Thoughts about the Queen and Zerg defense

[BlackDefiler]

I think everyone should be aware of the - quite unexpected - large scale change that took place in Zerg base defenses by now. It seems like traditional defensive structures don't exist anymore. Instead there is a very strong ground unit called the Queen, which can be built early on, and serves as an universal defender and defense controller. It can attack both air and ground, killing a marine with a single attack, plus has many special abilities all of them connected to creep or friendly structures. Although it can walk off the creep and still use it's normal attack, it's special abilities seem to be useless when not on friendly ground.

This type of centralisation of Zerg defenses has left some mixed feelings in me. I'm a Zerg player and I use static defenses in SC all the time, so if these changes remain I will have to seriously revise my tactics.

There are some obvious problems with this type of defense.

First, since you can only have one Queen at a time if two of your bases get hit at once you have to decide where to tunnel(instant teleportation of the Queen from anywhere on creep to any friendly structure) the Queen thereby concentrating your whole defensive potential to one of the two battles, while seriously hindering your defensive capabilities at the other. In order to avoid this obviously undesirable situation you will always have to keep a defensive army near your expos, and of course those units can't be used in offensive tasks if they have to keep camping at home. This type of two battles at one time tactic will of course be very popular exactly because of the hard time the Zerg will have with beating it.

Second, it will require an unprecedented amount of extra micro, since you will always have to move that single unit(Queen) whenever you get attacked, and then take time with dishing out it's special abilities. This will take a lot of time and effort away from offensive and economic strategies. In SC if you built a few defenses to every expo then even if it was attacked you could mosty tell from the minimap if the defenses could hold for themselves or not.

The pros are also there.

1, A very heavy defensive unit will be available early on, (right after spawning pool) so with a good build it might make easy breakfast out of an early rush.

2, With a one hit kill attack against marines and fast attack speed plus devastating special abilities it can stand it's ground from early to late game.

3, Zerg defenses will probably cost much less without drones getting used up in the dozens while building defeses some of which might never be used.

4, It looks very badass!!!

Although it's probably not final, if the concept itself stays it will certainly blow many classic Zerg strategies away.

[Anoiktos]

I think that while, as you say, it seems to leave the zerg very open to harassment with multiple expansions, the abilities it has might be usable to mitigate this problem (for example, if it can make static temporary defensive structures like the Nomad). Also, the wealth and power of its higher-level abilities mean that it should be able to take on one part of a split force with minimal support, (say, a dark swarm from an infestor) and with the existence of nydus worms, I don't think defending multiple expansions will be more difficult, in theory.

I *do* think that it will require more micro, just like almost every ability shown for every race so far; I also think that it will lead to strategies for 'crowd-controlling' the queen with stasis fields/etc if she is not made immune to them.

I worry, however, that it is *too* powerful early-game; a base defense that difficult to overcome in early rush stages both leaves the zerg open to harass quite effectively and makes traditional anti-zerg rushes ('rines/medics, zealots) a much more chancy endeavor.

On the other hand, it sounds like, early-game, massed multiple low-hp but cheap units (see: zerglings) would be quite effective against it if it can only attack (and kill) one unit at a time.

[DarkMirror]

I don't know where it says your only allowed one Queen. Care to share? Also, where does it say that static defenses are gone?

[Protogod]

I don't know where it says your only allowed one Queen. Care to share? Also, where does it say that static defenses are gone?

You can only have one queen. It was the first thing I read about it. I think it was on sclegacy, but it was announced in Seoul after the video.

[DarkMirror]

Ok, thanks. Hope that changes. No super-units.

[Mjolniir]

not really a super-unit, all we really know is that it can 1-hit-kill marines, "self nydus" while on creep, and cause buildings to attack foes.

yeah, it's powerful. but it's also an achilles heel.

besides, we don't know what tech level she can 1-hit at.

i think blizzard is tying to integrate the lore into the game, ie one queen per brood.

[BlackDefiler]

I don't know where it says your only allowed one Queen.

A single Queen can be built from your hatchery as soon as a drone sets up a spawning pool

There are better descriptions than this but it's midnight here and I don't have the strenght left in me to keep searching.

Also, where does it say that static defenses are gone?

One of the more notable changes about the Zerg is the elimination of their traditional base defenses. No longer will drones construct air and ground type defense structures. Instead, the whole system will be overseen by the retooled Queen

If it stays like this then Zerg will really play differently.

[Basan]

Sorry to contradict ya fellas with the Quuen but if the description provided by Blizz' is that one then I'd say that is fully possible to have more than one Queen. Just think about multiple Hatcheries. :P

And so far other than that 1 hit kill crap I honestly don't see any other major hassles with it. :)

[Faiien]

http://kotaku.com/365732/starcraft-ii-official-zerg-fact-sheet

some info found on the video from kotaku.com
apparently everything is factual and blizzard personally confirmed this according to poster

[Ling666]

The zerg as a race shouldn't need defensive structures, instead they would use units.
However, in the actual gameplay, this will be very annoying. It doesn't bode well to have one unit this powerful for the zerg who are supposed to be a massive swarm.

And, with no spore colonies, couldn't the enemies snipe with air units out of range of the queen and above space/high ground/water/etc?

Furthermore, what's to stop it from rushing the enemies? Although its specials aren't useful unless it's on friendly creep, isn't it just as dangerous?

[Protogod]

Re: the last question, the new queen is supposed to have weak hp/defense so it would di quickly without base support & abilities.

[BlackDefiler]

Re: the last question, the new queen is supposed to have weak hp/defense so it would di quickly without base support & abilities

Well, that would give a strange picture since unless her specials are all mass destruction uber weapons she won't be too helpful.

[Protogod]

Well, that would give a strange picture since unless her specials are all mass destruction uber weapons she won't be too helpful.

She's a support caster. It's like saying the defiler is useless since it cant attack.

[BlackDefiler]

She's a support caster. It's like saying the defiler is useless since it cant attack.

I mean she has to make up for all those sunkens and spores that would otherwise be built. What you did in SC is you had static defense coupled with some other units. Now you will have the queen coupled with some other units. So for the Zerg defense not to weaken the queens special abilities and/or her attack capabilities would have to be equal to 4-5 sunkens and spores. Otherwise you will have to allocate even more forces for defensive purposes and that leaves less for attacking.

