Now that Blizzcon is over and we've all seen the new Heart of the Swarm units, a wave of negativity has washed over Team Liquid. It's actually kind of similar to when WoL was being announced. But this time, I think I have bigger beef with Dustin Browder's game design philosophy. I'm not going to argue about whether or not the units are good, since I don't know. But I will argue that the way he is approaching unit design is very risky and flawed.
Dustin Browder was hired by Blizzard based upon his work as game designer of Red Alert 2. If you look at the units in that game, the units in Wings of Liberty, and the units for Heart of the Swarm, you can kind of glean the philosophy he has in approaching unit design. He purposefully tries to create unique, gimmicky units that he feels are challenging to use and fulfills very specific niche roles. For Starcraft 2, it looks like he brainstormed a bunch of radical ideas that he thinks nobody has thought of before for units, and then he sticks them onto a bunch of units and distributes them among the races as he thinks is appropriate.
For a campy, crazy game like Red Alert 2, that kind of philosophy is perfect. The game's aim is to provide you with a wide variety of crazy and creative units to use, and Browder delivers that with a lot of fun but useless units like the chrono legionnaire, mind control units, armored blimp bombers, dolphins, giant squids, and the like.
Those capitalist pig-dogs in Japan can't see the true potential of tentacles
For a game like Starcraft 2, however, I don't think his approach is appropriate. Starcraft 2 isn't a gimmicky game, nor is it a pseudo RPG game like Warcraft 3. Starcraft 2 a chess match of large armies. Like chess, the pieces of the game should be simple in their nature yet complex in their interactions with other pieces.
Consider the simplicity of units in Brood War. Most units have very obvious strengths and weaknesses. High dps units have low health, low dps units have high health. Terran units that stray too far from supporting units like the siege tank or the medic are significantly weaker than Protoss and Zerg counterparts. In Wings of Liberty, these sharp differences have been significantly muddied by units with in-between roles such as the high health, high DPS marauder, the almost never used spellcaster Mothership, and the meaty roach which is almost like a zerg zealot with a ranged attack.
Do you remember this shit? TvZ and ZvT had fucking completely different skill sets with zero overlap
With Heart of the Swarm, the uniqueness of the individual races are even more muddied to the point where even though the units are different, the play style differences of all three races become moot. What is a Warhound but a marauder that can be made in a factory? Why does Terran need another meaty unit that can deal high damage to armored units? Why do the Protoss need another muta counter if the Phoenix was originally designed to BE the muta counter?
Basically, it would be much better if Browder focused less on trying to "shore up" the weaknesses of the races with fancy gimmicky units. Instead, he should design units that are more conventional but ballsier and play to the races' strengths. Make the weaknesses of each race even MORE vulnerable, but make the strengths unmatchable. Bring back the Beta siege tank with 60 splash damage but nerf the shit out of everything else, 40 hp marines and 60 hp marauders. Make Terran super dependent on defensive ranged firepower. Remove the Roach but make zergling and hydralisk-like units even cheaper and cost even less supply. By keeping units simple, you can greatly exaggerate the strengths and weaknesses of each race making them more dynamic, diverse, and exciting to play.
Remember this? This is the way TvZ was intended to be. Not a marauder in site.
Another flaw of Dustin Browder's unit design approach is that right now, NOBODY knows how the new units will perform, or how they will actually change gameplay. What everyone does know is that the weird justifications Browder and David Kim give for the units are all just bullshit and we won't know if the units are good or not until the pros start using it in GSL, MLG, IEM, and other tournaments at the highest level. What is the oracle supposed to do again? Nobody knows.
New units introduced in a highly-anticipated expansion pack is supposed to provide excitement and anticipation, not confound everybody who sees the unit. When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them". When I saw the HotS units, the only thing I thought was "well, I guess when I get the game I'll build a bunch of them and see what happens."
This simpler, more direct approach to unit design I'm proposing isn't anything new, but it's actually an established principle in many of the most popular competitively-played games. As examples, I can point out character designs in Street Fighter, gun designs in Halo and Counter-Strike, and the unit designs of Brood War.
1) Street Fighter
If you think about it, all characters in this fighting game have basically the same basic moves and a few specials. Even then, a lot of the specials are similar, like Ryu's Shoryuken and Sagat's Tiger Uppercut. It's just the different timings, ranges, and priorities of the moves that balance the game. None of this has changed much from the first iteration of Street Fighter 2 to the current Super Street Fighter 4. But Capcom is able to make 3482039 iterations of the same game work because the characters in the game, though simple, just feel nice. The simple execution of Ken's fierce Shoryuken, hearing three solid connect sounds, and seeing the opponent lit on fire creates a huge endorphin release that just makes you want the opponent to jump at you so you can repeat the move again. And again. It's simple, yet feels fucking amazing.
2) Halo
From Halo 1 to Halo 3, the weapons of the game haven't changed much at all. They're practically the same fucking weapons and same fucking gameplay. But these games make millions. Why? Because when you're holding that fucking awkward Xbox controller and wrestling the crosshairs and finally make that headshot with the sniper rifle against the twelve year old who's been calling you a faggot for the past 5 minutes, it feels fucking amazing. And you want him to keep calling you a faggot so you can say "you mad bro?" while you blow his head off a second, and a third, and a fourth time. The sharp crack of the rifle, the vapor trail, the simulated recoil, these are all very simple things that Bungie has tuned perfectly. So that each of the weapons, all of them completely generic and unimaginative, just feel good when you fire them and kill something.
3) Counter-Strike
And you thought Halo's space marine was boring and generic. Fuck, here you are land bound with a bunch of direct-fire, automatic, ballistic weapons that all shoot forward and can kill someone in 2 hits, body armor or not. No rocket jumps, no vehicles, no nothing. Yet people LOVE this game. Because the simplicity feels good. When the AK-47 roars in your earbuds and you see that low polygon representation of a person's head splatter red blood-shaped sprites everywhere, it feels amazing.
4) Brood War
Does anyone miss the roar of the Siege tank, the dull, powerful thud of a detonating scarab, the harsh screech of a mutalisk? Those are just a few of the visceral sounds toned down in Starcraft 2. Brood War, like Counter-Strike, relies a lot on the perfect sounds that effects make in the game that makes the units far more exciting than they actually are. I guarantee you, if Browder gave the SC2 zealot a manlier voice, removed the "we cannot hold" garbage, but left the stats the same, you WILL see a jump in zealot usage and people will think that the zealot seems more powerful. When you think back to the first time you see a zealot destroy a marine in only three hits while marines bullets bounced off its shields, it's really a wonder that TvP was actually a very balanced matchup.
What I'm trying to demonstrate is that simplicity can be infinitely more fun than complex gimmicky units that may or may not be useful. It actually provides the majority of the fun factor in some of the most popular games. In Starcraft 2, there some elements of the game that feel good: the TSSSSS sound of banelings crashing onto marines, the diarrheal squish overlords make when they pop, these are things that just look and feel amazing. But there are also tons of other units that are just completely mediocre: roaches with their flaccid attack sounds, marauders and stalkers attacking in general, the new mufflers installed on zealot psi blades and hydralisk spitting. I can't even remember what colossi lasers sound like, but I can still remember the distinct sound of a scarab detonation despite not having played Brood War in over a year.
As fun as Starcraft 2 is, it can be infinitely more fun and dynamic if the design principle behind the game focuses on the simpler aspects and not on introducing new, more complex units. Dustin Browder would do better if he thinks creatively inside the box rather than uncreatively outside of the box.
TL:DR HotS units don't feel good. In order for the game to succeed, shit should feel good.
EDIT: I apologize if the ending became more and more negative. The basic premises isn't that the new units of HotS are bad (since we simply don't know), but that they seem too contrived and gimmicky. I just think Dustin Browder's approach to designing Starcraft 2 units is not ideal for a game designed to be THE platform for e-sports over the next decade.
EDIT2: This post is not meant to be a pro-Brood War or anti-SC2 post, despite many of the comments posted below. The Brood War comparisons are simply a matter of familiarity and convenience.
Yes, thank you so much. When I saw these new units the first thing I thought of was RA2 where everything was so gimmicky. Don't get me wrong, RA2 and all the C&C games that Browder worked on were pretty fun and I would still enjoy playing them. But there's a reason that all of those games are now freeware and Starcraft is still being played competitively in Korea.
Very well written sir, good way to articulate not just HotS issues, but basically SC2 issues altogether. SC2 is definitely flashier, but lacks what Brood War had in terms of substance.
Overall a quality blog that I largely agree with, thank you for that, but I think Dusty is not the evil overmind behind all bad decisions that people tend him to make.
I'll give it few days before they change the name of SC2 to C&C5: StarCraft edition.
"Bring back the Beta siege tank with 60 splash damage but nerf the shit out of everything else, 40 hp marines and 60 hp marauders. Make Terran super dependent on defensive ranged firepower. Remove the Roach but make zergling and hydralisk-like units even cheaper and cost even less supply. By keeping units simple, you can greatly exaggerate the strengths and weaknesses of each race making them more dynamic, diverse, and exciting to play."
Probably one of the best "fix" to SC2 out there at the moment, and I completely agree to what you say. This is what Sayle (BW streamer) said yesterday:
"...So we ask Blizzard for ways to harass better in SC2 as other two races (Protoss/Zerg) because storm drops and reaver drops were quite useful.... and we get this shit? Fuck this..." end quote.
Interesting-- I kind of agree with your general thoughts, but it IS still early to jump to conclusions-- I took the reveals more as a snapshot of a stream of consciousness in design rather than as a fully realized end product.
You bring up a good point-- I wonder if the design philosophy IS more on a unit-by-unit basis with this team rather than on a race-as-a-whole level. It suggests a superficial understanding of the complex interactions between units.
I don't get why everyone is so negative about this... Things are NOT finalized. If you'll remember in WoL beta, Roaches were pretty much free and only cost 1 food. But guess what, the design team weren't idiots, so they fixed it. That's the point of betas.
IMO Dustin Browder should be fired ASAP. His design philosophy is really not suit for a game like starcraft. This blog is very well written, Browder's slowly turning SC2 into a RA2 sequel with a more popular brand name.
What strikes me the most is the reasoning behind their changes. The justification as to why they're doing this or that change is just... ridiculous to say the least. They're adding gimmicky units to try and patch basic holes in gameplay, which is something that clearly won't work.
I'm sad for SC2. I watched both D3 and HotS panels, and you could tell the quality of the team behind D3 is incredibly superior. You could just feel their passion for the game, while all I got from Browder is this massive bragging all the time, while Kim looked bored and uninspired.
Wow, this actually grasps so much of my feelings too... I don't normally post replies to things like this, but I have to say, you captured the situation quite well.
I'm hopeful for the future, even if it's not the exact one that I want. Maybe StarCraft II will continue to grow in ways we don't expect.
You've summed up all of my random thoughts about SC2 I've ever had. Completely agree on every point. Although it's too early to say, I don't see how any changes they might make in HotS will change how we feel about this game.
I think my least favorite of these new units is the Dark Archon. It just seems SO gimmicky. Mind Control? Maybe that would fit in some campy game like RA2, but it's so out of place in Starcraft. An AoE stun just makes me think the WoW designers suggested it as well.
Why can't they make more units like the Scout, which really fits the Protoss race and has really clear uses in pro games?
On October 24 2011 00:47 OmniEulogy wrote: Extremely well written post. I agree completely with where you are saying sc2 has derailed when it comes to units.
Maybe I was naive to hope that they would remove the collosus, the roach, the goddamned marauder. Replacing them with thoughtful, race appropriate, awesome alternatives that deeply interacted with other tactical resources the races had. But I did hope, and I am so disappointed.
Was the perfection of deep unit interaction and synergy that was Brood War simply a blip in history?
On October 24 2011 00:52 Harrow wrote: I think my least favorite of these new units is the Dark Archon. It just seems SO gimmicky. Mind Control? Maybe that would fit in some campy game like RA2, but it's so out of place in Starcraft. An AoE stun just makes me think the WoW designers suggested it as well.
Why can't they make more units like the Scout, which really fits the Protoss race and has really clear uses in pro games?
I suppose we do tend to think of the fully formed old and compare it with the absent metagame of the yet to be released new and lament at its emptiness. But there was obvious synergy in BW even before release. I see no synergy or racial cohesion or even a perfunctory attempt at any type of grand overarching racial design in these new units. (aside from maybe something like 'zerg are swarmy, lets give them more swarmy stuff', 'terran are mechy, lets give them more mechy stuff', protoss are strange and annoying, lets give them more strange and annoying stuff)
On October 24 2011 00:52 Harrow wrote: I think my least favorite of these new units is the Dark Archon. It just seems SO gimmicky. Mind Control? Maybe that would fit in some campy game like RA2, but it's so out of place in Starcraft. An AoE stun just makes me think the WoW designers suggested it as well.
Why can't they make more units like the Scout, which really fits the Protoss race and has really clear uses in pro games?
Dustin Browder has been doing it wrong for a long time. Nerfing siege tanks was the first step, and now adding in all of this crazy stuff is the next one.
Replicant? Just take a look at that unit. Not only does it not belong in HOTS, it does not belong in any RTS game. You don't balance a race by allowing them to become the other two races lol...
A lot of the new stuff is also very "noob friendly." Instead of sucking it up, and adding in stuff like dark archon or spider mines, they add a shredder with no friendly fire, and they add a protoss aoe air to air unit that is just another 1a click unit.
And 100% agree about the warhound just being a factory marauder...i don't understand what browder's fixation is on "countering the siege tank." Everything in the game already counters the siege tank, it's like he has a chip on his shoulder from designing cnc "tank games" and doesn't want the tank to be good lol.
Also, any sc2 fans are always welcome to come over to the dark side and try out BW. The new season should be starting in a few weeks, and if you want to give it a try you will find all sorts of advice on how to appreciate this great game in the BW forum. I promise we won't bite.
On October 24 2011 01:01 deafhobbit wrote: Agreed.
Also, any sc2 fans are always welcome to come over to the dark side and try out BW. The new season should be starting in a few weeks, and if you want to give it a try you will find all sorts of advice on how to appreciate this great game in the BW forum. I promise we won't bite.
Real shameless BW promotion there. Can't say I disapprove though.
On October 24 2011 01:01 deafhobbit wrote: Agreed.
Also, any sc2 fans are always welcome to come over to the dark side and try out BW. The new season should be starting in a few weeks, and if you want to give it a try you will find all sorts of advice on how to appreciate this great game in the BW forum. I promise we won't bite.
Real shameless BW promotion there. Can't say I disapprove though.
