We're still complaining about MULEs? Here's some food for thought: if a Terran loses most of his workers, he suffers less initially, but is hurt more long-term. Why? Because Terrans have the slowest SCV production. Protoss players can Chrono Boost their production, and Zergs can replenish 40 workers lost in a matter of minutes.
They should not to remove them, but substitute with a "3 SCV drop" at cost of 150 minerals, instead of free minerals.
Chrono and larvas can make more drones and probes atm but they have a cost.
Interesting idea. However, it's not balanced. Compare it with Chrono Boost.
Chrono Boost allows the Nexus to do 30 seconds of work in 20. Assuming constant Probe production, 2 Chrono Boosts (50 energy) would allow the Nexus to do 1 minute of work in 40 seconds... that extra 20 seconds of work allows you to squeeze out 1 probe and a little more.
On the other hand, Terrans suddenly get instant 3 SCVs every 50 energy? Suddenly, Protoss players simply cannot compete in economy!
Protoss players already can't compete in economy, what are you talking about? Terrans get much more mining because of mules and they always and I mean always get a faster 2nd and 3rd base.
Forgive me if I am spouting off ignorant statements, but I do believe Protoss has an economic advantage in HotS? Especially since Protoss can get their Nexus down waaaaaay earlier and defend it with one MSC, one Stalker, and one Zealot?
And then consider that Protoss can endlessly Chrono Boost probes and that actually helps their gas income too, unlike MULEs? From what I've seen, Protoss consistently take their bases earlier than Terran, barring some sort of CC first + Ebay combo (which is quite risky)
We're still complaining about MULEs? Here's some food for thought: if a Terran loses most of his workers, he suffers less initially, but is hurt more long-term. Why? Because Terrans have the slowest SCV production. Protoss players can Chrono Boost their production, and Zergs can replenish 40 workers lost in a matter of minutes.
They should not to remove them, but substitute with a "3 SCV drop" at cost of 150 minerals, instead of free minerals.
Chrono and larvas can make more drones and probes atm but they have a cost.
Interesting idea. However, it's not balanced. Compare it with Chrono Boost.
Chrono Boost allows the Nexus to do 30 seconds of work in 20. Assuming constant Probe production, 2 Chrono Boosts (50 energy) would allow the Nexus to do 1 minute of work in 40 seconds... that extra 20 seconds of work allows you to squeeze out 1 probe and a little more.
On the other hand, Terrans suddenly get instant 3 SCVs every 50 energy? Suddenly, Protoss players simply cannot compete in economy!
Protoss players already can't compete in economy, what are you talking about? Terrans get much more mining because of mules and they always and I mean always get a faster 2nd and 3rd base.
Forgive me if I am spouting off ignorant statements, but I do believe Protoss has an economic advantage in HotS? Especially since Protoss can get their Nexus down waaaaaay earlier and defend it with one MSC, one Stalker, and one Zealot?
And then consider that Protoss can endlessly Chrono Boost probes and that actually helps their gas income too, unlike MULEs? From what I've seen, Protoss consistently take their bases earlier than Terran, barring some sort of CC first + Ebay combo (which is quite risky)
Protoss players already can't compete in economy, what are you talking about? Terrans get much more mining because of mules and they always and I mean always get a faster 2nd and 3rd base.
Everyone who says things like this should play the other race for a while so they can see how easy it is to win with the 'advantage' they perceive.....
In this case, chronoboost out a lot of probes, then look at the score at the end of the game to see who was mining more resources. If you aren't skipping probes, you should be able to keep up with or surpass the terran.
We're still complaining about MULEs? Here's some food for thought: if a Terran loses most of his workers, he suffers less initially, but is hurt more long-term. Why? Because Terrans have the slowest SCV production. Protoss players can Chrono Boost their production, and Zergs can replenish 40 workers lost in a matter of minutes.
They should not to remove them, but substitute with a "3 SCV drop" at cost of 150 minerals, instead of free minerals.
Chrono and larvas can make more drones and probes atm but they have a cost.
Interesting idea. However, it's not balanced. Compare it with Chrono Boost.
Chrono Boost allows the Nexus to do 30 seconds of work in 20. Assuming constant Probe production, 2 Chrono Boosts (50 energy) would allow the Nexus to do 1 minute of work in 40 seconds... that extra 20 seconds of work allows you to squeeze out 1 probe and a little more.
On the other hand, Terrans suddenly get instant 3 SCVs every 50 energy? Suddenly, Protoss players simply cannot compete in economy!
Protoss players already can't compete in economy, what are you talking about? Terrans get much more mining because of mules and they always and I mean always get a faster 2nd and 3rd base.
Terran will never have an advantage because of chrono/larva, unless both players lose a lot of workers. Thats an advantage in only one situation, why dont people realize that?
lowering range on certain units might be the answer.
