|
Part 1, Part 2
On State of the Game episode 60 some dude went on the show and talked about how StarCraft 2 isn't the most watchable game for a viewer who wants to watch the game, but has never played it. It was an interesting point and I wondered if it was actually true. This is the inspiration for the third installment of SC2 unit design. Is StarCraft 2 too difficult for casual and non-player viewers to watch? What specifically makes StarCraft 2 easy/difficult to watch? How can this be improved? These are the types of questions I hope to explore here.
Part I: The Non-Player Viewers' Perspective
Overall I do not think that StarCraft 2's game play is too difficult to grasp for a non-playing viewer. At its roots, StarCraft 2 is a simple war game where two players are pitted against each other until one player is defeated. Compared to MOBA games or even WarCraft 3, StarCraft 2 is far easier to pick up and watch. Everything in StarCraft 2 is intuitively geared towards destroying the opponent. There is no "intermediate action" such as creeping to interfere with the goal of building a bigger army and destroying the other player. A viewer can easily see who has the bigger army, who has the bigger bases, whose color is more dominant on the minimap.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SxQvn.png)
Can you tell who is currently winning in this game?
Furthermore, even though there are many nuances of SC2 that aren't obvious to the casual viewer (harassment, micromanagement, cheeses, etc.), these aspects are almost always very easy to explain. When the screen shows a Terran dropping six MULES onto a mineral patch, every caster who has ever casted will comment on how the Terran's economy will skyrocket. The viewer who has never played the game can then guess that these MULES are supposed to help Terran gather resources faster. When a Zerg player is trying to nydus the opponent's base, the casters will all become excited and raise their voices, thus telling the viewer that something exciting is about to happen.
Part II: So What's the Problem?
The main problem with StarCraft 2 (and all games trying to build a spectator base, really) is that there are many complex things in the game that are not automatically intuitive to the viewer.
The most prominent examples of this in my mind are the large numbers of spells and abilities in this game, especially those that do not do damage. When corruptors use their corruption spells, casters do not always explain that the spell does zero damage, but instead forces corrupted units to take 25% extra damage. When sentries pop their guardian shields, a casual viewer can clearly see that something has happened, but may not be able to guess at what exactly is happening. Even damage spells such as feedback can be deceiving when it goes off on low-energy medivacs and deal negligible damage.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uph6G.jpg)
If I wanted to watch unicorns shit rainbows I'll... well, just trying to say things could certainly be more confusing
Furthermore, StarCraft 2's complexity translates to fewer instances of repetition. Different players with different strategies and even different skill levels create to vastly different types of games. This lack of repetition makes it difficult for a casual viewer to identify the plays that are considered particularly exciting for people who play the game. If a casual player watches a single Bo5 of TvZ, he or she may see only a single instance of hellions roasting an entire mineral line, a single clutch fungal, and a single time when a huge group of marines died to baneling mines. Although we as players and regular viewers know from previous experiences that these are exciting plays, these single instances are probably not enough to impress a viewer in the same way that multiple goals might impress a first-time viewer of a game of soccer.
Unfortunately for casual viewers much of this complexity is inevitable. These are the very things that give StarCraft 2 its high skill ceiling and defines it as a legitimate game for high level competition. So it seems we have an impasse: the very complexity that legitimates SC2 as a game for competitors is hindering its ability to appeal to a large casual viewership.
Part 3: What Can Be Done?
A lot of small tweaks can be made to drive the game towards better watchability without compromising the complexity of the game.
A) Hidden APM
StarCraft: Brood War hit upon a balance between watchability and complexity through what I will call "hidden apm". That is, the game gives the spectator a very smooth viewing experience, but taxes the player's ability to the limits in order to do so. Only the best players can constantly manufacture units while maintaining a smooth economy while maneuvering their army around the field at the same time. This APM is "hidden" away from the viewer. It is not until a person actually plays the game that he or she will finally discover how difficult it is to play at the progaming level.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5Zm43.jpg)
Back when I was your age, 1a2a3a was considered easy mode. Now it's just 1a.
Hidden APM contrasts with "shown" APM, such as marine splits, multi-prong harassment, and blink micromanagement. These are actions that can immediately be appreciated by the viewer as something that is clearly quite difficult to do. The advantage of hidden APM is that the more hidden APM there is, the smoother the viewing experience is for a casual viewer. In StarCraft 2, the comparative lack of hidden APM has translated to a relative increase in battle management. It is much more difficult to follow two simultaneous drops, a counter-attack, and a major engagement on the map at the same time than it is to follow a single major engagement with maybe one harassment drop on the side.
