looks like Karune went and answer quetions today for the update

The Overseer is a nerf over the original Overlord, whether you think such a nerf is a necessary and justified change is an entirely different story.

I don't know what SC you've played where Ovie hunting was only possible as a sneak tactic. But I'll tell you that, in the SC that I've played, Ovie hunting is such a viable and powerful strat that it can be forced right in someone's face. Getting someone into supply deficit is like bending their arm behind their back and punching them in the face. It is such that people will willingly and purposely take losses on their air just to hunt down Ovies in the midst of enemy AA fire. I don't know why you assume Zerg players fall to Ovie hunts because it catches them completely by surprise, but that really isn't the case. You also assume that without the "increased vision of stationary Overseer" mechanic Zerg doesn't have eyes everywhere, which again, isn't the case.

You kindly described the Overseer as something that "allows a player to chose." However, in practice, mobile detectors are not something you can chose to not have, it is mandatory, simple as that. The real choice that's forced onto Zerg players is one between investing more into individual Ovies to be actually functional(read: having a purpose at all) while making each evolved Ovie a greater liability and a greater loss when you lose it, or to keep some Ovies completely useless and be easier targets than ever before(if I understand correctly, Ovies get speed up'd only when evolved into Seers). Not only does Zerg remain as the only race that is truly vulnerable to supply hunts, but the situation is actually in fact even worse than before in a way.

I'm not against the Overseer per se, just the fact that Zerg keeps all of the same vulnerabilities(if not more) with very little actual compensation. I'm perfectly fine with making cloak strats more viable VS Zerg, but if they wanted Zerg to have to get detectors at tier 2, they could've either made Overseers a completely separate unit or detection a universal upgrade. Your argument of detection not being needed at tier 1 is irrelevant, as the issue is whether all Ovies are inherently detectors by its default trait, not whether that detection is needed when it's initially available. AA is unneeded at tier 1, should all tier 1 ranged units initially have ground attacks only?

People also slightly misunderstand the cloak VS Zerg situation a bit. It is actually not so much the problem with all Ovies being detectors, it actually has a lot to do with the Terran Wraith's inadequacy as a full fledged tactical air. As proof, Protoss can pull off DT assaults on Zerg just fine. It's even seen today in pro matches, not to say that only pros can pull it off, not at all. Even though it requires good Corsair usage, it is still fully a tech rush in every way. Just because it isn't the usual "sneak in a few Lurkers/DTs" doesn't change the fact that it works and why it works. It is not at all unlike quickly taking out Missile Turrets when cloak rushing Terran. If Wraith's "pew pew" wasn't utterly pathetic, the Wraith would actually be fully capable of cloak rushing Zerg single handedly. If Terran had Banshees in SC1, even T would've been capable of cloak rushing Z.

And let me just get this straight, you somehow believe for even just a second that Zerg cloaking has actually been improved? Zerg got nerfed in detection but did not get compensated in cloak, and in fact, got nerfed in cloaking as well. Not only did Zerg still did not get a single true cloak unit that can move and attack while under the effect of cloak full time(even if it is based on energy/mana), Zerg no longer has a viable tech rush off of cloak.

"All Zerg ground units can now burrow" is a meaningless slogan that doesn't put Zerg anywhere it wasn't before. Zeg players have always burrowed Defilers, but that never stopped anyone from taking them out anyway. Same deal this time, it adds marginal convenience, not much more. And what do you expect to get from burrowing Ultras well into tier 3? I agree that the Nydus Worm is a great addition to Zerg, but that is more of an improvement on Nydus Canal's practical offensive application rather than Zerg cloaking itself. And while the Nydus Worm itself is great and I personally love it, since it ATM completely takes over as Zerg's only unit transport, it is still a partial nerf. But did I mention Zerg can no longer Lurker rush? Yeah, nerf, fat nerf.

On to the Queen, what do you mean by "take a look at the other side of that statement?" If you ever find yourself completely without any workers, congratulations, you've just been successfully mineral raided to the extreme and will probably experience what is known as GG in moments to come. Even in the worst case scenario, having to first retrain workers before you can rebuild defense isn't any worse than having to first retrain the Queen, while having to replace the dead Queen is always worse than not having to do so.

