However, BW TvP is far from any deathball situation. Positional games with vultures, spider mines, (real) siege tanks, proxy turrets, and goliaths (of which is seen in the vast majority of BW TvP games) is far from being any sort of deathball. It is not even close. Terrans have to secure locations with mines, harass with vultures, and slowpush their siege line -- not indicative of deathball. Not to mention it is so much harder to macro and max out in BW. Whether good or bad, there are a myriad of reasons why deathballs barely exist in BW.
Overall, I agree with you, though. My thoughts since SC2 day 1. I know that BW and SC2 are completely different games, but too bad nothing have/will be done about it beside bandaid fixes.
The reason the mass weak zerg worked in lategame BW was because Dark Swarm enabled the zerg army to a crazy degree. The support that the Defiler brought was insane. A few of them enter the field and suddenly the zerg army becomes super hard to engage despite being at the ends of the tech tree for either race. The infestor becomes more of an offensive-aid then the support caster it should have been.
However, BW TvP is far from any deathball situation. Positional games with vultures, spider mines, (real) siege tanks, proxy turrets, and goliaths (of which is seen in the vast majority of BW TvP games) is far from being any sort of deathball. It is not even close.
Overall, I agree with you, though. My thoughts since SC2 day 1. Too bad nothing will be done about it beside bandaid fixes.
On January 06 2013 10:57 Warpath wrote: The reason the mass weak zerg worked in lategame BW was because Dark Swarm enabled the zerg army to a crazy degree. The support that the Defiler brought was insane. A few of them enter the field and suddenly the zerg army becomes super hard to engage despite being at the ends of the tech tree for either race. The infestor becomes more of an offensive-aid then the support caster it should have been.
I never played broodwar, what did a defiler do that was so powerful?
On January 06 2013 10:53 peanutsfan1995 wrote: OP has some great points. As a Zerg player, I got into the game wanting to swarm opponents, use a ton of lings, apply pressure constantly, and win with a fast, mobile army that weathered away at my opponent. Instead, I turtle up and slowly move out with a deathball.
Are there times when races are played as their original design intended? Of course! But I think that it's pretty clear that the trends are showing constant deviation from this design.
I picked zerg almost 2 years ago due to watching idra and loving the swarm feeling of zerg. Now today, I look at it and most people are just getting to the gross, slow, immobile broodlord infestor. I get sad every time I see late game because it was never what I wanted to play like. Even today at mid master, I still never make broodlords. Sure, it hinders me, but I'd rather try and play the swarm rather than the brood infestation.
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.
Exactly, and Hydras are still shit, just - less shit, but people still laugh at you in hots beta when you make them, but sometimes loss because they are slightly better, and don't do anything about them ^^
Also, Swarm host is even worse, they are sooo bad and not at all worth their cost
On January 06 2013 08:12 Grumbels wrote: I've wondered sometimes whether it's better to design match-ups rather than races, since you never use a race in a vacuum. Something you often see is that a race plays differently depending on the match-up: zerg is more tech-focused versus protoss and more based on overwhelming numbers when playing against terran, and I can't help but think that this is an effect of designing on a race level, since then the interactions with other races become a lot more difficult to predict and could lead to different dynamics that you might wish for.
On the contrary, I personally feel that designing a race comes first. Then, the interactions between the races cause the matchups to play out differently, leading to different ways the race is played.
For example, let's just assume
Zerg = fast, swarmy, low cost, numbers Protoss = slow, expensive, strong units Terran = middle of the road, very defensive race, adaptable
Now that we've designed the races, let's take a look at how the matchups might play out:
ZvZ: both armies are fast and mobile, leading to lots of threats, runbys, darting across the map, high intensity micro. Imagine Ling/Bling wars, imagine Muta vs. Muta, imagine that kind of mobility throughout the entire game. Overall, ZvZ becomes the highest intensity matchup
TvT: since Terran is very defensive, you have lots of positioning, the classic TvT chess game. It's very hard to attack into the Terran because the Tanks + PFs + Bunkers + Turrets just give Terran huge defender's advantage. It's all about positioning here, patience and maneuvering. Yes, Mech vs. Bio is still viable, the Bio player has to exploit holes in the Mech player's defenses. The Mech player has to patiently push before getting overrun by a better economy
PvP: now that both armies are super strong, maybe this will be the deathball matchup with large army clashes. Maybe strong Gateway units means that you no longer need those heavy impact units (Colossi) and we can see more harassment and army splitting. Whoever can pick off a good chunk of units or have better engagements gets a decisive advantage
ZvP: The Zerg must constantly trade and threaten runbys, delaying the inevitable push. Protoss must hold off these attempts, amass a super army, and go for the throat. However, a few Protoss units can hold off the fort since they are so strong, so runbys aren't a perpetual problem.