The mine right now is basically a baneling that that needs to burrow but stays alive and has range, I'm sure if you asked most zerg's if they would take that trade-off, they would be giddy with excitement.
Imagine terran's having to deal with hidden mine-banelings with range that have unlimited use.
On August 12 2013 14:02 below66 wrote: lowering range on certain units might be the answer.
The mine right now is basically a baneling that that needs to burrow but stays alive and has range, I'm sure if you asked most zerg's if they would take that trade-off, they would be giddy with excitement.
Imagine terran's having to deal with hidden mine-banelings with range that have unlimited use.
That is extremely scary since Zergs can create 30 Banelings at the drop of a hat!
Now imagine the same thing except you can now only create Banelings out of your Hatcheries, just like Queens. I'm sure Zerg players would be slightly less giddy after hearing that. Also, don't forget that you are no longer allowed to use those Banelings directly - that means you cannot bust anymore, and you can't attack the army head-on. You have to wait for the enemy's army to come to you. Oh, and Banelings now take up 4x as much supply.
The point I'm trying to make is that the comparison isn't really valid... just about the only similarity the two units have is their splash damage and their ability to burrow.
On August 11 2013 03:55 Salient wrote: This is one of the most balanced RTS games ever made, and the races have totally different mechanics. That's a huge accomplishment. People complain way too much. You don't lose ladder games due to imbalance. You lose ladder games because you failed to scout, got supply blocked, tried something risky, messed up your micro, failed to tech switch in response to your opponent's changing composition, etc. This thread is ridiculous.
i don't buy your argument. The game has design flaws where many units are unusable due to its stats and its innefficient ability to be productive. The Terran has several units that need a slight buff to its stats. There needs to be more dynamic action where sneak attacks, speed merchants causing havoc, as well as just goliaths at end games that just become a wrecking ball to the opponent. That is not happening, that fault lays directly to David Kim. I mean, i bet I could design the game better than David Kim, and I don't even get paid by Blizzard to do so.
If you truly thinks so then go ahead and give us a detailed plan to fix the game. (please don´t make it simply about buffing terran)
Why should he do that? To proof it toyou that he could do it?
I could also design this game better than what they have done already
It's because when you make empty claims like "I could also design this game better than what they have done already" without proof then you sound like an idiot. That's why we asked for substantial comments.
Oh come on ... Blizzard made a really pisspoor job when they designed SC2 and they are unwilling to correct the big mistakes. Consequently they have to keep going down their path of absurdly stupid unit design and then force them into the game by making specialized changes.
It isnt hard to design an RTS (which SC2 isnt really anymore due to the gigantic importance of economy and production over actual unit placement and control) that is better than SC2. All you have to do is start at BW and then improve on it ... and "improving" includes a kind of quality control where you actually check if anything new actually makes the game better.
The classic example for improvements from BW to SC2 is "unlimited unit selection". This is usually thought of as an advancement due to better technology, but I seriously doubt that the technology in 98 was forcing those limitations. They just thought a dozen units was an acceptable number of units to represent with small pictures in the UI. What are the consequences of unlimited unit selection? (listed with + / - to assign them "better" and "worse" judgements) (+) Sure enough you can control your whole army easier, but is 1a really that much easier than 1a2a3a4a ? I dont believe it and thus it only gets a "minor improvement". - The total dps of your closely clumped army increases. This is BAD because it lowers the response time for the defender to "less than a second". This is really one of the reasons why lower level players with longer response time wont have as much fun playing the game: their army will be gone because they were looking elsewhere and took too long to switch back to the action. - Clumped up armies allow for critical numbers to exist. Critical numbers are really bad, because they increase the efficiency of a bunch of units to a pont where they become more efficient than just a few units of that type. Thus the unit has TWO LEVELS OF BALANCE and that is really bad to have in the game because you only balance units for one level. In BW there was critical numbers as well, but they were possible only for flying units (primarily Mutalisks) and they got balanced by the necessary micro and certain hard to use skills (Psi Storm, Irradiate, Plague) which could make it really risky to clump up your units this much. SC2 does not have those corrective measures, because it would counter the desired effect of mass battles; AoE has been nerfed a lot so it doesnt counter the tightly clumped armies which Dustin told us is what we wanted ...
Honestly ... its not difficult to design a game that is better than SC2 1. Keep it FUN for players of all levels instead of balancing it around the "trained monkeys" who are playing it professionally. 2. Keep the importance of production and economy LOW to keep the focus of the game on UNITS. 3. Keep STRATEGY in the game and dont replace it by action. 4. Dont automate everthing to keep the players busy. Make them WORK TO WIN and not WIN BECAUSE THE DEFENDER WASNT LOOKING. Defense must be easier than offense! 5. Add in "nifty skills and tricks" to unhinge / circumvent defense but keep those things non-stackable. 6. Keep your EGO out of balance discussions and try to make every unit viable! It isnt you the stupid developer that should "shape the game" but the players instead. Leave the choice to them ... and give them lots of choices.