The reason everyone is so mad about the new units is because they are going to buy the expansion anyway. They wouldn't care if they wouldn't get it.
I'm playing sc2 and it got me watching some BW. The games are definetely more exciting but the plan of most sc2'ers is just to wait it out until blizzard cleans up the mess.
Yeah I have to agree lol the replicant is just insert-jackie-chan's-face-here. Like you said, simplicity is key and adds so much more to the game than gimmicks. But I guess on the upside they are still trying to cut/add new units and see what works and doesn't hopefully they'll get it right
On October 24 2011 00:42 AIRwar wrote: I don't get why everyone is so negative about this... Things are NOT finalized. If you'll remember in WoL beta, Roaches were pretty much free and only cost 1 food. But guess what, the design team weren't idiots, so they fixed it. That's the point of betas.
That's not the point he's making. He's arguing about the types of things the units involve, not specifics of the units. The units will change a bit, to balance them, but fundamentally the approach taken with the new units is to add gimmicky stuff. That won't change unless they scrap the units and introduce totally new units with a different design philosophy. Yes, the units will be tweaked to balance them, but unless they are given such an overhaul that they are basically removed from the game and replaced, the basic fundamentals will still be the same, and that's where he's saying the issue lies.
Very well written. I really hope some Blizz employees read this and take what you say to heart. When I saw the Oracle and replicator i cringed. Gimmicky units if they ever existed.
Transforming hellion and in transformed mode it has more health or armour or something to make it meatier? why? The hellion is spectacular as it is. Let it be a speedy unit and let it be weak with only 90 HP. If it turns into a firebat to combat its weakeness then thats dumb. Let it have a weakness.
I feel that some units just don't belong as well. The marauder and roach don't make sense for their respective races. Collossus is also a weird unit. It moves not too fast but not too slow has high damage output and a lot of HP. The only thing that helps it be less of a wtf unit is the fact that it can be hit by ground and air.
The marauder and Roach are both super meaty units in races that aren't supposed to have super meaty units. Roach is meaty but takes away from swarm feeling and the marauder is a meaty high DPS vs armoured dealer.
On October 24 2011 00:56 avilo wrote: Dustin Browder has been doing it wrong for a long time. Nerfing siege tanks was the first step, and now adding in all of this crazy stuff is the next one.
Replicant? Just take a look at that unit. Not only does it not belong in HOTS, it does not belong in any RTS game. You don't balance a race by allowing them to become the other two races lol...
A lot of the new stuff is also very "noob friendly." Instead of sucking it up, and adding in stuff like dark archon or spider mines, they add a shredder with no friendly fire, and they add a protoss aoe air to air unit that is just another 1a click unit.
And 100% agree about the warhound just being a factory marauder...i don't understand what browder's fixation is on "countering the siege tank." Everything in the game already counters the siege tank, it's like he has a chip on his shoulder from designing cnc "tank games" and doesn't want the tank to be good lol.
Agreed. The tank in TvT isn't such a big deal that you need to have something to punch through it. The marauder already does a damn good job at that. Perhaps they are thinking about removing the marauder but didn't want to commit quite yet to this detail at blizzcon?
and the replicant is a bad way to balance things. Lets let protoss have what the other races have ... no. If i wanted a tank i would play terran. If I wanted an infestor I would play Zerg.
Another large problem is that the game was balanced with a certain map pool in mind.
Do you remember the first batch of maps?
Lost Temple, with its stupid abusive cliff?
or that one stupid map that I can't even remember with a rush distance of 4 seconds from nat to nat?
The game was balanced and created with these maps as the guidelines of how matchups would play out.
These small/gimmicky maps led to strong, gimmicky, units and a play that is decentered from macro play fundamentally and a solid game progression (remember TvZ? How the map control shifted with each step in each player's tech until they finally were competing for map presence in the late-mid game?) Even now, close positions is an auto lose in some matchups, or prevents an entire gameplay mindset from being viable.
With these larger maps coming out of GSL, and close positions being removed from most tournaments, Starcraft 2's fundamental game design and balance is changing. As the maps grow larger, Starcraft 2 will need a complete overhaul.
I agree on the sound design (Brood War was such a stylish game when it came to art direction/sound direction), but not on the units.
I've played Red Alert 2. I loved Red Alert 2. Starcraft 2 is not Red Alert 2. There's nothing wrong with unique units purposefully designed to fill specific rolls. I just don't understand your blog post: you want simplicity but then you bash the simplistic units (read: Marauder, Roach, Stalker). Yeah, they need to be tweaked, but that doesn't mean the entire game fails.
I like how you brought up Red Alert 2. Most about what you say is indeed true. Still, even in RA you had your basic units. Allies had GIs, strong, could set up sandbags while Soviet Conscripts were much cheaper. On the other hand, Allies' basic tank unit, the grizzly was cheaper, faster but weaker than the Soviet equivalent of the Rhino. They also had similar AA vehicles, ex IFVs and Flak , and also similar yet slightly different basic defensive structures, pillboxes and sentry guns.
Even in the higher techs, Soviet seemed to be a straight up 'make units and kill you' with Apocalypse tanks, V3 Rocket Launchers and Dreadnaughts (Basically massive ships used for bombardment). On the other hand, Allies did seem to focus more on the 'gimmick' as you pointed out. Rocketeers, Mirage Tanks, Harriers (Basically air harass), mirage and prism tanks, so on and so forth. Still, had your basic units and that was almost always the core you relied on.
In Starcraft 2, you barely even have a core unit set, especially for Protoss. Zealots instead of running up to the enemy and stabbing them in the face go super saiyan and charge with a brilliant shine of light behind them... and then the enemy takes a step back and he's out of breath and can't continue charging. Stalkers? They are basically built to run away. Their very attack looks just wimpy, doesn't do that much damage, and they die very fast. Still, with their blink ability they can run away to fight another day, or at least continue running away. Sentries just forcefield their problems away . But then almost every other unit, pheonixes, void rays, motherships are also very gimmicky, leaving nothing but the Immortal and Collosus, which both have glaring weaknesses that no other Protoss unit fills. I think this is the reason Blizzard has had a very hard time balancing them (Think of the Void Ray, High Templar and Mothership nerfs) and the players seem to have a hard time coming up with many viable, long term game play solutions. The race was basically designed for DT, Void or mass gateway rushing unfortunately.
For Terran they have the core being barracks units and the medivac. However, even the medivac is a little more gimmicky. Healer and a transport? Seriously who has ever seen that before SC2, healers have always been slow or stationary (EG buildings), basic builder units (Mass SCV repair is a bit gimmicky tho ) or dedicated units like the medic. IMO thors and hellions are also designed for the wrong purposes. An anti light unit doesn't need splash (Look at vultures vs lings LOL so much blood) and a massive, slow moving behemoth of a battlestation really just doesn't have much place in the game. Their one weakness really is getting surrounded, and if you have enough of them then they can't get surrounded (Remember when they didn't have energy bars? Mass thor was ridiculous vs Protoss, as en masse they flat out slaughtered their very counters, void rays and immortals, and nothing else could kill them fast enough).
I think for Zerg they have the smallest quantity of gimmicky units (Zerglings, Roaches, Hydras and mutalisks all lack any 'spell' such as charge, blink or stim), but their gimmicks are the worst. Look at the queen for example, it has led to the entire race relying on a unit, rather than a building, for their primary production abilities. I don't think this has ever happened in any game, period, and it has led to some rather odd playstyles. You see them rely entirely on building either as few combat units as possible for as long as possible, or they cut workers and try to catch their opponent off guard with a massive surge of units. Sure you have this in BW, and every race in every RTS can do the same thing, but the difference is in the speed they can do this. In BW if Zerg wanted a lot of units, they had either quickly build a lot of hatcheries or cut them completely to get a smaller number out faster (1 hatch lurker anyone?). In Starcraft 2, you can't really tell what Zerg wants to do without an amazing sense of intuition or flat out guessing, because no matter what the do they are always going to have 2 bases and 2 queens. Is that roach warren for defense or is he going allin? Well, you have to wait for the units to actually finish building to find out.
[B]On October 24 2011 00:56 avilo wrote:[/B And 100% agree about the warhound just being a factory marauder...i don't understand what browder's fixation is on "countering the siege tank." Everything in the game already counters the siege tank, it's like he has a chip on his shoulder from designing cnc "tank games" and doesn't want the tank to be good lol.
On October 24 2011 01:33 jeeeeohn wrote: I agree on the sound design (Brood War was such a stylish game when it came to art direction/sound direction), but not on the units.
I've played Red Alert 2. I loved Red Alert 2. Starcraft 2 is not Red Alert 2. There's nothing wrong with unique units purposefully designed to fill specific rolls. I just don't understand your blog post: you want simplicity but then you bash the simplistic units (read: Marauder, Roach, Stalker). Yeah, they need to be tweaked, but that doesn't mean the entire game fails.
I see what you're saying. I didn't make a distinction between simplistic as in the marine and simplistic as in marauder/roach. Basically, while both units are functionally simplistic, the role the marine fulfills is simple while the role the marauder fulfills isn't.
The marine is a weak, high-dps unit meant to be used en masse as the main army. They build fast, kill fast, die fast. If you watch over them they'll work wonders, but if you leave them unattended they can easily get rolled by speedling/banes or psi-storm or colossi lasers.
The marauder, on the other hand, fulfills too many roles very well. They don't fulfill any specific niche, they're just a good unit to have a bunch of all the time. They can sometimes replace the tank, sometimes replace the marine. If you leave them alone for a few seconds they won't die to banelings or psi storm. They simply allow Terran to be as offensive and defensive as they want with less effort. That's why the marauder isn't considered a "simplistic" unit, because their role isn't simple at all.
Roaches are similar to the marauder. You can mass a ton of them easily and they're pretty good in almost all situations. Roaches are basically the zerg version of the marauder. The mere fact that they're required in so many matchups makes the game less exciting than it potentially can be.
These are, of course, just a rough argument. I think the current balance state of WoL is actually quite admirable and we have definitely seen many fantastic games. But I feel that the general direction Dustin Browder takes in designing Starcraft 2 and the future expansions is flawed.
I too played Red Alert 2. At higher levels the game basically boils down to grizzly/rocketeer/US Paratroop vs rhino/flak and whoever can micro their tanks the best. In the rare game that makes it to late game Allies will transition to mirage/rocketeer. All the 50+ other units have their specific roles, but the main two units fulfill their roles so well you don't actually need to build the other units. That's simplicity done wrong.
I agree with everything in your post. Very well written. What I don't agree with is the majority's opinion on the Replicant. I am not really a huge informative poster that can make proper arguments about units or strategy but I will say that the replicant imo has a lot of potential if balanced properly. Who knows, it could end up as the scout in sc2, isn't used that much but is still there. Not to mention that the ability is quite nice, as expected of the advanced Protoss race. I agree with everything else though. When WoL was released, it was way more different than I expected it to be. However, I have faith in Blizzard and I think Browder can do wayyyy better. That said, I miss the sounds from BW (Zealot nuff said etc) and other aesthetic stuff present in BW but not in Sc2. Good post bro.
e: yeeeeea...not how I wanted to use my 2k post sigh
On October 24 2011 01:33 jeeeeohn wrote: I too played Red Alert 2. At higher levels the game basically boils down to grizzly/rocketeer/US Paratroop vs rhino/flak and whoever can micro their tanks the best. In the rare game that makes it to late game Allies will transition to mirage/rocketeer. All the 50+ other units have their specific roles, but the main two units fulfill their roles so well you don't actually need to build the other units. That's simplicity done wrong.
Well said, I've been feeling the same way since i stopped watching and playing BW and looking at starcraft 2. Its just how Dustin works though, I think his vast experience in the RTS world, that he's had to work designing units for sooo many RTS games has caused him to become that way though. If only there was some way to make these grievances heard...
the points you put out have been mentioned several times and I myself still feel the game needs changes (some bigger, some smaller). Simplicity isn`t the answer for everything, but in this case I pretty much agree with everything you said. lets hope you will be heard by the right people.
You know what, THIS GUY SI RIGHT, the sounds wore the shit in broodwar, and the weakness should be even bigger so others can exploit, instead of being a game of skill and positioning, it is transforming in a game where you just use all units and a move.
I have to say I agree, especially on the units sound effects etc., part. This is why there was so much demand and excitement for Brood War unit voices and sound effects when that MPQ mod or whatever came out; it adds some of that brood war factor and actually makes SC2 much more fun and playable.
Im being optimistic and hoping it will work out. Some of this niche units look pretty "cool". dropping the carrier is uncool though. And I do agree with the other differences you mention that could be much better.
On October 24 2011 00:52 Harrow wrote: I think my least favorite of these new units is the Dark Archon. It just seems SO gimmicky. Mind Control? Maybe that would fit in some campy game like RA2, but it's so out of place in Starcraft. An AoE stun just makes me think the WoW designers suggested it as well.
Why can't they make more units like the Scout, which really fits the Protoss race and has really clear uses in pro games?
Such a good post, really shows how simple units are much better. The new units that have been revealed are really really gimmicky, hopefully Browder realizes this and gets his shit together. First with WoL and now with HotS, the game is feeling less and less like starcraft which really should have that chess-like feel.
On October 24 2011 01:01 deafhobbit wrote: Agreed.
Also, any sc2 fans are always welcome to come over to the dark side and try out BW. The new season should be starting in a few weeks, and if you want to give it a try you will find all sorts of advice on how to appreciate this great game in the BW forum. I promise we won't bite.
Real shameless BW promotion there. Can't say I disapprove though.
In the theme of shameless BW promotion, Sayle is casting a foreigner tournament right now. If anyone who doesn't have a background in BW wants to see why people who do are complaining about seemingly gimmicky units, check it out.
Nice job drawing the parallel between Dustin Browder's previous work and his design philosophy for StarCraft 2. I totally agree with you that he is taking it in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the return to simplicity that you are hoping for can't be the solution. The mechanics of SC2 dictate that there needs to be some form of APM eater in place of Brood Wars challenging macro to keep it exciting. Dustin Browder decided that his specialty, gimmicky units, would fill that void. It would have taken some deep brainstorming to come up with another solution, and who knows what that alternative would have looked like.
For better or worse, we're stuck with the easiest, and unfortunately for me, least appealing solution of giving as many units and buildings as many abilities as possible to eat up as much of people's APM as possible. Without a fundamental redesign this will be ridiculously hard to change, and we are on the path to seeing a lot more gimmicks in the future with the Protoss expansion as well. Simply put, Browder's design philosophy requires that you need a million things you need to do with your units(and HoTS pretty much doubles it) because you have nothing left to do at home. Nobody's talking about removing MBS or auto-mining anymore, and I don't think that I would want to revert it myself, but these were the fundamentals that made the simplicity of Brood War's fighting units work.