ZvT: Terran is much stronger defensively, so it will be harder for Zerg to break through. A Zerg needs great patience and right as Terran moves out, right when they go to position their Tanks, Zergs must strike right then.
TvP: The greatest sword vs. the greatest shield... the Terran must defend well, the Protoss must break straight through
Now, looking at each of the races, you can see that they have different play styles depending on the matchup, but that is all thanks to their race's fundamental strengths/weaknesses.
On January 06 2013 10:57 Warpath wrote: The reason the mass weak zerg worked in lategame BW was because Dark Swarm enabled the zerg army to a crazy degree. The support that the Defiler brought was insane. A few of them enter the field and suddenly the zerg army becomes super hard to engage despite being at the ends of the tech tree for either race. The infestor becomes more of an offensive-aid then the support caster it should have been.
I never played broodwar, what did a defiler do that was so powerful?
The defiler had 3 spells. Consume would kill a target zerg unit and return energy to the defiler. Plague was a spell that did an insane amount of damage over time directly to HP (ignored shields) but couldn't kill a unit, it always left it at 1 HP. It did have friendly fire, so you had to be careful with it.
The strongest, most useful spell, the one that synergized with zerg the best though was Dark Swarm. DS placed a cloud on an area, and all zerg units in that cloud would receive less damage from ranged attacks and aoe. DS was so strong that, if properly microed, you could break entire siege lines with it. The way it worked was also very elegant, lings, lurkers, ultras and hydras weren't replaced or phased out of the zerg army, but they just became more cost efficient once DS was out.
On January 06 2013 10:57 Warpath wrote: The reason the mass weak zerg worked in lategame BW was because Dark Swarm enabled the zerg army to a crazy degree. The support that the Defiler brought was insane. A few of them enter the field and suddenly the zerg army becomes super hard to engage despite being at the ends of the tech tree for either race. The infestor becomes more of an offensive-aid then the support caster it should have been.
I never played broodwar, what did a defiler do that was so powerful?
To start, its worth saying that it had an ability called Consume, it would target ANY friendly zerg unit, kill it, and give the defiler 50 energy. In pair with zerglings, they basically had unlimited energy. This basically said that you didnt need to have 20+ of these guys to be useful.
The big spell was Dark Swarm, under a fairly large surface area, any unit under it would take 0 damage, discluding melee attacks, and splash damage. This was used a lot in junction with ling/lurker (mostly vT) attacks to force the enemy to retreat away from the area. It made defending bases hell as you hardly have anything to deal significant damage to stuff underneath.
There was also plague, a semi-large area spell that would attach a damage-over-time to anything (including buildings and friendly units) dealing 300 damage over a semi-slow rate, but unable to kill a target. I mostly see it used against sceince vessel clouds once they got out of control, or to deflect large bio attacks when the rest of army lacked positioning or delay attacks.
I honestly dont know exactly what they did in PvZ, i usually saw it with ultras to attack protoss bases that were covered in cannons.
On January 06 2013 08:02 Prugelhugel wrote: 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.
Lmao, I agree with this. Macro games are fun, but I feel Blizzard kind of cheated going "hey we want a macro game, no one is able to kill each other before 15 min", which just takes away the reason why macro games are fun. There is tension between the players, action around the map to prevent scouting and try to get an edge. If you have NR15, it's just 2 big armies clashing into each other and check who countered their opponent better(for the most part). Anyway this was a bit offtopic
I agree with the OP, that the general race design has been messed around with. That being said I'm unsure of the purpose of this thread. The main problem is imo just that protoss and zerg are not actually fighting with the *meat* of their army. Zlots and stalkers are not fighting units, one is a tank and the other is a sniper(except when you only go stalker). Zergling is not a fighting unit it is a tank. Warp gate and MMM being to strong(compared to the other fighting units) is I think the main issue. All the support units are way to prevalent as the real damage dealers for Z/P.
