I just have a general question about balance issues. I always wondered why Blizzard didnt buff/optimize the Scout in Broodwar. The Scout became a unit that u only made to make fun of your opponent. Blizzard must have known. So, why not doing sth about it? (plz dont give me examples now when a scout could have been useful. its just fact that nobody used it)
I truly think, Blizz kinda hates Protoss but I dont wanna start a discussion about that at all! I'm just curious if Blizzard ever gave a statement about the Scout. The Devourer for example, sometimes it has its usage. But the Scout...
The Carrier now in SC2: Instead of balancing it, they wanna take it out and replace it with the Tempest. Is this saying "Ok we dont know how to make it fair"? Maybe they sometimes just dont know. So they also could have replaced the Scout instead of letting it become the most ridicilous unit evaaaaarrr.
Use it for late game PvZ when you have enough Corsairs but with extra scouts, you can do patrol move with them and they will take care of the scourges (very situational). And also Royal Stove.
Man, scouts... back when I played the BW campaign I would just cheat to get infinite money and i'd go mass scouts, get over 4 control groups of them. Oh, and god mode of course. Even 4 control groups of scouts are terrible compared to... anything.
In the beginning of "pro" BW most protoss used Scouts in almost all games. Blizzard just stoped balancing the whole game at one point and because the scout was used very often in the past they didnt change it i guess.
After that the game evolved and strategies got more defined and the scout wasnt used anymore. Blizzard couldnt look in the future.
Dont say it wasnt used if you dont it for sure. There are alot of old battle reports from people like Grrr and Zileas which massed scouts in PvP for example and killed nexuses with it etc.
They are actually very efficient against Battlecruiser.
So I guess they kind of have a shadow value in that sense that they are part of the reason terrans never go BC against protoss (that and storm. And dragoons... Oh well...)
Seriously, I guess Blizzard didn't buff it because by the time it proved being really useless the game was already very well balanced. With another highly efficient air unit, protoss would probably be way too powerful.
Twoinstances of the scout being used successfully for something else than bad manner. But that's really what they're best at. Edit : and the build stork used against kolll at WCG is in fact decent.
Dont say it wasnt used if you dont it for sure. There are alot of old battle reports from people like Grrr and Zileas which massed scouts in PvP for example and killed nexuses with it etc.
They nerfed the Scout's anti ground pretty hard. Nerfed the wraith's anti ground, too.
In FFAs they are a unit to be feared. I've won several with scout/arbiter fleets. Only when players start building anti-air you could find yourself in a bit of a pickle - but really, nobody ever does. ... Right?
The Scout only real use is the counter for Carriers and Battlecruisers but you never see those units in pvp and pvt so its used mostly to humiliate your oponents.
You'd be surprised how good they are if you group them with a probe and do muta style micro with them. I think buffing them by any significant amount would be risky in regards to overall balance and playability of the protoss matchups.
I actually used scouts with my sairs once... very effective if your opponent have sucky scourge splitting skill.. They'll overkill the scout so badly lol
ehhm the scouts didnt do much I think. storms did. tatatatatata and nothing happened till the storm came. other units are just like: "hihihihahahahaha stop shooting! it's tickling!"
ehhm the scouts didnt do much I think. storms did. tatatatatata and nothing happened till the storm came. other units are just like: "hihihihahahahaha stop shooting! it's tickling!"
Not really
6 scout against no goliaths = gg push. The storm helped but without the scouts Bisu was done.
ehhm the scouts didnt do much I think. storms did. tatatatatata and nothing happened till the storm came. other units are just like: "hihihihahahahaha stop shooting! it's tickling!"
They forced a couple of rounds of Goliaths instead of Vults/Tanks, so they were worth it.
ehhm the scouts didnt do much I think. storms did. tatatatatata and nothing happened till the storm came. other units are just like: "hihihihahahahaha stop shooting! it's tickling!"
They forced a couple of rounds of Goliaths instead of Vults/Tanks, so they were worth it.
That's not it.
Being under fire of 6 scouts for like a minute, that's a loooooot of damages.
Just look at Hwasin face when he sees the scouts: he knows he has lost.
rofl. fanta would be the one to get scouts used on
On October 29 2011 21:44 SkelA wrote: The Scout only real use is the counter for Carriers and Battlecruisers but you never see those units in pvp and pvt so its used mostly to humiliate your oponents.
And then they got outclassed by dark archons because, instead of killing them you can just take them and kill them with what they were trying to kill you with.