Blizzard really failed in many ways, but the most glaring one is that they made bad choices years and years ago and they are unwilling to correct them even if it becomes clear how bad they are. They are also stuck in their cubicles and never look at the game "from the outside" or with an objective perspective.
Lol, you talk about EGO? You who think it is easy to make game game with 3 balanced races with different units where all units are viable? I would really like to see you do that.
Come on ... BW is a good place to start and all you have to do is improve A LITTLE and add a new unit or two.
The way I would do it would be to have a "fixed number of unit slots" taken from BW (to keep the game nice and simple) and then add "sidegrade units" which you had to choose to replace a unit from the standard set. That way you keep the number of units low, so balancing isnt going to be too much of a hassle (imagine adding another spellcaster to SC2 and then having to nerf the new spells because they synergize too well with the spells from another caster). This system would allow them to add an "infinite" amount of new units, because every new one would be a sidegrade to an old one and would have to replace it if you wanted to use it.
With this setting you could have tournaments set in "BW time" or ones set in "SC2 time" or "the future" or you leave the choice to the players and force them to make choices before the game begins and the opponent wouldnt know if you had Reapers to scout or Medics to heal before encountering them in game. The ability to add in new units regularly would keep the game fresh for a much longer time ... which is an advantage games like LoL have over SC2.
Additionally you could even have mods where you branch out and play with units from a totally different universe like Warhammer 40k (Terrans get replaced by Orcs with funky ramshackle buildings, Protoss are Eldar and Zerg become chaos or tyranids in one form or another). Obviously lots of the stuff in Starcraft has been "strongly inspired" by the Warhammer 40k universe already ...
It isnt rocket science and all you need is some imagination ...
In case it wasnt clear from what I said: I wouldnt change the core game mechanics apart from making slight improvements to unit pathing (getting rid of buggy pathing, adding more directions than 8, automine), but everything else (the buildings, the 12 unit selection limit) would stay the same. Destructible terrain is a neat addition too, which mapmakers have put into BW maps for a long time already and giving it a correct outfit wouldnt hurt.
The core point of my criticism is ... if you are unwilling to learn from the past (i.e. compare SC2 to BW and honestly look for screw-ups in development) you are inventing the wheel all over again. Just remember to invent it finally and dont get bogged down over the color.
-------
Another point where Blizzard screwed up is the fact that they attempt to make the game "faster" by increasing production speed and economy. Well they should have realized that "faster" also means "more unstable balance" and that "slower" is actually easier to balance and easier to play for low skill players. It is only todays kids - you know the type with the attention span of a goldfish (which really is 3 seconds) - which screwms for more action, but Blizzard is big enough to train their own fans to be better ... propaganda really works after all.
The problem is, how many people would have bought SC2 if it was BW with 'a couple new units'. Yes, the BW hard cores would, maybe even most of TL. But the general public? Don't think they would fork over $50 just for a couple units and graphics update. The business model of SC is just different from LoL.
Also, if you think just fixing the unit pathing wouldn't mess with balance assuming no other changes, you are wrong. The maps in BW were made with unit path bug in mind. And you want to add units every couple of months? Look at what. The infestor patch did, it isn't like LoL or DoTa where you can at least ban out champions.
Are you kidding me? A lot of people would have bought SC2 even if it was just "BW HD with a few new units". Just look at the absolutely stupid version of Diablo 3 ... people bought it even though they knew the "always online" requirement since the beta. People still bought it after the "error 37" and auction house desasters. The "oh people wouldnt have bought it" argument is really stupid, because people were desperately awaiting Starcraft 2 and the crapton of new people who never played a game of BW before would have had a totally new experience either way. So the only ones who would not have bought it because it was just "BW HD" could have been the old fans. Do you really believe anyone who was still a fan of BW after 12 years would NOT have bought a game with really improved graphics, user interface for streaming and so on? I dont think that argument of yours is valid at all!
No I wouldnt want them to add new units "every couple of months" like LoL does it. My suggested system just allows for the opportunity to add in new stuff endlessly - even in 30 years - without having to completely rework the balance every frigging time a new expansion comes out. Starcraft isnt LoL and has to make due with expansions to cover the cost, but at the current rate they might even fill all the production slots (max 12?) in the buildings rather soonish. The unit design is already trying to create units which DONT replicate the mechanics or jobs of other units, but with even more units you wont really be able to do it. With a "unit replaces another unit" system you would have a much easier job. The Siege Tank for example could be replaced by an artillery with a super long range and the ability to attack the ground "into the fog of war" ... they changed the Thor during the initial beta to specifically NOT have such a duplication of the jobs, but with a replacement system you could have vastly different "styles" of units which all do the same job.
