I think you're missing the point of supply buildings: they're a catch up mechanism. If someone loses an engagement, assuming they haven't lost a bunch of depots or whatever, they can rebuild relatively easily, without having to spend on more supply buildings. Whereas the player who won is going to have to build more in order to gain a comparable amount of units.
Take out the supply buildings and player who gets ahead will maintain the same lead on units until max out, since there's no mechanic for slowing them down.
Now, there might be a more elegant/interesting way to get the same slight rubber banding effect, but supply has been in virtually every big rts for a reason.
Umm...in what % of SC2 matches have you seen this "catch up mechanism" operate in the way you describe? If this is so obviously a catch up mechanism, why aren't players able to catch up in anything other than rare and exceptional circumstances? Is there even a single pro game in which there was a comeback win that you can point to in which this factor was significant, let alone game-determinative? Some of the greatest comebacks in pro SC2 do not follow this script at all (e.g. the player who found themselves ahead often had plenty of supply headroom...in many cases more than the player who lost the engagement).
Let's be honest: comebacks of any appreciable nature rarely happen outside of some unique TvT scenarios and certain players like Maru and Serral who exhibit exceptional play that prove the rule: SC2 isn't really a game of comebacks, and when they do happen it's hard to argue with a straight face that this is because of the supply building/unit mechanism. You admit that this can only operate as a catch up mechanism if the player that loses the engagement hasn't also lost supply buildings/units, which is a very strange assumption to make because a large % of successful attacks are at your opponent's base. But also the mechanism doesn't apply in maxed out scenarios either. It's just very odd to describe this as a comeback mechanism. Comebacks rarely happen, and when they do, it's rarely because of this mechanism.
Have you considered that supply buildings have been in every big RTS because game developers think players have come to expect supply buildings in every big RTS?
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
On July 02 2021 11:18 AcrossFromTime wrote: I see no reason why there can't be an in between game where speed only helps you up to a point. There is necessarily an inverse relationship between speed and strategy. The more import speed is the less important strategy is and vice versa.
In any real-time game, speed is massively important. Whether you water down the macro mechanics, reduce the amount of things to do, ect... it will then boil down to reflexes, muscle memory and reaction time.
It's the difference between a drag race between cars with an automatic and manual transmission. The ideas David Kim is suggesting are akin to that. if you water down the mechanics, then the game becomes hyper focused on a small point in time, just like a drag race between two automatic cars is all about who can catch the tree better, where with manual transmissions shift points and shifting skills come into play.
Now if you boil that down enough, and I understand the drive to make this only about strategy, you end up with a bad product as that goal is misguided for a real-time game. The beauty of Starcraft is that strategies require mechanical skills that are hard to learn. If you take away the mechanical skill and everything is basically on auto pilot, then the game is a strategic coin flip, and the results will always be known. The game then becomes hyper focused on the point in time when someone makes a decision regarding which strategy to pick (the same decision made in rock-paper-scissors).
Imagine there was no micro when doing an 11 pool. So if a Terran doesn't choose a wall off strategy they just lose, and if they do they just win. And if the Terran builds Marines versus Zerglings, they win, unless there is Banelings, then they lose.
That isn't exciting. And the game doesn't need to have no mechanical skill to be that way. Almost everyone can drive a car, if the skill required is no greater than driving a car, then you'll see no difference between most players, and the scenarios in the paragraph above will play out as if there was no skill required at all. The more you increase the difficulty, the more predictable the results will be (better players will distinguish themselves), as MVP and MC did in WOL.
But there is a point where speed and difficult become so great that it actually reduces skill, TheDwf covered this well in Razzia of the Blizzsters, describing it as try to control a car going so fast no one can control it. And the speed and demands of HOTS and LOTV have gone so far as to reduce skill: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Blizzard introduced low skill units and abilities (Photon Overcharge, Swarm Hosts and Widow Mines) and released larger maps in HOTS to make the game easier and more accessible (less about one base timings, micro and having to earn an expansion), but this actually ended up speeding the game up as people began racing through the early game directly into the late game, where players are asked to do much more with many more units, instead of focusing on controlling a small number of units well.
And this hurt the popularity of the game, and made it less watchable for a variety of reasons (boring early game). And the results of who wins became less predictable because there is less room to show skill (for example, Pheonixes were given extra range to make their interactions with Mutalisks more predictable, no longer did skill and micro play as big a role in the the battle as much as it did in WOL), we don't see the dominant streaks we saw in WOL (or BW) to the same extent. It is too fast and too dependent on low skill units.
So I understand and agree with the drive to slow down the game, but make it too slow and there is no skill also. Razzia of the Blizzsters covers this better than I am now honestly, I recommend reading it.
David Kim and Blizzard never understood this relationship, and he clearly still doesn't, which is why his next game will fail.
I think you're missing the point of supply buildings: they're a catch up mechanism. If someone loses an engagement, assuming they haven't lost a bunch of depots or whatever, they can rebuild relatively easily, without having to spend on more supply buildings. Whereas the player who won is going to have to build more in order to gain a comparable amount of units.
