Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 15

On March 17 2012 07:00 Catocalipse wrote:
Barrin, I understand where you're coming from in saying that this would make the game more dynamic. However, there are some glaring racial balance problems this would cause, or so I believe, anyhow.

The biggest problem would be that it would favor Zerg considerably because they generally have a much easier time expanding than T or P. Or rather, they have a much easier time defending expansions than T or P for two reasons: Firstly, because they are less positionally reliant (for example on building walls, running back up ramp to main to choke, etc...), and because their early and mid-game units are extremely mobile in comparison to T or P. This has a lesser effect on T due to reactor hellion openings in TvZ essentially being able to contain Z and deny map control for some time at least. Nonetheless, having to defend more bases as T vs Mutas in the mid-game could still give Z a considerable edge.

In the case of PvZ, the situation is considerably more dire. Firstly, FFE is effectively nerfed because the investment in forge+cannon (or 2) becomes considerably more expensive relative to the amount of minerals and mining rate gained. Secondly, because a fast third from Z becomes even more powerful because instead of 2 base saturation being 52-56 harvesters it would drop to ~40. This obviously makes Zerg considerably less unhindered in their ability to expand their economy. FFE would probably die out I believe. This basically takes protoss back to gateway expands again, because they do not suffer from the now much more relatively expensive forge and cannon(s). However, I do not believe there is any reasonable gateway expansion timing for P currently that would be both safe and able to keep up with Z in a world where 1 base saturation was 18-22 probes. Again, this is because due to the fast 2nd base, Z is considerably less hindered economically by oversaturation. Even a 1 gate expand from P, (which frankly is reasonably unsafe on most maps) would suffer from a considerable amount of lost mining time due to oversaturation (while Z would suffer of it much less due to their faster expansion timing).

And this doesn't even take into account the nightmare that mutas would be in PvZ. It's hard enough to defend 3 bases vs muta builds. Defending a potentially required 4 or 5 would be insanity. The problem isn't just limited to having to defend more points of attack, but also due to the fact that 6m1hyg mineral-shifts your income. What I mean by that is that mineral gathering rate is reduced by 25% while gas gathering drops by 33%. So relative to 8m2g, you have ~12% less gas income. It might seem like it's a small difference, but it's very significant and could result in P being unable to eek out those all-important templars vs mutas.

Essentially I believe PvZ would be completely unplayable (unless you put a natural in the main or something), but that would defeat the purpose of this change. TvZ would also suffer some vs muta play, but T units and turrets are much more effective at defending muta harass than P units and cannons. I'm sure most people will see this, but in case it needs proving, T is consistently able to move out vs mutas in TvZ but the moment P does so in PvZ he enters an all-in baserace. This is due to the fact that a much more significant investment in units or static defences is necessary to fend off mutas for P.

PvT would also be affected because drops would become more effective (again, due to more attack points due to more bases). However, I believe this could be potentially balanced because P can also take advantage of this.

Another final point worthy of note would be the MULE. Currently T is already able to mine at a faster rate per base than P or Z due to MULEs. This is because MULEs ignore base saturation. However, the proportion by which they can 'oversaturate' a mineral line with MULEs increases if the number of mineral patches is dropped. This would probably have a minor effect, but is still worthy of consideration.

Ultimately, this change aims to make SC2 a much more aggressive expansion and harassment focused game. However, Protoss does not have the tools to keep pace with Z in such a game -- neither in terms of expanding nor in terms of harassment or defending harass. And T may also suffer, to a lesser extent. Thus, I believe that unless very radically extreme changes are made to map design, or changes to units and buildings, that this would really break the game.