I am not part of the OneGoal or StarBow design teams. My goal with this article is to detail some of the ways that the OneGoal, Starbow and other Starcraft mods could possibly be improved. In doing so I would like to start with two points. First, DOTA has been incredibly successful. And second, No that does not mean Starcraft is dieing. Starcraft like the Zerg Swarm is continually growing and adapting. My goal is not to make OneGoal and Starbow into DOTA but rather to make them the next DOTA, an incredibly fun and addicting mod with an adoring community and dedicated developers that may eventually become more popular than the game it is based off of. Apologies if you guys have already discussed some of these ideas and don't feel they fit with your vision of the game or if there is a popular mod out there that already does all of these things.
Back in the golden age of the RTS (1990s) several games (Command and Conquer, Total Annihilation, etc..) fell into the habit of creating games with more and more units. However, the result was a dilution of individual unit identity, difficulty for new players to learn game and balance problems. The games eventually revolved around massing that one best unit. Starcraft countered this trend by choosing to focus on a few units with well developed dynamics. The theme was “Concentrated Coolness”. I believed that this was the best way, and for that time it may have been. However, in the age of continuous updates, and community-generated content this paradigm may no longer be ideal.
Too much
To give an example Heart of the Swarm has been in development for over two years. The result is 7 new units for multiplayer. In contrast DOTA 2 has put out 7 new units in the past five months alone. In addition to limiting new content, this philosophy of few units causes exciting units and abilities to be cut from the game before even making it into the players hands to try out. This leads to dissatisfaction and disagreement among the community. Finally, the worst part may be that developers spend much time and energy on balancing ever more stagnant metagames instead of doing what they do best, creating fun new experiences for their fans.
The Solution
The solution to these problems may be to create a Ban/Pick system and have regularly added new units every couple weeks. Doing so would allow OneGoal and Starbow to accomplish many things. First, it lets the community balance the game for you, freeing the devs to focus on creating new content. It is folly to ignore that a small number of developers balancing a game carries a huge amount of personal bias that can cloud their judgement. At the end of the day it is the community that judges the balance of the game. Lets say, hypothetically that in WoL the Hydralisk is the most powerful unit in the game. However, for whatever reason the community has come to believe that Infestor is really the strongest unit. As a result the Infestor is what will be used in all matchups and for all intents and purposes the Infestor would be the “most overpowered” unit. By this I mean that at the end of the day it is the community’s perception of what is overpowered...and not the developer’s perception, that determines how balanced the game is. By giving the community the tools to balance the game you automatically ensure that that their opinion of what units are over and underpowered match with the metagame. These tools allow balance to be achieved at a much more rapid pace. Imagine what would have happened if players could have banned Infestor/Broodlord rather than months after months of static ZvP. If the developers put a unit in the game that the community feels is overpowered it will be banned frequently. This will be a sign to the developers to lower the stats until it sees the level of play they would like for it.
Dota 2's Captain's Mode
A Ban/Pick draft adds a layer of strategy to the pregame in much the same way that building your deck in magic the gathering or creating a starting line up in baseball does. The near infinite combination of units creates ever evolving strategies and prevents the metagame from ever reaching a steady state. In short, no two games will ever look the same. Finally, every mod maker knows how frustrating it is when there is initial excitement for your mod only to have players drop off. DOTA mitigated this by continually adding new heroes every 2-4 weeks. The Ban/Pick system allows the developers to continually add new content to keep and grow a devoted user base. Followers will return eagerly every few weeks to try out the next new unit. The OneGoal team has already started doing this to a certain extent through their patches.
OneGoal's Patch Updates
Example Draft Pick
Player 1 (Terran) Core Units: SCV Marine Siege Tank Battlecruiser
Player 2 (Protoss) Core Units: Probe Zealot Stalker Mothership Core
First Round Bans Sentry Marauder Voidray Widow Mine Colossus Banshee
In closing, a Ban/Pick system allows OneGoal, Starbow and mods like them to differentiate their mods from the Starcraft 2 base game. The Starcraft 2 base game already has ladder and many other features that these mods lack. However, with the addition of regularly added new units and community-generated balance I believe these mods could overtake Starcraft 2 in popularity in much the same way that the original DOTA did.
On February 24 2013 07:42 nakam wrote: What would happen in the early game if you ban ling/marine/zealot etc?
Great question. I wanted to stick with broad ideas rather then lay out my own mod but it may be better to throw an example Ban/Draft pick into the OP.
In short, you can either provide multiple Tier 1 units so that not all can be banned first pick or you can have a set of base units that are present in every game to compliment the Ban/Pick units.
would be ridicously hard to balance, unless both players are playing as the same race. I guess you could make a game with 1 race, and a ban/pick system.
I've been thinking about how to do a P/B system for core starcraft for a while now. I think it would fundamentally change the feel of how starcraft played, probably for the better, taking it away from a game where people practice stagnant builds to millisecond perfection and towards one where strategy is more continually evolving or at least evoluting. I'm not honestly sure whether you could call this inherently better, as SC has always had a fetish for execution over strategy, but there's nothing stopping both systems from running in parallel
I don't think you'd have a full roster pick and ban, for example, you could have all the WoL units always available (perhaps trimming some of the more niche ones like ghosts, ultras and carriers) and pick and ban from a pool of, for example, all the brood war and new units that there are in the campaign. 2 bans, 3 picks or something. I could go on at length as to the various effects this would have, but fundamentally it would force the balance mentality away from 'optimisation' and towards targeted strategies. It would also allow for a more streamlined development process alongside pro-play as we see in mobas where the P/B phase causes a completely imbalanced game without that process to remain quite fresh, interesting and competitive.
You can't use bans in a game where single units fullfill highly specialized roles. It can work in DotA style games where you have multiple, somewhat similar heroes overlapping in a single role, but without it banning even a single unit leads to imbalance.
Imagine banning corruptors vs Z, medivacs vs T, or stalkers vs P. All of those create imbalances that cannot be overcome, and it limits the amount of strategies that can be viably used before the game even starts. It's a horrible idea because every ban combination has to be balanced, instead of a single combination.
It seems really wierd to add bans in the game since some units feel niche roles. However I'm instead thinking of options in game. Maybe you could choose to either build X unit or Y unit but not both, where the X and Y unit serve similiar roles but in different way. (Like a Hellion/Vulture, Thor/Goliath or Swarmhost/Lurker.)
Anyway this could relate to your idea since you could maybe implement that you could ban one of the units (X or Y) which makes the player unable to do certain builds but still lets him have a unit that can fulfill the banned units niche.
It's a bad idea because heroes in dota are redundant and can fulfill multiple roles, while SC2 units are purposely not redundant and each have a different use. A colossus is protoss' splash that doesn't cost energy, an infestor is the only zerg caster(until HotS, but vipers don't necessarily replace infestors), and ghosts are the only anti-caster unit terran has.
On February 24 2013 08:17 Derez wrote: You can't use bans in a game where single units fullfill highly specialized roles
...unless there are other units that can fill those roles.
which is not the case in the current unit selection.
Yes, i agree. I probably didnt do a great job explaining but the idea would be that these mods could add new units in frequent intervals.
I understand what you want but the problem is that the balance of an RTS is simply a lot more delicate then dota and such. A tiny change can have drastic effects Just look at a couple changes in the Starcraft 2 lifespawn that looked tiny (roach range upgrade, immortal range upgrade) but at their huge effect. In Dota and such unless you got a hero so OP its hilarious you will never have that effect.
This can't be done in sc2 (and thus onegoal either) simply due to the way the game is designed. There are barely any overlapping roles. If you ban units, you're banning strategies and integral game components. Removing tanks from terran would be more like playing street fighter with a joystick that can't point left. It's not just a part of the game, it is an integral core. No medivacs = no drops, no hellions = no factory openings, etc etc. Banning works in DotA because any hero can still do what they were designed to do. You cannot ban Enigma's black Hole. You can ban Enigma, but not black hole. You can't ban jungling, you shouldn't be able to ban turtling, you cannot ban ganks, you shouldn't be able to ban drops. There's a big difference.
Banning in DotA is more akin to race-picking. You 'ban' ZvZ by playing TvZ instead, but you can't ban Zerg.
