• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:00
CEST 21:00
KST 04:00
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy4Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27
Community News
Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson."2Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey.8Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)14BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1
StarCraft 2
General
Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing How herO can make history in the Code S S2 finals Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey. Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2) Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson."
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target
Brood War
General
ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Recent recommended BW games FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Best crypto recovery experts in the world Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 32033 users

The Failures of SC2

Blogs > EsportsJohn
Post a Reply
1 2 3 Next All
EsportsJohn
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4883 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-04 20:04:53
June 04 2017 01:04 GMT
#1
Hey guys. I've been sitting on these thoughts for years, and now that I'm starting to get back into Brood War and becoming more involved in the StarCraft community again, I decided to write down a bunch of my frustrations with SC2 and why I think it failed to live up to its potential.

This is not a whine post. This is not a "I hope they fix it" post. Just a long rant about the things that have bothered me for so long and why I think they came about. I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, but I thought this might be a good article to spark some design discussion.

I originally posted this on my site, but rather than just giving you a link, I decided to reformat the article to fit TL. This is actually only the first part so far...I still have several other ideas, but I thought it might be a good idea to cap it at 4k words for the first section.





The Failures of SC2


Decided to do a bit of a short article about my thoughts on StarCraft 2…and then it grew into this thing. I want to be very clear that StarCraft is quite honestly one of the best things that has ever happened to me; it completely changed my view of the world, and I’ve never been the same since I first discovered it. Nonetheless, I think it failed to live up to its potential, and it’s important to look back on the history of the game, how it evolved, how it came to be, and really think critically about how it was handled. It’s important to do this sort of analysis, not just because I just want to disagree with David Kim, but because I truly believe the developers didn’t think through their design decisions properly, and thus the finished product was botched beyond belief.

I’ve been through a lot of ups and downs with StarCraft 2, and since I’ve taken the long way around to playing Brood War, I feel I’m qualified to explain the design failures of StarCraft 2 accurately with a sober and impartial approach free from “arguments of nostalgia”. StarCraft has been a huge part of my life, and I feel it’s necessary to put down on paper all of the things that have been bothering me about its design and development from day one—and hopefully in the process, I can explain why some of these things came to be in the first place.

Note: I have not played Legacy of the Void since the first few weeks of release. I know a lot of people believe that the final expansion has made a lot of progress and created a much better game, but through my own observations, watching tournaments, and seeing others play, there are still plenty of core issues that still persist and taint the potential of this beautiful game. I want to avoid making too many Brood War vs StarCraft 2 arguments, but I think it would be willfully ignorant to gloss over the things that BW did correctly just to avoid a comparison argument.

Defender’s Advantage is Dead

If you play Brood War for only a moment, you will immediately notice the insane power of defender’s advantage. With the right units, you can hold a base forever against your opponent. For instance, literally no number of marine/medic will ever break three lurkers on top of a ramp, and Protoss can camp out on one base with Templar, Dark Archons, and Arbiters safely for pretty much eternity.

This sort of defense doesn’t exist in StarCraft 2. It’s not necessarily bad that the sequel got rid of high ground advantages that relied on RNG, but the effects on the gameplay were numerous and adverse.

Perhaps the largest difference is the emergence of the “deathball syndrome”. I don’t necessarily mean the emergence of large armies, but rather the phenomenon where players will always expand outward from their main while using a rather mobile army bouncing between bases to defend. From this issue arises a whole slew of other problems, from hard counters to uninteresting economic models to unit design issues.

Here’s an example: in Brood War, one of the key concepts, particularly for Zerg and Protoss players, is to expand to other corners of the map and create two “main bases” to work outwards from. This means that you can defend one base from your opponent’s attacks while slowly building up a force at the other base. When the big doom push comes knocking at your natural expansion, you can stall out with defilers or templar while continuing to amass forces at the other corner of the map.

If you attempt this sort of strategy in StarCraft 2, one or both of your bases will likely be overrun very quickly unless your opponent doesn’t scout it. This was attempted many times in the game’s infancy, and there’s a reason why the tactic quickly died out.

A Thought Experiment

Think abstractly for a moment. Two kings are at war with one another. King Raynor has only one castle, but King Artanis has two castles placed a reasonable distance apart. If Raynor wants to take over Artanis’s empire, he will want to invade both castles. He can either split his forces and risk being unable to break either or he can overrun them one at a time; naturally, Raynor will decide to dedicate all of his forces toward one target to avoid splitting his damage too much.

Assuming unlimited resources, the king with two castles will always win. Artanis can stall out Raynor’s siege for a very long time while gathering his forces at his other castle, eventually gathering a critical mass that will allow him surround and crush the invasion or attack Raynor’s base directly; Raynor will have to either sacrifice his castle (which he can’t) or retreat with his forces intact. Either way, Artanis with his two castles comes out ahead in the war.

