Zerg cost as Protoss cost (Last Post)

I wasn't going to further participate in this thread, but I have to speak out against this “strength in numbers theme”. Here it is: it’s disingenuous to suggest that this is a theme specific to the Zerg. ALL units are stronger when grouped. Massing zerglings, marines, carriers, whatever, makes them more effective simply because you have numbers on your side; "stength in numbers" is something that could be said of ALL three races, not only the Zerg. There are, however, those that want to bend the data in order to make StarCraft adhere to this vision; Atlas is one such individual.

Secondly, “strength in numbers” is an illusion: those massed zerglings and massed marines can easily run into reavers or psi storms or some other nastiness. Result? A fourth Paschendale on your hands –what did that 6:1 advantage gain you but a larger hecatomb? So, yes, massing your marines and zerglings and whatnots makes them more powerful in the sense that they have numbers in their favour. But then again, their greater numbers render them extremely vulnerable to hard-counters, such as the aforementionned tactics. And that's part of the beautiful balance of the game. In most other RTSs, accumulating a large host of one unit or another is key to success. But in StarCraft, “strength in numbers” is a double-edged sword wielded by all three races, and that is as it should be: 10-Neon astutely pointed out that if Zerg were "stronger in numbers", they'd have lower HP, and they'd be much more vulnerable to any sort of splash damage. And that fact opens up a real Pandora's Box in terms of balance and gameplay...

The true "theme" to StarCraft's races (including the Zerg) is not "strength in numbers" but "strength in diversity". In other words, your reavers didn't slaughter my company of marines because I spotted those damn reavers with my Science Vessel --and then locked them down with my ghosts, sent in my marines to wax those Protoss husks, and laughed at the puerile attempt to thwart me. Certainly, 6 reavers will not defeat 100 marines or even 100 zerglings, and I do not contend that numbers are inherently a weakness. But the game's mechanics favours those that defeat 6 reavers with a single Science Vessel, 3 Ghosts, and a dozen Marines --for economic reasons. Since each unit in StarCraft is designed to fulfill a specific function, a smaller, but diversified force will often defeat a much larger one, a costlier one, or one that is theoretically more powerful. So, when Atlas perorates about how important it would be to spawn 4 zerglings from one egg in order to adhere to his "rule", it becomes evident to me that he has forgotten, as he has so many times before, that StarCraft is a game played with many units. StarCraft does not explicitly favour the build-up of any particular unit, and indeed, StarCraft favours diversity over "strength in numbers".

 

A fun fact: it looks like Blizzard has implemented a 4-for-1 Zergling upgrade. It's there in the editor. Obverse incubation. =o

I was trying to implement it, founded something suspiciously like what I was trying to create, looked up the name online, and some people found a tooltip associated with the upgrade that said it increased Zergling build time by 50%, doubled build cost, but spawned 4 Zerglings.

Now I'm going to see if I can activate it =D

 

Blizzard stated many times that they were exploring a panoply of strategic options; I suppose "Incubation" is one that got cut. It would be interesting to know why it was axed. Did they find it to be unbalanced, I wonder?

 

I bet it was axed when they realized that they weren't balancing starcraft but making starcraft 2 rather...

Where such things as firebats and reavers don't exist.

Ironically the editor is where all the old starcraft units are at... lets see an interesting remake of the old game.

 

Atlas: You just suggested that Blizzard confusedly attempted to balance SC1 in the middle of developing SC2. That makes no sense.

Also, supposedly people have already made remakes of SC1 (I have not seen them), though not all of the SC2 unit models for those units are available yet.

 

I doubt the remake will play the same. Different pathfinding, and the move to 3d will mean that units will behave and perform differently. If the remake is imbalanced, would the creators be comfortable tweaking the hitpoints and damage and other figures away from what they were in sc1?

Also I wonder, what if the sc1 remake turns out to be more popular than the sc2 ladder games? Would blizzard be comfortable making a ladder for the remake?

 

Jasmine, your first question did actually answer the second. You will need to tweak the units, for example the zealot versus the zergling. The zergling were quite better in sc1 statwise, but with the improved pathfindiing (autosurround anyone?) and unlimited command groups, the UI-improved zergling would beat the zealot easily, who did profit less from the changes. So now it takes four zerglings surrounding a zealot to take it down, while it took about three to take it down in sc1. That is a gigantic nerf to the zergling, statwise.

The uniqueness of sc1 was as much its faults and where it were lacking as it were the well-executed gameplay and the epic races.

 

Atlas is correct and he shall be remembered for as long as this forum exsists.
'

SC2 Sucks.

 

^ and remembered eternally for his Theory of Everything "2 similar; 1 different"