The problem with StarCraft 2, despite the fact that we're seeing all these "creative units"("ridiculous units" is more appropriate), is that Dustin Browder and his team are not creative at all. In fact, they are incredibly stale and stagnant in their thinking. Brood War's success lay in the fact that the game was played nothing like the designers intended. To hope to achieve the same in StarCraft 2 would be ridiculous and suicidal. Brood War was a great accident, like potato chips, but you can't look to it for solving SC2's problems. StarCraft 2 was going to need some genuinely creative thinking to make it great(on purpose), and the minute that the game was first revealed and we saw that both Terran and Zerg had a Dragoon we knew we were fucked.
On October 24 2011 00:30 EvilTeletubby wrote: Very well written sir, good way to articulate not just HotS issues, but basically SC2 issues altogether. SC2 is definitely flashier, but lacks what Brood War had in terms of substance.
On October 24 2011 00:42 AIRwar wrote: I don't get why everyone is so negative about this... Things are NOT finalized. If you'll remember in WoL beta, Roaches were pretty much free and only cost 1 food. But guess what, the design team weren't idiots, so they fixed it. That's the point of betas.
WOOSH, you don't get the point. It's not balance that's the issue, it's the gameplay and in which way the new units will push it.
On October 24 2011 05:16 Myrkskog wrote: Nice job drawing the parallel between Dustin Browder's previous work and his design philosophy for StarCraft 2. I totally agree with you that he is taking it in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the return to simplicity that you are hoping for can't be the solution. The mechanics of SC2 dictate that there needs to be some form of APM eater in place of Brood Wars challenging macro to keep it exciting. Dustin Browder decided that his specialty, gimmicky units, would fill that void. It would have taken some deep brainstorming to come up with another solution, and who knows what that alternative would have looked like.
For better or worse, we're stuck with the easiest, and unfortunately for me, least appealing solution of giving as many units and buildings as many abilities as possible to eat up as much of people's APM as possible. Without a fundamental redesign this will be ridiculously hard to change, and we are on the path to seeing a lot more gimmicks in the future with the Protoss expansion as well. Simply put, Browder's design philosophy requires that you need a million things you need to do with your units(and HoTS pretty much doubles it) because you have nothing left to do at home. Nobody's talking about removing MBS or auto-mining anymore, and I don't think that I would want to revert it myself, but these were the fundamentals that made the simplicity of Brood War's fighting units work.
The problem with StarCraft 2, despite the fact that we're seeing all these "creative units"("ridiculous units" is more appropriate), is that Dustin Browder and his team are not creative at all. In fact, they are incredibly stale and stagnant in their thinking. Brood War's success lay in the fact that the game was played nothing like the designers intended. To hope to achieve the same in StarCraft 2 would be ridiculous and suicidal. Brood War was a great accident, like potato chips, but you can't look to it for solving SC2's problems. StarCraft 2 was going to need some genuinely creative thinking to make it great(on purpose), and the minute that the game was first revealed and we saw that both Terran and Zerg had a Dragoon we knew we were fucked.
To be honest, I'd like to see a "competitive" ladder where MBS, infinite unit select, and smartcasting are all removed, and also every unit has its own micro they need (somewhat like broodwar). It sounds like a horrible step backwards but it's a shorter step backwards than where the new heart of the swarm design is going. If heart of the swarm's competition is as lopsided as woL's has been, I'll start going back to iCCup and playing sc2 casually on the side.
If Blizzard babysits the game as much as they did before, I predict sc2 will never become quite like what sc1 was. It will be a mediocre RTS with too much money put into it, balanced or not.
On October 24 2011 09:21 konadora wrote: YES totally agreed with the sound issue, been mentioning it ever since SC2 came out. everything sounds dull and undistinctive
Damn right.
When I play BW maps with SC2 people, that's one of the first things they notice - stuff sounds awesome.
On October 24 2011 01:33 jeeeeohn wrote: I agree on the sound design (Brood War was such a stylish game when it came to art direction/sound direction), but not on the units.
I've played Red Alert 2. I loved Red Alert 2. Starcraft 2 is not Red Alert 2. There's nothing wrong with unique units purposefully designed to fill specific rolls. I just don't understand your blog post: you want simplicity but then you bash the simplistic units (read: Marauder, Roach, Stalker). Yeah, they need to be tweaked, but that doesn't mean the entire game fails.
I see what you're saying. I didn't make a distinction between simplistic as in the marine and simplistic as in marauder/roach. Basically, while both units are functionally simplistic, the role the marine fulfills is simple while the role the marauder fulfills isn't.
The marine is a weak, high-dps unit meant to be used en masse as the main army. They build fast, kill fast, die fast. If you watch over them they'll work wonders, but if you leave them unattended they can easily get rolled by speedling/banes or psi-storm or colossi lasers.
The marauder, on the other hand, fulfills too many roles very well. They don't fulfill any specific niche, they're just a good unit to have a bunch of all the time. They can sometimes replace the tank, sometimes replace the marine. If you leave them alone for a few seconds they won't die to banelings or psi storm. They simply allow Terran to be as offensive and defensive as they want with less effort. That's why the marauder isn't considered a "simplistic" unit, because their role isn't simple at all.
Roaches are similar to the marauder. You can mass a ton of them easily and they're pretty good in almost all situations. Roaches are basically the zerg version of the marauder. The mere fact that they're required in so many matchups makes the game less exciting than it potentially can be.
These are, of course, just a rough argument. I think the current balance state of WoL is actually quite admirable and we have definitely seen many fantastic games. But I feel that the general direction Dustin Browder takes in designing Starcraft 2 and the future expansions is flawed.
I too played Red Alert 2. At higher levels the game basically boils down to grizzly/rocketeer/US Paratroop vs rhino/flak and whoever can micro their tanks the best. In the rare game that makes it to late game Allies will transition to mirage/rocketeer. All the 50+ other units have their specific roles, but the main two units fulfill their roles so well you don't actually need to build the other units. That's simplicity done wrong.
Ah, now I see what you're saying. Very well put, and I agree.
I disagree - whilst I liked BW alot, I feel that SC2 is a superior game. In SC2, I found that there was a great focus on army control (e.g. positioning, jockeying for a superior concave, etc), whilst BW was a test of multi-tasking mechanics. In SC2 players need to make split-second decisions that will easily affect the outcome of the game. I didn't like some of the gimmicky micro-intensive units in BW (e.g. reaver).
I prefer TvZ in SC2 - I consider MM overpowered in BW since medics are so powerful marines can just stim all day. In SC2, stimming is a major decision. I didn't like the muta-stacking in BW because I find it counter-intuitive how mutas can just smack turrets all day. I didn't like science vessels in TvZ because it essentially allowed allows terrans to trade energy for armies, and how it essentially hard counters mutas tremendously. Contrast with TvZ in SC2 where a single unit doesn't make something totally obsolete.
In BW, I don't like the air balance - valkyries/devourers were not good enough and scouts are the BM units. Valkyries/devourers should've been the masters of the skies (e.g. counter even carriers / BCs) since they only serve 1 purpose (air-to-air).
SC2 has done very nice micro - stutterstep, marine splits, army maneuvers to obtain a better concave.
However, I do agree with the OP in that I'm not sold on the direction of HoTS yet - where the move is towards gimmicky / flashy units.
agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
They seem to say a lot of strange things, one of the most annoying to me personally is their desire to have casual friendly units in the game then say that they want ESPORTS to grow.
Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time. Most of you were not nearly as into BW as you are into SC2. You don't know how it started, how it stagnated for a while, then came back when Boxer blew everyones mind. Players in GSL 1 already knew all the tricks Boxer had showed us, so the game developed way faster. Some people just don't realise the scope of any comment related to Brood War. Its an amazing game, but so is SC2.
When people speak about this bullshit abstract concept they are always sure to never say anything concrete like: Roaches -> 50 hp, 1 supply, 10 damage, Double Fire rate They just say: "I dont like roaches"
and im all liek "k?"
Try switching races if your getting bored of SC2, may I suggest Terran? It's still all about positioning! HOTS will make this even more true: Z/P get casters and Terran gets mech and positional units (shredder).
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
The marauder, on the other hand, fulfills too many roles very well. They don't fulfill any specific niche, they're just a good unit to have a bunch of all the time
The marauder is only made vs Protoss, actually. If you take the marauder away you should probably buff mech cause you can only win without marauders (and with expansions) on Shakuras Plateau and maybe Xel Naga Caverns if you are really good at the game. Sure you can go bio tvt, but it's actually pretty damn impressive.
On October 24 2011 14:10 Azzur wrote: I disagree - whilst I liked BW alot, I feel that SC2 is a superior game. In SC2, I found that there was a great focus on army control (e.g. positioning, jockeying for a superior concave, etc), whilst BW was a test of multi-tasking mechanics. In SC2 players need to make split-second decisions that will easily affect the outcome of the game. I didn't like some of the gimmicky micro-intensive units in BW (e.g. reaver).
I prefer TvZ in SC2 - I consider MM overpowered in BW since medics are so powerful marines can just stim all day. In SC2, stimming is a major decision. I didn't like the muta-stacking in BW because I find it counter-intuitive how mutas can just smack turrets all day. I didn't like science vessels in TvZ because it essentially allowed allows terrans to trade energy for armies, and how it essentially hard counters mutas tremendously. Contrast with TvZ in SC2 where a single unit doesn't make something totally obsolete.
In BW, I don't like the air balance - valkyries/devourers were not good enough and scouts are the BM units. Valkyries/devourers should've been the masters of the skies (e.g. counter even carriers / BCs) since they only serve 1 purpose (air-to-air).
SC2 has done very nice micro - stutterstep, marine splits, army maneuvers to obtain a better concave.
However, I do agree with the OP in that I'm not sold on the direction of HoTS yet - where the move is towards gimmicky / flashy units.
On October 24 2011 14:10 Azzur wrote: I disagree - whilst I liked BW alot, I feel that SC2 is a superior game. In SC2, I found that there was a great focus on army control (e.g. positioning, jockeying for a superior concave, etc), whilst BW was a test of multi-tasking mechanics. In SC2 players need to make split-second decisions that will easily affect the outcome of the game. I didn't like some of the gimmicky micro-intensive units in BW (e.g. reaver).
I prefer TvZ in SC2 - I consider MM overpowered in BW since medics are so powerful marines can just stim all day. In SC2, stimming is a major decision. I didn't like the muta-stacking in BW because I find it counter-intuitive how mutas can just smack turrets all day. I didn't like science vessels in TvZ because it essentially allowed allows terrans to trade energy for armies, and how it essentially hard counters mutas tremendously. Contrast with TvZ in SC2 where a single unit doesn't make something totally obsolete.
In BW, I don't like the air balance - valkyries/devourers were not good enough and scouts are the BM units. Valkyries/devourers should've been the masters of the skies (e.g. counter even carriers / BCs) since they only serve 1 purpose (air-to-air).
SC2 has done very nice micro - stutterstep, marine splits, army maneuvers to obtain a better concave.
However, I do agree with the OP in that I'm not sold on the direction of HoTS yet - where the move is towards gimmicky / flashy units.
Not sure if trolling
Your comment is actually fucking trolling though..... This genre of post should garner more of a frown then it does.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
On October 24 2011 14:10 Azzur wrote: I disagree - whilst I liked BW alot, I feel that SC2 is a superior game. In SC2, I found that there was a great focus on army control (e.g. positioning, jockeying for a superior concave, etc), whilst BW was a test of multi-tasking mechanics. In SC2 players need to make split-second decisions that will easily affect the outcome of the game. I didn't like some of the gimmicky micro-intensive units in BW (e.g. reaver).
I prefer TvZ in SC2 - I consider MM overpowered in BW since medics are so powerful marines can just stim all day. In SC2, stimming is a major decision. I didn't like the muta-stacking in BW because I find it counter-intuitive how mutas can just smack turrets all day. I didn't like science vessels in TvZ because it essentially allowed allows terrans to trade energy for armies, and how it essentially hard counters mutas tremendously. Contrast with TvZ in SC2 where a single unit doesn't make something totally obsolete.
In BW, I don't like the air balance - valkyries/devourers were not good enough and scouts are the BM units. Valkyries/devourers should've been the masters of the skies (e.g. counter even carriers / BCs) since they only serve 1 purpose (air-to-air).
SC2 has done very nice micro - stutterstep, marine splits, army maneuvers to obtain a better concave.
However, I do agree with the OP in that I'm not sold on the direction of HoTS yet - where the move is towards gimmicky / flashy units.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
Maybe it's because I haven't played SC1 that much, but I personally love SC2 WOL and loved the new units in HotS (went to blizzcon).
I also have to wonder if some of this isn't similar to watching a new unique move. The first time you see it, you think holy crap this is the best movie ever, but when you go to watch part 2 or part 3 the "new" has worn off and every movie after that isn't as good as the first. No matter how much money they dump into it. How much thought or production they put into, it's never quite like the first movie.
I think your true SC purists, will never be happy with another game like SC, because in their mind it will never live up to the original.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
Ad Hominem has never been a valid form of debate. It does not negate my post, which was little more than a rehash of the OP and countless other arguments that have been made against SC2 since the beta. This is how we feel.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
Ad Hominem has never been a valid form of debate. It does not negate my post, which was little more than a rehash of the OP and countless other arguments that have been made against SC2 since the beta. This is how we feel.
I find it hilarious when Techno posts to "give it time" whilst myopia says that "The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies".
Anyways, I do agree with myopia with this one - SC2 has been out for more than a year already and concrete judgements can/should be made about the game. Although I don't agree with many of the "BW supporters who dislike SC2" people here. This is not to say that I like everything in SC2 over BW, but on the whole, I consider SC2 a superior game.
As mentioned earlier, I do have concerns about the HoTS direction, but will need to actually play/see the game to make concrete judgements.
Too many gimmicky units in WoL and looks to be added in HotS as well, but because they have their niches they make balancing the rest of the game that much harder. Simple, simple units would have been much better in many respects. (Although would not have made for a very interesting BlizzCon)
I hope HotS turns out to be dynamic, balanced and fun, but there are some features I just don't know how they will balance, tunneling Banelings and Ultras are going to be hard to deal with (just a thought, Overlord drop Banelings in an unsighted corner of his main/nat/3rd, tunnel those into the middle of opponent mineral line (be it Z/P/T, doesn't matter) and go BOOM), Replicant is going to be weird to balance, considering the synergies between T/Z units with P, and that it can't cost too much or it will never be used.
