|
By the way, please do not bring balance discussion or hateful BW vs. SC2 discussion into this. Thank you.
Race Design
One thing that's been weighing heavily on my mind is the concept of race design. That is, how is a race designed? What central themes unify the entire race? What is the difference between a random coalition of units and an actual race?
We all know how each race is supposed to feel like.
Terran: The Terran humans are rugged and adaptable. They love their big guns and heavy machinery, probably because without these assets, the Terrans would surely meet their demise. They are not many in number (like the Zerg) and they are not particularly strong when alone (like the Protoss).
Protoss: The Protoss aliens are advanced beyond our imagination. Each Protoss unit is costly, but that means their units are the strongest around (a Zealot beats a Marine and a Zergling, etc.). They heavily utilize psionic powers such as their Pylon matrix and High Templars casting Storms. Each unit is so precious to them that even the Zealots are teleported out of the battlefield before they die.
Zerg: The Zerg is the Swarm, filled with many fast low-cost units. An individual Zergling will not be able to accomplish much, but 1,000 Zerglings might. Each Zergling is a speedy little critter and entire Zerg armies descend upon you rapidly with little warning. They require no technology, only the pinnacle of evolution itself.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LjpBR.jpg)
This is what Zerg should look like.
Where did these "race designs" come from? Well, the answer lies in the game's predecessor - StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War. For the most part, Blizzard has been sticking to these race designs, but recently, I have started to notice a disturbing trend.
The Loss of Identity
In a post by a fellow TeamLiquider, he or she mentioned that in Heart of the Swarm, Terran needs to play more like a Zerg. My mind immediately jumped to this conclusion: Terrans must rush to the lategame as fast as possible, power their economy, then build a super slow and powerful deathball army. In other words, I have begun to identify Zerg as the slow, expensive army. Obviously, this is due to the Infestor/Brood Lord/Corrupter army that is so popular in Wings of Liberty.
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Ver/patchzerg_fight.jpg)
This is what Zerg actually looks like. Shamelessly stolen from Ver's thread - Lings of Liberty: The Rise of the Patchzergs.
What about Protoss? Well, it is true that their army still consists of the fewest number of units. However, I'm sure many of you have experienced this - their units just feel more fragile than their Brood War counterparts. In Brood War, I could trust a Dragoon (well, I wouldn't trust it to move, but you get the point...) but in StarCraft II, I feel like the Stalker is so fragile. I'm scared to have a Stalker face a Roach, I'm scared to have a Stalker face a Marauder. Many arguments have been made about how the Warpgate research leads to weaker Gateway units, but the point is this: I have begun to identify Protoss units as fragile, they are not strong enough by themselves. They need numbers (such as a Blink Stalker timing that overwhelms the Zerg) or heavy support (Colossus, Templars, Archons, Motherships, oh my!).
Finally, there is Terran. It is hard to comment about Terran because the play styles are so diverse, from mech to bio to biomech to sky to skymech to biosky. Many people agree that Blizzard designed the Terran race best, although many also complain that Terran can be "fixed" through changes such as increased Tank damage. Certainly, Siege Tanks are not as strong anymore - if I have a decent number of Zealots or Zerglings, I feel comfortable attacking directly into a Tank line.
Balance and game design are two important aspects of the game. Without balance, a competitive progaming scene and the casual ladder scene suffer greatly, with certain races becoming foolish choices or the outcome of a match being decided at the very start. Without good game design, the game is doomed as a spectator scene - for example, if the only viable unit for Terran was the Viking and every TvT was just a battle of who could get more Vikings out, would you still enjoy TvT?
Race Design Leads to Game Design
Yet I contend that another equally important aspect of the game is race design. When I play Zerg, I should feel like a Swarm, not a moving bulldozer. In fact, I believe that race design is even more important than game design because the unique identities of each race lead to good game design.
Those who promote good game design might encourage the addition of a strong, expensive unit to the Zerg arsenal. This unit might promote good micro and positioning, might increase defender's advantage, might encourage multitasking, might break up the deathball, etc. In other words, this unit might be ideal for game design.
