[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.