Now, I'm not suggesting that StarCraft 2 scrap MBS/unlimited unit selection, but it is clearly that the lack of hidden APM means that players' skills need to be taxed on some way. MULES, chrono boost, and larva inject are some of the (hidden APM) things in StarCraft 2 that are purposefully designed to force a player to multitask.
One thing that Blizzard can still do in StarCraft 2 is to explore other ways to reward player skill than APM. Long-time StarCraft players know that APM is not the only standard by which a player's skill is judged. Other skills such as decision making, positioning, and ability to discover timings are equally as important. To add to these "other skills", one small thing Blizzard can do is to remove "insta-cast" from spells such as EMP and Fungal Growth. Make these spells projectile based like how EMP was in Brood War. This allows players to pit their micromanagement against each other as one player tries to land the EMP while the other tries to dodge it. Not a lot of APM is required by the players, but the player with the better timing and judgement is rewarded.
B) Naming Names
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/scFCY.jpg)
HopeTorture. A name with the poetic elegance of a crab limping along after seven of its legs have been torn off.
Here are a few ability names: Guardian Shield. Mana Burn. Point Defense Drone. Siege Mode. Charge. Here are a few more ability names: Corruption. Weapon Refit. Contaminate. What is the difference between the first group of names and the second group of names? The answer is that the first group of names are self-explanatory, while the second group of names is not.
Admittedly, I had to go digging pretty deep and probably found the only three names in the entire game that aren't self-explanatory. Corruption can easily be renamed as something like "corrosion" or "corrosive acid" to invoke the idea that it weakens units. Weapon Refit, Yamato Cannon Refit. Contaminate, Infested Growth. There are very likely better names than what I've suggested. The point is that this is a very minor change that will help prevent confusion among casual viewers on spells and their effects.
C) Units and their Abilities
Dustin Browder has admitted concerns over the usefulness of the Overseer. It is being removed from Heart of the Swarm as a result. I too think the Overseer is a fairly crappy unit, at least because of how its presence impacts new spectators of StarCraft 2.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AlJqZ.jpg)
Looks like one of those bosses in a Metroid game where you shoot the weak spot. So long, Seymour.
The problem with the Overseer is that it is a non-combat spell caster. None of its abilities are particularly intuitive for a casual viewer, and most players do not build it for anything other than detection purposes. Professional gamers tend to sacrifice plain overlords for scouting at least as often as they spawn changelings. It is essentially a big, expensive, defenseless unit that spends most of its time hovering around doing nothing. You may argue that the observer is similar, but at least observers are capable of maintaining a constant presence over an enemy army without risking harm. When you put the pieces together, the overseer's only saving grace is that it doesnt cost supply.
All other spell casters in the game have some form of combat utility, and this is the way it should be. Units can have abilities that allow them to be used for other purposes such as defense and harassment (high templar, lurkers, queens), but they must also be able to fight as part of the main army. This way, there is no confusion for the viewer as to why any unit is produced. In other words, units must be designed in such a way that even if it is the first time that a casual viewer has seen the unit, the viewer can instantly (and correctly) assume that it will perform in a meaningful way in battle.
Towards these ends, I predict that the upcoming Protoss Oracle and possibly the Terran Shredder will not make it into the final iteration of Heart of the Swarm. The Oracle is another spell caster with no direct combat ability, making it a confusing unit for the casual viewer. The Shredder has an attacking ability, but its usability in conjunction with any main army is questionable.
Conclusion
There isn't one. I'm done. Thanks for reading. Now go away.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/snueo.jpg)
Be free!
 
|
5/5'd just for the conclusion.
but uh, im not exactly sure what you're arguing D:
|
Oh god you are so good! Just starting to read parts 1 and 2 now
THANK YOU
|
Great read, interesting ideas, but it seems odd to conclude that the shredder won't make it in based on watchability. It seems pretty damn obvious that it shreds units. Besides, Browder said that a main goal in HotS was to pull units out of the deathball so you don't get, or get less of a blob-wars situation.
Re: the oracle, it seems pretty clear/transparent that it hurts the enemy's economy, at least just as clear as workers mining minerals would be-- big bubbles over the minerals are preventing them from mining. *shrugs* The replicant seems like an easier choice to exclude based on your watchability criteria,
|
On December 18 2011 16:26 johnnywup wrote:
5/5'd just for the conclusion.
but uh, im not exactly sure what you're arguing D:
This was more about commentary than arguing any specific thing, hence the lack of conclusion.