The problem with this is that such a unit is distinctly Protoss and should not be given to the Zergs. By only giving each race the type of unit that is suited for them, this creates a separation of identity. Zerg doesn't feel like Protoss which doesn't feel like Terran. They have distinct play styles. This creates interesting gameplay, simply because two distinctly different play styles clash against each other.
There are a lot of complaints about deathball vs. deathball fights. However, what about Brood War TvP? Many people would praise Brood War TvP, and the dynamic is slightly different. In Brood War TvP, the Terran builds what is essentially a deathball - a doom army of Siege Tanks, although there is much positioning and strategy involved. The Protoss must be everywhere on the map, relentlessly expanding, and overwhelming the Terran with numbers. Thus, Brood War TvP is slightly different - it's not deathball vs. deathball, but rather deathball vs. non-deathball.
Perhaps it's not the deathball which makes gameplay uninteresting, but the prevalence of deathball vs. deathball in every game. Right now, each race can create a deathball, leading to tons and tons of games which are deathball clashes. However, what if the entire Zerg race was designed to be fast-moving and low cost, forcing them to abandon the deathball style? Then half of the games (ZvT, ZvZ, ZvP) would look different, and perhaps more interesting to watch.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OG9iJ.png)
Maybe we wouldn't have to see this every game...
If every race were very different from each other, then every non-mirror matchup would become a clash of play styles. In turn, the mirror matchups would become more interesting, even the "deathball race" mirror matchup, because we wouldn't see deathball vs. deathball every single game, only in one matchup.
Unifying a race does not mean limiting a race's strategies. For example, make Protoss units strong and expensive, and remove Warp Gate and ridiculous mobility. Now, Protoss has a strong identity, but that does not mean every Protoss must play the same. MC can utilize the strength of Protoss units and devise great timing attacks, HerO can utilize the fact that Protoss units are strong by splitting them up and harassing - after all, even a small clump of units will be able to fend for themselves. Another Protoss (I don't know, Creator?) might favor a macro deathball style. However, no matter how you use the units, you know that Protoss units are strong and Zerg units are inherently weaker - and it is this conflict which will produce good games.
Disclaimer: This post is just my opinion, I am not an expert game designer so I do not pretend to hold all the answers. I am just presenting this opinion in hopes of starting a community discussion.
Poll: How important is race design to you?Very important - I chose X race because I wanted to play a certain way! (765) 80% Important, but not as important as balance/game design (155) 16% Not important at all (18) 2% Slightly important - I guess Zerg Colossi would feel weird (13) 1% 951 total votes Your vote: How important is race design to you? (Vote): Not important at all
(Vote): Slightly important - I guess Zerg Colossi would feel weird
(Vote): Important, but not as important as balance/game design
(Vote): Very important - I chose X race because I wanted to play a certain way!
|
I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
|
On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote:
I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
They buffed the living shit out of hydras.
|
Initially I -didn't- vote "Very important - I chose X race because I wanted to play a certain way!" but the more I think about it, the more I should have voted for that. I play Terran, and when i'm not Terran (like in HOTS im Zerg) I'm trying to play the mobile Terran playstyle with Roach Hydra Viper.
|
On January 06 2013 06:58 Sajaki wrote:
Initially I -didn't- vote "Very important - I chose X race because I wanted to play a certain way!" but the more I think about it, the more I should have voted for that. I play Terran, and when i'm not Terran (like in HOTS im Zerg) I'm trying to play the mobile Terran playstyle with Roach Hydra Viper.
I used to just dabble around casually with random. Then I fell in love with SC's heavy marine/tank timing attack style, where he would trade armies repeatedly, barely coming ahead cost effectively, until he withered his opponent down and finished him with a final push.
But then, with the Queen buff, Zerg gets free full 3 base saturation every game and timing attacks became highly ineffective. Timings were the reason I picked Terran, late game 200/200 battles never really appealed to me.
The new medivacs help a lot with mid game aggression in HOTS, but I agree with you that Zerg has become more Terran than Terran in HOTS.
|
Good post, agree on what you said.