I think I will play HotS for the single player, until solid and stable styles and strategies are developed by Koreans.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
How is time going to fix the fundamental problems within SC2? Small balance tweaks won't fix the underlying issues (smartcasting, bad unit design, lack of positional play and the "power vs mobility" balance, etc)
Unless blizz COMPLETELY overhauls everything in LotV, I don't see sc2 matching up.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
Ad Hominem has never been a valid form of debate. It does not negate my post, which was little more than a rehash of the OP and countless other arguments that have been made against SC2 since the beta. This is how we feel.
I find it hilarious when Techno posts to "give it time" whilst myopia says that "The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies".
Anyways, I do agree with myopia with this one - SC2 has been out for more than a year already and concrete judgements can/should be made about the game. Although I don't agree with many of the "BW supporters who dislike SC2" people here. This is not to say that I like everything in SC2 over BW, but on the whole, I consider SC2 a superior game.
As mentioned earlier, I do have concerns about the HoTS direction, but will need to actually play/see the game to make concrete judgements.
Can I ask you a question? How much of BW have you watched and played to conclude that SC2 is the superior game. Just curious.
OP could be onto something, maybe, but I don't completely get this post.
you go from "What is a Warhound but a marauder that can be made in a factory? Why does Terran need another meaty unit that can deal high damage to armored units? Why do the Protoss need another muta counter if the Phoenix was originally designed to BE the muta counter?"
to "Basically, it would be much better if Browder focused less on trying to "shore up" the weaknesses of the races with fancy gimmicky units. Instead, he should design units that are more conventional but ballsier and play to the races' strengths""
how are you proving here that he's just shoring up the weaknesses with gimmicky units by using basically the example of a mech marauder and this new aoe aa tempest. both units do nothing but attack and they have a fairly simple purpose and at it seems like they both have simple weaknesses too. the tempest bad against strong air units in small numbers and bad against ground I suppose. the mech marauder weak against non armored units that it won't deal as much damage to, just like marauders are weak against marines and lings. not only are these like the simplest units from hots, they overlap with existing units from the same race, so they're not good examples of shoring up specific weaknesses of races.
then you argue that it's a design flaw to not know how the units will perform and how they change the gameplay? first of all, you already said it's a flaw to make units with niche roles, doesn't that conflict with this? niche and vague? then you use the example of oracle, when that's a really simple scout around harass eco unit imo. the shredder is much more ambiguous imo, or the swarm host I think is way more ambiguous in it's purpose. is that type of siege going to be effective or even needed when melee gets buffed anyway? is it going to be more used in defense against drops or something like that? or eco harass? I think that's much more questionable than "is oracle going to be the economic harasser and scouting unit that it's designed to be". what else is that unit going to do? maybe be effective in normal attacks by disabling cannons? possibly, but that's only 1 out of 3 spells and even this spell fits this eco harass/scouting purpose. I guess it's debatable. I didn't like the use of oracle as an example.
I don't see how DTs, devourers, lurkers, medics, dark archons, valkyries or corsairs are somehow significantly less gimmicky or niche than battle hellions, warhounds, swarm hosts, vipers, oracles, replicants and tempests... have you really put thought into this? devourers, dark archons, valkyries, DTs... situational gimmicky and niche is what I see. sure, valkyrie isn't gimmicky, but it is niche and situational.
I don't see how you get super excited about the "tons of uses" for corsairs and not get super excited about the tons of uses for vipers... and how is mind control units a good example of bad things that Browder did to Red Alert, when dark archon is a mind control unit that was introduced in BW?
and I didn't like the chess comparison either. you are talking about how he's mudding up the racial differences and making gimmicky units. I wanna point out that given the restrictions of the chess game board, the units are pretty much as gimmicky as they can get, and there's 2 races with the exact same units. btw I've seen people fumble with their knights pretty often, so it's not like they're all that simple. not experienced players of course.
overall I think the units feel good. I think swarm hosts are better for a swarm race than lurkers would, I think viper is exactly what is needed. I think battle hellions and warhounds fit mech even though battle hellions really changed the style of mech with the transformer thing, because I was used to thinking of terrans as sort of the steam punk of scifi, but I think mech is from flavor perspective something that should be further emphasized in terran design and this more modern design sells to the younger generation of players so I won't complain too much. for protoss it's a little more complicated, but the flying high tech ball moving around harassing economy first protoss perfectly, replicants and tempests are a little controversial, but they're not totally off. the flavor was taken into consideration
even though this reply seems quite negative I think you might have a point somewhere in there about embracing racial weaknesses more, but now I'm just saying that whatever you're saying, I don't think it's well said, except for the creatively inside the box thing. I'm gonna steal that and use it myself somewhere someday.
I think the point you could be making about emphasizing racial playstyle differences would also benefit more from analyzing the new units of WoL. I think in WoL there might have been a lot of big mistakes in both playstyle and flavor design decisions, and those 2 things are absolutely completely different issues and should not be mixed the way you did here regarding HotS.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
Ad Hominem has never been a valid form of debate. It does not negate my post, which was little more than a rehash of the OP and countless other arguments that have been made against SC2 since the beta. This is how we feel.
I find it hilarious when Techno posts to "give it time" whilst myopia says that "The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies".
Anyways, I do agree with myopia with this one - SC2 has been out for more than a year already and concrete judgements can/should be made about the game. Although I don't agree with many of the "BW supporters who dislike SC2" people here. This is not to say that I like everything in SC2 over BW, but on the whole, I consider SC2 a superior game.
As mentioned earlier, I do have concerns about the HoTS direction, but will need to actually play/see the game to make concrete judgements.
Can I ask you a question? How much of BW have you watched and played to conclude that SC2 is the superior game. Just curious.
I watched BW near the start of the Boxer dropship-era (pre-1.08) till when FEs became the norm. During this time, I was recording vods using a 56k (!) modem (at around 5k/sec). Before TL even existed, I followed BW from www.broodwar.com (wow, that was a amazing website for it's time). I continued to watch now and then but it was a bit too hard. Thus, I missed the Nada, iloveoov and Savior era.
I returned around 2008 just before Flash because super-dominant. What I found interesting was that strategy advances was still made despite the game was 10 years old at that time. I watched alot of BW (thanks to jon747) until SC2 came out. Still, I was a BW elitist until I started playing and watching SC2. Slowly, I began to see many of the fine points of SC2 and now prefer it. Now, I only watch OSL and MSL finals for BW, but almost all GSL matches.
in BW zerg ground units are ALL faster than protoss ones, which are ALL faster than terran ones(spellcasters and vults aside), creating an asymettric dynamic. in SC2 all races have roughly equal speed, creep aside
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
I swear, the Rapture is coming! Just give it time! If it hasn't happened yet, you haven't waited long enough! Behold my completely unfalsifiable argument!
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
Ad Hominem has never been a valid form of debate. It does not negate my post, which was little more than a rehash of the OP and countless other arguments that have been made against SC2 since the beta. This is how we feel.
I find it hilarious when Techno posts to "give it time" whilst myopia says that "The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies".
Anyways, I do agree with myopia with this one - SC2 has been out for more than a year already and concrete judgements can/should be made about the game. Although I don't agree with many of the "BW supporters who dislike SC2" people here. This is not to say that I like everything in SC2 over BW, but on the whole, I consider SC2 a superior game.
As mentioned earlier, I do have concerns about the HoTS direction, but will need to actually play/see the game to make concrete judgements.
Can I ask you a question? How much of BW have you watched and played to conclude that SC2 is the superior game. Just curious.
I watched BW near the start of the Boxer dropship-era (pre-1.08) till when FEs became the norm. During this time, I was recording vods using a 56k (!) modem (at around 5k/sec). Before TL even existed, I followed BW from www.broodwar.com (wow, that was a amazing website for it's time). I continued to watch now and then but it was a bit too hard. Thus, I missed the Nada, iloveoov and Savior era.
I returned around 2008 just before Flash because super-dominant. What I found interesting was that strategy advances was still made despite the game was 10 years old at that time. I watched alot of BW (thanks to jon747) until SC2 came out. Still, I was a BW elitist until I started playing and watching SC2. Slowly, I began to see many of the fine points of SC2 and now prefer it. Now, I only watch OSL and MSL finals for BW, but almost all GSL matches.
You're the first person on the forums I've seen who prefers sc2 over bw after watching both games xD. Nothing wrong of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinions. I watch plenty of SC2 as well and I find TvZ to be the most entertaining matchup (mirrors excluded). The other matchups involving Protoss are just boring to me IMO mainly because of the colossus, which I hope blizzard can fix someday.
OP could be onto something, maybe, but I don't completely get this post.
you go from "What is a Warhound but a marauder that can be made in a factory? Why does Terran need another meaty unit that can deal high damage to armored units? Why do the Protoss need another muta counter if the Phoenix was originally designed to BE the muta counter?"
to "Basically, it would be much better if Browder focused less on trying to "shore up" the weaknesses of the races with fancy gimmicky units. Instead, he should design units that are more conventional but ballsier and play to the races' strengths""
how are you proving here that he's just shoring up the weaknesses with gimmicky units by using basically the example of a mech marauder and this new aoe aa tempest. both units do nothing but attack and they have a fairly simple purpose and at it seems like they both have simple weaknesses too. the tempest bad against strong air units in small numbers and bad against ground I suppose. the mech marauder weak against non armored units that it won't deal as much damage to, just like marauders are weak against marines and lings. not only are these like the simplest units from hots, they overlap with existing units from the same race, so they're not good examples of shoring up specific weaknesses of races.
then you argue that it's a design flaw to not know how the units will perform and how they change the gameplay? first of all, you already said it's a flaw to make units with niche roles, doesn't that conflict with this? niche and vague? then you use the example of oracle, when that's a really simple scout around harass eco unit imo. the shredder is much more ambiguous imo, or the swarm host I think is way more ambiguous in it's purpose. is that type of siege going to be effective or even needed when melee gets buffed anyway? is it going to be more used in defense against drops or something like that? or eco harass? I think that's much more questionable than "is oracle going to be the economic harasser and scouting unit that it's designed to be". what else is that unit going to do? maybe be effective in normal attacks by disabling cannons? possibly, but that's only 1 out of 3 spells and even this spell fits this eco harass/scouting purpose. I guess it's debatable. I didn't like the use of oracle as an example.
I don't see how DTs, devourers, lurkers, medics, dark archons, valkyries or corsairs are somehow significantly less gimmicky or niche than battle hellions, warhounds, swarm hosts, vipers, oracles, replicants and tempests... have you really put thought into this? devourers, dark archons, valkyries, DTs... situational gimmicky and niche is what I see. sure, valkyrie isn't gimmicky, but it is niche and situational.
I don't see how you get super excited about the "tons of uses" for corsairs and not get super excited about the tons of uses for vipers... and how is mind control units a good example of bad things that Browder did to Red Alert, when dark archon is a mind control unit that was introduced in BW?
and I didn't like the chess comparison either. you are talking about how he's mudding up the racial differences and making gimmicky units. I wanna point out that given the restrictions of the chess game board, the units are pretty much as gimmicky as they can get, and there's 2 races with the exact same units. btw I've seen people fumble with their knights pretty often, so it's not like they're all that simple. not experienced players of course.
overall I think the units feel good. I think swarm hosts are better for a swarm race than lurkers would, I think viper is exactly what is needed. I think battle hellions and warhounds fit mech even though battle hellions really changed the style of mech with the transformer thing, because I was used to thinking of terrans as sort of the steam punk of scifi, but I think mech is from flavor perspective something that should be further emphasized in terran design and this more modern design sells to the younger generation of players so I won't complain too much. for protoss it's a little more complicated, but the flying high tech ball moving around harassing economy first protoss perfectly, replicants and tempests are a little controversial, but they're not totally off. the flavor was taken into consideration
even though this reply seems quite negative I think you might have a point somewhere in there about embracing racial weaknesses more, but now I'm just saying that whatever you're saying, I don't think it's well said, except for the creatively inside the box thing. I'm gonna steal that and use it myself somewhere someday.
I think the point you could be making about emphasizing racial playstyle differences would also benefit more from analyzing the new units of WoL. I think in WoL there might have been a lot of big mistakes in both playstyle and flavor design decisions, and those 2 things are absolutely completely different issues and should not be mixed the way you did here regarding HotS.
I don't see how you can complain about the incoherence of my post when you ramble on like this without a central argument. I will try to address the points that I think you're making.
1) Why is the tempest a more gimmicky unit than the corsair?
Let's take a look a the roles of the tempest and the roles of the corsair. In Brood War, corsairs provided the Protoss with a cheap, fast air unit that can counter mutas in groups of 6 or more. They are also far better at countering scourge than carriers, arbiters, and scouts, making the sair/reaver build viable. Their disruption web spell is easy to understand; even a complete newbie to the game can see the potential applications for this spell, even if the execution may be a bit more difficult to master.
In contrast, the tempest is a unit that's supposed to counter mass light air units. Which is... exactly the same thing the Phoenix is supposed to do. Its a redundant and unnecessary overlap in roles. Is this the failure of the phoenix as a unit, or the failure of the tempest? I can argue that the corsair is better than both the phoenix AND the tempest because of the inherent simplicity of the unit. It's powerful because unlike phoenixes you can simply attack-move with a group of corsairs to counter the units it's designed to counter, yet unlike the tempest it fulfills a unique role in the Protoss army that isn't already filled by another unit.
2) Why are warhound/marauder flawed in design when they're not "gimmicky" and are functionally simplistic?
Again, because these units overlap with so many other units. Maybe you should read my reply to jeeeeeohn, where I compare the Marauder to the Marine:
"Basically, while both units are functionally simplistic, the role the marine fulfills is simple while the role the marauder fulfills isn't.
The marine is a weak, high-dps unit meant to be used en masse as the main army. They build fast, kill fast, die fast. If you watch over them they'll work wonders, but if you leave them unattended they can easily get rolled by speedling/banes or psi-storm or colossi lasers.
The marauder, on the other hand, fulfills too many roles very well. They don't fulfill any specific niche, they're just a good unit to have a bunch of all the time. They can sometimes replace the tank, sometimes replace the marine. If you leave them alone for a few seconds they won't die to banelings or psi storm. They simply allow Terran to be as offensive and defensive as they want with less effort. That's why the marauder isn't considered a "simplistic" unit, because their role isn't simple at all."
Warhounds and Marauders basically provide Terrans with an "attack move death ball" solution to a wide variety of problems, putting them on par in terms of mobility and play style with Protoss and Zerg. What use is having three diverse races if all of them are capable of creating the same ball-shaped, attack-move army? This philosophy of game design is completely against what Starcraft stands for.