Maps being designed with pathing bugs in mind? ALL OF THEM? (Must be all of the majority or your argument is moot.) Really? Arent you just taking one or even a few examples to justify your disapproval of my suggestion for how SC2 *should have been*? All the arguments sound pretty hollow IMO.
Oh and the "funny movement" of Spider Mines and the Reaver shot - including the possibility of a dud - would have to be reproduced in a new version, because they are part of their unit efficiency. Regular unit movement would also have to include a "bump into another unit (or building / terrain feature) and take a step left or right" to keep the "weaving about" which units in BW sometimes do. That looks natural and is a basic requirement to get the "forced unit spreading" (or rather "forced anti-unit-clumping").
now that we seem to talk about how imba terran is, i may try to ask the following question again.
why do you think terrans are extremely underrepresented in every GM league? i personally dont have an answer. and i never felt that terran was underpowered (i'm terran). so it confuses me.
On August 11 2013 03:55 Salient wrote: This is one of the most balanced RTS games ever made, and the races have totally different mechanics. That's a huge accomplishment. People complain way too much. You don't lose ladder games due to imbalance. You lose ladder games because you failed to scout, got supply blocked, tried something risky, messed up your micro, failed to tech switch in response to your opponent's changing composition, etc. This thread is ridiculous.
i don't buy your argument. The game has design flaws where many units are unusable due to its stats and its innefficient ability to be productive. The Terran has several units that need a slight buff to its stats. There needs to be more dynamic action where sneak attacks, speed merchants causing havoc, as well as just goliaths at end games that just become a wrecking ball to the opponent. That is not happening, that fault lays directly to David Kim. I mean, i bet I could design the game better than David Kim, and I don't even get paid by Blizzard to do so.
If you truly thinks so then go ahead and give us a detailed plan to fix the game. (please don´t make it simply about buffing terran)
Why should he do that? To proof it toyou that he could do it?
I could also design this game better than what they have done already
It's because when you make empty claims like "I could also design this game better than what they have done already" without proof then you sound like an idiot. That's why we asked for substantial comments.
Oh come on ... Blizzard made a really pisspoor job when they designed SC2 and they are unwilling to correct the big mistakes. Consequently they have to keep going down their path of absurdly stupid unit design and then force them into the game by making specialized changes.
It isnt hard to design an RTS (which SC2 isnt really anymore due to the gigantic importance of economy and production over actual unit placement and control) that is better than SC2. All you have to do is start at BW and then improve on it ... and "improving" includes a kind of quality control where you actually check if anything new actually makes the game better.
The classic example for improvements from BW to SC2 is "unlimited unit selection". This is usually thought of as an advancement due to better technology, but I seriously doubt that the technology in 98 was forcing those limitations. They just thought a dozen units was an acceptable number of units to represent with small pictures in the UI. What are the consequences of unlimited unit selection? (listed with + / - to assign them "better" and "worse" judgements) (+) Sure enough you can control your whole army easier, but is 1a really that much easier than 1a2a3a4a ? I dont believe it and thus it only gets a "minor improvement". - The total dps of your closely clumped army increases. This is BAD because it lowers the response time for the defender to "less than a second". This is really one of the reasons why lower level players with longer response time wont have as much fun playing the game: their army will be gone because they were looking elsewhere and took too long to switch back to the action. - Clumped up armies allow for critical numbers to exist. Critical numbers are really bad, because they increase the efficiency of a bunch of units to a pont where they become more efficient than just a few units of that type. Thus the unit has TWO LEVELS OF BALANCE and that is really bad to have in the game because you only balance units for one level. In BW there was critical numbers as well, but they were possible only for flying units (primarily Mutalisks) and they got balanced by the necessary micro and certain hard to use skills (Psi Storm, Irradiate, Plague) which could make it really risky to clump up your units this much. SC2 does not have those corrective measures, because it would counter the desired effect of mass battles; AoE has been nerfed a lot so it doesnt counter the tightly clumped armies which Dustin told us is what we wanted ...
Honestly ... its not difficult to design a game that is better than SC2 1. Keep it FUN for players of all levels instead of balancing it around the "trained monkeys" who are playing it professionally. 2. Keep the importance of production and economy LOW to keep the focus of the game on UNITS. 3. Keep STRATEGY in the game and dont replace it by action. 4. Dont automate everthing to keep the players busy. Make them WORK TO WIN and not WIN BECAUSE THE DEFENDER WASNT LOOKING. Defense must be easier than offense! 5. Add in "nifty skills and tricks" to unhinge / circumvent defense but keep those things non-stackable. 6. Keep your EGO out of balance discussions and try to make every unit viable! It isnt you the stupid developer that should "shape the game" but the players instead. Leave the choice to them ... and give them lots of choices.
