I used to play Brood War, and am still more fond of BW than SC2. Nevertheless, I think there are certain elements of Brood War that would be greatly criticized if they existed in SC2 today. I have seperated these elements into several categories:
1. Gameplay and Balance
One aspect of BW that always struck me was that there was no non-mirror matchup in which the Tier 1 units of both races could fight on even ground, during the purely tier 1 period of the game.
For PvZ, slowlots and dragoons just could not fight effectively against speed hydras which could kite zealots without leg enhancements, and just beat dragoons straight up. So Toss always took a Forge fast expand, only challenging Zerg on the ground when zealots acquired speed and became effective against hydras. Even so, once the hydra ball got too big Toss had to have storm or reavers to fight effectively - pure zealot dragoon would never beat hydra ling.
Zerg is the race that has to turtle during tier 1 in TvZ, as stimmed infantry with medics shred hydras and lings with ease. Therefore Zerg had to get lurkers or mutas to fight the Terran tier 1 marine medic composition. If the T did some early push e.g. one base 5 rax, Zerg would have to hide behind a wall of sunken colonies.
The circle completes itself in PvT, as it is Toss's turn to dominate at Tier 1. Ranged goons could kite and pick off marines easily, so Terran had to defend with a bunker till tanks came out. Now if Terran had a sizable ball of marines and medics with stim AND range upgraded, infantry could really beat gateway units for cost, however by that time Toss would have reavers or storm out which would melt Bio. So at normal Tier 1 timing, ranged goons would dominate the battlefield, forcing Terran to turtle.
So when I watched regular BW matches without cheese, I could pretty much predict that at Tier 1 the control of the battlefield would be Z>P>T>Z. This is not the case in Starcraft 2. I suspect if it is many of us would complain about it, myself included.
In SC2, many complaints seem to stem from the two Protoss matchups, PvT and PvZ. One often-voiced opinion is that the Protoss gateway units are too weak while collossus/storm is too strong. I personally feel that way too.
But when I reminicise about Brood War, I remember that TvZ was the same in a way. Lings would get chewed up easily by the mid-game marine/medic army no matter how many Zerg threw at them, but once lurkers got into position, Terran infantry would melt into blood in seconds. So lings were mainly there to draw fire for the lurkers, or cut off a retreat. Conversely if the Terran managed to take out all the lurkers, Zerg could not stop the Terran assault no matter how many lings they had. If we replace the word "lings" with "gateway units" and "lurkers" with "colossi", doesn't that seem like the current PvT matchup in SC2?
Of course I enjoyed the midgame TvZ clashes in BW more than the current PvT clashes in SC2. But that was because lurkers are much more exciting to watch and use than colossi, not because the "distribution of strength" in the Zerg army was more even than that in the current Protoss army.
As for PvZ in SC2, Toss simply cannot fight Roaches cost-effectively with Zealots and Stalkers once the Zerg economy is established. Forcefields, blink micro and Immortals must be used to hold. But in BW this was the same, as hydras in sufficient numbers simply could not be fought with pure zealots or dragoons. Toss had to have storm or reavers. At one point in time every Zerg would use mutas to snipe high templar, then simply laugh and flood the Toss with endless waves of hydras. Gateway units just could not stand up to hydras cost for cost once the army sizes on both sides grew large.
As we complain that once key Toss units like HT and colossi are sniped it's GG for Toss, let's remember that in the past this was perhaps even more so for Zerg, as sometimes the entire game would hang on the back of one unit - the defiler. A single Dark Swarm could mean life for the Zerg; it's failure would be death. Such fragility would be greatly disliked today.
2. Racial Design
When it comes to "how each race should feel like", we generally feel that Protoss should be the race of few but powerful units, Zerg of numerous but weak ones, while Terran is in the midle.
Yet in actual BW matchups, things were not like that at all. In PvT Protoss had to overrun the Terran mech army with superior numbers of gateway units, while in TvZ Zerg used a smaller number of higher tech units to hold back the more numerous Terran infantry, either mutas picking them off or lurkers stopping them at chokes.
Only the PvZ matchup conformed to our expectations in terms of numbers of units on both sides.
SC2 is in fact more well designed in terms of conforming to racial expectations. Toss has fewer units in both matchups, while Zerg has more in both. The only possible exception to this is end-game Zerg which relies on Broodlords and Infestors, but when we consider the endless waves of free units both spawn, the "swarm" image is definitely stronger than two lurkers holding back an army under a Dark Swarm.
3. Usable Units
One thing that struck me in BW was the sheer number of units that could not be used in various matchups.