If you remove the defender’s advantage—say, the two kings own camps on large fields—there are few incentives to creating large camps far away from each other (though you do have the perk of being able to relocate easily). Instead, the kings will tend to clump up their resources and rely more on mobile troops who can switch very quickly between attack and defense to guard their land. History will show that this is often the case in less advanced regions, with examples such as the Mongols during Atila’s reign or the Iroquois Indians in the plains region of North America; the group that was proficient on horseback and owned many horses was always on the winning side.

The second example is much closer to the accidental design of StarCraft 2. It’s not necessarily bad, but it does create a situation where bases must be tightly clustered and multi-purposed units with a lot of mobility reign supreme. If you need a more concrete example, look at the one exception in Brood War: ZvZ. In that matchup, Sunken and Spore Colonies simply don’t attack quickly enough to deal with swarms of mutalisks or zerglings, therefore negating a lot of the defender’s advantage. As such, players constantly had to match their opponent’s army in order to defend against potentially fatal attacks.

You could argue that ZvZ was borderline chaos. StarCraft 2 took this a step further into to the extreme when things like instant reinforcement (Protoss Warp-ins, speedlings on creep) and hyper utility units (like the Queen or the Mothership Core) were added to the game and even further weakened the defender’s advantage. The road since then has never yielded us a comfortable design that felt manageable. Without the proper checks and a stable set of rules, this sort of mobile warfare devolves from a brilliant allocation of troops similar to Risk into absolute chaos.

The Deathball: An Unintended Side Effect

The thought experiment above is actually great for understanding different systems of warfare and even understanding some of the asymmetric balance that occurs between the races in StarCraft, but as you can see, it comes with some serious considerations. If bases aren’t spread out, what’s the point of spreading your army out?

Deathballs were something that emerged almost immediately in Starcraft 2‘s storied past, beginning with the horrific 1 food roach swarms during the beta. Many reasons were stated in the past as to why this particular phenomenon seemed to crop up: it was the fault of “unlimited” unit selection, damage density, hyper-mobile units, weak AoE, boring unit design, economic mining behavior, etc. There’s no doubt that these things may have exacerbated the problem, but at its core, it all began with a lack of defender’s advantage.

If you have a weak defender’s advantage and have to rely primarily on numbers, then positioning becomes much more important. In the late game, a large army can only be defended by an equally large army. It’s difficult to spare even a single unit to defend outlying bases, much less split your army in two. Thus, it makes more sense to move your army in a large ball between bases, using small groups and vision to deter possible counterattacks.

Blizzard’s Attempt to Fix the Problem

Legacy of the Void has attempted to artificially solve this problem by starving players out (“expand or die”) and forcing them to take blind chances with their positioning; they must split up their army and do harassment on several different fronts to protect their own economy while slowing down their opponent’s. You will always lose something, so it becomes a battle to see who can lose less—it’s skillful, but not necessarily fulfilling. For multiple reasons, I don’t believe this is fun (though I know others believe differently). More objectively, however, it creates a world in which a “perfect game” is impossible, a sentiment that many Korean players and coaches have shared with David Kim and the design team over and over—it’s not just very hard to play well, it’s literally impossible.

One of the beauties of Brood War is that it can actually nearly be mastered. Basic macro and positioning is difficult to do, but very much achievable with many intermediate steps along the way. Most of the difficulty is in the PvE aspect, so you feel great if you played a game with high APM, great macro, and a well-executed strategy. From there, it’s a battle with your opponent to see who can out-multitask the other. That’s where the endless challenge of Brood War lies, and it’s an endless pursuit as long as players play the game competitively.

On the other hand, Legacy of the Void has an extremely low barrier of entry but forces you to make blind decisions regarding your tech, scouting, and army positioning. While this can be entertaining from a spectator’s perspective (for those “big moments”), it’s nigh impossible to practice properly because of the game’s ever-changing nature depending on the opponent, their build, and their playstyle; you cannot become proficient without either having innate godlike twitch mechanics or an uncanny ability to read your opponent and guess their next move.

To reiterate, this is a band-aid fix for a problem that runs much deeper than the surface. It’s not necessarily accurate to give the game an inherent property that actually means something, but for a game that is based on economics, Starcraft 2 fails on the premise of making economics meaningful. Unit interaction and throwing a wrench in your opponent’s plans take up a far more meaningful role than building bases and managing resources.

There are some potential fixes that could have helped to fix deathballs (such as better defender’s advantage, stronger space control, or some sort of innate base defense that can defend against small numbers of units), but a starvation economy and an increased focus on harassment has done nothing but destabilize the game.

Damage Numbers Are Out of Control

One of the key features of StarCraft 2 has always been its quick pace and smooth graphics. Compared to Brood War (or really any other RTS that came out around the same time), it runs on a beautiful, efficient engine. Everyone who’s seen a dragoon take 20 minutes to find the entrance to a ramp knows exactly the frustration that older generation RTS’s posed in terms of unit movement and animation. StarCraft 2, on the other hand, was revolutionary.