Don't know why this is targetted at Starbow or Onegoal though. They for the most part have the same minimalistic conservative design philosophy as blizzard.
I wonder if banning / picking map features or something not involving units might be a possibility. Plus DB would love it if there was a minigame / microstrategy that involved destructible rocks...
I would rather see a system where you could pick your line up, say 15, from an infinite number of units. Those units would have to be constructed from a credit based system where you could trade speed for health, range for attack damage and other stat trades. The stat credits would be determined by the resource cost time + minerals + gas so a higher cost unit has more stats to tweak around with compared with a lower cost unit. I would suggest some stat limitations like speed and unit size. An aspect that makes starcraft cool is the different mechanics for each race and I would say that you could tinker with those stats as well for making your own race. A problem with such a game would be that the opposing players have no knowledge about each others game mechanics, tech tree or unit structure. Pre game identifying stats would be key as well as for players to have good scouting units.
Keep in mind this isn't talking about changing the base game of StarCraft 2, but changes for custom maps. StarCraft 2 would still be StarCraft 2, and this would be for UMS like Starbow. The goal being to make Starbow more interesting and keep it fresh and in time it may be the SC2 equivalent of WC3's Dota mod in terms of popularity.
There already exists a melee mod like this. It's SoulFilcher's expanded melee mod. I'm not exactly sure what it's status is at this very moment. But it has the idea of which you speak. Similar to the campaign, you have to make either/or choices about which tech path to pick (eg. stalker or dragoon; phoenix or scout) in the context of a standard melee game.
*****
But on topic, I'll concur with what appears to be the general sentiment of this thread thus far. A ban/pick draft system simply isn't viable in an RTS that would purport to be finely tuned and balanced and competitive. The inter-relation and interaction of all of a race's elements together often is what comprises much of balance.
Unlike in MOBA games where heroes are essentially isolated factions unto themselves, specific units make and break strategies in SC2.
Although, come to think of it, OP's proposal actually sounds a lot like another one of the Funday Monday topics where you ask your opponent to pick 3 nion-worker units that you're not allowed to build.
There's also a reason why Monobattles isn't exactly 'balanced' either. But then it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a rip-roaringly goofy-fun time with insanity abounding.
But again, such a mod would be SC2 in the same way that Storm of the Imperial Sanctum is SC2. The 'core' of SC2 gameplay is arguably supposed to be about melee, mastery and execution where the better player always wins. And those are the goals that StarBow and OneGoal are pursuing.
What you suggest would be some other kind of game inside the SC2 client, but it wouldn't really be SC2 in the same way that DotA wasn't WC3.
This is madness, how in the hell do you think this would work in sc2? Did you think of consequences on banning some balancemaking units? Like banning infestor in wol.
Interesting. I think Picks and Bans as a system is the way to go for competitive future RTS esports because it allows for a sustainable economic model (Free to play with a constant influx of purchasable content) I don't know if it would work with Starcraft, a game designed and conceptualized around a closed system (A group of mechanics that will be expanded upon a few times rather than once every three to six weeks)
A pick ban system would make so "build order advantage" far worse if those units had any unique traits whatsoever. That is not to say that I don't think this style of game could be fun. I just don't think it will ever be completely balanced.
Starbow is pretty awful, too. OneGoal is a bit more interesting if only because it sticks to its goals. I remain convinced that despite the fact that it is looking backward, the most fun mod you can play is of course, Starcraft 2 Brood War because it is shameless about what it intends to do - recreate Brood War without the shitty limitations.
That's good enough for me. I would probably play a MOD that played a little like this (pick/ban units, maybe out of singleplayer) but a tournament? A ladder? No way in hell.
My gut says this is exploitable in some way. However I'd be curious to see this in monobattles, since those are team-based and you could ban out the obviously strong choices.
This essentially makes SC2 into quadrabattles or quintabattles. If you want a DotA of SC2, why not just take an already extremely popular mod, monobattles, and add pick/ban to make it competitive?
Before I burn down my computer Id like to point out that I agree that adding more units dilutes the individual unit identity but that I believe the benefits from having new units added continuously to the mod outweighs this.
This was a great post that probably deserves more attention
On February 24 2013 08:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I've been thinking about how to do a P/B system for core starcraft for a while now. I think it would fundamentally change the feel of how starcraft played, probably for the better, taking it away from a game where people practice stagnant builds to millisecond perfection and towards one where strategy is more continually evolving or at least evoluting. I'm not honestly sure whether you could call this inherently better, as SC has always had a fetish for execution over strategy, but there's nothing stopping both systems from running in parallel
On February 24 2013 10:02 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote: @ Zorgaz
There already exists a melee mod like this. It's SoulFilcher's expanded melee mod. I'm not exactly sure what it's status is at this very moment. But it has the idea of which you speak. Similar to the campaign, you have to make either/or choices about which tech path to pick (eg. stalker or dragoon; phoenix or scout) in the context of a standard melee game.
On February 24 2013 10:10 Ryndika wrote: This is madness, how in the hell do you think this would work in sc2? Did you think of consequences on banning some balancemaking units? Like banning infestor in wol.
So what? you ban his colossi or his marines and continue playing
The problem with this is that you have people banning units for reasons other than what the original poster wanted. The original poster is describing draft/ban as a quantifiable method to determine what units are considered overpowered by the player base, but your example would skew those results because the bans/picks would be elements of strategy not purely based on what is OP. For example, if the protoss bans marauders and picks stalkers the Terran will recognize that his primary counter for stalkers has been banned, thus affecting what he will next pick to ban, at this point the terran is not banning based on the objective strength of the protoss/stalker but now banning based on the subjective strength of this specific set of bans/picks which really makes any overall data compiled from a draft such as this meaningless and impossible to interpret. If I was playing a zerg that banned thors, then immediately mutalisks look very strong and I may want to ban mutas when in reality the unit I feel is overpowered is the infestor.
Not only does this not work for Starcraft in general, due to the fact that the "forced coolness" factor that you yourself mentioned, which means every unit in the game is neccesaery for the game to exist, its also important to note that the goal of these mods is to be the maximum potential of Starcraft, not to be a spin-off, while this might be an interesting idea in a separate mod and I am sure would be fun to play and popular, it would not be right for these two.
Both are supposed to be SC2 *melee* mods, not UMSs. Changing either of them to include picks/bans would completely defeat the purpose that players create/play them in the first place.
If you choose to make a UMS like that, please do go ahead. It would definitely not be considered SC2 melee, however, and any comparison between SC2 melee and it can never be made.
I can imagine an RTS having a different form for each unit with different play styles. Say, using "Marine" as a basic unit model; before each match you can choose whether you want either a "DPS Marine", "PlasMarine", or a "Guerrilla-Fighting-Ma'Fucker".
As a quick sidenote to the main topic: I'd never heard of OneGoal before this, just watched the youtube videos and I have to say I'm impressed with some of the changes proposed. Really nice.
I find the ban/pick phase of DotA2 to be the most exciting part of a match, watching how the teams draft and looking for nuances or trying to predict how they'll play it out is ridiculously entertaining. But like others have mentioned it seems it would need a lot of work/redesign to function in StarCraft2.
As an alternative I could see a method of banning/picking, or maybe just picking, in regards to certain unit abilities. Perhaps instead of the HotS Medivac Emergency Boosters you decide to pick up Cadeous Reactor. The main role of the unit stays solid, but it's strengths/weaknesses can be tilted.
Interesting thread, curious thoughts all round, thanks for the read!
On February 24 2013 12:15 purakushi wrote: Both are supposed to be SC2 *melee* mods, not UMSs. Changing either of them to include picks/bans would completely defeat the purpose that players create/play it in the first place.
If you choose to make a UMS like that, please do go ahead. It would definitely not be considered SC2 melee, however.
Like I said if the devs dont agree this is in fitting with their vision of the game they are free to ignore it
I do however feel there are identifiable reasons DOTA became more popular than WC3 and that SC2 mods can learn from this.
On February 24 2013 12:15 purakushi wrote: Both are supposed to be SC2 *melee* mods, not UMSs. Changing either of them to include picks/bans would completely defeat the purpose that players create/play it in the first place.
