Interview with SC2 Lead Designer Dustin Browder - Page 14

On May 01 2011 10:39 Paradice wrote:


And that's the type of comment you get when someone doesn't know the difference between game design and game balance.

Browder's job is to think up and/or choose from a whole lot of cool ideas. His job was essentially done when the game hit retail.

David Kim's job is to make those cool ideas fair for everyone. His job is ongoing, that's why you have patches with timings, costs, and numbers being continually adjusted.

Asking Dustin Browder to comment on balance is like asking the company chef to comment on the art style. You'll get an interesting answer, but if you read too much into it it's more your failure than theirs.

As Slugamoo from TL put it (more or less), SC2 has Marines vs. Banelings, while in BW pretty much all counters work like Marines vs. Banelings in SC2. Save for a couple of exceptions, SC2 is all about making the right mix of rock, paper and scissors to counter your opponent's mix of rock, paper and scissors.

Not going to get into any pointless discussion. The fact is that Browder was completely wrong when saying that counters are much harder in BW. In BW you can overcome the vast majority of counters with micro and change the outcome of battles by 180 degrees. In SC2 it's the opposite - in case of most counters micro has little to no effect. In other words, Marines vs. Banelings in SC2 is an anomaly (talking about the current situation), whereas in BW the equivalent is the norm, with but a couple of exceptions. It's irrelevant how you want to label those two types of counter systems.

As for SC2 hardcounters, I'd say e.g. Immortals vs. Tanks and Marauders (with stim) vs. Stalker (in practice, because in theory, a single Marine with detection could kill an infinite amount of Lurkers, but that'd be reduction ad absurdum) fit that description. I could find much more of them, but that's really besides the point. What I was getting at is that micro in BW counter system/unit design plays a HUGE role compared to SC2 (and if you think otherwise, I advise watching some more BW), where it, in most cases, merely compliments having the right unit composition.

Like I said, Marines vs. Banelings or even Mutas vs. Thors (even though I personally find it laughable to call that "micro") sort of interaction is rare in SC2, while in BW it's the norm. Browder in this interview claimed it's the opposite and he's blatantly wrong.

I guess we disagree to what degree micro matters in SC2. I'd say having the right composition in SC2 is ~70% of success, while the remaining ~30% is micro - that's in case of most unit counters. In BW it's the other way around - ~30% of success is having the right units and the rest depends on how well you and your opponent control their respective armies.

Also a small clarification. The comparison to AoC was a deliberate exaggeration, same for the rock, paper, scissors analogy. My point was that the main theme behind composing SC2 armies is having a counter to each unit in the opponent's army (I make Tanks, you make Immortals, you make Immortals, I make Marines/Ghosts, and so on).


Personally, I believe that SC2 would really benefit from having more unit relationships like the one between Marines and Banelings (as far as I'm concerned, all unit "counters" should work that way). Unfortunately, that's not likely gonna happen since Browder actually believes that's already the case, moreso than in BW. I used to have respect for him, but with every interview with him I read, I realize how much of a ignorant fool he actually is. He claimed to have analyzed BW for over a year, so he has to be pretty dumb to make stupid claims like that. ;/