For the first time, units would glide over the terrain with precision and accuracy. Micro tricks like marine splitting, blink stalker micro, and ling/baneling wars were the apex of the game’s achievements; nothing in the world takes your breath away like watching a pro player split marines like a god. Anyone who argues for the wonky glitches and awkward unit interaction from older generation RTS’s is living in a fantasy world. Either way, we still have to face the fact that the smoothness of the engine did cause some unintentional problems.

The first inherent problem is the tendency for units to clump up. If you select a large group of units and click at a designated location, the engine will give each and every unit a command to walk to that exact spot on the map, hindered only by unit collision. Not a big deal, but it does create some issues in that groups will always travel in clusters. Add in “unlimited” unit selection, and you’ve got yourself a good old-fashioned “deathball”. One of the beauties of older generation games was that units moved in waves or small, kind of square-like groups that was messy and required micro management to keep it in line.

A ball, however, is the perfect shape for damage. With ranged units, it applies equal DPS on all sides and naturally protects itself from surrounds by eliminating the gaps in between ranks and reducing surface area. Most importantly, it greatly increases the damage density.

Damage Density is Dangerous

Damage density is the damage per second per square inch (or foot or meter or what have you). In other words, clumped up units do more damage per second.

So what makes this different from any other game? Critical mass. If you continue adding to the ball, eventually you reach a point where the diameter of the ball exceeds the range of the unit. When all of the units cannot fire at once, the ball has reached critical mass and cannot generate a higher DPS except through a concave. What happens when you can select up to 100 units at a time in StarCraft 2‘s ultra smooth engine? The critical mass almost ceases to exist in a realistic game.

Some have speculated that increasing unit collision size or refining some of the movement behavior through unintuitive engine rules might fix this problem, but it’s unlikely that these changes would ever create a more stable or glossier interface that we have currently; we do not want to go back to a clunkier system.

Assuming that the engine mechanics are here to stay, we can only influence the behavior of deathballs (which is difficult for reasons stated above) or find a way to prevent the critical mass from sublimating everything in their path.

Quality of Life Improvements Are Too Good

The second major problem arising from StarCraft 2‘s engine is the ease of utility and the smoothness of the way the units move and behave. Again, these are great improvements in quality, but they can cause some serious issues if left unchecked.

Things like smart targeting, lack of overkill, and smart casting all play a part in making the user’s experience easy and consistent. In addition, the animations in the game are clean and functional without creating visual clutter. It’s honestly a marvel in game development how few bugs and glitches StarCraft 2 has. However, these quality of life improvements also make it really easy to focus damage and gun things down very efficiently.

Smooth unit movement also makes it incredibly easy to close distances with melee units or move armies up and down ramps like a flowing river. It makes everything more mobile, more slippery, and above all, more dangerous. Added to the quick speed of the game, there’s hardly time to react to unit movements and you will almost inevitably take some damage if you’re not paying close attention. It’s not uncommon to look away at your base and look back to find your army melting to colossi beams and Psionic Storms.

To put it simply: the fluid unit movement and attack animations in StarCraft 2 are simply too good for the current damage numbers. Damage numbers have grown out of control. Again, we definitely don’t want to relive the past, but we must adapt to the new technology better than we have so far.

Reducing the Overall Damage Output

The most elegant solution is a damage nerf across the board. Oracles should not be able to clear an unattended entire mineral line in seconds. A group of marine/marauder/medivac shouldn’t be able to level a base in the blink of an eye. A group of 12+ roaches shouldn’t be able to one-shot basically any unit in the game.

The game of StarCraft 2 is actually played a notch faster than originally intended, but as the standard game speed increased, the damage numbers stayed the same. As a result, the hectic race of trying to drop in two places while maneuvering your army in an intelligent way on top of macroing perfectly has always been a delicate balance. Many games have been won and lost by a single mistake, a single moment of inattention, and it’s largely because things just die too fast. For the most part, we got used to it, but the insane pace set by Legacy of the Void sped up the game even more and created a frantic atmosphere of drops, small skirmishes, non-committal expansions, and crazy strategies. It’s become a game of making less mistakes than your opponent rather than executing thoughtful strategies perfectly.

If you ask me, the base attack of most units in the game could be toned down by 20-50%. It would feel weird at first, but giving players more time to react, micro, and play around attacks might create an illusion that the game is not so chaotic as it seems sometimes. Large spell threats like Psionic Storm, Ravager bombs, or Widow Mines could remain the same to retain those big moments where attention is absolutely necessary, but preventing critical masses from mowing down everything in sight instantly could create much more interesting game dynamics than we see currently.

