|
This is Part 1
Hello all, this is yet another essay in my ongoing "I have too much time on my hands" series. Here, I'd like to share my thoughts on the intricacies that go into designing new units for StarCraft 2, and the possible implications these thoughts have on Heart of the Swarm units. Like part 1, there will be no specific discussion of balance or theorycrafting on specific HotS units.
This essay's focus is on designing the "role" of a unit. A "role" is defined as the function that a unit performs in its race. For example, the role of a siege tank can be roughly described as a long-ranged siege or fire support unit. Through this essay, I hope to convey that designing units and their roles for a game like SC2 is far more difficult than it may seem to the uninitiated, and that in terms of designing the game (as opposed to playing the game), a unit's role may not even be as important as some of the other aspects of the unit.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0LkwV.jpg)
The Marauder's role in SC2 is to make people hate Terran.
Game play wise, roles are very important in a competitive RTS game like StarCraft 2. Unlike non-competitive RTS games such as the Command and Conquer series, competitive RTS games generally try to cut down on the sheer types of units a player can construct in favor of a handful of smartly designed units that cover the entire gamut of what a player may wish to do in the game. Mutalisks, for example, simultaneously fulfill air superiority, harassment, and main army compositions for the Zerg race. Units whose roles are too specific may see their usage decline sharply in favor of other units that can fulfill multiple roles. Unit design wise, roles are not nearly as important.
Part I: The Obvious
Blizzard RTS games pride themselves in offering diverse factions that play very differently from one another. Even so, all factions have units that follow some of the basic archetypes in RTS games. They generally have a harvester, a cheap basic unit, a stronger ranged/melee counterpart, a fast harasser, a basic air unit, a couple of spell casters, a long-ranged siege unit, one or two unique units that define a race, and a powerful, expensive unit at the end of the tech tree.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3lNn0.jpg)
For HotS, Blizzard is replacing the acid in banelings with onion juice to induce more Terran nerd tears
Currently, all races from Brood War to WarCraft 3 to StarCraft 2 all have units that fit these archetypes. These seem to be the most basic archetypes that Blizzard feels each races need. The differences in unit numerical stats, attack styles, cost. and tech tree placement are what really creates the "diversity" in play styles.
These archetypes are what allows Blizzard to have a strong foundation upon which to design their units. In this sense, unit roles are a fundamental part of unit design.
Part II: The Not So Obvious
Unit role is important for a unit designer, but it shouldn't be the most important aspect of creating a unit. In some cases, a more relaxed approach to assigning unit roles can make for more exciting units in the long run. Let's start with some case studies.
In Brood War there is a Terran unit called the Vulture. It had fast speed, low hit points, and fired grenades that are super effective against small, light units. Archetypically, it is a fast harasser and the Terran's basic factory-tier unit. In the evolution of Brood War TvP vultures have also become the basic front-line units that laid minefields and provided a screening force for siege tanks.
In StarCraft 2, there is a Terran unit called the reaper. It has fast speed, low hitpoints, and fired pistols that are super effective against small, light units. Archetypically, it is a fast harasser and a second-tier Terran infantry unit requiring a tech lab add on. In the current balance of things, reapers are relegated to specialized TvT builds or specific openings where one or two are built for scouting and harassment.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/c6Zju.jpg)
75 minerals for a unit that could kite zealots forever and potentially kill three or four dragoons with its mines? I'm glad there were no fucking OP units like that in Brood War, SC2 is so bad. Oh wait...
The vulture is built like a harasser, but in the hands of players it has become a multi-role unit used for lot of things. On the other hand, the reaper, which was heavily abused in the beta days, has been nerfed so much that it's now pidgeon-holed as only an early game harasser and nothing else. The vulture was allowed to develop into all these roles which made it so great, while the reaper was nerfed because it wasn't used in the way the game designers intended it to be used.
