Edit: I'd also like to add that if the defenders advantage doesn't appeal to you enough, then you must not have liked 300, or Lord of the Rings Two Towers or the end of Saving Private Ryan or 13 Assassins. History (and consequently our movie industry) is filled with epic examples of how the defenders advantage can decide the outcome of a battle (war).
The OP is simply stating that without the strategic element of "the defenders advantage" then the game becomes nothing more than a matter of numbers. SC 2 heavily lacks clear design for the defenders advantage and as a result suffers from a lot of numbers battles (read death balls). Any veteran of RTS or strategy games in general would know how important this is.
On January 21 2012 16:59 Malkavian183 wrote: A good write up and a nice defense for your arguments but I don't think that there should be a defender's advantage just because he is defender.
If you compare Risk to SC2 then you are comparing a one dimensional mechanic two a three or more dimensional one. In SC2 defender has advantage if he scouts, continues to improve his economy and makes enough units to defend. This is by no means a flawed logic. All-ins are supposed to work like this. If you take this and give an advantage to defender i think the essense of strategy, scouting and reacting will be lost. Of course this sometimes leads to build order wins or losses but that is just natural.
Anyway, I don't think defender should have an advantage just because he is the defender. Scouting, being aware and being able to react is a part of this game and your biggest mistake is to compare apples and oranges.
But good write up, keep analysing!
Defenders advatage makes sense because all forms of warfare have defenders advantage. Whether just knowing terran, being "dug in" and/or support from civilian population its just the way it is. In the Winter war Russains lost like 1 million compared to 10000 Fins with sniper rifles in the forrests due to excellent defenders advantage. Not to mention it makes for better game play as discused.
You can't expect to implement the same sort of defender's advantage as in BW.
The single biggest factor to SC2 playing out so differently from BW is the revision of mineral gathering. They entirely changed max saturation levels; they changed how much each subsequent produced worker is worth; they changed the amount of workers required to harvest gas to smoothen the effects of the former; they introduced macro mechanics and warp-in.
All speeding up the game, all lessening the effects a higher number of expansions.
You don't just go in and introduce defensive super units after having made all these changes. It'd break the game even more.
On January 21 2012 16:59 Malkavian183 wrote: A good write up and a nice defense for your arguments but I don't think that there should be a defender's advantage just because he is defender.
If you compare Risk to SC2 then you are comparing a one dimensional mechanic two a three or more dimensional one. In SC2 defender has advantage if he scouts, continues to improve his economy and makes enough units to defend. This is by no means a flawed logic. All-ins are supposed to work like this. If you take this and give an advantage to defender i think the essense of strategy, scouting and reacting will be lost. Of course this sometimes leads to build order wins or losses but that is just natural.
Anyway, I don't think defender should have an advantage just because he is the defender. Scouting, being aware and being able to react is a part of this game and your biggest mistake is to compare apples and oranges.
But good write up, keep analysing!
Defenders advatage makes sense because all forms of warfare have defenders advantage. Whether just knowing terran, being "dug in" and/or support from civilian population its just the way it is. In the Winter war Russains lost like 1 million compared to 10000 Fins with sniper rifles in the forrests due to excellent defenders advantage. Not to mention it makes for better game play as discused.
The problem is, if you take defenders advantage to such extremes in SC2, then absolutely nobody would ever attack. Or would you take a fight where you need 1 million troops to kill 10000 when you know that befhorehand? In a game like SC2 that has economical and supply restrictions that are very clear this obviously wouldn't work.
If you give people too much defender's advantage then nobody would ever attack if they are smart, simply because their chances to win are smaller if they do.
More defenders advantage actually results in deathballs, I don't know how you could think the opposite.
On January 21 2012 00:54 frucisky wrote: Treehead, if you'd designed the game, what would you have added to have more of a defender's advantage.
Also, I would make the argument that a good reason Terran has been seen successful for a long time is because they have the strongest defender's advantage. They have walls and all ranged units that can sit behind and shoot, in addition to siege tanks and a very effective anti-air in the form of turrets + repair.
Zerg primarily have creep spread as a form of defender's advantage which Terran have learnt to control well with hellions early game. I admit Protoss' lack of a defender's advantage like you said but sentries work best at choke points. In fact, Protoss are sort of over-reliant on sentries.
