There is a lot of discussion lately about this game, balance-design wise. I have my own discussion I want to start. It's about...............[coffe break]............... "Come back units" (face zoom).
a come back unit (CBU)= it's a StarCraft unit that has a counter and it counters others but it's uselfuness can sometimes be game changing on the hands of a skilled player and that can provide on it's own or in small numbers a come back in a game if used right.
Examples of CBUs from Broodwar: reaver (protoss), vulture (terran), defiler (zerg)
It's very important to understand that StarCraft is not fun without CBUs. This is the reason StarCraft is not like chess. Chess is all about strategies and counters in a perfect balanced system. While you can admire the decision making of a person, its not enough on it's own to be entertaing for a large amount of audience. Imagine 2 people playing 15 minutes of "rock- paper- scissors". It's all about counters in a perfect balanced system but still not entertaining. There is no RANDOM factor that gets to be multiplied with the player skill.
Unfortunately StarCraft II is mostly about counters and not about the random factor that is dictated by CBUs.
Bio forces Collosus that forces Vikings. Bio forces High Templars that forces Ghosts.
Counter over counter over counter : compute. Processing battle result. Protoss wins! (just for fun, we all know protoss does not win :D )
There is no random factor in there. Player skill is not random, it's an exact figure.
The value of a "come back unit" is in relationship with it's ability to be multiplied with the player skill.
In my eyes a reaver, on a 1-10 scale, is a 10 CBU.
Playes skill X Reaver unit design = 10.
This means that this unit on a talented players hands can give immense outcomes and is unpredictable in statistics. You can suck with it or have immense success and even come back in a game with it.
Player skill X Zealot unit design = 1.
This means that the outcome of zealot used by a talented player is most likely predictable and it by no means have the chances to make a come back.
BUT!
There is one more thing that has to be taken in consideration. And you will not like it. BALANCE. If Reavers would be cheap to get, hard to kill than the game would become imbalanced, thus reducing the units value. SO, the new formula is:
(Player skill X Unit design)/Game balance value = CBU Value.
Game Balance Value ideally is 50% = 0,5. If it gets in favor of the race that has the unit you are doing the calculations for than it gets higher so the CBU Value gets lower.
The maximum CBU values can be acquired only for a value of 10 (on a 1-10 scale ) of a players skill. So a 10 player will get the most out of a CBU.
The CBU value is what you can get MOST, not what you always get.
The interesting thing is that Broodwar had multiple Value 10 CBUs, even within one race, like Lurker and Defiller. That means that zergs had immense potential and that also resulted in extremely fun games.
Now let's look at StarCraft II. I will list the "come back units" with the highest values (after my poor judgment).
This are the most fun delivering units. The higher their CBU Value, that louder the scream from the audience these units can bring on their own. All the rest of units are 1s. They just do what they are supposed to do, with almost no surprise (micro is something thats not random, it depends on player skill, so kitting marines are a given).
Also, remember, the CBU Value is actually the maximum of "reword" you can get not what you always get. Even if the infestor is a 7, not all players work it for a 7. But the important thing here is the potentiality, because there has to be room for improvement.
So guys, what do you think? Are "come back units" important in our beloved game? Does it already have them? Do you think this is the reason there are not so many WOW moments in Starcraft II as there were in in Broodwar?
Let's check the CBUs for Protoss in Broodwar (if you don't watch those videos, all of them, you are hurting ESPORTS!):
Reaver = 10
stork vs darkelf
Storm = 6
Jangbi vs NaDa
Arbiter = 6
Nal_rA vs GoodFriend
Carrier = 6
Fantasy vs JangBi
Dark Templar = 3
Bisu vs Savior
Dragoon = 2
Light vs Tempest
Dark Archon = 2
Reach vs Chojja
This is why that game was a lot more entertaining. It had good designed units. Of course this is my opinion. What do you guys say?
infestors, 100 fucking percent. I was playing a GM zerg last night, muta vs muta battles for like 20 min, was down upgrades (1-1 to 2-1), I engaged with 10 mutas and 3 infestors vs 23 mutas, fungled 5 times, won the game directly after. Such a retarded way to win. In terms of other races, DTs obviously for P, if you're ahead but don't see it coming you're just screwed. I've lost a lot to combatex like this (nydus his base, be 3base vs 1base, lose from DTs). Funnily enough I don't think terran really has a "comeback unit" vs zerg, it's usually a much more gradual comeback of winning battle after battle and having their marine/tank count not fall. I guess hellions if you don't see them being dropped, but any competant Zerg will. If a Terran is behind they're just fucked, just like if a Zerg is behind they're fucked too (in zvt for both races anyways).
Edit ~ The only reason blings should be up there is if they're burrowed, if you're behind in zvt there is no way in hell your blings are getting anywhere near the Terran army..
In BW defilers were the sickest comeback unit ever, fuck yeah darkswarm
well remember that sc vanilla wasnt nearly as popular as BW, and sc2 is still at the stage of sc vanilla. As expansions come, the game will have more units, thus more CBU's and fun
On October 06 2011 04:23 KevinIX wrote: This looks completely arbitrary.