Macro Mechanics Were a Bad Idea

I don’t think there should be any argument here, to be honest. Macro mechanics were designed as a way to keep players doing things and paying attention to their bases, a problem the developers appropriately identified when they simplified/smoothed out a lot of the UI. Increasing the ease of play by allowing workers to be rallied automatically, shift-clicking buildings, and increased maximum unit selection were all good things (it would be ignorant to say otherwise), but they had one major drawback: they made the game a little too easy to play. Working with the smaller maps and confined spaces to build at the time, the developers calculated that something needed to be worked out so that players had to look at their bases occasionally. The result was macro mechanics.

At the outset, it didn’t seem as if they posed any large overarching problems. Hilariously small maps like Steppes of War and Slag Pits were dominated by proxy cheeses which Terran and Protoss benefited from most, but macro mechanics allowed non-stop action during these elongated one base vs one base fights. On large maps, there seemed to be no adverse side effects other than 4-gate rushes and speedling openings. It was apparent that one-base tech was coming out a little too quickly, but that could always be solved with research time adjustments (like the ones for the bunker, warp gate timing twice, banshees, reapers, etc.); large scale macro games, however, showed no real signs that the macro mechanics caused issues. It was difficult at this time for the creators to actually gauge whether macro mechanics or some of the more common things like unit design, timing, and maps were the issues with imbalance.

In hindsight, it’s strange that they overlooked a core aspect of the game for more variable objects. While numbers or functionality of a unit can be changed to affect one circumstance, macro mechanics affected all parts of play in every circumstance. If something so core to the game isn’t accurately vetted and tested, there’s no telling what the long-term effects of it will be, and in this case, all it did was artificially speed up the game.

The Inject Larva Arms Race

When we finally reached open mapmaking that gave fair opportunity to all races and Zerg could freely take third bases, Inject Larva started an arms race. This is when we began to truly see the “three base cap” and big deathballs emerge, and it was all because Zerg could instantly remax their army off of four injected hatcheries. I personally believe the first time that macro mechanics became truly problematic was Stephano’s roach max build. This wasn’t some chimerical idea that had never been thought of before, but it did change the way that many players looked at production and defense. After that, Terran players began to build extra CCs earlier, Protoss players began taking bases earlier, Zergs got even more aggressive with their expansions—the greed got out of control because whatever drawbacks the player took from expanding early were more than made up for within a minute or two due to the macro mechanics. The economic boost gained through Chronoboost, MULEs, and Inject Larva sped up the early/mid game to an alarming speed and ushered in an artificial late game with monstrous armies.

Within a few months, the game had evolved from a mosh pit of one and two base aggressive plays and awkward macro play to a calculated game of risk that balanced greed and safety on a knife’s edge while abusing macro mechanics. Pretty soon, everyone was able to get to three bases rapidly without any danger, and we began an era of 2-base all-in or max. A few odd turtle strategies like mech or swarm host play emerged, but generally the game revolved around one thing: getting a third base and maxing out.

Legacy of the Void and Macro Mechanics

These problems persisted late into the second expansion and into Legacy of the Void. As the game grew into larger maps and freer bases, the developers began to realize they had made a huge error. The attempt was made to artificially slow down the rate of expansion and maxing out with their economic changes as well as the introduction of several more units who could break fortifications or harass mineral lines with ease. Following an outcry that the game was too difficult, the developers decided now was a good time to address macro mechanics and maybe even remove them altogether.

Removing MULEs, Chronoboost, and Inject Larva was probably the best thing they could have done with the game, but a surprising amount of backlash from the community pressured developers into bringing them back. Faux arguments that macro mechanics showed skill, allowed more choices, or were an integral part of StarCraft 2 were all fallacies backed by nostalgia; all of them failed to recognize that the insane arms race generated by macro mechanics are the reason why the game needed an economic adjustment to begin with. Removing them provides far more meaningful decisions in regards to your army positioning, how you harass, and your opening build.

Think for a moment of an early game where variations of 4-gate timings aren’t two minutes apart. Think about how much more predictable that particular pressure will be. All builds would take a little longer to get off the ground, harass units like oracles or cyclones would come out later (and at a much more reliable time), and scouting in the early game would actually be somewhat difficult. Mind games and proper control become paramount, but no longer does each player need to take risks to account for an impossibly early rush that might kill them instantly. Bases are taken somewhat more organically as players take a bit longer to mine out. There’s more early game interaction between units and less positional guesswork involved.

That’s the sort of StarCraft that feels strategic.

****
StrategyAllyssa Grey <3<3
JimmyJRaynor
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Canada16669 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-04 03:34:35
June 04 2017 03:08 GMT
#2
i agree with some of these complaints. However, i think if the perfect RTS game were released in 2010 it'd be like releasing the perfect dot-eating-maze game in 1986 or the perfect gallery shooter in 1982. Too late: advances in consumer technology has given consumers too many choices and effectively watered down the hard core demand for the product.

there are just too many ways to be part of big armies fighting each other today. in 1999 it had to be on a monolithic desktop PC planted firmly in your house. the big army fight is the ultimate payoff and was not possible in the 1980s. When it became possible in the 1990s the genre skyrocketed in popularity.