[Protogod]

Well lets see. The queen can make creep damaging to enemies, it gives buildings in proximity an attack, and it regenerates the HP of buildings in proximity.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

[vIsitor]

Personally, I like the Queen's new role as a base babysitter. It makes good game-play sense and it fits the canonized lore well.

What I am NOT fond of is the fact that you can only have one Queen, and that most (if not all) of the Hive defenses are now intrinsically linked to her. It makes for a very un-Zerglike vulnerability, and is dangerously close to being a stay-at-home hero.

I've got my own ideas on how to address that while minimizing the amount of Queen nerfage, but I'll save that for another time.

[Protogod]

The point always kinda was that its a "stay at home hero"

[fenix6593]

I say the queen is cool!!

[BlackDefiler]

We all know the queen is cool. I say if there's gona be one unit that's incredibly hard to balance than it'll be the Queen.

[Borgorb]

i dont think it gets the 40 dammage attack until hive level
probably 10 or 15 at the most at hatchery level
it would be good if the queen was bound to the creep then it would only work with the overlord whn it does the 'slime drop' after it get the deep tunnel ability

[Thedutchjelle]

Well lets see. The queen can make creep damaging to enemies, it gives buildings in proximity an attack, and it regenerates the HP of buildings in proximity.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

What I wonder though, can she do some of that stuff while burrowed? That would make it a lot more usefull, you can then make buildings attack without having to expose your queen.

[Kellanved]

As a zerg player I like the queen. She makes it much easier to expand since the existence of the queen makes your new expansion have defense by default.

Also it makes it much easier to have a construction plan when thinking of defenses. Instead of trying to defend an expansion with 4 sunkens and 2 spores which would cost 6 drones and a lot of time/management/resources (which could be spent building extra hatcheries for production) you can just build 2 or 3 hatcheries at an expansion and consider that the base defense; it's covered for ground and air defense, as well as fast unit production at that base.

If I had a choice though, I'd say to take away the queen's attack and give it better defense instead. That would really work well for its nature, as well as making it less redundant with the heavy melee ultralisk.

The problem is that all the enemy needs to do is focus it and all the defensive buildings are nullified.

[vIsitor]

My view is that I'd rather have the Queen supplement the Hive cluster's defenses, rather than replace them entirely. She seems like far too much of a liability in her present incarnation, in my opinion.

[DarkMirror]

I read on one of the sites that she can also MAKE defensive structures.

[BlackDefiler]

I read on one of the sites that she can also MAKE defensive structures.

Yeah, but I think those will be rather light defenses like the Nomads sentry gun instead of a really full fledged static defense.

[vIsitor]

And, more importantly, it basically requires you to build a Queen. I though StarCraft, at its core, was supposed to be about choices and soft counters? Certainly, I don't want my decisions made for me.

[DarkMirror]

Well, I suppose you never really had to build a barracks, either. You could just SCV rush.

[vIsitor]

Well, I suppose you never really had to build a barracks, either. You could just SCV rush.

Well, you had to build a Barracks to tech, but you never actually needed to use it. Its not all the uncommon to go straight to Factory units in some match-ups.

With the Queen, however, you don't have the option to forego her use. Its either use her, or leave half of your army at your base, which defeats the whole point of having dedicated defenses. At least before, the questions were, do I want Sunkens, do I want Spores, how many, where, and when?

The entirety of the defense is defendant on the Queen. Once she's killed, you've got your army, and what is left of the defenses she's laid down--defenses which can not be replaced until the Queen has been. Its not hard to kill a single unit; much less one with only 90 HP. Instead of having to guard everything, any serious assault on a Zerg Hive cluster is going to be an attempt to assassinate the Queen. And although her death may not be irrecoverable, the loss will nonetheless have ramifications far disproportional than any that a single unit should rightly have.

I'll agree that the Queen should watch the base; that concept is solid. But I am of the opinion that she should reinforce, rather than replace, the Hive's defenses. Likewise, I'll agree that restrictions are needed to prevent massing Queens, or else she would be decidedly IMBA. I do not, however, believe that a one-unit cap is very sensible. It places too much emphasis on the unit, and the loss becomes too great an expense. As a result, players turtle, which is the opposite of aggressive stance which the unit is supposed to promote on the whole.

And don't try zinging me with that 'it makes sense for the Zerg to have one Queen' spiel. Thats sacrificing game-play for lore reasons that haven't even been canonized, which makes no sense at all. Besides, there are ways to appeal to your lore senses and retain game-play balance at the same time. How about limiting the number of Queens to the number of Lairs, or Hives? That would follow your lore reasons well enough, alleviate the problems that a singular Queen presents, and discourage massing Queens at the same time.

[Ling666]

Calm down. Why would someone want to zing you?

But I am of the opinion that she should reinforce, rather than replace, the Hive's defenses.
I think that's how she is right now. Although there really are no defenses at the moment, the buildings themselves can have the new specials used on them and that would be a reinforcing position rather than a replacement.

With the Queen, however, you don't have the option to forego her use. Its either use her, or leave half of your army at your base, which defeats the whole point of having dedicated defenses.
That's like saying you can't refuse to build sunken colonies in sc1. If you refuse to build sunken colonies in sc1 you have to leave part of your army back. So there was never really an option to forego the use of static defenses, and now there is no option to forego the use of the queen. What's the problem with that? It simply changed from needing defenses to needing the queen.

[Eivind]

Not really updated here, but why is the Queen early-game (or is it mid-game)? If she's so strong, wouldn't it better for her to be a late-game unit? And please don't go all "omg n00b" on me. If I have made a simple mistake, then say that. Just trying to secure me in advance, I guess.

[DarkMirror]

She starts out rather weak. Thus, you make her early game, then she gets stronger as the game progresses.

[Eivind]

Where did you get all the info on her?

[BlackDefiler]

Not really updated here, but why is the Queen early-game (or is it mid-game)? If she's so strong, wouldn't it better for her to be a late-game unit? And please don't go all "omg n00b" on me. If I have made a simple mistake, then say that. Just trying to secure me in advance, I guess.

Since there are no static defenses in the game for Zerg, you need her as a base warden right from the start.

[Protogod]

Before we start PMSing, I think you forget that you can rebuild queens after they die. Ya know ,the whole "its not a superunit" thing bites you in the ass when youre bitching about it.

Moreover, people are all complaining about how hard it will be to use when you've never actually seen the dynamic, nor its abilities in action.