I'm not sure what the "Important, but not as important as balance/game design" answer means. I think balance is still more important, but to clarify what I mean: there should not be a point in the game where the other race cannot win anymore, regardless of what happened prior to that. (aka mass infestor or bl/infestor). Sorry if you meant something else, like symmetry in balance or whatever.
Currently nothing is like what you would expect from the races. Zerg gets free 3 base and is safe and then beats everything once they get enough infestors. Protoss units suck in low numbers. Terran maxed armies are trash.
|
I like it that there is more styles of play for each race, but nevertheless I still totally agree with you.
|
On January 06 2013 07:11 ejozl wrote:
I like it that there is more styles of play for each race, but nevertheless I still totally agree with you.
I love different styles of play. I love how MarineKing can go pure Bio and Mvp can go pure Mech.
However, I think different styles of play can become even more interesting when the races are clearly defined. In that case, it becomes interesting to see how each player takes the strengths/weaknesses of the race and makes them his/her own.
For example, let's say that Zerg is the race where their units are crap, but there's just so many of them. NesTea is now the God of Decision Making and DongRaeGu is the God of Multitasking. DongRaeGu uses his multitasking to constantly throw units everywhere, catching units off guard, runbys, drops, he's the Swarm, he's everywhere! On the other hand, NesTea cannot multitask like that, so he amasses a large army. Then, using his great decision making, he always makes sure that his large Swarm army is ALWAYS where it needs to be, always where it is most effective.
Now we see that neither player is going Infestor/Brood - the Zerg race's strength is numbers, its weakness is that each unit isn't very effective. But two players can accommodate these weaknesses and bring about two distinct styles of play. Perhaps DongRaeGu is not as experienced as NesTea so he could never hope to make as good decisions and NesTea could never hope to have DongRaeGu's handspeed. Neither of them can hope to just charge straight through the map with a deathball since they chose Zerg. Still, unifying the race doesn't mean only one playstyle.
Note that I just chose NesTea and DongRaeGu as examples.
|
|
|
On January 06 2013 07:26 Entirety wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 07:11 ejozl wrote:
I like it that there is more styles of play for each race, but nevertheless I still totally agree with you. I love how MarineKing can go pure Bio and Mvp can go pure Mech.
Awesome post! I Pretty much agree on everything.
And since when anybody has been able to go pure mech after the launch at the highest level? Even the only spooniest terran ever goody admitted hes defeat and figured that pure mech ist't that viable. Although we have seen mech many times against Z these days but they havent had that great succes.
But still, as BW lover i was kinda dissapointed to these roles, and how did they turn out. Whit few months of gameplay on hots, I fell simply terrible (as T player) to rush to those fast OC builds every single game (use a lot of reaper openings though aswell), and then go bio. just mines and hellbats alone wont fix mech, and whitout mech we cant have the same vibes as BW terran, as it started to roll out from its base carefully leap frogging and protecting army whit careful mine placements. We just see silly 1 T stim and fight over in a heartbeat, ending in fungals or storms/baneling hits.
My fear is that, we arent going to see ANY of those feelings that at least i felt watchin BW in the future of HOTS.
[EDIT]
It's pretty funny that you say that dont compare BW and sc2, but you start your post gathering the roles of each race that blizz put on their shiny introduction videos at launch of sc2. You also compare even the TvP gameplay of BW vs SC2, so why anyone else couldnt point those out? Its pretty clear that those roles arent as black and white, but why cannot we use that as a mindset, which were the actual roles that blizzard originally wanted to design and shape the game?
|
On January 06 2013 06:55 decado90 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote:
I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank. They buffed the living shit out of hydras.
Not really, they got a speed upgrade but other than that their stats are exactly the same.
|
On January 06 2013 07:34 Sepi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 07:26 Entirety wrote:On January 06 2013 07:11 ejozl wrote:
I like it that there is more styles of play for each race, but nevertheless I still totally agree with you. I love how MarineKing can go pure Bio and Mvp can go pure Mech. And since when anybody has been able to go pure mech after the launch at the highest level? Even the only spooniest terran ever goody admitted hes defeat and figured that pure mech ist't that viable. Although we have seen mech many times against Z these days but they havent had that great succes.