Games like the 1982 Intellivision Utopia is an RTS game with combat limited by the tech of the day. Its a nice niche title with a community around it that lasted decades. However, people want both action and strategy.

The peak era for RTS has come and gone and there is nothing any single company or group of companies can do about it. It didn't matter what Blizzard did.. it was already over.... and still is.

no company can justify pouring huge resources into an RTS game so we get stuff like Halo Wars 2, Dawn of War 3, and Homeworld: Shipbreakers.

the SC2:LotV team is filled with ex-C&Cers and the pace of the game more resembles a C&C game than Brood War or even SC2:WoL. i like the fast pace... i like C&C games as well. There is a very big difference between SC2:LotV and SC1:Brood War. Consumers now have greater choice within the genre as a result of the direction Blizzard took SC2:LotV. I'm happy with it.
Ray Kassar To David Crane : "you're no more important to Atari than the factory workers assembling the cartridges"
ninazerg
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States7291 Posts
June 04 2017 03:45 GMT
#3
"Macro was a mistake"

- Hayao Miyazaki
"If two pregnant women get into a fist fight, it's like a mecha-battle between two unborn babies." - Fyodor Dostoevsky
TelecoM
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
United States10668 Posts
June 04 2017 03:51 GMT
#4
I agree that removing the macro mechanics was the best thing they ever did for SC2, and now I don't play it and am back to BW too, nice blog well said. 5/5
AKA: TelecoM[WHITE] Protoss fighting
CUTtheCBC
Profile Joined December 2016
Canada91 Posts
June 04 2017 06:59 GMT
#5
i tried playing broodwar again and it's just so infuriating.. drones don't auto mine, they rally to the minerals and just sit there!! oh the joys of 'macro mechanics'.. ie.. babysitting every single unit that pops from every single hatchery...

totally agree on the 'defenders advantage' stuff tho
Brood War's Back, YEA!
imBLIND
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States2626 Posts
June 04 2017 07:26 GMT
#6
Great read, 5/5.

A lot of what you said were the exact feelings I had during WoL Closed Beta, especially the part about the lack of defender's advantage and Blizzard's approach to balance. I got so frustrated with the constant tweaks, their inability to understand RTS concepts, and their refusal to address core problems that their design/engine was producing. I promptly quit the game 2 months after they released WoL with no regrets.
im deaf
tomatriedes
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
New Zealand5356 Posts
June 04 2017 08:49 GMT
#7
Perhaps they could try adding an 'easy' mode option to BW remastered that has automining, larger control groups and multiple building selection and see how that works. There's probably all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't work well but it would be interesting to see what it's like.
JWD[9]
Profile Blog Joined November 2015
364 Posts
June 04 2017 10:44 GMT
#8
On June 04 2017 17:49 tomatriedes wrote:
Perhaps they could try adding an 'easy' mode option to BW remastered that has automining, larger control groups and multiple building selection and see how that works. There's probably all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't work well but it would be interesting to see what it's like.


I am all for it. Now logically we assume that that is what makes BW, BW, however I always prefer an experiment over theory, however compelling that theory might be.
EsportsJohn
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4883 Posts
June 04 2017 11:35 GMT
#9
On June 04 2017 15:59 CUTtheCBC wrote:
i tried playing broodwar again and it's just so infuriating.. drones don't auto mine, they rally to the minerals and just sit there!! oh the joys of 'macro mechanics'.. ie.. babysitting every single unit that pops from every single hatchery...

totally agree on the 'defenders advantage' stuff tho


This is actually something I talked with people about a little after I wrote this article. It's an interesting idea to consider sending workers to mine or building buildings one by one a "macro mechanic", because it totally is. Whether it was unintentional or not isn't very clear.

However, if we imagine for a second that forcing players to send workers to mine was an intentional design decision to force players to look at their base and artificially make the game, there's still a huge difference between that and injecting or chronoboosting in SC2, the main difference being that it is much more incremental and has a much smaller effect on unit production. As I mentioned in the article above, the big effect of macro mechanics introduced in SC2 was an arms race of economy and greed which accelerated early/mid game to extreme speeds.

I think if you have intentional design decisions created to separate good players from bad ones, you should look toward creating a system which has multiple steps toward "mastery" of a certain aspect. If "mastery" in Brood War is sending every single drone to mining immediately after hatching, then the effect of having a 1-2 second delay in your reaction time is noticeable but not adverse. It allows the better player to eke out an extra 100 minerals every 2 minutes or something.

Adding in more steps toward mastery provides a larger array of skill available and makes necessary decision trees and reaction times far less sharp. The game has a softer edge which makes it more accessible to a larger group of people and a larger differentiation of skill between those players.

On June 04 2017 16:26 imBLIND wrote:
Great read, 5/5.

A lot of what you said were the exact feelings I had during WoL Closed Beta, especially the part about the lack of defender's advantage and Blizzard's approach to balance. I got so frustrated with the constant tweaks, their inability to understand RTS concepts, and their refusal to address core problems that their design/engine was producing. I promptly quit the game 2 months after they released WoL with no regrets.