Really, stop acting like children until you see some demonstration of its use.

[vIsitor]

The problem isn't that she's strong the problem is that she's an achilles heel. But I digress. I'm obviously not getting anywhere with the direct approach, so I'm going to have to try another method with you: compromise.

Now, on a really, really good day, you might be able to convince me that making the Queen the sole arbiter of base defenses is a good idea. I rather doubt it, but for the sake of the exercise I'm willing to accept some things I don't like in favor of axing things I really don't like. You will now, however, ever convince me that limiting the Queen to only one per player is a good idea; much less so if the Queen retains her highly important role.

With that in mind, I'll present to you a compromise (which I have shamelessly culled from elsewhere) that I think both of us could live with:

-Cheap, relatively weak, and buildable from the start
-No restrictions on how many
-Restricted to movement on creep (untill upgraded)
-Works like a probe, allowing it to single handedly construct the bases defenses, while making it redundant to build too many
-May be upgraded on a per unit basis for stronger combat stats and support abilities (say 3 tiers?)
-Majority of the abilities would be researched at a specialized building (queens nest?) building.

You get to keep your specialized Queen-based defense mechanics, and I get to sleep well at night with the knowledge that the Zerg don't have a gaping hole in their defenses.

[Protogod]

In other words, a convoluted and even more unnecessary game mechanic?

[AJ]

I'll have you know the Queen actually plays quite well.
Her non-hero status means that she's pretty quick and easy to rebuild if killed, I know more than once I had an opponent have enough time to rebuild his queen while I was attacking his base.

The way the Screamers operate right now, you add their respective radii to each other, thus you can space your defenses out amongst your base but if any units come in from anywhere within range of any of your Screamers, the defenses are capable of attacking those units - even if their closest Screamer doesn't see those units, so long as the range of all the Screamers overlaps.

It makes for some tough defense when laid out properly.

[deltablade]

I think there should be one per Hatchery... but then I guess they could have 4 Hatcherys in one spot and have all 4 queens in the only way to get to their base or something along those poorly spelled lines... :smirk:

[vIsitor]

Yes, AJ, the Queens are interesting and new; I'm not denying that. Nor am I trying to force regression towards just having Brood War in 3d; I'm all for change, just so long as it works.

However, I would like to note that those who played with WC3's Heroes thought that they were interesting and neat too, else they wouldn't have made it to the final release, but that they ultimately didn't work as they were intended. I'm just advocating some caution on the behalf of learning from past histories.

True, the Queen has some differences from WC3 Heroes, but for all their discrepancies, they share the fundamental flaw that ultimately lead to the vilification of the former: The over-emphasized importance of the unit. Much as a WarCraft army serves the player's Hero instead of the Hero serving the army, the Hive serves the Queen, instead of the Queen serving the Hive. While that might make for good lore sense, it just doesn't make for good game-play in practice.

And I have yet to hear a good gameplay reason as to why having more than one Queen would be a bad idea. If the case is that doing so would be overpowered, then for all your positioning and word-play, then the Queen is a super-unit, albeit, a defensive one. QED.

[gamer102]

AJ, you speak of these "Screamers", what are they exactly?

[AJ]

Ok, so the basic idea behind the new Zerg defense system is that you first build a Queen from your Hatchery.

Once she has been built, all of your major base defenses are constructed from her. You would first put up a Screamer, and it does just that. It sits there and waits for an enemy unit to enter within its radius of detection and starts to "scream". This is where the 2nd point of your defenses would kick in. Instead of Sunken and Spore colonies, the Queen can place two different types of defenses on the creep. They were 1x1 when I played, but according to Dustin Browder this has already changed. Anyhow, you'd place these in your base in various locations.

Now the thinking is that you'd have to spread them all over the place for them to be affective, so instead they can react and attack anything that is within a Screamer's range, not just their own. Adding to this, the radii of multiple Screamers is designed to stack so you can overlap the radii and cover more area of your base, without having to spread your defenses out to all those locations.

This makes your defenses more vulnerable to AoE attacks though, so you don't want to stack them all, and you also have to watch for attacks coming at the angles to your base where your Screamers may not have great coverage. It presents an entirely new and interesting twist to base defense.

[BlackDefiler]

the Queen can place two different types of defenses on the creep.

Is this a ground and an air defense structure?

Also I heard that she lays somesort of egg that hatches when an enemy comes nearby. Is that one of these two defenses or is it something else? And how does it work really?

[AJ]

Yes.

And, IIRC the "eggs" are the ground defense weapon, they hatch when the Screamers go off.

[Neo]

are we talking about the defenses hitting anything with any screamers range, or just within screamers range of the current base the defenses are located at?

at any rate, it kinda seems strange to be honest. cool but strange. since it seems to reinforce what the original queens lore was supposed to be (overseeing the hatcheries and stuff), but by the same token it seems to make zerg more inclined to be turtles.

Although, as anyone knows, having to blow a whole drone on a sunken or spore it can be quite time consuming.

And out curiosity are the screamers... screams annoying or just loud enough to let you know stuff is coming? And do they have similar range to, say, those terran radar towers?

-Neo

[Kellanved]

@AJ:
Okay so I'll assume ordinarily that the radius of a screamer is just under the range of guardians/collosi (and way under the tank range).

Still, you say that a defensive building can attack anywhere in the screamers' range, not just their own. I'm assuming they still have to be on the same body of creep; am I right? Otherwise you can have all your defense buildings from all over the map shoot at someone coming within a screamer field.

Also, can they attack within their own range if you didn't bother to build any screamers?

Also, is it true that the queen can turn any building into an attacker? Like your hatchery, spire, etc..?

[BlackDefiler]

defensive building can attack anywhere in the screamers' range, not just their own

If I understand it correctly than there has to be a continuous line of screamers between the defense building and the enemy for the range addition to work.

Also, can they attack within their own range if you didn't bother to build any screamers

They have their own range and they can of course shoot on things within it.

Also, is it true that the queen can turn any building into an attacker? Like your hatchery, spire, etc..?

In the Zerg gameplay video you can actually see a spire shooting after the Queen casts the ability on it.

[gamer102]

You all speak of these "Screamers", what are they exactly?

[DarkMirror]

Didnt you post that exact same question a while ago? its been answered.
As seen here:
AJ, you speak of these "Screamers", what are they exactly?

You all speak of these "Screamers", what are they exactly?

