[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.