EPTWhy not have some units that have a damage bonus to armored, but don't have armor themselves? It seems like such a good use of design space at first glance, yet it has not been done.
One thing I remember from reading mark rosewater's articles is about trying to conserve design space to keep it available for later uses. In a game like sc2, this would only apply to its expansions, not subsequent games/editions. So blizzard could be saving such units for one or both expansions, to fill out a niche better.
Another possibility is simple lack of need. AKA so what if they are? The units all counter things, and they all have counters. Rock, paper, scissors only requires 3 type; so basic, armored, and armored w anti-armor is enough. Just because design space is there, doesn't mean it should be used. This reminds me of an old design adage; paraphrasing - perfect design isn't when there's nothing left to add, but nothing left to take away. This raises an interesting aside, which i'll deal with in Section 2. Back to the topic: so is there anything truly useful to the game that would come from having an unarmored unit with a damage bonus to armored? Would it make any particular matchups better/ more interesting to play?
Simplicity is a nice feature; the fewer things there are in a game, the easier it is to remember. People want to play games, not sit down and memorize manuals of what all the units are and what they all do. The fewer types of units there are in the game, the easier it is to for people to learn. Having all the anti-armor units be like this may make it easier for the casual crowd and newer players.
It seems like I keep coming up with reason to not use non-armored anti-armor units. And i'm not coming up with reasons to use them. Any thoughts from the people here about reasons for/against using them?
Feel free to share any other potentially interesting unused design areas.
Section 2 - nothing left to take away
While one could take away nearly everything from the game, that would clearly destroy the game itself, so it's silly. But what about taking away a few units? Many RTS games are designed with a fairly limited number of units; and those units cover necessary archetypes (like scouts, main force units, siege), as well as cover counters necessary to make sure no unit becomes dominant. As such you'd think there wasn't a unit that can be removed without having significant metagame consequences.
Are there units or abilities in sc2 that could be removed without significantly hurting the game's balance?
There are quite a few units that aren't used often, but that doesn't mean they don't have a role, sometimes it's just a role you don't need often due to it being highly specialized, or only applying in very specific situations. This also of course varies a bit over time, as certain units are buffed and nerfed, it changes the necessity of other related units. Such as the hydra, which is a useful high damage unit, but has cost-efficiency issues that have affected it throughout the history of the game. With the rise of higher range queens, and range 4 roaches; and with better creep spreading as a result of having more queens anyways, the value of hydras has decreased considerably. The point being, that sometimes a unit may fill a unique role, but if nerfs/buffs make it too poor overall, it may become possible to remove that unit without disrupting game balance much. I don't think the hydra is quite at that point yet though.
Units that are only used in a certain game phase; like a late game stalemate breaker; or a unit only useful int he early/very early game may also be potentailly removable. what about the reaper? How would the game be different without the reaper? Certainly it's had a considerable effect on the metagame historically, but it has since been nerfed considerably.
So, are there other units, or perhaps abilities of units/buildings that could be removed without significantly affecting the game's balance?
