zerg have no degree of symmetry to them at all and I find this unfair to zerg.

Maybe a primary color model consisting of red green and blue could be better used to express my point.

http://activerain.com/image_store/up...5904266059.gif

If we are adhering to the Red, Green, Blue primary color model, then we can make the observation here that Green and Blue are only different by 2 degrees of color shading.

Red, however... is different from blue by 4 degrees of color shading.

Therefore, blue and green could represent Terran and Protoss being more similar to each other, while zerg being red is "more different"

The key word is "More Different" not TOTALLY different from t and p.

And this is why my argument stands that there should be some kind of degree of symmetry between zerg and the other two races.

Quick Comments

mGGDaedalus:

I really was trying to take you seriously up until this post, I swear

[iM yang]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

Why has blizzard stolen 13-14 years of my life

Blizzard's bad mmmkay

[syfMiley]

I think you should chill out

[Meatex]

I'm 26 years old... I simply can't take the feeling of disgust any more with out it beginning to deteriorate my physical body.

See a neurologist immediately
I'm not mocking you or anything but if what you say is true then that is a symptom of a potentially serious neurological problem or otherwise a psychological problem.

Giving the pool the ability to produce spores and spines would make Zerg neigh on unbeatable. especially if the pool could be built like a hatch.
Converting the pool to a defensive structure would have little to no utility in a real game it wouldn't be imbalanced it would be next to useless

Again making blanket statements with not a pinch of reasoning behind them
Give reasons rather than saying X and expecting people to just agree with you

[AtlasMeCH]

"I really was trying to take you seriously up until this post, I swear" - Joshboy

I was really trying to take starcraft 2 seriously up until planetary fortress, I swear.

[crAzerk]

His comment about the primary colors is my new favourite part of this thread

[nirvAnA]

Of course Starcraft 2 is asymmetrical, that is obvious and there is no point arguing that. You have to communicate your ideas better because focusing on that minute detail is making everyone frustrated when the topic of this thread that should really be

"Does the inherent asymmetry in Starcraft 2 make the game unplayable?"

And the answer is a resounding no. Look at all the GSLs &/ MLGs, the winners have all had their share of different races. These are the highest level players in the world, and even there there is a very delicate balance with the champions races constantly switching, well with perhaps Terran slightly over performing in the GSLs.

But the point is this, even at the highest levels there is no one dominating race. Needless to say for the rest of the world, i.e 99.999% of Starcraft 2 players i.e every non-korean except for 10 people, there is no imbalance which a more skilled player cannot overcome. Throw in Nestea in every SEA tournament and he will win every competition for the next 3 months. Same can be said for MC or MVP. The point is the slight "imbalances" present now will not affect your game to the point its unplayable and a much more skilled player fails to win and this holds true all the way from the platinum leagues on NA to even the Grandmaster Leagues on SEA.

Zerg is harder to master but at the highest levels its incredibly strong. Protoss is the easiest race to learn but has the lowest skill ceiling. Terran requires alot more multi-tasking and unit management then the others. Of course each race is made different so needs to be played differently and requires different skill sets but its this variety that makes the game so fun as well. Learn to embrace the differences in the races and pick the one you which suits you style. Whining about imbalance instead of using that time to improve yourself is silly and that's why everyone hates "imbalance" whines, especially when peopole attribute "imbalance" as the reason they are not getting promoted instead of looking at their game play and taking responsibility for their own skill level.

Quick Comments

mGGDaedalus:

well said

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by crAzerk

His comment about the primary colors is my new favourite part of this thread

;D

Yes, I believe it is a good point... again, Although the primary colors are theoretically in total opposition to each other, green and blue are still "more similar" to each other, while red is simply more different

In this sense, T and P would be green and blue being "more similar" to each other

While Zerg as Red would be "more different"

T and P not being absolutely the same, but the point being that zerg should not be absolutely different.

It's a serious problem.

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

Of course Starcraft 2 is asymmetrical, that is obvious and there is no point arguing that. You have to communicate your ideas better because focusing on that minute detail is making everyone frustrated when the topic of this thread that should really be

"Does the inherent asymmetry in Starcraft 2 make the game unplayable?"

And the answer is a resounding no. Look at all the GSLs &/ MLGs, the winners have all had their share of different races. These are the highest level players in the world, and even there there is a very delicate balance with the champions races constantly switching, well with perhaps Terran slightly over performing in the GSLs.