That's ironic because I actually think WoL was the best form of SC2 ever. It obviously still had some issues, but at least scouting wasn't free and players had to think fairly critically about how greedy they could be. The game was dead in the water by the time Broodlord/Infestor rolled around, and HotS did very little to address the problems that were already in the game.

The game had real potential, but Blizz diverged down an entirely different road.

On June 04 2017 17:49 tomatriedes wrote:
Perhaps they could try adding an 'easy' mode option to BW remastered that has automining, larger control groups and multiple building selection and see how that works. There's probably all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't work well but it would be interesting to see what it's like.


I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense in Brood War proper. It just doesn't fit within the engine, so it would be better to just make a Brood War mod in SC2. I don't know. I'm not really a Brood War elitist or anything, but the idea of adding automining, larger control groups, or MBS is just very un-Brood War-like to me.
StrategyAllyssa Grey <3<3
404AlphaSquad
Profile Joined October 2011
839 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-04 13:43:08
June 04 2017 13:33 GMT
#10
On June 04 2017 20:35 EsportsJohn wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2017 17:49 tomatriedes wrote:
Perhaps they could try adding an 'easy' mode option to BW remastered that has automining, larger control groups and multiple building selection and see how that works. There's probably all sorts of reasons why it wouldn't work well but it would be interesting to see what it's like.


I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense in Brood War proper. It just doesn't fit within the engine, so it would be better to just make a Brood War mod in SC2. I don't know. I'm not really a Brood War elitist or anything, but the idea of adding automining, larger control groups, or MBS is just very un-Brood War-like to me.

SC2BW, and Starbow are close to BW remastered in a modern engine. These mods do encounter a ton of issues with Damage Density and Pathing. However, already the unit design who were never meant for this engine, already encourages splitting your forces up more than the normal sc2 units.

Ideally I would love for sc2 to have a wc3 like pathing. It is smart but units block each other. They dont push and squeeze themselves through the tiniest holes smoothly,

On the point of damage density and how the developers of BW managed to "tone" down the dps of units even more. In Brood War, if a ranged unit, and maybe melee as well, killed a unit or lost its target, it would spend more time than it's regular weapon cool-down (attack speed) to shoot on a new target compared to firing on an existing one.

You can see this element of the game being discussed in these threads:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/482111-extra-time-for-switching-targets
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/96786-how-to-make-sunkens-have-infinite-range

However I think it is nice that we are able to have a discussion about why sc2 is not as good as BW, without simply limiting ourselves to the argument of "MBS/unlimited select = bad". That is the UI of the game and I refuse to believe that it isnt possible to build a good RTS around these features.

On June 04 2017 10:04 EsportsJohn wrote:
Removing MULEs, Chronoboost, and Inject Larva was probably the best thing they could have done with the game, but a surprising amount of backlash from the community pressured developers into bringing them back.

yes! I remember the LotV beta and how much better the pacing of the game became without these skipping early game mechanics! It just became soo much better!
aka Kalevi
Ernaine
Profile Joined May 2017
60 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-04 17:23:28
June 04 2017 17:14 GMT
#11
I agree, it is all about the engine.

We discussed things like MBS to death, but we could not conceive of how the engine that Blizzard made is completely inappropriate for RTS gaming.

It is indeed a marvel of an engine. So smooth, elegant, well-thought out. I'd love to look at the source code, if I had the time to do so. Those that made it should be proud. However, it was completely ill-conceived. Every step of the way, at every decision point, they 'merely' selected the most mathematical of algorithm-technical ideal solution to the problem. They never ever considered the gameplay implications of how they wrote their engine. And with gameplay, I mean true gameplay. So not the gameplay by which we played the single player back in 1998. That is the gameplay the developers had in mind, if they had any. No. I mean the gameplay of the Starcraft we have been playing the last decade.

The engine combined with the instant gratification sickness that somehow emerged in gaming, where players seem entitled and demand to be able to 'play like top players' is predominant. The gameplay were most players get frustrated, have 'ladder anxiety', people are only able to have fun if they beat someone that they feel is worthy of beating. A game where a developer has to go out of their way to conceive of some way to prevent the player from realizing their own mediocrity.

And I guess third is Blizzard's arrogance and unwillingness to give up control. The community knows better what is good for the game than Blizzard. Blizzard let the original ladder die because they tried to enforce the player base to play on 'fast'. As long as Blizzard decides on the map pool of the ladder and/or the major tournaments, proper balance is impossible.


Of course, there were too many C&C people on the SC2 team for SC2 to have more of the soul of SC BW than it has right now of the soul of C&C. But that was intentional, I guess. It seems that Blizzard refused to recognize the success and special nature of SC BW, and the reason for that special reason, until Flash, JD, Bisu, etc went back to SC BW, and they started thinking about remastered.