[gamer102]

Really? I haven't seen it yet, let me check through that last pages.

EDIT:

Ok, so the basic idea behind the new Zerg defense system is that you first build a Queen from your Hatchery.



Once she has been built, all of your major base defenses are constructed from her. You would first put up a Screamer, and it does just that. It sits there and waits for an enemy unit to enter within its radius of detection and starts to "scream". This is where the 2nd point of your defenses would kick in. Instead of Sunken and Spore colonies, the Queen can place two different types of defenses on the creep. They were 1x1 when I played, but according to Dustin Browder this has already changed. Anyhow, you'd place these in your base in various locations.



Now the thinking is that you'd have to spread them all over the place for them to be affective, so instead they can react and attack anything that is within a Screamer's range, not just their own. Adding to this, the radii of multiple Screamers is designed to stack so you can overlap the radii and cover more area of your base, without having to spread your defenses out to all those locations.



This makes your defenses more vulnerable to AoE attacks though, so you don't want to stack them all, and you also have to watch for attacks coming at the angles to your base where your Screamers may not have great coverage. It presents an entirely new and interesting twist to base defense.

OK!

[AJ]

By the way, the "Screamers" I'm referring to are actually Shriekers.
Just the lovely nickname I gave them. ;)

[vIsitor]

I still stand by my opinion that there is no legitimate game-play reason to limit the number of Queens to one.

If the Queen would be unbalanced if multiples could be spawned, then that is a problem with the Queen, not the system. It seems foolhardy to sacrifice game-play for the sake of novelty. Besides, I really don't see how she could be unbalanced in such a way; the Buildings would still cost the same and her abilities really aren't very spammable. All it would do is make it possible to simultaniously maintain an effective defense at multiple expansions, which I do not view as a negative thing. If turtling is the fear, than the static defenses themselves need to be weakened to discourage that.

[Protogod]

She spawns a very intricate system of static defenses, potentially much more powerful than sunkens and spore colonies. Stop complaining about having to micro a little.

[vIsitor]

She spawns a very intricate system of static defenses, potentially much more powerful than sunkens and spore colonies. Stop complaining about having to micro a little.

A little micro is fine, sure, but don't do it at the expense of macro; that's taking the WC3 route of doing things, and that is definitely not StarCraft. I like the Queen, but I think she could be implemented in a balanced way without such ridiculous arbitrary constraints.

Besides, you failed to counter my argument. You've still not presented any game-play reason (or reasons) why multiple Queens would be a bad idea. The Swarm Clutches still cost the same amount of resources to make, no matter how many Queens you have, so the counter-argument that they're more powerful isn't valid. Worse; its a non-sequitur.

[Protogod]

And YOU have failed to counter MY argument. What exactly is imbalanced about it if it can spawn static defenses in a manner that is quite possibly MORE efficient and sequiter than "sunken colonies"

Queens were supposedly the ones that tended to the hive clusters. The queen guards and nurtures her nest. Why would that involve more than one per nest?

I dare say, meaning no offense, that it is you who is ignorant of starcraft's current canonical background.

[vIsitor]

And YOU have failed to counter MY argument. What exactly is imbalanced about it if it can spawn static defenses in a manner that is quite possibly MORE efficient and sequiter than "sunken colonies"

Because being able to make them at multiple places at the same time does not make it imbalanced. It just makes implementing them more efficient.

Queens were supposedly the ones that tended to the hive clusters. The queen guards and nurtures her nest. Why would that involve more than one per nest?

I dare say, meaning no offense, that it is you who is ignorant of starcraft's current canonical background.

Invoking lore, are we? It shall not avail you.

The original SC Manual lore is not particularly valid in this instance because, A) its a different Queen, and B) the original Queen didn't do much tending to its cluster either, despite its lore. As for the current Queen's lore, thats not canon yet, and is subject to change.

Furthermore, you're advocating putting lore before game balance, which is, IMHO, a very bad move.

[Kellanved]

Visitor: Blizzard probably realized that utilizing the queen is very powerful, and much more effective in static defense than in SC1. In fact, they probably deemed it a little too powerful, and thus, tried to balance it out by only allowing one queen at a time, thus making it more difficult to manage the defense of all your bases, requiring more effort from you. There's my answer to your question.

[Protogod]

Invoking lore, are we? It shall not avail you. And now to prove you wrong?

The original SC Manual lore is not particularly valid in this instance because, A) its a different Queen and B) the original Queen didn't do much tending to its cluster either, despite its lore.
I won't argue the first, although we don't know for sure that it isnt simply an evolved queen. However, let's look at B. "Despite its lore" eh? Arent you queen-haters the ones bitching and moaning about how it is against the zerg schema to have one important unit? Arent you the ones talking about lore?

And now that it supports the queen, let's not think about the lore, no, let's talk about the game instead "Despite its lore."

Furthermore, you're advocating putting lore before game balance, which is, IMHO, a very bad move.

A) Youre putting words in my mouth, as I've been talking solely about gameplay until now, but you people have made the argument about lore. Thus I countered your straw man and you are now pointing and calling my argument irrelevant. Pathetic attempt at attacking my credibility. Try again.

B) I've done nothing but talk about gameplay and balance until now. I refuse to repeat myself because you covered your ears and yelled. IF you want my rebuttal, search bak in the thread, because in essence, my points were that: You can make your precious static defenses with the queen (and be mobile with the deep tunnel ability), the queen is powerful enough to defend her base on her own accord - yet still weak enough to be a liability if used offensively, and jam packed with defensive abilities to do her job more than effectively enough for any player to say "damn, that was useful" as their queen defends their base simultaneously with his army destroying the opponents.

C) I'm right you're wrong, kthx. I'm through arguing this nonsense. I want a real problem with the queen, not some half baked "the queen goes against lor- YOU STOPPED TALKING ABOUT GAMEPLAY! LOOK! LOOK EVERYBODY!"

Really. (btw, +rep me for writing all that shit)

[vIsitor]

Visitor: Blizzard probably realized that utilizing the queen is very powerful, and much more effective in static defense than in SC1. In fact, they probably deemed it a little too powerful, and thus, tried to balance it out by only allowing one queen at a time, thus making it more difficult to manage the defense of all your bases, requiring more effort from you. There's my answer to your question.

And yet you people continue to assert that the Queen is not a super-unit. Your ability to deny the facts never ceases to astonish me.