For instance, Zerg "used" to be the least cost effective race and I hope we all agree it should be the case. Zerg economy if untouched is absolutely imba and IT SHOULD BE, because they are not cost effective. That is why things like the Queen buff totally ruined the match up and you identify Zerg as the "slow and cost effective" army. I remember the good old times when Zerg where forced to crack out as many units as possible all the time, that way the game was balance and it made up for great spectating, being on Tier 2 for much longer. Unfortunately nowadays Zergs get T3 units at 14 min vs P and at 18 vs T.
I remember when a while ago (feels like forever ago) if we used to look at the resource lost tab Zerg were ALWAYS at a disadvantage and that is only natural. Now if I had a penny for every time I hear Khaldor or Wolf say on GSL say "Zerg is ahead of X in the units lost tab" meaning, they have been more cost effective than Terran or Protoss. It's not supposed to be that way... You are right, no one is afraid of 1-A into a siege tank line. Between infested terrans, huge economy, etc. Zerg can do that all day long and it's never cost efficient for the T player, like.. EVER.
I think the race design is somewhat fine, the main reason why the game is bad at the moment is that they totally fucked up the balance. I.E. how much does a unit cost, how much damage it does etc. which lead to this absurdity we witness nowadays. I believe by fixing the balance, the race design will seem just good again. I think we can all agree that Zerg felt definitely more "swarmy" in 2011 than in 2012. Endless marine/tank vs ling/bane/muta fights occured all over the map. That was very fun and it took more skill for the Z player than A moving with 200/200 broodlord, infestor or whaver he decides to A move with.
On January 06 2013 08:12 Grumbels wrote: I've wondered sometimes whether it's better to design match-ups rather than races, since you never use a race in a vacuum. Something you often see is that a race plays differently depending on the match-up: zerg is more tech-focused versus protoss and more based on overwhelming numbers when playing against terran, and I can't help but think that this is an effect of designing on a race level, since then the interactions with other races become a lot more difficult to predict and could lead to different dynamics that you might wish for.
On the contrary, I personally feel that designing a race comes first. Then, the interactions between the races cause the matchups to play out differently, leading to different ways the race is played.
For example, let's just assume
Zerg = fast, swarmy, low cost, numbers Protoss = slow, expensive, strong units Terran = middle of the road, very defensive race, adaptable
Now that we've designed the races, let's take a look at how the matchups might play out:
ZvZ: both armies are fast and mobile, leading to lots of threats, runbys, darting across the map, high intensity micro. Imagine Ling/Bling wars, imagine Muta vs. Muta, imagine that kind of mobility throughout the entire game. Overall, ZvZ becomes the highest intensity matchup
TvT: since Terran is very defensive, you have lots of positioning, the classic TvT chess game. It's very hard to attack into the Terran because the Tanks + PFs + Bunkers + Turrets just give Terran huge defender's advantage. It's all about positioning here, patience and maneuvering. Yes, Mech vs. Bio is still viable, the Bio player has to exploit holes in the Mech player's defenses. The Mech player has to patiently push before getting overrun by a better economy
PvP: now that both armies are super strong, maybe this will be the deathball matchup with large army clashes. Maybe strong Gateway units means that you no longer need those heavy impact units (Colossi) and we can see more harassment and army splitting. Whoever can pick off a good chunk of units or have better engagements gets a decisive advantage
ZvP: The Zerg must constantly trade and threaten runbys, delaying the inevitable push. Protoss must hold off these attempts, amass a super army, and go for the throat. However, a few Protoss units can hold off the fort since they are so strong, so runbys aren't a perpetual problem.
ZvT: Terran is much stronger defensively, so it will be harder for Zerg to break through. A Zerg needs great patience and right as Terran moves out, right when they go to position their Tanks, Zergs must strike right then.
TvP: The greatest sword vs. the greatest shield... the Terran must defend well, the Protoss must break straight through
Now, looking at each of the races, you can see that they have different play styles depending on the matchup, but that is all thanks to their race's fundamental strengths/weaknesses.
Not like i want to piss you off or something, but i am wondering if that's the idea you have behind how it should work, or how it works right now. Because neither ZvP, ZvT or TvP work that way. All of them are the opposite actually.