But the point is this, even at the highest levels there is no one dominating race. Needless to say for the rest of the world, i.e 99.99% of Starcraft 2 players, there is no imbalance which a more skilled player cannot overcome. Throw in Nestea in every SEA tournament and he will win every competition for the next 3 months. Same can be said for MC or MVP. The point is the slight "imbalances" present now will not affect your game to the point a much more skilled player fails to win and this holds true even all the way from the platinum leagues on NA to the Grandmaster Legues on SEA.

Zerg is harder to master but at the highest levels its incredibly strong. Protoss is the easiest race to learn but has the lowest skill ceiling. Terran requires alot more multi-tasking and unit management then the others. Each race is different and requires different skill sets and its this variety that makes the game fun. Learn to embrace the differences in the races and pick the one you which suits you style. Whining about imbalance instead of using that time to improve yourself is silly and that's why everyone hates "imbalance" whines, especially when they attribute "imbalance" as the reason they are not getting promoted instead of taking responsibility for their own skill levels.

It makes the game lack a balance of adaption in the sense that certain builds are going to dominate and be abused much more then others.

This promotes a lack of incentive for exploring other interesting styles of play that would be potentially viable... until then, players are always going to be funneled in to perfecting the same attack that simply wins games.

Personally, I think you need to give more attention to WHAT I'M providing as a reasonable possibility, rather then just pointing out what i'm not doing to meet your needs exclusively.

[mGGDaedalus]

Originally Posted by AtlasMeCH

It makes the game lack a balance of adaption in the sense that certain builds are going to dominate and be abused much more then others.

This promotes a lack of incentive for exploring other interesting styles of play that would be potentially viable... until then, players are always going to be funneled in to perfecting the same attack that simply wins games.

And yet evidence completely contradicts what you've just said

[AtlasMeCH]

Originally Posted by joshboy

And yet evidence completely contradicts what you've just said

To a degree that is much too high, what I'm saying is true.

[AtlasMeCH]

@nirvana

Why can't the question be proposed then "Does the way that blizzard balances the asymmetrical design of starcraft 2 make the game playable at best, and because a game is playable ,at best, does this make it good, fun, but also worth taking seriously if you should do so?"

Why cannot that question be asked?

Also, sometimes how fun a game is, is determined by how seriously you can take it.

[ETL.Santi]

wait... i didnt read...

TLDR?

[mGGDaedalus]

Originally Posted by Santi

wait... i didnt read...

TLDR?

tl;dr zerg is underpowered because we cant build static d from the hatchery and something about the primary colours

Quick Comments

TADivinity:

hahahaha "...and something about colours??"

[Sc2Clare]

lol... no one is asking you to play sc2. if u think something is wrong with it, why play it? also, zerg is unique. for everything in the world, there will be something unique. IMO, all u gotta do is just **** and l2p sc2 like a boss

[TABottles]

So glad I went to work today

[MazEi]

Originally Posted by joshboy

tl;dr zerg is underpowered because we cant build static d from the hatchery and something about the primary colours

Oh and apparently Planetary Fortresses are imba and OP and every synonym with those terms.

[Fourby]

Long story short, this guy went full retard.

Then after going full retard, he showed the world that there is a whole next level of spastic.

Quick Comments

	TADivinity:	hahaha
	NvRossi:	congratulations on your first funny joke
	x5_Bard:	lol so good

[AtlasMeCH]

All that I can do is post this site and say the following...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_art

The principles of art:

Movement
Emphasis
Unity
Harmony
Variety
Balance
Contrast
Proportion
Pattern
Inversion (My personal addition)

If starcraft was striving for balance, there would be at least a consideration of all the principles of art so that the game can attain at least to a great degree what it strives for... to be an art.

But not just an art... "The Art"

Concept: "Using A DEGREE of inversion of functionality to achieve uniqueness with out sacrificing proportional balance"


Inverting irrational functionality (The ratio between offensive and economic function of T and P) to achieve a totally unique function(Zerg) with out sacrificing balance.

The beauty of it is that it is a synthesis of protoss and terran conceptually.

The spawning pool producing defense linearly is comparable to the linear out put of the marine from the barrack. The marine technically being terran's defense as it is put in a bunker.

The spawning pool having a creep radius and being able to be placed anywhere... similar to the pylon.

Yet still actually being totally unique in the sense that defense isn't made by economy.

Defense can also be moved around which gives it that degree of offensiveness allowing it to not be fully classified as some set in stone type.

Zerg can't mass produce defense so suddenly anymore? That's fine... isn't that why zerg have queens and transfusion? is not spines and one full mana queen greater then 3 spines if four transfusions can be cast?