The most obvious example of this was Terran bio, which could not be used at all beyond the very early game against Protoss or Terran. Mech, admittedly, could be used in all matchups. Starport units... drops and vessels could be used in all matchups too, but apart from the occasional wraith or valk against Zerg, the fighting spacecraft could really only be used in TvT.
As for Zerg, the Tier 3 flyers, guardians and devourers, were hardly used at all. Heck even the iconic hydra was really used against Toss only, aside from occasionally facing Terran mech. While on the Protoss side, carriers were only used against Terran. Our beloved icons, hydras and carriers, only starred in one matchup each.
Let us compare this to SC2.
Terran bio and starport units can be used in all matchups, while mech can be used in two out of three, barring Protoss.
Nearly all Zerg units can be used in all matchups, except the poor hydra.
Protoss gateway and robo units can all be used in all matchups. Stargate units are really mainly used against Zerg only, but in BW corsairs came into play against Zerg only, carriers against Toss only and scouts against nobody.
So I dare say that SC2 has fewer unused units than BW.
4. What I am trying to say (edited in)
I'm not trying to knock BW here - I've been playing it for many years, followed the proscene, etc. What I mean is BW has it's defects, but despite them, it's still a much better game than Starcraft 2, primarily because of more interesting units (reaver, lurker, vulture) and more interesting micro (carrier hit-and-run, muta stack, Terran mech positioning).
It's just that for some complaints about SC2 such as gateway units being too weak and colossi too strong, I can draw a parellel with the ling and lurker vs mid-game Terran infantry. Or between the forcefield and the dark swarm (both need to be casted perfectly to survive). What I want to say is that BW was not perfect, but the interesting units and micro it had more than made up for it.
Thus when we look at SC2, the priority over everything else should be to put in more interesting units and micro.
BW was an excellent game, the best RTS I have ever played by far. Yet even the best things need to be looked at critically.
This is nice. Ik now almost nothing about BW even though I played it for many years - I just never learned about the competitive scene, never knew what the real strategies or even good mechanics are. Then there are so many people on TL that know a lot abotu BW, but they are too angry on SC2 to do these kind of writeups. So thank you for this very much!
I thought PvT conformed pretty well to racial design.
Protoss units are too mighty for regular ol' Terran infantry so what Terran does is they bring out the big guns. Goliaths and Vultures were not very good against Protoss units, but Siege Tanks and Spider Mines would tear everything a new one. A Tank doing a full 70 damage to shields made it amazing against pretty much all ground units. And you said it yourself, Terran not being able to do anything against Dragoons other than cowering inside bunkers until tanks arrive.
I thought the mass tier one style fit Protoss pretty well in PvT, always thought of them as Spartans, who would fearlessly charge into battle.
On October 17 2012 18:33 puppykiller wrote: There is a huge amount of ignorance in your post. I don't think that you ever played BW.
good stuff in there imo
they should aim to make sc2 as fun/balanced as possible not "make every race's tier 1 equally powerful" or "aim to make every unit see lots of play" or other pointless goals like that
in the case of rarely-used units it actually adds to the excitement when they finally do get used in a high level match
The circle completes itself in PvT, as it is Toss's turn to dominate at Tier 1. Ranged goons could kite and pick off marines easily, so Terran had to defend with a bunker till tanks came out. Now if Terran had a sizable ball of marines and medics with stim AND range upgraded, infantry could really beat gateway units for cost, however by that time Toss would have reavers or storm out which would melt Bio. So at normal Tier 1 timing, ranged goons would dominate the battlefield, forcing Terran to turtle.
This is all assuming that terran has open with a 1 rax fe and he has to defend with a bunker because there is no siege tank if the terran has gone for a fd and pulled a strong fd bringing in 6 marines 3 scvs 1 tank 1 vulture ... who needs a freaking bunker when you can push out with a sizeable force like this which if the toss is not careful at the timing it's pretty much game over for him . Range goons only dominated Tier 1 till a certain timing however I don't see the point marines aren't as tough as they should be they are pretty good with 1 rax factory academy build though goons with range can't do a thing with marines even though they have their range upgraded .
1-> so what ? Plus Goons vs Academy tech suck balls, so you're kinda wrong. 2-> So what ? Conforming to an arbitrary stereotype made sc2 Zerg an horribly boring race with that so fascinating strategic concept of max and remax... 3. This is true, but I don't like your examples.
On October 17 2012 18:33 puppykiller wrote: There is a huge amount of ignorance in your post. I don't think that you ever played BW.
May I ask where is the ignorance?