On October 30 2011 00:14 Greg_J wrote: There's a certain game that I’m amazed hasn't been posted in this thread yet. I bet someone beats me to finding it. Ready, Go!
On October 30 2011 00:14 Greg_J wrote: There's a certain game that I’m amazed hasn't been posted in this thread yet. I bet someone beats me to finding it. Ready, Go!
kal vs fogg on Colosseum, twice?
Blizzard didn't patch the scout because they weren't as needlessly overbearing concerning balance as they are now. The thing that never made sense for me in the vision upgrade. The vision upgrades for the ghost, observer and overload all make sense, but the one for the scout is the most useless upgrade in the game.
Because it makes "ratatatata" when it attacks, and any buff on the air to ground weapon would require to remove that awesome sound effects.
edit : oh and I go use scout quite often in PvZ, using a similar build order as Stork used against Kolll during WCG 2009 semi finals. You would really be surprised to see how fast it kills an overlord.
On October 30 2011 00:14 Greg_J wrote: There's a certain game that I’m amazed hasn't been posted in this thread yet. I bet someone beats me to finding it. Ready, Go!
kal vs fogg on Colosseum, twice?
Blizzard didn't patch the scout because they weren't as needlessly overbearing concerning balance as they are now. The thing that never made sense for me in the vision upgrade. The vision upgrades for the ghost, observer and overload all make sense, but the one for the scout is the most useless upgrade in the game.
edit: lol got beaten to it twice
I posted it on the first page, but not with the embedded VOD :-(
The game is already balanced around a weak Scout. Besides Flash, PvT slightly overall favours Protoss. Buffed Scouts would only hurt the balance more. It might help PvZ which is mismatched in favour of Zerg, but Terrans really would complain about it.
On October 30 2011 00:14 Greg_J wrote: There's a certain game that I’m amazed hasn't been posted in this thread yet. I bet someone beats me to finding it. Ready, Go!
kal vs fogg on Colosseum, twice?
Blizzard didn't patch the scout because they weren't as needlessly overbearing concerning balance as they are now. The thing that never made sense for me in the vision upgrade. The vision upgrades for the ghost, observer and overload all make sense, but the one for the scout is the most useless upgrade in the game.
edit: lol got beaten to it twice
I posted it on the first page, but not with the embedded VOD :-(
Wow, so you did. I didn't notice that, sorry. Not sure if you're a super ninja or I just need to pay more attention.
The fact that the game features a unit that's so rarely used and that also prevents other units from appearing in certain match-ups just sounds like bad unit design to me. The fact that you all are also satisfied with its role (nearly equivalent in role to SC2's mothership) kinda bothers me. It's like BW is THE epitome of the RTS genre, and that it would be bad, nay sacrilege, to try to improve it and get rid of this design flaw.
IMO, BW would be improved if the scout was not such a hard counter to capital ships and had some other role; the same could also be said about the devourer. Granted I haven't watched as much BW as the rest of you all, but I have yet to see a game that features a PvZ air battle that features both scouts and devourers.
It's ok with us because it's just one unit in the game, and because we're generally satisfied with not every unit composition being equal and possible in every match-up. BW has a few design flaws, I'll admit it, but having a BM unit is ok with me.
PvZ air battles do involve devourers if the air battle becomes the central theme of the game (Much vs Luxury on Andromeda). Why you must see scouts involved in this escapes me since scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup. It is simply a better use of money and time to produce corsairs and carriers than scouts in PvZ. Not to mention, scouts are far weaker against scourge than corsairs.
Not everything needs to be viable in every context for a game to be balanced. The fact that 99% of ZvZs only involve muta/ling/scourge does not mean that the game has a design flaw. Dark archons prevent carriers from appearing in PvP; does this mean that PvP has a design flaw?
edit: and really, if the non-usage of a single unit is your argument that BW has a serious flaw when the rest of the game is completely fine, then you are grasping at straws. I've seen so many complaints that certain units suck throughout the years (the most recent example being the queen). Holy fuck did people complain that the queen sucked huge dick and was useless for years and years but then Zero started figuring out how to use them and then everyone started using them against lategame mech. "Queens require too much apm to use properly". Oh wait, whelp.
On October 29 2011 21:40 Greth wrote: In FFAs they are a unit to be feared. I've won several with scout/arbiter fleets. Only when players start building anti-air you could find yourself in a bit of a pickle - but really, nobody ever does. ... Right?