I'm gonna have to agree. How do you measure a unit's "comeback" score? I think potential cost effectiveness is the important factor. Units like Infestors, cloaked banshees, dts, if used correctly can kill much more than their own cost. That could be a "comeback" unit.
there's a surprising number of games where a terran loses all of his SCVs and then snipes an expansion with one drop, stays in the game, and wins the war of attrition with just drops.
On October 06 2011 04:23 KevinIX wrote: This looks completely arbitrary.
I'm gonna have to agree. How do you measure a unit's "comeback" score? I think potential cost effectiveness is the important factor. Units like Infestors, cloaked banshees, dts, if used correctly can kill much more than their own cost. That could be a "comeback" unit.
There is one point were you have to be arbitrary, when awarding the highest CBU Value to a unit. After that you just compare the units in between and decide witch one gets were in the hierarchy. Also the EXACT value it's not that important. The whole idea of this thread is to make an important point about this game.
infestors arent that good of a CBU anymore if u play anyone who can properly micro/split O_o not to mention feedback snipe and i think emp all out range any kind of fungal now
Interesting. Often times as both a spectator and a player, it feels like the game can be determined several minutes before it actually ends. SC2 definitely needs more CB units for each race.
p.s. anyone remember defensive nukes such as jinros at mlg not too long ago where he sets nuke on his own army then backs up so i think choyo's army on tal darim walks into and poof. Pretty sure if nukes can be pulled off they are the ultimate CBU
Hell even the basic infrantry in starcraft broodwar for the terran race is also a CBU just look at boxers mutli prong drop ship micro versus zergs back in 2001 . Broodwar in all their combat units are generally if used well to defend a push can be a CBU . <3 broodwar and if sc2 really wants to attract people they have got to be releasing units like these .
You don't see players in sc2 ever did a comeback after a major lost and I can bet you there is none because units in sc2 die really easily . Other than that to compare sc2 in comparison as sc vanilla is totally wrong , how long did blizzard had the experience in making starcraft 1 and broodwar and than releasing it after 10 years . Isn't it reasonable expectation from a developer who created a really good game in 1998 to continue its quality games ? One would have expected it to be so , but it isn't when we are still debating which mu should be balance and etc.
On October 06 2011 04:38 LaGTTBloodThirsty wrote: p.s. anyone remember defensive nukes such as jinros at mlg not too long ago where he sets nuke on his own army then backs up so i think choyo's army on tal darim walks into and poof. Pretty sure if nukes can be pulled off they are the ultimate CBU
i'm pretty sure choya died to nuke because it was his first time hearing "nuclear launch detected" in the english client
On October 06 2011 04:38 Sawamura wrote: Hell even the basic infrantry in starcraft broodwar for the terran race is also a CBU just look at boxers mutli prong drop ship micro versus zergs back in 2001 . Broodwar in all their combat units are generally if used well to defend a push can be a CBU . <3 broodwar and if sc2 really wants to attract people they have got to be releasing units like these .
You don't see players in sc2 ever did a comeback after a major lost and I can bet you there is none because units in sc2 die really easily . Other than that to compare sc2 in comparison as sc vanilla is totally wrong , how long did blizzard had the experience in making starcraft 1 and broodwar and than releasing it after 10 years . Isn't it reasonable expectation from a developer who created a really good game in 1998 to continue its quality games ? One would have expected it to be so , but it isn't when we are still debating which mu should be balance and etc.
maybe you weren't around for the first 6 years or so of BW where balance was still discussed regularly
On October 06 2011 04:38 Sawamura wrote: Hell even the basic infrantry in starcraft broodwar for the terran race is also a CBU just look at boxers mutli prong drop ship micro versus zergs back in 2001 . Broodwar in all their combat units are generally if used well to defend a push can be a CBU . <3 broodwar and if sc2 really wants to attract people they have got to be releasing units like these .
You don't see players in sc2 ever did a comeback after a major lost and I can bet you there is none because units in sc2 die really easily . Other than that to compare sc2 in comparison as sc vanilla is totally wrong , how long did blizzard had the experience in making starcraft 1 and broodwar and than releasing it after 10 years . Isn't it reasonable expectation from a developer who created a really good game in 1998 to continue its quality games ? One would have expected it to be so , but it isn't when we are still debating which mu should be balance and etc.
maybe you weren't around for the first 6 years or so of BW where balance was still discussed regularly
what has that got to do with the point I am raising ?
As much as I dislike this BW vs. SCII topics, I agree, that Infestors are are the best comeback unit. I actually would rate them 8. Ghosts should be also one higher, espescially in PvT. What you completely undermine, is the usefullness of High Templar. They should be atleast a 5, if not a 6.
I have seen at least ten games, where HasuObs turned already lost games with phenomenal Templar or Blink Stalker play. Two or three really well placed Storms can do wonders. This is of course also a testament of Hasu´s exteme good unit control, but your examples from BW also featured some of the best players.
