[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 47

On April 18 2011 11:11 Ribbon wrote:


A even better question would be either

1. Why did PvP have it?
2. If it didn't, why was PvP still good?

On April 18 2011 11:11 Ribbon wrote:


A even better question would be either

1. Why did PvP have it?
2. If it didn't, why was PvP still good?

On April 18 2011 11:29 viletomato wrote:



You know that is what I thought before, but I believe that just won't cut it. There is something deeper than just units and tweaking. Things like moving shot, defenders advantage, zerg econ being supersaturated (stuff that Lalush said) and of course clumping... these are game design elements that probably won't ever be changed.

Though a unit like a lurker would help, but it just doesn't work well in a SC2 universe with units like mauraders that can just stim take damage and walk as in as nothing was there. In BW Lurkers would stop you dead in your tracks if you didn't have good enough micro because they obliterated marines like no tomorrow.

and discovery,...its been said a billion times no amount of discovery would change these core design flaws.

On April 16 2011 10:29 viletomato wrote:
Oh i wish you had written this up and sent it to Blizzard 2 years ago.

They could've made sc2 into a true successor. It baffles me now blizzard missed out what made BW great. They have been spending so much time on this game how could they have missed these elements? Is Dustin just that stupid or did they consciously make the decision to dumb down SC2 for a wider audience?

SC2 is fun, but not that fun, there is definitely a lot missing from it.

On April 18 2011 09:57 LaLuSh wrote:
I personally don't think the development team at Blizzard had enough insight and realisation of which subtle mechanics it was that made BW into such a great esports game.

I said it in my moving shot thread in the beta, and I'll repeat it now: BW hasn't been patched for balance since 2001 (!). Just imagine all the revolutions of gameplay that took place during that vast time period. Sure there were periods of minor "imbalances". But somehow they would always work themselves out without intervention from Blizzard.

I'm absolutely certain in my belief that Blizzard's balancing team aren't the ones to thank for Broodwar's perfect balance. Nor was it a fluke that Broodwar turned out to balance itself. The game design of Broodwar simply allowed for such immense freedom within the game that the limits of human performance quite literally became one of the most important balance factors.

All the things the OP discusses were things that worked together in making the game HARD AS HELL to play. In making human performance a factor of balance. Being offensive took immense effort. Defending required all your powers. Whatever you did within the game -- it wasn't perfect. There was so much room for control that execution could always be improved upon.


Already from the moment that we were getting the first sneak peaks of SC2, I was worried Blizzard game designers would not realize how much a well designed engine and perfect control of one's units meant for Broodwar as a game and potentially for the future gameplay of SC2. I was honestly of the belief that someone who didn't play or follow broodwar at a high enough level, would be unable to see, comprehend and "understand" such sublety within an RTS game.

That's also why I was so very critical of Dustin Browder in that first article. I didn't think that he, nor pretty much anyone at Blizzard had the potential to see what it was that seperated Broodwar from other RTS' of its time. They all somehow seemed to give the impression that they thought balance was all a matter of tweaking around settings and deciding upon cool unit concepts/designs.

For me writing the thread about moving shot became really important once the beta was out and air units behaved like oil tankers. To be honest, I felt sort of insulted that these guys designing the sequel to the game i loved had no understanding of how air units should behave. That they didn't have enough experience from playing/watching Broodwar that they would immediately be able to say: "Air units feel like shit man, they're not agile at all, I can't muta-micro without losing control", in early stages of the development of the game.

It may not seem like a big deal to many, but in my eyes no moving shot is a contributing factor (among other core game design decisions) to damage inflation in the game. It's a contributing factor to what makes SC2 feel more like a game of coin flips than it does Broodwar.

In Broodwar, the commonly used air units all share the traits of being extremely mobile and having pretty low damage. In small numbers, though they may be effective, they will not end games. 2 wraiths will not be the reason the game ended. Truly amazing control from the player using the wraiths and bad defense from the opponent will.

Also, the traits speed and agility rather than damage, create a buffer towards luck being a deciding factor in the outcome of the game. You have to build up 3 wraiths before you can 2 shot drones. And they cost just as much as banshees do...

In SC2, the loss of mobility has been compensated in various ways. Primarily by granting air units increased damage and increased range. So what happens now when a cloaked flying unit enters the base of an unprepared opponent? The design of the game proves to decide the outcome rather than the performances of the players. I think this is why the community's whine never stops in SC2. They whine about units and balance, but the issue lies in the fundamental design of the game.

Implementing moving shot wouldn't magically fix everything though. But it would be a step in the right direction. There are many other game design features that I personally believe indirectly affect balance and gameplay. I don't think it can ever be fixed by merely tweaking unit stats.

Another huge factor I believe is the economical system of SC2 which I believe influences gameplay in a volatile direction early game, while providing a cap/roof in the lategame. I already discussed that in my last thread so not gonna recap. But I believe it to be another case of "game design influencing the outcome of the game rather than performance".

I didn't include my thoughts on macro mechanics in that thread though. But I believe they need to be "balanced" and revised in the future expansions for a healthy unit diversity to be able to exist in the game without creating total chaos. Larva inject, imo, is a mechanic that prevents zergs units from being balanced with the stats they would actually deserve to be viable in the later parts of a game (especially referring to #1hydralisk and #2roach here).