Take out the supply buildings and player who gets ahead will maintain the same lead on units until max out, since there's no mechanic for slowing them down.
Now, there might be a more elegant/interesting way to get the same slight rubber banding effect, but supply has been in virtually every big rts for a reason.
Umm...in what % of SC2 matches have you seen this "catch up mechanism" operate in the way you describe? If this is so obviously a catch up mechanism, why aren't players able to catch up in anything other than rare and exceptional circumstances? Is there even a single pro game in which there was a comeback win that you can point to in which this factor was significant, let alone game-determinative? Some of the greatest comebacks in pro SC2 do not follow this script at all (e.g. the player who found themselves ahead often had plenty of supply headroom...in many cases more than the player who lost the engagement).
Let's be honest: comebacks of any appreciable nature rarely happen outside of some unique TvT scenarios and certain players like Maru and Serral who exhibit exceptional play that prove the rule: SC2 isn't really a game of comebacks, and when they do happen it's hard to argue with a straight face that this is because of the supply building/unit mechanism. You admit that this can only operate as a catch up mechanism if the player that loses the engagement hasn't also lost supply buildings/units, which is a very strange assumption to make because a large % of successful attacks are at your opponent's base. But also the mechanism doesn't apply in maxed out scenarios either. It's just very odd to describe this as a comeback mechanism. Comebacks rarely happen, and when they do, it's rarely because of this mechanism.
Have you considered that supply buildings have been in every big RTS because game developers think players have come to expect supply buildings in every big RTS?
You're right. Only a few elite players have ever come back from a deficit, all battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, and developers have no real reason behind the inclusion of supply buildings (or, I guess, have decided to include supply to appease all of those ravening supply fans out there).
In response to your questions: Have you ever seen a game where a player lost more units early on but had a comparable army later in the game? Even before maxing out? How do you think that happened? If there are no throttles on unit production, it can't.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
On July 02 2021 14:03 ReachTheSky wrote: There is no such thing as an in between. You are either taking turns or you are doing things in real time. When you change a real time strategy game to turn based, it's no longer real time strategy. Here is my terrible attempt at an analogy....Think of it as motion, if you are not in motion, then you are stopped or still right? There is no in between, you are either moving or not.
I mean there is, BW is an example of an RTS with extremely heavy focus on APM demand. The current starcraft 2 is an rts with less heavy focus on APM and more on strategy. Of course there can be a third game with even less focus on APM. The poster you replied to never wrote it would be a mix between turn based and RTS he wrote it would be a mix between APM focus and strategy focus, which honestly all games already are, the difference is on which end the game design leans towards.
I consider games like league of legends a bit like that mix between rts and turn based, I mean you control one unit so there is never a need to take the focus away from your one unit. Which makes it so you will never miss the perfect opportunity to use your skills/abilities, its not turn based game but at the same time the way the game is designed you never miss an opportunity because you are never focused on anything else.
While trying to make RTS as accessible to a wider audience makes sense from a financial perspective, I don't really see how the best of both worlds can be achieved for the genre.
If you want to play tower defense, play a tower defense game, if you want to play MOBA, there's plenty of choice - what many players of RTS love about the genre is the sheer difficulty to accomplish anything resembling mastery of the craft, I think. Compromising on this will probably be able to attract new players, but RTS itself would lose its identity and this is what has kept games like StarCraft or Age of Empires around throughout two decades.
You're right. Only a few elite players have ever come back from a deficit, all battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, and developers have no real reason behind the inclusion of supply buildings (or, I guess, have decided to include supply to appease all of those ravening supply fans out there).
In response to your questions: Have you ever seen a game where a player lost more units early on but had a comparable army later in the game? Even before maxing out? How do you think that happened? If there are no throttles on unit production, it can't.
To be clear: you're not actually responding to my questions. You're just asking different questions. But I'll answer. Yes, players sometimes able to recover after losing units to have a comparable army to their opponent later in the game. How does it happen? Different ways, but primarily by aggressively expanding their economy to mine the necessary resources to rebuild the units they lost faster than their opponent can build additional units; successfully defending against the inevitable threats and attacks that come with the opponent's follow-on pressure; successfully counter-attacking to create the necessary space and time to rebuild; and very good micro, army movement, and army repositioning to trade well in follow-on battles. In other words: thoughtful strategy and tactics.
Again, you might want to watch and analyze some of the great comebacks in SC2 pro matches to understand how players typically catch up when behind. Example: Maru v. Solar 2020 Super Tournament I, Game 2:
Many interesting things to observe in this game, but let's dig deeper and see how the "supple throttle theory" plays out. At the conclusion of the first big attack Maru's at 32/38 and Solar's at 43/44 (Maru lost a depot and Solar lost 2 overlords). Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the "supply throttle theory" and assume Solar has a full overlord's worth of added production tax: -100 minerals and a larva. Admittedly not insignificant. That said, within 30 seconds both players being great macro players are back to hugging their supply caps and completing their macro cycles. It's just clear that this isn't the primary driver of what's going on in this game.