Good read, I think you were mostly right except for the part about BW lings only being there to draw fire or cut off retreat. If you use them well they can actually be the primary damage dealers. Having played a lot of pure lurkerling vs infantry, you know that the terran is always going to run before the lurkers go down, and often you can win the battle by using that time in which they're focus firing a lurker to gain a lot of ground unimpeded for a ling surround.
I don't agree for point 3. The reason many units could not be used all the time and in all matchups was because units were actually very specific, which is much less the case in SC2 where units are much more versatile overall. I don't see how this can be bad. I love being surprised by guardians destroying my 5th base defended by cannons and reavers in PvZ, I love seeing a Terran surprising the zerg with a Valkonic build etc.
On October 17 2012 18:18 opisska wrote: This is nice. Ik now almost nothing about BW even though I played it for many years - I just never learned about the competitive scene, never knew what the real strategies or even good mechanics are. Then there are so many people on TL that know a lot abotu BW, but they are too angry on SC2 to do these kind of writeups. So thank you for this very much!
All you had to do was look. It's not someone elses fault that they aren't sending you pms on how to play brood war lol
This isn't really a hindsight, it's the type of thing you could hear people complaining about even during its popularity. Dumb things by people who feel the game isn't playing the way they want it to, instead of learning how to play the game. Why can't I use 3 marines against 2 goons?? Why aren't ghosts the best unit in the game, they're so cool! Why aren't the themes of the races the way I'd imagined??
If we take your thesis to be old features that wouldn't hold up today, your post makes no sense.
Protoss units being expensive and fewer but more powerful is an idea that developed in 1999 as people were still figuring out the game. That in PvT Protoss need to outexpand Terran is a weird thing to complain about. So Protoss have to be played in a variety of interesting and exciting ways? Wow that's so horrible. zz You could play even bases with Terran if you wanted and just get lots of tech and heavy expensive units like reavers, the option is there, but as people grew interested in this game strategy evolved and people's ideas of what each race is for change. I don't know if Blizzard's strategy guide suggested this expensive but powerful idea, but I'm pretty sure their lore wasn't concerned. Each race developed incredible distinct and interesting personalities in each matchup. If SC2 had such a feature, it would be a much better game, not a criticised one.
There are ways to play this game that are more stable. That the pros play in ways that mean a single storm or swarm can be game changing is exciting for viewers. However, if you want, you can play midgame ZvT ZvP styles. You can choose less risky styles. Day9 favoured mid game Zerg army and did very well with it. At the low tier levels where players are whiny enough to complain about losing from making a big mistake, they won't really be faced with the follow up that is necessary to capitalize on that mistake. Low level StarCraft is usually not about one storm or swarm, it's more a battle with trying to do everything you want to do (which for some people is exciting and fun).
I think your argument about tier 1 units is just ridiculous and holds no water as a genuine complaint of the game. You also don't seem to know which tier one units are better than others. Maybe you need to play more 2v2 lolll. At the low levels I would say tactics and macro matter most, and at the higher levels I would say no one cares that they're rushing to tier 2 units because it doesn't take long and it makes the game dynamic.
That the same units are not used in all 3 matchups gives variety to the player and the viewer. That some units only get used once in awhile makes people excited to see them. Again, I don't understand how this is a complaint of the game. I would grant that the scout is too expensive to be practical in 1v1 (except as an implied counter to other lesser used units), but when I started to see queens getting used vs mech in ZvT it was really damn cool. When I saw boxer or another Terran gosu utilizing lockdown or nukes, it made the night. I think if there are not units that have rare situational use, it is harder for a player to show his or her brilliance. So all you introduce is yet another criticism of SC2.
I don't really think BW is ready for hindsight yet either, unless you are only talking about the professional scene (which you clearly aren't with the balance whines). Too many people still playing this game. zz Even if you say you like BW more than SC2, I gotta criticise the arguments you've made here because they just don't seem legit. Maybe a game like BW wouldn't get popular today, but it would certainly impress those with the right background and understanding of games. I dunno man. These are weird things to complain about for someone who claims they favour BW? What exactly do you think BW got right if not race balance, interesting units and tense gameplay?
On October 17 2012 20:49 Chef wrote: This isn't really a hindsight, it's the type of thing you could hear people complaining about even during its popularity. Dumb things by people who feel the game isn't playing the way they want it to, instead of learning how to play the game. Why can't I use 3 marines against 2 goons?? Why aren't ghosts the best unit in the game, they're so cool! Why aren't the themes of the races the way I'd imagined??
If we take your thesis to be old features that wouldn't hold up today, your post makes no sense.