The SC2 designers have (imho) made a mistake in nerfing the reaper so severely just because it wasn't used in the exact way that the designers wanted it to be used. Unit designers should take a step back to allow the players to define what a unit's role is, and not try too hard to define these roles themselves. So there's two perspectives going on there, unit role in terms of the developer's perspective and unit role in terms of the player's perspective. Ultimately it should be the player's perspective that is more important in determining unit roles, because it is the players who are evolving how the game is played.
Units like the vulture prove that some of the best units in a competitive RTS game like Brood War are units that are designed with enough unpredictability to let the gamers, not the designers, decide what their ultimate role is on the game. To this end, a unit designer needs to make sure not only that the unit fulfills its initial role, but also that there is enough of an "x-factor" in the unit to allow for further exploration of its usage. If Blizzard were ever to put out a game where every unit functioned exactly as the designer intended, then they would have actually failed to create a good competitive RTS game, because then the evolutionary potential of the game would be capped by the capabilities of the designers themselves.
Part III: Exceptions to the Rule
Not all units need to have completely uncapped potentials in versatility and usage. The Protoss Immortal is an interesting case study of unit design.
On the surface, the Immortal is an incredibly boring unit. This is especially true given that its predecessor is the Reaver, is a venerable legend in terms of its micromanagement capacity. Immortals are a direct fire, main army composition unit that serve very little purpose beyond providing anti-armor capacity for the Protoss. It moves fast enough to not require shuttle transport, but not fast enough to allow for any movement tricks beyond micromanagement. It fits its designed role, no more, no less.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/smdGg.jpg)
How SC2 haters view themselves
But the Immortal is an okay unit given how important its designated role is. As the premier anti-armored unit in the Protoss arsenal, the Immortal is always guaranteed a place in the Protoss army whenever large amounts of roaches, marauders, or stalkers make an appearance. It is essentially a gateway unit that is produced from the robotics bay. Not an exceptional unit like the vulture, but not a terrible unit either.
Lastly, we must not forget that StarCraft 2 is still in its infancy compared to Brood War. Many units may very well still hold secrets that, when unlocked, will radically change a certain matchup in spectacular ways. Units that are underused today may show themselves to be real heavyweights in their races tomorrow.
Part IV: Implications for HotS
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9gxeP.jpg)
Kerrigan looked nothing like this in Brood War. Raynor must have spent some lonely nights with Photoshop
Many people, including myself, have been highly critical of the units unveiled for HotS. Some of the most common accusations levied are that the units are too gimmicky, that they do not fit the spirit of StarCraft, and that they will ruin SC2 as a legitimate game. Here I would like to present some counter-arguments for consideration. They are not meant to directly hard-counter the above accusations or conclusively prove that HotS won't "ruin StarCraft", but they are legitimate points that should be raised.
First, one of the design principles that I've been arguing all this while is that unit designers should try to design units that fulfill some basic role, the units should also have some kind of purposeful designer oversight that allows for the unit to fulfill other, unintended roles. The Zerg swarm host and the Terran shredder (regardless of whether you think they are actually good units or not) at the very least fulfill this criteria. Blizzard is currently advertising these units as a siege unit and a zone denial unit, but there are clearly still many, many mysteries as to what other things these units can do. Can shredders be dropped in mineral lines to instantly annihilate all the workers? That may be the case, and it will certainly be redundant with what hellions are already doing, but at this point in time many aspects of these new units can be changed to re-balance the game.
Second, I would like to address the issue of Blizzard "not knowing what they're doing" with their new spell casters, especially the new Protoss units. Some of the new spell ideas certainly seem incredibly out there, or "gimmicky". But this actually isn't the first time that Blizzard has done something like this, taking risks. I'm referring specifically to WarCraft 3's expansion, The Frozen Throne. In TFT, Blizzard not only did not remove a single unit and introduced many new units and abilities to all, but they also introduced a slew of Tavern Heroes.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/46u4d.png)
But Dune 2 was so balanced! Why do we need all these new fangled games with their "unique races" and "ability to select more than one unit at a time"?
