|
Balance-wise, Starcraft 2 is chugging along well enough through the beta testing. However, there's a parallel objective which I'm concerned with, and that's the game flow. What I mean by this is the sort of gameplay you usually see in the different matchups: for instance, in BW PvZ, you usually see zerglings vs. zealots + cannons at the early stages of the game, followed by a zealot + archon push vs. zerg simcity, then muta or lurker harass, dragoons + psi storm added to the protoss, then ultras + defilers for zerg, etc. In ZvZ, the game flow is very different: zerglings into mutas for both sides, the end.
I know some people like BW ZvZ just like it is, but from a viewer point of view, I couldn't be bothered to watch a ZvZ even if it happened to be the OSL / MSL finals; the game is utterly predictable in broad terms (although there are differences in build orders, number of lings, use of spore / sunken colonies, etc), and once you've seen ten ZvZ games, you've pretty much seen them all (unless you play ZvZ and therefore care for the slight variations in the games).
But enough about BW- there are game flow issues in SC2 to address:
Marauders
The issue with Marauders is easiest to see in Demuslim's games (watch his series against Ret in the SC2B TLI for a good example of this), because he's had plenty of practice with this 'feature' as a Warcraft 3 player. The issue is, in a nutshell, stimmed Marauders. They have:
- Long attack range
- Fast movement speed
- An attack with a movement speed snare
If you know something about the Warcraft 3 scene, then you should know there's a unit there the Marauder resembles- the Dryad. Since stimmed marauders have more movement speed and attack range than some of their opponents (e.g. zealots, roaches), the ideal strategy is to kite these units until they die. In fact, proper use of marauders in most situations means constant fire-and-move action. This is not a balance problem as much as a game flow problem: dryads are a fine unit in Warcraft 3, but not in Starcraft 2. The starcraft series should be all about big, climactic battles, not constant hit-and-run-´till-caught action (like dryads ensnared by raiders in War3, or marauders surrounded by zerglings / zealots + force fields in SC2).
Proposed fix: Make the marauders' attack root them in place for a longer time before allowing movement again. This delay should be at least as long as the marauders' attack cooldown, to make in-combat movement cost them in terms of damage output; if there's a tradeoff between movement and damage, moving your marauders in combat becomes a tactical choice, rather than just a mindless micro trick.
The ZvZ matchup
Let's face it, Blizzard wanted ZvZ in SC2 to be more diverse than in BW and they failed. This is why:
a) ZvZ is a mirror matchup. This means there's a good chance that both players will choose the same strategy, maybe with some BO variations.
b) Defender's advantage is small in ZvZ, meaning you have to keep up with your opponent in terms of unit production or lose.
c) Zerg has a bigger tradeoff between army and economy. Sure, there's always a tradeoff between army and economy, for any race, but with Zerg, you have fewer restrictions in how much you spend in army vs. how much you spend in economy; this is a BAD thing. In practice, after a certain point in time, the optimal course of action is to spend 100% of your income in army, and nothing in economy / tech. This leads to the familiar outcome of massing one or two types.
Proposed fix: In ZvZ, players will always go for the biggest army they can get- the only way to get players to advance in tech/economy, is to make Zerg less flexible with how to spend their resources- take some of their options away, and force them to invest some resources in economy / tech. To do this, I would:
i. Nerf larvae generation. To make sure players can't spend all their minerals in roaches, you need to make a hatchery + queen setup be unable to spend the mineral income of 1 base in roaches. In other words: if a saturated base produces X minerals in 1 minute, make a hatchery + queen setup give you enough larvae to spend 80% of those minerals in roaches. This way, even if a Zerg player wants to make more roaches, he can't (without a big investment like an in-base hatch), and therefore has to spend his remaining minerals on something else. Note that this would also work for more than 1 base; with a fully-saturated expansion, you'd have double the larvae and double the mineral intake, thus still getting an excedent of minerals to spend on economy/tech.
ii. Make drones be produced by a hatchery, like Queens. Yes, it sucks, I know. Zerg units morphing from larvae has been a Zerg staple for over a decade now. And yet, when Blizzard wanted to make sure Zerg players built Queens in SC2, they made the queen not share this valuable resource - the larvae - with the rest of the zerg units, completely bypassing this limitation.
Void Rays
This one's simple: The void ray is good at killing buildings, bad at killing units that fight back. In fact... it is too good at killing buildings, and too bad at killing units that fight back. Void rays will either instantly end a match against an unsuspecting zerg player without adequate anti-air, or generally suck and try to hunt overlords in order to not be completely useless. It would be nice to see this unit not be so binary in its effectiveness- making it weaker at taking out buildings, and stronger at fighting other units.
Proposed fix: Reduce damage ramp-up time, reduce bonus damage vs. armored units.