Why should anyone look at the Queen as a building just to justify its negative existence when it really is a unit? It has stats nowhere near that of important buildings, and is completely vulnerable to all unit targeting abilities such as Snipe or Psi Storm. What if we gave Protoss a Probe producing robot where it is one-per-player and which you would have to replace first when it dies in order to replace lost Probes? Even though the walking Probe factory is a unit, oh we can just think of it as a tech structure. Does that sound wack to you? It sure does to me, and yeah, that's what's been done with Zerg more or less.

Comparing the importance of keeping your workers alive to having to keep the Queen, a one-per-player unit that all of the faction's base defense depends on, from dying, is quite inappropriate. There is in fact something special about that, something new, something unreasonable. Even if I humored you for just a second and pretended the Queen was like a tech structure or workers, it is still not the same deal at all. In situations where you see that it is inevitable that you lose an expo which as a specific tech structure or a number of workers, you can start building a replacement at a separate location, not so with the Queen. I really would love to see Protoss get the "Probe Factory" 1-per-player robot unit. We'll see if people think "not letting it die" is a good excuse for its stupidity.

 

This argument isn't going to have a lot of good support because I really don't have a lot of time, but I want to say this. Remy if you can't see what the Queen is bringing to the table then trying not to. Your example is completely invalid because defensive are not workers, they don't have the same neccessity. If Drones still built Sunken and Spore Colonies we wouldn't be having this debate at all because the Zerg would have had a massive boost in defense from the Queen. All Blizzard has done is provide a counter balance to that boost by creating a single point of failure for Zerg defensive structures. And the nature of that counter balance is almost as helpful as it is hurtful because it takes pressure off needing drones to build defenses and the defenses now build faster. All of that of course is ignoring the fact that units still make up atleast half of a races defense. You saying the Zerg got a huge nerf because there defenses have a semi vulnerable point of failure is just as absurd as arguing the Protoss got nerfed because Pylons have less Hp/Sp. Im not going to argue about the units because I have enither the time or energy but it seems you are always trying to see the worst in the current Zerg and end thinking that things are much worse then they actually are.

 

I only talk about negatives things in relation to Zerg because a)a lot of it IS bad, and b)there's only so much to say about the good, not much ground for debate(which often spur very meaningful discussion). Just for the record, I love Roaches, love Banelings, and love Nydus Worms. Is that better? Also, as I've said, I'm not against Overseers, just the way in which it is implemented.

And just to be fair, let me ask you what it is that you yourself think that the Queen brings to the Zerg's table? You word it as being a "semi vulnerable point of failure," I see it as something closer to a glaring weakness. Is Protoss Pylon production based entirely on a single unit that you can only have one to a player? Does Protoss also not have Phase Prisms as backup? If Pylon's drop in HP/shield was coupled with the mechanic of being only buildable by a single 1-per-player unit, then hell yes, I would cry out against it. I fail to see why it is even a similar situation that has any relevance, as well as why it is "absurd."

It is fair for you or anyone to argue against my points, but at least provide specific reasons to back it. I think I've went into enough detail, you could at least elaborate just a tiny bit. Without providing reasons why things in questions are actually good or at least not bad, you really don't have much of a point.

 

My point is this: the only diffeence between sc1 and sc2 with regards to Sunken and Spore colonies, is this: a different unit builds them and they are built a little faster (and I think) cheaper. If you look at it just that way it looks like a nice bonus because now you don't need to sacrifice any Drones and you can build Sunken/Spore Colonies more efficiently, but wait there is more, Sunken/Spore Colonies can now move and the unit that builds them also has a couple of other abilities that are very powerful defensively. Everything said so far is a bonus not a nerf. The only cost for all of this is that you can only have 1 unit at a time that can do it. The unit has a lot of HP and in later tiers can teleport from one Zerg base to another to put out fires or escape. On top of all of that the Zerg can still (and need to like every other race) defend themselves with units.

So how does all of that look like a nerf? Of course there is one single point of failure, but by the time you have expansions the unit can teleport between them, so if a player manages to kill a Queen he has only succeeded for two possible reasons. First, the Zerg player was careless, thats their fault not Blizzard's for making the unit. Second, the Queen has somehow been cornered which means there is no safe zone left in any of the Zerg player's bases, if that is true hasn't the player already lost? My point is the Queen is a pretty sizable bonus for the Zerg because if a good player ever loses a Queen he has probably lost the game anyways, so how is the Queen only being limited to one per player a real weakness?