Blizzard really failed in many ways, but the most glaring one is that they made bad choices years and years ago and they are unwilling to correct them even if it becomes clear how bad they are. They are also stuck in their cubicles and never look at the game "from the outside" or with an objective perspective.
Lol, you talk about EGO? You who think it is easy to make game game with 3 balanced races with different units where all units are viable? I would really like to see you do that.
Come on ... BW is a good place to start and all you have to do is improve A LITTLE and add a new unit or two.
The way I would do it would be to have a "fixed number of unit slots" taken from BW (to keep the game nice and simple) and then add "sidegrade units" which you had to choose to replace a unit from the standard set. That way you keep the number of units low, so balancing isnt going to be too much of a hassle (imagine adding another spellcaster to SC2 and then having to nerf the new spells because they synergize too well with the spells from another caster). This system would allow them to add an "infinite" amount of new units, because every new one would be a sidegrade to an old one and would have to replace it if you wanted to use it.
With this setting you could have tournaments set in "BW time" or ones set in "SC2 time" or "the future" or you leave the choice to the players and force them to make choices before the game begins and the opponent wouldnt know if you had Reapers to scout or Medics to heal before encountering them in game. The ability to add in new units regularly would keep the game fresh for a much longer time ... which is an advantage games like LoL have over SC2.
Additionally you could even have mods where you branch out and play with units from a totally different universe like Warhammer 40k (Terrans get replaced by Orcs with funky ramshackle buildings, Protoss are Eldar and Zerg become chaos or tyranids in one form or another). Obviously lots of the stuff in Starcraft has been "strongly inspired" by the Warhammer 40k universe already ...
It isnt rocket science and all you need is some imagination ...
In case it wasnt clear from what I said: I wouldnt change the core game mechanics apart from making slight improvements to unit pathing (getting rid of buggy pathing, adding more directions than 8, automine), but everything else (the buildings, the 12 unit selection limit) would stay the same. Destructible terrain is a neat addition too, which mapmakers have put into BW maps for a long time already and giving it a correct outfit wouldnt hurt.
The core point of my criticism is ... if you are unwilling to learn from the past (i.e. compare SC2 to BW and honestly look for screw-ups in development) you are inventing the wheel all over again. Just remember to invent it finally and dont get bogged down over the color.
-------
Another point where Blizzard screwed up is the fact that they attempt to make the game "faster" by increasing production speed and economy. Well they should have realized that "faster" also means "more unstable balance" and that "slower" is actually easier to balance and easier to play for low skill players. It is only todays kids - you know the type with the attention span of a goldfish (which really is 3 seconds) - which screwms for more action, but Blizzard is big enough to train their own fans to be better ... propaganda really works after all.
The problem is, how many people would have bought SC2 if it was BW with 'a couple new units'. Yes, the BW hard cores would, maybe even most of TL. But the general public? Don't think they would fork over $50 just for a couple units and graphics update. The business model of SC is just different from LoL.
Also, if you think just fixing the unit pathing wouldn't mess with balance assuming no other changes, you are wrong. The maps in BW were made with unit path bug in mind. And you want to add units every couple of months? Look at what. The infestor patch did, it isn't like LoL or DoTa where you can at least ban out champions.
Are you kidding me? A lot of people would have bought SC2 even if it was just "BW HD with a few new units". Just look at the absolutely stupid version of Diablo 3 ... people bought it even though they knew the "always online" requirement since the beta. People still bought it after the "error 37" and auction house desasters. The "oh people wouldnt have bought it" argument is really stupid, because people were desperately awaiting Starcraft 2 and the crapton of new people who never played a game of BW before would have had a totally new experience either way. So the only ones who would not have bought it because it was just "BW HD" could have been the old fans. Do you really believe anyone who was still a fan of BW after 12 years would NOT have bought a game with really improved graphics, user interface for streaming and so on? I dont think that argument of yours is valid at all!
No I wouldnt want them to add new units "every couple of months" like LoL does it. My suggested system just allows for the opportunity to add in new stuff endlessly - even in 30 years - without having to completely rework the balance every frigging time a new expansion comes out. Starcraft isnt LoL and has to make due with expansions to cover the cost, but at the current rate they might even fill all the production slots (max 12?) in the buildings rather soonish. The unit design is already trying to create units which DONT replicate the mechanics or jobs of other units, but with even more units you wont really be able to do it. With a "unit replaces another unit" system you would have a much easier job. The Siege Tank for example could be replaced by an artillery with a super long range and the ability to attack the ground "into the fog of war" ... they changed the Thor during the initial beta to specifically NOT have such a duplication of the jobs, but with a replacement system you could have vastly different "styles" of units which all do the same job.
