|
On July 28 2017 06:12 WaesumNinja wrote: The multiple larva per SH is atrocious.
Of course it is. You have to think of it in an environment of e.g. double larva production of hatches and injects, where zerglings use 1 larva, roaches 2, etc. Then you e.g. make the first swarmhost you build use 1 larva, the second 2, the third 3, the fourth 4, etc.
I just brought this up as I found it to be an interesting idea, not in order to directly implement it into the current game. An interesting concept which could make larva management a bit deeper, allows more diversification between units, as well allows to implement diminishing returns. Just brainstorming.
In theory that could be good cause a unit like SH is pretty useless in very low numbers. That would be represented by low larva costs of the first few you build. Could even make sense then to build 1-2 hosts only from 1-3 larva instead of 1-3 zerglings for example while teching to hive and use them for minor harassment tasks. The game would give players more options in the end and reduce minmaxing. Cause now it is less of an option to build 1-2 hosts, if you go for them you build a decent amount.
If you want to make larva production the exact same as now, you keep the same spawn cycles and just make hatches spawn two instead of one at once, and double inject as well. But it is not even necessary, you can half the spawn cycle of hatches and have larva spawn one by one as now. Alot is possible there. In the end as well other units could be balanced out a bit better if you adjust larva amount they need for micro nerfs/buffs according to what is required.
And that is exactly how SH should be used. In low numbers to get on your opponents nerves without the capability of taking him out of the game all the way. 4-6 locust are quite similar to a medivac drop. 30+ is just a ridiculous amount of free units. If you wanted to go from 7 to 8 SH in this concept, you needed 8 larva, which is a full inject and 2 larva from the hatch in addition. The good thing about that is that it is a soft cap again. In lategame players could still stack larva on some of their hatches in order to get a few more hosts, without ever reaching riduclous numbers.
|
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote: You have to think of it in an environment of e.g. double larva production of hatches and injects, where zerglings use 1 larva, roaches 2, etc. Then you e.g. make the first swarmhost you build use 1 larva, the second 2, the third 3, the fourth 4, etc.
You don't find this to be quite convoluted? Are you going to revamp the larva cost for every zerg unit just so you can have this larva increase gimmick on swarm hosts? And are you going to have this kind of nerf apply to any other units as well?
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote: An interesting concept which could make larva management a bit deeper, allows more diversification between units, as well allows to implement diminishing returns.
Not sure how this "allows for more diversification" between units, can you elaborate? It's also a hamfisted way to introduce "diminishing returns".
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote: In theory that could be good cause a unit like SH is pretty useless in very low numbers. That would be represented by low larva costs of the first few you build. Could even make sense then to build 1-2 hosts only from 1-3 larva instead of 1-3 zerglings for example while teching to hive and use them for minor harassment tasks. The game would give players more options in the end and reduce minmaxing. Cause now it is less of an option to build 1-2 hosts, if you go for them you build a decent amount.
Yeah, swarmhost don't do a whole lot when you have only a few (like mutalisk), so why are you suggesting it would be fine to build 2 swarmhost for 2 larva while ramping up the cost for the actual swarmhost count that you imply makes sense? "Lowering" the larva cost from the increase is about as much of a selling argument like raising the price for an item to later offer a "discount" which will later wear off. No, this is not "good in theory".
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote: And that is exactly how SH should be used. In low numbers to get on your opponents nerves without the capability of taking him out of the game all the way. 4-6 locust are quite similar to a medivac drop.
This is how SH should be used according to who? And no, 4-6 locust are hardly comparable to 8 stimmed marines being healed by a medivac.
|
Well I said similar, locus dmg output is higher than marine and they can (must) be wasted anytime while rines have to retreat. It is similar.
More diversification ofc as you could put ultralisk on lets say 3 drones instead of 2, which would represent 1,5 in the current system. Just as an example.
You don't find this to be quite convoluted? Are you going to revamp the larva cost for every zerg unit just so you can have this larva increase gimmick on swarm hosts? And are you going to have this kind of nerf apply to any other units as well?