If you choose to make a UMS like that, please do go ahead. It would definitely not be considered SC2 melee, however.
Like I said if the devs dont agree this is in fitting with their vision of the game they are free to ignore it
I do however feel there are identifiable reasons DOTA became more popular than WC3 and that SC2 mods can learn from this.
Drafting was a late entry to the entire MOBA genre, so I'm not sure how you consider that an identifiable reason.
MOBA is also an entirely different genre, just created using the WC3 game engine. This would be akin to saying Unreal should become more like an MMORPG, because Lineage was built on the Unreal Engine.
As a developer of the OneGoal mod I think that you may of misinterpreted our intentions. We are improving upon Starcraft 2 leaving the core mechanics and all of the units intact or Semi intact. We are not interested in a complete re-haul of the game. changes like this would make Starcraft, well not Starcraft anymore. These changes do have potential but none of these ban/pick changes you have stated are present in either Starbow or OneGoal mods.
On February 24 2013 12:35 comet1 wrote: As a developer of the OneGoal mod I think that you may of misinterpreted our intentions. We are improving upon Starcraft 2 leaving the core mechanics and all of the units intact or Semi intact. We are not interested in a complete re-haul of the game. changes like this would make Starcraft, well not Starcraft anymore. These changes do have potential but none of these ban/pick changes you have stated are present in either Starbow or OneGoal mods.
Ban/Picking like in Dota would not work in an RTS unless it was designed with that in mind from day one.
As for the point "In contrast DOTA 2 has put out 7 new units in the past five months alone". First of all Dota2 is still in beta, and secondly, Dota2 will eventually be a 1:1 replica of Dota1, just made in the Source engine rather than a WC3 mod. The last time new heroes was added to Dota was in 6.75
Edit: And how would it work if you ban out workers?
____
During a CS:GO showmatch in February between NiP and Lemondogs, they both decided to not use Deagles (since it was super-OP at the time). I would like to see more of that.
The ban/pick system already exists in SC2. It's used on maps and maps have a trickle down effect on strategies, tactics, and as a result, unit compositions. What is the point of redundancy in adding the ban/pick system to units on top of maps? Just create a more interesting and diverse map pool and you will have the same result as a ban/pick system on units.
I hate this idea and think it's a terrible one. Units should have defined roles on a strategic level. When you add the ability to ban units, you are removing a role from a player's strategic and tactical palette and thus creating imbalance, not avoiding it. For example, Terran has pretty limited GtA options against light air. They basically have marines and that's it. That's why Marines are such good AA. Protoss has limited GtA options in general. They basically have stalkers and that's it. Each race has limited options for early harass / pressure. Take away those options and Zerg will drone and expand to 4 bases before the 7 minute mark.
The alternative is to add multiple units that fill the same role... and then I ask, what is the point of banning other than to make the game needlessly more complicated? It's not accomplishing anything at that point. The meta-game is already constantly shifting and continues to change based not on units, but on strategies which are map influenced.
And, how do you practice and how do you reward skill and practice with this system? Removing certainty from the game adds to the current reality that the most skilled player doesn't always win. Players already have enough to practice for, they don't need to have to practice multiple back-up strategies on top of practicing for different maps. Adding the ban/pick system just dilutes their focus in practice and trades solid, well trained play for a gimmicky ban/pick phase before games. All ban/pick does is give players more incentive to coin-flip with a few all-in strategies. I would much rather watch player A's best thought-out and rigorously practiced strategy vs. player B's best thought-out and rigorously practiced strategy and have in-game skill and execution determine the winner rather than watching a player deal with having to go to their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. option and showing a clear lack of polish with it. The bottom line is people want to watch and will come back for more high-level play. This option doesn't provide that.
On February 24 2013 13:31 darkmighty wrote: Edit: WindWolf, you obviously wouldnt be able to ban core units, which includes workers
But what counts as a core unit? You really need to allow all units to be picked/banned, otherwise people will start abusing strats with those core units to death.
I'd much rather see a NiP-Lemondogs agreement then pick-ban in Sc2
On February 24 2013 13:31 darkmighty wrote: Edit: WindWolf, you obviously wouldnt be able to ban core units, which includes workers
But what counts as a core unit? You really need to allow all units to be picked/banned, otherwise people will start abusing strats with those core units to death.
I'd much rather see a NiP-Lemondogs agreement then pick-ban in Sc2
Did you read OP's post entirely? He suggests a 'Core Unit' combination for each race.
What this does is control the amount of randomness in the game, adding some certainty and solid base, on top of some volatility and diversity (and fun!) from lots of units.
Obviously banning miners and early game staples (to avoid early game rushes) would be unsustainable (if allowed they would be aways banned), so it just makes sense also.
As I understand them, both OneGoal and Starbow are melee mods. They attempt to alter the gameplay of SC2 without scrapping it. This seems more akin to any of the monobattle mods with a drafting mode, except instead of 8 players you have 2 and instead of being limited to 1 unit you're limited to 4 (or something).
Best bet is getting your hands dirty and making your own UMS. Or play draft monobattles.
On February 24 2013 14:36 urashimakt wrote: As I understand them, both OneGoal and Starbow are melee mods. They attempt to alter the gameplay of SC2 without scrapping it. This seems more akin to any of the monobattle mods with a drafting mode, except instead of 8 players you have 2 and instead of being limited to 1 unit you're limited to 4 (or something).
Best bet is getting your hands dirty and making your own UMS. Or play draft monobattles.
Yup monobattles is similar, the reason i addressed the onegoal and starbow devs is because i think their mods have the most potential currently to have the same success DOTA did.
On February 24 2013 14:36 urashimakt wrote: As I understand them, both OneGoal and Starbow are melee mods. They attempt to alter the gameplay of SC2 without scrapping it. This seems more akin to any of the monobattle mods with a drafting mode, except instead of 8 players you have 2 and instead of being limited to 1 unit you're limited to 4 (or something).
Best bet is getting your hands dirty and making your own UMS. Or play draft monobattles.
Yup monobattles is similar, the reason i addressed the onegoal and starbow devs is because i think their mods have the most potential currently to have the same success DOTA did.
There already is a dota style mod btw. Forgot the name but TB did a couple videos on his channel about it. Edit found it, it is called star battle
i dunno if anyone has mentioned something like this but i think it'd be interesting to have a version of sc2 where you could choose from a whole bunch of units to fill limited slots in your production. IE, you have four slots at the factory, and you can choose four units from hellions, vultures, diamondbacks, goliaths, warhounds, seige tanks, thors, predators (lol), widow mine, etc etc. with pre-decided requirements like no matter what you choose, the thor will always require a tech lab and armory, the tank will always require a tech lab, and so on. would be trickier with zerg but i'm sure something could be worked out there. balancing that would probably be a nightmare but it'd certainly be interesting.
For there to be a ban phase, there needs to be different units that can fulfill the same duty, as in Dota where there are tons of options for the different kind of hero you need. You can't do this with this mods atm, because there aren't enough units in every tier to allow a fair ban phase. Also there would be problems in the mirror matchups.
You cannot ban units in an RTS like starcraft, the mere threat of a unit is integral to the entire metagame. For instance, you may say that voids are seldom used in PvT so you can remove thme without too much harm, except then Terrans will no doubt start with mass BC strats which just don't work because voids shut them down but BC's actually have no real protoss counter except the void ray. Stalkers actually don't cut it any more versus high BC numbers.
On February 24 2013 12:15 purakushi wrote: Both are supposed to be SC2 *melee* mods, not UMSs. Changing either of them to include picks/bans would completely defeat the purpose that players create/play it in the first place.
If you choose to make a UMS like that, please do go ahead. It would definitely not be considered SC2 melee, however.
Like I said if the devs dont agree this is in fitting with their vision of the game they are free to ignore it
I do however feel there are identifiable reasons DOTA became more popular than WC3 and that SC2 mods can learn from this.
Drafting was a late entry to the entire MOBA genre, so I'm not sure how you consider that an identifiable reason.
MOBA is also an entirely different genre, just created using the WC3 game engine. This would be akin to saying Unreal should become more like an MMORPG, because Lineage was built on the Unreal Engine.