3) Well, what about the Viper? Isn't that a good unit?
Yes, but for most people it's because the Viper's spell is functionally similar to the Brood War defiler's dark swarm ability. Browder doesn't get full credit for how brilliant this unit is.
4) Aren't Chess units all extremely gimmicky? Your chess analogy is invalid.
I don't think you understand what the word "gimmick" means. Or game design principles very well. If you're interested in game design philosophies and balance, here are some helpful resources:
Basically my point is that certain game design principle work better for some games than others. Dustin Browder's approach to designing Starcraft 2 is far better reserved for games like the Command & Conquer series, not the Starcraft series.
Although I liked the OP's passion I do not necessarily agree with his opinion. I am somewhat excited for the new units even though I think they are gimmicky. I feel that at this point the foundations of each race is already set with the units we got in WoL. Now in order to give us more units in an expansion, they are just putting in filler. Basically what I am saying is that there is no need for any type of units other than gimmicky ones as the game stands. Lastly, I have no problem with roaches or marauders like others in this thread. I feel they fit both of their races nicely and are fun to play with. I will add that I never played BW so I am coming into SC2 without any biases.
no, I have no experience in game design professionally, I do not follow game design forums and I don't know the lingo. however, I have common sense. the word "gimmicky", the word "gimmick" has something to do with tricks. so if I were to for example replace the corruptor with viper in the purpose of countering collossus, it would be gimmicky replacement. because the pulling effect is a cute effect that requires you to use an ability, when we already had corruptors as normal shooting air units doing the job.
... but if warhound overlaps with marauder, that alone doesn't make warhound gimmicky, it makes it overlapping. there is nothing clever about warhound. there is no new tricky mechanic. that's why I don't understand why you use the word "gimmicky" in this context. there is no gimmick.
I didn't ask you why marauders were gimmicky.
the same applies to the tempest pretty much, but I don't like how it overlaps with both phoenix and storm. it looks to me like they're desperate to replace carrier and mothership more than they were looking for AA solutions.
if you're so good with the lingo you should be able to give a short and simple definition for "gimmicky" instead of linking me to different sites saying telling me to find out myself. I do admit that I could go wrong with calling the chess units as gimmicky as they can get, because there could be design one could imagine that would just outright blow me away and it would be my mistake to think there isn't anything to explore there, BUT there's still only 2 races with exactly the same units so even if I was wrong about the gimmicky part, it's a bad analogy.
edit: also, there's nothing final about the build they showed for hots, so basically all the overlapping stuff is sort of irrelevant in the first place. they hype the product, we can't say for sure what they want to do with the units. what this does do however is show blizzard whether we like their new stuff or not and that would encourage or discourage them to proceed with the units they introduced
There's no question the sound design is horrible, it's almost like they had 15 different designers make the sounds? I dont know... but certain things sound amazing as the OP said, I also love the sound of the protoss buildings being canceled, most of the other stuff is shit. Terrans are also too mobile because of the tank nerf and bio being incredibly strong
The game is just different, Browder ruined Starcraft, and turned it into a hard counter based RTS Starcraft2 is just another decent/good game, but in the end it falls short to being great like BW.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
Ad Hominem has never been a valid form of debate. It does not negate my post, which was little more than a rehash of the OP and countless other arguments that have been made against SC2 since the beta. This is how we feel.
I find it hilarious when Techno posts to "give it time" whilst myopia says that "The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies".
Anyways, I do agree with myopia with this one - SC2 has been out for more than a year already and concrete judgements can/should be made about the game. Although I don't agree with many of the "BW supporters who dislike SC2" people here. This is not to say that I like everything in SC2 over BW, but on the whole, I consider SC2 a superior game.
As mentioned earlier, I do have concerns about the HoTS direction, but will need to actually play/see the game to make concrete judgements.
Can I ask you a question? How much of BW have you watched and played to conclude that SC2 is the superior game. Just curious.
I watched BW near the start of the Boxer dropship-era (pre-1.08) till when FEs became the norm. During this time, I was recording vods using a 56k (!) modem (at around 5k/sec). Before TL even existed, I followed BW from www.broodwar.com (wow, that was a amazing website for it's time). I continued to watch now and then but it was a bit too hard. Thus, I missed the Nada, iloveoov and Savior era.
I returned around 2008 just before Flash because super-dominant. What I found interesting was that strategy advances was still made despite the game was 10 years old at that time. I watched alot of BW (thanks to jon747) until SC2 came out. Still, I was a BW elitist until I started playing and watching SC2. Slowly, I began to see many of the fine points of SC2 and now prefer it. Now, I only watch OSL and MSL finals for BW, but almost all GSL matches.
You're the first person on the forums I've seen who prefers sc2 over bw after watching both games xD. Nothing wrong of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinions. I watch plenty of SC2 as well and I find TvZ to be the most entertaining matchup (mirrors excluded). The other matchups involving Protoss are just boring to me IMO mainly because of the colossus, which I hope blizzard can fix someday.
He's the second person for me, and the first person to say that he's extensively watched BW. I think it's just surprising for a lot of BW elitists to see people like that because even though we might watch SC2, we don't engage actively with a lot of people who play it.
My opinion echos the OP's opinion. The way I put it though is, BW units were weak with 1 extremely strong point. So, in order to have a viable army, you needed a real "unit composition" which is essentially lost in SC2. A terran army in SC2 composes of medivac, marines, and tanks. Marine's only weakness is it's health. It has amazing movement, and CRAZY CRAZY dps. So the medivac coveres for the health, while tank covers for the large baneling counts/infestors which is the only thing that can overcome the medivac's healing. On the other hand, BW TvZ army needed marine, medic, tanks, vessel, and most likely a dropship. In rare cases even firebats were sprinkled in for dark swarm, or a bit of a tankier unit. Same for zerg. In sc2, all i see, all game long is ling/baneling/mutas for 90% of the game. On RARE occasions i'll see a couple other units. In BW you saw lings, in to mutas, in to lurker/lings, in to defiler/luker/ling, in to defiler/lurker/ultras. There were things like "transitioning". In BW, because there were these extreme weaknesses to your own units, as well as certain opponent units having such strong strong points, the existance of one or two units changed the pace completely. There was this "pushing and pulling" that went on. Zerg would be the one pushing early game TvZ, but when marines and medics show up, terrans had a window of pushing oppurtunity, but when mutas show up with their micro, terran has to back up, and zerg has map control. Once a vessel shows up, cause of irradiate mutas become useless, giving terran safety to add tanks. Zerg's only way to slow this down was to use lurkers to make terran seige/unseige. It was a race against the clock for the zerg to get out defilers, and for terrans to do dmg before defilers came out. Once the defilers came out, it was a completely different game where terran had to back up and tried to use drops and such to be where the defilers coudln't be, etc etc etc. I look at SC2 now, and i feel like it's a monotone game. Yes it does have it's own "elegance" but i can compare it to.. it's a beautiful music played only with one instrument, while broodwar was more of an orchestra, where you change in to differnet harmonies with multiple instruments. Broodwar was amazing because every race was SO OP and SO BROKEN at the same time. Just look at irradiate, dark swarm, storm, emp, recall, plague. ANY one of those skills are completely OP. At the same time, imgaine a broodwar army only composing of marines, dragoons, hydras. They are completely trash. But imagine a SC2 army of only rines, we actually see this army comp time to time. Or blink stalkers? or pure roches? They are "counterable" but they aren't complete trash. Make the strong points of each race stronger, and the weak points weaker, I couldn't agree with the OP more on this. I wrote this whole thing using a TvZ as an example cause i'm a toss player, and i don't think i coudl've been objective using toss as an example, but i feel that the PvX match up isn't too different.
While I don't disagree with your overall point, the Phoenix isn't designed to be an answer to mass air units. It used to be designed that way (http://us.starcraft2.com/features/protoss/phoenix.xml) but the design is clearly gone since there's nothing in the Phoenix arsenal that could ever handle more than 6 - 8 of anything. The Tempest is a bad design because it's another expensive, overly niche unit that only answers a situation that Protoss already had an answer to from Templar tech. It doesn't really provide a solution for the inability to transition in to Stargate tech except when you already have a huge lead or when your opponent just doesn't scout well.
Similarly, I think the Marine is actually more of a bad design right now than the Marauder. The Marauder's DPS against non-armored is pretty decent, but the cost and build speed are also a lot higher than a Marine. In terms of what you can realistically build, the Marauder becomes an answer in the TvP matchup, TvT vs. Mech and TvZ vs. Roach builds. You don't really want to always build the Marauder, which is ok in my opinion. Granted, I think the unit still needs to be removed altogether because bio doesn't need and shouldn't have an anti-armored unit like that. The Marine, however, is incredibly cost-efficient, pretty tough for its cost, highly upgradable, and almost as strong as its own support units. Honestly, the only reason you can't just build marines & medivacs to win is their weakness to AoE.
Wait & See is a bad philosophy. We need to actually be vocal and discuss this stuff so Blizzard can make the changes we want. If we wait 'till beta to say anything then it turns in to why the Marauder/Roach/Stalker units ended up staying in the game.
On October 24 2011 00:53 caradoc wrote: Maybe I was naive to hope that they would remove the collosus, the roach, the goddamned marauder. Replacing them with thoughtful, race appropriate, awesome alternatives that deeply interacted with other tactical resources the races had. But I did hope, and I am so disappointed.
Was the perfection of deep unit interaction and synergy that was Brood War simply a blip in history?
I suppose we do tend to think of the fully formed old and compare it with the absent metagame of the yet to be released new and lament at its emptiness. But there was obvious synergy in BW even before release. I see no synergy or racial cohesion or even a perfunctory attempt at any type of grand overarching racial design in these new units. (aside from maybe something like 'zerg are swarmy, lets give them more swarmy stuff', 'terran are mechy, lets give them more mechy stuff', protoss are strange and annoying, lets give them more strange and annoying stuff)
Took the words out of my mouth / said it better than I even could. The new units seem incredibly superficial and this shows when watching the presentation. Browder when unveiling the Tempest said it was to counter mass-muta. Why add a new capital ship unit to counter that? I mean if it is such an issue there has to be a more simple fix. And why even a straight unit counter that just seems like the wrong way to approach it entirely. IMO each unit should be able to fulfill different roles depending on the strategy and match-up. The thing is the Tempest may well do that but the fact that the design team don't even know how it will work out is kind of concerning its almost like they are thinking lets just add a bunch of ideas and see what sticks in the beta.
I wasn't able to watch Blizzcon this weekend. So I was really looking forward to seeing the unit unveiling I even watched the GSL finals (which were great and really touching, the foreign fans have come so far!) first to build up the anticipation. After the earlier comments by Browder and co I was expecting them to rework the collosus, roach, marauder, remove mothership and even broodlords, and bring back effective Protoss harassment, and Zerg siege. In other words I was expecting the Reaver, Lurker and maybe Spider Mines equivalents, plus some new spells/abilities and a lot of the boring/useless stuff to go. Plus hopefully bolster the micro options for each race.
Needless to say I'm a bit underwhelmed by the changes they seem to have added pseudo BW units minus the interesting interactions they had in BW. For example how can Terran micro Shredders the way they could micro Vulture. The Swarm Host doesn't seem to offer any of the interesting strategy that the Lurker did. And the Oracle is no where near as effective at harassment as Reaver drops since it doesn't even have an attack it just blocks minerals for a few seconds.
Instead, he should design units that are more conventional but ballsier and play to the races' strengths. Make the weaknesses of each race even MORE vulnerable, but make the strengths unmatchable.
For whatever it is worth I love that line and I think it is incredible true. Each race should be "imba" in its own way. What I mean is and the OP said it well why can't the Siege Tank be super strong making Terran siege lines extremely hard to break but at the same time extremely slow and vulnerable when unseiged. The point is forget about making each race complete with a swiss army knife of units for every situation but balance the game with buffs, make each race both incredibly strong and incredibly fragile. Strive for complex simplicity rather than just complexity. Look at the board game Go it has only one unit (black or white stone depending on the player) however the interactions between stones are incredibly complex. So much so no-one is yet to make an effective Go AI. The point is its not unit complexity or diversity that matters but unit interaction complexity, i.e. unit should have complex relationships with other units rather than just simple counters.
On October 24 2011 21:14 Mirror0423 wrote: My opinion echos the OP's opinion. The way I put it though is, BW units were weak with 1 extremely strong point. So, in order to have a viable army, you needed a real "unit composition" which is essentially lost in SC2. A terran army in SC2 composes of medivac, marines, and tanks. Marine's only weakness is it's health. It has amazing movement, and CRAZY CRAZY dps. So the medivac coveres for the health, while tank covers for the large baneling counts/infestors which is the only thing that can overcome the medivac's healing. On the other hand, BW TvZ army needed marine, medic, tanks, vessel, and most likely a dropship. In rare cases even firebats were sprinkled in for dark swarm, or a bit of a tankier unit. Same for zerg. In sc2, all i see, all game long is ling/baneling/mutas for 90% of the game. On RARE occasions i'll see a couple other units. In BW you saw lings, in to mutas, in to lurker/lings, in to defiler/luker/ling, in to defiler/lurker/ultras. There were things like "transitioning". In BW, because there were these extreme weaknesses to your own units, as well as certain opponent units having such strong strong points, the existance of one or two units changed the pace completely. There was this "pushing and pulling" that went on. Zerg would be the one pushing early game TvZ, but when marines and medics show up, terrans had a window of pushing oppurtunity, but when mutas show up with their micro, terran has to back up, and zerg has map control. Once a vessel shows up, cause of irradiate mutas become useless, giving terran safety to add tanks. Zerg's only way to slow this down was to use lurkers to make terran seige/unseige. It was a race against the clock for the zerg to get out defilers, and for terrans to do dmg before defilers came out. Once the defilers came out, it was a completely different game where terran had to back up and tried to use drops and such to be where the defilers coudln't be, etc etc etc. I look at SC2 now, and i feel like it's a monotone game. Yes it does have it's own "elegance" but i can compare it to.. it's a beautiful music played only with one instrument, while broodwar was more of an orchestra, where you change in to differnet harmonies with multiple instruments. Broodwar was amazing because every race was SO OP and SO BROKEN at the same time. Just look at irradiate, dark swarm, storm, emp, recall, plague. ANY one of those skills are completely OP. At the same time, imgaine a broodwar army only composing of marines, dragoons, hydras. They are completely trash. But imagine a SC2 army of only rines, we actually see this army comp time to time. Or blink stalkers? or pure roches? They are "counterable" but they aren't complete trash. Make the strong points of each race stronger, and the weak points weaker, I couldn't agree with the OP more on this. I wrote this whole thing using a TvZ as an example cause i'm a toss player, and i don't think i coudl've been objective using toss as an example, but i feel that the PvX match up isn't too different.