A final consideration
You'll notice that prominently among my suggestions are a nerf to the Marauder and a nerf to Zerg larva generation. No, I am not a disgruntled Protoss player out to nerf Marauders and the Zerg race due to some perceived imbalance. I'd like to change up the gameplay of properly-used marauders, as well as change the gameplay of the ZvZ matchup. If these changes were to be adopted by Blizzard and ended up making the Protoss race overpowered in some matchup, I'm sure Blizzard would either nerf Protoss or buff Terrans/Zergs to compensate for these nerfs. I don't make suggestions for these balance considerations because, as I said at the start of this post, I'm addressing the flow of the game, not its balance, in this thread.
How do you feel about these changes? Are there other aspects of Starcraft 2's gameplay that don't feel right / you'd like to change? Would you address the problems I outlined in a different way, or feel they aren't even problems to begin with?
|
Thought currently ZvZ feels like a 'failure,' I think we should all give it a little more time before we deem something dead in the water.
There is still plenty of time for all of the matchups and units to grow.
|
Remember, PvP used to be a 'failure' too just 2 patches ago.
Though I don't play zerg, I think that a small tweak to unit stats or building times will be able to solve the problem of lings = gg =)
|
The statement "The starcraft series should be all about big, climactic battles, not constant hit-and-run-´till-caught action." implies a bias opinion in which tells what you WANT in SC2.
I don't want SC2 to be about huge climactic battles in which there is little micro. Just because people are getting good at using Marauders doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the game. Of course Zealots without charge cant catch up, but shouldn't P have something else to counter instead of pure zealots? I like the movement snare, as it is something completely new to the Starcraft series.
so therefore I think if changes need to be made, it shouldnt be to marauder snare or speed.
|
United States5162 Posts
'The starcraft series should be all about big, climactic battles, not constant hit-and-run-´till-caught action'
I think this actually the opposite of what a lot of players want. From what I've read(have been lurking since the beta release) a lot of player really don't like the 'mass up an army and attack-move ftw'. I personally think these little things are what make Starcraft so exciting. Seeing huge blobs of units collide is cool the first couple of times, but I think the real entertainment is in the harassment and micromanagement players are able to perform.
|
United States12240 Posts
Your perception of huge, climactic battles as being the core of Starcraft is contrary to what innovative players like GARIMTO, Boxer, and Nal_rA stand for. Those players are known for exploiting micro-intensive procedures and strategies in order to maximize the cost-effectiveness of certain units so they can compete with players who may outmacro them. By relegating battles to what you've described, you further alienate micro-oriented players and further emphasize macro in a game that is arguably already heavily macro-based. Marauder micro isn't necessarily difficult, but it's a double-edged sword in that it costs you APM that you could otherwise spend at your base producing additional units. That type of micro is akin to speed Vulture micro or flyer micro in BW: a critical yet optional method that widens the skill gap between players. Those are exactly the kinds of things that we should be embracing in SC2.
|
I'm not a fan of "this is what we need to do posts" mainly because the patches change things so quickly. Although I do commend you for at least explaining you're ideas and showing that you have thought of them some and not just spent 5 seconds making a post.
I disagree with the huge battles part. I like the hit and run stuff. It makes it exciting and not just a 'build huge army and move out' kind of thing.
As for your other changes, I really don't feel like I know enough about to game to comment on them. Sorry. 
|
You'll notice that prominently among my suggestions are a nerf to the Marauder and a nerf to Zerg larva generation
You can't solve the ZvZ by nerfing larva generation. It will just create more imbalance in all other match up.
|
On March 31 2010 02:55 larjarse wrote:
The statement "The starcraft series should be all about big, climactic battles, not constant hit-and-run-´till-caught action." implies a bias opinion in which tells what you WANT in SC2.
.
There is room for both harassment and big battles in Starcraft. However, you can tell which units are meant for harassment (e.g. Hellions, Reapers, DTs) and which are meant for fighting it out (e.g. tanks, immortals). Some units are somewhere in between (Stalkers), but with the Marauder being the core unit of the Terran ground army, the fact that the optimal way to fight with it is to hit-and-run, makes the optimal rules of engagement for the Terran army to be hit and run. Guerrilla warfare is fine, I just don't think it should be such a core part of using the Marauder unit.
|
I do not want to see drones built at the hatchery. Larvae management is one of the most interesting parts of playing zerg.
|
Your idea to balance marauders is pretty terrible in my opinion. Marauders cost gas which zealots don't, and also require a tech lab. Protoss can use stalkers which are ranged, and walk faster than marauders. Once in the later game, Zealots get charge which dominates. I don't see how marauders are a problem at all.
|
Ret attack moved w/ his ling instead of surrounding then attacking. Bad example. Very bad. Ret isn't a bad player, but he played bad in those games. Marauder micro is one of the few things that really stands out as fun for me. I like seeing my apm sit at 300 during fights when i'm macroing and microing my marauder army. It's deffinately a lot more intense than most unit battles. I like it the way it is and it's deffinately not unbeatable.
|
I like to keep things short and simple.