In the end these are corporate decisions that weight probabilities of a certain amount of profit, for each possible scenario. Decisions made in the most fancy meeting room in some corporate tower. The core gameplay of SC2 was decided by minds who are completely oblivious to that what is obvious to a D+ SC BW player. In the end we have to conclude that Blizzard never understood their own product.
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
June 04 2017 17:51 GMT
#12
On June 05 2017 02:14 Ernaine wrote:
In the end we have to conclude that Blizzard never understood their own product.

Ouch! lol. Totally agreed though. Reminds of two times. First is when NoNy was like yo Blizzard fix the fuckin carriers. Blizzard ignored everyone for months about this "carriers are fine" they said. NoNy spelled it out letter by letter in a really cool video. They then FINALLY changed it, but wtf, it was 100% a community effort. Lazy Blizzard took ages and the damage was already done..

Second time was community maps. hotbid did an interview with Browder and explained how the community cannot balance or grant feedback to ladder maps, because there was no system to do so. Such a simple concept. Browder was "appalled" and had no response. He noted that it was "an interesting problem". Ended up never getting fixed properly, at least in WoL.
blabber
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States4448 Posts
June 04 2017 21:17 GMT
#13
unfortunately Starcraft 2 was Blizzard's ESPORTS guinea pig, and the game paid dearly for it.
blabberrrrr
tomatriedes
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
New Zealand5356 Posts
June 05 2017 00:59 GMT
#14
On June 04 2017 20:35 EsportsJohn wrote:

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense in Brood War proper. It just doesn't fit within the engine, so it would be better to just make a Brood War mod in SC2. I don't know. I'm not really a Brood War elitist or anything, but the idea of adding automining, larger control groups, or MBS is just very un-Brood War-like to me.


Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying this should be the main game in remastered, just a non-ladder (or separate ladder) option that people could mess around with. i'd just be very curious to see how these things would work with the BW engine and whether it could be fun at all or not. It would also be very interesting to see what sort of effect it would have on balance. There's nothing wrong with giving people options as long as they're not forced on anyone in my opinion.
lestye
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States4149 Posts
June 05 2017 21:01 GMT
#15
I feel "failures" is a bit too grim of a term for my taste, but you have really solid criticism. I disagree with your thoughts on macro mechanics, I think having them is very important as a skill for players with the addition of automine, however zerg's macro decision is a bit too cruel.


One thing I wish you had brought up in your damage section, I really dislike the addition of weapon types, armor types, in Starcraft 2. I wish units were just better vs other units naturally without needing weird damage modifiers. I know brood war had something similar with the size variable, but mostly that was damage reduction and not +bonus damage, which exacerbates the problems highlighted.

The lack of defender's advantage and the clumping up damage density are what irritates me the most.
"You guys are just edgelords. Embrace your inner weeb desu" -Zergneedsfood
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-06-05 21:43:03
June 05 2017 21:42 GMT
#16
Do new players really hate sending workers to mine that much? Personally I find it gives a great reason to learn F-Keys. F1 main, send worker to mine. F2 nat, send worker to mine.

Even in SC2, the most user-friendly StarCraft the earth will ever see, I made great uses of F-Keys as a competitive player -- so they are essential in both SC2 and BW.

And once a player gets the F-Key mechanics down, it's trivial to get workers to mine.

Workers mining isn't really an important piece to "gate" lower level players, and prevent them from winning. Any player can consistently send workers to mine.

The real key that makes BW to great, is that better players prioritize their focus on the most important aspects in real-time! At certain points it really is important to neglect sending workers to mine, in favor of focusing elsewhere. This kind of prioritization and decision making makes BW satisfying to both play and watch, and this specific opportunity for differentiation did not exist in SC2.
lestye
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States4149 Posts
June 05 2017 22:03 GMT
#17
On June 06 2017 06:42 CecilSunkure wrote:
Do new players really hate sending workers to mine that much? Personally I find it gives a great reason to learn F-Keys. F1 main, send worker to mine. F2 nat, send worker to mine.

Even in SC2, the most user-friendly StarCraft the earth will ever see, I made great uses of F-Keys as a competitive player -- so they are essential in both SC2 and BW.

And once a player gets the F-Key mechanics down, it's trivial to get workers to mine.

Workers mining isn't really an important piece to "gate" lower level players, and prevent them from winning. Any player can consistently send workers to mine.

The real key that makes BW to great, is that better players prioritize their focus on the most important aspects in real-time! At certain points it really is important to neglect sending workers to mine, in favor of focusing elsewhere. This kind of prioritization and decision making makes BW satisfying to both play and watch, and this specific opportunity for differentiation did not exist in SC2.


It's not the act itself, its how many times you have to do it and how it distracts you from engaging in other stuff outside your base. It becomes tedious. Hence Warcraft 3 and other RTS have automine and people are OK with it.