No, I dont find it convoluted. SC2 strategical depth is quita shallow. What you miss is that anything else can stay the same with this concept as I have explained above. But you CAN in case you want so change details such as ultralisk example above, or anything else.
Zerg usually needs all larva for drones and rest of larva for main army composition. You cant afford dead larva supply. But if the first host only takes the larva amount of a single zergling, the second that of 2 zerglings, and lets say you have a tiny advantage in game and hence a bit of extra resources to spend, you can then think about adding 2 hosts in order to kill depots, pylons, use for scout + little dmg, distract oponent or whatever else. Yes that would make options more diverse.
But this is only the side effect. The main effect is to soft cap max hosts.
|
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote: Well I said similar, locus dmg output is higher than marine and they can be wasted anytime while rines have to retreat. It is similar. Marines have higher move speed to chase after workers, which locust cannot do. Marines do not disappear by themselves for a while, so you can't deal with them by simply moving away workers for a while. Marines have to retreat, but they can do so to a different expansion and keep up the assault, while the swarm host takes 43 seconds to recharge. The medivac can also reposition before dropping without affecting marine duration. The medivac is also faster.
Nah, it's not really similar.
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote: Zerg usually needs all larva for drones and rest of larva for main army composition. You cant afford dead larva supply. But if the first host only takes the larva amount of a single zergling, the second that of 2 zerglings, and lets say you have a small advantage in game and hence a bit of extra resources to spend, you can then think about adding 2 hosts in order to kill depots, pylons or whatever else. Yes that would make options more diverse.
No, it doesn't make it "more diverse", because the current situation is already that you can create 2 hosts for 2 larva if you felt like it. Though it seems like a huge waste in both effort and resources to use 2 swarm host to hunt supply depots...
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote:But this is only the side effect. The main effect is to soft cap max hosts.
And why do you want to do that rather than fix underlying issues?
|
It is brainstorming man. I agree the side effect can be neglected effectively, but yet it is there. I don't even advocate to implement that at this point. I just brought it up cause the concept exists and is interesting and I even explained it for you in detail as you seemed to not understand how this could play out. Get along with it plz. You gotta tell me now what underlying issues you are talking about.
|
Yeah I respect brainstorming man, and part of that process is discussing the ideas that come up. I understand that you find your own idea interesting, but you keep restating the same things and don't answer any questions. I don't know what you mean with "get along with it"? No.
You gotta tell me now what underlying issues you are talking about. Why should I be the one to do that, you're the one advocating for change.
|
On July 28 2017 07:45 WaesumNinja wrote:Yeah I respect brainstorming man, and part of that process is discussing the ideas that come up. I understand that you find your own idea interesting, but you keep restating the same things and don't answer any questions. I don't know what you mean with "get along with it"? No. Why should I be the one to do that, you're the one advocating for change.
Because I sense that you lack general idea, and I wanna hear content from you before I continue to talk with you. You probably are just big at criticizing stuff others bring up. And I answered all your questions in detail. With get along with it I mean that you should accept outside the box thinking which wont necessarily at first glance fit the mainstream idea of how to address problems but at the end of the day can do other tricks instead.
|
On July 28 2017 07:47 LSN wrote: Because I sense that you lack general idea, and I wanna hear content from you before I continue to talk with you. You probably are just big at criticizing stuff others bring up.
Really, I added some thoughts (content, if you may) to the "macro hatchery" idea and didn't blindly criticize it.
On July 28 2017 07:47 LSN wrote: And I answered all your questions in detail.
You did not. How will the larva merge work in the game? Like an archon merge? What if you have multiple hatcheries and the last 3 larva are far apart? What happens then? Should the same supply-increase-nerf apply to tanks/ravens and carriers?
On July 28 2017 07:47 LSN wrote: With get along with it I mean that you should accept outside the box thinking
There's nothing wrong with outside the box thinking, but it requires more reasoning and justification.
|
The larva can work the exact same way it works now. The only thing in this concept that would have to change for sure is the amount that each additional swarmhost takes. Ofc the larva had to be at the same hatchery, just as it is now.
