The Creep

Oh but I am already a lurker of the shadows. Or have you forgotten?

 

Careful not to spam.
My point was that Zerg are extremely highly evolved organisms. Saying that we can't do something because we're organisms, it doesn't mean that they can't. Apart from the mutations, the Hydralisk can grow and hurl spikes out of the top of its head, the Mutalisk can produce a constant supply of exploding and bouncing Glave Wurms, etc, etc.

 

They would need to develop an insanely potent acid to do it within anytime limit.

The best way for this to work would be individual plates that can be moved as needed.

 

It doesn't have to be an acid that dissolves the Creep. It produces itself almost instantaneously, so why can't it retract itself instantaneously?
Having individual plates would mean it has weak points, negating the effect of the otherwise impenetrable Creep.
Anyway, this is really a fairly irrelevant line of argument. It's very unlikely that the Creep behaves like this, and it was merely speculation as to why it might look like it does. Long story short, I'd say that the majority of Zerg fans are happy with the way it looks now. Maybe a poll should be added for an official verdict though.

 

It produces itself and hardens almost instantly, it would have to retract solid plating to open a hole.

Not if the plates fit together.

 

Now why would it do that? The creep expands and is most similar to a carpet and it doesn't do anything with the ground underneath. If it dissolved then it'd mean the building is placed on the original ground, which doesn't make sense.

I'm not convinced about the creep having a hard shell though. If it has the same purpose as our veins and has the ability to let huge organisms attach to it, then I think it should be soft to be flexible and to allow the "construction" begin instantly. Also, for example if critters die on the creep then I can imagine the creep absorbing it to provide nutrition for the colony, because Zerg are practical like that.

And people don't just edit wikipedia entries to mislead others because they can't see the fruits of it, so I'm saying we should trust it.

 

I just think that having a hardend shells seems more practicle, else it could get damaged from having whole armies storming over it. Plus, it is harder for armies to fight on soft ground, units in all armies would fall from losing thier footing in the soft undertoe.

 

Terran and Protoss would lose footing, Zerg would have adapted to that

 

What Meee said.

I don't think it should be hard. Though having some firmness to it would be fine.

 

Makes sense, but that still wound solve the problem of it easily getting damages when units traverse over it.

EDIT: firmness would help, but a hard shell would protect it much better.

 

Or the other way around, it could get damaged easily, but regenerated just as fast

 

Er... have you seen birds fight? Have you seen them do it on a branch? Stability is not at risk at all, it's all a matter of what the creature is used to. We couldn't hold our grounds on a thick soft surface because our feet are useless in that situation and our balance is used to totally different scenarios. Even humans can improve their balance, see for example pole vaulting or ballet.

If anything, the Zerg would prefer the creep to be soft to hinder the enemy's movement because they're not used to walking on it.

wow beaten by 4 posts... anyway

 

Then you might as well not have any creep at all, and just keep the ground fine. Suspending veins from building to building.

 

Seeing as how I am outnumbered on this subject, I shall watch and think about which makes more sense.

Having a hard shell just sounds better IMO, but for practicality, both have pros and cons.

 

Only the hard surface would need to dissolve, it doesn't have to dissolve a hole right the way through it. Just because the Creep might dissolve a part of itself to allow a building to be attacked, it doesn't have to completely remove any traces that Creep ever existed in the designated area. It just needs to soften a spot to allow the building to be attached.

Who edited Wikipedia?

This isn't really related to the quote, but it did make me think of something. Whoever said that the Creep is like our veins so it has to be softer and squishier than it is now, why can't it be like a tree? If Zerg units are the animals, then the buildings could be like trees. Trees still have sap, water, nutrients, etc, flowing through them, but they're a lot tougher than vein walls. Also, you often see that other plants, often parasitic ones, have attached themselves to a tree, the same way that a Zerg building may attack itself to the Creep.

 

What I meant with the wiki bit is that even though you could edit entries to some made up facts, I reckon people have better things to do other than that. And if we assume that then a wikipedia entry is a credible source, which pretty much backs up my claim.

 

Im not trusting wikipedia because of this reasons:
Some of it is outdated!
Some post are very non-neutral!
Can be edited easily (and some people do it)!

The 2nd point is really the most important, because I dont want to read artciles who only look at the thing on one angle.


BTW:
The new creep is nice, especially the new color.

 

well i find though u can edit anything wikipedia cleans it up very fast. i once made a dodgy edit just to test and it was gone the next day. and non netural??? as if it is wiki has very strict rules regarding biasm

 

wiki is unreliable!!
ANYONE can edit it.
That includes idiots, and a$$holes.

 

Then try it. Edit something, and check back tomorrow.