The Sentry should be also higher, because they often buy you the time you need to come back. BF Hellion and Mules should be on that list, too.
i dont understand these calculations but i can tell you dt make far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more comebacks happen than ghosts
On October 06 2011 04:38 LaGTTBloodThirsty wrote: p.s. anyone remember defensive nukes such as jinros at mlg not too long ago where he sets nuke on his own army then backs up so i think choyo's army on tal darim walks into and poof. Pretty sure if nukes can be pulled off they are the ultimate CBU
i'm pretty sure choya died to nuke because it was his first time hearing "nuclear launch detected" in the english client
And he didn't see the yellow text on the side of the screen. Or the nuke noise
How can a variable (Player Skill) multiplied by an assumed constant (Unit Design) result in a constant number?
(Player Skill) x (Unit Design) would be variable based on Player skill. I think the number you're trying to assign to (Player Skill) x (Unit Design) is in fact just (Unit Design) itself. There are other issues I have with this analysis but that one suggests to me that you aren't in fact capable of making an accurate analysis of this "theory".
a come back unit (CBU)= it's a StarCraft unit that has a counter and it counters others but it's uselfuness can sometimes be game changing on the hands of a skilled player and that can provide on it's own or in small numbers a come back in a game if used right.
I'm not familiar with high level brood war, what is the counter to a reaver or defiler?
Also, Marauders seem to fit your comeback unit definition very well, especially with medivacs.
On October 06 2011 04:49 sVnteen wrote: i dont understand these calculations but i can tell you dt make far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more comebacks happen than ghosts
just sayin
maybe as of now
but any terran hopelessly economically behind a zerg with no map control, turtling and making ghosts can kill endless amounts of hive-tech 200/200 armies. not whining, i play t so its good
On October 06 2011 04:55 Subztance wrote: How can a variable (Player Skill) multiplied by an assumed constant (Unit Design) result in a constant number?
(Player Skill) x (Unit Design) would be variable based on Player skill. I think the number you're trying to assign to (Player Skill) x (Unit Design) is in fact just (Unit Design) itself. There are other issues I have with this analysis but that one suggests to me that you aren't in fact capable of making an accurate analysis of this "theory".
a come back unit (CBU)= it's a StarCraft unit that has a counter and it counters others but it's uselfuness can sometimes be game changing on the hands of a skilled player and that can provide on it's own or in small numbers a come back in a game if used right.
I'm not familiar with high level brood war, what is the counter to a reaver or defiler?
Also, Marauders seem to fit your comeback unit definition very well, especially with medivacs.
The formule is not wrong, it just needs a clarification, and that's the following:
The maximum CBU values can be acquired only for a value of 10 (on a 1-10 scale ) of a players skill.
So a 10 player will get the most out of a CBU.
The CBU value is what you can get MOST, not what you always get. So please read the thing.
Defiler needed science vessels and reaver drop needed tanks or spider mines planted.
What OP probably meant to suggest is that SC2 needs more units that are highly affected by the player's skill. Currently we have little of those.
A nuke is a comeback unit, but it's almost exclusively based on luck, circumstances and some mind games. Yet, it's not what we need more of! The game would become a shit-fest if you include more of such tactics. It needs to be done BW style, by making units whose effectiveness depends heavily on the player's skill.
Reavers didn't mean you only needed some luck to come back. It required a ton of skill to pull of and it's what made them exciting.
On October 06 2011 04:55 Subztance wrote: How can a variable (Player Skill) multiplied by an assumed constant (Unit Design) result in a constant number?
(Player Skill) x (Unit Design) would be variable based on Player skill. I think the number you're trying to assign to (Player Skill) x (Unit Design) is in fact just (Unit Design) itself. There are other issues I have with this analysis but that one suggests to me that you aren't in fact capable of making an accurate analysis of this "theory".
a come back unit (CBU)= it's a StarCraft unit that has a counter and it counters others but it's uselfuness can sometimes be game changing on the hands of a skilled player and that can provide on it's own or in small numbers a come back in a game if used right.
I'm not familiar with high level brood war, what is the counter to a reaver or defiler?
Also, Marauders seem to fit your comeback unit definition very well, especially with medivacs.
Reavers die really easily to siege tank or getting flanked by a group of zergling , and I mean anything can kill a reaver . It's really slow and without shuttle microing a reaver it's good as dead .Although it depends totally on the players micro ...
case for example Snow v Jaedong on benzene
Defiler easily dies to science vessel irradiate , once being irradiated it has no chance to survive at all .Easily countered in TvZ and that's where scourge comes into play to kill of science vessel .
i dont agree with the infestor being a CBU at all. MUCH less so than the DT or just drops in general, even though those aren't good ways to come back either.
i've never seen a pro game where the zerg was behind and used infestors to great affect to come back from a deficit and win the game. given the nature of SC2, 99 percent of the time when one person gains a marginal advantage they win the game.
I DO agree, however, that come backs are far too hard to make as is in the game right now- and yes, this is because the central theme of hard counters rather than softer counters in the game. it is more or less impossible to make a comeback simply by your own merit and outstanding unit control.