Sorry I should have clarified, I meant vZ. I was thinking of MarineKing's pure Bio style vs. DongRaeGu in MLG Winter and Mvp's pure Mech style (recently) vs. players such as Life in GSL.
|
This idea of Race design vs Game design isn't new.
I agree to some points presented here that address the current problems in WoL (Brood lords + Infestors), but I disagree that each race does not have a distinct identity except Terran.
Terran as presented does have a flexibility of strong positional play as mech and strong mobility play with MMM drops/pokes etc. HoTS further promotes both positional play with widow mines and hellbats and mobility plays with very strong medivac buffs.
tl dr Terran; They're fine in both WoL and HoTS.
Zerg I think is the point of contention for many people. People simply think it should be merely mobile/weak/swarmy. That race design would only promote boring macro, make units and a move them against the opponent until the enemy is dead. But we clearly do not want zerg to be simply Big strong units late game that is nearly impossible to beat for cost/cost either (as in BL/Infestors).
The zerg is in essence: Swarms of units, not necessarily fast or cheap, but lots of them. And either hitting with 1) lots of cheap, mobile units or 2) lots of free units from slow, expensive units.
Zerglings, banelings and Roaches are really massable, even mutalisks, ultralisks for T2/T3 have one of the cheapest/lowest build times relative to their counterparts in P/T to make them swarmable. BL, Swarm Hosts, Infestors all make more units and fit into the second category.
The best way that zerg is being changed to its original race-feel is via change in infestors and hydralisks. Infestors still remain strong enough with fungal projectile, but it becomes MUCH MUCH harder to actually land good fungal growths. Most people who play HoTS beta would affirm this. The problem with infestor was that it was a unit that it was the ultimate unit, that was capable of doing everything.
Hydralisks in WoL are the epitome of not-really-zerg-unit. Very expensive for its role and has really no synergy with the swarm mentality. It feels more like a protoss unit than a zerg unit due to its reliance on support. HoTS fixes this problem with making them faster, and allow them to move on par with roaches/lings to add their power to the mobile aspect of zerg.
tl dr for zerg; Units that swarm either: cheap-fast-swarm or slow-strong swarm.
Bliz is fixing Infestors that are too individually strong; and is fixing Hydras that neither fit the role of cheap-fast-swarm and slow-strong-swarm to fit the role of the former.
Protoss, race-wise in SC2, are the race that emphasizes on synergy. I really disagree with that each units should be super-strong and super-expensive. After the fall of Aiur and death of the matriarch, the protoss have become quite fallen from their glory days of the mightiest warriors.
Protoss units still can hold one's own in a fair fight, but against the numbers of the Zerg swarm and trickeries of the Terrans, they must stand united. So I believe that current WoL Protoss represents this very well in the infamous "death ball" complex, the protoss desire to purify the enemy in one unbeatable mixture of units.
But Blizzard is adding a new dimension to the race to emphasize not only the Khalai (the strong direct combat- represented by the good old Dragoon, zealots, immortal, collosi, etc.) but the Nerazim (the stealthy strikers- represented mainly by Stalkers, Pheonix, DTs in WoL). And of these only Blink Stalkers were viable Nerazim tactics in WoL.
The early mothership core allows more Nerazim type of assault early on with basic gateway units when the enemy is still massing up the armies by permitting retreat with recall when Khalai would normally not. The addition of Oracle's sneaky assault on helpless workers, cheaper dark shrine, high range Tempest, and Void rays that are more tactical in activating its abilities, and enhanced pheonix range are all signs of emphasis on the sneaky hit/run tactics that Protoss were not as good in WoL.