When you actually analyze the game you start to key in on the same things the casters are noticing. First, it's pretty clear that the "catch up mechanism" here is the cyclone, and more specifically Maru's ridiculous "Warcraft 3 micro"--to borrow the casters' phrase--that allows him to rack up 40 kills with the 2 cycles before the six and a half minute mark. Second, the thing that's really hurting Maru's chances is the fact that he lost 12 SEVs and a barracks early on, which Maru deals with by launching counterattacks and harassment of his own to kill drones and hatches and ultimately slow down Solar's production. These are the *actual* supply throttle dynamics at play in this game. But third and most importantly: with thoughtful army positioning and movement and great micro Maru successfully holds in several major follow-on attacks in which pretty much every other player would have died. Analyze other comebacks and you'll see a lot of similar dynamics at play.
Regarding the other things you're implying I said or meant, let's avoid the strawman arguments and be really clear. I did not say "all" battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, but it's just a fact that many players get ahead by successfully attacking an opposing player's base, which often results in infrastructure getting sniped, whether that's supply, production, or upgrade infrastructure. By the way, good luck catching up if you get your key upgrades sniped. I'm sure if your opponent needs to build a marginal extra pylon or two that'll do the trick
In terms of whether only elite players make comebacks at the pro level, honestly that just depends on how you define a comeback. But within the larger spectrum of strategy games, SC2 is not a particularly comeback-friendly game. There are a few reasons for this, but most importantly SC2 is highly deterministic (I believe the only real RNG is the SEV movement when it's building). Which means it's relatively straightforward for very good players to convert substantial leads into bigger leads and ultimately into game-ending attacks and pushes (some TvT scenarios may be an exception). Interestingly, a lot of the comebacks you do see are when the losing player "rolls the dice" so to speak by hiding tech out on the map (e.g. dark shrine) or pursuing some kind of doom drop or all-in attack that they hope the opponent will not scout in time. Again, it almost never has to do with supply throttling.
There are a lot of ways to design for rubber-banding and catch-up mechanisms, and it's always a fine balance especially in strategy games between keeping things interesting and creating a game in which the "best play" wins. Remember: SC2 is not Mariokart, but I do think it's a valid question as to whether RTS needs more clear and compelling high risk-high reward comeback options to avoid having all these formulaic forced all-in games.
On July 02 2021 07:05 Excalibur_Z wrote: David Kim truly had a difficult time when it came to balancing Starcraft 2. My perception as an outsider is that Dustin Browder had all of these ideas for "cool-looking units" and it was David's job to make them feel unique without being broken. That created some design constraints for him, which is generally fine, but his methodology for testing unit balance was so...mathematical. Like he'd run a test of 5 of unit A vs 5 of unit B with no micro and record the result, then with micro and record the result. Sure these tests were run with consideration of resource costs and supply and everything, but balancing in this manner feels sterile. In BW, I'm pretty sure they changed stuff based on real games played internally and observed from feedback. SC2 has the technological advantage of telemetry, which is why their race balance is so numerically close. Clearly, David isn't afraid to iterate and adjust where necessary, even when it comes to removing entire units from the game (like the Warhound).
The main difference between Rob Pardo's BW and David Kim's SC2 from what I surmise is that Pardo had no idea just how good RTS players would ultimately become, while David Kim assumes this inevitability. In BW, 1 Zealot costs the same as 2 Marines, and sure people found out early that microing 2 Marines you could beat 1 Zealot, but it required attention and micro. I'm sure if David Kim were at the helm instead, Zealots would be 80 or 90 minerals to account for this. But, this scenario only happens in a minority of cases, and generally speaking, it's fine that the possibility exists and that 1 Zealot beats 2 Marines the rest of the time. That is still acceptable balance, because these things don't happen in a vacuum.
Pardo's decision to introduce armor types created a daunting knowledge floor ("why does my 20-damage Vulture only do 5 damage to this building?"), but it created additional design flexibility that SC2's bonus damage lacks. SC2 also has many more upgrades available for its units, almost all hugely situational or specialized. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing David Kim, but from my own experiences in following SC2's development from previews at Blizzcon until the time he left the team, the game became more of a math problem rather than just a fun time. That's kind of inevitable when you have a community of min-maxers fueling that mindset, but that doesn't mean it's always a good thing to support that school of thought. David Kim did similar "design-by-committee" sessions when he posted previews of Diablo IV's "Power" mechanics, where he asked the community for feedback and then backpedaled on his design in response. That does give me pause about supporting his next game. He has the mechanical ability to develop and execute strategies at a high level (he was a grandmaster Random player, after all), and he has the mathematical prowess to balance things well, but I'm not seeing the soul that creates a game that is just plain fun to play.
I think this is a pretty good analysis really.
I’m not sure how much he’s responsible for the ultimate design philosophy of SC2. I think he did a miraculous job in balancing around the overall design, but was hamstrung by said design a lot.