What are Tavern heroes? I'll tell you. On certain maps in TFT, there is a Tavern in the center of the map from which ANY race can hire one of eight neutral heroes each with four unique spell/passive abilities. Holy shit! 32 unique abilities and 8 heroes tossed into the game, just like that? After much patching and tweaking, after the dust settled, WC3 retained a thriving competitive scene. Somewhere in the middle of this, I'm sure a whole slew of angry WarCraft fans were crying out that Blizzard was going to crash the game like a lead zeppelin.
Conclusion: On Balance
We're almost at the end. Maybe I haven't convinced you with any of my arguments yet. Or maybe you're thinking, "but Newbistic, what about balance? Isn't that the most important aspect of designing a game like SC2?"
Well, balance is the EASY part. It's what you do at the very end, after the game has gone into beta, and you have people actually playing the game. It's a lot of work to balance a game, sure, but the methodology at least is fairly set. Blizzard gathers data, crunches numbers, and tweak a few stats in response (especially those bunker build times LOL). Other, more fundamental things, such as too many terrible or boring units, are much harder to change once a game has already come out.
The end. Sorry for the length.
Again, I have zero actual experience as a game designer. I've simply read a lot of shit on game design by people who actually design games and played games with the shit I've read in mind. These thoughts are the result of that (and too much time on my hands).
 
|
United States1719 Posts
it started out looking promising but then your argument kinda got lost in the middle (or maybe I just got lost lol) I enjoyed reading part 1, though; very interesting read.
|
|
|
Yeah the whole thing was cleaner and shorter in my head :/
I'll try to edit it to read better.
|
75 minerals for a unit that could kite zealots forever and potentially kill three or four dragoons with its mines? I'm glad there were no fucking OP units like that in Brood War, SC2 is so bad. Oh wait...
Thanks I now have my go-to quote for "SC2 is bad cause the units suck" people.
|
On December 05 2011 08:12 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +75 minerals for a unit that could kite zealots forever and potentially kill three or four dragoons with its mines? I'm glad there were no fucking OP units like that in Brood War, SC2 is so bad. Oh wait... Thanks I now have my go-to quote for "SC2 is bad cause the units suck" people.
I'm very confused. Everyone knows vultures are OP, but so is everything else. I don't think I've ever seen people claim that there aren't OP units in BW. The game is balanced because everything is OP.
Maybe I turned Romanian, but I dunno.
Anyways, I don't really get OP's argument. Vultures's role is a mix of area control and threat as well as harassment. Vultures are also great in main army fights. I dunno if this is what you're calling evolution of a role or whatever, but the reason why vultures are used and reapers are not is because vultures are just much more versatile, because vultures themselves have much more roles.
It's kinda like, do the attributes of a unit define it's role? or does the role define the attributes?
I feel like with the reaper it's much more of the latter, whereas with the vulture it's much more of the former.
|
On December 05 2011 08:39 Snipinpanda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 08:12 Chargelot wrote:75 minerals for a unit that could kite zealots forever and potentially kill three or four dragoons with its mines? I'm glad there were no fucking OP units like that in Brood War, SC2 is so bad. Oh wait... Thanks I now have my go-to quote for "SC2 is bad cause the units suck" people. I'm very confused. Everyone knows vultures are OP, but so is everything else. I don't think I've ever seen people claim that there aren't OP units in BW. The game is balanced because everything is OP. Maybe I turned Romanian, but I dunno. Anyways, I don't really get OP's argument. Vultures's role is a mix of area control and threat as well as harassment. Vultures are also great in main army fights. I dunno if this is what you're calling evolution of a role or whatever, but the reason why vultures are used and reapers are not is because vultures are just much more versatile, because vultures themselves have much more roles. It's kinda like, do the attributes of a unit define it's role? or does the role define the attributes? I feel like with the reaper it's much more of the latter, whereas with the vulture it's much more of the former.