Another example of what I am saying is this: Name one scneario where a player loses a queen but can still recover. Now look at that exact same situation without the Queen and having Drones build defenses? What have you lost in place of the Queen? The answer is drones which is the same thing used to build defenses anyway, so how is there much difference in scnerarios except still having ones workers to rebuild faster?

Again as I said earlier I don't really wnat to disscuss the other units. The primary reason I don't want to disscuss the Hydra or Lurker (to of the main units to be nerfed, in theory) is because there has to be a reason they were moved, the nerf was somehow warranted and we just don't know how yet or the unit will be moved back and the problem is gone. With Overseer's I just dissagree with you examples and resaoning and I doupt debate is going to change that. And as far as Mutas go I sort or agree with your point of view, but I still am curious whats on the other side of the equals sign in Blizzard's mind.

 

ok, im going to try to give a possible solution to the overlord / overseer problem, im not going to go into the queen part because i just want to see how well( or not so well ) it can be in-game right now.

now the main problem seems to be that overseers have detection, while this does make it easier to use cloaked units against the zerg, it also gives a disadvantage, what im proposing is that we give the overlord detection and upgrade to speed again, But the detection range cant be upgrade, the reason for this is that their will be a large amount of overlords already and it still allows the other player an small advantage in using cloaked units , tho it does make them more vulnerable to being killed, but then again you should be making more than enough overlords to have enough 'food' to feed your creatures(to me, the ability to have so many detectors around was an unique feature for the zergs), also we give the overseer the ability to be a dropship(the upgrade to speed for the overlords will also affect overseers) this way we will still have weaker detection, but also will have the dropship capability, please if there are anything you would like to say about it please do so.

im a person that likes to get straight to the point, and in doing so, i might have miss something in about the whole picture of the zerg line-up or something else for that matter. im not a person that can express himself with words easily, if you try to get into a big argument with me ill just end up not arguing anymore after a certain point. anyway please judge my thought about this.
i was trying to make it easier for the opposing army to use cloaked units but was also trying to give the dropship capability back to the zergs.

and one last thing, @ Remy: Infestors can not only move while being burrowed but they can also use their spell while being burrowed, from what i heard last anyway.

 

When it comes to mobility & detection the overlord was a genuine x factor for the zerg to use in raiding and lurker drops that superbly was effective during the ol'days.. And it seems that 4 years of evolution would amount the overlords to degrade in a way that they can no longer "see the truth" and perhaps they also degenerated physically that its ability to transport units of mass size and even huge size like the ultralisks were forgotten... (was it Kerrigans idea to alter its functions??)

Im not sure if Kerrigan is making her evolution choices wisely but i dont dislike the nydus worm either, its just that the versatility of the overlord was immensely dropped from a huge height... It was once a glorius early detector/transport unit and yet double edged being at high risk loosing an amount of supply cost.. But to get to the point....

I want overlord detection, Overseer for Xtravision, movement, & transport (for alternate transpo choice) period..

 

@ Lurkers_lurk, the Overseer does not gain a detection range bonus, but only a sight range bonus. Just FYI.

I am aware that the Infester can fully function while burrowed, I just don't think it makes up for the nerf on Zerg detection and cloaking capabilities. When just looking at the Infester by itself, I think it's a good improvement. I've always thought that DS could work at tier 2, even though it wasn't a "must." All in all, I'm pretty happy about the SC2 Defiler.

@ LK, Zerg's entire base defense infrastructure dependent on a single unit is a glaring weakness. All of the advantages you mentioned could be achieved without having it all revolve around a 1-per-player unit.

I welcome and actually love having weaknesses as balance factors. Things like Zerg's tech structure and vulnerabilities inherent in the SC1 Overlord come to mind. However, even balance factors must be balanced. No other mechanic in the game will set a player back as much as the Queen. Thinking you will never let a Queen die is sheer arrogance, simultaneous Snipe from multiple cloaked Ghosts is instant death for the Queen. People lose plenty of workers all the time, and win games just fine. That isn't nearly as big a setback as losing the Queen in a tough situation, not even close. Give me one example where something gives as much of an advantage as killing the Queen.