PvZ air battles do involve devourers if the air battle becomes the central theme of the game (Much vs Luxury on Andromeda). Why you must see scouts involved in this escapes me since scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup. It is simply a better use of money and time to produce corsairs and carriers than scouts in PvZ. Not to mention, scouts are far weaker against scourge than corsairs.
Not everything needs to be viable in every context for a game to be balanced. The fact that 99% of ZvZs only involve muta/ling/scourge does not mean that the game has a design flaw. Dark archons prevent carriers from appearing in PvP; does this mean that PvP has a design flaw?
You are right, but the thing is that the scout isn't a good unit in any matchup. You don't use carriers in PvP but carriers are awesome in PvT and PvZ.
Scout sucks versus almost everything and everybody.
It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
BW ZvZ is a micro-intensive, strategic and exciting match-up, I'm sorry you don't like it. Personnally it's what I expect from a match-up, and I'm that every 6 match-up of bw is as diverse as they are. There are a few things I would improve on BW, but encouraging bio TvP, carrier PvP is not really what I have in mind. Edit : to be more precise, I like that strategy don't really rely too much on making the right type of unit.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade. It's not like a different map will suddenly encourage the use of underused units. They're underused for a reason: inefficiency. Costs and build times aren't things that any of us can change.
And lol, I really don't think dark archons prevent carriers in PvP. PvP is a pretty aggressive matchup that involves a lot of pressure and different kinds of harass. It's hard to mass up carriers while maintaining a force strong enough to stave off DTs, reaver harrass, and/or storm drops. And if you're not inflicting some kind of economic damage/pressure yourself, the opponent will just expand like insane, as shown in the previously linked Bisu vs. Much game. Sure, Much got out his carriers, but he was sitting on 1 base while Bisu had 5. That was why he lost, not because Bisu built scouts (which barely did anything, hard counter my ass).
Don't really think it's viable as a standard strategy in pro games, except maybe in some rare cases (cheese/surprise). There are several uses, but in most cases other units can do comparably or better.
In PvP on maps with close air positions and far natural positions (Gaia 6vs7 I'm looking at you), if you suspect your opponent is going reaver drop, you can go 1 scout to snipe the shuttle and the reaver and scout (pun sooo intended!) his base/harass.
But mostly, going scouts requires having a good advantage over your opponent (reaver drop killed probes earlier). I've beaten C-/C level players with it, it's not totally easy though, but once you get a good number it's hell for the other player. It's just for fun and bm. ;P
That being said, they're like wraiths/mutas, but waaaaay more sturdy and faster. I like to get enough to snipe workers in 1 shot (plus speed) while I expand/mass while getting upgrades for them (attack armor shield (you can get shields to +3 without templar achives)), then resume scout production. This is easiest on maps where expansions are easy to defend, like Destination (plus their expo is exposed), or maps like Gaia where you can attack/harras and get back in time for defense.
I hate the scout. I never understood why a Protoss unit had a ratta tatta machine gun.
It's also basically a slower, more expensive corsair. The ground attack is too useless to be worth the high cost. It's kind of good against BCs, and that's about it.
As to why it's not buffed? Well, even if Blizz cared at this point, the community would be furious if they messed with the balance of the game at this point.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade.
So it's pretty much resignation then? We know there can be a better game, but it's just not out yet? I suppose I'm in the same boat - neither BW nor SC2 are anywhere near perfect (and I'm disappointed with HotS so far).
I'v always been fond of underused or underrated units, and I love the SCOUT ! Thanks for making a thread about it. I love these videos featuring "competitive" scout usage, so much fun, despite the unit's tactical flaws.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade. It's not like a different map will suddenly encourage the use of underused units. They're underused for a reason: inefficiency. Costs and build times aren't things that any of us can change.
And lol, I really don't think dark archons prevent carriers in PvP. PvP is a pretty aggressive matchup that involves a lot of pressure and different kinds of harass. It's hard to mass up carriers while maintaining a force strong enough to stave off DTs, reaver harrass, and/or storm drops. And if you're not inflicting some kind of economic damage/pressure yourself, the opponent will just expand like insane, as shown in the previously linked Bisu vs. Much game. Sure, Much got out his carriers, but he was sitting on 1 base while Bisu had 5. That was why he lost, not because Bisu built scouts (which barely did anything, hard counter my ass).
The reason why Carriers fell out of use in PvP years and years ago began because of a Kingdom vs Reach game, I think it was. Carriers fell out long before PvP began to even resemble how it is now.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade. It's not like a different map will suddenly encourage the use of underused units. They're underused for a reason: inefficiency. Costs and build times aren't things that any of us can change.