FYI, the MOBA-like game was created using the Starcraft engine (Aeon of Strife), not WC3. Although it was the WC3 DotA that became the most popular. MOBA is a term that only LoL community uses. DotA is an RTS, we don't call it MOBA.
On February 24 2013 12:15 purakushi wrote: Both are supposed to be SC2 *melee* mods, not UMSs. Changing either of them to include picks/bans would completely defeat the purpose that players create/play it in the first place.
If you choose to make a UMS like that, please do go ahead. It would definitely not be considered SC2 melee, however.
Like I said if the devs dont agree this is in fitting with their vision of the game they are free to ignore it
I do however feel there are identifiable reasons DOTA became more popular than WC3 and that SC2 mods can learn from this.
Drafting was a late entry to the entire MOBA genre, so I'm not sure how you consider that an identifiable reason.
MOBA is also an entirely different genre, just created using the WC3 game engine. This would be akin to saying Unreal should become more like an MMORPG, because Lineage was built on the Unreal Engine.
FYI, the MOBA-like game was created using the Starcraft engine (Aeon of Strife), not WC3. Although it was the WC3 DotA that became the most popular. MOBA is a term that only LoL community uses. DotA is an RTS, we don't call it MOBA.
What?
I was not aware that this was such a touchy subject for people. Wikipedia calls it MOBA, game sites list the genre as MOBA, the entire internet generalizes the entire genre as MOBA...
Or is this just some DotA2>LoL thing that people are hung up on?
A lot of the arguments in this thread against the idea presented by the OP are pretty weak. That said there is an argument that stands out from the others which renders the OPs attempt to bolt this idea onto existing mods a serious problem.
In essence the OP is talking about giving players a suite of tools with which to create their own playable race. It's a design can of worms so huge that opening onto any existing project would result in a complete change of direction for that project. We even have a post by one of the mod makers in this thread pretty much saying just that.
If you follow my argument this far then the OP ends up being a variety of "Someone make this cool idea of mine into a game" thread. The standard responses should really apply.
a. I don't think it would work but you should go do it and prove me wrong. b. I think it's a a really interesting idea, you should go do it. c. This guy already did it go take a look and see what you think.
I don't think any other response is really worth your time Archerofaiur.
My own view, for what it's worth, is that it's an interesting idea and I think you should go do it. I think it's different enough from the description given of existing mods that it's worth investigating.
A simplish way of doing just that, investigating the idea, would be to bolt it onto team mono battles somehow.
a. You'd get to see the essence of the idea up and running pretty fast - If the essence of the idea is as I've defined it, race design in the game lobby - You just need to fiddle with the start of a mono battles UMS. b. You'd have a way of explaining the idea in a sentence - Team mono battles with a pick/ban mechanic - which makes it easier for people to accept/reject the idea, rather than tempting them to enter into one of those forever discussions about definitions of RTS and MOBA or some other waste of time. c. You'd place the idea in a fun, experimental place which, given how radical it is, is a good thing.
I'm just spit balling here but you could keep it monobattles ish and fun by keeping a random element, maybe a random round in amongst the bans and picks, you could also end up with a full new "race" by giving people 2 units to make instead of 1.
Hey, I have been working on a similar thing in the last weeks. But I don't base it of Starcraft and instead played around with the idea of creating my own RTS.
static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines).
So I think what Archer just outlined would be an RTS response to the MOBA rather than Starcraft proper. While you might not have resource collection in the same way or hell, even macro as we know it. Having a WCIII "elite squad" centric RTS could definitely be compatible with a picks-bans model. The advantage of this is two fold. One: the game is an open system content wise rather than closed. That alone is a huge economic boom. Primarly because the devs have a real incentive to respond quickly to user feed back and there is always something new and interesting going on. Would it be as mechanically demanding as SC2 or BW? I mean, does it really need to be? League has unseated SC2 and BW as the Esport of Korea and most of its skill is in decision making, rather than mastery over mechanics. I would be VERY interested in seeing a take on this concept.
On February 24 2013 22:20 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: So I think what Archer just outlined would be an RTS response to the MOBA rather than Starcraft proper. While you might not have resource collection in the same way or hell, even macro as we know it. Having a WCIII "elite squad" centric RTS could definitely be compatible with a picks-bans model. The advantage of this is two fold. One: the game is an open system content wise rather than closed. That alone is a huge economic boom. Primarly because the devs have a real incentive to respond quickly to user feed back and there is always something new and interesting going on. Would it be as mechanically demanding as SC2 or BW? I mean, does it really need to be? League has unseated SC2 and BW as the Esport of Korea and most of its skill is in decision making, rather than mastery over mechanics. I would be VERY interested in seeing a take on this concept.
Well said. To speak frankly I see some upcoming soul searching among the Starcraft community where we debate whether to choose open or closed content systems. There are advantages to closed content systems, many of them laid out in this thread already. However, it is hard to compete with a game that adds new content on a biweekly basis. I would perfer building "smart systems" that allow the devs and community to continually grow the game. SC1's map editor is a great example of this.
I feel this has particular relevance to the Starcraft Mod scene because new player attraction and retention are such an issue. If you could get a substantial proportion of the initial player base to return every 2 weeks for new content you would have a real chance growing your games fanbase. Likewise the wieght off of the developers shoulder by the community self-balancing frees them to work solely on the gameplay experience.
Now looking at videos such as your Patch 3 video you guys have allot of great ideas. I feel like the closed content system wastes allot of good ideas because these ideas all compete for content space. To be sure it results in a more refinded product. However, I also feel an evolutionary approach where units must compete with new units for the communities attention can produce a refined product.
On the subject of macro I dont think the Ban/Pick model is incompatible with a macro/economic game like starcraft. There is probably allot of design space to be explored (some of which was touched on in the WoL singleplayer).
Closed systems have the benefit of stability, predictability and the possibility of refinement.
Open systems obviously have the benefit of novelty and the excitement that often is derived from new, shine and different.
Competitve SC2 can only be competitive because it is a relatively closed, stable system. Whenever there are major patches, various portions of the community go up in arms because the new change has completely upset the previous equilibrium / state of metagame knowledge that forms the foundation of competition. If there was a major patch every couple of weeks, pro SC2 would be much much different from what it is now.
But as I've written elsewhere, it's largely the 'hardcore' gamers interested in mastery and ladder-warrior-ing that are impressed and excited by refined, elegant execution of strategy and tactics.
Casual-tryhards; casual-social gamers; and completely new gamers are far less interested or enraptured by such things. For this reason and a few others (chiefly, the terribleness of the 3v3 and 4v4 blizzard maps), it's just going to be true that SC2 will have difficulty retaining a new player base since its core gameplay (competitive 1v1) isn't that appealing. It's almost 'niche' in the big picture of possible gamers.
-> But it's chiefly this demographic that StarBow and OneGoal are also targeting.
An 'open-system RTS' the likes of which you propose I can imagine being appealing to the non-hardcore gamer. But it would not be anything like what SC2 currently is except insofar as it's in the SC2 client and probably going to reuse the models and sounds.
*****
OP writes of an 'evolutionary approach' to improving gameplay.
But to what end is it 'improving' on this model?
In WoL, the goal seems to clearly be something like 'create good gameplay in which the more skilled, more prepared player can win through his/her abilities.' Improvements and patch changes are judged in reference to that goal of a desired end-state of gameplay.
Also, community attention =/= 'good for balanced gameplay'. And indeed, as history has revealed time and time again, both the community and the proscene requires a great deal of time to fully (or even partially) grasp the actual significance of changes that have been made to the game through patches.
In what way would having monthly turnover and new content serve to help 'evolve' the game?
It would definitely 'refresh' or change-up the game. But aside from the buzz that novelty brings with it, do you really think that an RTS game can be 'improved' this way?
Unless of course your goal is only to create a continually-fresh, not-so-competitive RTS-like game in which adaptability, luck and insanity are more promptly featured than in SC2.
On February 25 2013 13:40 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote: Closed systems have the benefit of stability, predictability and the possibility of refinement.
Open systems obviously have the benefit of novelty and the excitement that often is derived from new, shine and different.
Competitve SC2 can only be competitive because it is a relatively closed, stable system. Whenever there are major patches, various portions of the community go up in arms because the new change has completely upset the previous equilibrium / state of metagame knowledge that forms the foundation of competition. If there was a major patch every couple of weeks, pro SC2 would be much much different from what it is now.
