It could be really useful to enumerate in the "Spawn Broodling" section the units that can be affected by this ability, or to enumerate the units that cannot be affected (I guest that the shorter list would be the best to put).
Does anyone know if the queen is one of the units that will return in star craft 2?
We know next to nothing about the zerg in SC2 at this point in time.--Hawki 06:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we know only that they WILL be in SC2. --Xarthat Xio 15:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
StarCraft II version[]
Should the Queen get a new page (eg Queen (StarCraft II)) for the StarCraft II version? They have so little in common. PsiSeveredHead 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, unit name is the same, but it is COMPLETELY different. It Rocks
At the moment, I think giving the SC2 Queen a separate article would be a good idea. In future, if it turns out that the SC2 Queen is an evolution of the SC1 Queen, I'd prefer to merge the two. Meco 01:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually in favour of keeping it on the same page, at least for now. If it's unrelated to the SC1 Queen, then maybe, but splitting now is kinda jumping the gun. Doesn't do the overview section any favours either.--Hawki 11:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Anybody have a B.net account? Maybe we can get an answer about whether or not the Queens are related in one of the Q&A's. Meco 12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I at least had one, though I gave it up due to the ammount of spam. I may be able to remember my password. Still, don't count on any answers. The Q&As are rarely lore based.--Hawki 12:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the similarities in appearance (see lower body of SC2's queen), I doubt they'll be considered different in the lore. -Capefeather 02:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Abilities[]
Right now the ability section is a mess, especially regarding the Shriekers. Can someone find some more info and clean that up? PsiSeveredHead 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There some nice videos on youtube of sc2 matches [1]. You can see the queen transform into an egg while upgrading on one of them.
Lair Watcher and Hive Matriarch...[]
In all other sites related to StarCraft II I work in, the Lair Watcher and Hive Matriarch are referred to as Large Queen and Huge Queen. Are those names the working names, that have been now replaced with Lair Watcher and Hive Matriarch? Are the Lair Watcher and Hive Matriarch reliable names? Because even in the link the name of the unit evolved from Queen is referred to as Large Queen at least once.
Hive Matriarch
Type: Ground/Biological
HP:600
Max Energy: 100
Minerals: 100
Vespene: 100
Supply: none
Mutates From: Large Queen
Attack:
Damage: 24 Ground/Air X2
Armor (type): 0 (Light)
Additional abilities:
- Toxic creep: 100 Energy
So, are they names that now replaces the temporary names Large Queen and Huge Queen, or are they reliable?
(If the names Lair Watcher or Hive Matriarch are right, I'll have to make sure those other members get the right names in their heads.-_-)
- StarShade 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, I'm pretty sure a picture of a labelled "Large Queen". I'll ask at SCL, and if I don't get a good answer, we can change it.
"Other members?" Kimera 757 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, the members in a web site related purely to StarCraft II in which I work in.
- StarShade 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Does the Queen make sunken/spore colonies?[]
I just assumed she did, but looking at SCL's tech tree, it seems that the Large Queen is needed to make them. Is this true or is there no actual evidence of this? -Capefeather 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Legacy didn't tell us where they got the info for the tech tree. I don't think they got it from a visit or interview, and cobbled it from information they've gathered. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten a good look at the Zerg since March. (One fansite got a good look in May, but they didn't focus on the Queen.)
We'll know for sure Saturday. Kimera 757 (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I just thought that maybe the colonies were omitted from the Queen page on purpose. -Capefeather 03:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Merged Page[]
Since Hawki brought it up :p. The two Queen pages were merged when I did the mass moving of unit info to tagged pages for consistency (previously, pages like Goliath and others had their unit info for the two games on one page, while Zealot had two separate pages with tags). Though in hindsight it was a bit premature of me to up and do that, especially since I hadn't noticed the discussion up top.
Do folks think they should be split back apart into the SC1 and SC2 Queen? I'm of the mind I'd prefer them this way, since within the lore they are the same species, just heavily modified, but I can see the arguments to split them. DrakeyC (talk) 00:49, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say split it, the breeds are so wildly different in function that they need to be separated, especially with queens now having such an important command role. It'd be like having firebat and marauder in the same article just because marauders were based off of the firebat. I can get to it tomorrow if nobody else nabs it first. Subsourian (talk) 02:27, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
- I think the old system works best. We can have "Queen (StarCraft I)" for unit lore and gameplay, "Queen (StarCraft II)" for unit lore and gameplay, and whatever other gameplay articles are required for specific SC2 queen units. That the SC1 queen appears in SC2 is iffy, but "Queen (Legacy of the Void)" seems to be fine, and can be noted in both articles.
- The main issue is that a lot of articles based on lore would be linking to the gameplay articles now. Since a number of unit articles still combine lore and gameplay into the same article, I think the old system still holds up on that front. If SC3 comes around and queens are back that could be an issue, but I'm not counting on that happening anytime soon. ;)--Hawki (talk) 04:04, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
- Which isn't an issue. Right now, there's concievably three types of queen that could appear in Co-op missions - SC1, SC2, and the swarm queen. Most, if not all units in Co-op Missions still more or less function identically as to how they do so in their standard forms. So something like "Queen" (Legacy of the Void) is a sufficient blanket heading for Legacy of the Void itself and if the unit is transplated into Co-op missions, as the mode was introduced in LotV itself. If we keep the standard SC1/SC2 divide, then we keep the divide for both lore and gameplay. As it currently stands, that divide only represents the gameplay. A lot of the time it's fine for a base article to include variantions of the same unit (e.g. the battlecruiser), but the SC1 and 2 queens pretty much only share the same name in both a lore and gameplay sense.--Hawki (talk) 06:02, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
To be specific, I would go like this:
DrakeyC (talk) 05:06, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't that redundant? Separating stuff between SC1 & 2 I can understand, but that seems to be creating extra articles for the sake of it. When a unit only appears in one game, it rarely, if ever gets a specific unit page to separate it from the base one.
- There's also the issue that we're creating a separate problem. Part of the problem, as it currently stands, is that stuff like "Queen (StarCraft") is always going to redirect to the unit page, even when it's used in an in-universe context. The above solves the lore problem, but creates a gameplay problem whenever the same terminology is used.--Hawki (talk) 05:37, May 28, 2016 (UTC)