I play chess and I HATE when people compare the 2. In chess there are come back moves, which make it much much more entertaining. Same with SC2. Nothing feels better then watching someone behind just dominate their opponent because they make perfect moves. And SC2 doesnt have CBU because that makes the comeback that much easier. You should be able to come back only if you outplay your opponent. Making infestors shouldn't instantly win the game unless the person has no counter.
This feels arbitrary as hell. Might as well make up BBU(British Balance Units) or for the superior metric system(Balancalories) and say that Blizzard didn´t add them well or something.
And no Ghosts are not really a comeback unit,the common theme of comeback units is efficiency like in BW. 8 Ghosts can´t do much on their own, but 8 Hellions/vultures can put you back into the game.
And well about BW being more entertaining than SC2(although I agree but I dont find SC2 bad at all) is like... your opinion dude. SC2 gets a lot of viewers atm which at least means some people find it entertaining enough
I agree with the idea behind the post, but not the listing.
As this guy said
On October 06 2011 05:08 Bro_Stone wrote: Ghost isn't really a comeback unit... 10 ghosts vs a protoss army won't do anything without an ACTUAL army
In my eyes, there are a only (and too few) comeback units.
1. High Templar 2. Infestor 3. banelings 4. Raven (possibly)
Why only these two? Well, in a battle that is going extremely poorly for either side, say 150 food to 50 food battles. One or two of these units could instantly turn the tide.
The fact that terran doesn't have a strong CBU is a problem in my opinion. It is what makes coming catching up with a P or Z's lead so difficult. (Only drops.. really)
On October 06 2011 05:10 Mafs wrote: I play chess and I HATE when people compare the 2. In chess there are come back moves, which make it much much more entertaining. Same with SC2. Nothing feels better then watching someone behind just dominate their opponent because they make perfect moves. And SC2 doesnt have CBU because that makes the comeback that much easier. You should be able to come back only if you outplay your opponent. Making infestors shouldn't instantly win the game unless the person has no counter.
Units do not have intrinsic 'comeback' value. They only derive such value through their use. Marines in a Medivac, or even without a Medivac, can massively swing the game by being the right place at the right time and in the right numbers.
Attempting to grade units based on their comeback potential is a very sloppy way of trying to understand a very complex system. It's like simplifying the economy down to a supply and demand graph, or car purchasing decisions to gas mileage. By comparing units strictly in terms of an invented metric, you ignore the incredible diversity of play that is possible only by thinking outside of traditional metrics.
Energy. Cloak. Splash dmg. Burst dps. -- I think those attributes are among the ones that can make a come back unit. Based on that, we could add to the OP also Colossi (splash), VR (burst), stimmed Marauders (burst), Tanks (splash), Yamato BC (burst), Overseers (energy), Queens (energy), Banshee (cloak), Archon (splash), Thor (air splash) . And in some cases extreme speed advantage can be come back worthy, so Zerglings too. Obviously, come back with any of those units doesn't happen very often, but sometimes it does.
Not all come back aspects are exactly units, some are more global, like repair and mules, shields, and burrow. Overall, no, I don't think SC2 lacks come back elements, the battles aren't very one-sided on average, especially compared to other games. The reason BW viewers may feel BW is more surprising is what Tyler mentioned on SotG that BW observing traditionally provides less information, so it's up to you to guess more and bite your nails, and you also get surprised more. I think SC2 obs are catching up in that aspect, it's not something that can't be improved.
Those are likely the comeback untis of SC2 though a well times drop or sneak attack can do the same (as it can in BW)
none can match the completely retarded scarab AI hype because it was that. stupid and random. of course people will be on edge watching it NO ONE not even the player using the reaver knows how it will turn out until it lands. and you can only do a little to minimalize the damage but most of the damage mitigation comes from luck.
Stop lurkers are kind of true as a comeback thing but they reaaallly need to happen at a certain point in ZvT otherwise they reallty aren't a comeback unit they are just irrelevant once the science cloud comes into play.
There's nothing that set you back in a game better than a good infantry drop as terran imho. :/
And any kind of units that force your opponent to micro is a comeback unit because.. if he don't micro, you're being cost efficient. :< ( baneling, storm, infestor, etc )
I totally agree with the sentiments of this article. Although the values may be somewhat arbitrary, it is so true - BW had way more exciting units that could be amazing in the hands of skilled players and show the difference between a top player and a mediocre player. I even argue that infestors and such are not comeback units at all - I honestly think infestor would be a 2 or 3 on the comeback unit scale - there is no skill involved using them, you simply hit f and click several times. The only thing that differentiates one infestor user vs the other is if one person gets slightly better fungals. If you are in a ZvZ and one person has 4 more infestors, that person is probably going to win. If you were in a ZvZ in Broodwar, the person with more scourge in muta/scourge battles was not necessarily going to win - it depended on the micro and skill with which the units were controlled.