But to repeat myself, you can do adjustments of larva costs of units if you ever want so with this concept. The reason I came up with it is not to so but in order to allow soft capping of hosts. Everything else are side effects that can be used but dont have to be used.
|
I really like the idea of SH spawning either locust or scourge, for a cost. I don't understand this "free unit" fetish, no one seem to have problems with "free" storms or "free" seeker mines.
anyways, I would really like to see some of the extremes toned down, like increased marine collision radius, weaker banes (revert hp buff?), weaker adepts (revert vision nerf but loose shield when they shade?), much slower phoenixes, reduced/removed muta hp regen, overall slightly stronger anti-air ground, but weaker aoe (widow mine, seeker mines, archon, parasitic bomb, fungal).
(IM not so H noob O ofc)
|
On July 28 2017 07:57 LSN wrote: The larva can work the exact same way it works now. The only thing in this concept that would have to change for sure is the amount that each additional swarmhost takes. Ofc the larva had to be at the same hatchery, just as it is now.
So how will a unit cost more than 1 larva? How do you pay for it?
|
On July 28 2017 08:03 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 07:57 LSN wrote: The larva can work the exact same way it works now. The only thing in this concept that would have to change for sure is the amount that each additional swarmhost takes. Ofc the larva had to be at the same hatchery, just as it is now.
So how will a unit cost more than 1 larva? How do you pay for it?
I explained above that hatcheries can be made spawn two larva at a time with the exact same cycle time as is, if you want to have it the very same. Injects would create 6 instead of 3 larva. All units use double larva. Swarmhosts are the only differentiation. It is a theoretical concept not meant for direct implementation but to show how the named goals can be achieved. I dont enjoy to talk further about it at this point.
|
On July 28 2017 08:05 LSN wrote: I explained above that hatcheries can be made spawn two larva at a time with the exact same cycle time as it is now, if you want to have it the very same. Injects would create 6 instead of 3 larva. All units use double larva. Swarmhosts are the only differentiation.
What is the point of doubling larva while doubling how many larva every unit needs at the same time?
In what way are swarmhost the only differentation? And why is it unique in this regard?
|
The point is that in the current system with current larva spawns an increase of +1 for each host would not make much sense. Can you finally get along with it plz? lol
And as I explained now like 5+ times, it allows more finetuning for other units if you ever want so. This could give benefit for future balance patches, if they figure out one or the other unit needs a slight nerf or buff, you can then use larva mechanic in addition to other mechanics for balance adjustments. E.g. if you decide that roach 2 supply is too high but 1 is too low, you could then make it 1.5. Finally got it?
|
On July 28 2017 08:11 LSN wrote: The point is that in the current system with current larva spawns an increase of +1 for each host would not make much sense. Can you finally get along with it plz? lol
No I can't "get along with it", because it doesn't make sense.
On July 28 2017 08:11 LSN wrote: ... you can then use larva mechanic in addition to other mechanics for balance. E.g. if you decide that roach 2 supply is too high but one is too low, you can then make it 1.5. Finally got it?
How are "larva" cost and "supply" cost related to each other in this sense?
|
I didnt mean finetuning of supply but of larva costs ofc. Use common sense plz.
|
What exactly is 1.5 larva? Can I end up with half a larva? How does that compute with common sense?
|
You could e.g. half the hatch larva cycle and let it spawn larva one by one. Explained everything above.
|
So what we are discussing is more of a 'flowing' larva economy, where certain units make larva spawn slower?
|
This is to show different ways of how to handle the SH issue in theory with introducing soft caps.
As it feels esthetically weird if you need 2 larva for one unit, I do not support this myself. But technically it does the job.
Ofc you could have larva merge in front of the hatchery as you mentioned. But it is not my cup of tea as I am a systematist and this question is for artists. I neither care nor can give you an answer.
|
|
|
|