This.
Though I do agree with OP that Defender's advantage is pretty much ballz-to-none in SCII. Warp mechanics especially make Protoss a very special case - they can turn from "defence" into all-out attack in a short space of time.
I get what you are saying to an extent, but to be honest I feel that there is a defenders advantage just by the fact that if the early pressure / push fails its pretty much gg at that point, cause you are so behind economically. In my opinion this game is balanced really really well, I mean its almost perfect. Of course I cry imba when I loose to something I feel I should not have, but after I step back. I realize that I lost because I either did a lot wrong leading up to the battle or I just completely screwed up the battle. To another point saying that any early push or all in is easy is really overlooking a large portion of what this game is about(micro). I guess this whole thing is moot anyways since the game will be completely different after HOTS. Interesting talking point though.
On January 21 2012 03:04 Mataza wrote: I´m gonna cite Day[9]: "The system is never flawed"
My opinion is that there already is defender´s advantage. Basically an even bigger defender´s advantage would also mean that it is unreasonable to attack early on. Right now, pressure builds exist because Defenders advantage is not overwhelming. Typical rush builds lose if the first attack isn´t successful(obvious). Right now, SC2 games begin at about the time where the first feasible oppurtunity for aggression is. If there was no feasible alternative to a greedy start, you could just fast forward this part of gameplay because its always the same(That´s why Blizzard gives you now 6 workers instead of the 4 you got in SC:BW).
Taking your Huk replay, he did not scout for an attack and his army was out of position. All he needed to do was keep a probe or a stalker at his opponents ramp or keep his army in the right spot. But he didn´t. He *could* have delayed the attack with 5 forcefields or engaged in equal terrain. Instead he had to crawl down a ramp which is in range of 3 Tanks.
Tl;dr: The issue isn´t as big as you make it be. Huk lost in this game because of mistakes, like lack of scouting. Remember that Blizzard already announced changes do that end for HotS(summons a cannon on building). I might not have said it outright yet, but you seem to be just another balancewhiner. Have a nice day.
Day9's quote is all very well and good, but if everyone thought the system is never flawed, then we would be stuck with alot of very very flawed systems. Also I vaguely recall him saying something about that you should always try to find improvements in that daily. Isn't this was the OP is doing?
Well and right, but his presentation is still misleading. Huk losing against some no name because of lack of defenders advantage is an order of magnitude more severe than reality. I noticed also that 'spines and bunkers are used very much, cannons not', which is another way of saing "buff cannons".
My other point still stands, there are changes announced for HotS.(Which will increase offense/variety for T/Z and defense for P). Don´t get impatient. The issues in WoL are minor at best, except for PvP of course ; )
Canons are not needed since you can warp units anywhere.
On January 21 2012 23:02 LaLuSh wrote: You can't expect to implement the same sort of defender's advantage as in BW.
The single biggest factor to SC2 playing out so differently from BW is the revision of mineral gathering. They entirely changed max saturation levels; they changed how much each subsequent produced worker is worth; they changed the amount of workers required to harvest gas to smoothen the effects of the former; they introduced macro mechanics and warp-in.
All speeding up the game, all lessening the effects a higher number of expansions.
You don't just go in and introduce defensive super units after having made all these changes. It'd break the game even more.
I see - so you're saying defenses were more needed in BW because more expansions were needed to be effective, and that if we did the same in WOL, we would see people maxing and turtling off two bases. That's a good argument. My question, though, is if 200-food deathballs become far less effective - wouldn't that also make "turtling" a horrible strat? Is the turtling a problem if the deathball is no longer useful?
On January 21 2012 18:57 mEtRoSG wrote: thx for supporting my games but u obviously have no idea what your talking about, before u argue about high lvl play pls get there first
Darn, I guess my argument is completed invalidated by this infallible logic. Do you have a complaint about my argument or are you upset that I didn't know who you were since you're not in tournaments?
This was a great game. I'm not an expert on TvT, though I've seen complaints that it can get "too turtley" so maybe my points don't apply there? I'll admit I haven't researched many matchups that don't involve P, but IIRC haven't the other races had some issues with rushing at high levels too? I know zerg has been complaining about allins since the beginning of time, and I thought there were rushes in TvP/Z which were crazy hard to hold - maybe those are gone now though. Idk.