I couldn't agree more sir, make what's strong stronger, what's weak weaker.
On October 24 2011 05:16 Myrkskog wrote: Nice job drawing the parallel between Dustin Browder's previous work and his design philosophy for StarCraft 2. I totally agree with you that he is taking it in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the return to simplicity that you are hoping for can't be the solution. The mechanics of SC2 dictate that there needs to be some form of APM eater in place of Brood Wars challenging macro to keep it exciting. Dustin Browder decided that his specialty, gimmicky units, would fill that void. It would have taken some deep brainstorming to come up with another solution, and who knows what that alternative would have looked like.
For better or worse, we're stuck with the easiest, and unfortunately for me, least appealing solution of giving as many units and buildings as many abilities as possible to eat up as much of people's APM as possible. Without a fundamental redesign this will be ridiculously hard to change, and we are on the path to seeing a lot more gimmicks in the future with the Protoss expansion as well. Simply put, Browder's design philosophy requires that you need a million things you need to do with your units(and HoTS pretty much doubles it) because you have nothing left to do at home. Nobody's talking about removing MBS or auto-mining anymore, and I don't think that I would want to revert it myself, but these were the fundamentals that made the simplicity of Brood War's fighting units work.
The problem with StarCraft 2, despite the fact that we're seeing all these "creative units"("ridiculous units" is more appropriate), is that Dustin Browder and his team are not creative at all. In fact, they are incredibly stale and stagnant in their thinking. Brood War's success lay in the fact that the game was played nothing like the designers intended. To hope to achieve the same in StarCraft 2 would be ridiculous and suicidal. Brood War was a great accident, like potato chips, but you can't look to it for solving SC2's problems. StarCraft 2 was going to need some genuinely creative thinking to make it great(on purpose), and the minute that the game was first revealed and we saw that both Terran and Zerg had a Dragoon we knew we were fucked.
Yes, great post. The lack of MBS/auto-mining/smartcasting/unlimited unit select was a HUGE part of why BW worked, and why it worked for so long. Like you i wouldn't agree with putting them in SC2, but what's the solution to create the extra difficulty and APM sinks without them? I've thought about it quite a bit but i can't think of much.
However it's no excuse for Blizzard to not fix how dire the combat is in SC2 in general, things like clumping/blobs and the speed at which battles happen and are instantly over.
Also i'm surprised at the guy above who watched BW regularly and thinks SC2 is better, either to play or to watch. I can't comprehend someone watching the last OSL finals for example and coming to that conclusion. I watch SC2 progames now and there just is a total lack of.. pretty much anything to comment on a lot of them. Someone makes a decision, sometimes just a single one that decides the game. 15 minute games decided by about 5 seconds of attacking and smartcasting. I don't get impressed by the micro (or even macro somehow the casters try to frame as amazing) despite the total over-hype of everything because simply it isn't particularly impressive. It's actually quite annoying and fake how you have casters who previously played BW at a high level try to make out that something incredible is happening. And now with these HotS units i don't see any potential in them either.
While I may not agree with the idea of making the strong stronger, and the weak weaker. I agree with the fundamental mindset that each race should be unique/OP in its own sense.
Currently there are many units that have overlapping roles. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say that you can easily mass up a single type of unit and almost never go wrong. Also the Marauder/roach/stalker relationship is just fundamentally flawed. Giving the dragoon to all 3 races is just.. wrong. The hydra/firebat/dragoon relationship is very much different. They are not designed to be analogous or the "equivalent" unit of one another, but rather, unique to the lore of the race and it is then up to the players to figure out how it fits.
5/5 blog. Good work - I believe this is feature worthy, but it might paint a horrible picture on the stance that TL is taking regarding balance. Nobody wants to bring up a balance discussion since it's eventually going to turn into a senseless flamewar that is going nowhere and since we obviously can't do anything about the game balance.
and even if we did.. I doubt we would be able to come up with better solutions. Maybe bw was just an accidental success after all.
While I think that the "simple is better" maxim is a slight, well, simplification, I completely agree that it's the relationships between units that give the game value, and that interesting relationships come from asymmetries (both across and within the races). There's a reason that ZvT is widely considered SC2's best matchup: it's defined by really sharp contrasts between the core units. Whereas TvP and ZvP are center stage for the Three Stooges of SC2: the Roach, Marauder, and Stalker. There isn't a lot of contrast there. (I can't decide whether the Immortal or SC2 Hydra gets to be Shemp)
But I'm not sure that Browder is the problem so much as Blizzard, having transformed since the '90s into a very different company with a very different set of values, ones at odds with the qualities that made BW a phenomenal e-sport. Browder's task was to make a game that was not only balanced at all skill levels, but fun and varied at all skill levels. So a game quite unlike BW, which is a mess at lower levels, and that's exactly what he made.
Best analysis of the BW/SC2 rift by far. I think I agree with most of your points, and also, I would have liked SC2 more if it was more created in honor of how BW was.
Your post has a great point. I can see that the game may be getting too far from what made BW such a great Esports game. When I saw the new units from HotS, I was afraid the game was gonna get worse. I am thinking they are going to have alot of work ahead of them to fix what these units will bring to the table....
Great read, not that I agree 100% with everything but I just liked the flow of the article. In large though, I agree that SCBW sounds were much more crisp and exciting. The sound of lurker spines, reaver scarabs, tank volleys, spider mine pops... I miss them a lot.
I will say this though, I watched Blizzcon 2011 @ the Toronto Barcraft (chromate and GohgamX are such ballers) and SC2 matches were real exciting. It wasn't a huge turnout at the bar, but I'm pretty sure the atmosphere played a big part. Still, the GSL finals and the Blizzcon Finals were both awesome and you know what, that was good enough for me.
On October 24 2011 14:10 Azzur wrote: I disagree - whilst I liked BW alot, I feel that SC2 is a superior game. In SC2, I found that there was a great focus on army control (e.g. positioning, jockeying for a superior concave, etc), whilst BW was a test of multi-tasking mechanics. In SC2 players need to make split-second decisions that will easily affect the outcome of the game. I didn't like some of the gimmicky micro-intensive units in BW (e.g. reaver).
I prefer TvZ in SC2 - I consider MM overpowered in BW since medics are so powerful marines can just stim all day. In SC2, stimming is a major decision. I didn't like the muta-stacking in BW because I find it counter-intuitive how mutas can just smack turrets all day. I didn't like science vessels in TvZ because it essentially allowed allows terrans to trade energy for armies, and how it essentially hard counters mutas tremendously. Contrast with TvZ in SC2 where a single unit doesn't make something totally obsolete.
In BW, I don't like the air balance - valkyries/devourers were not good enough and scouts are the BM units. Valkyries/devourers should've been the masters of the skies (e.g. counter even carriers / BCs) since they only serve 1 purpose (air-to-air).
SC2 has done very nice micro - stutterstep, marine splits, army maneuvers to obtain a better concave.
However, I do agree with the OP in that I'm not sold on the direction of HoTS yet - where the move is towards gimmicky / flashy units.
Max rank in BW?
Because this reads like someone who has a very flawed view of the TvZ matchup. In fact, a bad view of the units/matchups in general.
On October 24 2011 14:22 Techno wrote: Lotta hand waving at a concept that no one has really been able to figure out: Why is BW > SC2?
The answer is frankly SC2 would have to be in-fucking-credible to outshine the legend of BW. You don't want to hear this but its the only answer: Give it time.
On October 24 2011 14:20 ChineseWife wrote: agreed. also does anyone cringe when david kim and browder use the term raid, referring to harass in sc2? For some reason that really bothers me and I guess shows me they are somewhat out of touch with the sc2 scene.
Nope, not I anyways. They have their own jargon that they use cause they work all day together and discuss the game wayyyy more than you do. It bothers me way more how desperate everyone is to paint Browder/Kim/Blizzard with such negativity all the time. You guys take anything you can find and try to say "this is why SC2 sucks" with it. Its just a lil annoying after a while. Just admit it: your on TL right now 'cause SC2 kicks ass.
Thanks, Blizzard!
You are misguided. I'm on TL right now because I loved BW and the community is awesome enough to keep me around despite my dislike of SC2.
The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies. It's had over a year. No number of new strats will overcome the marauder, roach, colossus, force field, thor, etc.. 'Giving it time' meant something to me when I thought HotS would make SC2 better. I don't like a single thing they revealed at Blizzcon. I don't care if it'll be tweaked before the next expansion is released - the very fact that they considered these ideas good enough to go public with is deeply concerning.
Frankly, I think there is no possible way you could be appeased, and even if you were, you would likely hide it. Lets pretend sc2 is actually C&C18 so we can finally stop yearning for our childhoods.
SC2 has only been out for a year. That is nothing!
Its not the actually dislike of sc2 that I have a grudge against, its people pretending to explain it.
Ad Hominem has never been a valid form of debate. It does not negate my post, which was little more than a rehash of the OP and countless other arguments that have been made against SC2 since the beta. This is how we feel.
I find it hilarious when Techno posts to "give it time" whilst myopia says that "The 'give it time' schtick no longer applies".
Anyways, I do agree with myopia with this one - SC2 has been out for more than a year already and concrete judgements can/should be made about the game. Although I don't agree with many of the "BW supporters who dislike SC2" people here. This is not to say that I like everything in SC2 over BW, but on the whole, I consider SC2 a superior game.
As mentioned earlier, I do have concerns about the HoTS direction, but will need to actually play/see the game to make concrete judgements.
Can I ask you a question? How much of BW have you watched and played to conclude that SC2 is the superior game. Just curious.
I watched BW near the start of the Boxer dropship-era (pre-1.08) till when FEs became the norm. During this time, I was recording vods using a 56k (!) modem (at around 5k/sec). Before TL even existed, I followed BW from www.broodwar.com (wow, that was a amazing website for it's time). I continued to watch now and then but it was a bit too hard. Thus, I missed the Nada, iloveoov and Savior era.
I returned around 2008 just before Flash because super-dominant. What I found interesting was that strategy advances was still made despite the game was 10 years old at that time. I watched alot of BW (thanks to jon747) until SC2 came out. Still, I was a BW elitist until I started playing and watching SC2. Slowly, I began to see many of the fine points of SC2 and now prefer it. Now, I only watch OSL and MSL finals for BW, but almost all GSL matches.
Disregard my earlier post but my point still stands. The way you described the units and interactions shows me, as far as playing goes, you missed some of the key ideas present in the atchups.
Stim is very important and I can recall several JvF games where J forced F to stim in order to eventually overrun the force with mutaLing. Just for one example. Also, medics can't keep up as well in BW vs a flying medic in SCII, which makes unit control, splitting of marines/medics and positioning paramount to success. Again, just a few examples. There are hundreds more.
On October 24 2011 00:30 EvilTeletubby wrote: Very well written sir, good way to articulate not just HotS issues, but basically SC2 issues altogether. SC2 is definitely flashier, but lacks what Brood War had in terms of substance.
It's always been that way unfortunately and I've been saying it since day 1.
Look, Dustin is a great guy and all as a person but his philosophy on game design, especially for RTS games is flawed.
He's said it many times as well; he goes for what would look cool first opposed to their viability, which should be priority number one of any game designer.
Thanks for the read, and all of your points are well thought out. It definitely feels like Blizzard is less willing to take less risks as far as gameplay goes.
I think you are putting quite a bit of this on Dustin Browder, I don't think you can put all the fault onto him alone. I also think you're simplifying your examples a bit - Halo, especially, added a lot of increasingly "crazy shit" as the series continued (jetpacks?).
But I mostly agree. Its weird, the units in sc2 seem both a little too niche AND a little too general in their role - or rather, the units are all very niche but the races end up very generalized. On sounds, sc2 DOES have some great sounds to it (banelings, SNIPE, and I love the dull thud of Brood Lords personally) though some of them are worse then they were in BW (tanks and psi storm primarily, imo).
i think part of the problem is that if a race gets something thats super powerful but specialized (ie if terran got BW-level siege tanks) then people bitch about how OP they are, and Blizzard nerfs them (sc2 tanks). But to compensate the race gets more generalized so they aren't UP.
Completely agree with OP. I still don't understand how blizzard can make the greatest rts of all time and then when making the sequel decide to make it a COMPLETELY different game. As OP mentions, SF is extremely similar to original street fighter but the new versions are still amazing. Just make fine tweaks to the game. Unfortunately bliz has way too much pride to admit to being wrong.
Also, despite what bliz says about wanting SC2 to be an esport, I still think they are primarily concerned with the casual crowd. They are a business after all and the casual crowd makes them the most money. The entire HotS panel was just "look how cool and awesome these units are." David Kim talking about the mega-thor was very sad. "This is awesome, late game, A-move ultimate unit."
And whenever I watch a BW vod and hear a tank siege up I want to play BW
On October 24 2011 14:10 Azzur wrote: I didn't like science vessels in TvZ because it essentially allowed allows terrans to trade energy for armies, and how it essentially hard counters mutas tremendously.
The latter half of this seemed to be solely about the sound effects. And I agree. I've agreed since beta. What is this wet-paper slap shit every zerg unit makes on attack? What is this swish-swosh of psi blades? I played the SCBW SC2 mod the other day and simply having the old attack sounds from the zerglings made them feel fucking awesome again. The sound effects guy at Blizzard needs a kick in the ass and a pink slip.
Anyway, you weren't really talking about the sound effects, even though they are really important and are currently lacking. You were talking about unit design. And I agree with everything you said, but unfortunately you are not the first person to say it. I remember what I think was an article by some TL staff having just gotten back from a first-hand play of WoL talking about how the units seemed to be pigeonholed into roles. Someone made the likeness of BW units being a ball you could toss around and have fun with whereas the SC2 units were on a rail going to a fixed destination. The reaper came up. It is a unit completely designed to harass from the start. Get that shit out of the game, let me be a little innovative myself please.
My point is, this has all been said before but whoever's in charge is obviously still of the opinion that he/she knows best.
I really like this blog, It sums up some of my concerns and why i do not play SC2. I kinda hope someone in Korea will make a very similar game to scbw, call it spacecraft and the whole SC2 with it's laughable units designed for 13 years old kids will dissapear.
On October 24 2011 14:10 Azzur wrote: I didn't like science vessels in TvZ because it essentially allowed allows terrans to trade energy for armies, and how it essentially hard counters mutas tremendously.