Personally, i think it would be really fun to proxy a pool, and then uproot it and try to crawl it back to my base in order to save it.

Quick Comments

	Sc2Clare:	please stop this...
	Daboo:	lol shut.

[syfChadMann]

Dude.. the reason why people think this game is imbalanced is because all the races have their individual edge and strength.. That makes the game interesting!.. the fact that races are different gives the game depth.
If you want 'PURE BALANCE'.. then you'd have to play Mirror match ups all day.. the fact that the game is not balanced in particular ways.. makes the game fun and exciting.. each race has their strength.. each race has their weaknesses.

If you don't understand that - your a moron. Game design isn't about being perfect.. its about the balance offsets that make the game enjoyable...
If it was balanced.. there would only be 1 race.. and everyone would do the same build every single ****ing time - would that be fun?

[Cyanide]

Can't wait for you to design your own RTS, I bet it's gonna blow Blizzard out of the water.

Quick Comments

mGGDaedalus:

The three races will be red, green and blue

[Bendy]

I feel like some of these statements could be confused with the scrawlings of a mental patient on his asylum wall, in his own feces.

Or at the very least I'm getting a Dr Steinman from Bioshock vibe.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Atlas, just hold up a minute. You said that your were going to stop posting... 7 posts ago. o_O

As you may or may not have realised by now, most of the people in this thread aren't taking you seriously. They are probably the sane ones. Also, go back and re-read nirvAnA's post. Very well written and concise.

Now, a couple of questions.

Is Starcraft 2 a game or art?
If it is art, then why should we take it seriously competitively?
If it is a game, why do we care about symmetry?
How are you gonna manage to run a proxy spawning pool from the enemy base back to your own without it getting killed?
Why would we want to build a bunch more queens when we don't need to? You did mention at one point they are NOT cost effective, but then go and say we would be forced to use them because we can't drop 4 spines at once!

Finally, though I do not believe that you should be using the art definition of balance, here it is...

Definition:
(noun) - As a basic principle of art (specifically of design), balance refers to the ways in which the elements (lines, shapes, colors, textures, etc.) of a piece are arranged. Balance is one of those useful terms to know, if one is to employ Art Speak.

Balance can be symmetrical ("formal"), where elements are given equal "weight" from an imaginary line in the middle of a piece. For the most basic example of symmetry, think of your eyes in relation to either side of your nose.

Balance doesn't necessarily mean symmetry, though. Asymmetrical ("informal") balance occurs when elements are placed unevenly in a piece, but work together to produce harmony overall.

Hey, will you look at that, 'Balance doesn't necessarily mean symmetry...'. Turns out, in Starcraft 2, the elements (different races, units, abilities and mechanics) are placed unevenly within the game, 'but work together to produce harmony overall.'. Looking at the tournament results there is a pretty good harmony between the races. I mean other than the fact that they're always killing each other.

Hope you enjoy reading this response, and then completely ignoring all points made and posting about colours again.

[NvRossi]

Atlas you have my Undivided Attention

You Tube

You Tube

Quick Comments

Champi:

i love your work, i think it's only getting better

[ZergGirl]

I believe in you AtlasMeCH. Ignore the haters!

[HaNdFisH]

I finally got around to reading through the OP's wall of text. Im sorry but all it does is remind me of this:

You Tube

You Tube

[nard]

Hey for true balance each player is only allowed to build 10 marines and meet in an open space to fight it out.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by nard

Hey for true balance each player is only allowed to build 10 marines and meet in an open space to fight it out.

Nah, no mining, no building just a straight up fight between 6 SCVs all with auto-repair on.

[AtlasMeCH]

@ Bugalugs

Would you define what "over all harmony" is?

Like, provide a solid example of artwork that is asymmetrical yet has harmony overall?

Doesn't this suggest over all proportionality?


I want you to observe the art on this website...

http://www.allgraphicdesign.com/grap...-the-question/

Did you observe the "asymmetrical" art piece?

http://allgraphicdesign.com/graphics...signcarpet.jpg

It has PROPORTIONAL HARMONY

That's the key phrase I think I'm trying to get at here... proportional harmony...

Because Terran and Protoss "Produce Offense Generally Separate From economy"

I'm saying that it makes sense for the sake of proportional harmony that zerg would "Produce Defense Linearly Separate from economy"

Compare and contrast

"produce OFFENSE GENERALLY separate from economy"
"produce DEFENSE LINEARLY separate from economy"

It has proportional harmony and therefore balance...

My argument is that with out proportional harmony, there is not balance, there is not art.