But as I've written elsewhere, it's largely the 'hardcore' gamers interested in mastery and ladder-warrior-ing that are impressed and excited by refined, elegant execution of strategy and tactics.
Casual-tryhards; casual-social gamers; and completely new gamers are far less interested or enraptured by such things. For this reason and a few others (chiefly, the terribleness of the 3v3 and 4v4 blizzard maps), it's just going to be true that SC2 will have difficulty retaining a new player base since its core gameplay (competitive 1v1) isn't that appealing. It's almost 'niche' in the big picture of possible gamers.
-> But it's chiefly this demographic that StarBow and OneGoal are also targeting.
An 'open-system RTS' the likes of which you propose I can imagine being appealing to the non-hardcore gamer. But it would not be anything like what SC2 currently is except insofar as it's in the SC2 client and probably going to reuse the models and sounds.
*****
OP writes of an 'evolutionary approach' to improving gameplay.
But to what end is it 'improving' on this model?
In WoL, the goal seems to clearly be something like 'create good gameplay in which the more skilled, more prepared player can win through his/her abilities.' Improvements and patch changes are judged in reference to that goal of a desired end-state of gameplay.
Also, community attention =/= 'good for balanced gameplay'. And indeed, as history has revealed time and time again, both the community and the proscene requires a great deal of time to fully (or even partially) grasp the actual significance of changes that have been made to the game through patches.
In what way would having monthly turnover and new content serve to help 'evolve' the game?
It would definitely 'refresh' or change-up the game. But aside from the buzz that novelty brings with it, do you really think that an RTS game can be 'improved' this way?
Unless of course your goal is only to create a continually-fresh, not-so-competitive RTS-like game in which adaptability, luck and insanity are more promptly featured than in SC2.
I think you are very right to talk about goals and endpoints. After all every system is perfectly designed to achieve the exact results it achieves (~Berwick). For me, OneGoal and Starbow could be the greatest freaking mods on the planet. But if no one plays them it does not matter. The problem we see time and time again with Starcraft mods is that new mods have trouble retaining and growing their player base. There is only one mod to my knowledge that has overtaken the game it is based on in popularity and that is DOTA. It did this in large part by providing a continuous influx of new content to keep players coming back.
Now you can resort to name calling or what ever "purist" ideology you want to subscribe to. "Those other guys are just casuals/losers/tryhards/social/xboxfanboys/whatever" "This is Starcraft, if you dont like it you can leave". But I believe that if Starcraft is losing fans to other RTS's/MOBA's then we are not doing the best job we could be. And no amount of denial can cover that up. We need to offer a fun and compelling Blizzard-worthy experience. A decade ago Blizzard pioneered video game design by continually updating their game through patches. In 2004 they did it again by continually adding content in the massively successful WOW. And so I ask you, if other game communities have learned from our successes, why cant we?
On February 25 2013 13:40 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote: Closed systems have the benefit of stability, predictability and the possibility of refinement.
Open systems obviously have the benefit of novelty and the excitement that often is derived from new, shine and different.
Competitve SC2 can only be competitive because it is a relatively closed, stable system. Whenever there are major patches, various portions of the community go up in arms because the new change has completely upset the previous equilibrium / state of metagame knowledge that forms the foundation of competition. If there was a major patch every couple of weeks, pro SC2 would be much much different from what it is now.
But as I've written elsewhere, it's largely the 'hardcore' gamers interested in mastery and ladder-warrior-ing that are impressed and excited by refined, elegant execution of strategy and tactics.
Casual-tryhards; casual-social gamers; and completely new gamers are far less interested or enraptured by such things. For this reason and a few others (chiefly, the terribleness of the 3v3 and 4v4 blizzard maps), it's just going to be true that SC2 will have difficulty retaining a new player base since its core gameplay (competitive 1v1) isn't that appealing. It's almost 'niche' in the big picture of possible gamers.
-> But it's chiefly this demographic that StarBow and OneGoal are also targeting.
An 'open-system RTS' the likes of which you propose I can imagine being appealing to the non-hardcore gamer. But it would not be anything like what SC2 currently is except insofar as it's in the SC2 client and probably going to reuse the models and sounds.
*****
OP writes of an 'evolutionary approach' to improving gameplay.
But to what end is it 'improving' on this model?
In WoL, the goal seems to clearly be something like 'create good gameplay in which the more skilled, more prepared player can win through his/her abilities.' Improvements and patch changes are judged in reference to that goal of a desired end-state of gameplay.
Also, community attention =/= 'good for balanced gameplay'. And indeed, as history has revealed time and time again, both the community and the proscene requires a great deal of time to fully (or even partially) grasp the actual significance of changes that have been made to the game through patches.
In what way would having monthly turnover and new content serve to help 'evolve' the game?
It would definitely 'refresh' or change-up the game. But aside from the buzz that novelty brings with it, do you really think that an RTS game can be 'improved' this way?
Unless of course your goal is only to create a continually-fresh, not-so-competitive RTS-like game in which adaptability, luck and insanity are more promptly featured than in SC2.
I think you are very right to talk about goals and endpoints. After all every system is perfectly designed to achieve the exact results it achieves (~Berwick). For me, OneGoal and Starbow could be the greatest freaking mods on the planet. But if no one plays them it does not matter. The problem we see time and time again with Starcraft mods is that new mods have trouble retaining and growing their player base. There is only one mod to my knowledge that has overtaken the game it is based on in popularity and that is DOTA. It did this in large part by providing a continuous influx of new content to keep players coming back.
Now you can resort to name calling or what ever "purist" ideology you want to subscribe to. "Those other guys are just casuals/losers/tryhards/social/xboxfanboys/whatever" "This is Starcraft, if you dont like it you can leave". But I believe that if Starcraft is losing fans to other RTS's/MOBA's then we are not doing the best job we could be. And no amount of denial can cover that up. We need to offer a fun and compelling Blizzard-worthy experience. A decade ago Blizzard pioneered video game design by continually updating their game through patches. In 2004 they did it again by continually adding content in the massively successful WOW. And so I ask you, if other game communities have learned from our successes, why cant we?
So out of couriosity: Why does it have to be Starcraft? I mean, yes it is an awesome RTS. But DotA was not Warcraft. Counterstrike was not Half Life.
I believe the way to refresh the RTS genre is to offer alternatives to Starcraft - not to improve the one game that holds up the flag anyways.
Or is this just some DotA2>LoL thing that people are hung up on?
Spot on. Therein lies the difference betwixt the twain.
</end crazy archaic english>
It's also probably because LoL, HoN, and Dota are all actually RTS games. It's not an economy-based RTS for sure, but it definitely is strategically oriented, and in real time...
Or is this just some DotA2>LoL thing that people are hung up on?
Spot on. Therein lies the difference betwixt the twain.
</end crazy archaic english>
It's also probably because LoL, HoN, and Dota are all actually RTS games. It's not an economy-based RTS for sure, but it definitely is strategically oriented, and in real time...
I tend to disagree. Though I have not seen a definition for RTS games, I believe that for an RTS there has to be some form of ingame unit creation/composition development with various choices. Else you don't have real time strategy but only combat tactics. Sure Mobas have character development but so do shooters with different weapon options. I'd say Mobas are close relatives to RTS games and there are a lot of overlapses - but they are lacking quite some factors that are commonly connected with RTS games.
agreed @ big j. You can't just say "well it's in real time and it has strategy, so it's an RTS!" because then any real time game, even racing, would be an RTS.
Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units. The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone. Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though.
On February 26 2013 01:00 Archerofaiur wrote: Now you can resort to name calling or what ever "purist" ideology you want to subscribe to. "Those other guys are just casuals/losers/tryhards/social/xboxfanboys/whatever" "This is Starcraft, if you dont like it you can leave". But I believe that if Starcraft is losing fans to other RTS's/MOBA's then we are not doing the best job we could be. And no amount of denial can cover that up.
It is not our job, nobody is paying us and we're not in charge. And some people, gasp, just want to play a game they like, not the most popular game. Who cares if LoL and Farmville are more popular than Starcraft? Would you have wanted Blizzard to make an FPS out of Starcraft in 2000 because cs was more popular? Yes, "F2P" games that are easy to pick up are probably the most succesful genre right now. But that doesn't mean that there can't be anything else anymore.