Scourge would be something like a 6-7 on the comeback scale compared to an infestor. Because of it's huge instant damage it can turn things around almost instantly. The thing is, StarCraft 2 needs more units like that to make games more exciting and more dynamic with more potential for comeback if units are used well. The nerf of high templar storm is understandable and needed, but as you show, it turns storm from a comeback level of 6 to 2, and into a lackluster spell with very little potential.
I would say collosus (lol) is a comeback unit in certain situations. Let's say you have a huge advantage as zerg but only with hydra/ling army. Protoss is sitting only on 2 bases and makes last push after making like 3 collosus with his last money. He wins
Although I agree some units are great at making come-backs in Starcraft, and SC2, I would disagree on your choice in trying to quantify the "combackability" of units.
On October 06 2011 04:24 Endymion wrote: Funnily enough I don't think terran really has a "comeback unit" vs zerg, it's usually a much more gradual comeback of winning battle after battle and having their marine/tank count not fall. I guess hellions if you don't see them being dropped, but any competant Zerg will. If a Terran is behind they're just fucked, just like if a Zerg is behind they're fucked too (in zvt for both races anyways).
Some would say sniping ghosts or cloaked banshees are the terran comeback unit vs zerg. By "some", I mean "me".
On October 06 2011 05:52 Superneenja wrote: I don't see how Ghosts are a comeback unit... =X
I dunno, the ability to take away 150 shields on multiple units? It effectively does more damage than fungal growth... Fungal does like 30-40dmg during its hold time. EMP=150 instantly. the DPS on it is way higher, and makes your units way more effective. It also shuts down any HT and Infestor play, the enemy has invested into their army.
On October 06 2011 05:52 Superneenja wrote: I don't see how Ghosts are a comeback unit... =X
I dunno, the ability to take away 150 shields on multiple units? It effectively does more damage than fungal growth... Fungal does like 30-40dmg during its hold time. EMP=150 instantly. the DPS on it is way higher, and makes your units way more effective. It also shuts down any HT and Infestor play, the enemy has invested into their army.
On October 06 2011 04:24 Endymion wrote: Funnily enough I don't think terran really has a "comeback unit" vs zerg, it's usually a much more gradual comeback of winning battle after battle and having their marine/tank count not fall. I guess hellions if you don't see them being dropped, but any competant Zerg will. If a Terran is behind they're just fucked, just like if a Zerg is behind they're fucked too (in zvt for both races anyways).
Some would say sniping ghosts or cloaked banshees are the terran comeback unit vs zerg. By "some", I mean "me".
^I agree. Ghosts shut down tier 3 zerg units fairly hard. Not to mention medivac + 8 marines = epic comeback, reference MLG in that MMA vs Losira match.
On October 06 2011 05:52 Superneenja wrote: I don't see how Ghosts are a comeback unit... =X
I dunno, the ability to take away 150 shields on multiple units? It effectively does more damage than fungal growth... Fungal does like 30-40dmg during its hold time. EMP=150 instantly. the DPS on it is way higher, and makes your units way more effective. It also shuts down any HT and Infestor play, the enemy has invested into their army.
Not to mention a lucky nuke = MAJOR COMEBACK.
Isn't it 100 shield?
you're right , but still. it still has the same point I was talking about, emp does a lot of dmg.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I feel like a better way to put it is to say, "In BW there were a large number of overpowered units. However, there were so many overpowered units, the game somehow balanced." xD
Protoss- Reavern (self explanatory) DT (lack of a warning in your mineral line when workers died made this ridiculous; I'd like this back.) Arbiter (Multiple fast moving motherships. Wat.)
Zerg- Defiler (Infinitely untouchable units with consume, raped Terran in narrow corridors and turned the dynamics of the MU up till this tech on it's head) Lurker (Gandalf unit)
Terran- Siege tank (cost 2 supply, had higher damage than they do now) Vulture (75 minerals, 2 shots workers, fastest unit in the game, costs 1 supply, can shit 3 invisible detecting nuclear bombs)
Any of those in SC2 would SCREAM imbalanced (and many people echoed this exact sentiment). Period. But it somehow worked.
Yet there are a few units in SC2 that are similar
Protoss- Sentry (Huge game changer, alters terrain effectively)
Zerg- Infestor
Terran- Nothing really stands out. Generally well rounded.
I guess there just aren't as many super efficient units in SC2. I'm willing to give it time though. The games good as it is, but there's room to improve and the upcoming expansions give me hope! ^_^
On October 06 2011 05:56 Jerubaal wrote: So basically you want to play bad, but then win anyway.
K.
That's not what he's saying at all . . . you're a douche and dismissing someone's argument by construing their words in a different context is not good enough quality to warrant a post.
Honestly if you're going to post here at all at least try to contribute something to the conversation. He's arguing that there needs to more exciting units in the game, units that if used well can get someone back into a game. As it stands, StarCraft 2 lacks a lot of these units and makes for a less exciting game and a game in which two or three battles decides the outcome of the game. Making more units that require lots of player interaction (with the potential for massive payoffs) increases the skill cap for BOTH players and makes for a far more enjoyable spectator experience (one that is filled with intense moments and crazy moves that people love to see). Watch a Brood War highlight video versus a StarCraft II highlight video. You'll see a big difference.