Protoss units being expensive and fewer but more powerful is an idea that developed in 1999 as people were still figuring out the game. That in PvT Protoss need to outexpand Terran is a weird thing to complain about. So Protoss have to be played in a variety of interesting and exciting ways? Wow that's so horrible. zz You could play even bases with Terran if you wanted and just get lots of tech and heavy expensive units like reavers, the option is there, but as people grew interested in this game strategy evolved and people's ideas of what each race is for change. I don't know if Blizzard's strategy guide suggested this expensive but powerful idea, but I'm pretty sure their lore wasn't concerned. Each race developed incredible distinct and interesting personalities in each matchup. If SC2 had such a feature, it would be a much better game, not a criticised one.
There are ways to play this game that are more stable. That the pros play in ways that mean a single storm or swarm can be game changing is exciting for viewers. However, if you want, you can play midgame ZvT ZvP styles. You can choose less risky styles. Day9 favoured mid game Zerg army and did very well with it. At the low tier levels where players are whiny enough to complain about losing from making a big mistake, they won't really be faced with the follow up that is necessary to capitalize on that mistake. Low level StarCraft is usually not about one storm or swarm, it's more a battle with trying to do everything you want to do (which for some people is exciting and fun).
I think your argument about tier 1 units is just ridiculous and holds no water as a genuine complaint of the game. You also don't seem to know which tier one units are better than others. Maybe you need to play more 2v2 lolll. At the low levels I would say tactics and macro matter most, and at the higher levels I would say no one cares that they're rushing to tier 2 units because it doesn't take long and it makes the game dynamic.
That the same units are not used in all 3 matchups gives variety to the player and the viewer. That some units only get used once in awhile makes people excited to see them. Again, I don't understand how this is a complaint of the game. I would grant that the scout is too expensive to be practical in 1v1 (except as an implied counter to other lesser used units), but when I started to see queens getting used vs mech in ZvT it was really damn cool. When I saw boxer or another Terran gosu utilizing lockdown or nukes, it made the night. I think if there are not units that have rare situational use, it is harder for a player to show his or her brilliance. So all you introduce is yet another criticism of SC2.
I don't really think BW is ready for hindsight yet either, unless you are only talking about the professional scene (which you clearly aren't with the balance whines). Too many people still playing this game. zz Even if you say you like BW more than SC2, I gotta criticise the arguments you've made here because they just don't seem legit. Maybe a game like BW wouldn't get popular today, but it would certainly impress those with the right background and understanding of games. I dunno man. These are weird things to complain about for someone who claims they favour BW? What exactly do you think BW got right if not race balance, interesting units and tense gameplay?
Perhaps I expressed my points the wrong way.
What I meant was that BW is better than SC2 primarily because of more interesting units such as the reaver, lurker and vulture, and deeper micro such as muta stacking, carrier hit-and-runs and Terran mech positioning. When people say that the Colossus is plain boring, I agree 100%.
It's just that for some complaints about SC2 such as gateway units being too weak and colossi too strong, I can draw a parellel with the ling and lurker vs mid-game Terran infantry. Or between the forcefield and the dark swarm (both need to be casted perfectly to survive). What I want to say is that BW was not perfect, but the interesting units and micro it had more than made up for it.
Thus when we look at SC2, the priority should be to put in more interesting units and micro.
Besides, why would I balance whine about Brood War? I main Protoss and Jangbi won the last 2 OSL's, so I'm pretty happy XD.
I think he meant to say that if BW were released on 2010 instead of SC2, with the same community of today's SC2, the SC2 people would be bitching about the things in the OP, such as
"no use for the Scout, remove from the game plz!1!1!!" "OMG hydras OP my goons can't beat'em!! Remove plz!1!11" "cant kill merines with hydras, BUFF MERINES1!!1!1" "blizz plz remove tis, add that, make it eazier tis, even eazier that".
And I'd dare to say that the majority of today's SC2 people would be crying in the forum about how hard it is to use spells in the game:
"WTF?! its fucking impossible to using fucking multiple storms!!11! u hav 2 select each ht at time and cast teh spell!!1!! PLZ PATCH !1!!" "T OP!1! z cant beat t without darkswarm!1!1" "Dark sawrm 2 hard 4 use!!1!"
On October 17 2012 21:17 fabiano wrote: I think he meant to say that if BW were released on 2010 instead of SC2, with the same community of today's SC2, the SC2 people would be bitching about the things in the OP, such as
"no use for the Scout, remove from the game plz!1!1!!" "OMG hydras OP my goons can't beat'em!! Remove plz!1!11" "cant kill merines with hydras, BUFF MERINES1!!1!1" "blizz plz remove tis, add that, make it eazier tis, even eazier that".
