[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 57

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 19 2011 05:48 tedster wrote:

Extremely basic matchup info with some unit analysis begins here:

On April 19 2011 09:00 Dragar wrote:


Absolutely fascinating, thank you!

On April 19 2011 10:37 Angra wrote:
On an unrelated note, I really need to comment on the idea that I keep seeing on these forums of "BW is balanced because it's had 11 years of balancing and development, give SC2 some time".

Here's the problem with that line of thinking: if SC2 were a completely new game, not related to Starcraft at all, breaking genre lines and on the cutting edge of game concepts, then I'd agree; give it time to develop into a good game. But it's not. It's a sequel. Blizzard have had 11 years to study the positives and negatives of BW and then improve upon every aspect in SC2. Sure, they're absolutely allowed to change lots of things to make it not like BW, but still make it far and beyond better than BW. But they haven't. They've disregarded so many things that made BW the game it is. They've regressed years with the release of SC2. The map Lost Temple was deemed not balanced so many years ago in BW, and yet what happens 11 years later when SC2 comes out? Lost Temple is still there, and to make matters worse, it's one of the BETTER maps in the pool originally. That is unacceptable. There is absolutely no excuse for Blizzard to have this much regression from SC1 to SC2. No, people should NOT allow SC2 years and years of time for it to be balanced before it's the game that we all wish it was. They should be demanding at LEAST improvements upon the 11 years of learning that SC1 gave to Blizzard. But instead we're left with a game that looks like it took a 2 second glance at BW, tossed in some units that looked kind of the same, and then slapped on a Starcraft 2 title. People are MUCH too forgiving towards Blizzard for their complete lack of progress with their SC series.