@Kimaker I like your post. So many overpowered units that the game was balanced and yet always exciting. And don't forget the science vessel!
Seems to me that "come back units" = casters with very useful spells or AoE damage spells, or units with AoE damage attack.
That is what it comes down to. These are the units that have the potential to take out a large number of units quickly, generally without putting the unit itself at risk.
So I mean aren't we basically just discussing the effectiveness of the AoE damage units in SC2?
Too arbitrary. But yes, a well positioned reaver among the canons vs mass hydra bust could put the Protoss back in game. And a well-timed reaver drop in the mineral line could make for a comeback.
This is a "I wish SC2 was more like BW" thread. How can high templar only be 2 in SC2 and a 6 in BW? You've basically taken pimpest plays from BW that happened like once ever and give the unit as a whole a huge comeback number. How often did you see arbiter hallucination -> recall? Probably only once. No one has come even close to executing something similar in SC2. I mean, we rarely even see storm drops on harvesters in SC2
On October 06 2011 04:37 LaGTTBloodThirsty wrote: infestors arent that good of a CBU anymore if u play anyone who can properly micro/split O_o not to mention feedback snipe and i think emp all out range any kind of fungal now
fungal range hasn't changed since like, beta? Nor has emp our feedback. fungal outranges feedback.
There seem to be two different themes going on in this thread, as others have mentioned. There are units that are hugely impactful and then there are units that can turn a losing game into a winning game.
Mutalisks are hugely impactful and increase in effectiveness with good micro, but nobody loses their army and goes, better build a lot of mutalisks! If anything you use mutalisks to compound an advantage.
Banshees could only be seen as a comeback unit if it was very early in the game. People rarely make banshees in the midgame. The only time you see this is when one player has a large tank advantage and someone makes a banshee to shoot them.
This thread has the same warped view that a lot of BW> SC2 threads have in that it mistakes the artifacts of the limitations of the day with good design. Ok, maybe awesome reaver micro could make the unit great, but that was because the unit itself was inherently crappy. Is that what you want? Stupid, inherently crappy units? Is that good design to you?
We had the epitome of a comeback unit. It was called the blue flame hellion. It was stupid.
On October 06 2011 06:09 awu25 wrote: This is a "I wish SC2 was more like BW" thread. How can high templar only be 2 in SC2 and a 6 in BW? You've basically taken pimpest plays from BW that happened like once ever and give the unit as a whole a huge comeback number. How often did you see arbiter hallucination -> recall? Probably only once. No one has come even close to executing something similar in SC2. I mean, we rarely even see storm drops on harvesters in SC2
I second this.... we have yet to see the full potential of Storm Drops... if executed well, it will certainly be an awesome comeback unit!
On October 06 2011 05:10 Mafs wrote: I play chess and I HATE when people compare the 2. In chess there are come back moves, which make it much much more entertaining. Same with SC2. Nothing feels better then watching someone behind just dominate their opponent because they make perfect moves. And SC2 doesnt have CBU because that makes the comeback that much easier. You should be able to come back only if you outplay your opponent. Making infestors shouldn't instantly win the game unless the person has no counter.
I want SC2 to be like chess.
In chess, you make a comeback by...playing better than your opponent. And, yes, if your opponent has a marginal advantage and is playing perfectly he should win.
There is no, 'well I'm in a really bad position but watch as I micro my queen and kill half his pieces'.
No, I do not want StarCraft II to be Broodwar. I want evolution, but based on strong foundation. Broodwar is our next best thing to a perfect game so IT MUST be the reference. Ignoring it makes us all stupid. The foundation was there, and we need to get inspiration from it. I don't want the Reaver in StarCraft II but I want units that can show the good talent of an individual. Do not put words in my mouth.
There is no, 'well I'm in a really bad position but watch as I micro my queen and kill half his pieces'.
Unfortunately StarCraft is a real time strategy were fast hands matter and are appreciated.
I understand what Cearshaf is attempting to state, but I feel like the wording of this is incredibly poor, starting with the term "come back unit". "Come back unit" implies a unit that is more designed to turn the tide of a battle you would have lost, or make a losing situation turn into a victory. The reaver, the defiler, amongst many other units in BW did not do specifically this. The unit had a large range of outcomes it can make in the game, that largely depended on the skill of the player that was using that unit. This allowed the player to make a come back with this unit, by doing far more damage with it than what it costs, but making a comeback, turning the tide of a losing battle, etc, was not it's role. In fact, in the very video posted by Cearshaf, in which Stork's reaver does a crazy amount of damage, did not pull Stork from a losing game to a winning one, but rather made an even game highly now in Stork's favor for winning.