Another way I feel the game was hamstrung was the map philosophy too. Every map had to be balanced around 50/50 in all matchups, where BW enabled maps that were intentionally built around being excellent maps for singular matchups at times.
Within those constraints it’s a remarkably, remarkably well ‘balanced’ game at basically all levels of play and I think that is genuinely impressive and speaks to some talented designers.
But as you say balance and fun, while linked are not the same thing.
On a side point, and in many pages of responses I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. Is anyone else worried that this RTS talent is seemingly being spread across a few games now?
It strikes me as the best change of success for the next big RTS game is as many talented eggs in one basket as possible and hope they nail it.
On a side point, and in many pages of responses I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. Is anyone else worried that this RTS talent is seemingly being spread across a few games now?
It strikes me as the best change of success for the next big RTS game is as many talented eggs in one basket as possible and hope they nail it.
I think the opposite is true. During the golden of RTS lots of games were produced from many different studios.
Some great: Warcraft, StarCraft and Age of Empires. Some good: Command and Counter and Total Annihilation. And lots and lots of RTS ranging from mediocre to bad.
In most areas you need lots of something in order to get good and great things.
Apart from that, the RTS genre as a whole would benefit from having lots of choices. Because the potential audiences will grow if you have more RTS games that cater to different tastes. Some prefer RTS that have non-stop action. Some will prefer RTS that are bit slower and where the pace of the game is slower and more strategic. Some preferer the medieval settings, others WW2 etc.
It is not one masterpiece that will re-vitalize the genre. It is lots of great and good games being produced at once - which is what is happening right now.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
First and foremost, using popularity as telltale of quality is argument so bad, we codified that in a meme comparing it to flies' preference for crap. If you prefer humans, i can just tell you that millions of people buy sports games every year, and that would be enough of counter argument. And well, even in 2021, significantly more people play Dota 2 than SC2 and present design of Dota 2 is horrendous attempt to get people to play more than just core roles to an extent current half-dead SC2 is a competitive (! chilling in dota 2's whatever is far superior) game with better design and 1% (if that) of playerbase.
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
On a side point, and in many pages of responses I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. Is anyone else worried that this RTS talent is seemingly being spread across a few games now?
It strikes me as the best change of success for the next big RTS game is as many talented eggs in one basket as possible and hope they nail it.
I think the opposite is true. During the golden of RTS lots of games were produced from many different studios.
Some great: Warcraft, StarCraft and Age of Empires. Some good: Command and Counter and Total Annihilation. And lots and lots of RTS ranging from mediocre to bad.
In most areas you need lots of something in order to get good and great things.
Apart from that, the RTS genre as a whole would benefit from having lots of choices. Because the potential audiences will grow if you have more RTS games that cater to different tastes. Some prefer RTS that have non-stop action. Some will prefer RTS that are bit slower and where the pace of the game is slower and more strategic. Some preferer the medieval settings, others WW2 etc.
It is not one masterpiece that will re-vitalize the genre. It is lots of great and good games being produced at once - which is what is happening right now.
You could be right. Equally I mean the stuff you mentioned occurred during the golden age of RTS, where we’re quite a distance out from now.
Either direction could work though. As the roaring success of the Nolan Batman films opened the door to comic book films being seen as viable, so you have something like Seattle’s grunge scene where lots of good and different bands came to popularity at the same time.
I’m absolutely fine being wrong if RTS is revitalised!
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
I think my points just went way over your head. Your example attempting to my why my point went no where, is actually further evidence of my point.
You're argument against popularity only functions in a short span of time, which is... well... shortsighted again. Games become popular for many reasons, they stay popular because they are well designed. Don't compare Pokemon Go or any given flavor of the month to Chess.
Don't compare any given flavor of the month to League.
As far as all those ex-Blizzard guys jumping onto opportunity to make RTS, i see where their gambit lies but if i am brutally honest, RTS genre became niche not for lack of good designers (there's plenty of badly designed games that beat any RTS in popularity), so i'll wish them luck as per usual, but i am of pessimistic opinion of those attempts working out.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
What you said is exactly what I said in my first post a few pages ago.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
David Kim was part of the problem, he was part of the Team releasing units that were the opposite of micro intensive. He was making decisions that stretched out games into Carriers vs Corrupters/Broodlords...
Either you have micro that separates people and strategies, or the car is so easy to drive anyone can do, and then it is a game of hard counters.
My point above is there is an in-between, and Blizzard never figured that out. They tried to slow down the game by putting larger maps and giving more defensive abilities, so everything wasn't a rush with crazy micro at all times, and all they did was speed the game up more.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Any gamer can play Starcraft II, have you seen how bad low Bronze League is?
So his point doesn't even make sense. Starcraft is easy to play, hard to master, as it should be. He is suggesting lowering the mastery, which he tried and failed at, and cost Stacraft II dearly.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
I think my points just went way over your head. Your example attempting to my why my point went no where, is actually further evidence of my point.