Maps being designed with pathing bugs in mind? ALL OF THEM? (Must be all of the majority or your argument is moot.) Really? Arent you just taking one or even a few examples to justify your disapproval of my suggestion for how SC2 *should have been*? All the arguments sound pretty hollow IMO.
Oh and the "funny movement" of Spider Mines and the Reaver shot - including the possibility of a dud - would have to be reproduced in a new version, because they are part of their unit efficiency. Regular unit movement would also have to include a "bump into another unit (or building / terrain feature) and take a step left or right" to keep the "weaving about" which units in BW sometimes do. That looks natural and is a basic requirement to get the "forced unit spreading" (or rather "forced anti-unit-clumping").
I am not sure how YOUR argument is valid. I assume that Blizzard is a large company that does their marketing search. If all they had to do with Starcraft2 was to update the graphics (which would have taken minimal effort) and they would have sold just as much, don't you think they would have done that?
Casual gamers expect their games to be 'cutting' edge. Their thought process isn't 'Well, I didn't get to play this really cool game 12 years ago. Since they did a graphics revamp, I will go out and buy it right away'.
Again, I am not talking about the TL crowd here. Like I said, most here would probably preferred a 'HD' BW. But we need to think outside of our own community and look at what the general public wants.
We're still complaining about MULEs? Here's some food for thought: if a Terran loses most of his workers, he suffers less initially, but is hurt more long-term. Why? Because Terrans have the slowest SCV production. Protoss players can Chrono Boost their production, and Zergs can replenish 40 workers lost in a matter of minutes.
They should not to remove them, but substitute with a "3 SCV drop" at cost of 150 minerals, instead of free minerals.
Chrono and larvas can make more drones and probes atm but they have a cost.
Interesting idea. However, it's not balanced. Compare it with Chrono Boost.
Chrono Boost allows the Nexus to do 30 seconds of work in 20. Assuming constant Probe production, 2 Chrono Boosts (50 energy) would allow the Nexus to do 1 minute of work in 40 seconds... that extra 20 seconds of work allows you to squeeze out 1 probe and a little more.
On the other hand, Terrans suddenly get instant 3 SCVs every 50 energy? Suddenly, Protoss players simply cannot compete in economy!
Protoss players already can't compete in economy, what are you talking about? Terrans get much more mining because of mules and they always and I mean always get a faster 2nd and 3rd base.
Terran will never have an advantage because of chrono/larva, unless both players lose a lot of workers. Thats an advantage in only one situation, why dont people realize that?
i don't buy your argument. The game has design flaws where many units are unusable due to its stats and its innefficient ability to be productive. The Terran has several units that need a slight buff to its stats. There needs to be more dynamic action where sneak attacks, speed merchants causing havoc, as well as just goliaths at end games that just become a wrecking ball to the opponent. That is not happening, that fault lays directly to David Kim. I mean, i bet I could design the game better than David Kim, and I don't even get paid by Blizzard to do so.
If you truly thinks so then go ahead and give us a detailed plan to fix the game. (please don´t make it simply about buffing terran)
Why should he do that? To proof it toyou that he could do it?
I could also design this game better than what they have done already
It's because when you make empty claims like "I could also design this game better than what they have done already" without proof then you sound like an idiot. That's why we asked for substantial comments.
Oh come on ... Blizzard made a really pisspoor job when they designed SC2 and they are unwilling to correct the big mistakes. Consequently they have to keep going down their path of absurdly stupid unit design and then force them into the game by making specialized changes.
It isnt hard to design an RTS (which SC2 isnt really anymore due to the gigantic importance of economy and production over actual unit placement and control) that is better than SC2. All you have to do is start at BW and then improve on it ... and "improving" includes a kind of quality control where you actually check if anything new actually makes the game better.
The classic example for improvements from BW to SC2 is "unlimited unit selection". This is usually thought of as an advancement due to better technology, but I seriously doubt that the technology in 98 was forcing those limitations. They just thought a dozen units was an acceptable number of units to represent with small pictures in the UI. What are the consequences of unlimited unit selection? (listed with + / - to assign them "better" and "worse" judgements) (+) Sure enough you can control your whole army easier, but is 1a really that much easier than 1a2a3a4a ? I dont believe it and thus it only gets a "minor improvement". - The total dps of your closely clumped army increases. This is BAD because it lowers the response time for the defender to "less than a second". This is really one of the reasons why lower level players with longer response time wont have as much fun playing the game: their army will be gone because they were looking elsewhere and took too long to switch back to the action. - Clumped up armies allow for critical numbers to exist. Critical numbers are really bad, because they increase the efficiency of a bunch of units to a pont where they become more efficient than just a few units of that type. Thus the unit has TWO LEVELS OF BALANCE and that is really bad to have in the game because you only balance units for one level. In BW there was critical numbers as well, but they were possible only for flying units (primarily Mutalisks) and they got balanced by the necessary micro and certain hard to use skills (Psi Storm, Irradiate, Plague) which could make it really risky to clump up your units this much. SC2 does not have those corrective measures, because it would counter the desired effect of mass battles; AoE has been nerfed a lot so it doesnt counter the tightly clumped armies which Dustin told us is what we wanted ...