And lol, I really don't think dark archons prevent carriers in PvP. PvP is a pretty aggressive matchup that involves a lot of pressure and different kinds of harass. It's hard to mass up carriers while maintaining a force strong enough to stave off DTs, reaver harrass, and/or storm drops. And if you're not inflicting some kind of economic damage/pressure yourself, the opponent will just expand like insane, as shown in the previously linked Bisu vs. Much game. Sure, Much got out his carriers, but he was sitting on 1 base while Bisu had 5. That was why he lost, not because Bisu built scouts (which barely did anything, hard counter my ass).
The reason why Carriers fell out of use in PvP years and years ago began because of a Kingdom vs Reach game, I think it was. Carriers fell out long before PvP began to even resemble how it is now.
Really? I actually just assumed carriers had never been in use in PvP, due to the inherent nature of the matchup. If you know which game it is, can you link it? I don't know a lot about pre-2007 play, so I'd be interested in learning more about how PvP evolved over the years.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
I'm sorry, but you're pretty much saying that there is a design flaw if all units are not viable in all matchups, and this is just really, really stupid. Each matchup is essentially a different game and needs to be played in different ways. I just really can't take this seriously at all.
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
I'm sorry, but you're pretty much saying that there is a design flaw if all units are not viable in all matchups, and this is just really, really stupid. Each matchup is essentially a different game and needs to be played in different ways. I just really can't take this seriously at all.
Of course each match-up is different, but the strategic capacity is more limited with less units effectively available. With more units and abilities, the strategic potential expands at the cost of it being exponentially harder to balance. Supposing that balance isn't an issue, what's your opposition to having more units be viable?
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade.
So it's pretty much resignation then? We know there can be a better game, but it's just not out yet? I suppose I'm in the same boat - neither BW nor SC2 are anywhere near perfect (and I'm disappointed with HotS so far).
You are missing the point. The scout is a feature of BW....Blizzard had the great forethought not only to give us several genuinely useful units. Just in case those ever became boring, they included units for all three races (ghost, queen, scout) that were so bad in comparison, that there mere appearance in a game makes it memorable, and makes the player that manages to use feel like a genius. (Infesting a terran command center that could have just sniped with any number of other units is great fun)
On October 30 2011 03:24 lbmaian wrote: It's the fact that "scouts just really don't have a good place in the matchup" that bothers me. This is nothing to do with the balance - it's a game design problem. So yes, the fact that dark archons prevent carriers in PvP is a design flaw IMO. I also dislike BW ZvZ, except for the off-chance that it gets to hive tech.
In SC2-land, everyone was up in arms about how hard counters are (were), and in BW there are counters that are so hard that they prevent units from even appearing in the game 99% of the time.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare SC2 to BW at all here, or even saying that one is better than the other. I just think that BW has some flaws and that it could be improved upon (and I'm not saying that improvement is SC2).
How do you propose that we fix design flaws? The only party that has control over that is Blizzard, and they haven't patched this game in a decade. It's not like a different map will suddenly encourage the use of underused units. They're underused for a reason: inefficiency. Costs and build times aren't things that any of us can change.
And lol, I really don't think dark archons prevent carriers in PvP. PvP is a pretty aggressive matchup that involves a lot of pressure and different kinds of harass. It's hard to mass up carriers while maintaining a force strong enough to stave off DTs, reaver harrass, and/or storm drops. And if you're not inflicting some kind of economic damage/pressure yourself, the opponent will just expand like insane, as shown in the previously linked Bisu vs. Much game. Sure, Much got out his carriers, but he was sitting on 1 base while Bisu had 5. That was why he lost, not because Bisu built scouts (which barely did anything, hard counter my ass).
The reason why Carriers fell out of use in PvP years and years ago began because of a Kingdom vs Reach game, I think it was. Carriers fell out long before PvP began to even resemble how it is now.
Really? I actually just assumed carriers had never been in use in PvP, due to the inherent nature of the matchup. If you know which game it is, can you link it? I don't know a lot about pre-2007 play, so I'd be interested in learning more about how PvP evolved over the years.
But now that I think about it more, I think it's a bit hasty to say that it is the DA alone that made carriers nonviable in PvP. It definitely contributes heavily, but it's hard to ignore how much PvP has changed outside of it (the death of stargate tech in general).