On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote: static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines).
This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air.
On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote: static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines).
This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air.
I think the real problem is that we need to design a balanced game with a set of units where all of them are interesting and none of them could be banned
On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote: static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines).
This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air.
He bans your Vikings, go Valkyrie instead.
How many bans are we talking? 3? wraiths vikings and valks
On February 26 2013 05:28 APPSCI wrote: I think the real problem is that we need to design a balanced game with a set of units where all of them are interesting and none of them could be banned
Yea that's one point of view, the one taken by Blizzard for WoL.
But it's an open question of how you bring constant exciting content and variety while still keeping the game "fair", or "balanced". One solution is the MOBA-style ban-pick system, because you take the responsibility of balancing from the devs ot the community (if you think something is OP, just ban it).
Admittedly, this would be hard to pull of due to a number of problems mentioned by others in this thread (for example, one player bans anti air and goes mass air), further complicated by the fact that Starcraft is asymmetric, because of three-race system.
Still, it might be something worth trying, and there are lots of variations on the idea which may lead to unexpected new solutions and maybe a very fun and balanced alternative to vanilla, with tons of new units.
And once you get it going, adding new units has very little effect on the overall balance. If it's OP, people will ban it, if it's undepowered, it simply won't be picked.
On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote: static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines).
This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air.
He bans your Vikings, go Valkyrie instead.
How many bans are we talking? 3? wraiths vikings and valks
...then you go Vessel with M&M on the ground, keeping him from getting a large air army too soon while you eventually get some BC's to clean up what Irradiate doesn't kill.
On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote: static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines).
This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air.
He bans your Vikings, go Valkyrie instead.
So, to be honest I (and I believe many others) don't like it if an opponent can influence your strategic choices. So what if, instead of banning and picking units the system would instead force you to choose from similar units. Example:
²if the Viking is chosen as Factory Walker, it can be built from the 3rd factory production slot. If it is chosen as Starport Air Fighter it can be build from the 1st Starport production slot.
I think this is more fun and still allows developers to add units easily to the game by adding units to categories or adding new categories=production slots in production buildings. Just food for thought.
I don't think that it's impossible to create an economy-based RTS game with bannable/draftable units and frequent turnover and novelty to attract players, casual or otherwise.
That actually does sound like an interesting idea with potential.
What I think is impossible is applying this gameplay model directly to SC2 as it is.
But then I don't believe that is what OP really intends either. The existing unit stats, abilities, roles and tech trees would have to completely redesigned and probably expanded in order for their to be sufficient stability in the game. In this theorizing, I'm uncertain just how much of SC2's other mechanics can be transferred over well.
It's likely that a great deal of the asymmetric balancing present in SC2 would have to be discarded in favour of a shared 'core' of basic units to which 'specialty' units get added through a drafting process.
I'm imaging that there would be a standardized worker for each race; a standard T1 all-purpose grunt unit and a standardized static defence tower that would have identical functionality to each other. Not sure if the 3 different macro mechanics would be balanced.
But depending on which race you selected, there would be a pool of N other units that you could pick where each race would have a different pool of units to pick from.
The ban/draft at the start of the game would select which speciality units could be available to the players to add to their 'core' armies. Unlike heroes/champions, the selected units would just be regular units buildable from production facilities and thus still requiring economic management and expansions.
However, the specialist units have to be relatively 'well-rounded' compared to the extreme-specialization that you find in WoL/HotS units. You can't simply transplant the units designed for a specific type of gameplay (SC2 standard) and expect them to work properly in other settings.
Because of asymmetric balance in WoL, races are balanced against each other through tweaking unit roles and strengths that affect the synergy of the race's collective ability. But in this new draft system where things are fluid, you'd just be balancing individual units against other units.
The pool of selectable 'speciality units' would be far larger than the current SC2 unit roster. There would be overlap and redundancy between units that had only slight variation between them. There couldn't be 'just one' AA combat ground unit for protoss as many have noted. Banning the stalker from current WoL gameplay just wouldn't work unless it was just one of several options that could fill roughly the same roles.
how about you don't ruin the legacy of starcraft by implementing a limiting factor. I remember first seeing starbow and being intrigued by it because it was a mix of broodwar and SC2, now I come back and see that it's being ruined because they want to make it like other games so it might have more viewers? I don't even know, it's a custom game for SC2 highly doubt changing it for the worse will make it better.
Actually, I'm curious what members of the sc community think of Starbow and Onegoal, as in "if you could send your own open letter or message, what would you say?"
Really, it's stated in the introduction in this OP the very reason you can't add a system like this to Starcraft (be it wol, hots, bw or starbow or any other RTS with 'concentrated coolness' - which rly means that units have strict roles and counter one another, be it soft or hard counters, along with having distinct factions/races on top of that). Bottom line - it works for a DotA game, or even Total Annihilation I asume, but not Starcraft.
Introducing new units all the time would make the game impossible to balance. You will come to a point when you have to see each original unit as one role to begin with, then you'd ban/pick nerfs and buffs. So each unit that shares a role would be very similar and that leaves no creativity to creating new units - it would instead be community-steered balancing.
I really hope Starbow doesn't take this direction. Community balancing can be done indirectly rather than with a direct system like this, with good designers at the stern. I hope Starbow makes a sucessor to BW in the end (I doubt hots will, but that's another discussion).
EDIT: Good luck with One Goal btw, it might evolve into something good!
Thus it is impossible to P/B abuseively, because terran has a solid core answer to any general threat. I'd imagine with this amount of unnits you would ban 2 and pick 3 (banpickpickbanpick), ending up with roughly the amount of units you have in HoTS.
For those of you who are not experienced with P/B systems, picking abusive comps is *really* hard because counterplay is easy. You inevitably get compromise compositions that force their user to innovate
On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote: Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units. The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone. Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though.
Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map.
On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote: Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units. The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone. Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though.
Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map.
Disagree, there might appear to be more interest in units but thats only because its less frequent, atleast amongst those who frequent the Melee map making portion of this forum, much excitement comes with new maps and new map pools. We know how much the map itself can effect the game and I do not think its a coincidence that starbow, sc2 BW, and Onegoal all manipulate the maps and economics in the same way. EDIT: i feel its only a matter of time before blizz realizes what it is each of these mods are doing and they make the appropriate changes(economics, army size, map spacing and size, area control, etc), it would probably require an expansion to change that portion of the game if blizz was the one to initiate that. If some premier league (it would probably have to be GSL, specifically) changed to something like LRB blizz would instantly follow suit though. It would be foolish to expect economic changes for swarm with its release so close.
On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote: Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units. The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone. Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though.
Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map.
Disagree, there might appear to be more interest in units but thats only because its less frequent, atleast amongst those who frequent the Melee map making portion of this forum, much excitement comes with new maps and new map pools. We know how much the map itself can effect the game and I do not think its a coincidence that starbow, sc2 BW, and Onegoal all manipulate the maps and economics in the same way. EDIT: i feel its only a matter of time before blizz realizes what it is each of these mods are doing and they make the appropriate changes(economics, army size, map spacing and size, area control, etc), it would probably require an expansion to change that portion of the game if blizz was the one to initiate that. If some premier league (it would probably have to be GSL, specifically) changed to something like LRB blizz would instantly follow suit though. It would be foolish to expect economic changes for swarm with its release so close.
Be honest, how excited were you when you saw the Swarm Host? More or less than when the most recent MLG map was unvealed? Do you really feel that was only because new units are less frequent than new maps?
On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote: Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units. The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone. Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though.
Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map.
Disagree, there might appear to be more interest in units but thats only because its less frequent, atleast amongst those who frequent the Melee map making portion of this forum, much excitement comes with new maps and new map pools. We know how much the map itself can effect the game and I do not think its a coincidence that starbow, sc2 BW, and Onegoal all manipulate the maps and economics in the same way. EDIT: i feel its only a matter of time before blizz realizes what it is each of these mods are doing and they make the appropriate changes(economics, army size, map spacing and size, area control, etc), it would probably require an expansion to change that portion of the game if blizz was the one to initiate that. If some premier league (it would probably have to be GSL, specifically) changed to something like LRB blizz would instantly follow suit though. It would be foolish to expect economic changes for swarm with its release so close.