---

I won't argue the first, although we don't know for sure that it isnt simply an evolved queen. However, let's look at B. "Despite its lore" eh? Aren't you queen-haters the ones bitching and moaning about how it is against the Zerg schema to have one important unit? Aren't you the ones talking about lore?

And now that it supports the queen, let's not think about the lore, no, let's talk about the game instead "Despite its lore."

The difference is that certain play-styles are not compatible. That is not dependent of lore, although it coincides with it. True, some people I could name on both sides would bring up the lore argument; but such is irrelevant here.

A) Youre putting words in my mouth, as I've been talking solely about game-play until now, but you people have made the argument about lore. Thus I countered your straw man and you are now pointing and calling my argument irrelevant. Pathetic attempt at attacking my credibility. Try again.

/stifles laughter

Calling my straw man? You were the one who brought up lore in our little debate here. Stating that lore has been brought up before isn't a false argument, but it is irrelevant.

Besides, I'm not putting words in your mouth, by the simple fact of the matter that by citing lore for a game-play mechanic which has seemingly no purpose, you're advocating lore as being superior to other logic. QED.

B) I've done nothing but talk about game-play and balance until now. I refuse to repeat myself because you covered your ears and yelled.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual, proto.

IF you want my rebuttal, search back in the thread, because in essence, my points were that: You can make your precious static defenses with the Queen (and be mobile with the deep tunnel ability), the Queen is powerful enough to defend her base on her own accord - yet still weak enough to be a liability if used offensively, and jam packed with defensive abilities to do her job more than effectively enough for any player to say "damn, that was useful" as their Queen defends their base simultaneously with his army destroying the opponents.

And I've made my points why that is a liability, but that isn't whats up for debate here. My question remains the same: What reason is there for a one-unit limit. And, more importantly, why opt for a one-unit limit when the Queen could just as well be balanced some other way.

C) I'm right you're wrong, kthx. I'm through arguing this nonsense. I want a real problem with the queen, not some half baked "the queen goes against lor- YOU STOPPED TALKING ABOUT GAMEPLAY! LOOK! LOOK EVERYBODY!"

No, I'm just calling you out on the fact that you're grasping at straws. If citing non-canon lore is the best you can come up with, then you're argument is weak indeed.

[Protogod]

Stating that lore has been brought up before isn't a false argument, but it is irrelevant.

Besides, I'm not putting words in your mouth, by the simple fact of the matter that by citing lore for a game-play mechanic which has seemingly no purpose, you're advocating lore as being superior to other logic. QED.
If it's been brought up before, perhaps I'm responding to those arguments? Your non-sequitur has lost me.

And I've made my points why that is a liability, but that isn't whats up for debate here. Actually it is. You havent proven why it is a liability. Why does it need to be change if it is effective as it is? Why delay development and expend extra resources if it works fine now?
My question remains the same: What reason is there for a one-unit limit. And, more importantly, why opt for a one-unit limit when the Queen could just as well be balanced some other way. and my question is the same to you, as you habitually ignore- why change what we already have if it works perfectly fine?

No, I'm just calling you out on the fact that you're grasping at straws. If citing non-canon lore is the best you can come up with, then you're argument is weak indeed.

You're funny. Now make a real point or stop pretending you have one. I'm getting sick as fuck of this "i said so! prove me wrong! I said so! I dont like it but i wont explain whats wrong with it!" bullshit.

Make a real argument and show there is something that needs to be changed or dont fucking expect a change. You're wearing on my last nerves and my common sense hasnt needed this much explanation in ages.

[neobowman]

Oh god. Why NOT have a one unit limit. Having a unit limit fits the lore. Not having one doesn't. Balancing can be done either way. Why not follow the lore. Also, the queen is not a super-unit as it is not suitable for attack. It's attack is not extemely powerful as you can see it takes several hits to kill a viking. The queen has relatively low hp.

[DarkMirror]

SUPER UNIT = IMBA
QUEEN =/= IMBA

I REST MY POINT. Happy now?

[3Vee]

SUPER UNIT = IMBA
QUEEN =/= IMBA

I REST MY POINT. Happy now?

No, your logic phails. The only conclusion to be drawn from your premises is "The Queen ≠ Super Unit". Which is actually fine.

But we haven't proved, despite worries about the Mothership and hatred of the Thor, that super units are inherently imbalanced, just hard to balance.

We also don't have enough evidence to say that the Queen is or is not imbalanced.

Moreover, in her current incarnation, the Queen fits any useful definition of a superunit. Low on HP, sure, but so is a Lich. Defensive, sure, but what's wrong with that?

So your premises both fail, and your conclusion is contradicted by facts.

And in this case, I'm actually ready to say, "What's wrong with a superunit?" I wouldn't have suspected it, but it makes sense lore-wise and seems to fit with the "insect" image Blizz is emphasizing for the Zerg. It also seems easier to balance than the Thor, and way less forced than the Mothership looks. IMO.

[Neo]

Just being an ass here, but the only possible reason to build multiple queens would be for the following reasons:

Have one tag along during an attack, possibly utilizing the overlord's creep ability to setup defenses right near your opponent's base.
or
Have multiple ones situated near most/all expos.

The first point is still doable, however you are taking a risk on it, seeing as the Queen is supposed to be for defense, not offense. Not risking your one and only queen means that zerg players really have no need to even tech up, seening as you supply a couple of tanks, and then simply cut off the opponent near his entrance, or whatever.

The second point is nulled, seeing as the queen can jump from Hatchery to Hatchery at her tier-II upgrade. So yeah.

And according to those who've played it, the queen isn't exactly a tank or a super unit, seeing as she can be killed pretty easily.

The point is that she is for defense. No you shouldn't be allowed to make multiple queens, that would completely negate half the zerg tech tree. Especially seeing as the queen is something you build as soon as you have the spawning pool.

-Neo

[B.A.Baracus]

I just wanna jump in(yes out of nowhere)and say this whole "queen scheme" idea is way to over complicated to last. When I read AJ's description on .org about the zergy defense system my head started spinning.
As someone earier stated, zerg is not a micro heavy race(save for muts) and having to use one unit to defend multiple expo's is very micro heavy and un zerg-like. Not to mention 1 cap units dont belong in sc.
The queen is an exact repeat of the mothership, something drastic and cool blizz threw out there to wow the masses, they've again gotten ahead of themselves.
In my opinion the queen wont last long in its current state, I can smell the return of sunkens already, or something similar.