As I always say, balance is relative, not definitive. You can't just automatically say the major weakness inherent in the Queen mechanic is justified since such and such advantages exist. I honestly can't think of a single thing that I can do to a Protoss or Terran player that would put me in a situation as advantageous as killing the Queen on a successful assault.

I seriously disagree with your "if a good player loses X then he automatically loses anyway" philosophy. That has never been true in SC. Great players lose just about anything there is in SC all the time and still recover from it all the time. And quite often, it happens multiple times one all side in the course of just a single game.

You don't lose workers in place of the Queen, you can lose workers whether there is a Queen or not. But there is still quite a big difference. SCENARIO: You take a big hit and lose most of your combat units and base defense, but you still managed to fend it off and don't lose the game. The opponent loses his troops and doesn't manage to finish you off, but he still has the advantage, and a second wave is coming soon. If Zerg static D was not dependent on just the Queen, you can take some of your remaining workers and rebuild your defense while replacing combat units. By doing this, you take a hit on mineral income for a short while, but at least you have a fighting chance. You can just pull batches of workers after you've regained defensive capabilities. However, with the Queen, you are left wide open since you can not even start rebuilding a single defensive structure until you've first replaced the Queen. If the opponent also hurt you at a remote expo, then you're in an even worse position since the newly built Queen doesn't come back with Deep Tunnel. If they've hurt your supply(Ovie hunt), then it just makes everything 10 times worse, since you can't even make existing workers into defensive structures to free up supply for replacement combat units. It is quite unbelievable how you just casually pass it off as the same thing, something better even. It is not the same thing, not at all, and definitely not something better.

The simple scenarios I've mentioned are very common, they happen all the time. And Zerg players rebound from them as I've described all the time as well. Now Zerg, and only Zerg, gets hit with such a crippling weakness. Zerg has always been the race with the greatest flexibility, which is one of the key reasons I've always mained Zerg despite Terran being so damn tasty. The Queen mechanic hurts the Zerg's flexibility in a big way. The Corrupter not being a Muta evolution also takes away from Zerg's flexibility.

 

yes, i know that(by now from a Q&A or whatever), where in my paragraph did i say that overseers have a detection range bonus? i all i was saying was to give the detection back to the overlord and do NOT have a detection upgrade at all, i assume that when the detection ability was on the overseer, the range of detection was that of SC1 overlord with sight upgrade (which also increase the detection range), but if we gave it back to the overlord without the detection range able to be upgrade at all, then it would still weaken the detection ability of the zergs but also still have it a universal thing for all overlords.

to summarize, take the detection ability that the overseer has and give it the overlords again, without being able to upgrade its range to the range that the old overlords could, but also give the overseer the ability to to be a dropship if needed. that way the zergs still have detection, but its still weaken a little, they will also have dropship capability from the overseer. in my opinion that kinda answer your want of having all the overlords to have detection, and give the zergs a dropship.

 

Lurker, I misunderstood you and had thought that you were referring to the ability of Overseers to gain increasing large sight radii when they are stationary. I really apologize on that one. Now that I understand what you were meaning to say, it doesn't even sound like that when I read it over. Bad Remy!

I think your idea is very good, and quite practically feasible. So you're saying never to even give that +2 to sight range upgrade to Ovies at all, which would require Zerg players to more actively use the Ovies for recon and detection, instead of just leaving some in "safe" places or patrol. To compromise even more for the sake of satisfying non-Zerg players, you can even keep the sight range upgrade but make the final upgraded sight range be equal to or less than that of the Ovie's old un-upgraded sight range. So for instance, if we were to keep the sight range upgrade, instead of the old 9+2=11 it can be something like 6+2=8 so that Ovies are also worse than before initially when starting out a game.

 

Yes, thats the whole main part of my theory, the overlords still have detection, but with a smaller radius of sight, and with this, the overseer is no longer required to to be a detector, and will gain the dropship capability instead.

EDIT : and i guess from you saying that the zergs have no real cloaked attacking unit is that none of the zerg units can attack with their normal attack and still be able to move while burrowed, while in the case of the infestor, it 'attacks' with abilities, and not a normal attack

 

Yes, by attack I mean attack, and not spells or abilities.