Honestly ... its not difficult to design a game that is better than SC2 1. Keep it FUN for players of all levels instead of balancing it around the "trained monkeys" who are playing it professionally. 2. Keep the importance of production and economy LOW to keep the focus of the game on UNITS. 3. Keep STRATEGY in the game and dont replace it by action. 4. Dont automate everthing to keep the players busy. Make them WORK TO WIN and not WIN BECAUSE THE DEFENDER WASNT LOOKING. Defense must be easier than offense! 5. Add in "nifty skills and tricks" to unhinge / circumvent defense but keep those things non-stackable. 6. Keep your EGO out of balance discussions and try to make every unit viable! It isnt you the stupid developer that should "shape the game" but the players instead. Leave the choice to them ... and give them lots of choices.
Blizzard really failed in many ways, but the most glaring one is that they made bad choices years and years ago and they are unwilling to correct them even if it becomes clear how bad they are. They are also stuck in their cubicles and never look at the game "from the outside" or with an objective perspective.
Lol, you talk about EGO? You who think it is easy to make game game with 3 balanced races with different units where all units are viable? I would really like to see you do that.
Come on ... BW is a good place to start and all you have to do is improve A LITTLE and add a new unit or two.
The way I would do it would be to have a "fixed number of unit slots" taken from BW (to keep the game nice and simple) and then add "sidegrade units" which you had to choose to replace a unit from the standard set. That way you keep the number of units low, so balancing isnt going to be too much of a hassle (imagine adding another spellcaster to SC2 and then having to nerf the new spells because they synergize too well with the spells from another caster). This system would allow them to add an "infinite" amount of new units, because every new one would be a sidegrade to an old one and would have to replace it if you wanted to use it.
With this setting you could have tournaments set in "BW time" or ones set in "SC2 time" or "the future" or you leave the choice to the players and force them to make choices before the game begins and the opponent wouldnt know if you had Reapers to scout or Medics to heal before encountering them in game. The ability to add in new units regularly would keep the game fresh for a much longer time ... which is an advantage games like LoL have over SC2.
Additionally you could even have mods where you branch out and play with units from a totally different universe like Warhammer 40k (Terrans get replaced by Orcs with funky ramshackle buildings, Protoss are Eldar and Zerg become chaos or tyranids in one form or another). Obviously lots of the stuff in Starcraft has been "strongly inspired" by the Warhammer 40k universe already ...
It isnt rocket science and all you need is some imagination ...
In case it wasnt clear from what I said: I wouldnt change the core game mechanics apart from making slight improvements to unit pathing (getting rid of buggy pathing, adding more directions than 8, automine), but everything else (the buildings, the 12 unit selection limit) would stay the same. Destructible terrain is a neat addition too, which mapmakers have put into BW maps for a long time already and giving it a correct outfit wouldnt hurt.
The core point of my criticism is ... if you are unwilling to learn from the past (i.e. compare SC2 to BW and honestly look for screw-ups in development) you are inventing the wheel all over again. Just remember to invent it finally and dont get bogged down over the color.
-------
Another point where Blizzard screwed up is the fact that they attempt to make the game "faster" by increasing production speed and economy. Well they should have realized that "faster" also means "more unstable balance" and that "slower" is actually easier to balance and easier to play for low skill players. It is only todays kids - you know the type with the attention span of a goldfish (which really is 3 seconds) - which screwms for more action, but Blizzard is big enough to train their own fans to be better ... propaganda really works after all.
The problem is, how many people would have bought SC2 if it was BW with 'a couple new units'. Yes, the BW hard cores would, maybe even most of TL. But the general public? Don't think they would fork over $50 just for a couple units and graphics update. The business model of SC is just different from LoL.
Also, if you think just fixing the unit pathing wouldn't mess with balance assuming no other changes, you are wrong. The maps in BW were made with unit path bug in mind. And you want to add units every couple of months? Look at what. The infestor patch did, it isn't like LoL or DoTa where you can at least ban out champions.