On January 06 2013 08:38 Talin wrote: Nowhere near as important as the overall game design. As far as I'm concerned, an RTS game is better off not having different factions at all, but instead foster different playstyles with the same units and tech tree accessible by all players.
Designing a game around three asymmetric races seems very much like a fool's errand and not really worth the problems it inevitably creates.
I had a sort of similar thought which I turned into a blog, if you're interested.
I think the downfall of competitive WC3 was ultimately that it couldn't support four races. A lot of the match-ups were broken and a lot of the races had really forced differences between them that only ended up working in some cases. I think having a lesser number of races, but trying to make sure that the mechanics they do have are really polished and functional, is superior for design.
Yeah, agreed. Fewer races and smaller differences. Like in SC2, Zerg is way too fast and swarmy compared to Protoss --> Protoss cant deal with zerg outside of deathball play. Or Terran bio --> because it is meant to be somewhat standalone it has to be able to deal with the other low tier playstyles in the longrun, forcing opponents to tech. On the other hand: the speedrelation between stalkers and bio is small --> interesting dynamics Terran midtier (tank, hellion) is only slightly stronger in direct combat than terran lowtier --> multiple TvT playstyles
Basically, dynamics and playstyles stem from small differences and advantages. Big differences in overall race design lead to very clear restrictions. (dont be out on the map against zerg; dont stay on lowtier vs bioterran; dont fight against Protoss in chokes...) Which leads to very "designed", therefore, predictable gameplay. (probably seen best in PvZ)
Im not sure its fair to say that a certain race should be played a certain way, because our expectations for how the races should be played are heavily influenced by the way that they were played in bw. However, the vibe that the community gives off (and I agree with it) is that the races may be fundamentally flawed right now. Should a seige line not be able to hold off any attack (particularly the tier one zerglings and zealots) that is carelessly thrown into it? should the zerg race be strongest when it is building a slow, powerful force? should protoss units have to have expensive support units to be effective? it certainly goes against the identity that we have made for the races, but maybe we are wrong and the design right now is okay. But that stance just doesnt seem right, does it?
On January 06 2013 08:12 Grumbels wrote: I've wondered sometimes whether it's better to design match-ups rather than races, since you never use a race in a vacuum. Something you often see is that a race plays differently depending on the match-up: zerg is more tech-focused versus protoss and more based on overwhelming numbers when playing against terran, and I can't help but think that this is an effect of designing on a race level, since then the interactions with other races become a lot more difficult to predict and could lead to different dynamics that you might wish for.
On the contrary, I personally feel that designing a race comes first. Then, the interactions between the races cause the matchups to play out differently, leading to different ways the race is played.
For example, let's just assume
Zerg = fast, swarmy, low cost, numbers Protoss = slow, expensive, strong units Terran = middle of the road, very defensive race, adaptable
Now that we've designed the races, let's take a look at how the matchups might play out:
ZvZ: both armies are fast and mobile, leading to lots of threats, runbys, darting across the map, high intensity micro. Imagine Ling/Bling wars, imagine Muta vs. Muta, imagine that kind of mobility throughout the entire game. Overall, ZvZ becomes the highest intensity matchup
TvT: since Terran is very defensive, you have lots of positioning, the classic TvT chess game. It's very hard to attack into the Terran because the Tanks + PFs + Bunkers + Turrets just give Terran huge defender's advantage. It's all about positioning here, patience and maneuvering. Yes, Mech vs. Bio is still viable, the Bio player has to exploit holes in the Mech player's defenses. The Mech player has to patiently push before getting overrun by a better economy
PvP: now that both armies are super strong, maybe this will be the deathball matchup with large army clashes. Maybe strong Gateway units means that you no longer need those heavy impact units (Colossi) and we can see more harassment and army splitting. Whoever can pick off a good chunk of units or have better engagements gets a decisive advantage
ZvP: The Zerg must constantly trade and threaten runbys, delaying the inevitable push. Protoss must hold off these attempts, amass a super army, and go for the throat. However, a few Protoss units can hold off the fort since they are so strong, so runbys aren't a perpetual problem.
ZvT: Terran is much stronger defensively, so it will be harder for Zerg to break through. A Zerg needs great patience and right as Terran moves out, right when they go to position their Tanks, Zergs must strike right then.