Cloaking is such a mechanic in SC that, the game can be won on it alone. Assaults through cloak are all tech rushes/strats that can win you games, either outright or by hugely tilting the game in your favor. By contrast, the invisibility mechanic in WC3, although can win you a small tactical advantage from time to time, can not win you games.

As it stands, Zerg is now the only race that, considering all practicality, can not win through the cloak/burrow mechanic. While the Lurker still exists and is the same as before, due to it being tier 3 I don't see how its burrowed attack will matter at all. If SC2 is released as is(example only, God forbid), and the Lurker is actually even used, it will not be for it's cloaking at all. And all of it is in conjunction with a nerf on detection(it's actually significant nerfing all around). That's what I've been saying, Zerg got nerfed bad, it really isn't that hard to understand.

EDIT: Something additional about the Queen I wanted to mention. The fact that building a Queen requires a Zerg player to first build a Spawning Pool makes Zerg defensive structures higher tech than the other races. Unlike Protoss's case where the first infantry building(Gate/Rax/Pool) and the upgrade building enabling (usually anti-air)towers(Forge/E-Bay/Evo-Chamber) are separate and independent tech options, the Pool is actually a tech prereq to the Queen. This is like the Forge first requiring the Gateway to be built for Protoss, or the Engineering Bay first requiring the Barracks to be built for Terran.

What this means is that if ever your Spawning Pool and Queen are destroyed together, you are in even deeper sh!t(yes, I know, it is getting quite deep with the Queen). While losing Spawning Pools usually means you are in a bad position anyway, it still wasn't something obscurely rare and is something people bounce back from. Well, this time, it will kill you off for sure. It also doesn't exactly add to Zerg's strategic freedom and variability. It will now always be Pool -> Queen -> Tumor -> Sunken.

This is yet another disadvantage only found with Zerg. Will fellow Zerg players finally get on board for a resounding "WTF?" with me?

 

Remy I think you really are making a lot of assumptions that are invalid. Let’s ignore all assumptions for a second and work with what we know. From the various people playing the game in Irvine and Korea we know the final tier of the Queen has as much if not more Hp than any other unit in the game besides the Mothership. We also know the second and final tier Queen has the ability to teleport between any Zerg buildings so it can effect always be in the safest place in any of your bases if you need her to. That’s all we really know concerning the Queen defensively. We also know that the Queen requires a Spawning Pool to be built, but what does that mean? We don't really Know the Queen's build time (unless Jon memorized it and wants to bless us with that information...) assuming its high you make a good point with the Zerg defenses being a .5 tier higher, but what if it is a 1 second build time, that would pretty nullify your argument right?

Now, it’s time to make an assumption. To try and be arbitrary I grabbed the Queen's build time from Sc2armory (an admittedly unreliable source but what all do we really have?) According to them the Queen's build time is 25 seconds, 2 seconds faster than a Zergling, now if we assume Zerg defenses are built faster now (something Blizzard has said many times) The Zerg defenses are pretty much on the same tier they were on in Sc1. And about the double point of failure for Zerg defenses, every race has that if you kill all of the defenses and the tech building that allow the defenses to be built it is going to take each race an equal amount of time to recover. Also assuming it takes a similar amount of time to build a Queen and then a Sunken Colony (you don't necessarily have to build a tumor) as it did to make a Creep Colony and then a Sunken Colony, not much ahs changed from Sc1 except along with your defensive buildings you also have a reasonably powerful unit that can somewhat heal them and fight other units if necessary.

Most of that second paragraph is assumption so it could very easily be wrong but it could also very easily be correct and we won't know until Blizzard tells us. If this is all incorrect and the Queen is as much an inconvience and weakness you seem to believe it is then I have no problem agreeing that it’s a nerf. However I have not seen any evidence to support you point of view that isn't based on assumption (like my counter evidence is). We don't enough yet, I'm not saying lets not discuss this but lets not make a final judgment until we know more.

Finally, jumping back to your earlier scenario, you said the Zerg still had units left? Well then they probably still had the Queen left because it is the most defensive unit in the game that we know of. Also the Queen does take the place of worker deaths assuming your opponent thinks the Queen is the greater threat (which they would if it is such a big weakness as you believe), because the Queen has a large amount of Hp (160 at tier 1 according to Sc2Armory), if you took that damage and distributed it amongst your workers that’s probably 3-4 dead workers. And assuming workers still costs 50 Mins apiece and the Queen costs 150 Mins (also from Sc2Armory) then it is more efficient to have the Queen die. If you add in an assumption from my second paragraph if would take about as much time to rebuild the Queen and a defensive structure as it would for other races to build a single defensive structure and you still get the power of the Queen on top of the strength of the structure.