Are you kidding me? A lot of people would have bought SC2 even if it was just "BW HD with a few new units". Just look at the absolutely stupid version of Diablo 3 ... people bought it even though they knew the "always online" requirement since the beta. People still bought it after the "error 37" and auction house desasters. The "oh people wouldnt have bought it" argument is really stupid, because people were desperately awaiting Starcraft 2 and the crapton of new people who never played a game of BW before would have had a totally new experience either way. So the only ones who would not have bought it because it was just "BW HD" could have been the old fans. Do you really believe anyone who was still a fan of BW after 12 years would NOT have bought a game with really improved graphics, user interface for streaming and so on? I dont think that argument of yours is valid at all!
No I wouldnt want them to add new units "every couple of months" like LoL does it. My suggested system just allows for the opportunity to add in new stuff endlessly - even in 30 years - without having to completely rework the balance every frigging time a new expansion comes out. Starcraft isnt LoL and has to make due with expansions to cover the cost, but at the current rate they might even fill all the production slots (max 12?) in the buildings rather soonish. The unit design is already trying to create units which DONT replicate the mechanics or jobs of other units, but with even more units you wont really be able to do it. With a "unit replaces another unit" system you would have a much easier job. The Siege Tank for example could be replaced by an artillery with a super long range and the ability to attack the ground "into the fog of war" ... they changed the Thor during the initial beta to specifically NOT have such a duplication of the jobs, but with a replacement system you could have vastly different "styles" of units which all do the same job.
Maps being designed with pathing bugs in mind? ALL OF THEM? (Must be all of the majority or your argument is moot.) Really? Arent you just taking one or even a few examples to justify your disapproval of my suggestion for how SC2 *should have been*? All the arguments sound pretty hollow IMO.
Oh and the "funny movement" of Spider Mines and the Reaver shot - including the possibility of a dud - would have to be reproduced in a new version, because they are part of their unit efficiency. Regular unit movement would also have to include a "bump into another unit (or building / terrain feature) and take a step left or right" to keep the "weaving about" which units in BW sometimes do. That looks natural and is a basic requirement to get the "forced unit spreading" (or rather "forced anti-unit-clumping").
I am not sure how YOUR argument is valid. I assume that Blizzard is a large company that does their marketing search. If all they had to do with Starcraft2 was to update the graphics (which would have taken minimal effort) and they would have sold just as much, don't you think they would have done that?
Casual gamers expect their games to be 'cutting' edge. Their thought process isn't 'Well, I didn't get to play this really cool game 12 years ago. Since they did a graphics revamp, I will go out and buy it right away'.
Again, I am not talking about the TL crowd here. Like I said, most here would probably preferred a 'HD' BW. But we need to think outside of our own community and look at what the general public wants.
You make the usual stupid mistake of people who assume that "any improvement is a good improvement". The unlimited unit selection limit and perfect unit movement is usually defended by the "advanced technology" argument ... which I assume you mean by "cutting edge".
The "cutting edge" argument is hollow as I will explain: The unlimited unit selection and tight (a.k.a. "perfect") unit movement are at the core of new problems (the deathball and critical numbers screwing up balance) while totally ignoring the fact that artificial limitations - which arent required due to computer power or programming skill - are still part of the game. I am talking of the 200 supply limit, which is one of the reasons why the game works. For the 12 unit selection limit it is exactly the same ... it doesnt exist because of computer limitations, it exists because it is necessary. Total Annihilation didnt have a 12 unit selection limit (at least I dont think it had, because I used to speed up the production in one factory with 30+ flying builders rotating around it) and it came out in 1997 ... so the argument of "advanced technology" is totally invalid because the technology was there already and "design decision" is the correct phrase to describe the limitation.
Even if Blizzard did some research on marketing how SC2 should be they wouldnt have found anyone who said that they were just expecting "BW HD". That isnt the same as "a totally new game with the majority of things being different". The game still has to make sense - which the 4-5 years in the story and the suddenly missing BW units doesnt - and it has to work properly. Blizzard could have added the same new units to the "improved BW mechanics" which I suggest and it would have been plenty of new stuff. And lastly ... a company with a fanatical fanbase as Blizzard AND a huge amount of money to market their products can sell basically anything half-decent ... and that's what SC2 is: half-decent.
The main points I am always making is that they didnt try to improve the old and tried and tested game but rather they thought they could make a giant leap forward without actually learning from the old game. That is a HUGE mistake ... if you have a game that works and is balanced pretty well you make improvements to it in SMALL STEPS. They could have made a large number of small steps to get sufficiently far away from the original game, but at each step they would have to check with the usual "QA questions": - Did this step improve the game? - Did this step distort the balance or other mechanics? At several steps they should have found their new ideas to be lacking ... but since they didnt do it that way they are all to blame for the problems of SC2.
EPT