Ghost, EMP + snipe?
he was talking about irradiate man. as in irradiate costing energy
On October 24 2011 14:10 Azzur wrote: I didn't like science vessels in TvZ because it essentially allowed allows terrans to trade energy for armies, and how it essentially hard counters mutas tremendously.
Ghost, EMP + snipe?
he was talking about irradiate man. as in irradiate costing energy
And so Kal_rA responded with I think what he felt was an example of "trading energy for armies" in SC2.
...the entire line of argument that "trading energy for armies" is somehow a.) literally what happens and b.) poor design is questionable. Energy is just another resource, another numbered dimension to account for in the vast network of numbers that is an RTS. Since the assets are all connected (minerals to units, unit speed to space and time, time to energy, etc.) having energy be relevant at all to the game state is in essence always going to result in energy affecting armies.
I don't feel special playing this game anymore, but I did feel special when i got to yell "BOOM HEADSHOT" in to my friends ear during a LAN when I popped his head with a god damn Arctic Warfare Magnum (god CS-LANs were good, BW as well)
Well written and laid out, but so much wrong with this it's a joke:
Do you remember this shit? TvZ and ZvT had fucking completely different skill sets with zero overlap
I highly doubt this is true in BW, and if it then the game is terrible. You want unique, individual races, but they don't play the same (or apparently at all even vaguely similar, with "zero overlap") between matchups?
Instead, he should design units that are more conventional but ballsier and play to the races' strengths. Make the weaknesses of each race even MORE vulnerable, but make the strengths unmatchable.
So basically, each unit should be less conventional? You want them to have exaggerated strengths and weaknesses, but to be less gimmicky? You said that marauders are bad because they are all purpose, but mothership is bad because it has specific roles? By the way, I'm not saying that these aren't terrible units (they are) but your logic is contradictory.
Your suggested changes are extremely biased, basically asking for both races to revert straight back to how BW was. Moving on:
New units introduced in a highly-anticipated expansion pack is supposed to provide excitement and anticipation, not confound everybody who sees the unit.
Agreed.
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Your last point I actually agree with. Cool sounding things sound cool. Yes, Starcraft 2 could do with more of that. But that's not Dustin Browder's game design. That's a shoddy sound department.
I read this blog and my first instinct as a SC1 veteran was to be like "yeah he's fucken right." But the reality is his blog post is ignorant and premature.
First of all, SC2 is not SC1. It took years of innovation from players to fully realize how to use Arbiters, Defilers, Dark Archons, Science Vessels, Goliaths, Wraiths etc. properly and in more and more unique ways that turned SC1 into the the amazing game that it is. For anyone to event attempt to judge the new units right now and how they will effect game play is retarded.
Take the arbiter for example. It was never used at all for years. Then after some innovation it became a powerful late game PvT unit. Then after some more innovation, it became the crux spellcaster of the matchup from mid to late game.
Sure the new units do seem a little gimmicky, but it seems like there are a lot of interesting possible applications. And remember how long it took to balance SC1 properly (and how much luck it took.) And how long it took people to figure stuff out.
For you to say "Dustin Browder you're doing it wrong" when Blizzard is willing to completely remove WoL units from the game to attempt to balance is pretty sad. You're never ever going to get a game like SC1. From the start with MBS, economy boosting effects, and armys that blob up into death balls...the whole SC1 effect was lost from the very beginning.
The only thing SC2 shares in common with SC1 is the name and the names of many units. It's a different game and shaping it into a dynamic and balanced game will take a lot of time and a lot of trial and error. Deal with it.
On October 27 2011 06:00 Rekrul wrote: I read this blog and my first instinct as a SC1 veteran was to be like "yeah he's fucken right." But the reality is his blog post is ignorant and premature.
First of all, SC2 is not SC1. It took years of innovation from players to fully realize how to use Arbiters, Defilers, Dark Archons, Science Vessels, Goliaths, Wraiths etc. properly and in more and more unique ways that turned SC1 into the the amazing game that it is. For anyone to event attempt to judge the new units right now and how they will effect game play is retarded.
Take the arbiter for example. It was never used at all for years. Then after some innovation it became a powerful late game PvT unit. Then after some more innovation, it became the crux spellcaster of the matchup from mid to late game.
Sure the new units do seem a little gimmicky, but it seems like there are a lot of interesting possible applications. And remember how long it took to balance SC1 properly (and how much luck it took.) And how long it took people to figure stuff out.
For you to say "Dustin Browder you're doing it wrong" when Blizzard is willing to completely remove WoL units from the game to attempt to balance is pretty sad. You're never ever going to get a game like SC1. From the start with MBS, economy boosting effects, and armys that blob up into death balls...the whole SC1 effect was lost from the very beginning.
The only thing SC2 shares in common with SC1 is the name and the names of many units. It's a different game and shaping it into a dynamic and balanced game will take a lot of time and a lot of trial and error. Deal with it.
Sorry, but I just had to highlight that shit. I got a good laugh last night. =)
Ah, the last paragraph is pretty good too. Highlighted as well.
Hopefully more people will come to this realization and the more better off we'll be. The sooner the better.
Talking about sounds there are a few that sound absolutely amazing in-game.
Immortals: Anything the Immortal says or does is rock-solid. When you have enough and they all start attacking, the roar and power of those Phase Disruptors is unmatched. In monobattles I refer to them as Rape Cannons, because as soon as you hear that sonic boom they've eliminated everything in sight (en masse anyways).
Mothership Warp-in: Because Motherships aren't used all that much, people aren't always aware of the sound they make when they've arrived on the battlefield. To me it's an amazing byte, hearing the sound of millions of tons of metal being forcibly dragged through hyperspace onto the battlefield, following by the incredibly visceral announcement "JUSTICE HAS COME." It's a shame that a focus-fired Mothership dies so easily, and it's also a shame that the Independence Day attack was removed. It would have been amazing.
Dark Templar Attack: While it's a subtle sound, hearing your units getting hit with invisible psi-blades is enough to put the fear of God in you, especially if you haven't thought of detection yet.
Nydus Worm: The scream the Nydus Worm makes when it breaks through the ground is pretty awesome, and if you don't know where it is it will make you scare you're about to get hit somewhere in the backside where you don't want to. I've recently found Nydus to be more effective in forward positions and expansions - the worm stays safe and you can use it to quickly move your army around the map for hit-and-run, while the screaming always makes the opponent wonder if there isn't a worm in the back of his base.
5/5 completely agree, unfortunately a lot of the casual noobs think that simple is boring because its not flashing with exploding crap everywhere. Companies know this and is why we have these terrible games compared to the good old games such as cs, quake ,sc1
On October 27 2011 06:00 Rekrul wrote: I read this blog and my first instinct as a SC1 veteran was to be like "yeah he's fucken right." But the reality is his blog post is ignorant and premature.
First of all, SC2 is not SC1. It took years of innovation from players to fully realize how to use Arbiters, Defilers, Dark Archons, Science Vessels, Goliaths, Wraiths etc. properly and in more and more unique ways that turned SC1 into the the amazing game that it is. For anyone to event attempt to judge the new units right now and how they will effect game play is retarded.
Take the arbiter for example. It was never used at all for years. Then after some innovation it became a powerful late game PvT unit. Then after some more innovation, it became the crux spellcaster of the matchup from mid to late game.
Sure the new units do seem a little gimmicky, but it seems like there are a lot of interesting possible applications. And remember how long it took to balance SC1 properly (and how much luck it took.) And how long it took people to figure stuff out.
For you to say "Dustin Browder you're doing it wrong" when Blizzard is willing to completely remove WoL units from the game to attempt to balance is pretty sad. You're never ever going to get a game like SC1. From the start with MBS, economy boosting effects, and armys that blob up into death balls...the whole SC1 effect was lost from the very beginning.
The only thing SC2 shares in common with SC1 is the name and the names of many units. It's a different game and shaping it into a dynamic and balanced game will take a lot of time and a lot of trial and error. Deal with it.
I think you've missed the point of the blog. Maybe because it isn't as well written as I wanted it to be. I've also written another blog post talking about what's good in SC2. But still.
I'm not arguing that Browder make SC2 like SC1. I'm just arguing that there are certain aspects of SC1 that make it an amazing game that Browder can learn from in making SC2. You notice I've also drawn parallels from completely different games like Street Fighter and Counter-Strike. That's not because I want SC2 to be more like a fighter game or a first person shooter, but because there are fundamental aspects of all these games that make them such excellent competitive games that SC2 is lacking.
SC2's design is in many ways three steps forward, one step back. A lot of the units in the game (and in HotS) feel like they were thrown in as wild curve balls to mix up the game without specific reasons. Take the Mothership for example. It started out extremely powerful with its own unique spell set. Now its abilities are extremely similar to the arbiter. I think that's a wrong approach. It would have been way more cool of they tried to balance the old mothership than to regress towards Brood War abilities. The decision to revert to Brood War-esque abilities defeats the whole purpose of trying to create a new exciting game.
Or the Marauder. Why does Terran need a unit like this? All it does is allow Terran to have unprecedented mobile firepower on top of the siege tank which provides unprecedented immobile artillery firepower. I'm not saying Blizzard should replace it with the Firebat, but they could have made a much more exciting unit. An example off the top of my head would be if the marauder was removed and the reaper gains the marauder's attack. A low hit point harasser good vs armored units. That way it could be used for scouting, sniping buildings, doesn't overlap with the Hellion's worker killing role, works well away from the main army (in lieu with Browder's attempts to pull supply away from the main "ball" army), and isn't just a good all-round unit to have. And it's nothing like Brood War.
On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote: Well written and laid out, but so much wrong with this it's a joke:
Do you remember this shit? TvZ and ZvT had fucking completely different skill sets with zero overlap
I highly doubt this is true in BW, and if it then the game is terrible. You want unique, individual races, but they don't play the same (or apparently at all even vaguely similar, with "zero overlap") between matchups?
The zero overlap was an exaggeration. What do you mean by "if it is then the game is terrible"? How much Brood War have you even played to be able to judge the veracity of this statement?
I was a Protoss player overall in Brood War. I could also more or less comfortably play TvP, TvZ, TvT, and ZvP. But I stayed the fuck away from ZvT because lurker ling vs M&M was extremely different to control than the other way around. In fact, a lot of match ups required certain different approaches to attacking armies. TvP and PvT had very different play styles in setting up siege lines versus breaking siege lines. Despite all this, the game was very balanced and excellent. Maybe if you played BW you'd understand. In contrast, PvT and TvP in SC2 involves a lot of bioballs versus deathballs. Balls.
I don't understand people. But what I get is that a lot of them love sc2 as it is now. They love playing it (they don't need to fight the terrible pathing of BW and there are not so dumb units as dragoon) and they enjoy watching it. So there must be something making for blob movements and fights, easy smartcasting and clumsiness of some units (mutalisks). Whatever it is, I fail to see it. Is it the speed of the game? Is the graphics so important?
Dustin Browder must be proud of himself. Sc2 has still the air of a great new game and on top of it, it has its (huge) competitive scene. I see no reason why he should bother with us, why he should change something that worked for him.
I agree with a lot of points that OP wrote: Sounds in BW are amazing. Sc2 sounds could be much better. I would apreciate simpler units with more complicated relationships (not just this counters that). I feel like the races sharp differences are gone (too many units of all types). I like tumours but I don't like the idea of larvae injections. They make zergs less zergish.
But as Rekrul said, we cannot foresee what strategies and tactics will be developed in future. A lot of units will probably find their use in more interesting way. But the basic things that bother us will remain. Blobs and smartcasting. I deal with it. I don't play sc2 anymore, I don't fight the terrible pathing (we must split things nowadays) and don't follow sc2 tourneys any more.
On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote: Well written and laid out, but so much wrong with this it's a joke:
Do you remember this shit? TvZ and ZvT had fucking completely different skill sets with zero overlap
I highly doubt this is true in BW, and if it then the game is terrible. You want unique, individual races, but they don't play the same (or apparently at all even vaguely similar, with "zero overlap") between matchups?
The zero overlap was an exaggeration. What do you mean by "if it is then the game is terrible"? How much Brood War have you even played to be able to judge the veracity of this statement?
I don't think Brood War is terrible, I think it's awesome, I was saying that if there was zero overlap (which you admitted there wasn't) then it would be terrible.
As I said before, I agree with some of what you said. Starcraft 2 could do with some cooler sounding units. But most people seem to be blindly agreeing saying SC2 < BW, without at all reading what you are trying to say, and even in the cases that you are saying SC2 < BW, you were wrong multiple times, as I (think at least) showed in my last long post. I'd be interested to see what your responses to my points are.
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers.
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers.
Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason.
Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid.
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers.
Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason.
Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid.
Well then. I haven't seen older vods, nor I have any recollection of playstyles of 1998 era.
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers.
Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason.
Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid.
Well then. I haven't seen older vods, nor I have any recollection of playstyles of 1998 era.
And thats fine. Whether or not these units were understood early on is moot point. What happened in this thread (and many other threads) is that many characteristics of BW have been praised, while the same characteristics of SC2 have been criticised. I made some examples of this in my first post, how he wants contradictory things from unit design. In this case, people want SC2 to have more complexity, while agreeing with the OP's point that new units roles should be immediately obvious, rather than have subtlety.
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers.
Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason.
Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid.
Well then. I haven't seen older vods, nor I have any recollection of playstyles of 1998 era.
And thats fine. Whether or not these units were understood early on is moot point. What happened in this thread (and many other threads) is that many characteristics of BW have been praised, while the same characteristics of SC2 have been criticised. I made some examples of this in my first post, how he wants contradictory things from unit design. In this case, people want SC2 to have more complexity, while agreeing with the OP's point that new units roles should be immediately obvious, rather than have subtlety.
This isn't contradictory. It's perfectly possible to have simple and obvious units that interact with each other in complex ways. That's the basic design principle behind most of the best competitive games ever made. Chess is one big example. Maybe you should read the OP more closely and think it over a bit, as well as some of the other replies I've made in this thread.
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers.
Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason.
Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid.
Well then. I haven't seen older vods, nor I have any recollection of playstyles of 1998 era.
And thats fine. Whether or not these units were understood early on is moot point. What happened in this thread (and many other threads) is that many characteristics of BW have been praised, while the same characteristics of SC2 have been criticised. I made some examples of this in my first post, how he wants contradictory things from unit design. In this case, people want SC2 to have more complexity, while agreeing with the OP's point that new units roles should be immediately obvious, rather than have subtlety.