On January 21 2012 16:59 Malkavian183 wrote: A good write up and a nice defense for your arguments but I don't think that there should be a defender's advantage just because he is defender.
If you compare Risk to SC2 then you are comparing a one dimensional mechanic two a three or more dimensional one. In SC2 defender has advantage if he scouts, continues to improve his economy and makes enough units to defend. This is by no means a flawed logic. All-ins are supposed to work like this. If you take this and give an advantage to defender i think the essense of strategy, scouting and reacting will be lost. Of course this sometimes leads to build order wins or losses but that is just natural.
Anyway, I don't think defender should have an advantage just because he is the defender. Scouting, being aware and being able to react is a part of this game and your biggest mistake is to compare apples and oranges.
But good write up, keep analysing!
Defenders advatage makes sense because all forms of warfare have defenders advantage. Whether just knowing terran, being "dug in" and/or support from civilian population its just the way it is. In the Winter war Russains lost like 1 million compared to 10000 Fins with sniper rifles in the forrests due to excellent defenders advantage. Not to mention it makes for better game play as discused.
The problem is, if you take defenders advantage to such extremes in SC2, then absolutely nobody would ever attack. Or would you take a fight where you need 1 million troops to kill 10000 when you know that befhorehand? In a game like SC2 that has economical and supply restrictions that are very clear this obviously wouldn't work.
If you give people too much defender's advantage then nobody would ever attack if they are smart, simply because their chances to win are smaller if they do.
More defenders advantage actually results in deathballs, I don't know how you could think the opposite.
This isn't true. People would attack all the time, knowing that they are relatively safe because if they lose an attack they will then have a defenders advantage vs the counter attack! Get it? Makes sense...
You can summarize SC 2's first 2 years as very volatile and unstable (talking about the pro scene). Its hard to be very consistent because the game itself is explosive. Even Nestea loses to stupid ass 1 base aggression from Gsl Terrans.
I can summarize it again from my own experiences, I never ever ever want to move out vs T or Z. If I do I do it very anxiously. Because I know that if I lose one single fight I will have nothing to fall back on besides sub par static defenses and as many warp ins as I can muster.
Its not fun (just this issue! The rest of the game is awesome) its not strategic and there is hardly any security in being a defender, and there should be!!!!
On January 21 2012 23:56 Drizzle wrote: I get what you are saying to an extent, but to be honest I feel that there is a defenders advantage just by the fact that if the early pressure / push fails its pretty much gg at that point, cause you are so behind economically. In my opinion this game is balanced really really well, I mean its almost perfect. Of course I cry imba when I loose to something I feel I should not have, but after I step back. I realize that I lost because I either did a lot wrong leading up to the battle or I just completely screwed up the battle. To another point saying that any early push or all in is easy is really overlooking a large portion of what this game is about(micro). I guess this whole thing is moot anyways since the game will be completely different after HOTS. Interesting talking point though.
I know balance and game design are VERY related... To discuss game design you have to use real in game examples. But they are not the same! This thread is not about balance, its about game design. Rock, paper, scissors is fricken balanced! But how fun would that be to play online over again (bad game design).
Proposing changes to this game is the goal of these threads.
On January 21 2012 23:02 LaLuSh wrote: You can't expect to implement the same sort of defender's advantage as in BW.
The single biggest factor to SC2 playing out so differently from BW is the revision of mineral gathering. They entirely changed max saturation levels; they changed how much each subsequent produced worker is worth; they changed the amount of workers required to harvest gas to smoothen the effects of the former; they introduced macro mechanics and warp-in.
All speeding up the game, all lessening the effects a higher number of expansions.
You don't just go in and introduce defensive super units after having made all these changes. It'd break the game even more.
I see - so you're saying defenses were more needed in BW because more expansions were needed to be effective, and that if we did the same in WOL, we would see people maxing and turtling off two bases. That's a good argument. My question, though, is if 200-food deathballs become far less effective - wouldn't that also make "turtling" a horrible strat? Is the turtling a problem if the deathball is no longer useful?