As far as I am concerned, nexus photon overcharge and shield battery (with overcharge later on) are just different balancing of the same underlying design decision of 'Protoss need to have actual I Defend button because our design choices made it impossible to accomplish with just unit balancing'. Pylon overcharge just like other things from early LotV is a by-product of Blizzard having too much weed when they decided that LotV would be basically a rework of multiplayer, so i'll cheerfully ignore it. So, if you want to tell me they reversed a design decision from HotS when they just redressed it in a form that presumably is slightly less braindead? I am definitely not getting it, i admit.
You're argument against popularity only functions in a short span of time, which is... well... shortsighted again. Games become popular for many reasons, they stay popular because they are well designed. Don't compare Pokemon Go or any given flavor of the month to Chess.
Don't compare any given flavor of the month to League.
Indeed, why would i compare good games with League?
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
What you said is exactly what I said in my first post a few pages ago.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
David Kim was part of the problem, he was part of the Team releasing units that were the opposite of micro intensive. He was making decisions that stretched out games into Carriers vs Corrupters/Broodlords...
Either you have micro that separates people and strategies, or the car is so easy to drive anyone can do, and then it is a game of hard counters.
My point above is there is an in-between, and Blizzard never figured that out. They tried to slow down the game by putting larger maps and giving more defensive abilities, so everything wasn't a rush with crazy micro at all times, and all they did was speed the game up more.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Any gamer can play Starcraft II, have you seen how bad low Bronze League is?
So his point doesn't even make sense. Starcraft is easy to play, hard to master, as it should be. He is suggesting lowering the mastery, which he tried and failed at, and cost Stacraft II dearly.
You say there is an in between, I don't think there is so can you please elaborate what exactly that would look like? Paint some pictures of gameplay scenarios that involved the units we have now and what you would tweak to achieve what you think is possible.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
What you said is exactly what I said in my first post a few pages ago.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
David Kim was part of the problem, he was part of the Team releasing units that were the opposite of micro intensive. He was making decisions that stretched out games into Carriers vs Corrupters/Broodlords...
Either you have micro that separates people and strategies, or the car is so easy to drive anyone can do, and then it is a game of hard counters.
My point above is there is an in-between, and Blizzard never figured that out. They tried to slow down the game by putting larger maps and giving more defensive abilities, so everything wasn't a rush with crazy micro at all times, and all they did was speed the game up more.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Any gamer can play Starcraft II, have you seen how bad low Bronze League is?
So his point doesn't even make sense. Starcraft is easy to play, hard to master, as it should be. He is suggesting lowering the mastery, which he tried and failed at, and cost Stacraft II dearly.
Yes, I agree with your points, maybe with exception to your point that games becomes more rock-paper-scissors the longer the games go. I mean that is true only in non mirror zerg matchups were the zerg can change composition totally after a fight. In all other cases I feel the later the games go the more you learn about what your opponent is doing, if a terran is going bio with bio upgrades how does the lategame turn into rock-paper-scissors. You've known his hand for ages and he cant easily transition into anything else, it would lack upgrades and he would need to sneakily build tons of production facilities.
The further games go the less its rock-paper-scissors in my opinion and more about positioning and spell caster micro.
I 100% agree with you about the difficulty of sc2, anyone can play the game and saying differently is incredibly dumb. However I don't know if DK is on to it, or if its a lucky coincidence but I do believe that one important factor that sc2 did wrong was that it didn't feel good to play the game if you were bad. When I was learning the game, learning was rewarding but it was also frustrating because even when I was winning I felt like shit. Making a new rts I believe it is important to make playing the game feel less frustrating and sad to play when you start out learning the game. The discrepency between what you want to do and your ability to execute is just too big in the beginning, it doesn't matter if you are a strategical mastermind that has watched 20 000 pro sc2 games, if you boot up the game for the first time and try to play you will be bad, exceptionally bad and it will not make you feel good about the game.
Thats one of the keys in making a new rts, make the learning curve feel rewarding and I am not really against the idea of having settings that you can use to reduce the APM load as long as you need to turn those settings off later in order to improve and play optimally. In sc2 if terran could automatically set barracks to allways have one marine producing and one in quee for example. It means you can don't need to think about production but it makes adjusting your composition a pain as well as always queing one unncessary unit. A setting like that would be great for being able to play the game and have fun while tryhards will turn it off and above masters everyone will have it off.
Balancing the things we are discussing here, the need to scout, making it a bad idea to mass one unit without having harcounters and the micro/apm demands is incredibly hard. DK didn't get it right but I also wonder if anyone else could have done it much better, its almost an impossible task.
On July 02 2021 08:08 BronzeKnee wrote: Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
I don't interpret DK like that, I read it as he wants all the macro demands removed/"simplified" and keep the micro. In short turn it into a game were you click the unit you want and you get it and then the actual game is micro war with armies.
I think the problem is the opposite of what you think, if DK makes a game like that everyone can micro perfectly because there is nothing else to focus on so either the micro needs to be even more complex and demanding than now to be able to see skil difference or turn it into a hardcounter thing.