Final statement: My opinion is that a lack of proportional harmony of race functionality is holding the balance of the game back for zerg.

Quick Comments

	Cyanide:	your abstract theories are making you a poor, confused and lost soul.
	nirvAnA:	Have to agree with cynaide

[ZergGirl]

right on the money AtlasMeCH.

They just don't understand sadly.

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Hehehe, I shouldn't have put in the art bit, but anyways.

My questions that you conveniently ignored, again.

Is Starcraft 2 a game or art?
If it is art, then why should we take it seriously competitively?
If it is a game, why do we care about symmetry?
How are you gonna manage to run a proxy spawning pool from the enemy base back to your own without it getting killed?
Why would we want to build a bunch more queens when we don't need to? You did mention at one point they are NOT cost effective, but then go and say we would be forced to use them because we can't drop 4 spines at once!

I guess my biggest bugbear is the fact that you keep coming back to art, but Starcraft 2 is designed as a sport.

Maybe you should watch/listen to this talk by Dustin Browder, lead designer for Starcraft 2.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488...n-of-STARCRAFT
He mentioned that various segments of the dev team hate him (jokingly of course), but one was the art team. Art was not the highest priority, eSports was. Starcraft 2 is a game, not art.

[Meatex]

Doesn't this suggest over all proportionality?

for someone who is clearly an art 101 you don't understand what you are talking about
Picaso was famous for doing the exact opposite but is one of the most famous artists on the planet

Instead of trying to use unrelated concepts to back up your concept (and even asking others to do what you repeatedly refuse to do by giving evidence) try thinking how that would affect gameplay.

[|Erasmus|]

I just want to ask you atlas, to please explain how a Planetary Fortress works... you can't build scvs when you are morphing your command center, so it is not linearly producing defence separately from economy.

Quick Comments

Cyanide:

i like where you are going with this

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

Originally Posted by |Erasmus|

I just want to ask you atlas, to please explain how a Planetary Fortress works... you can't build scvs when you are morphing your command center, so it is not linearly producing defence separately from economy.

Damn, I can't give you rep.

But at least someone here is thinking instead of having fun just ing.

[ZergGirl]

Originally Posted by |Erasmus|

I just want to ask you atlas, to please explain how a Planetary Fortress works... you can't build scvs when you are morphing your command center, so it is not linearly producing defence separately from economy.

Didn't he ask for something similar (to a PF) for zerg and protoss? i can't remember through all these pages now D;

FOR SYMMETRY! HARMONIC BALANCE! love man, love.

Quick Comments

|Erasmus|:

Cause he thinks zergs already have a problem with cutting workers to produce defense ;)

[ZergGirl]

Originally Posted by FaDeMeatex

for someone who is clearly an art 101 you don't understand what you are talking about
Picaso was famous for doing the exact opposite but is one of the most famous artists on the planet

Instead of trying to use unrelated concepts to back up your concept (and even asking others to do what you repeatedly refuse to do by giving evidence) try thinking how that would affect gameplay.

Picaso played Random irl, please keep up.

*gently pats you*

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

ZergGirl, I don't think you are taking this seriously.

Quick catch up. Atlas suggests that he thought that Zerg needed a defensive upgrade for the Hatchery in BW and then Blizzard went and gave Terrans Planetary Fortress. He wants to take that from Terrans and give it to Zerg. Personally I think it would look weird with this giant mechanical turret sitting on the top of a Hatch, but that's just me.

Picaso did play Random because it's the only race worth playing.

Another question I did think Atlas, though please answer it after you've answered my previous questions...

Why do Zerg need help if the general public fear a Zergling Rush, but not a Marine Rush?

[mGGDaedalus]

Starcraft is not art! Its a fricken video game!

[Tom]

RRRRRRRRED IMBA. Blue is fine.

[ZergGirl]

you CAN argue that SC2 is art.

And the reason why people fear a Zergling rush and not a Marine rush... is because Blizzard changed the timings on said Marine rush, it is no longer scary.

One could say the new timings have created a more harmonic balance amongst the plebs.

*nods sagely*

[Bugalugs McScruffin]

ZergGirl, that was a very sagely nod. I do question how the could be a harmonic balance, since Altas here has pointed out that there is no... what was it... inverse symmetry between Terran and Zerg.

Also, Tom has some very good discussions on balance (this thread does not qualify) and so I'd believe him is he says red is imbalanced. Personally I thought it sucked that blue always starts in offence first, but I'm not the balance wizz Tom is.

Quick Comments

ZergGirl:

ty, i've been feeling rather sagey lately.