Also, before someone points out the Queen is overpowered because of its build time and abilities (assuming Sc2Armory is accurate, which is probably doubtful) it is still balanced because of the responsibility the Queen has and the fact you can only have 1 on the field at a time.

 

First of all, just wanted to point out that what you said earlier was that workers die in place of the Queen, not the other way around. And as I've pointed out before, it's incorrect, since you can lose workers with or without the Queen in the picture.

This is what you said before. You're turning around to insist the opposite, pick which one it is you're trying to say.

The Queen will be higher in tech regardless of its build time, this is a question of technicality, not practical application. The fact that the Forge and the Engineering Bay do not require the Gateway and Barracks to be built, make them independent tech. In Zerg's case, the Queen requires the Spawning Pool as a tech prereq, one is dependent on the other, meaning the two are not independent tech options. Since the Zerg Spawning Pool is analogous to the Toss Gate and Terran Rax, it makes the Queen higher tech than comparative Toss and Terran tower enabling upgrade buildings.

So what really is the difference? In the event both are lost, other races can rebuild both simultaneously, along with workers(which will satisfy the availability of the defense building unit before your structures are back online if you didn't already have some around), not so with the Zerg. If the Queen is near insta-build, which I doubt, it might not make a huge difference. But in any case, the Queen(and thus, Zerg defense) is still higher tech.

Again, like I've said in a few posts back, I'd appreciate it if you get more specific. "I think you really are making a lot of assumptions that are invalid" is a vague blanket statement that really isn't saying much of anything. It's not very different from me just saying "you are wrong." Please tell me specifically, which of my points are invalid assumptions. Since you said there was "a lot," there must be an abundance of elaborating you can do to make your points.

I don't really understand what it is you are trying to say regarding "assumptions." If we as potential first generation consumers can not extrapolate from and go beyond the very limited amount of officially provided information on a game that isn't even released, then what is the point to having discussion on forums such as this? If we can not make use of the information available to us and make inferences on practical applications, why even have discussions at all? All we need then would be a long list of polls for people to pick "like" or "dislike" whenever info is released to us officially either through Q&A batches or something else. If anytime is the right time to get our minds to evaluate the possible impact every little piece of game design might have on the game, it would be now. Once beta and the official release is upon us, that's when discussions need to be based solely on play experience or ideas that can be tested.

A note on the mention of Creep Tumors. I was under the impression that Sunkens and Spores would be evolved from Tumors, but judging from what you were saying, I'm assuming that's not the case? Not really sure about that one, but not really an important point that I was trying to make anyway.

 

First off I said the same thing twice. If the Queen is in the game she will take will be focused on before workers, so she is in effect preventing their loss. If the Queen wasn't in the game then you would lose more workers than you would have if the Queen was in the game

If the Queen is in the game she is one more thing to die before your drones do.

If you removed the Queen from the game what would take the damage meant for her? The answer is Drones.

Anyways, that is a very small part of this debate.

My point on the topic of assumptions is this, you are assuming certain things like the Queen will have a long build time, or will be easily killable. While I am assuming the Queen will be more readily accessable and one of the hardest units to kill in the game. I have said your assumptions appear invalid because there doesn't appear to be any evidence supporting them.

The problem here is we have to extraplate information and we are each coming to different conclusions, and even more than that the basic facts we are extraploating from what Blizzard has given us are different. That's why i tried to walk you through my thought process and assumptions.

Now back to the actual topic of the Queen, tech doesn't mean anyting, the real factor here is how much actual time it takes to build defenses from nothing. From what I have seen (and the apparent numbers from Sc2armory, which I have no problem admiting is probably sketchy)there doesn't appear to be as much variation from the Zerg to the other 2 races.

To try and prove my point from earlier again, assuming the Queen is the last non-worker unit to die, name one situation were the Zerg would be better off with having no Queen and the Drones build defenses over the current Sc2 setup (You get the Queen but she has to build all of the defenses).