Be honest, how excited were you when you saw the Swarm Host? More or less than when the most recent MLG map was unvealed? Do you really feel that was only because new units are less frequent than new maps?
In particular i was crushed when i saw the swarm host, cool its another siege unit but its not the lurker. The lurker didnt just look cooler, sound cooler, make hydras more relevant, etc. It performed a very specific function that the swarm host does not. BUT - I was intrigued with the dark templar in BW, and of course the lurker (even before i realized how crucial it is). I was intrigued with the oracle at first but not anymore. I was intrigued with the MSC at first, but not anymore. I preferred the Spider mine to the widow mine but i am overall pleased with it. I dreaded the war hound, i am actually happy i got a beta invite the day after it was removed. I am disappointed in the hellbat, hurray a meat shield but its too shooty and not enough meaty, its still a relatively bad meat shield. In recent history (WoW and the Death Knight, I actually played one of these monstrosities upon WOTLK launch and quit because of what i had become) blizzard has not been good at adding new things into something that needs to remain balanced. But honestly i am much more excited by map changes being embraced that lead the game towards the sort of game I would prefer.
On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote: Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units. The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone. Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though.
Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map.
Disagree, there might appear to be more interest in units but thats only because its less frequent, atleast amongst those who frequent the Melee map making portion of this forum, much excitement comes with new maps and new map pools. We know how much the map itself can effect the game and I do not think its a coincidence that starbow, sc2 BW, and Onegoal all manipulate the maps and economics in the same way. EDIT: i feel its only a matter of time before blizz realizes what it is each of these mods are doing and they make the appropriate changes(economics, army size, map spacing and size, area control, etc), it would probably require an expansion to change that portion of the game if blizz was the one to initiate that. If some premier league (it would probably have to be GSL, specifically) changed to something like LRB blizz would instantly follow suit though. It would be foolish to expect economic changes for swarm with its release so close.
Be honest, how excited were you when you saw the Swarm Host? More or less than when the most recent MLG map was unvealed? Do you really feel that was only because new units are less frequent than new maps?
In particular i was crushed when i saw the swarm host, cool its another siege unit but its not the lurker. The lurker didnt just look cooler, sound cooler, make hydras more relevant, etc. It performed a very specific function that the swarm host does not. BUT - I was intrigued with the dark templar in BW, and of course the lurker (even before i realized how crucial it is). I was intrigued with the oracle at first but not anymore. I was intrigued with the MSC at first, but not anymore. I preferred the Spider mine to the widow mine but i am overall pleased with it. I dreaded the war hound, i am actually happy i got a beta invite the day after it was removed. I am disappointed in the hellbat, hurray a meat shield but its too shooty and not enough meaty, its still a relatively bad meat shield. In recent history (WoW and the Death Knight, I actually played one of these monstrosities upon WOTLK launch and quit before of what i had become) blizzard has not been good at adding new things into something that needs to remain balanced. But honestly i am much more excited by map changes being embraced that lead the game towards the sort of game I would prefer.
Wouldnt it be great if you could just take those units you like into battle with you
In a game perfectly balanced with interesting game play, sure. In a game with a large pool of players for match matching and an ever increasing skill cap. In a game where a pro scene exists to 'idolize'. Sure. But having the option to pick and ban does not aid this, you either make units so unique you can't ban most if not all of them or you homogenize them to the point of un-uniqueness and Blizzard decided in development to go with uniqueness. Honestly the ban portion of DotA is a work around for having imbalances that take time to patch properly, it stuck because no one really disagrees with that idea. I hope one Dota-day that every pro game has nearly unique picks and bans, no tier list, every hero is just as potentially potent as the next.
On February 26 2013 09:38 Unsane wrote: In a game perfectly balanced with interesting game play, sure. In a game with a large pool of players for match matching and an ever increasing skill cap. In a game where a pro scene exists to 'idolize'. Sure. But having the option to pick and ban does not aid this, you either make units so unique you can't ban most if not all of them or you homogenize them to the point of un-uniqueness and Blizzard decided in development to go with uniqueness. Honestly the ban portion of DotA is a work around for having imbalances that take time to patch properly, it stuck because no one really disagrees with that idea. I hope one Dota-day that every pro game has nearly unique picks and bans, no tier list, every hero is just as potentially potent as the next.
Not really. Imagine you couldn't pick races in Starcraft but instead had to do it the way the OP suggests. You play against an opponent who bans Zerg and you ban Terran. Does this make the game imbalanced? Does this mean that all your choices - Zerg, Terran, Protoss - are not unique to begin with? Not at all! It just forces you to play TvP, TvZ, PvP or PvZ.
The same applies to units in a matchup: If your Protoss opponent bans vultures and siege tanks early on (implying a BW like Mech balance in PvT) - time to play MMMVG. Of course you need a good balance for this to work and there should be certain "unbanable" and/or "autopicked" units. Baning Zerglings would be kind of stupid when the opponent can go two rax...
However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft. For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...). But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead.
On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote: However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft. For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...). But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead.
On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote: However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft. For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...). But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead.
Could go Medic
Or all in, no need to be able to go macro everygame. Also when your opponent bans roaches and you don't ban zealots you can fight it with baneling bust, queen spine defense while going 2base tech, or any other than the standard 3base hatch before gas, the whole point of this mod is that you don't play the same game every time.
On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote: However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft. For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...). But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead.
Could go Medic
OP's suggestion may seems silly: you probably are just trading redundant units, and to balance such a system to work it seems you may need many redundant units for every role (ie valkyrie, wraith and viking), and that eliminates the diversity we wanted to begin with.
However, this scheme can work exactly that way. Adding more redundancy becomes not a problem as it seems, but a balance point. In other words, this system has the potential to scale with the number of units. The more options you have for both players, the easier it is to have a balanced option.
Again, in this case the natural asymmetry of the game is a problem. Keeping a distinct style for each race is a problem. But perhaps it's not insurmountable.
On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote: However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft. For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...). But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead.
Could go Medic
Or all in, no need to be able to go macro everygame. Also when your opponent bans roaches and you don't ban zealots you can fight it with baneling bust, queen spine defense while going 2base tech, or any other than the standard 3base hatch before gas, the whole point of this mod is that you don't play the same game every time.
Well, I totally agree with this. But it should not be the opponent who can dictate how you have to play by banning your units. The whole thing would work as well (in a more enjoyable way), if you remove the ban part and just make a restriced choice system instead. Like 4 basic units and then you choose another 5 units. It's up to you what you play and what you discard. But it's not the opponent who forces you to play 30min games all the time because he removed most forms of aggression.
In a game perfectly balanced with interesting game play, sure. In a game with a large pool of players for match matching and an ever increasing skill cap. In a game where a pro scene exists to 'idolize'. Sure. But having the option to pick and ban does not aid this, you either make units so unique you can't ban most if not all of them or you homogenize them to the point of un-uniqueness and Blizzard decided in development to go with uniqueness. Honestly the ban portion of DotA is a work around for having imbalances that take time to patch properly, it stuck because no one really disagrees with that idea. I hope one Dota-day that every pro game has nearly unique picks and bans, no tier list, every hero is just as potentially potent as the next.
Not really. Imagine you couldn't pick races in Starcraft but instead had to do it the way the OP suggests. You play against an opponent who bans Zerg and you ban Terran. Does this make the game imbalanced? Does this mean that all your choices - Zerg, Terran, Protoss - are not unique to begin with? Not at all! It just forces you to play TvP, TvZ, PvP or PvZ.
Professional video games is essentially fueled by a large bank saying "Im going to host an event with a large prize pool to attract talent and an interesting venue that's going to cost $X, but make more than X through tickets and streams". This will attract the best players, and because the skill cap is so very high we have players who are extremely 'specialized' at playing each race. Having to learn all three races because your opponent can ban your best would reduce not only the skill cap, but enjoyment of watching and playing the game. -"O MvP is about to play, best terran player in the world! looks like he WONT be playing terran cause his opponent will ban it". What a terrible idea.