On an un-related note, howdy wb. And proto your so cute when your serious ;p

[vIsitor]

Just being an ass here, but the only possible reason to build multiple queens would be for the following reasons:

Have one tag along during an attack, possibly utilizing the overlord's creep ability to setup defenses right near your opponent's base.
or
Have multiple ones situated near most/all expos.

The first point is still doable, however you are taking a risk on it, seeing as the Queen is supposed to be for defense, not offense. Not risking your one and only Queen means that Zerg players really have no need to even tech up, seeing as you supply a couple of tanks, and then simply cut off the opponent near his entrance, or whatever.

Fair enough. However, that is only applicable against another Zerg player, and its no more viable than an offensive Sunken was in SC-BW. If you can get a Queen, so can the opponent, and therein lies the counter to such a push.

The second point is nulled, seeing as the Queen can jump from Hatchery to Hatchery at her tier-II upgrade. So yeah.

No, the point is not nullified, and I will tell you why:

The "Deep Tunnel" ability possesses slow cool-down, so that it is impossible for the Queen to manage more than two Hive Clusters at any given time.

'But wait', I imagine you're thinking, 'can't the cool-down just be reduced, then?'. Not in a balanced way, no. If the Queen could constantly teleport around, then she could escape just about every fight she gets into and avoid getting killed, rather nullifying the whole "weak HP" mechanic you pro-one-Queen folk seem so fond of.

And according to those who've played it, the queen isn't exactly a tank or a super unit, seeing as she can be killed pretty easily.

The point is that she is for defense. No you shouldn't be allowed to make multiple queens, that would completely negate half the zerg tech tree. Especially seeing as the Queen is something you build as soon as you have the spawning pool.

-Neo

That really doesn't make much sense, you know. I know the Queen is for defense, and I am advocating multiple Queens for defense.

Scenario: Three expansions are attacked. Because the enemy divided their forces, the attacks ultimately failed, but succeeded in dealing some damage to the static defenses placed there earlier by the Queen.

In the current, on-Queen set-up, you're probably only going to be able to restore the defenses at two of the bases. You could pull back some of your forces to defend, but doing so would weaken your offense, and leave the enemy with more forces to attack with. Not pulling such forces back could very well result in the loss of the third expansion, and in very short time-frame too.

In a multiple Queen set-up, you could handle the situation with just two Queens, restoring the defenses before the enemy returns in force. Even if the hypothetical third expansion is still lost, the static defenses, at least, will slow them down; perhaps enough to enact a reprisal.

By maintaining an effective defense, the player can stay on the offense. However, an ineffective defense would likely just encourage turtling, which is the opposite of the intended result of the Queen's new role.

[Neo]

Thoerycraft.

If three of your expos are under attack at the same time, you've basically lost anyway.

And I don't get why everyone is screaming MICRO in relation to the queen. omfg, you have to use her to build defense. how different is it from having to micro drones out to build sunkens and crap?

-Neo

[vIsitor]

Thoerycraft.

And your spiel about the Queen being used offensively wasn't? Stop judging by double-standards.

If three of your expos are under attack at the same time, you've basically lost anyway.

Not necessarily. And it doesn't particularly have to be literally at the same time, either, just within the 30 to 45 second time-frame it takes the Queen to move about.

This isn't that uncommon a scenario when you're playing against multiple opponents. Not everybody plays 1v1 matches, after all.

And I don't get why everyone is screaming MICRO in relation to the queen. omfg, you have to use her to build defense. How different is it from having to micro drones out to build Sunkens and crap?

Because any element of micro needs to be counter-balanced with a sufficient amount of macro; with the Zerg, doubly so. Drones had a manner of macro, mostly tied to the economy impact tied to their loss but also dependent on their availability, but having only one Queen resigns the unit to being purely focused on micro. And that is a bad thing, because StarCraft is about having a certain amount of equilibrium between the two.

[Protogod]

Visitor, I'm tired of you at this point, so let me put it bluntly; some of us know more about scII than others.

You are apparently one of the others.

& Lol at your random assertion in regards to the queen's "long cooldown" for deep tunnel. You havent even played it.

[Protogod]

Bonus: Reasons why Visitor knows shit-all about scII-

Fair enough. However, that is only applicable against another Zerg player, and its no more viable than an offensive Sunken was in SC-BW. If you can get a Queen, so can the opponent, and therein lies the counter to such a push.
WRONG! This is applicable to all MU's. Before anything else, prove how it isnt. Until then, stop talking.

The overlord creep ability creates creep anywhere, allowing the queen to make static defenses there. Nothing mentioned involves your opponent being a zerg, thank you very much. Try harder.

No, the point is not nullified, and I will tell you why:
oh please do

The "Deep Tunnel" ability possesses slow cool-down, so that it is impossible for the Queen to manage more than two Hive Clusters at any given time.
EE-ER-EE-ER!

MY Bullshit detector is going off! Link us to some sources, or prove how much youve played SCII before you start making this shit up. PUlling crap from your ass =/= a valid argument.

YOU are invalid.


That really doesn't make much sense, you know. I know the Queen is for defense, and I am advocating multiple Queens for defense.
You are advocating them for that use, but when they are so expendable and numerous, It would be more than rigged, and possible for you to abuse them offensively (as was the FIRST THING NWEO SAID. PAY FUCKING ATTENTION FFS)

Scenario: Three expansions are attacked. Because the enemy divided their forces, the attacks ultimately failed, but succeeded in dealing some damage to the static defenses placed there earlier by the Queen.

In the current, on-Queen set-up, you're probably only going to be able to restore the defenses at two of the bases. You could pull back some of your forces to defend, but doing so would weaken your offense, and leave the enemy with more forces to attack with. Not pulling such forces back could very well result in the loss of the third expansion, and in very short time-frame too.
That sounds like a kirbyman strat. No joke. It totally almost makes sense, but is wholly impractical and unlikely. If that happens I'l give you $100000000

In a multiple Queen set-up, you could handle the situation with just two Queens, restoring the defenses before the enemy returns in force. Even if the hypothetical third expansion is still lost, the static defenses, at least, will slow them down; perhaps enough to enact a reprisal. because losing one expansion and slowing the enemy down wasnt possible with static defenses at only two expos?

