SC2 could be so much more - design and balance - Page 8

On November 06 2015 06:05 Nazara wrote:
I have added a polls section to the opening post, if anyone wants to participate

On November 06 2015 17:37 summerloud wrote:
one of the core things that is broken with the game is the marauder

i totally agree with you - i remember seeing it in the first alpha battle report and being like "WTF is this unit"

i dont know who had the terrible terrible idea to give every race a dragoon unit, and on top of that weaken the protoss dragoon. that destroyed racial identity, and brought with it so many other horrible design choices

i found it hilarious in a depressing way when blizzard took the marauder as an example of a unit that was often seen as imbalanced, yet never had to be changed in one of their community posts, shows how little they care about the communitys suggestions... so many people identified the problems right from the start... hydra being tier2 and the infernal triangle of terrible terrible damage units (marauder, roach, immortal) being core game design problems right from the start. it was never possible to build a balance model as beautiful as BW's around such flawed core design

On November 06 2015 21:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote:

seeing the binary "stim attack + move + attack + move + attack + move" "micro" (it is often not really micro rather just necessary binary handling : if bio ball stronger then move forward if weaker move backwards ~ now with disruptors the binary just also includes "is there a disruptor shot coming this way") going on even today hurts my eyes. The marauder attack slowing down targets is such a HUGE mistake for the game's diversity, because you can't/shouldn't engage them unless you know you won't want to retreat, and the only way to engage them is to run straight towards them from one direction (+ making force fields the necessary micro move put behind). Because of the mega damage it does to "armored" and of that slow down, I think that's a big reason why the siege tank can't be a strong siege tank (since then armored units would get obliterated AND units forced to stay under fire of siege tanks any time an engagement happens + slowed down in the vital process of reaching the tanks). So basically we can thank this bad idea for killing Terran positional tactics identity, to replace it with slowing down stutter attack bio ball that can take flight. It is kind of funny because it is so easy to remove and change for the better but it stayed in the game forever lol.

On November 07 2015 00:53 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
Yes ok maybe I exagerrate a bit but you know what I mean no? It is very common to see a ball just stim attack one way or the other repetitively. If you do get caught in a bad situation it can be game ending so that prevents a lot of smaller engagements to even happen. It's something I really didn't like playing WoL. But OK.

On November 06 2015 17:37 summerloud wrote:
it was never possible to build a balance model as beautiful as BW's around such flawed core design

On November 07 2015 03:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:


What you are describing is micro. Making the same 2-4 actions repeatedly using dexterity to gain tactical advantage. Micro is good, and should be encouraged more.

On November 02 2015 08:10 Nazara wrote:
Warp Gate>Gateway, Chronoboost and bandaids as their consequence.