The vulture is built like a harasser, but in the hands of players it has become a multi-role unit used for lot of things. On the other hand, the reaper, which was heavily abused in the beta days, has been nerfed so much that it's now pidgeon-holed as only an early game harasser and nothing else. The vulture was allowed to develop into all these roles which made it so great, while the reaper was nerfed because it wasn't used in the way the game designers intended it to be used.
My argument is that the SC2 designers have made a mistake in nerfing the reaper so severely just because it wasn't used in the exact way that the designers wanted it to be used. Unit designers should take a step back to allow the players to define what a unit's role is, and not try too hard to define these roles themselves. So there's two perspectives going on there, unit role in terms of the developer's perspective and unit role in terms of the player's perspective. Ultimately it should be the player's perspective that is more important in determining unit roles, because it is the players who are evolving how the game is played.
Blegh. It's one of those "meta" arguments that's kind of hard to explain 
|
I really enjoyed reading through it although I admittedly got a bit confused. I ALWAYS point out there is no reaver though. But for totally different reasons... now I can never hear "OOOOO REAVAREAVAREAVAREAVAREAVAREAVA" ever again
edit: other than SPL of course.
|
United States11390 Posts
On December 05 2011 09:06 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 08:39 Snipinpanda wrote:On December 05 2011 08:12 Chargelot wrote:75 minerals for a unit that could kite zealots forever and potentially kill three or four dragoons with its mines? I'm glad there were no fucking OP units like that in Brood War, SC2 is so bad. Oh wait... Thanks I now have my go-to quote for "SC2 is bad cause the units suck" people. I'm very confused. Everyone knows vultures are OP, but so is everything else. I don't think I've ever seen people claim that there aren't OP units in BW. The game is balanced because everything is OP. Maybe I turned Romanian, but I dunno. Anyways, I don't really get OP's argument. Vultures's role is a mix of area control and threat as well as harassment. Vultures are also great in main army fights. I dunno if this is what you're calling evolution of a role or whatever, but the reason why vultures are used and reapers are not is because vultures are just much more versatile, because vultures themselves have much more roles. It's kinda like, do the attributes of a unit define it's role? or does the role define the attributes? I feel like with the reaper it's much more of the latter, whereas with the vulture it's much more of the former. The vulture is built like a harasser, but in the hands of players it has become a multi-role unit used for lot of things. On the other hand, the reaper, which was heavily abused in the beta days, has been nerfed so much that it's now pidgeon-holed as only an early game harasser and nothing else. The vulture was allowed to develop into all these roles which made it so great, while the reaper was nerfed because it wasn't used in the way the game designers intended it to be used. My argument is that the SC2 designers have made a mistake in nerfing the reaper so severely just because it wasn't used in the exact way that the designers wanted it to be used. Unit designers should take a step back to allow the players to define what a unit's role is, and not try too hard to define these roles themselves. So there's two perspectives going on there, unit role in terms of the developer's perspective and unit role in terms of the player's perspective. Ultimately it should be the player's perspective that is more important in determining unit roles, because it is the players who are evolving how the game is played. Blegh. It's one of those "meta" arguments that's kind of hard to explain
You probably should have just put this in your OP because your OP as it is led to different conclusions and much confusion about your point. :/
|
On the surface, the Immortal is an incredibly boring unit. This is especially true given that its predecessor is the Reaver, is a venerable legend in terms of its micromanagement capacity.
