[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....