The statement of "come back unit" makes people think "well hey any unit can make a comeback if used right" and they are of course correct. But the range of possibilities or outcomes each unit possesses is not the same. To put this in it's most simple form, a player which does not micro his marines will always have his marine do damage, as they shoot automatically. A player which does not micro his high templar will never have his templar do damage, as they do not do anything on their own. However, although this sounds like I am stating it is entirely dependent on skill, I actually feel it is not. I believe it is just a variable in the equation of "what can a unit really do?". The units that have a large amount of factors that play in to what they can do are the units that are being discussed in this thread. And that is what I feel like blizzard should be attempting to do. Design units to have a large amount of factors that decide how effective the unit is.
To give an example with the reaver in BW, since that is a very solid unit example, stork's micro did not entirely define the outcome of what his reaver did. A better turret and tank placement by darkelf would have made a much different outcome. If Darkelf pulled his SCVs away and the reaver shot got caught up on a mineral patch ending in a dud, that changes the outcome. If the map was highly unfavorable to a reaver drop, that may have detoured the play from happening at all. I can list examples all day of what can effect these units, but now when I swing to the example of lets say, a zealot, the amount of factors in the game that effects this unit is much smaller. It almost entirely comes down to how this unit engages in combat, and how good the player is with the unit, that decides the outcome. Even a marine, although certainly containing more factors as to how efficient and effective it is than a zealot, still often fails in comparison to the example reaver here.
I state again, I feel as though Blizzard should be attempting to make units have a large amount of factors that decide the outcome of the game. Now of course this requires testing, balancing, a lot of hard work really. An overload of these type of units that have such a large range of factors might prove to be a negative thing. Who knows? But the game is certainly much more entertaining, to me at the least, to both watch and play when there are units that can make such drastic impacts in the game.
On October 06 2011 04:23 KevinIX wrote: This looks completely arbitrary.
x2.
I read the OP hoping for something more mathematical in nature and was disappointed when all I saw was the OP adding numbers to the different units as he/she saw fit. Example: I would've rated phoenixes much higher than 2, maybe 4 or so. They have a lot of applications with graviton beam and MC's stargate style of play shows their potential.
Anyways, the problem with units such as the reaver, defiler, etc.... is that if they were to be put into SCII, they would be the exact definition of OP. Units pack up more tightly and you can select more than 12 units. That doesn't take into account the better AI so a single reaver can probably wipe out a ton of units in one shot and would be much much worse than the a-move colossus that it should replace.
Vultures are debatable since you can get observers/overseers/ravens for spider mines(maybe even use FG ) so in a sense they should be fine. Defilers are debatable as well since dark swarm is crazy good and I can't imagine how much harder TvsZ would be if they were in it(looking at this from my league). Something like the lurker would add better to the game imo but SCII isn't boring to watch. Even if you can figure out what composition both players are going for, there is always the uncertainty factor such as who'll make a mistake first or storm/emp first, where will they engage? Who's gonna ff better? Will he get all the fungals off or get emp/sniped first? Will he walk over the banes? Those are what adds to the game imo. Things such as reaver drops and double muta harass are harder in BW due to the interface.
I watched some of the videos posted, didn't find the arbiter one really interesting or exciting. It was pretty obvious that the Terran was gonna lose the match considering the lack of units to take them out before they recalled everything. The storm one is a bit more impressive but nothing over the top again, just much harder in BW due to the interface. The dt one was interesting but I've been able to do that before so like the arbiter wasn't crazy exciting XD
Edi: I think I should've answered the question. I think SCII is fine as well and I don't think adding new units that have the potential to turn the tide of the game as fast as the reaver would be beneficial to the game. As mentioned, your decision making/macro/micro should be what helps you out. I can only imagine would it would be like if you engage your opponent, take out his exp, retreat and then he manages a drop with a reaver and takes out your workers as they retreat. Too much of a reward for a drop IMO. That and I think Blizzard agrees which is why they nerfed BFH.
On October 06 2011 05:10 Mafs wrote: I play chess and I HATE when people compare the 2. In chess there are come back moves, which make it much much more entertaining. Same with SC2. Nothing feels better then watching someone behind just dominate their opponent because they make perfect moves. And SC2 doesnt have CBU because that makes the comeback that much easier. You should be able to come back only if you outplay your opponent. Making infestors shouldn't instantly win the game unless the person has no counter.
I want SC2 to be like chess.
In chess, you make a comeback by...playing better than your opponent. And, yes, if your opponent has a marginal advantage and is playing perfectly he should win.
There is no, 'well I'm in a really bad position but watch as I micro my queen and kill half his pieces'.
I agree with this. However, BW units did not inherently give you comebacks. To get those comebacks you had to EARN it as well. Just because there are units that are more prone to getting you back in the game doesn't mean it's super easy to do. Comebacks did not happen THAT often in Broodwar. The difference is that both sides in Broodwar have strong units that can get you big advantages, and this makes the game exciting. If you can control your "comeback unit" better than they control their "comeback units" then you can get a little of an advantage just by outplaying your opponent in terms of control. In StarCraft 2, it's like every unit has been nerfed to the point that there are far fewer units that create excitement. There is so much less player interaction with units that it is much harder to outplay your opponent by controlling your units better. Even if someone has MUCH better unit control, it is hard to see in StarCraft 2 because all the units are so generic. The damage output of a colossus does not change much depending on how well someone controls it. If someone has 3 colossus vs 4 colossus, chances are they are really likely going to lose. In Broodwar, if you have 3 reavers vs 4 reavers, there are SO many ways in which you can use those 3 reavers better than your opponent and increase your unit effectiveness with good control.