Also, more does not equal better. Post-Savior BW has largely retained the same general shape in all the matchups for years now, but yet still the game has continued to advance incredibly rapidly with a great deal of variation and shocking innovation. I just feel like people that complain about how some units are not viable in some matchups makes the game more limited have never really played the game or ever understood it enough to appreciate the real complexities of the game. Even if there were more units, some units simply are going to be more efficient and useful than other units for each matchup because each matchup demands different sets of skills and functions. Then, as the game progresses and people optimizes their shit, some units are simply going to be almost completely phased out because they just aren't as useful as some other units in certain matchups. So in the end we would end up in the same goddamned position because that's how the game works.
Just look at the hydra. Hydras are incredibly strong in ZvP because they have a lot of utility and play favorably against many of the Protoss units. I have always preferred using hydra based plays in ZvP for various reasons. On the other hand, they are not useful in ZvT bio most of the time because they are fucking useless against marine medic without defiler support, and because defilers are so important in ZvT a long with lurkers, it is less efficient to use hydras in the midgame because the gas can be used elsewhere. Getting lurkers and hive tech up in a timely manner is more useful and thus hydras are less used. They still have a big role to play against Terran mech though. Then you look at ZvZ where hydras are completely useless except in the super lategame because mutalingscourge simply is the most efficient because of their costs and design. To use hydras you need a strong drone count but ZvZ is the most larva conscious Zerg matchup and thus you need to use the most resource and larva efficient units which happen to be lings, mutas, and scourge, and these units play very favourably against hydras. Hydras are also quite mobile but mutalingscourge is even more mobile. Thus hydras take a back seat.
Because hydras take a back seat in 2/3 matchups, does that mean hydras have a design flaw? Fuck no.
There is probably things which can be improved, like small changes that could help the viability of hive tech ZvZ. Scouts are not something that needs improving at all though. They were infact too strong and had their ground attack lowered. You can still use them, if you want. I've used them in games sometimes in specific situations. I think most players are at a level where you can implement them in your play if you really wanted to.
I seriously think it's a little underrated. Nony vs KoreanSupreme in the replay section is a nice usage of 3 stargate scouts in PvT. This is when he didn't even really have the advantage in the game either.
Also someone mentioned bio TvP. Again i feel like people prehaps overlook it too much outside of deep six. My mechanics are bad, prehaps around D+ level. Yet the other day i attempted a strategy in which i went for CC first into 2rax, then tech to dropships and drop his mineral lines repeatedly. If i had included just 1 firebat in each drop or managed to macro while doing the drops i probably would have won, and this was against a C player.
Honestly if you actually play the game and not just watch progames you'll find you can do interesting stuff if you want.
On October 30 2011 03:03 lbmaian wrote: The fact that the game features a unit that's so rarely used and that also prevents other units from appearing in certain match-ups just sounds like bad unit design to me. The fact that you all are also satisfied with its role (nearly equivalent in role to SC2's mothership) kinda bothers me. It's like BW is THE epitome of the RTS genre, and that it would be bad, nay sacrilege, to try to improve it and get rid of this design flaw.
IMO, BW would be improved if the scout was not such a hard counter to capital ships and had some other role; the same could also be said about the devourer. Granted I haven't watched as much BW as the rest of you all, but I have yet to see a game that features a PvZ air battle that features both scouts and devourers.
The problem is that after the introduction of the Corsair in BW, the scout also lost its role as the primary protoss air-to-air unit. And as time went by, the game balanced itself out, leaving the Scout as the appendix of the game. Any serious tries to get the Scout back into the game will disturb the balance of the game in a great way.
I think we all might be forgetting just how OP Mojojojo was. The scout was badass.
But on a serious note, many units are just not meant to be used, and are indeed implemented for casual players, and for campaigning methods. I won't make a stupid BW/SC2 comparison, because I'm not retarded, but I hope you get my point. Blizzard doesn't need to make a game fully balanced just for pros; many casuals used, and still use the scout, for whatever reasons they want. Do I agree? No. But it's no big deal to have a useless unit in a game.
On October 29 2011 21:44 SkelA wrote: The Scout only real use is the counter for Carriers and Battlecruisers but you never see those units in pvp and pvt so its used mostly to humiliate your oponents.
This was pretty spot on, its not like Blizz put in units for no real reason, every unit was put in for a good reason and had a good amount of thought put into it .. today's metagame and maps just does not allow for those units to appear in the matchups.
