What can Blizzard Learn from MOBA Balancing/Design - Page 11

On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote:
I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.

For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.

On September 08 2013 19:33 thezanursic wrote:

Lol this is like the exact opposite of what should be done.

Remind me to never trust you with game design!

On September 08 2013 20:39 Lorch wrote:


That goes for 99% of the people posting on this forum. Balancing something as complex as an rts is about 10000 times harder than it looks like, or what people seem to assume it is.
MOBA did not invent making all the units/weapons/tools you put in the game useable, it's very core game design and I can assure you that blizzard is interested in making everything viable.

On September 08 2013 20:39 Lorch wrote:


That goes for 99% of the people posting on this forum. Balancing something as complex as an rts is about 10000 times harder than it looks like, or what people seem to assume it is.
MOBA did not invent making all the units/weapons/tools you put in the game useable, it's very core game design and I can assure you that blizzard is interested in making everything viable. I really don't even see why there is this constant "omg why doesn't blizzard do xyz" crap, blizzard has shown over and over again that they will do the right things, it just takes a long time. And unless you can somehow make starcraft more profitable than mmos I don't think they will readjust the way they spread their human ressources among their games anytime soon.
Just as it isn't the teachers fault when a kid gets bad grades, it's also not the developers fault that they have that few people working on the game. When people are willing to pay 15 bucks a month for a 60 dollar game + addons, while bitching about a 40 dollar expansion to an rts, while thousands and thousands of dollars are spent on skins and call of duty 4.8 sells more than any other game, it's the consumers fault. If people wouldn't catter so much towards shit and spent their money on shit blizzard could have 10 times the people working on starcraft and we would probably have both expansions by now and a game with many more features. As it is though EVERY other current blizzard project is more profitable and that's what they need to focus on as a profit orientated company. And that does mean that everything will take time, but eventually we should get almost everything people are asking for. Don't like that? Think about what you as a consumer can do next time you feel like spending money on lesser games.

On September 08 2013 19:33 thezanursic wrote:

Lol this is like the exact opposite of what should be done.

Remind me to never trust you with game design!

On September 08 2013 21:04 saddaromma wrote:



Yeah, ofc, you know exactly what should be done.

On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote:
I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.

For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.

On September 09 2013 08:02 kasumimi wrote:
Interesting topic, but it's invalid imho.
SC2 is designed to be OP vs OP. What the original post is suggesting can't work in such an environment. Buffing "underused" units will most likely have disastrous side effects, as proven with WOL.

SC2 needs a complete overhaul, not little tweaks here an there.

On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote:
Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.

On September 09 2013 09:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:

Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^

On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote:
There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...


This is the BIG ONE really: + Show Spoiler +

Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design:
Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic":
- A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps.
- A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine.
- A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.

And here is the bit that starts the problem:
- A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently:
- After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.


Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).

Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".


Now the question is: How do you fix that problem?
There are basically two ways of doing it:
1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR
2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.

1. AoE
This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.

2. Limiting density
Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...

It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.

Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.

On September 09 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Chess and Go are great games despite having no tech switches.

The same is true for fighting games, shooters, etc...

BW would be boring if Bisu did not have a probe that never died EVERY game.
BW would be boring if Jaedong and his Mutalisks were not a constant.

People mistake tactical variety with unit variety. That is silly.

On September 09 2013 09:13 Plansix wrote:

He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.