And Nerazim tactics are not simply restricted to itself either. In great numbers, the Tempest/Void rays/Oracles become a Khalai styled force of direct confrontation. The saved gateway units from core recall adds to the robotics units to make a synergetic force. The protoss retains synergetic in conjunction to its stealthy roots in HoTS.
tl dr protoss; Protoss is either Khalai-deathball or Nerazim-stealth. WoL lacked Nerazim styled plays, but in HoTS both types of plays are encouraged by mobile air units + mothership core recall for early aggression that isn't all-in.
|
I think the point you brought up about loss identity was insightful, and the anecdote you provided for it is definitely something we all know about.
However, I think it's important to note that a race does not necessarily mean a play-style. For example, in BW you had "greedy" and "hungry Zergs, players who took the same race and painted radically different pictures on their canvasses.
Blizzard has made it clear that they want different options for each race to be viable (especially with them tinkering with mech in the current HotS beta). However, their approach to it has seem questionable and mostly opaque. For example, there was a post not so long ago on TL about mech being a play-style and siege tanks being the core to its identity (units made out of a factory do not mean mech, it is simply a slower, clunkier "bio" if all it does it a-move). Accordingly, the Warhound was removed and Blizzard made note of it in the patch notes by mentioning that they were beginning to realize that just because a unit came out of a factory did not make it "mech". The part that grips me the most about Blizzard's response is that they're not necessarily clear about their design philosophy. They mention specifics about race win ratios and unit numbers, but nothing about a general overview on what's considered important.
The point? Things like how the game is essentially capped on 3 base mineral saturation (LaLush made a note of this very early on), unit pathing, and unit design that seems to cater to casuals (casters have strong interactions with other units but not with the map) concern overall design philosophy which supersedes design concerns. It's basically the mindset and the design factors would be the ideas spawning from it. Deathball syndrome is IMO a consequence of said philosophy because economically speaking, it's the best way to play.
|
realy interesting post. Agree with you mostly.
|
Back in 2010 i started out as P but watching all those T back then made me so want to switch to T, having such versatility. But as the meta has been adapting the game became more and more boring for a T. Definetely game design comes out of race design.
|
I have to agree with this idea. I mean to some extent it should be obvious; that is the whole point of having three races in the first place; they're supposed to be different in terms of feel and play style, that's what makes them interesting. Instead when you analyze the play styles being shown at the pro-level, the zerg doesn't feel like a swarmy race, and the protoss are extremely fragile except for forcefields up until they get the all-powerful colossus or high-templar (which are fragile too if you don't back them up).
Maybe they're trying to redefine the races, but I don't see anything distinct besides really simple building distinctions, like larvae and hatcheries vs warp gates vs individual buildings producing units. Its just not enough
|
Really, Really good post... Pretty much agreed with everything you SaiD...
I think the viper fits quite well with the zerg mentality, if the brood lord were to be removed from the Game/changed drastically. atthe moment the brood lord is a Really good siege unit, that is incredibly slow. To me, it is probably the most boring unit in the Game... The mutalisk is far more interesting... Even the ultralisk provides more interesting games... Positions matter when you have an ultralisk based army.
|
Random player here (Just if you assume I am race-biased).
Sometimes I feel like this game is too balanced. Except in PvP and more or less in TvP do exist openers which are safe in nearly every situation if executed well.
These days most of the games are rushes into an end game with players cutting corners where ever they can.
I miss things like crazy long 1 vs 1 base micro wars and players taking fast expos being considered as ballsy.
Zerg was the "Fear me, I have tons of units"-race. Now it is the "Fear me, I have a high tech!"-species.
Terran always meant for me "F*ck this, I'm taking my SCVs and eat you alive". Now it has changed to "F*ck you, I'll outmacro you".
Protoss always made their enemies think "Omg, he is taking another expo". Now they are like "Omg, he is not taking his expo, he is allining me for sure!!!"
I didn't watch much HotS yet, but I doubt they consider changing this.
And also, you can call me a "casual" fool trying to ruin this game, but seriously, what do you think is more viewer-appealing? Aggressive players beating the sh*t out of each other since minute 5 of the game or passive SimCity into endgame?
A good RTS is like sex, the less you are touching each other, the less fun you are having, lol.
|
Give me my siege tanks back! I play BW half the time because I make tanks in WoL and it makes me sad...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