Which is why I'd be fairly interested in Island/semi-island maps being reintroduced to progames ... even though they have all been fairly imba, I think it is still worth it for map makers to test their creativity and make a true island map that is semi-balanced :D
Scouts are what you make when you want to troll your opponent. That is their sole purpose ;o.
On October 29 2011 21:11 MasterReY wrote: In the beginning of "pro" BW most protoss used Scouts in almost all games. Blizzard just stoped balancing the whole game at one point and because the scout was used very often in the past they didnt change it i guess.
After that the game evolved and strategies got more defined and the scout wasnt used anymore. Blizzard couldnt look in the future.
Dont say it wasnt used if you dont it for sure. There are alot of old battle reports from people like Grrr and Zileas which massed scouts in PvP for example and killed nexuses with it etc.
koreasilver, I am aware that BW has continued to evolve a lot even in match-ups that have the least number of viable units.
If your point is that there may yet be a future non-BM non-incredibly-niche role for the rarely used units, well I have my doubts, but I'm hardly a BW scene expert.
If your point is that we all should be satisfied with the current complexity and evolution of those match-ups given the rarely used units, well I'm clearly not satisfied. I don't know how we'd "fix" those units, but I do think that their lack of usage is just a cop out by Blizzard - they were hoping those units would still be used, and if they turned out not to be useful yet the match-up was balanced enough, then so be it (especially after they moved on to WC3).
sheaRZerg, I think you give Blizzard too much credit :p
You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
On October 30 2011 07:39 lbmaian wrote: koreasilver, I am aware that BW has continued to evolve a lot even in match-ups that have the least number of viable units.
If your point is that there may yet be a future non-BM non-incredibly-niche role for the rarely used units, well I have my doubts, but I'm hardly a BW scene expert.
If your point is that we all should be satisfied with the current complexity and evolution of those match-ups given the rarely used units, well I'm clearly not satisfied. I don't know how we'd "fix" those units, but I do think that their lack of usage is just a cop out by Blizzard - they were hoping those units would still be used, and if they turned out not to be useful yet the match-up was balanced enough, then so be it (especially after they moved on to WC3).
sheaRZerg, I think you give Blizzard too much credit :p
If we talk of units other than the scout, it's clearly possible. DA are probably underused for instance. Proof is, queens were almost never used for years, but they've had a pretty big role in countering mech as zerg this year. Or Valks. They have been used a bit more in TvT this year, and they've been used in TvZ for only 2 years and a half or something. As for the current complexity of the game, I'd say BW is doing pretty fucking well oO
Scout is the only unit not used and it wouldn't fit into the game because of overlap with corsair, is it that hard to understand. To 'fix' it would be to take it out. But since it's no affect leaving it in, who cares.
lbmaian... if you say anything that's different from "Brood War is a god given gift to man", "Brood War should be exactly like it is" and "Brood War is absolutely perfect and flawless", that means you're saying something really, really stupid and that are just not getting it and that you're making baseless and meaningless accusations.
I hope I cleared that for you, so you may never speak blasphemy again.
Edit: Oh, yeah, I forgot to say that it's also retarded.
Seriously, if there isn't at the least a thinly veiled insult to your intelligence in every single of our responses to your blasphemy, then we're not doing our job good enough!
It's retarded to bring up Blizzard balances and accuse them of just leaving the game as is just because the game seemed good enough despite there being design issues when Blizzard stopped patching the game a goddamned decade ago and units that are considered to be suboptimal in modern BW were still used in suboptimal ways long after the last balance patch. It is a baseless and meaningless accusation because that's not how the things happened.
For heaven's sake, when I watched BW on television at the very beginnings of the scene in South Korea, I saw a TvT where an mnm vs mnm battle happened. No one really knew what the fuck was going on. It is not as if back then people already figured out what is efficient or not to the degree people have mapped out in post-Savior times when the last balance patch was done. People were still doing crazy shit all over the place. How in the world could have anyone known that BW would turn out the way it is now 10 years ago? Furthermore, if Blizzard kept patching the game over the past 10 years to promote underused units the game would not have turned out as balanced as it is now. Imagine if Blizzard patched the queen so that it was stronger than it is now because no one used it. It would be flat out imbalanced in the context of today.
^Exactly. The scout does not need a buff in this day and age 10 years post patch bw. Doing so would completely fuck up the metagame of every matchup and have far-reaching consequences that no one could predict at the moment.
What you don't seem to realise is buffing the scout is not only buffing the scout, it is buffing everything else in the protoss arsenal accordingly, because protoss now has one more tool of destruction which you have to anticipate and if you get it wrong, you die.