The current design of larva inject will also forever prevent zerg from getting any sort of useful spellcaster without being crazily imbalanced.

I also think that Blizzard game designers sort of misunderstood how zerg functioned in Broodwar. While they may have appeared "swarmy", they were always the race that was behind in supply. Usually their economy was inferior. In fact, I'd probably classify zerg as the most cost efficient Broodwar race in the early- and midgames.

Versus terran, zerg is generally expected to be 20-50 supply behind. Oftentimes even more! In that matchup, you could almost say terran are more swarmy than zerg. In broodwar, once you saw zerg catch up or surpass the other races in supply, that usually meant zerg was about to seal the deal and take home the game.

Watch how many mineral mining drones a zerg can afford in ZvT... and you'll be shocked.

Vs. protoss, zerg played more of a mineral heavy style and could rightfully be called swarmy. But nonetheless, they were expected to be 10-30 supply behind protoss in an even game. If the zerg surpassed the protoss in supply, that usually meant protoss was in big trouble (unless it was the latest stages of the game).



In SC2, the entire concept and design of zerg was unwittingly changed with the introduction of the queen. Blizzard labelled zerg "swarmy". And a swarmy macro mechanic meant unlimited larva.

Only now, zerg instead became the race that needed to supersaturate their bases. Zerg became the race that needed to make the most workers the fastest in all matchups. Zerg were the ones that needed to play like Protoss in lategame broodwar PvT. Expand everywhere. Outproduce your opponent. Throw your cost inefficient army at the opponent, expect it to die and remax as quickly as possible.

That's why zerg are so hard to balance in SC2 too. Once you tweak something that tilts games in zerg's favor. It is usually really evident that there's an imbalance, because they will completely run the opponent over in certain stages of the game. 2 armor roach? Imba early game, okay mid and lategame. 90hp hydra (plus higher fire rate)? Imba midgame, ok lategame. 1 supply roach? Probably ok in early and midgame, imba lategame. A spellcaster half as good as the defiler? Imba lategame, because all zerg would need to do is survive until lategame, sort of like Protoss now.

And it's all connected in one way or another. One of the reasons protoss are so strong lategame, is because they need their units and their abilities to be as strong as they are to deal with zerg and terran macro mehanics in early and midgame.

It's a fragile balance. And it contributes to damage inflation where there should be none, and likewise damage deflation where sometimes there should be none (hydralisk).

Zerg units are bad by necessity.

On April 18 2011 12:38 Bandino wrote:
The problem I see with your arguments you directly compare it to BW instead of leaving Starcraft 2 in a stand alone and providing improvements you would make on it instead of "like in BW" with this unit or that.

I guess the overwhelming problem is how you represented the OP because instead of addressing BW in your OP and how you found it better than SC2 in some points, you could instead say what SC2 has good in it so far and build upon those positives.

i mean are we all 7 years old here? can i not talk about possible game improvements without cushioning everyone's ego?

On April 18 2011 11:04 aztrorisk wrote:
I still have hope for SC2

Heart of the Swarm is going to be released. I hope blizzard makes necessary additions.

On April 18 2011 13:01 Bandino wrote:


Considering theres been so many whine Bw vs SC2 threads and how SC2 is vastly inferior its hard to take a thread like this where there is direct comparisons and then draw a conclusion that isn't inherently bias is all I am saying.

On April 18 2011 13:08 junemermaid wrote:


It's not going to happen in HotS. There is a clear disconnect between the current market for gamers and the market ten years ago.

I mean, just look at recent releases & expansions for games and you get a clear picture. Games are being streamlined, easier to play, and more appealing for a wide variety of audiences. This means that content gets diluted such that more casual gamers are still interested for future investments.

I want to see SC2 succeed, but given the current mindset of publishers and the gaming market, it seems very very unlikely that SC2's expansions are going to make the game better in the sense that it raises the skill ceiling. It might balance the game more, but to make the game more complex alienates too many people to be a successful financial endeavor.

EDIT: What's best for blizzard as a business and whats best for SC2 as a game are not necessarily linked. I mean, what sells more? Flashy lasers & big damage units/abilities or fine tuned units that require finesse? I hope I'm wrong.

On April 16 2011 09:35 mahnini wrote:
b]The importance of map control.
Map control isn't really how much of the map you are literally covering with buildings and units, rather it is how much area can you freely move without contest. Put simply, just because you have a unit in a certain area doesn't mean you have map control of that area, it's that fact that you can actively deny movement in that area that makes it map control. It seems to me like all these ideas build upon one another and that if you want to be able to control the flow of the game you need to have map control, and if you want to have map control you need units that can do more than add DPS. You need units with map prescence. BW had units like lurkers, siege tanks, and vultures that could very effectively control sections of the map. Can you name one other than the siege tank that SC2 has?

On April 18 2011 13:26 cereals wrote:


A game can be complex and accessible to the mass market at the same time. The two don't have to conflict.

On April 18 2011 13:25 ploy wrote:
Couldn't we argue that it's already bigger than BW ever was on a global scale?