On December 18 2011 16:43 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Oh god you are so good!
It's an odd compliment to get from a man (you are a man right), but uhh, thank you? 
On December 18 2011 17:24 caradoc wrote:
Great read, interesting ideas, but it seems odd to conclude that the shredder won't make it in based on watchability. It seems pretty damn obvious that it shreds units. Besides, Browder said that a main goal in HotS was to pull units out of the deathball so you don't get, or get less of a blob-wars situation.
Re: the oracle, it seems pretty clear/transparent that it hurts the enemy's economy, at least just as clear as workers mining minerals would be-- big bubbles over the minerals are preventing them from mining. *shrugs* The replicant seems like an easier choice to exclude based on your watchability criteria,
Well, I'm arguing strictly from a viewer's perspective and not from a player's perspective. From a casual viewer's perspective the best types of games seem to be about the constant clashing of large armies (you can even see tons of people on Team Liquid crying for "macro games"). Even for player-spectators, it's not so much that death balls are bad as how they are used. If there is constant clashing of armies all over the map along with some drops and harassment, it builds a nice rhythm for an exciting game.
As for Browder's goal of pulling units from the ball, there are different ways of going about it, and I don't think the oracle is a good way to do it.
Currently there are already ways of pulling units out of balls. Medivacs are basically an essential part of most Terran armies and heavily encourage drop harassment. Protoss leave high templars at their outlying bases to ward off harassment. The ways we have now aren't enough to pull a lot of supply out, but there is an element of choice and a concentrated focus on combat. Units can be pulled out of an army and put back into the army at a player's whim.
The Oracle, on the other hand, is completely useless in the army. It serves no purpose other than passively harass. But why waste resources on an oracle when you can build a phoenix to scout, harass, and tank for your colossi death ball at the same time? The oracle's designed role is far too narrow to even warrant a unit. Its abilities can easily be split off and handed to other units.
The Shredder isn't quite an open-and-shut case. Maybe at high levels players can manage it as part of the main army. But I see it as either just a defensive structure that requires supply, or maybe a harassment drop unit. And why use it as a harassment unit over the hellion, when the hellion can both devastate mineral lines AND serve as troops in your main army?
My point is that no matter what other roles units can fulfill, their main focus should be on direct combat utility. Both the oracle and the shredder have essentially redundant functions with other units, which is bad from the players' perspective. And their use isn't immediately obvious to a casual viewer, which is bad from a spectator's perspective (I mean, who wants to see two shredders pop out from factories, get deployed near a natural, then be forgotten about for the rest of the game?).
And while we're on the subject of pulling supply out of balls, the Arc Shield seems to be designed with the exact opposite philosophy in mind. Protoss no longer need to leave high templars lying around or be forced to warp units at their bases away from their army. They can instead just turn their buildings into photon cannons.
The design philosophy of pulling supply out of death balls is pretty good, but the execution seems to need work.
|
Papua New Guinea1054 Posts
1/5 because I can.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I really like the shredder and I hope they implement it into HotS, but you're right about it not being cohesive with the main army.
It could be cool if they change it to have very low HP and the ability to be spawned from the hellion (after an upgrade of course), akin to spider mines. Uncloaked spider mines that have ranged damage that can't ever friendly fire.
|
I agree so much with the naming.
Weapon Refit? Durable Materials? I mean come the fuck on!
Great Trilogy. Hoping for more soon!
|
I can barely understand whats happening in the first screenshot.... the screen is so shiny and full of special effects that overlap the units.
I also think those guidelines (siege range, cannon range, unit rally point) should be optional, both to observers and players. They polute the screen much more than it helps for me.
|
I disagree with the problem/bo5 thing.
The observer learns that something epic happened, and is enticed to keep watching and find out what went down.
|
your Country52797 Posts
First picture, I immediately thought red was winning. More explosions on blue's army.
Of course, I agree that watchability must be improved for the sake of our spectators.
The only question is, how does blizzard do that?
Do we make exciting scenarios more common? Do we make the animation and color more distinct? Do we make all the watchable things more simple?
That question must be answered before anything is done.
|
Not as good a read as your 1st two. (Which i just read)
Ironically enough, talking about unintended unit design. I saw Kiwikaki do a sentry drop oin Sheth's mineral line and ff'd the patches for 20 seconds with 4 force fields. admittedly 4 sentries are 400 energy, but if you were to have 2 with full energy, you could stil "oracle drop" two supply pathes for less than building a gas heavy building and a gas heavy pseudo harasser.