Force Fields were hated since their introduction. Formerly to help Protoss in their early game, so Protoss wouldn't die to rush tactics, but also to split enemy army effectively halving DPS of Zerg/Terran and winning the game for Protoss. Blizzard tried some bandaids for it - increasing burrow speed, making Massive units destroy FF, and lastly, designing a unit with a sole purpose of fighting FF (the unit in question now is being redesigned as a Liberator/Tank/Lurker siege stopper which I think is silly). Lets not to forget about Photon Overcharge and lately Pylon Overcharge, which don't just help with defence - PO simply shuts down any kind of early game pressure/harassment. Implementation of a hero unit - Mothership Core (MSC) - is also a widely debated.
But why does Protoss need early game protection, if most units in the game have same or similiar stats as they had back in Brood War, where Protoss was fine or even was the primary agressor? Because Warp Gate (WG). Let me explain - Protoss production is centered around Warp Gate and that is the "standard" Protoss production rate of units required to keep up with Terran and Zerg. Someone thought that Gateway is not enough, that P needs a new fancy way of making units - and that is fine by itself. Now, Warp Gate produces units faster then Gateway and can spawn units anywhere on the map. Spawning units on the map is fine as an upgrade, but Gateway being so inferior to WG is a bad design. There is no benefit of choosing Gateway over Warp Gate. None whatsoever. Producing early game units from Gateway is inefficient - Zealots are warped 35% faster with WG, Sentries by 15% and Stalkers by 31%. It means that before switching to WG, Protoss produces his units at lower rate then other races. While WG is balanced in mid and late game, Gateway is lacking. Terran can produce much more units thanks to Reactor, while Zerg with Injects can spend a lot of extra larva on attacking units. Gateway in the meantime is still just a Gateway. Because Gateway production is slow compared to increased production of Zerg and Terran, and everything was balanced around Warp Gate build times, Protoss cannot field same amount of units as effectively as other races. Early rushes and timing attacks would kill Protoss outright because Gateway production without Chronoboost is not enough compared to what other races have. That is, in my opinion, the reason why FF is invulnerable, easy to spam and comes so early in the game.
So what about Mothership Core and Pylon/Photon Overcharge? Its existence is a result of three separete issues: one of the WG (already discussed), one of drops (which will not be discussed just yet), and the last one being the Chronoboost. Heresy! Or is it? Lets think about what Chronoboost does: it speeds up the rate of production (economy), alternate production (army), or technology. You can be very flexible with it:
- Boost Probe production, gaining an edge against players who play too safe
- Boost upgrade/gates/WGs for a powerfull timing attack/all in
- Boost Probe production while going for a less powerfull timing attack but better economy to gain lead in mid-late game
- Boost a unit production and its upgrades/tech for harassement
- Boost a random building (Nexus/Cybernetics Core/Robo) to fake your techpath/build.
And many more, but boosting one dimension (army/tech/economy) comes at a cost of falling behind in another.
Protoss without Chronoboost is mediocre when it comes to economy (no MULE, cannot convert army production for extra probes like larva), army production or tech/upgrades. Yes, attack/shield/armor upgrades can be boosted and finished faster then those of other races, but because of a possibility of CB, crucial tech has been slowed down in order nerf all-ins. Think about how Blink and WG research time was increased as a result of strong cheese play. But, both of those (or at least WG) are necessary for Protoss just to not fall behind and stay in game if playing standard. Both are painfully slow to research if you're not all-inning. But can still hit quickly if you CB them, which led in the past to exploiting it in the Blink all-in era. This is why Protoss cannot be balanced as long as there is Chronoboost - standard play can be very economical but at the same time is too slow to keep up with the enemy army and tech, resulting in P having to rely on FF, MSC and its PO for defence in the early game. Yet in a same way harass and all-in/cheese is way too strong if it is boosted. There is no middle ground in Protoss strategy. And that my dear is exactly why so many people don't like to play agains Protoss - because with Chronoboost, there are many more timings to which you have to adapt in order not to lose vs Protoss, making their cheese/all-ins stronger, but not helping Protoss as much while playing standard. And in order to give Protoss some defensive advantage, MSC with Photon Overcharge was introduced.
tl:dr
Protoss being gimmicky is a consequence of Chronoboost - either cheese is too strong, or standard play too weak, as balancing between the two is next to impossible. P needs Force Field and a hero unit (Mothership Core) with Pylon cannons to play standard game and not to die when if not cheesing. Gateway producing units at much lower rate then Warp Gate is also a big contributor to this (or rather, Larva Inject, Reactors and Techlab switching make Gateway production much worse in comparison).
With Chronoboost the PvP looks like safe>>>aggressive>>>greedy>>>safe, without it will be more like safe>>aggressive>>greedy>>safe, which would reduce a bit the coinflip nature of PvP, even if just a little bit.

On November 08 2015 06:29 Nazara wrote:
I believe with long warp-in time on far away pylons, and extra damage to units being warp-in can balance it, at least a little bit.
I agree that Warp Gate makes it really problematic and messes up the balance a lot. 4 Gate all-ins, Stalker all-ins, crazy Adept Prism rushes - it can be blamed on WG and Warp Prism.
I read the thread you linked earlier, while browsing the forum, and I agree on this one with you.