By maintaining an effective defense, the player can stay on the offense. However, an ineffective defense would likely just encourage turtling, which is the opposite of the intended result of the Queen's new role.
That is a good point, if only it were true and/or relevant in any way.

Too bad it isnt.
And your spiel about the Queen being used offensively wasn't? Stop judging by double-standards.
yeah, about that, you're a hypocrite. And wrong. 2-for-1. Gj.

Not necessarily. And it doesn't particularly have to be literally at the same time, either, just within the 30 to 45 second time-frame it takes the Queen to move about. And you are getting these numbers from where? Exactly. stfu already. You know nothing about SCII and it shows.

This isn't that uncommon a scenario when you're playing against multiple opponents. Not everybody plays 1v1 matches, after all.

Need I say more? That was the most retarded point ever. Really. It's just stupid. I'm almost at a loss for words at how ridiculously idiotic that was for you to say. But I dont want to insult you.

Because any element of micro needs to be counter-balanced with a sufficient amount of macro; with the Zerg, doubly so. Drones had a manner of macro, mostly tied to the economy impact tied to their loss but also dependent on their availability, but having only one Queen resigns the unit to being purely focused on micro. And that is a bad thing, because StarCraft is about having a certain amount of equilibrium between the two.

Wordy bullshit, in short.

The bottom line is that I want everyone on this forum, and everyone reading this thread to realize you have no idea what you are talking about.

Pure failure.

http://strix.org.uk/downloads/files/width400/lolz-you-fail.jpg

[Ktan]

Just a thought, Visitor, why exactly should Lore not have an effect on gameplay? I understand that lore should not make hard fast rules, but equally getting lore into the actual game itself helps the race seem more cohesive and less like the "you can have any race as long as it's X" that a lot of strategy games suffer from. The differences within races themselves are not just aesthetic, and lore does a lot to dictate this.

For example, it's a bit like Terrans suddenly having Marines running around with super-armour like Starship Troopers or Dark Troopers in such a way as to improve the Marines in terms of balance. I know this is an unlikely scenario and also not the best analogy, but if you ignore lore completely then you don't have a race anymore, you just have a conglomeration of faceless units which just happen to look similar and fight under one banner.

The Queen seems like an interesting mechanic. It adds a risk-reward element to defence. It seems like you are going to have to think carefully about where you place your Queen. Perhaps making multiple Queens would remove this dynamic, and thus the whole point of the strategic addition of the Queen.

Just an attempt to try and cool the pot, which isn't so much simmering, as boiling over :P

[vIsitor]

Just a thought, Visitor, why exactly should Lore not have an effect on gameplay? I understand that lore should not make hard fast rules, but equally getting lore into the actual game itself helps the race seem more cohesive and less like the "you can have any race as long as it's X" that a lot of strategy games suffer from. The differences within races themselves are not just aesthetic, and lore does a lot to dictate this.

For example, it's a bit like Terrans suddenly having Marines running around with super-armour like Starship Troopers or Dark Troopers in such a way as to improve the Marines in terms of balance. I know this is an unlikely scenario and also not the best analogy, but if you ignore lore completely then you don't have a race anymore, you just have a conglomeration of faceless units which just happen to look similar and fight under one banner.

I'm simply of the opinion that lore should exist to explain the gameplay, not the gameplay existing to explain the lore.

The Queen seems like an interesting mechanic. It adds a risk-reward element to defence. It seems like you are going to have to think carefully about where you place your Queen. Perhaps making multiple Queens would remove this dynamic, and thus the whole point of the strategic addition of the Queen.

And I feel that the Queen's mechanic is hampered, not furthered by the one-per player limitation. Thats my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

[DarkMirror]

Look at it this way, if you could build multiple Queens, you could easily just turtle without effort. No point to her then, she becomes something to tank with and not a special thing.

[Neo]

I think the point being missed here is that the zerg base defenses in SC1 weren't exactly all that thrilling, and hampered most more then helped.

In this manner you can focus drones on mining, and only pull one out when you're building up. As opposed to having to build a drone just for a sunken that's going to get wtfpwned quickly anyway.

The queen seems more like a mobile building more then anything -- less like a unit even. Her whole point in Sc2 seems to be to stick around the zerg base, and contribute to defense. The sticking point here is that she will most likely stay with the main base, and only move to expo if she is needed, or when it first goes up, so that she can throw down some shriekers and whatever those attacker things are.

A queen, by itself, does nothing as I understand. She might have an attack (or might not), she is mostly a passive replacement for drone-sacrificing. And talking about cooldowns before you've even played the game is pretty asinine -- no offense, but c'mon.

Most people complaining about the game haven't even touched it, and are trying to apply SC-tactics to a game that is clearly different. SC2 does not equal SC1.

Until you can prove that the queen's deep tunnel ability has a 30 second cool down, trying to bring up theorycraft situations on why she sucks isn't going to cut it.

-Neo

[Protogod]

And I feel that the Queen's mechanic is hampered, not furthered by the one-per player limitation. Thats my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Yeah. If only you had a reason for that opinion we'd be golden.

[Ktan]

I'm simply of the opinion that lore should exist to explain the gameplay, not the gameplay existing to explain the lore.[quote]
Fair enough :D

It was a point I'd considered myself actually after making a post. I suppose I'm just used to 40K, which is driven more by fluff and models than mechanics ;p



[quote]And I feel that the Queen's mechanic is hampered, not furthered by the one-per player limitation. Thats my opinion and I'm sticking with it.
I disagree, simply because I think that having lots of Queens simply makes defence a no-brainer: spam Queens. With only one to toy with, yes, you are hampered, but in such a way where you actually have to think carefully about what you do with your Queen. Do you push or defend?

I understand the desire to stay away from WC III style mechanics, but we aren't talking Exp gaining heroes, and I think a little bit of a change in direction is good for the series.

But, of courwse, your enttitled to your opinion. I think we all really need to see more of the Queen, but maybe that's just me :P

[Fiendwurm]

I personaly think that you should be able to have more than one queen, because why would you want more than two queens per base/expo? They could both cast spells to defend the area and if the first one died, then you have a second one to back it up. If they both died then you can take one from another expo. Shure if you were able to do this the queens would probly cost more and would take longer to build then they are currently to prevent people having endless amounts of queens at their dispossal.

[Mjolniir]

somebody once said someting wise about more than one queen and that is: max one per hat/lair/hive.

just 'cause it's expensive doesn't mean people won't spam it.

carriers, battlecruisers, guardians, arbiters,........