Finally, I am sorry for being to broad, I hate trying to prove a point like this through a forum setup because I have a difficult time trying to express what I am thinking. But, you should know I am not just trying to say you are just flat out wrong I have way to much respect for you to say something like that.

P.S. To be completely honest I have no idea whether or not Sunken colonies eveolve from creep tumors or not, I just assume since you could at one point build Sunken colonies off the creep they weren't a creep tumor first because that wouldn't make much sense...

 

The Queen dying in place of workers and workers dying in place of the Queen are not the same, they are the exact opposite. And as I've said before, workers do not die in place of the Queen since you can lose workers regardless of the Queen's existence.

I think you are coming off the logic that if X amount of damage is dealt toward a player in one scenario, the same total amount would be dished out in any other scenario, but that is incorrect. You can not think up one scenario, cut out a piece of it, and apply it directly to a different scenario.

If 1000 total damage was dealt VS Zerg player X in a build where there was no Infester, in a different build with the Infester there might not even be ANY damage dealt at all. Zerg player X might just wipe out the attacking player with units under the protection of DarkSwarm. In a different example, a build with Sunkens VS a build with no Sunkens at all. The total damage dished out will mostly likely not be the same because the attacking player will lose his units at a different rate, thus, less combat units available to deal that damage. Needless to say, unit stats such as armor, specifications such as air/ground/Light/Armored, and specific unit mechanics will all further sway the exact outcome.

Even if we go by that logic for just a moment, you still can't make a direct association with damage dealt toward workers and the Queen. Since you would still have to account for everything else in the game, there is nothing that says damage done on workers must be reserved for the Queen or vice versa. Yet, for some reason you are making a case in which the Queen is somehow "entitled" to damage VS workers an workers somehow "entitled" to damage VS the Queen.

I do not assume the Queen will have a long build time, I assume the Queen will have some build time. I don't believe it needs be long to become a problem. I also do not assume the Queen will be easily killable, I assume it will be killable period. Which means all problematic scenarios involving the Queen's death will not be obscure possibilities. You don't need the Queen to be the easiest killable unit in the game for it to be a problem, you merely need the Queen to be killable with reasonable probability.

On the subject of assumptions, you made mention of the Queen's Deep Tunnel ability earlier, and how it would help the Queen from getting killed. Are you making assumptions that there will be no cooldown and execution times? I don't personally believe it to be one way or another, but heroes in WC3 get killed all the time despite having TPs, and that's a game where things don't get killed very often compared to SC.

Tech means everything, as it dictates BO, timing, and availability. Also, do note that "build defenses from nothing" extends beyond just early-game. Without looking back, I think you said the Queen had a build time of somewhere around 25 seconds. Let's say for a moment that the build time of the Spawning Pool is 30 seconds or so, just for example's sake. That would mean that every time you take down the Queen and the Pool(only two targets), you completely shut down Zerg's defense production for at least a full minute. This is SC, 1 minute is hella long.

Due to the design and nature of Zerg's tech structure, destroying the Spawning Pool also completely disables the player's Zergling/Baneling production. Needless to say, it also disabled Sunken evolution back in SC1. This is actually a weakness that I love, since it's a balance factor specific to the Zerg and also a fair trade off for Zerg's streamlined production scheme. If you kill off a Zerg's Pool and his base defense, he must first rebuild the pool, but it's still not the end of the world. However, with the Queen in the picture, things are much worse.

First compare the situation to Protoss and Terran. It would be very unlikely for P and T to have just a single Gate/Rax for you to take out quickly, so it would be much easier/likely for them to retain production capabilities of basic infantry and Bunkers(for T). Even in cases where the Forge or E-Bay is destroyed, P and T can just rebuild it directly at the same time they rebuild everything else. The Zerg however, would not be able to with the current Queen design. Due to tech restraints, Zerg would first need to rebuild the Pool, wait for it to finish building, build the Queen(and evolve it again to get Deep Tunnel), then finally start rebuilding base defense.

Also, while we're taking info from SC2armory as a rough source, consider the Queen's combat capabilities. It has a significant attack. Meaning, it partially covers Zerg's need in base defense through its ability in direct combat. However, if you consider the absolute disadvantage of getting your Queen killed off, the Queen have limited usability in the practical sense.