And I'd dare to say that the majority of today's SC2 people would be crying in the forum about how hard it is to use spells in the game:
"WTF?! its fucking impossible to using fucking multiple storms!!11! u hav 2 select each ht at time and cast teh spell!!1!! PLZ PATCH !1!!" "T OP!1! z cant beat t without darkswarm!1!1" "Dark sawrm 2 hard 4 use!!1!"
On October 17 2012 18:18 opisska wrote: This is nice. Ik now almost nothing about BW even though I played it for many years - I just never learned about the competitive scene, never knew what the real strategies or even good mechanics are. Then there are so many people on TL that know a lot abotu BW, but they are too angry on SC2 to do these kind of writeups. So thank you for this very much!
All you had to do was look. It's not someone elses fault that they aren't sending you pms on how to play brood war lol
Yes, you are right. Noone certainly could be sending me PMs on how to play broodwar, because when I was playing broodwar, I had no account on TL! It's hard to look for things when you don't have the slightest idea that they exist.
I don't know why do you have to be so agressive. What I was saying is that I like when people try to think and write about relations between BW and SC2 other than "this or that game sucks, because I like the other one". And that I certainly can't do that because my knowledge of one of them is close to zero - yet I am interested, because I have spent hundreds of hours playing both.
One aspect of BW that always struck me was that there was no non-mirror matchup in which the Tier 1 units of both races could fight on even ground, during the purely tier 1 period of the game.
This has something to do with racial design. Protoss design revolves around using Zealots and Dragoons while being supported by higher tech units. Terran has a versatile and defense-oriented design that uses a lot of massable firepower. Zerg is meant to be versatile, mobile and can send wave upon wave of units to wear the enemy down.
2. Racial Design
When it comes to "how each race should feel like", we generally feel that Protoss should be the race of few but powerful units, Zerg of numerous but weak ones, while Terran is in the midle
Yes Protoss has the strongest units per tier, but the fact is, battles aren't always fought by the units of the same tier. Look at Toss, you can't mass reavers, archons and carriers so Toss usually needs to stick with tier 1 until the economy gives the go ahead. The thing keeping this aspect of the game balanced is that zealots and dragoons have high hitpoints. Your analysis of the ZvT lategame seems to be lacking, Zerg leverages on unending waves of units to make the Terran submit but rely on a few defilers in the same way Toss relies on HTs.
but when we consider the endless waves of free units both spawn, the "swarm" image is definitely stronger than two lurkers holding back an army under a Dark Swarm.
Ain't the Dark Swarm 'swarmy' enough for you?
One thing that struck me in BW was the sheer number of units that could not be used in various matchups
Yeah, but "could not be used" shouldn't be the term.
I like your analysis but I think your conclusions nitpick the facts too much.
What I meant was that BW is better than SC2 primarily because of more interesting units such as the reaver, lurker and vulture, and deeper micro such as muta stacking, carrier hit-and-runs and Terran mech positioning. When people say that the Colossus is plain boring, I agree 100%.
It's just that for some complaints about SC2 such as gateway units being too weak and colossi too strong, I can draw a parellel with the ling and lurker vs mid-game Terran infantry. Or between the forcefield and the dark swarm (both need to be casted perfectly to survive). What I want to say is that BW was not perfect, but the interesting units and micro it had more than made up for it.
Thus when we look at SC2, the priority should be to put in more interesting units and micro.
Besides, why would I balance whine about Brood War? I main Protoss and Jangbi won the last 2 OSL's, so I'm pretty happy XD.
Dark Swarm is unlike Force Field in the sense that you can move out of Dark Swarm but you can not move out of Force Field because you are literally stuck. On top of this Force fields come from a t1/t1.5 unit and Dark Swarm from a tier 3 unit. Moreover the Defiler has no combat abilities, stacking defilers was meaningless and a detriment to your army composition as they were expensive in gas. Force field can be more compared with spells which prevent micro from happening during battle, these are Stasis, Lockdown and Maelstrom.
If you analyze these closely you will see
Lockdown is not efficient enough (ghosts were too expensive and Lockdown was single target) Stasis field was on the Arbiter, this was a huge flying ship, easy to pick off with Goliaths or EMP with a Vessel if it was out of position. It was also a t3 unit, took a very long time to build, was expensive and had little to no combat ability(8 damage?). Maelstrom, Only useable against Zerg. It has its niche but carries a HUGE risk, not only do you need to research Maelstrom, you also spend 250 gas on the DTs to morph and the ability revolves around the suprise factor. DTs can be considered a t2 unit aswell.
Thank you, Puppykiller, Chef, and Kipsate for saying things that I wanted to but am too sick/tired to do so. All three of you hit the nail on the head for me.
