Agree. Disregarding obviously broken shit, overpowered units are one of the things that will actually bring beauty to the game. I mean, let top players(especially progamers) figure out ways to overcome stuff that at first glance seems imba, and let the game evolve for years with counters to the current trend coming up, just to set a new trend that will be countered as the game evolves.

SichuanPanda

Canada1542 Posts

April 21 2010 16:46 GMT

#242

On April 22 2010 01:36 RamenStyle wrote:
Agree. Disregarding obviously broken shit, overpowered units are one of the things that will actually bring beauty to the game. I mean, let top players(especially progamers) figure out ways to overcome stuff that at first glance seems imba, and let the game evolve for years with counters to the current trend coming up, just to set a new trend that will be countered as the game evolves.

We can only hope that Blizzard doesn't listen to every single low-ranked player complaining about imbalance, because if they do we'll have RushCraft 2, not StarCraft. However I'm fairly confident in their patching ability, as throughout all their games they never change TOO much in a patch that it makes it a point of no return.

mindZ

United States31 Posts

April 21 2010 17:00 GMT

#243

I really hope things fall into place. Good read.

LastWish

2013 Posts

April 21 2010 17:17 GMT

#244

Totally agree about the fear of imbalance can make game poor.
Imba units and abilities are the interesting thing about the game.
For example SC1 high templar storm was very imbalanced in many battles. But the other units sucked more than the other races units. Templars could also been sniped with mutas, vultures, small group of zerglings could have taken a lot of these units. All of which made a perfectly healthy picture.
Time-tech pressure was applied - for example ultras, defilers, carriers were imbalanced - but you could prevent your opponent from reaching them or cripple them enough so when they have them it is still an even game.
This makes the game exciting so SC2 should not fear having some units too strong and some weaker than those of other races.
One thing to be wary about is not making the game mass 1 unit(yeah marauder reference) for almost all purpose all strategy every matchup, so we don't have another c&c game.

Small correction : SC1 storm does 112 dmg (16x7) and used to do 128(16x8) damage

AncienTs

Japan227 Posts

April 21 2010 18:17 GMT

#245

spawn infested terran ability is just extremely limited in its practical uses... gawd

Ryuu314

United States12679 Posts

April 21 2010 20:40 GMT

#246

Beautifully written article. I've been thinking exactly the same things.

TheYango

United States47024 Posts

April 21 2010 23:13 GMT

#247

On April 21 2010 21:33 eXNewB wrote:
Good job at pointing out the obvious :D Blizzard just got lucky, let's face the fact; it's not going to happen again. SC2 WILL flop

1) Strictly speaking, Blizzard didn't get it right until the second iteration--the example Lurker/Swarm interaction didn't exist until Brood War.
2) There's no middle ground between smashing success and a "flop"?

vindKtiv

United States215 Posts

April 22 2010 01:04 GMT

#248

I really enjoyed the article. After reading about so many "nerf roaches/marauders/workers" threads and articles by so called "pros" (some of them actually quite qualified), it is very refreshing to read about an article breaking the trend and commending the balance for what it is. Hopefully, StarCraft II will become BW and more after the pro-scene starts spinning in full gears.

Libtech

Canada9 Posts

April 22 2010 01:18 GMT

#249

Good article, we have to remember that this is Blizzard we're talking about, and they know more than a thing or two about games. They already know this stuff, from what I've seen and played in the Beta they're keeping to the philosophy that "there shouldn't be 1 strategy which always wins" and so far the patches generally have reflected that.
Take the Marauder nerf, I've been playing mostly Terran, but I wasn't bothered by this because it made tones of sense. Early Marauders were almost invincible if handled correctly against Protoss with the slow effect on their guns because Zealots didn't have a hope of getting in melee range and Stalkers=dead against them, so having it as an upgrade effectively made it a counter to Chargelots in late game.

Irrelevant

United States2364 Posts

April 22 2010 02:19 GMT

#250

Lots of OP units and OP counters to them = fun

Lots of nerfed to shit units and nerfed to shit counters to them = lame

borso

Hungary28 Posts

April 22 2010 22:47 GMT

#251

Nice article, once again! I hope blizzard manage to divert zerg a little bit more, hidra & roaches aren't fun.

guitarizt

United States1492 Posts

April 23 2010 05:38 GMT

#252

I've been reading and posting some in the suggestions/balance bnet forum for the first time tonight and omg it's bad. It looks like a bunch of bronze players complaining about random stuff. Not even silver level players. The worst part is I think blizzard prob made some changes in previous patches based on their complaints. I mean carriers being too strong? Zerg able to spine crawler 'rush' and use the queen to spread creep? Seriously? Does the queen really need to be made slower off creep because of this or do people need to learn how to not lose to cheesy stuff? Are we going to implement a 10 min no rush rule next?

endy

Switzerland8970 Posts

April 23 2010 09:48 GMT

#253

Great article. Especially the exemple of swarm+lurk example. That kind of combo would be considered as imba in the beta, and in the end all the races will have shitty units, if we keep complaining too fast, instead of looking for a good counter.

Malganath

Denmark7 Posts

April 23 2010 12:51 GMT

#254

interesting read, and I agree on the forcefields... from what ive seen in matches, well placed forcefields can just overwhelm most zerg (current) builds, with ease. I also very much agree with the balancing, and I have seen it in alot of other SC2 articles, so lets hope that blizz manage to read a few of these at some point