Again, the idea behind banning was to give chance to remove something that players find broken in a variable pool of over 100? heroes with 4 abilities, multiple base stats and scaling stats and another 100 items for 6 inventory slots? With 5 heroes per team? One person originally was trying to balance and create this...mess...all by himself at the same time and was doing a spectacular job. The ban option was just a "o woops that'll be fixed next patch" option that no one didn't like because bans were only in certain modes.
In a game perfectly balanced with interesting game play, sure. In a game with a large pool of players for match matching and an ever increasing skill cap. In a game where a pro scene exists to 'idolize'. Sure. But having the option to pick and ban does not aid this, you either make units so unique you can't ban most if not all of them or you homogenize them to the point of un-uniqueness and Blizzard decided in development to go with uniqueness. Honestly the ban portion of DotA is a work around for having imbalances that take time to patch properly, it stuck because no one really disagrees with that idea. I hope one Dota-day that every pro game has nearly unique picks and bans, no tier list, every hero is just as potentially potent as the next.
Not really. Imagine you couldn't pick races in Starcraft but instead had to do it the way the OP suggests. You play against an opponent who bans Zerg and you ban Terran. Does this make the game imbalanced? Does this mean that all your choices - Zerg, Terran, Protoss - are not unique to begin with? Not at all! It just forces you to play TvP, TvZ, PvP or PvZ.
Professional video games is essentially fueled by a large bank saying "Im going to host an event with a large prize pool to attract talent and an interesting venue that's going to cost $X, but make more than X through tickets and streams". This will attract the best players, and because the skill cap is so very high we have players who are extremely 'specialized' at playing each race. Having to learn all three races because your opponent can ban your best would reduce not only the skill cap, but enjoyment of watching and playing the game. -"O MvP is about to play, best terran player in the world! looks like he WONT be playing terran cause his opponent will ban it". What a terrible idea.
Again, the idea behind banning was to give chance to remove something that players find broken in a variable pool of over 100? heroes with 4 abilities, multiple base stats and scaling stats and another 100 items for 6 inventory slots? With 5 heroes per team? One person originally was trying to balance and create this...mess...all by himself at the same time and was doing a spectacular job. The ban option was just a "o woops that'll be fixed next patch" option that no one didn't like because bans were only in certain modes.
One: It was meant as an example of why this does not necessarily lead to imbalances. An Example. And not whether it makes for a better game. Two: In said game, Mvp would have never been a "Terran player" to begin with. Noone would know. Noone would care. Three: The level of gameplay in Starcraft2 right now is higher than it ever was. Still "suboptimal" play in 2011 didn't prevent people from watching. Indeed, many people even prefer watching sloppy games these days. Four: I don't care what "the idea behind" something was in some context. If it could work in another context - try it!
On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote: However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft. For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...). But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead.
Could go Medic
Or all in, no need to be able to go macro everygame. Also when your opponent bans roaches and you don't ban zealots you can fight it with baneling bust, queen spine defense while going 2base tech, or any other than the standard 3base hatch before gas, the whole point of this mod is that you don't play the same game every time.
Well, I totally agree with this. But it should not be the opponent who can dictate how you have to play by banning your units. The whole thing would work as well (in a more enjoyable way), if you remove the ban part and just make a restriced choice system instead. Like 4 basic units and then you choose another 5 units. It's up to you what you play and what you discard. But it's not the opponent who forces you to play 30min games all the time because he removed most forms of aggression.
Hmm, I think it would be cool to have many similar options for each tier that is based on style and maybe a timing push you want to do, but these choices are revealed to the opponent so you can't choose an imba composition for a timing without the opponent knowing about the possibility of it. I am not sure about this idea since it will make it pretty hard to learn all the options, but as long as they are not too different from each other I think it should be alright.
For example: give the Stalker these options: -normal blink -blink with higher range but longer cooldown -blink with shorter range but smaller cooldown -more damage (with the upgrade researched) but blink is worse in a way -research for much more damage but no blink
This gives the player a way to customize their unit while not breaking the early game or making it too difficult for the players since the stalker is about the same in every situation, only there are small differences, also in this specific situation the stalker will be the same as normal until it gets the upgrade, also a bonus.
You don't have to create a whole new game with a shit load of new units, you simply need to take this game and give options (although creating a new game where each unit has an upgrade would be good since this way you can limit the changes to be after an upgrade is researched). Personally I would really like this simple mode, instead of a whole new game which should be hard to learn since everything is new, I already know this game but I wish some things were different based on my style - exactly this game!
In a game perfectly balanced with interesting game play, sure. In a game with a large pool of players for match matching and an ever increasing skill cap. In a game where a pro scene exists to 'idolize'. Sure. But having the option to pick and ban does not aid this, you either make units so unique you can't ban most if not all of them or you homogenize them to the point of un-uniqueness and Blizzard decided in development to go with uniqueness. Honestly the ban portion of DotA is a work around for having imbalances that take time to patch properly, it stuck because no one really disagrees with that idea. I hope one Dota-day that every pro game has nearly unique picks and bans, no tier list, every hero is just as potentially potent as the next.
Not really. Imagine you couldn't pick races in Starcraft but instead had to do it the way the OP suggests. You play against an opponent who bans Zerg and you ban Terran. Does this make the game imbalanced? Does this mean that all your choices - Zerg, Terran, Protoss - are not unique to begin with? Not at all! It just forces you to play TvP, TvZ, PvP or PvZ.
Professional video games is essentially fueled by a large bank saying "Im going to host an event with a large prize pool to attract talent and an interesting venue that's going to cost $X, but make more than X through tickets and streams". This will attract the best players, and because the skill cap is so very high we have players who are extremely 'specialized' at playing each race. Having to learn all three races because your opponent can ban your best would reduce not only the skill cap, but enjoyment of watching and playing the game. -"O MvP is about to play, best terran player in the world! looks like he WONT be playing terran cause his opponent will ban it". What a terrible idea.
Again, the idea behind banning was to give chance to remove something that players find broken in a variable pool of over 100? heroes with 4 abilities, multiple base stats and scaling stats and another 100 items for 6 inventory slots? With 5 heroes per team? One person originally was trying to balance and create this...mess...all by himself at the same time and was doing a spectacular job. The ban option was just a "o woops that'll be fixed next patch" option that no one didn't like because bans were only in certain modes.
One: It was meant as an example of why this does not necessarily lead to imbalances. An Example. And not whether it makes for a better game. Two: In said game, Mvp would have never been a "Terran player" to begin with. Noone would know. Noone would care. Three: The level of gameplay in Starcraft2 right now is higher than it ever was. Still "suboptimal" play in 2011 didn't prevent people from watching. Indeed, many people even prefer watching sloppy games these days. Four: I don't care what "the idea behind" something was in some context. If it could work in another context - try it!
Ok, well Im not only addressing you when I say what a terrible idea this is. I already said it, I'll say it again. Blizzard wants their units to be unique. They don't just perform certain tasks, they perform certain roles and the way the match ups work is based on these roles. Blizzard put specific emphasis on trying to spread out the roles so each unit is fielded almost every game. I don't feel like finding Dustin Browder's big presentation of how to make an e-sport, not a video or computer game. Remember SC2 is attempting to be an e-sport.
Every unit could find use each game in all match ups and I would say most units are built every game, except for perhaps one tier 2 or tier 3 unit, per side, each game. Blizzard has done a very good job of it. Even the gimmicky Reaper and Void Ray are having this issue addressed in HOTS.
On February 27 2013 10:19 Unsane wrote: Every unit could find use each game in all match ups and I would say most units are built every game, except for perhaps one tier 2 or tier 3 unit, per side, each game. Blizzard has done a very good job of it. Even the gimmicky Reaper and Void Ray are having this issue addressed in HOTS.
Yeah, blizzard has surely done a good job. The question which arises: How much more possibilities for unique designs are there, when we haven't hit the border yet? Even more: how different do units really have to be? Couldn't the lurker work out better in certain playstyles than the baneling? Wouldn't those unique playstyles justify giving people the option to choose lurkers instead of banelings, before the game?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4j81o.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UKngN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/article/887/887395/united_earth_tech_tree.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rqbhh.jpg)