TvP: The greatest sword vs. the greatest shield... the Terran must defend well, the Protoss must break straight through
Now, looking at each of the races, you can see that they have different play styles depending on the matchup, but that is all thanks to their race's fundamental strengths/weaknesses.
Not like i want to piss you off or something, but i am wondering if that's the idea you have behind how it should work, or how it works right now. Because neither ZvP, ZvT or TvP work that way. All of them are the opposite actually.
That's how I think the matchups would play out IF the races had clear identities.
really like your post. As someone who has played a lot of sc2 and loves it, but knows there are a lot of things which could be better and am always thinking about that kind of thing, i suppose i am an aspiring game designer, and so found your post really interesting.
Anyways, onto your post;
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
The lurker, do you not think that the lurker was every one of these things. Promote's good micro and positioning, increases defenders advantage, encourages multitasking (coming with flanks of lurkers and also the enemy splitting their army against them), and breaks up the deathball. Although race identity is a nice thing to have, i think gameplay and game design is more important. I don't want to start another BW vs SC2 discussion, but i hope most of us can agree that the lurker was one of the units of BW that made BW great. I personally think that if you have a unit that does all these things for zerg in sc2, like the lurker did in BW, then even if it doesn't feel 'zergy' it should still be put in the game. Having a balanced, fun to watch and fun to play game must surely come above how it feels to play a race, because feeling how a race is played wears off, whereas good gameplay doesn't.
I agree in full with the sentiments from the OP. I believe that in SC2, the identities of the races have kind of been lost and it negatively impacts the gameplay to varying amounts.
Zerg has lots of cheep and fast units that are surprisingly cost effective, but they also have a very strong late game deathball. Protoss has a lot of expensive units that are surprisingly fragile, they also rely on artificial ways to supplement their strength, and they have a surprising amount of mobility. Terran still feels just right, it still has a good amount of positional play, mobility and strong units, but the positional play part has been heavily undermined by some unnecessary tweaks to tanks and by the huge mobility of zerg armies and zealots.
This is also part of the reason why I sometimes have said, and I continue to say that I don't think Blizzard knows what it is doing. I don't mean they literally have no clue what to do in designing and balancing SC2, but they don't have a clear and coherent vision of the strengths and weaknesses of each race and how they should play out and interact with each other. The lack of direction was very apparent in horrible unit design attempts such as the Warhound and the lack of direction of design in the Oracle for the longest time.
I really like this because I started playing Zerg for the reason that I could mass on Roaches and Zerglings, and just sort of plow my way through the enemy with good macro. I absolutely hate the Broodlord because I can't really plow my way. Lose the units and I lose the game essentially. I really enjoyed this post and you pointed out the homogenization of Starcraft 2.
On January 06 2013 11:35 Destructicon wrote: I agree in full with the sentiments from the OP. I believe that in SC2, the identities of the races have kind of been lost and it negatively impacts the gameplay to varying amounts.
Zerg has lots of cheep and fast units that are surprisingly cost effective, but they also have a very strong late game deathball. Protoss has a lot of expensive units that are surprisingly fragile, they also rely on artificial ways to supplement their strength, and they have a surprising amount of mobility. Terran still feels just right, it still has a good amount of positional play, mobility and strong units, but the positional play part has been heavily undermined by some unnecessary tweaks to tanks and by the huge mobility of zerg armies and zealots.
This is also part of the reason why I sometimes have said, and I continue to say that I don't think Blizzard knows what it is doing. I don't mean they literally have no clue what to do in designing and balancing SC2, but they don't have a clear and coherent vision of the strengths and weaknesses of each race and how they should play out and interact with each other. The lack of direction was very apparent in horrible unit design attempts such as the Warhound and the lack of direction of design in the Oracle for the longest time.
As I already posted above you, totally agree with the Zerg issue. But another good point I forgot and you brought up has to do with the mobility of Protoss players. Blink stalkers are super fast, and to some extent, because the warp-in mechanics and how cheap zealot run byes are it feels definitely very "fast" paced race. Protoss should definitely feel a bit "slower". And you have another good point about the Oracle. While my sadness to see tanks being totally useless and so easily 1Amoved into.. is just.. indescribable
EPT