What you said is exactly what I said in my first post a few pages ago.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
David Kim was part of the problem, he was part of the Team releasing units that were the opposite of micro intensive. He was making decisions that stretched out games into Carriers vs Corrupters/Broodlords...
Either you have micro that separates people and strategies, or the car is so easy to drive anyone can do, and then it is a game of hard counters.
My point above is there is an in-between, and Blizzard never figured that out. They tried to slow down the game by putting larger maps and giving more defensive abilities, so everything wasn't a rush with crazy micro at all times, and all they did was speed the game up more.
"So what we want to do is modernize a lot of it, and make it so any gamer can play this game."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Any gamer can play Starcraft II, have you seen how bad low Bronze League is?
So his point doesn't even make sense. Starcraft is easy to play, hard to master, as it should be. He is suggesting lowering the mastery, which he tried and failed at, and cost Stacraft II dearly.
You say there is an in between, I don't think there is so can you please elaborate what exactly that would look like? Paint some pictures of gameplay scenarios that involved the units we have now and what you would tweak to achieve what you think is possible.
Not that confident on the game based on those comments but the best things for casual scene is an active ums scene and noob friendly maps like ZC fastest and BGH.Dumbing down the game itself will hurt it in the long run, making sure the map editor is great will really build the community.
David Kim proved himself to be entirely unqualified to design or balance a game, this game will go nowhere. Riot wrote many articles and blog posts about quality game design and David Kim, almost to a T, violated nearly every principle they laid out. Starcraft 2 from a game design perspective became objectively worse. And in that time League became a massive, billion dollar E-Sport and SC2 shrank considerably. Pretty obvious who knew what they were doing.
I'll give you guys one example before I take on David Kim's newest ideas that will go nowhere:
From Zileas' List of Game Design Anti-Patterns, written long before the release of HOTS:
Power Without Gameplay This is when we give a big benefit in a way that players don’t find satisfying or don’t notice....
The problem with using a “power without gameplay” mechanic is that you tend to have to ‘over-buff’ the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it...
Photon Overcharge is a classic example of power without gameplay. The various skills it took to hold all the different early one and two bases timings in WOL as Protoss were replaced by a completely over-buffed ability that required the player to click on the Mothership Core, press F, and click on a Pylon and they'd instantly hold a timing. It is the definition of power without gameplay.
The early phase of the game went out of the window, and it made Starcraft objectively worse in every way. The fact it even left a designers head laid out they were in the wrong field, and the fact it actually made the game is a sign of multiple failures at multiple levels, David Kim included.
David Kim clearly lacked the ability to recognize a good idea from a bad one. That much is abundantly clear from his time working on Starcraft.
His new idea of creating a game that isn't APM dependent but is a real time strategy game shows he learned nothing. What made Starcraft 2 exciting, popular and great was the early game. Think of all amazing games and series when Starcraft 2 was at it's peak... MC vs WhiteRa at the GSL, Idra vs Bomber at MLG, Thorzain vs MC and then Naniwa at TSL2.
These were held on tiny maps, had constant action and the game could end at any moment. Taking an expansion was risky. It was the end game units that were boring... Carriers, Broodlords, Infestors, the Mothership... the game got stale when these units came out, there wasn't much skill to show.
What did those boring units have in common? They were low APM a-move units.
Isn't that what David Kim is suggesting? That it matters more what you build, not how you use it? Because things like Blink Micro, Marine Splits, and Muta micro require high APM, so he wants to remove those because not every player can do that... but those are what made SC2 exciting to watch, and fun to play as they were difficult to master.
It was the early game and midgame that were exciting because of the micro potential of the units, and the lack of hard counters (even though Banelings hard counter Marines, Marine splitting and focus firing changed this). The more a game of SC2 dragged on, the more it became rock-paper-scissors with hard counters and the less micro potential units have. That didn't prove to be popular, it proved damning.
Just watch game 3 of Idra vs Bomber at MLG Orlando ( https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlxo9d ), incredible show of skill on both sides, until the moment Idra A-moves Broods and Infestors that simply end the game. It wasn't impressive on any account.
Going that direction with a new game is doubling down on exactly what David Kim did previously, and many think doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I don't think David Kim is insane, he is just uneducated and ignorant. Riot provided us all the game design playbook and he never read it. And Starcraft and League are where they are today because of it.
I must say, the take that SC2 was at it's peak in early 2011 is a very hot take (even if it probably had greatest interest at the time, at least in NA).
I guess that depends on how you define peak. By most objective measures, as well as from a game design standpoint, it is obvious when the peak was. The proof is always in the pudding, people want to watch and play well designed games, and they don't want to play or watch poorly designed ones. There is more than just a cursory correlation between game design and popularity. I'm not sure we've seen League's peak yet, there is a reason it is so popular.
The fact many of the game design decision from HOTS were reversed (such as Photon Overcharge) is just further evidence.