It's actually funny to me someone values trying to have even tier 1 balance because that's the single contributing factor that made sc2 much shittier.
warp gate with tier 1 forced design of the roach and forced design of marauder being so beefy, which turned sc2 into a game of massing such tier 1 units. Without roach/marine dps or marauders the z or t would just die to warp gate, or turn into retarded turtle with 4 bunkers or 4 spines. Then because roach/marine marauder with stim were so strong they had to make forcefield to let p survive if p didn't just want to go 4 warp gate or something only.
Then with the pathing being able to get roaches/marine marauder so tightly packed they made colossus and nerfed storm (storm couldn't be too strong or would destroy the army clumping pathing AI), which everyone knows colossus sucks in terms of having fun/spectating.
On October 18 2012 01:19 EffervescentAureola wrote: SC2 has more variety of strategies, but BW was exciting for its own reasons. Nice analysis tho, I appreciate you putting this together!
On October 17 2012 17:58 targ wrote: 1. Gameplay and Balance Zerg is the race that has to turtle during tier 1 in TvZ, as stimmed infantry with medics shred hydras and lings with ease. Therefore Zerg had to get lurkers or mutas to fight the Terran tier 1 marine medic composition. If the T did some early push e.g. one base 5 rax, Zerg would have to hide behind a wall of sunken colonies.
Depends, really...
I mean, zerg probably has a hard time vs 1 base bio (not with 5 rax lol), which like no one except the most scumbaggery of cheesers do, but a Z opening 9 pool vs a 1 rax FE would probably feel very very safe. Zerglings in BW have a higher attack speed, and Terran actually feels very insecure until medic tech.
Zerg doesn't get mutas or lurkers to fight M&M.... they get mutas/lurkers to get map control, mostly so that they could get a third gas unhindered, which then transitions into defiler play, etc. etc.
Keep in mind this is all vs 1 rax FE. If T decides to 2 port wraith or play mech, it's a different story.
Conversely if the Terran managed to take out all the lurkers, Zerg could not stop the Terran assault no matter how many lings they had.
There's also a certain tier 3 caster unit for zerg that casts some spell that blocks all ranged attacks. I also hear that all terran units are pretty much ranged.
Lurkers don't actually.... kill anything unless up a ramp or something. You really need lurker/ling, with lings to surround. Good terran players (hell, mediocre terran players) will just split marines. Or just make tanks. Or just switch to mech. Or just make vessels. (Every time a vessel irradiates a lurker, i hear the sounds of a raven crying itself to sleep).
When it comes to "how each race should feel like", we generally feel that Protoss should be the race of few but powerful units, Zerg of numerous but weak ones, while Terran is in the midle.
Yet in actual BW matchups, things were not like that at all. In PvT Protoss had to overrun the Terran mech army with superior numbers of gateway units, while in TvZ Zerg used a smaller number of higher tech units to hold back the more numerous Terran infantry, either mutas picking them off or lurkers stopping them at chokes.
While this definition is probably defined by lore or some shit, in actual gameplay, T is defined with the strongest lategame army but the least amount of bases, while Z is defined by the most amount of bases, but relatively weaker lategame army. And to the most part, this holds true for every matchup. The fact that there is a consistency in gameplay is all that matters. It actually doesn't matter too much for aesthetics imo.
Would rather see lurkers and dark swarms and defilers eating lings rather than a swarm of roaches.
3. Usable Units
One thing that struck me in BW was the sheer number of units that could not be used in various matchups.
The most obvious example of this was Terran bio, which could not be used at all beyond the very early game against Protoss or Terran. Mech, admittedly, could be used in all matchups. Starport units... drops and vessels could be used in all matchups too, but apart from the occasional wraith or valk against Zerg, the fighting spacecraft could really only be used in TvT.
As for Zerg, the Tier 3 flyers, guardians and devourers, were hardly used at all. Heck even the iconic hydra was really used against Toss only, aside from occasionally facing Terran mech. While on the Protoss side, carriers were only used against Terran. Our beloved icons, hydras and carriers, only starred in one matchup each.
2 Port wraith is used quite frequently vs Zerg, as is valkonic. Deep six/bio vs protoss is used not as frequently, but it is used. Bio vs Protoss is actually extremely deadly, pre storm and pre reaver especially. After reavers and storm, it becomes exponentially harder, but stimmed M&M actually slices through goons like butter.
Hydras are only used vs mech, but late game mech is becoming more standard anyways. Hydras would be used ZvZ if Hive Tech ZvZ took off.
I've seen sair/reaver transition into carriers on cliff maps vs zerg.