Overseers are tank, don't cost supply, are the cheapest mobile detector in terms of cost AND in terms of teching too in all matchups, and move at the same speed as an observer, and have an easier to access speed upgrade.
|
On December 18 2011 22:43 Cyber_Cheese wrote:
I disagree with the problem/bo5 thing.
The observer learns that something epic happened, and is enticed to keep watching and find out what went down.
Maybe you are right. If the viewer is interested enough in the first place, he or she might be eager to learn more about the game.
But what's epic for us may not automatically be epic for a casual viewer. When I watch a MOBA game and see a ton of spells flying around, and the casters sound ecstatic, I hear what they're saying but still have no idea what's going on. After watching a few more minutes I begin to understand what happened, but also realize that I still don't care.
I think we shouldn't take the epicness for granted, but that the game should work to sell to casual viewers on why it was epic. Sometimes it's hard to convey the sense that something just took a monumental amount of skill through a 2-d flat screen.
On December 19 2011 00:33 TheEconomist wrote:
Ironically enough, talking about unintended unit design. I saw Kiwikaki do a sentry drop oin Sheth's mineral line and ff'd the patches for 20 seconds with 4 force fields. admittedly 4 sentries are 400 energy, but if you were to have 2 with full energy, you could stil "oracle drop" two supply pathes for less than building a gas heavy building and a gas heavy pseudo harasser.
Overseers are tank, don't cost supply, are the cheapest mobile detector in terms of cost AND in terms of teching too in all matchups, and move at the same speed as an observer, and have an easier to access speed upgrade.
The thing about sentries is that they both force field and can attack to kill a few workers. When you're done with harassment, you pick them back up to join your main army. Oracles can't do that. Unless they're behind the enemy's mineral line at all times they're essentially deadweight. Even a super cheap deadweight is still a deadweight. A casual viewer can look at the Sentry and think "oh, so this unit can be used in all sorts of ways, I can see why they are built". But when they compare the oracle with the sentry, they'll think "wait, so that's all that this unit can do? why build this unit when you can build sentries?"
As for the Overseer, it's not a bad unit for players, but for viewers it really stands out (in a bad way) as the only non-combat spell unit. If you recall in Brood War, detection was essentially free for Zerg and very unobtrusive for viewers. Overlords provide supply and detect. Cool, time to move on. In SC2, the Overseer is basically an attempt to make a boring unit interesting, without actually succeeding. Even if a player does try to be all cool like KiwiKaki did one time in IPL's top plays where he microed the overseer around and dropped a changeling just before it died, the play is only barely more interesting than suiciding a plain overlord to catch some key tech structures, and nowhere near as impactful as a burrowed infestor sneaking around the enemy base.
|
Hidden APM contrasts with "shown" APM, such as marine splits, multi-prong harassment, and blink micromanagement.
I don't get what you saying here. It sounds like you are implying BW doesn't have this 'shown apm' and sc2 doesnt have this 'hidden apm'. I think I get you are trying to say that macro is much easier in SC2 than in BW. Which is true to an extent. There is still much to appreciate about SC2's 'hidden apm', more-so concerning zerg players. Lastly, there is far more 'shown apm' in BW than will ever be present in SC2.
|
On December 19 2011 04:28 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +Hidden APM contrasts with "shown" APM, such as marine splits, multi-prong harassment, and blink micromanagement. I don't get what you saying here. It sounds like you are implying BW doesn't have this 'shown apm' and sc2 doesnt have this 'hidden apm'. I think I get you are trying to say that macro is much easier in SC2 than in BW. Which is true to an extent. There is still much to appreciate about SC2's 'hidden apm', more-so concerning zerg players. Lastly, there is far more 'shown apm' in BW than will ever be present in SC2.
Both games have hidden and shown APM. Brood War has far more hidden APM than SC2. I'm not sure what you qualify as "shown" APM, but for me the only thing that really qualifies is battle micromanagement (mutalisk harass, m&m dodging lurker spines, reaver shuttle play, etc). I would even consider 1a2a3a4a as "hidden" APM, since all you're really seeing is the fluid motion of a single moving army on the screen.
I'm not comparing these games to argue which game is better, I'm simply pointing out these things because they are relevant to a casual viewers' perspective. We as experienced players can argue forever on the small details of what requires how much APM, but that's not the point.
|
omg your analysis is so good. OP you have talent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