SC2 gameflow is faster paced at certain detriment to gameplay. There were more upgrades and tech buildings in SC1, which made tech slower, but also made many smaller, individual timing windows that over the life over SC1 made a lot of variety(and thus complexity).
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
On March 31 2010 02:48 Zato-1 wrote:
ii. Make drones be produced by a hatchery, like Queens. Yes, it sucks, I know. Zerg units morphing from larvae has been a Zerg staple for over a decade now. And yet, when Blizzard wanted to make sure Zerg players built Queens in SC2, they made the queen not share this valuable resource - the larvae - with the rest of the zerg units, completely bypassing this limitation.
Horrible idea. You would devolutionize Zerg play, tearing the fabric of their economy resulting in rippling shockwaves throughout all gameplay matchups. You are like a crazy doctor suggesting a patient suffering from minor chest pains undergo a full torso transplant.
|
Starcraft had tons of hit-and-run AND huge battles.
The void ray shouldn't change, it's good where it is (mostly harass, but occasional support, like the reaver).
Marauders - I kind of agree with you, but we'll see.
|
Agree with absolutely everything, but the proposed fix to ZvZ isn't good and would make Z basically suck.
Also, increase building time for Immortals. They are just too strong, too early in the game.
Z needs a true tier 1 anti-air, Queens simply aren't cutting it.
|
On March 31 2010 02:48 Zato-1 wrote:
i. Nerf larvae generation. To make sure players can't spend all their minerals in roaches, you need to make a hatchery + queen setup be unable to spend the mineral income of 1 base in roaches. In other words: if a saturated base produces X minerals in 1 minute, make a hatchery + queen setup give you enough larvae to spend 80% of those minerals in roaches. This way, even if a Zerg player wants to make more roaches, he can't (without a big investment like an in-base hatch), and therefore has to spend his remaining minerals on something else. Note that this would also work for more than 1 base; with a fully-saturated expansion, you'd have double the larvae and double the mineral intake, thus still getting an excedent of minerals to spend on economy/tech.
ii. Make drones be produced by a hatchery, like Queens. Yes, it sucks, I know. Zerg units morphing from larvae has been a Zerg staple for over a decade now. And yet, when Blizzard wanted to make sure Zerg players built Queens in SC2, they made the queen not share this valuable resource - the larvae - with the rest of the zerg units, completely bypassing this limitation.
I totally disagree on these two points.
First of all: what do you means that a player should not use all the mineals on roahces?? it is his own choice how to spend is own minerals..
Secondly the larva production is the key feature of the zerg..how could you remove ti from drones? it does not makes much sense to me
|
On March 31 2010 03:17 zerglingsfolife wrote:
Your idea to balance marauders is pretty terrible in my opinion. Marauders cost gas which zealots don't, and also require a tech lab. Protoss can use stalkers which are ranged, and walk faster than marauders. Once in the later game, Zealots get charge which dominates. I don't see how marauders are a problem at all.
FYI, stimmed marauders can kite zealots with and without Charge. If the Terran is microing his marauders correctly, the only way the zealots are going to stay in melee with the marauders is if you surround them or sandwich them against a wall/force field.
|
Hit and move? Sorry if I'm wrong but most ranged units in BW had this tactic as well, goons, hydras, etc, and also adds an extra level to marauder micro. Sending marauders straight into a roach line will end in failure but microing backwards picking off a few roaches before they reach you may turn the tide of battle. This is an excellent example of a little micro helping winning battles and tips the scales in possible apm sinks allowing for more micro oriented play. Marauders are fine, leave them, there are more pressing issues at hand; like for instance, high ground mechanic.
|
On March 31 2010 03:18 starcraft911 wrote:
Ret attack moved w/ his ling instead of surrounding then attacking. Bad example. Very bad. Ret isn't a bad player, but he played bad in those games. Marauder micro is one of the few things that really stands out as fun for me. I like seeing my apm sit at 300 during fights when i'm macroing and microing my marauder army. It's deffinately a lot more intense than most unit battles. I like it the way it is and it's deffinately not unbeatable.
*sigh* Way to miss the point. I do NOT want to nerf marauders, drones, void rays or brood lords for that matter. I want to change marauder movement in battle from a micro trick which guarantees improved performance, to a tactical choice with a tradeoff. If you want to triple marauder damage in exchange for this, I don't care- this thread is not about balance. That particular point, in fact, is about changing the way the Terran ground army fights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