You know maybe if there were some other style to games like these? Like counter attacks, drops, harrass, flanking, holding down an area of the map, seiging such points.... Oh and doing that ALL AT ONCE, ALL GAME LONG! Yeah that sounds more fun then death ball wars... If only deathballs were weaker O.o
I get what you're saying even though other people are not.
On January 21 2012 16:59 Malkavian183 wrote: A good write up and a nice defense for your arguments but I don't think that there should be a defender's advantage just because he is defender.
If you compare Risk to SC2 then you are comparing a one dimensional mechanic two a three or more dimensional one. In SC2 defender has advantage if he scouts, continues to improve his economy and makes enough units to defend. This is by no means a flawed logic. All-ins are supposed to work like this. If you take this and give an advantage to defender i think the essense of strategy, scouting and reacting will be lost. Of course this sometimes leads to build order wins or losses but that is just natural.
Anyway, I don't think defender should have an advantage just because he is the defender. Scouting, being aware and being able to react is a part of this game and your biggest mistake is to compare apples and oranges.
But good write up, keep analysing!
Defenders advatage makes sense because all forms of warfare have defenders advantage. Whether just knowing terran, being "dug in" and/or support from civilian population its just the way it is. In the Winter war Russains lost like 1 million compared to 10000 Fins with sniper rifles in the forrests due to excellent defenders advantage. Not to mention it makes for better game play as discused.
The problem is, if you take defenders advantage to such extremes in SC2, then absolutely nobody would ever attack. Or would you take a fight where you need 1 million troops to kill 10000 when you know that befhorehand? In a game like SC2 that has economical and supply restrictions that are very clear this obviously wouldn't work.
If you give people too much defender's advantage then nobody would ever attack if they are smart, simply because their chances to win are smaller if they do.
More defenders advantage actually results in deathballs, I don't know how you could think the opposite.
This isn't true. People would attack all the time, knowing that they are relatively safe because if they lose an attack they will then have a defenders advantage vs the counter attack! Get it? Makes sense...
No, it really doesn't. Why would you ever deliberately lose a battle? Even if you know that you are relatively safe after losing the battle, you are still behind in efficiency. If both players have really strong defensive mechanisms that allow them to defend just about everything, then the logical consequence is that the game will go into ulta lategame until both players are mined out and then the player with the better "unit lost" efficiency is going to win the game, in other words the player who was just defending all game and won every single battle.
How are you supposed to win a game when you lose fight after fight? it doesn't matter if you don't die to counter attacks, because you will ultimately lose due to a lack of efficiency.
it's ridiculous to think that any smart human being would ever attack knowing that they will lose the battle in 90% of the cases. What exactly is the purpose of attacking when you put yourself at a disadvantageous position by doing so?
And if you can't die to counter attacks after losing a big battle then how on earth is the game ever going to end before the ultimate lategame? If you can't even kill your opponent after crushing his entire army, then it's basically impossible to kill him at all until you are both mined out and somebody just hasn't got any money left.
I can't even imagine how retarded SC2 would be if blizzard really designed the game like you want it. Just think about it for a second.
edit: And the fact that you want such extremely strong defensive structures in SC2 actually supports deathballs, because if they are supposed to be so strong to stop your opponent's counter attacks entirely after losing a big battle, then the only way to break these defenses is to build up a huge ball of death, because a small bunch of units is just going to get destroyed. If a big army can't kill it, there is no way a small army is going to be able to. So you don't want deathballs in SC2, but by asking for extremely ridiculously powerful defensive structures you force everyone to build really strong armies to break the defense. Why would anyone ever drop, knowing that the opponent probably has this "super gun" thing in place? why would anyone ever attempt to snipe a base, knowing that the defenses are so strong that there is no way he can snipe a base without bringing his entire army? It really does not make any sense at all.
On January 21 2012 16:59 Malkavian183 wrote: A good write up and a nice defense for your arguments but I don't think that there should be a defender's advantage just because he is defender.