...what?
|
On December 05 2011 09:06 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2011 08:39 Snipinpanda wrote:On December 05 2011 08:12 Chargelot wrote:75 minerals for a unit that could kite zealots forever and potentially kill three or four dragoons with its mines? I'm glad there were no fucking OP units like that in Brood War, SC2 is so bad. Oh wait... Thanks I now have my go-to quote for "SC2 is bad cause the units suck" people. I'm very confused. Everyone knows vultures are OP, but so is everything else. I don't think I've ever seen people claim that there aren't OP units in BW. The game is balanced because everything is OP. Maybe I turned Romanian, but I dunno. Anyways, I don't really get OP's argument. Vultures's role is a mix of area control and threat as well as harassment. Vultures are also great in main army fights. I dunno if this is what you're calling evolution of a role or whatever, but the reason why vultures are used and reapers are not is because vultures are just much more versatile, because vultures themselves have much more roles. It's kinda like, do the attributes of a unit define it's role? or does the role define the attributes? I feel like with the reaper it's much more of the latter, whereas with the vulture it's much more of the former. The vulture is built like a harasser, but in the hands of players it has become a multi-role unit used for lot of things. On the other hand, the reaper, which was heavily abused in the beta days, has been nerfed so much that it's now pidgeon-holed as only an early game harasser and nothing else. The vulture was allowed to develop into all these roles which made it so great, while the reaper was nerfed because it wasn't used in the way the game designers intended it to be used. My argument is that the SC2 designers have made a mistake in nerfing the reaper so severely just because it wasn't used in the exact way that the designers wanted it to be used. Unit designers should take a step back to allow the players to define what a unit's role is, and not try too hard to define these roles themselves. So there's two perspectives going on there, unit role in terms of the developer's perspective and unit role in terms of the player's perspective. Ultimately it should be the player's perspective that is more important in determining unit roles, because it is the players who are evolving how the game is played. Blegh. It's one of those "meta" arguments that's kind of hard to explain
Yeah, I think that Blizz/Dbro should have designed units w/o the role in mind, and just have had general attributes given to units. Units that have too much of a "box" end up not getting used.
Personally, some of the better units in WoL/BW have abilities that apply to both offense/defense situations, such as:
-mines
-stim
-siege
-forcefields
-blink (stalker itself is not that interesting, but good blink micro is nice to watch)
|
That point about raynor photoshopping kerrigans picture was so good, you are a genius. I liked the points you made, we will just have to see what the expansion brings us.
|
United States7639 Posts
On December 05 2011 08:12 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +75 minerals for a unit that could kite zealots forever and potentially kill three or four dragoons with its mines? I'm glad there were no fucking OP units like that in Brood War, SC2 is so bad. Oh wait... Thanks I now have my go-to quote for "SC2 is bad cause the units suck" people.
The "SC2 is bad cause the units suck" arguments tend to revolve around the a-move deathball nature of some units, not whether or not they were OP. How does "BW has vultures which are really OP" counter "colossi are so boring compared to reavers" in any way? lol
|
If dustin browder just focussed on how exciting a unit can be before how cool it can be, we should get amazing units.
Like the new harass unit. It is very protoss-like, altering the terrain to their will. But I don't think I will ever get excited about minerals being entombed. Similar to the replicator.
As for the Tempest, the AoE simply doesn't make sense. Air units tend to bend around a target in a really nice arch like the Mutalisks, but the Tempests AoE is circular. You will still need a ton of Tempests to scare mutalisks away and with that cost they won't be the magic -mutalisks can't be on the map anymore- unit that people think it might be. They should give it a ring-like AoE if they really want to accomplish Mutalisk zoning so focusfiring will be hard.
The biggest problem I see with the units that Blizzard designs is that the skill cap is very easily seen. A fungal is a fire-and-forget spell, a Thor is another A move unit that might improve if you do basic focusfiring with them. But they don't really make a lot of units that have that X factor for micro like the Marine or Hellion.
Whereas macro became easier in SC2, micro didn't get harder. If we had more micro there would be more players who would be able to differentiate themselves from the large pack in that regard ala MKP.
|
I like your sig: "Logic is Overrated" :D
Fits perfectly, jk
Pretty nice blog/article
|
Great read, very good article. I would definitively enjoy more articles from you, as I also enjoyed the previous parts of this blog.
|
Nice follow up. Though Part 1 is better structured.
Still, good points all in all
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