On the other hand, I know a lot of players are so used to WG, that they would stop playing the game altogether without it, even as WG introduces more problems then its worth.
Same with less efficient pathing, which would solve the deathballing issue almost on its own, but people are already used to current pathing so much after 5 years, that we would hear to no end the cries if Blizzard changed it to something more resembling BW or Starbow.

On November 06 2015 17:37 summerloud wrote:
one of the core things that is broken with the game is the marauder

i totally agree with you - i remember seeing it in the first alpha battle report and being like "WTF is this unit"

i dont know who had the terrible terrible idea to give every race a dragoon unit, and on top of that weaken the protoss dragoon. that destroyed racial identity, and brought with it so many other horrible design choices

i found it hilarious in a depressing way when blizzard took the marauder as an example of a unit that was often seen as imbalanced, yet never had to be changed in one of their community posts, shows how little they care about the communitys suggestions... so many people identified the problems right from the start... hydra being tier2 and the infernal triangle of terrible terrible damage units (marauder, roach, immortal) being core game design problems right from the start. it was never possible to build a balance model as beautiful as BW's around such flawed core design

On November 07 2015 03:57 BronzeKnee wrote:The problem is, Blizzard controlling the game is almost always universally bad because they destroy the beauty of the game. And unfortunately that is because Blizzard fails to understand how to design a beautiful game. Broodwar wasn't balanced by intelligent design, it became balanced unintentionally with things like Muta-stacking were discovered. But Blizzard couldn't control Broodwar for fear of ruining it with bad game design choices. And we know they would have ruined BW now, because we've seen what they've done with Starcraft 2.

On November 10 2015 04:03 summerloud wrote:
one solution to the whole "spellcasters being too weak because of smartcasting" issue that ive never heard so far would be to limit the massability of overpowered units by letting them cost another type of resource that is finite

this way you could restore psi storm or other spells to their former glory without making mass templars overpowered

the editor even has the option to edit unit cost for terrazine as a 3rd resource

On November 10 2015 04:51 ProMeTheus112 wrote:

I don't agree with the part were you say bw "became balanced unintentionally with things like Muta-stacking were discovered". Before Muta-stacking was discovered, Brood War was already a great game and it was great because of its intelligent design. Sure the developpers never expect players would play so fast and micro the way they did, but if you look at the numbers and general mechanics in the game they are very accurately laid out and give lots of possibilities. There are a lot of numbers and mechanics in the game which were never changed after release, most of them. The design of BW is very intelligent and I really think it is the primary reason why it shined so bright and is so fun to play.
Muta Stacking, in my opinion, though it changed match ups quite a bit, is not really a good thing in BW. It provokes ZvT to almost always go muta harrass at start, and allows mutas to snipe templars or probes very easily unless P has enough corsairs, for instance. It is too hard to counter Mutas with something else than corsairs in PvZ because of this, even though the game was designed intelligently with goons being a good all rounder to use against them, and archon very strong, but he can't catch up with any mutas because they are in a ball (if he does, mega damage ; similarly with storms it is risky to try it because mutaball can dodge it quite easily but if not, mega damage). In my opinion, this bug is not good for the game, but it is not possible or intelligent to try and forbid it. I think the game would be better without it, and the most creative days of BW date from before this bug entered the arena. Something that pins the early game down strongly in ZvT means that there are less diversity for the midgame as well. And ZvZ is the one true problem match up in the game, where muta battles are very central... I guess a lot probably won't agree with me about that. But anyway the game was definitely great and well balanced before muta stacking came into use.

The reason why Blizzard is not capable of doing intelligent design today like you said and I agree with you, is, I think, not because they have never been, it is because it is simply not the same company as before. Almost everybody is gone, and now they work with much bigger teams on a much more industrial model that target financial goals with little risk. Creativity and smart design is very complicated to organize in such a situation, and brings a greater sense of financial risk. They have likely hired people such as Dustin Browder for his ability to appeal to masses rather than to make a great RTS, that is exactly what the later C&Cs are. Big nukes and powerful-looking units.