If you compare Risk to SC2 then you are comparing a one dimensional mechanic two a three or more dimensional one. In SC2 defender has advantage if he scouts, continues to improve his economy and makes enough units to defend. This is by no means a flawed logic. All-ins are supposed to work like this. If you take this and give an advantage to defender i think the essense of strategy, scouting and reacting will be lost. Of course this sometimes leads to build order wins or losses but that is just natural.
Anyway, I don't think defender should have an advantage just because he is the defender. Scouting, being aware and being able to react is a part of this game and your biggest mistake is to compare apples and oranges.
But good write up, keep analysing!
Defenders advatage makes sense because all forms of warfare have defenders advantage. Whether just knowing terran, being "dug in" and/or support from civilian population its just the way it is. In the Winter war Russains lost like 1 million compared to 10000 Fins with sniper rifles in the forrests due to excellent defenders advantage. Not to mention it makes for better game play as discused.
The problem is, if you take defenders advantage to such extremes in SC2, then absolutely nobody would ever attack. Or would you take a fight where you need 1 million troops to kill 10000 when you know that befhorehand? In a game like SC2 that has economical and supply restrictions that are very clear this obviously wouldn't work.
If you give people too much defender's advantage then nobody would ever attack if they are smart, simply because their chances to win are smaller if they do.
More defenders advantage actually results in deathballs, I don't know how you could think the opposite.
This isn't true. People would attack all the time, knowing that they are relatively safe because if they lose an attack they will then have a defenders advantage vs the counter attack! Get it? Makes sense...
No, it really doesn't. Why would you ever deliberately lose a battle? Even if you know that you are relatively safe after losing the battle, you are still behind in efficiency. If both players have really strong defensive mechanisms that allow them to defend just about everything, then the logical consequence is that the game will go into ulta lategame until both players are mined out and then the player with the better "unit lost" efficiency is going to win the game, in other words the player who was just defending all game and won every single battle.
How are you supposed to win a game when you lose fight after fight? it doesn't matter if you don't die to counter attacks, because you will ultimately lose due to a lack of efficiency.
it's ridiculous to think that any smart human being would ever attack knowing that they will lose the battle in 90% of the cases. What exactly is the purpose of attacking when you put yourself at a disadvantageous position by doing so?
And if you can't die to counter attacks after losing a big battle then how on earth is the game ever going to end before the ultimate lategame? If you can't even kill your opponent after crushing his entire army, then it's basically impossible to kill him at all until you are both mined out and somebody just hasn't got any money left.
I can't even imagine how retarded SC2 would be if blizzard really designed the game like you want it. Just think about it for a second.
You should re-read the OP. Defender's advantage is a slight advantage, not an unbeatable obstacle.
Also I did not say lose your army on purpose? I said that if you feel safer then you can then explore more options rather than adding to your death ball. This would lead to a better game.
On January 21 2012 16:59 Malkavian183 wrote: A good write up and a nice defense for your arguments but I don't think that there should be a defender's advantage just because he is defender.
If you compare Risk to SC2 then you are comparing a one dimensional mechanic two a three or more dimensional one. In SC2 defender has advantage if he scouts, continues to improve his economy and makes enough units to defend. This is by no means a flawed logic. All-ins are supposed to work like this. If you take this and give an advantage to defender i think the essense of strategy, scouting and reacting will be lost. Of course this sometimes leads to build order wins or losses but that is just natural.
Anyway, I don't think defender should have an advantage just because he is the defender. Scouting, being aware and being able to react is a part of this game and your biggest mistake is to compare apples and oranges.
But good write up, keep analysing!
Defenders advatage makes sense because all forms of warfare have defenders advantage. Whether just knowing terran, being "dug in" and/or support from civilian population its just the way it is. In the Winter war Russains lost like 1 million compared to 10000 Fins with sniper rifles in the forrests due to excellent defenders advantage. Not to mention it makes for better game play as discused.
The problem is, if you take defenders advantage to such extremes in SC2, then absolutely nobody would ever attack. Or would you take a fight where you need 1 million troops to kill 10000 when you know that befhorehand? In a game like SC2 that has economical and supply restrictions that are very clear this obviously wouldn't work.
If you give people too much defender's advantage then nobody would ever attack if they are smart, simply because their chances to win are smaller if they do.
More defenders advantage actually results in deathballs, I don't know how you could think the opposite.