Of course most of the old guard who knew this is gone, because the game got worse, thus what I said is a hot take to those who don't know. My comments below exemplify why, but Razzia of the Blizzsters highlights it better: https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
Next, while photon overcharge has been removed, in the essence Protoss still have a "I solved your push" button in shield overcharge, so your example once again went nowhere.
I think my points just went way over your head. Your example attempting to my why my point went no where, is actually further evidence of my point.
As far as I am concerned, nexus photon overcharge and shield battery (with overcharge later on) are just different balancing of the same underlying design decision of 'Protoss need to have actual I Defend button because our design choices made it impossible to accomplish with just unit balancing'. Pylon overcharge just like other things from early LotV is a by-product of Blizzard having too much weed when they decided that LotV would be basically a rework of multiplayer, so i'll cheerfully ignore it. So, if you want to tell me they reversed a design decision from HotS when they just redressed it in a form that presumably is slightly less braindead? I am definitely not getting it, i admit.
I'll bite and explain it.
Shield Battery and Bunkers are functionality equivalent in some respects and evidence of good game design, and Pylon Overcharge isn't. Why?
Let's look at how they impact the game. Let's say Terran is doing an early attack with 4 Marauders on building Nexus at the Protoss natural with a Pylon nearby. With Pylon Overcharge, the Terran either loses all 4 Marauders or has to wait to attack. If the Protoss has more than one Overcharge available, they can delay for long periods of time. Being able to buy time hurts the viability of any timing attack.
Thus, we saw a lot of timing attacks die out in HOTS. With attacking being far less effective, the money was invested into economy, natural expansion were totally free. Both sides would forgo attacking (compared to WOL) and focus on building their economy. This meant the time spent battling turned into time spent macroing... this sped up the game considerably, more units on the field, less control and reduced opportunities to show skill and was a large part of why Starcraft declined. TheDwf covered the impact of game speed in Razzia of the Blizzsters, he was right.
So Pylon Overcharge is a powerful free ability that turned structures that were used for supply into powerful standalone defense. This isn't like Zerg paying a Drone and minerals for Spine Crawler, Pylon Overcharge only costs energy. And because it a power without gameplay mechanic as I talked about previously, it had to be over buffed to be appreciated. That is a requirement of power without gameplay mechanics (which are bad mechanics to be avoided).
But what happens with those 4 Marauders now if a Shield Battery is there but no Pylon Overcharge? They walk in, kill the Shield Battery, kill the Pylon, deny the Nexus. Because like Bunkers, Shield Batteries power is dependent on nearby units, as they essentially just add hit points to nearby units. Pylon Overcharge didn't require anything but a Pylon (which you have to build anyway) to be incredibly strong.
So the Protoss has to build units early for the Shield Batteries to work. 1 Stalker near an Overcharged Battery won't cut it either, the Marauders will kill the Battery then the Stalker. So Protoss can't focus almost entirely on their economy, units and Shield Batteries aren't free like Pylon Overcharge.
Building units and Batteries is money that used to be spent on economy... so the game slows down. And because Protoss has to build units to be safe, it also means they have units they can attack with... so the opposing player has to build more units since the Protoss could attack. And now we've slowed down the game even more.
And that is good (LOTV is a better game than HOTS), we've slowed down the game to allow players to show skill, to allow for more strategies, to allow players to be creative. Again,TheDwf covered the impact of game speed in Razzia of the Blizzsters. But let's also make the maps smaller, because paradoxically, it will slow down the game further. Short rush distances mean people will build more units and less economy.
Isn't that what David Kim wants according to Shuffleblade above? Less macro, more battling?
But then why didn't he do it? Why did every decision Blizzard made over and over violate what I just went over above? Because they didn't read the script Riot published for everyone, they didn't understand the tenets of good game design. They tried to be edgy and cool and run against the grain. And just like everything else in life, if you make dumb decisions you pay for it.
And Starcraft paid for it.
You want to see a game at proper speed focused on battling and not macro? We already had that (and have you ever seen Artosis and Tasteless so excited?), and Kim took us away from it:
You're right. Only a few elite players have ever come back from a deficit, all battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, and developers have no real reason behind the inclusion of supply buildings (or, I guess, have decided to include supply to appease all of those ravening supply fans out there).
In response to your questions: Have you ever seen a game where a player lost more units early on but had a comparable army later in the game? Even before maxing out? How do you think that happened? If there are no throttles on unit production, it can't.
To be clear: you're not actually responding to my questions. You're just asking different questions. But I'll answer. Yes, players sometimes able to recover after losing units to have a comparable army to their opponent later in the game. How does it happen? Different ways, but primarily by aggressively expanding their economy to mine the necessary resources to rebuild the units they lost faster than their opponent can build additional units; successfully defending against the inevitable threats and attacks that come with the opponent's follow-on pressure; successfully counter-attacking to create the necessary space and time to rebuild; and very good micro, army movement, and army repositioning to trade well in follow-on battles. In other words: thoughtful strategy and tactics.