[syfMiley]

I think Tom has the right idea here.

Quick Comments

	ZergGirl:	not funny at all :(
	TADivinity:	Zerggirl is on her period. I got you bro.

[AtlasMeCH]

Hopefully this post can sum things up...

Yes, I realize that the planetary fortress interrupts terran's economy, however, the queen can be viewed in a similar way in that it interrupts teching to lair.

But lets now consider the strangeness when you compare a queen to a spine crawler.

Queen 150 minerals,
Spine Crawler 100 minerals

Queen 2 control
Spine crawler 1 control (drone sacrifice)

Queen 175 life
Spine Crawler 300 life

Queen 4/9 damage
Spine crawler 20 damage

But the queen is 150 minerals and the spine crawler is 100? WHAT, THE, HELL?

Now tell me, how does it really make sense that just because the queen has mobility and can attack air/ground that it should actually cost 150 minerals when the power is so much less?

Consider a Spine Crawler AND a Spore crawler together in comparison to the queen if you want to...

The spore crawler has 400 hit points...

The end result is queen 150 mineral 2 control 175 life, compared to the 175 cost 2 control 700 life of spine/spore.

And you wouldn't even want to compare the damage because the queen pales in comparison immensely.

So how can the queen only cost 25 minerals less overall, but be that much worse?

Apparently the queen costs 150 minerals simply because it is mobile and casts spawn larvae? What?

So yes, having the pool be able to upgrade to a defensive structure doesn't effect economy i get it, but I don't think you can cast transfusion on a hatchery and so I don't think you would be able to cast transfusion on the pool in the way that Terran repair their bunker...

Moving on...

If the ability to morph the spawning pool in to a defensive structure is not the choice, then I believe that linear production of defense from the spawning pool is.

Remember, terran have reactors now for doubling marine production out put, and protoss have crono boost. Even though zerg would be producing defense separately from from economy with out drone sacrifice, you still wouldn't be able to match your defensive production to terran and protoss' offensive out put when you factor the reactor and crono boost.

This is how it makes the game interesting as it forces zerg to make offense to defend in cooperation with their defense... but the offensive reaction is slightly stronger then before because of the minerals that were able to be saved being able to produce defense linearly from the spawning pool.

Blizzard was searching for a Reactive Power for zerg if you remember they had Reactive Larvae in the game and then they scratched the idea because clearly it didn't work for some reason unless they were saving it for HOTS.

Now, going back to HANDFISHES video... the main theme and the overall point of it is The Significance of Doubling.

Now, since protoss would have crono boost which enhances the speed of production out put by 20% and terran have the reactor which increases marine out put by 100%, perhaps there might be some kind of unique some kind of ability that would enhance the defensive linear production of the spawning pool by 10%.

Technically, because the reactor costs 50/50 minerals, we can just say that marine production out put is enhanced by 80%... so imagine the following values...

10%, 20%, and 80%

Now clearly 10+10 = 20, but 20 + 20 = 40... where is the doubling factor?

The doubling factor is in the multiplier... first multiplying by 2 and then by 4.

So 10 is doubled, but then 20 is quadrupled.

10% Defense Zerg
20% Offense Protoss
80% offense Terran

This is, in my view, Proportional Harmony... and promotes ACTUAL balance.

Anyways, that's my theory and interpretation.

[Satu]

In the interest of making this thread easier to scroll through, Im replying to the post above this one. That is one hell of a quote to be in my post...

1. Queens have more uses than as a defensive unit, I remember telling you that a few pages ago. Its not absurd, queens are much more useful than spines. Before you try to prove me wrong on that, read a few pages back.

2. You can transfuse hatcheries or any other zerg buildings. Try to at least know whatt you're talking about before trying to prove its imbalanced.

3. Zerg can make more hatcheries and have an immense amount of production, terran and protoss don't outmatch zerg in this respect, its impossible to say otherwise, unless the zerg is playing incorrectly or the terran or protoss is doing an allin strategy.

Because your points and evidence were incorrect, your conclusion isnt correct either. You havent summed anything worth reading up, try again and get it correct if you want to actually convince anyone you're right.

[syfMiley]

That post did not clear anything up, my head still hurts.

[Meatex]

I have no idea what the point is any more
So many incorrect claims and false assumptions i just can't fallow anymore

[BaKaiNu]

Thread is going nowhere. Closed for the sake of humanity.

Quick Comments

	NvRossi:	i see no reason why this thread should be closed?
	nirvAnA:	agree with the close, thread ran its course twenty times over