This isn't true. People would attack all the time, knowing that they are relatively safe because if they lose an attack they will then have a defenders advantage vs the counter attack! Get it? Makes sense...
No, it really doesn't. Why would you ever deliberately lose a battle? Even if you know that you are relatively safe after losing the battle, you are still behind in efficiency. If both players have really strong defensive mechanisms that allow them to defend just about everything, then the logical consequence is that the game will go into ulta lategame until both players are mined out and then the player with the better "unit lost" efficiency is going to win the game, in other words the player who was just defending all game and won every single battle.
How are you supposed to win a game when you lose fight after fight? it doesn't matter if you don't die to counter attacks, because you will ultimately lose due to a lack of efficiency.
it's ridiculous to think that any smart human being would ever attack knowing that they will lose the battle in 90% of the cases. What exactly is the purpose of attacking when you put yourself at a disadvantageous position by doing so?
And if you can't die to counter attacks after losing a big battle then how on earth is the game ever going to end before the ultimate lategame? If you can't even kill your opponent after crushing his entire army, then it's basically impossible to kill him at all until you are both mined out and somebody just hasn't got any money left.
I can't even imagine how retarded SC2 would be if blizzard really designed the game like you want it. Just think about it for a second.
You should re-read the OP. Defender's advantage is a slight advantage, not an unbeatable obstacle.
I think you all ignored Lalushs post completely. I think he is right: In BW you had to take more bases to have a good economy, but in SC2, more than 3 mining bases are mostly used for extensive gas mining in the ultra late game. Drop play is encouraged by many bases which are spread all across the map. So a solution might be that you reduce the mineral patches/gas to maybe 4/1 per expansion. Then people will need to take more bases and this should support drop play b/c if you waltz out with your deathball to kill a 4/1 expansion the other guy will simply walk into your main.
its amazing how people still think that defenders adv is not what is a huge hole in sc2.
besides the fact that early game all ins are not fun to play or watch its not as skilled. also again ignoring the fact that death ball pushes exist and games can be decided under 4 seconds we still need defenders adv.
if we lose a fight it must be hard to win against the defender. if we win a fight our goal should be to get ahead with bases not go and kill. all the sc2 mechanics lead toward going and killing
On January 21 2012 16:59 Malkavian183 wrote: A good write up and a nice defense for your arguments but I don't think that there should be a defender's advantage just because he is defender.
If you compare Risk to SC2 then you are comparing a one dimensional mechanic two a three or more dimensional one. In SC2 defender has advantage if he scouts, continues to improve his economy and makes enough units to defend. This is by no means a flawed logic. All-ins are supposed to work like this. If you take this and give an advantage to defender i think the essense of strategy, scouting and reacting will be lost. Of course this sometimes leads to build order wins or losses but that is just natural.
Anyway, I don't think defender should have an advantage just because he is the defender. Scouting, being aware and being able to react is a part of this game and your biggest mistake is to compare apples and oranges.
But good write up, keep analysing!
Defenders advatage makes sense because all forms of warfare have defenders advantage. Whether just knowing terran, being "dug in" and/or support from civilian population its just the way it is. In the Winter war Russains lost like 1 million compared to 10000 Fins with sniper rifles in the forrests due to excellent defenders advantage. Not to mention it makes for better game play as discused.
The problem is, if you take defenders advantage to such extremes in SC2, then absolutely nobody would ever attack. Or would you take a fight where you need 1 million troops to kill 10000 when you know that befhorehand? In a game like SC2 that has economical and supply restrictions that are very clear this obviously wouldn't work.
If you give people too much defender's advantage then nobody would ever attack if they are smart, simply because their chances to win are smaller if they do.
More defenders advantage actually results in deathballs, I don't know how you could think the opposite.
This isn't true. People would attack all the time, knowing that they are relatively safe because if they lose an attack they will then have a defenders advantage vs the counter attack! Get it? Makes sense...
No, it really doesn't. Why would you ever deliberately lose a battle? Even if you know that you are relatively safe after losing the battle, you are still behind in efficiency. If both players have really strong defensive mechanisms that allow them to defend just about everything, then the logical consequence is that the game will go into ulta lategame until both players are mined out and then the player with the better "unit lost" efficiency is going to win the game, in other words the player who was just defending all game and won every single battle.