Again, you might want to watch and analyze some of the great comebacks in SC2 pro matches to understand how players typically catch up when behind. Example: Maru v. Solar 2020 Super Tournament I, Game 2:
Many interesting things to observe in this game, but let's dig deeper and see how the "supple throttle theory" plays out. At the conclusion of the first big attack Maru's at 32/38 and Solar's at 43/44 (Maru lost a depot and Solar lost 2 overlords). Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the "supply throttle theory" and assume Solar has a full overlord's worth of added production tax: -100 minerals and a larva. Admittedly not insignificant. That said, within 30 seconds both players being great macro players are back to hugging their supply caps and completing their macro cycles. It's just clear that this isn't the primary driver of what's going on in this game.
When you actually analyze the game you start to key in on the same things the casters are noticing. First, it's pretty clear that the "catch up mechanism" here is the cyclone, and more specifically Maru's ridiculous "Warcraft 3 micro"--to borrow the casters' phrase--that allows him to rack up 40 kills with the 2 cycles before the six and a half minute mark. Second, the thing that's really hurting Maru's chances is the fact that he lost 12 SEVs and a barracks early on, which Maru deals with by launching counterattacks and harassment of his own to kill drones and hatches and ultimately slow down Solar's production. These are the *actual* supply throttle dynamics at play in this game. But third and most importantly: with thoughtful army positioning and movement and great micro Maru successfully holds in several major follow-on attacks in which pretty much every other player would have died. Analyze other comebacks and you'll see a lot of similar dynamics at play.
Regarding the other things you're implying I said or meant, let's avoid the strawman arguments and be really clear. I did not say "all" battles lead to critical infrastructure damage, but it's just a fact that many players get ahead by successfully attacking an opposing player's base, which often results in infrastructure getting sniped, whether that's supply, production, or upgrade infrastructure. By the way, good luck catching up if you get your key upgrades sniped. I'm sure if your opponent needs to build a marginal extra pylon or two that'll do the trick
In terms of whether only elite players make comebacks at the pro level, honestly that just depends on how you define a comeback. But within the larger spectrum of strategy games, SC2 is not a particularly comeback-friendly game. There are a few reasons for this, but most importantly SC2 is highly deterministic (I believe the only real RNG is the SEV movement when it's building). Which means it's relatively straightforward for very good players to convert substantial leads into bigger leads and ultimately into game-ending attacks and pushes (some TvT scenarios may be an exception). Interestingly, a lot of the comebacks you do see are when the losing player "rolls the dice" so to speak by hiding tech out on the map (e.g. dark shrine) or pursuing some kind of doom drop or all-in attack that they hope the opponent will not scout in time. Again, it almost never has to do with supply throttling.
There are a lot of ways to design for rubber-banding and catch-up mechanisms, and it's always a fine balance especially in strategy games between keeping things interesting and creating a game in which the "best play" wins. Remember: SC2 is not Mariokart, but I do think it's a valid question as to whether RTS needs more clear and compelling high risk-high reward comeback options to avoid having all these formulaic forced all-in games.
I'd argue that my summary of your opinion, while needlessly antagonistic, was accurate, not a strawman. But if we want to talk about strawmen, you seem to be presenting my idea as being an argument that supply is the only comeback mechanism in the game. I don't think that at all. I don't even think it's the most important one in most cases.
I'm just saying what role it does play in the game, since the question of "Why is this mechanic here?" came up. The mild catch up effect in desiring is the direct, inevitable effect of this mechanic. Even you acknowledge this in talking about the costs in the game you're analysing. You just think there are other more important factors in that game. Which you're right about, but which in no way invalidates my point.
Meanwhile you still haven't given an explanation for why so many developers over so many years have used this supply mechanic beyond it being something players are accustomed to if I'm not correct.. How did they get accustomed to it? Why did those first developers include it? The fact you don't seem to have an answer to this is why I've been dismissive towards what you're saying. All those designers weren't idiots.
If you want to see this in action, look at Game One, Percival vs ByuN, GSL Code S. I chose this because it was a mirror and unlike the ByuN Bunny games wasn't one person going mech or over super fast.
Players were fairly even throughout the early game. The first big battle came at about 6:25, with Percival and ByuN at 88 and 87 of 94 supply respectively. After some back and forth, Percival was up 12 supply at 7:10. However, as they both built up in the aftermath, ByuN evened up the supply. It took maybe thirty seconds. Why? Percival had to build two supply depots right after the engagement and ByuN didn't.
Supply isn't a huge factor in most games. And often it can be hard to figure out how much of an impact it is, given that people might be expanding, teching, or what have you, which will change the gap. In this case, ByuN went on to lose anyway. But it meant that a slight advantage didn't snowball. Percival couldn't just build more army and kill ByuN right away, he had to invest in infrastructure, and ByuN wasn't in a real long term deficit.
In summary, supply mechanics don't do big dramatic things, but they do have small equalizing effects in basically every game played. And now I'm going to stop commenting on this thread because it's about vague statements on a game that does not yet exist, and not supply mechanics.
EPT