This isn't contradictory. It's perfectly possible to have simple and obvious units that interact with each other in complex ways. That's the basic design principle behind most of the best competitive games ever made. Chess is one big example. Maybe you should read the OP more closely and think it over a bit, as well as some of the other replies I've made in this thread.
Your right, I phrased that wrong. This whole thing started from him claiming that Brood War units were instantly understandable, whereas HotS are not. Not only would I flat out disagree with that (I maintain that a Replicator or a Shredder is as easy (or easier) to understand as a Dark Archon or a Lurker) but it seems to be a criticisms that is only used against HotS and was not even mentioned as a factor for BW.
I just don't understand how they can go 'well, hero units don't really work so we're removing the mothership.' and in the next sentence they can say 'and here's the super thor you can only have one of' .....
Completely agree man, 100%. All i can hope for is that by sheer, dumb luck, the new units like Lurker--imeanSwarmHost and flying reverse-Defiler--imeanViper, end up steering the game in a more BW direction. I have little hope for that via the replicator, battle hellion, oracle, tempest, baneling burrow move, ultra charge, all nexus abilities, many other new changes/upgrades, and all the WoL issues you already mentioned that make it a totally weird mentality that is suboptimal for a true RTS game of its child's caliber (BW, though I didn't play it myself but for 2 weeks before sc2, and I'm not a BW elitist)
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Your last point I actually agree with. Cool sounding things sound cool. Yes, Starcraft 2 could do with more of that. But that's not Dustin Browder's game design. That's a shoddy sound department.
Bullshit yourself. Corsairs were always used the same and it WAS extremely obvious what they wrre useful for: scouting, mutas, overlords. it doesn't really matter wether they were used in compination with reavers, DTs or otherwise. The Bisu just perfected their use.
New units introduced in a highly-anticipated expansion pack is supposed to provide excitement and anticipation, not confound everybody who sees the unit. When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them". When I saw the HotS units, the only thing I thought was "well, I guess when I get the game I'll build a bunch of them and see what happens."
THAT!!!!
while i'd consider myself as a HUGE fan of zerg, all these updates of HotS didnt bring any excitement to me, that said alot eh. all i want is some balance and strategically useful units. balance = FUN. SC2 is a mess.
new lurker, new flying reverse-defiler. those are strategically useful and more like BW feel zerg to me. they aren't balanced though, and have a few too many gimmicks
I think your argument has some inherent beauty in it, and so it comes out as very agreeable. But I also think that, ultimately, it is invalid. The vessel and the arbiter were not simple. I'll go as far as to say that you could consider the lurker a gimmick. If bw came out yesterday we would be discussing how spider mines are a gimmick.
The dark archon is, even today, a gimmicky unit, not because it's any more complex than the defiler, but because the very intricate gameplay that emerged with the interaction of all other units has no place for it. When bw came out, were you thinking "of course the dark archon makes sense, I could see a ton of uses?" Was its introduction, retrospectively, a step in the wrong direction? Was anyone able to immediately see that the lurker was the greatest idea ever and the dark archon was inconsequential?
Your critique of the marauder is the most common unit design critique, but it has nothing to do with simplicity or gimmicks. The marauder is very simple, as simple as the marine (and it fulfills just as many roles). The colossus was no doubt designed to be a cool unit. It just happens that what emerged is not cool.
On October 29 2011 05:16 IotaSC wrote: new lurker, new flying reverse-defiler. those are strategically useful and more like BW feel zerg to me. they aren't balanced though, and have a few too many gimmicks
'new lurker' has a weird cool down attack animation and unless it can be evolved from roachers (which is completely retarded if it did but we have no other low tier unit choice....), it cant be as strategic useful as lurker. 'new lurker' is basically a tank translated from terran to zerg.....
'flying defiler' is obviously either extremely OP or completely useless, hint: it can fly now.
and no way they can make good balance from these gimmicky units (plus judging from their balance work so far.....).
Blizzard, just fcking fix MARINES and DUSTIN STOP THINKING you are making another C&C!!!
On October 29 2011 05:55 dementrio wrote: I think your argument has some inherent beauty in it, and so it comes out as very agreeable. But I also think that, ultimately, it is invalid. The vessel and the arbiter were not simple. I'll go as far as to say that you could consider the lurker a gimmick. If bw came out yesterday we would be discussing how spider mines are a gimmick.
The dark archon is, even today, a gimmicky unit, not because it's any more complex than the defiler, but because the very intricate gameplay that emerged with the interaction of all other units has no place for it. When bw came out, were you thinking "of course the dark archon makes sense, I could see a ton of uses?" Was its introduction, retrospectively, a step in the wrong direction? Was anyone able to immediately see that the lurker was the greatest idea ever and the dark archon was inconsequential?
Your critique of the marauder is the most common unit design critique, but it has nothing to do with simplicity or gimmicks. The marauder is very simple, as simple as the marine (and it fulfills just as many roles). The colossus was no doubt designed to be a cool unit. It just happens that what emerged is not cool.
You're missing the point (argh, so many replies I make in this thread start with this I'm starting to sound like a broken record).
I only compared SC2 to Brood War because it was the most convenient. I'm not arguing for SC2 to be a copy of Brood War, or that Brood War is better than SC2. But that is what YOU are arguing.
Here's the thing: when Brood War came out, it wasn't designed specifically to be an e-sport. Nobody knew it was going to be so balanced that thousands would play competitively to entertain millions. Brood War as a competitive game was an accident. That some of the units are gimmicky is because they were designed solely to twist the game play, not to hone the balance to a razor's edge. The corsair, medic, and lurker just happened to have inherent traits to change the game balance in ways that promoted competitive gaming, and that's what I was pointing out in the OP.
On the other hand, SC2 is designed WITH the goal of competitive gaming in mind. Therefore, its design process must place a much higher premium on units being simple and obvious and not gimmicky. There is a difference between how HotS should be designed and how Brood War was designed. I feel that Dustin Browder is not taking this consideration into mind as much as he should, hence the OP.
And the marauder argument, see the other replies I've made in this thread, I must have addressed it 2 or three times. I believe the first reply was on page 2 if you don't want to browse.
I read your response explaining how the marauder is not simple because it fills too many roles. That's just as true for the marine. The reason we don't like marauders is that they are dragoons, and every race has a dragoon in sc2; nobody found the dragoon a particularly exciting unit in bw, but they had a protoss "feel" because only protoss had them.
But I failed to express my main point, which is: you can't decide, now or when designing, what is a gimmick and what is not. If we didnt know any better, we'd say that the burrow mechanic is a gimmick. It just turns out that it has defined matchups and strategies which are not only cool to see and play, but incredibly deep and complicated. Browder is ultimately trying to find similar things, he genuinely wants a great game that is not bw version 2. But there's no way to go about this if not trying things out; keep it simple sounds very sensible, except that if you go down to it "simple" is synonymous with BW. Otherwise we would be playing Risk.
Browder himself mentioned creep spread as an example of a gimmick turned legit. There's no particular reason to find creep tumors simplier than the viper's d-web. But it is a cool thing because it turns out that it's important enough that strategies need to count for it, and it has become to define zerg. Colossi are as simple as a bioball and do the same thing. So both are boring.
On October 24 2011 00:52 Harrow wrote: I think my least favorite of these new units is the Dark Archon. It just seems SO gimmicky. Mind Control? Maybe that would fit in some campy game like RA2, but it's so out of place in Starcraft. An AoE stun just makes me think the WoW designers suggested it as well.
Why can't they make more units like the Scout, which really fits the Protoss race and has really clear uses in pro games?
This gave me a good laugh.
No, this guy is serious. I seriously barely won a 2v1 once against this guy who was probably E- level because my ally went mass DA and mind controlled our opponent's mass battlecruisers. And seriously, they need to nerf SCBW nukes, they actually kill stuff.
On October 29 2011 10:02 dementrio wrote: I read your response explaining how the marauder is not simple because it fills too many roles. That's just as true for the marine. The reason we don't like marauders is that they are dragoons, and every race has a dragoon in sc2; nobody found the dragoon a particularly exciting unit in bw, but they had a protoss "feel" because only protoss had them.
But I failed to express my main point, which is: you can't decide, now or when designing, what is a gimmick and what is not. If we didnt know any better, we'd say that the burrow mechanic is a gimmick. It just turns out that it has defined matchups and strategies which are not only cool to see and play, but incredibly deep and complicated. Browder is ultimately trying to find similar things, he genuinely wants a great game that is not bw version 2. But there's no way to go about this if not trying things out; keep it simple sounds very sensible, except that if you go down to it "simple" is synonymous with BW. Otherwise we would be playing Risk.
Browder himself mentioned creep spread as an example of a gimmick turned legit. There's no particular reason to find creep tumors simplier than the viper's d-web. But it is a cool thing because it turns out that it's important enough that strategies need to count for it, and it has become to define zerg. Colossi are as simple as a bioball and do the same thing. So both are boring.
You are right that both the marine and the marauder fulfills many roles. But I would argue (and try to do so without sounding naturally biased towards the marine) that the marine is a far more interesting unit from a competitive RTS standpoint.
The marine is a great all-purpose unit for Terran. They're cheap, have massive DPS, are ranged, and attack both air and ground. But they also have a massive weakness, their low hit points. This makes the marine a very exciting and dynamic unit. They are very fun to build a lot of, their gunfire sounds quite nice when in massed groups, and their 0 start-up attack makes stutterstep very fun to use. If you force people to choose whether they want to keep the marine or the marauder, people will definitely choose marine.
And the gimmick point, I disagree. I think it's perfectly possible to create new and simple units with a lot of potential, while a) not turn SC2 into Brood War and b) not blindly trying things out. Otherwise, are you arguing that all competitive games were designed by accident, and it's not possible to consciously design a competitive game? Sure Counter-Strike and Street Fighter 2 were accidents, but Quake 3 and TrackMania aren't. The latter two are designed specifically with balance in mind. I know Dustin Browder cares about SC2, but I don't think he is taking the right approach to the game.
And you are right, creep spread turned out to be a legitimately good Zerg mechanic. But why would Browder admit that it was initially a gimmick? I'd rather he establishes a more concrete approach to unit design than just tossing gimmicks into the game and go "whew, well I'm glad that worked out". The fact that he's doing something similar for HotS means that he still hasn't learned the key lessons to what makes a good competitive game.
As Dustin Browder has shown, he's willing to remove units from WoL while adding new units for HotS. This should allow him to potentially alter the game even more radically than ever before. I certainly hope he knows what he's doing enough to make concrete progress towards the goal of making HotS an even better game than WoL. My writing is really turning to shit now, so I'll stop here.
Great post and thread, man. I enjoyed reading that.
I think I read somewhere that DB had never played BW. I think this was a mistake, surely if you are making a sequel to the greatest RTS ever made, you should play the original and learn more about the game you are attempting to recreate in a new and, hopefully, better way. Perhaps DB just did not want his creative processes to be affected by an older (and perhaps intimidating) game? Whatever the merits of that approach, I am not optimistic with regards to HoTS, but will give it a go in the hopes that I am wrong. I have enjoyed WoL though, that must be said.
On October 31 2011 19:31 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Oh man, if only. If this isn't fixed by LotV, I hope some other studio designs a proper BW successor.
It'll be analogous to the Super Smash Bros. pro scene XD Melee is amazing (BW), Brawl lost important fundamental balance concepts (SC2 kinda), and people independent of the game's creator are designing a port of melee physics onto the brawl characters and game engine called Project:M.
the sounds/voice acting/music were astonishing in old blizz games, diablo2/diablo, starcraft, WARCRAFT2 (THAT was badass, my childhood), well C&C was godly in that part also pre RA2 era (tiberian dawn + red alert vanilla)
after 7-8 years of not playing bw i immedietly recognised 90% of voices and soundtracks of the game, i could probably do the same with warcraft2, hell the distinguish overloard zergling or muta was easy, now i cant really imagine half of the voices of sc2 i played yesterday, yes i would recognize them, but they are olny a little present in my memory they are not hard-coded, also i muted the music in sc2 year ago and to this day i didnt unmute (i just listen mp3s in background).
your CS analogy also works great, i was semi-pro CS player, and the first thing that stood out was ak/awp sound(ah the newbie fear of AWP shots), headshots, hearing footsteps, wallbanging all the Unique features that made the game awesome
i still hope that current ideology in game making will look at past and revert to the roots,
marine firing in bw sounds so much more powerful than sc2. I also miss the crisp sound of a tank in bw sieging up.
another thing that is easily fixed is map lighting.. why is so many maps dark? blistering sands was an awefull map but the desert theme looks so much better than that xel naga caverns darkness that almost every map has.
BUT THE WORST THING ABOUT SC2 is the unit clumping.. Dustin browder says making unit pathing worse is not worth it but i disagree.. however good news DB you dont have to make pathing worse just make units take up more space. Then it would be less coinflippy to split your army since chokes would work a lot better. Also if they would make unit pathing more like war3 the armies would look better.. I just cant stand seeing 50 marines huging so hard and moving around like they where genetic clones.
I also think lowering all dps of all "move and shoot" units a bit would be nice so we could have a little bit more micro involved.
DONE!!! with all those changes apm would mean a lot more and automining would never again come up.
Hang on wait... did you just diss the Kirov in your second paragraph? That was the most badass unit from the entire red alert game (well with the possible exception of the Apocolypse tank).
I'm going to agree although I don't think sounds would improve gameplay they would improve the game itself overall.
The new units looked so horrible with the flying defiler being the worst; why do you need a unit so obviously designed to counter one unit(colossus) when there's already a perfectly viable counter for it. (corrupter)
The best looking one was the tempest because it's simple and fills a void at the moment but I'm not sure it's worth losing other units for; giving the phoenix overcharge would fix the muta problem with no units cut from the roster.
The terran units looked too robust for terran they don't need more marauders as others have stated.
I'd love to try my hand at re-balancing sc2 but nobody cares about custom games and I'd need help from a modeler and somebody proficient with the galaxy editor. =(
EPT![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/cnc/images/6/67/GiantSquidRA2.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wkwzdnnVLVQ/RXjujASyOGI/AAAAAAAAACY/0JYXPEd1R5U/s320/ZvsT2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://riddlerreviews.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/starcraft-2.jpg)
. But then almost every other unit, pheonixes, void rays, motherships are also very gimmicky, leaving nothing but the Immortal and Collosus, which both have glaring weaknesses that no other Protoss unit fills. I think this is the reason Blizzard has had a very hard time balancing them (Think of the Void Ray, High Templar and Mothership nerfs) and the players seem to have a hard time coming up with many viable, long term game play solutions. The race was basically designed for DT, Void or mass gateway rushing unfortunately.