How are you supposed to win a game when you lose fight after fight? it doesn't matter if you don't die to counter attacks, because you will ultimately lose due to a lack of efficiency.
it's ridiculous to think that any smart human being would ever attack knowing that they will lose the battle in 90% of the cases. What exactly is the purpose of attacking when you put yourself at a disadvantageous position by doing so?
And if you can't die to counter attacks after losing a big battle then how on earth is the game ever going to end before the ultimate lategame? If you can't even kill your opponent after crushing his entire army, then it's basically impossible to kill him at all until you are both mined out and somebody just hasn't got any money left.
I can't even imagine how retarded SC2 would be if blizzard really designed the game like you want it. Just think about it for a second.
You should re-read the OP. Defender's advantage is a slight advantage, not an unbeatable obstacle.
See bunker, cannon, spine crawler.
All everyone is saying is that the defense in this game is too weak. Not just static D but over all everything favors massing up and attacking. If you think that the answer to everything is have more units than your opponent has at a certain point then go attack it and you win that area, then you are setting yourself up for a poorly designed game.
There should be methods and avenues in place that a defender can do to improve his chances of defending when an imminent push is coming (something other than having more units).
Watch this.
I remember seeing it in a TL featured article.
Look how slowly a Terran must push in this game to make it across the map. Its a constant struggle. Savior has a weaker army over all when Terran started to march (5 tanks, 40 marines/medics, and 2 vessels against a paltry 12 mutas and 7 lurkers). But through skill, Savior slows down the push and musters up an army to beat the push. Thats fun, thats strategy and thats skill. If Savior messes up one aspect of this he dies. The Terran isn't always going to lose this push because of the defenders advantage.
Lastly Savior is not even defensive (what you call boring) he's aggressive as hell.
On January 21 2012 23:02 LaLuSh wrote: You can't expect to implement the same sort of defender's advantage as in BW.
The single biggest factor to SC2 playing out so differently from BW is the revision of mineral gathering. They entirely changed max saturation levels; they changed how much each subsequent produced worker is worth; they changed the amount of workers required to harvest gas to smoothen the effects of the former; they introduced macro mechanics and warp-in.
All speeding up the game, all lessening the effects a higher number of expansions.
You don't just go in and introduce defensive super units after having made all these changes. It'd break the game even more.
Higher number of expansions?
To be honest, in Broodwar PvZ Protosses tend to stay on 2 bases for a very long time, since they can do a lot of mean pushes off of 2 bases. The same kinda applies for Terrans in TvP as well. I really have the feeling that staying on 2 bases for a long period of time is way more common than it is in SC2. In SC2 I always feel so urged to take a 3rd very quickly regardless of the match up. In Broodwar operating off of 2 bases doesnt seem to be that much of an issue and quite advantageous in many cases.
On January 21 2012 23:02 LaLuSh wrote: You can't expect to implement the same sort of defender's advantage as in BW.
The single biggest factor to SC2 playing out so differently from BW is the revision of mineral gathering. They entirely changed max saturation levels; they changed how much each subsequent produced worker is worth; they changed the amount of workers required to harvest gas to smoothen the effects of the former; they introduced macro mechanics and warp-in.
All speeding up the game, all lessening the effects a higher number of expansions.
You don't just go in and introduce defensive super units after having made all these changes. It'd break the game even more.
Higher number of expansions?
To be honest, in Broodwar PvZ Protosses tend to stay on 2 bases for a very long time, since they can do a lot of mean pushes off of 2 bases. The same kinda applies for Terrans in TvP as well. I really have the feeling that staying on 2 bases for a long period of time is way more common than it is in SC2. In SC2 I always feel so urged to take a 3rd very quickly regardless of the match up. In Broodwar operating off of 2 bases doesnt seem to be that much of an issue and quite advantageous in many cases.
I feel like an increased economy just leads to an accelerated pace of the game. I don't see why it would make a difference in the game in terms of how many expansions you want. You always want a better economy than your opponent but going econ will lower your army strength if your opponent forgoes econ, but the exact same was true in Broodwar as well.
EPT