It's satisfying in Brood War, but I think people would rather other macro activities to do instead of moving workers when they're probably very used to rallying to whatever resource they need.
"You guys are just edgelords. Embrace your inner weeb desu" -Zergneedsfood
EsportsJohn
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4883 Posts
June 05 2017 22:50 GMT
#18
On June 05 2017 09:59 tomatriedes wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2017 20:35 EsportsJohn wrote:

I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense in Brood War proper. It just doesn't fit within the engine, so it would be better to just make a Brood War mod in SC2. I don't know. I'm not really a Brood War elitist or anything, but the idea of adding automining, larger control groups, or MBS is just very un-Brood War-like to me.


Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying this should be the main game in remastered, just a non-ladder (or separate ladder) option that people could mess around with. i'd just be very curious to see how these things would work with the BW engine and whether it could be fun at all or not. It would also be very interesting to see what sort of effect it would have on balance. There's nothing wrong with giving people options as long as they're not forced on anyone in my opinion.


My point is that sending workers to mine and things like that IS Brood War. It's strange to think of playing the game without those mechanics because that's what makes the game so uniquely interesting and enjoyable. It's like if you replaced basketballs with footballs. The result would be so different it wouldn't even resemble the original game.

On June 06 2017 06:01 lestye wrote:
I feel "failures" is a bit too grim of a term for my taste, but you have really solid criticism. I disagree with your thoughts on macro mechanics, I think having them is very important as a skill for players with the addition of automine, however zerg's macro decision is a bit too cruel.


One thing I wish you had brought up in your damage section, I really dislike the addition of weapon types, armor types, in Starcraft 2. I wish units were just better vs other units naturally without needing weird damage modifiers. I know brood war had something similar with the size variable, but mostly that was damage reduction and not +bonus damage, which exacerbates the problems highlighted.

The lack of defender's advantage and the clumping up damage density are what irritates me the most.


Well, I think the underlying idea is that it is a "failure" of SC2 to live up to its potential. The game itself was a success, just not as good as it possibly could have been, imo.

As far as macro mechanics, I'm not saying that they are inherently "bad". Like I mentioned in an earlier comment, you could consider BW's mechanics of sending workers to mine a "macro mechanic". The biggest issue is that macro mechanics in SC2 were way too strong and unintuitive, which is why they peeled them back in later iterations. It was their introduction in the first place that caused a lot of problems, but we weren't able to pinpoint it until the maps caught up to the actual design.

Every RTS has weapon types that interact differently with each other. Concussive damage (vultures) do extra damage to light units (zerglings, marines, zealots, workers), so it's not like this was a new concept designed in SC2. I do agree that SC2 had too many of these modifiers though, especially when you consider some of the wonkier design decisions such as widow mines that did extra damage to shields and tempests which did extra damage to massive units for some reason.

Certain things like damage, range, and AoE should have been enough to differentiate the units from each other. BUT, as I'm already writing about as well, another huge issue was overlapping unit design (particularly the "tanky trio") that prevented the game from easily balancing itself out through more intuitive design.
StrategyAllyssa Grey <3<3
CecilSunkure
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States2829 Posts
June 05 2017 22:53 GMT
#19
Do they really do extra damage? I thought vultures just did 20 damage, except to non-bio non-light units they get reduction to 4? Well and shields take full 20 as well.
lestye
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States4149 Posts
June 06 2017 00:22 GMT
#20
It's not really "extra" damage. The wiki says "This damage type deals 100% to small units, 50% damage to medium units, and 25% damage to large units. "

Maybe I'm playing semantics, but isnt that really saying that vultures do reduced damage to medium/large units and not bonus damage to small units?

"You guys are just edgelords. Embrace your inner weeb desu" -Zergneedsfood
1 2 3 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL: ProLeague
18:00
Bracket Stage - Day 4
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
ZZZero.O361
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 398
ZombieGrub373
IndyStarCraft 198
BRAT_OK 77
MindelVK 16
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 4535
ZZZero.O 361
Sacsri 64
sSak 37
Terrorterran 10
Dota 2
Gorgc6939
League of Legends
Dendi2242
JimRising 389
KnowMe93
Counter-Strike
fl0m5548
Foxcn234
flusha144
rGuardiaN76
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King196
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor371
Other Games
tarik_tv38093
gofns20765
summit1g3500
FrodaN2833
Grubby984
B2W.Neo962
C9.Mang0563
Beastyqt469
TKL 112
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream10609
Other Games
EGCTV961
gamesdonequick952
BasetradeTV20
angryscii10
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 51
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV522
• Ler138
Other Games
• imaqtpie1351
• Shiphtur303
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
5h
Wardi Open
16h
Replay Cast
1d 5h
Replay Cast
1d 15h
RSL Revival
1d 15h
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
2 days
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
3 days
The PondCast
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
4 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
4 days
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
SC Evo League
5 days
Circuito Brasileiro de…
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-11
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
BLAST Open Fall 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.