Starcraft 2 needs strong "comeback units" not to give easy comebacks, but to reward good player control.
On October 06 2011 06:23 ceaRshaf wrote: No, I do not want StarCraft II to be Broodwar. I want evolution, but based on strong foundation. Broodwar is our next best thing to a perfect game so IT MUST be the reference. Ignoring it makes us all stupid. The foundation was there, and we need to get inspiration from it. I don't want the Reaver in StarCraft II but I want units that can show the good talent of an individual. Do not put words in my mouth.
There is no, 'well I'm in a really bad position but watch as I micro my queen and kill half his pieces'.
Unfortunately StarCraft is a real time strategy were fast hands matter and are appreciated.
This is a great post. The goal is NOT to make SC2 into Broodwar 2. We don't need reavers / lurkers / vultures back in the game. But what we do need is the foundations that make a good, exciting RTS. One of these is units that need a LOT of player interaction aside from attack-move. This rewards good control.
@Dragonblood21 Your post is really excellent and helps clear up the confusion with the word "comeback unit." I really like your post
@BigFan I understand your concern with the belief that the game could not be balanced around Broodwar units, and I agree. As it is, the game would be imbalanced if the defiler/science vessel/strong storm were suddenly introduced to the game. But I think the game could be balanced around more units of the type we are talking about with just a few changes. For example, Dynamic Unit Movements would allow splash spells to do a lot more damage (and thus be much more game changing when used well). http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889
On October 06 2011 05:10 Mafs wrote: I play chess and I HATE when people compare the 2. In chess there are come back moves, which make it much much more entertaining. Same with SC2. Nothing feels better then watching someone behind just dominate their opponent because they make perfect moves. And SC2 doesnt have CBU because that makes the comeback that much easier. You should be able to come back only if you outplay your opponent. Making infestors shouldn't instantly win the game unless the person has no counter.
You dont understand this.
Could you be any less clear? Your reply needs some context.
@OP
I don't really like what you're doing here. Giving purely subjective opinions about your opinions on how sc2 and scbw game design compare should not use the pretense of having some sort of quantitative rating scale. Lets face it, all of your numbers are made up. Its just misleading and adds nothing to your argument to discuss an equation for CBU, since the numbers you are using for the equation are fabricated ratings anyway.
Also, the term CBU is itself misleading. You are using two very different characteristics to define CBUs: variation and skill ceiling of a unit. There are units which you can micro and always be rewarded for doing so. For example, microing stalkers against marines early on against marines or taking potshots at the queen with hellions. These have very low variance, since you are just using your skill to get free damage in. On the other hand you have units like the reaver in scbw, where there is high variance. The variance is due to the randomness of the scarab ai, not player skill. I think you're talking more about the latter of these two, in which case the discussion should neglect player skill and only deal with random elements of the game (ie high ground miss chance, scarab ai, etc.)
The scarab AI indeed was somewhat random and had high variance. But don't say that a reaver's damage was not related to the player's skill.
By far the most important part in determining how much damage a reaver would do is based on how skilled the player using it is. The only exception is probably Much XD
It's like saying how much you win in poker is highly random with high variance. True, but a poker player's skill determines how often they win much more than the randomness of the cards.
Wow, can I disagree more with the OP's assessment of the comeback Units. One BF drop against an army out of position or one DT when there's no detection and it might as well be GG.
BF hellions and DT's are by far the highest on my comback unit list, everything else scaled down and some units completely ignored.
Do does the OP just completely ignore drops and harassment? Like I don't understand this at all. How are medivacs and warp prisms not comeback units? Nydus Worms? Come on, this game hasn't been counter v counter v counter for a whole year.
How was this thread allowed to stay open? TL goes to shit when I'm away. This is completely arbitrary. You can make Starcraft fun by controlling your units well and coming back that way. You don't need a dice-roll unit to make it fun.
I was actually thinking about this in the shower this morning. The part of the equation I think the OP is missing. CBU rating is the start, but the principle of the comeback is based on time. CBU fragility + ability to delay + cost are the three variables that give you the time that such a unit buys you. And in SC, time is a really overlooked factor.
EPT
.
, but still. it still has the same point I was talking about, emp does a lot of dmg.
) so in a sense they should be fine. Defilers are debatable as well since dark swarm is crazy good and I can't imagine how much harder TvsZ would be if they were in it(looking at this from my league). Something like the lurker would add better to the game imo but SCII isn't boring to watch. Even if you can figure out what composition both players are going for, there is always the uncertainty factor such as who'll make a mistake first or storm/emp first, where will they engage? Who's gonna ff better? Will he get all the fungals off or get emp/sniped first? Will he walk over the banes? Those are what adds to the game imo. Things such as reaver drops and double muta harass are harder in BW due to the interface. 