I will agree with t3 flyers. Devourers don't really have a place, but that was not a fault of the devourer, but rather that scourge are really good.
4. What I am trying to say (edited in) I'm not trying to knock BW here -
You did that when you put the words "in hindsight" in your title... >.>
but when we consider the endless waves of free units both spawn, the "swarm" image is definitely stronger than two lurkers holding back an army under a Dark Swarm.
Ain't the Dark Swarm 'swarmy' enough for you?
Lol man you know what I mean.. it's an orange cloud!
What I meant was that BW is better than SC2 primarily because of more interesting units such as the reaver, lurker and vulture, and deeper micro such as muta stacking, carrier hit-and-runs and Terran mech positioning. When people say that the Colossus is plain boring, I agree 100%.
It's just that for some complaints about SC2 such as gateway units being too weak and colossi too strong, I can draw a parellel with the ling and lurker vs mid-game Terran infantry. Or between the forcefield and the dark swarm (both need to be casted perfectly to survive). What I want to say is that BW was not perfect, but the interesting units and micro it had more than made up for it.
Thus when we look at SC2, the priority should be to put in more interesting units and micro.
Besides, why would I balance whine about Brood War? I main Protoss and Jangbi won the last 2 OSL's, so I'm pretty happy XD.
Dark Swarm is unlike Force Field in the sense that you can move out of Dark Swarm but you can not move out of Force Field because you are literally stuck. On top of this Force fields come from a t1/t1.5 unit and Dark Swarm from a tier 3 unit. Moreover the Defiler has no combat abilities, stacking defilers was meaningless and a detriment to your army composition as they were expensive in gas. Force field can be more compared with spells which prevent micro from happening during battle, these are Stasis, Lockdown and Maelstrom.
If you analyze these closely you will see
Lockdown is not efficient enough (ghosts were too expensive and Lockdown was single target) Stasis field was on the Arbiter, this was a huge flying ship, easy to pick off with Goliaths or EMP with a Vessel if it was out of position. It was also a t3 unit, took a very long time to build, was expensive and had little to no combat ability(8 damage?). Maelstrom, Only useable against Zerg. It has its niche but carries a HUGE risk, not only do you need to research Maelstrom, you also spend 250 gas on the DTs to morph and the ability revolves around the suprise factor. DTs can be considered a t2 unit aswell.
I definitely agree that BW spells were better. What I mean is that both Toss in SC2 and Zerg in BW rely on one unit and one spell to keep alive at a certain point in time during the game. Toss needs Sentry/FF early against Z and T, before Storm/Colossi emerge, while Zerg needs Defiler/Dark Swarm against T when the M&M/tank ball comes knocking and cracklings/ultras are not out yet.
On October 18 2012 03:25 N.geNuity wrote: It's actually funny to me someone values trying to have even tier 1 balance because that's the single contributing factor that made sc2 much shittier.
warp gate with tier 1 forced design of the roach and forced design of marauder being so beefy, which turned sc2 into a game of massing such tier 1 units. Without roach/marine dps or marauders the z or t would just die to warp gate, or turn into retarded turtle with 4 bunkers or 4 spines. Then because roach/marine marauder with stim were so strong they had to make forcefield to let p survive if p didn't just want to go 4 warp gate or something only.
Then with the pathing being able to get roaches/marine marauder so tightly packed they made colossus and nerfed storm (storm couldn't be too strong or would destroy the army clumping pathing AI), which everyone knows colossus sucks in terms of having fun/spectating.
also meet kwanro.
I see your point. Wouldn't you think that warp gate really doesn't fall under "Tier 1 unit balance" but rather a way of removing the defender's advantage? I think that's the real problem with it.
For a competitive game, I still think there is some value in establishing balance at Tier 1, as that would make for more early fights and a better watching experience.
[QUOTE]On October 18 2012 09:44 Nazza wrote: [QUOTE]On October 17 2012 17:58 targ wrote: [QUOTE] Conversely if the Terran managed to take out all the lurkers, Zerg could not stop the Terran assault no matter how many lings they had. [/QUOTE] There's also a certain tier 3 caster unit for zerg that casts some spell that blocks all ranged attacks. I also hear that all terran units are pretty much ranged.
[QUOTE] When it comes to "how each race should feel like", we generally feel that Protoss should be the race of few but powerful units, Zerg of numerous but weak ones, while Terran is in the midle.
