EPTHow shall i begin.. i guess the way it really was. The last couple of weeks i have been very busy doing stuff for university and while i was concentrated on other stuff like 99 % of the time i caught myself in an interesting situation where i didn't play Starcraft a lot but thought about it more than before.
I came to the conclusion that the game itself was very one dimensional which - for an RTS - is an unusual thing. Strategies and variance is a thing that keeps a game like SC2 interesting and "easy to learn but hard to master". When i look back at the last couple of years many things changed but overall people still do the same stuff over and over and over. Terrans for example go for basically the same strategies which they used when the game was actually released, some nuances here and there changed but the overall concept of strategies remained the same. Why so?
I was wondering myself and couldn't find an easy answer to what was so wrong about that game. Then a couple days ago i watched Artosis show META where they talked a bit about how fragile protoss as a race feels and how one single engagement decides protoss matchups most of the time where as in TvZ for example there are like 20 little engagements that have potential to influence but most of the time don't directly end the game. I agree that this is true and it's a better thing then most protoss matchups look like BUT - and thats the point where i think it still isn't a good example for how matchups should look in the game. Many may be shocked now because TvZ is in general the best looking and enjoyable matchup in the whole game. Still it lacks variance. Every single game we see the same stuff happening, it's just the question: Will the widow mines make money shots or not while Zergs go for Ling/Bling/Muta and sometimes ultras in lategame situations. Rarely do you see terrans go for skyterran for example or for "weird" compositions. The bioball composition dominated from the beginnig of WoL and not mcuh changed since the release of SC2 3 years ago. Can we talk about variance and versatile strategies when something like this is overall all we see at any single tournament? I don't think so.
A huge difference is protoss. It's a race very much critized for it's instability and lack of consistency. At the same time it's actually the race in the game which created the greatest amount of different build orders and strategies. Is this a good thing? Looking from the point of a fan of strategy it sure is because strategies were actually the only thing that gave protoss a chance to win games. Strategy games are a two bladed sword though because i think it's kinda unfair if one race relies on surprises to win games while the other two can allways do the same stuff and be favored doing so. But i'm kind of in an endless circle where i could point out different stuff, pros and cons for both sides at this point. That's were i found myself a couple days ago.
Today i decided to write this little essay about my opinion of the flaws of the game, because i just played a few rounds of Starcraft "starbow", a SC2 mod where the creator put SC1 and SC2 together to create that little strange thing that at the same time is superior to it's blizzard made counterpart. Why do i think so you may ask. The answer is simple: I played it with a friend and when i started to play the first rounds against him i realized how much different units there are with different purposes. I ended up using ALL of my 10 hotkeys (1-10) for the first time since i played SC2. I played Zerg, i played Terran and Toss. And still i never was forced to use all that armygroups. How is that possible? The answer was that in the normal SC2 version there are many units too, but! and thats a fact, most of them just add firepower and are still units who just add DPS most of the time. It doesnt matter if i have swarm hosts for example and need to burrow them for a second. When burrowed, all they add when burrowed is basically damage. There is no strategic use. I just played a SC1/SC2 hybrid and realized how many units were actually in the original from 1998, that didn't do damage but influenced the game in other ways. The Arbiter for example, a unit that can put a stasis field on units (they won't be able to move, to attack, but can't be attacked by me at the same time while in stasis). This can delay timing pushes all-ins so much that when he actually arrives i finally have something to deal with it. Actually stasis is a spell that can change games in so many ways, not just delaying (like timewarp) because you can stasis units for example that you just cant deal with right now OR you can stasis workers for example to deny some mining time. There's even more stuff and I could name a couple other old speels too but i think my point is clear: i want to affect the game not only by chosing if i want to add psystorm as splash dmg or colossy as splash dmg against bioball terrans. i wanna use strategy, i wanna outsmart my opponent with the freedom of chosing units, that can change the outcome of battles not just by doing more dmg then unit x or y. I want diversity, more tools.
Sadly SC2 is a game of DPS balls. There aren't many units that can be used in other ways than dealing dmg. Most of the units work in the way that u decide to make that or that DPS unit, which counters that or that unit better (based on scouting). But most units aren't versatile and can't be used in many different situations (only exception here is the marine i guess). however.. i could go more into detail but overall what i just said is exactly the reason why nothing changed since the release of the game. People rely too much on high dmg outputs and don't have other options.
Another sad thing is that my time is very limited at the moment due to university but i hope i can find a day to write down my thoughts in a more detailed style.
For example i thing that warpgate isn't even a bad idea BUT it's very bad inplemented into the game and not much thought out. Most of the stuff in the game isn't very polished i think which is a flaw of the balance team itself not going more into detail with certain stuff. If you go for warp gates for example, why not add the decision if you go for warpgates (which can reinforce at pylons, but take for example twice of the cooldown/build time normal gates take; short: normal gates make 2 zealots in the time warpgates cooldown after warping in 1 zealot) or normal gates. That's what i call a good concept which is thought out in detail with pros and cons. This would even force people to switch back and forth with gates/warpgates depending on wheter u defend or attack someone. However... as said before.. much to say, not enough time at the moment.
So.. as long as that's not possible to write everything up in detail i hope you still had a good read about some concepts of the game/the direction it game that hopefully might change with the last addon (Legacy of the Void).
Cheers,
MiND.GaMeS