.....and archons. lets face it, people will spam expensive units. smae rule should also go for the Mothership, one per nexus.

or maybe one unit for every two nexi/hive/whatever

[Lithium]

I'll bring a new idea to the table (hopefully I won't crash and burn with it). What if Blizzard made it so that there's a supply-queen ratio. For example, once your supply hits 50, you are entitled to another queen, 100, another queen, etc. etc.

Or 100-200, making a total of 3 queens. But deriving from the fact that you can rebuild them fairly quickly, I guess this is a bit redundant.

Do zerg static defenses deactivate or die if the queen dies?

[Escade]

Perhaps increasing the amount of time to build and minerals/gas with each Queen, for example:

(Don't shout/scream/whatever at me for pulling out a bunch of numbers out of my ass, only an example.)

1st Queen: 150/100/3 - One minute build time
2nd Queen: 250/200/6 - Two minute build time
3rd Queen: 350/300/9 - Three minute build time
Etc, etc, etc.

It would discourage players from spamming Queens to the point of no return, right? ...or encourage players using money cheats to spam it all up.

[RavenCrusade]

In response, here's my post:
What's this? It would appear Mjolniir already said what I was going to say. Here you go.

just 'cause it's expensive doesn't mean people won't spam it.
carriers, battlecruisers, guardians, arbiters, and archons. lets face it, people will spam expensive units.

People will spam things regardless of time, cost and population. If it's even a tad imba, they want more of it.

[Neo]

Then it really is like war3, isn't it? three "heros", one per main drop off upgrade? etc...?

-Neo

[Faiien]

I think we should steer clear of trying anything to make sc2 resemble wc3.

[T-Dawg]

I don't know if these have been answered yet -- so I will try to answer a few things that I noticed looking over the thread:

1. The Queen's Deep Tunnel ability does have a short cool-down.
2. Defenses don't de-activate if the Queen dies.
3. The Queen is REALLY slow. Think Overlord slow. Which constricts her basically to building and defending.
4. I believe the purpose of the queen is simply to replace having to pull drones off every second for crappy base defense.
5. The Queen doesn't fly. (This has been speculation everywhere)
6. You can only have one queen. At any point in time. I believe it would be pretty pointless to have more than one queen, early game it might be useful just because the queen has a cheap cost and it would be good against early toss rush. Being a slow unit though marines can easily out micro a queen early game.

[Giantfish]

Does anyone know if you have to re-evolve a queen whenever it dies? For example, if I had a large queen and it died, would I have build a new queen and then morph it again or would it automatically be a large queen? Also, does it cost anything to morph a queen or is it free once you have the right tech? Also, how long does it take to morph it?

[Neo]

Does anyone know if you have to re-evolve a queen whenever it dies? For example, if I had a large queen and it died, would I have build a new queen and then morph it again or would it automatically be a large queen? Also, does it cost anything to morph a queen or is it free once you have the right tech? Also, how long does it take to morph it?

Yeah, you have to re-evolve one if it dies (remember, it's nothing like the hero's from War3) -- technically it's just a unit.

And thanks T-Dawg, that's really what I meant to say umpteen posts earlier -- I figure the queen is just a nice replacement for the whole pulling drones off for defenses.

-Neo

[ChimTheGrim21]

I think we should steer clear of trying anything to make sc2 resemble wc3.
If you've seen the Zerg gameplay trailer, then you know this game is nothing like War3. Just look at the MASSIVE amount of units going around all at once. In a situation like that, one queen, Thor, or mothership isn't going to stop a group of 50 hydralisks.

[hmmm]

i agree with what escade said. just make it so that each succesive built queen is more expensive or burdensome to build. i also thought that you could put some kind of proximity barrier where 2 queens cant exist in the area of one base or w/e. just my 2 cents. o and i think its cool, personally the queen was quite useless(for me) in sc1. and it being the "queen" it makes sense that it adresses an important role. and does anyone have a link where it says that static defenses are not available?

[DarkMirror]

That they cant be built from drones? We all know that. But the Queen builds them now.

[Escade]

No, what I mean is, is that with the 'etc, etc', is an allowance for infinite Queens, just it being even more expensive then before. Obviously, people will try spamming it, but decent players whom will not cheat, or do FMs will just go along with it, and see the pointlessness of having 'lolfifteenqueens' when they could spend their cash on something worth it.

Strong units will always be spammed, and making the Queen more expensive with each build would put regular players off.

[Neo]

Easier to just cap it at one queen. Seriously, why bother with extra crap?

The queen is defensive only, doesn't need to be spammed (And if you want it to be spammed, go play a custom).

-Neo

[Jaxander]

I personally think the addition of the Queen is a smart move. However, I don't think it should be seen as the sole defender of Zerg bases, or even of the Zerg central colony. rather, it is the core of the defenses. Obviously, with the removal of static defenses, and the implementation of the Queen, the Zerg will have to focus on keeping a small reserve of units behind to assist in defense; something the Zerg haven't necessarily done before. It integrates a new role on the ever changing pallate of strategies for the races of SCII.

As far as her being overpowered or unbalanced, I'd say we hardly have to worry. The Protoss still have their Mothership, be it late game or no. And the Queen will still be pretty much useless against the Crucio Siege Tanks unless she leaves the creep, decreasing her effectiveness by a considerable amount. So there are ways around her, for certain.

[Neo]

Uhm, there are static defenses. It's just that the queen has replaced the need to pull drones off the mineral line to build them.

She actually creates the shriekers and such, which act like static defense emplacements.

-Neo

[Jaxander]

Oh. Well I stand corrected.

Thanks Neo!

[Amake]

No matter if there's one or several Queens, I like the idea of a stay at home hero kind of unit. It emphasizes what I think is a key trait of the Zerg that's poorly expressed in the first game, their hive structure society. When I play Zerg I like to go out of my way to cover the entire map with creep, slowly expanding and making everything part of the hive. When I'm feeling especially insectile I try to never leave the creep, to always keep every part of the swarm in the hive.

So I'd say it's about time to have a unit that's designed to live on creep.

And I'm in awe of Blizz' genius to come up with these super units that are so utterly different for each race, each using and promoting their racial uniquenesses, yet - we hope - perfectly balanced. The super units are a microcosm of Starcraft, and I love it.