Yet in actual BW matchups, things were not like that at all. In PvT Protoss had to overrun the Terran mech army with superior numbers of gateway units, while in TvZ Zerg used a smaller number of higher tech units to hold back the more numerous Terran infantry, either mutas picking them off or lurkers stopping them at chokes. [/QUOTE]
While this definition is probably defined by lore or some shit, in actual gameplay, T is defined with the strongest lategame army but the least amount of bases, while Z is defined by the most amount of bases, but relatively weaker lategame army. And to the most part, this holds true for every matchup. The fact that there is a consistency in gameplay is all that matters. It actually doesn't matter too much for aesthetics imo.
Would rather see lurkers and dark swarms and defilers eating lings rather than a swarm of roaches.
[QUOTE] 4. What I am trying to say (edited in) I'm not trying to knock BW here - [/QUOTE]
You did that when you put the words "in hindsight" in your title... >.>[/QUOTE]
I should have clarified that I meant pre-defiler, when you really needed lurkers at choke points to defend.
I do agree with your point that the gameplay is consistent with Terran having the fewest bases while Zerg has the most. My complaint here is mostly based on it not matching lore in a way - Protoss should have fewer units in every matchup. Granted it is a pretty minor point.
As for the "Hindsight" title, I put it because, well, with the end of the MSL and OSL, I doubt there will be many changes to BW play at the highest level, as most major shifts in playstyle came from the Korean pros. So I'm not trying to imply that BW is dead, more that there will be much fewer changes, and much slower innovation.
On October 18 2012 11:37 endy wrote: We saw Sea (yes Liquid`Sea) beating Pusan yesterday night with a 1 base bio build in TvP, was so good !
which game?
The first game where Sea on Tau cross proxy double rax at 11 supply and tried to rush pusan with that initial force he slams down an academy and proceeds to pump out firebats and medics and marines . Really interesting game ..
On October 18 2012 11:37 endy wrote: We saw Sea (yes Liquid`Sea) beating Pusan yesterday night with a 1 base bio build in TvP, was so good !
which game?
The first game where Sea on Tau cross proxy double rax at 11 supply and tried to rush pusan with that initial force he slams down an academy and proceeds to pump out firebats and medics and marines . Really interesting game ..
The build worked as well as it did partly because the map allows for one supply depot to completely block off the choke point. Man, that hero firebat with 20 kills... Protoss nightmare!
On October 18 2012 01:19 EffervescentAureola wrote: SC2 has more variety of strategies, but BW was exciting for its own reasons. Nice analysis tho, I appreciate you putting this together!
you can win in sc2 using a larger variety of strategies because sc2 is still young. in bw, the strategies have been tried and tested and refined so much that only the best remain. sc2's strats are still developing, so even mediocre stratsgies (mediocre relative to strategies that are left once the game is closer to being solved) can be used to win. in the coming years, we should see the number of strategies in sc2 decrease until only several are viable. this is not saying more or less strategies is a good thing, im simply describing what and why,.
I definitely agree that BW spells were better. What I mean is that both Toss in SC2 and Zerg in BW rely on one unit and one spell to keep alive at a certain point in time during the game. Toss needs Sentry/FF early against Z and T, before Storm/Colossi emerge, while Zerg needs Defiler/Dark Swarm against T when the M&M/tank ball comes knocking and cracklings/ultras are not out yet.
That is not the point nor the importance, it is fine to rely on a single unit. It is about the anti-micro concept that the units create relative to when the units are available, how costly they are, how combat efficient they are and how hard they are to take out. That is why the sentry, while a very powerfull and in the current state of the game needed unit is not one which I like.
let us look back at one of your previous statements
But when I reminicise about Brood War, I remember that TvZ was the same in a way. Lings would get chewed up easily by the mid-game marine/medic army no matter how many Zerg threw at them, but once lurkers got into position, Terran infantry would melt into blood in seconds. So lings were mainly there to draw fire for the lurkers, or cut off a retreat. Conversely if the Terran managed to take out all the lurkers, Zerg could not stop the Terran assault no matter how many lings they had. If we replace the word "lings" with "gateway units" and "lurkers" with "colossi", doesn't that seem like the current PvT matchup in SC2?
The answer to this is no, why? Because lings and lurkers aren't automatically stronger then MnM, with proper micro one would be able to perform hit and runs, you stop the lings and lurkers in its tracks, MnM can beat lurkers with efficient micro. Micro that is two-sided.
Let us look at Collosi, sentry, zealot versus the aforementioned MnM. One can't micro against this ball in similair fashion, Collosi outrange any unit the Terran has to offer in his MnM composition and it has zero setup time. This combined with force fields makes it almost impossible for a Terran to perform hit and run attacks on a collosi ball or stop it in its tracks. By the time one achieves collosi, the Terran will have to have vikings prepared. There is nothing wrong with this, but you are drawing the wrong paralells.
EPT
