Swarmhost Game Balance

On February 23 2015 00:31 OtherWorld wrote:
Well, that's on point. Although the fact that there are only Zerg symbols in the "1:1 efficiency" etc bars and no Protoss symbols is disturbing d:

On February 23 2015 04:50 MavivaM wrote:
What baffles me the most it's that your blogs aren't featured..

On February 23 2015 11:21 avilo wrote:
It's always been know that end game in SC2 is only about army vs army and who has the better or more efficient 200/200 army and is able to keep theirs alive while killing the opponents.

I agree that the economy of Brood War was way better...but i don't think it's really the economy that's creating these stalemates in SC2 - it's the unit design/balance.

Swarmhosts cause this, and hard counter cause this.

Why does mech have to turtle vs Protoss to be even near playable? Because the immortal forces Terran to have a second unit to even be able to fight the opponent's army (ghost). Meaning no trades can happen before that or the mech Terran autoloses to the over cost efficient immortal.

Same goes for mech/protoss vs swarmhost. There is no ability to trade with free units because...you then autolose the game. Since mech/protoss can never trade with free units it means once swarmhosts hit the map you're forced to sit there and do the only possible counter which is to get your own cost efficient units of mass tempest/raven or you just slowly die.

Things like collosus from Protoss are cost effective the point that they require the hard counter from the opponent - if you do not have a prerequisite number of vikings/corruptors/vipers you cannot even fight your opponent's army. You have to sit and wait till you have the "unit counter" meaning you're forced to wait.

A lot of the bullshit SC2 end game is from the hard counter system and poorly designed units like the swarm host and the immortal. When you put in units that 100% require the opponent to have to sit there and produce the counter unit or autolose the game...the game then gets dragged out as the next "counter" in the chain of hard counters has to be accumulated or that player loses.

Imagine a game where a Terran could go mech vs Protoss and not have to wait till ghosts or ravens and fight and trade well with immortals.

The best example i can give that i always give on stream of how idiotic and limiting the hard counter system is this one that you might appreciate Lalush and every other Brood War player here:

10 dragoons with range vs 10 vultures with speed/mines:
This engagement has an unpredictable outcome every game. Whoever micros better with mine surrounds, or whoever micros better with their dragoon kiting and target firing can win this engagement. It's up in the air. Run a scenario like this many many times and it's possible for both players to have a chance.

Now look at SC2
10 stalkers vs 10 hellions:
The stalkers always win 100% of the time NO MATTER WHAT. What does this mean? It means ONE PLAYER CANNOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO FIGHT THE OPPONENT'S UNITS. He has to just go back and wait till he's built up the counter unit.

So yah...i think a lot of it is the unit design and the terrible choice to implement the hard counter system where all too often if you do not have the counter then you simply cannot ever fight your opponent's units.

On February 23 2015 14:10 Chill wrote:

One of the worst posts ever on this website.

On February 23 2015 08:45 Liquid`Snute wrote:
You don't have to change to BW economy to make the game more interesting, the developers are barely using half the spectrum when it comes to mineral:gas ratios as it is. What if mining gas was actually useful? Tech units and the entire 200/200 game is underdeveloped in SC2 and kinda primitive if you ask me.

SC2 just isn't the game where expanding all over the place or keeping map control is rewarded. There are no truly gas intensive units for each race that are actually mineral light as well. The closest thing is HT/Archon which is 1:3 minerals:gas. This unit creates some great comebacks in scrappy 6gas-minerals-mined-out-situations, but we don't really see it being massed by some person who was great at expanding. The closest thing for Zerg in terms of mass expanding is 10/12gas mutalisk but it's rarely used. (this game from Scarlett is a great example of how expanding unlocks a brand new powerful composition that wouldn't be available in this mass otherwise)

The game designers are not even utilizing half the spectrum of what's possible with -SC2- mining (we don't even need to talk about BW mining at this point). 85%++ of SC2's army compositions are stuck on the mineral side and in general the unit compositions aren't really that interesting and kinda all play out the same way. A ball here, some ranged units, they deal damage, maybe a spell or two, that's it ...

You can either alter mining and create low tech games where map control/keeping bases is everything, or you could alter the 200/200 endgame comps and mineral:gas ratios to be more interesting and not stale and boring. Two good ways to fix the same problem. If Protoss had a T3 unit that was basically an anti-building suicide flyer that cost 0/75 and would demolish buildings, maybe we'd see some Protoss players expanding rapidly to strategically reduce the opponent's infrastructure for example? We rarely see someone ever attacking buildings in this game, it's all about the army vs army.

There's a lot of stuff that could be done in theory to make the game (and expanding) more colorful, until then it's all about the 3/4base 6-8gas and what the players do with that money because that's how the tech trees look and that's how the m:g ratios are built up.

Also map control is a very sensitive topic and if you mess around the strength of it too much you'll have even more severe map imbalances. Zerg exponential econ getting even stronger? warp prism/warpgate being even stronger? creep? there's a lot of stuff to account for.

On February 23 2015 08:45 Liquid`Snute wrote:
You don't have to change to BW economy to make the game more interesting, the developers are barely using half the spectrum when it comes to mineral:gas ratios as it is. What if mining gas was actually useful? Tech units and the entire 200/200 game is underdeveloped in SC2 and kinda primitive if you ask me.

SC2 just isn't the game where expanding all over the place or keeping map control is rewarded. There are no truly gas intensive units for each race that are actually mineral light as well. The closest thing is HT/Archon which is 1:3 minerals:gas. This unit creates some great comebacks in scrappy 6gas-minerals-mined-out-situations, but we don't really see it being massed by some person who was great at expanding. The closest thing for Zerg in terms of mass expanding is 10/12gas mutalisk but it's rarely used. (this game from Scarlett is a great example of how expanding unlocks a brand new powerful composition that wouldn't be available in this mass otherwise)

The game designers are not even utilizing half the spectrum of what's possible with -SC2- mining (we don't even need to talk about BW mining at this point). 85%++ of SC2's army compositions are stuck on the mineral side and in general the unit compositions aren't really that interesting and kinda all play out the same way. A ball here, some ranged units, they deal damage, maybe a spell or two, that's it ...

You can either alter mining and create low tech games where map control/keeping bases is everything, or you could alter the 200/200 endgame comps and mineral:gas ratios to be more interesting and not stale and boring. Two good ways to fix the same problem. If Protoss had a T3 unit that was basically an anti-building suicide flyer that cost 0/75 and would demolish buildings, maybe we'd see some Protoss players expanding rapidly to strategically reduce the opponent's infrastructure for example? We rarely see someone ever attacking buildings in this game, it's all about the army vs army.

There's a lot of stuff that could be done in theory to make the game (and expanding) more colorful, until then it's all about the 3/4base 6-8gas and what the players do with that money because that's how the tech trees look and that's how the m:g ratios are built up.

Also map control is a very sensitive topic and if you mess around the strength of it too much you'll have even more severe map imbalances. Zerg exponential econ getting even stronger? warp prism/warpgate being even stronger? creep? there's a lot of stuff to account for.