Also try to avoid BW to SC2 comparisons, they are fundamentally completely different games. No matter what blizzard tries to do to make SC2 more 'balanced' and promote the usage of all available units, BW will remain the more dynamic game because of non-unit factors, such as how units move when put into a control group, how they spread out, the non-existence of 1a etc.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
ehhm the scouts didnt do much I think. storms did. tatatatatata and nothing happened till the storm came. other units are just like: "hihihihahahahaha stop shooting! it's tickling!"
Not really
6 scout against no goliaths = gg push. The storm helped but without the scouts Bisu was done.
Well, if he didn't have the scouts, he would obv have more ground forces.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
On October 29 2011 21:44 SkelA wrote: The Scout only real use is the counter for Carriers and Battlecruisers but you never see those units in pvp and pvt so its used mostly to humiliate your oponents.
This is a good point.
Scout AtG attack sucks balls. Their AtA is relatively strong against beefier targets.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
finally someone who understands BW!
(why i found WC3 much less fun to watch: footman vs footman, huntress vs huntress, ghouls vs ghouls etc )
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
finally someone who understands BW!
(why i found WC3 much less fun to watch: footman vs footman, huntress vs huntress, ghouls vs ghouls etc )
Well yeah, that's kind of how mirror matches up in any game work, at least in the earlier stages when you can only make basic units. It's not like HvH, NEvNE, UvU don't diversify once people start teching. Meanwhile in ZvZ, it's lings vs. lings and mutas vs. mutas all game, and PvP is inevitably going to have goons vs. goons or what have you. Besides, in WC3 battles, heroes play a major part, so even footmen fighting footmen will lead to different results based on whether you have an archmage or a paladin or whatever.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
This, and it is fine having units that are situational. For example, devourers are rarely used but they basically serve a similar purpose to scout that is to fight vs heavy air. Devourers are only used in either late-game zvz, against bc zvt, against carriers zvp, for light air threats scourge are quite efficient(if microed carefully) at taking them out. The concept of devourers are still really needed though, because without devourers, it would make it a lot harder to combat those specific situations.
Having every unit usable in every situation is what I would actually say bad design. It just makes the units generic. And no changing the scout right now is bad, it will mess too much with the current mu unpredictably. But yes, I would agree that the concept of scouts could've been better as they are pretty much the most useless unit in the game. Then again, we said that about queens a couple of years ago, and now they are being used against mech zvt.
I remember a long time ago, in the Ascension tournament thing that Artosis was holding, G5 was in a PvZ vs someone, I forget who, but basically did the normal forge FE stargate, but instead of getting a Corsair, he got a Scout, and it was pretty funny.
On October 29 2011 21:44 SkelA wrote: The Scout only real use is the counter for Carriers and Battlecruisers but you never see those units in pvp and pvt so its used mostly to humiliate your oponents.
im suprised KESPA / BW scene never simply got together under one unified body and decided to "patch" the game themselves
it would be easy, simply create custom maps with the stats changed and release your own balance changes as time comes.
I see good reasons why this never happened, however I also think it would be so easy to do (simply design maps, have teams download and practice with them, and have those special maps played in tournaments) that im surprised it never happened. its not like blizzard is a god at a balance, maybe a unified esport governing agency in korea could have balanced it better, and honestly it would cost nothing in terms of paying money to blizzard, its all free in the game however the agency would need to pay their own balancing team to do it most likely so there would be some cost
i know im speaking of something crazy, im just saying im surprised nothing like that ever happened
The scout is one of those things that doesn't see much playtime, but that has a large effect on the game. As people have said, the scout essentially invalidates opposing capital ship play in PvP and PvT, dictating the pace and form of the matchup. It's one of those units that doesn't need a buff, and is perfectly effective not being used at all.
If it is nerfed significantly, on certain maps, we may see Carrier play or Cattlebruiser play, which is not fun to watch since the superior range of these units force drawn out stalemate situations.
If it is buffed significantly (so that it outdps's the wraith's ground attack per cost), Protoss will simply be too powerful. While it still wouldn't have much of an effect in PvP or PvT compared to the current metagame, PvZ could totally break.
On October 30 2011 17:14 roymarthyup wrote: im suprised KESPA / BW scene never simply got together under one unified body and decided to "patch" the game themselves
it would be easy, simply create custom maps with the stats changed and release your own balance changes as time comes.