Another important note on tech, is that the Queen has a gas cost. Zerg is the only race where you must harvest gas to be able to build base defense. That is quite absurd. Not only does that worsen the situation by throwing the mandatory Extractor and (at least one)gas harvesting Drone into the picture, it further limits Zerg's strategic freedom early on.

Continued in the next post. Exceeded character limit in a single post.

 

Continued from the previous post. Exceeded character limit in a single post.

I've already given plenty of examples. I think I've given the example involving a supply deficit multiple times, but here it is again.

Your base gets run down badly, but you still manage to fend it off. You kill off all the attacking units and prevent GG. However, you also face the problem of getting hit with a supply deficit since the enemy also killed off a good number of your Ovies. The second wave of attack is sure to follow soon, you have limited time to rebuild your defensive capabilities. You can't pump any replacement combat units because of your supply deficit. In days past, you would've been able to just make some of your remaining workers into Sunkens/Spores that you needed anyway, to free up supply for combat units, but with the Queen you can't do that anymore. GG. This is especially crucial if the Ovie hunt is on-going, it could decide whether you fend it off or lose the game right there.

It isn't limited to just situations where you are also Ovie rushed either. In almost all cases where the Zerg player needs to bounce back, if you lose the Queen, everything is a lot worse. Whether you lose the Spawning Pool or not, as long as you lose the Queen, it's still more of a disadvantage than if the Queen didn't build defenses. Unless the Queen is near insta-built, there will be a significant disadvantage, especially if you are hit at multiple locations(remote expos). Taking the 25 seconds again, while that isn't the longest build time ever, it is still 25 seconds slower in rebuilding your defense than just workers doing the building.

I would actually like to ask the opposite. Please name a situation where the Zerg player is under attack, is disadvantaged, but it is better that the Queen is the unit building all Zerg defenses. I don't know if the Queen being the last non-worker unit to die is important. However, without even specifying that, I can't think of a single instance, other than when every last one of your workers are wiped out along with all of your defenses. But that is pretty much GG scenario for anyone anywhere.

Back when the MS was originally introduce, there was quite a bit of controversy. Some people insisted that it was like a hero unit from WC3. I have disagreed with that claim and have argued my points against it. With the Queen however, it is actually not a very far fetched notion. The reason why I believed that the MS, despite being 1-per-player, was not a "hero" was because the rest of Protoss could still fully function perfectly fine without it. A player still had the complete strategic freedom not to invest in a MS. Heroes in WC3 are damn near mandatory, and they heavily swayed the outcome of a game. I've tried things like Militia rush and the like, but in general, heroes were integral to any player's army.

The Queen is not so different. It is a super unique unit limited to just 1-per-player, you can only build more when you've lost one, only as a replacement. Also like heroes, and unlike the original MS, you can not really play your game without it. There is no strategic freedom in the Queen. If you don't get one you can't play your race properly, and you will lose. Inherent choice, which is all important in my opinion, does not exist. The Queen sounds pretty close to a WC3 hero unit to me. While the hero aspect in WC3 was fun in its own right, WC3 was a game built around it. I don't particularly like the idea of any particular unit(a single unit, not even unit type either) carrying so much weight in StarCraft.

Umm... don't know why you'd be worried about stuff like that. I guess it's good to be clear on stuff like that, but I think you and I have talked enough(albeit a lot of it through IM) to have to worry about anything. I've liked you as a fellow member for the longest time, and I'm pretty sure you know that. I think you've always been more of a peace maker than I am, but I also think you know by now that I've always been about telling my mind and discussing it up. Don't let any of it bother you. This is an internet forum built for the purpose of discussing things related to SC2. We're two people with different opinions, but who respect each other. We're just here trying to let the other know where we're coming from, I see nothing wrong with that.

BTW, I personally prefer forum discussions over real time chatting. Because I just type so damn slow. It's hard to even think straight having to worry about typing a response in time to keep it relevant to what's still on the screen. And the reason why I ask you to be specific is so I know exactly what we're talking about, where we differ in opinion, etc.

 

found the latest news, which is still very old, and the build time for the defensive structures was about 15 sec., But the problem was that this was before they switched back to sunken and spore colonies, so it may be obsolete but its still the most current build times we for them.

SOURCE : http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4004
and scroll down to 10-Neon's post, its one of the bolded answers