I see good reasons why this never happened, however I also think it would be so easy to do (simply design maps, have teams download and practice with them, and have those special maps played in tournaments) that im surprised it never happened. its not like blizzard is a god at a balance, maybe a unified esport governing agency in korea could have balanced it better, and honestly it would cost nothing in terms of paying money to blizzard, its all free in the game however the agency would need to pay their own balancing team to do it most likely so there would be some cost
i know im speaking of something crazy, im just saying im surprised nothing like that ever happened
Its because there isn't any need to do that, when you can just balance the game with maps.
On October 30 2011 07:46 koreasilver wrote: You're just not getting it. Not only that, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the history of balancing for BW so your accusation is baseless and meaningless.
You're being way too defensive, and we're talking about a nebulous topic called "game design", so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I just find having under-utilized units in some match-ups or stages to be "inelegant" game design. Examples of such units: BW scout, WC3 footman (at least early versions), SC2 reaper. It has nothing to do with balance. To contrive an extreme example, consider a strategy game with 3 races. Race A has two types of units: units that are only good against race B, and units that are only good against race C. To me, this is completely bad game design.
With regards to BW balance, I do know that BW has primarily been balanced with maps, player skill, and the "metagame". I'm only stating the obvious: that Blizzard won't bother tweaking a game that it stopped actively supporting years ago.
But if for some reason, Blizzard found some business need to create an expansion or something similarly drastic for BW, Blizzard would try to redesign and tweak units to fix such flaws. For example, in one of the later WC3 patches, Blizzard buffed the footman's defend so that it would remain more viable in later stages of the game (which is not to say they were successful). Of course, this will never happen, so the point is moot.
LilClinkin, of course buffing the scout, in the absence of any other change, could imbalance the game - I never proposed that. And I'm not comparing BW to SC2 balance or gameplay at all - I'm only mentioning SC2 here as another RTS example.
Units are under-utilized because there are better alternatives. And if you want every unit to be the same in terms of usability, then we will either see armies consisting of one of every unit, or armies consisting of only one unit, which is also inelegant game design. Also, any RTS is not completely figured out, and never will be. There's no way to tell if a certain unit although underused today, will be the staple of a matchup tomorrow. There's no definite proof of whether a unit genuinely sucks or if people haven't figured out how to use it. Just look at queens in BW, they were rarely used until recently. Ghosts in SC2 were rarely used until recently. Since all the races are different, people need time to adapt to any changes in the game. It can take a long time for people to adapt to small changes, and forcing a patch is just going to start the process all over again from the beginning.
Are you seriously suggesting that a game which requires unique strategies to deal with two radically different enemies is BAD? SERIOUSLY? It makes perfect sense that you would have to adopt a completely different strategy to cope with the all-overwhelming macro of the zerg and the high tech and damage units of the protoss. Your opinion that not having one cookie-cutter strategy to deal with both enemies seems anti-starcraft.
No, I am suggesting that having all units completely even to a point where any unit can be used or a small amount of every unit used in conjunction is bad. For example, going only zerglings sucks, but add in some lurkers and defilers and you have a great army. Building 5 of every unit sucks, but having a good balance of lurkers and hydras for example is good, which is why blizzard not constantly applying balance patches in BW was a good thing. Keeping things the way it is gives time to let people create different strategies instead of changing everything so often as to hinder the development of new strategies.
This, and it is fine having units that are situational. For example, devourers are rarely used but they basically serve a similar purpose to scout that is to fight vs heavy air. Devourers are only used in either late-game zvz, against bc zvt, against carriers zvp, for light air threats scourge are quite efficient(if microed carefully) at taking them out. The concept of devourers are still really needed though, because without devourers, it would make it a lot harder to combat those specific situations.
Having every unit usable in every situation is what I would actually say bad design. It just makes the units generic. And no changing the scout right now is bad, it will mess too much with the current mu unpredictably. But yes, I would agree that the concept of scouts could've been better as they are pretty much the most useless unit in the game. Then again, we said that about queens a couple of years ago, and now they are being used against mech zvt.
I agree, having every unit be viable in any situation is bad.
But my ideal RTS game would have units that are unique, yet are viable in situations that collectively happen at least 5% of the time, and all matchups are balanced and interesting to watch and play. I understand that because the metagame evolves, that 5% will constantly be changing, so it then comes to whether the developer is convinced that it needs tweaking, or waiting and hoping for the unit to become viable over time (the latter obviously being the BW mindset).
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MSlZG.jpg)
)
