|
Now, I'm aware that this is a complete pipedream and will never happen, but I'm curious as to what would be the effects of adding a new race to the game, and want to start a discussion about this idea.
It seems to me it would actually do a lot of good for the game, as it would increase diversity in the races we see in game, as well as the number of strategies that could be used through out. It creates 4 new matchups in the game. This would be amazing to see in my opinion, and would do wonders in increasing interest in the SC2. Old players would come back just to try it out, and new players would have more options to play around and experiment with when they're just getting into it. Warcraft 3 had 4 races, so why couldn't SC2?
Of course, there'd be the problems of increased balance issues and difficulty in map making, but those are probably problems that could be worked around and dealt with. It'd also be difficult to get pros interested in playing the new race, as race switching among pros is very rare, so it may be under represented at the top level, but that's not a huge deal really.
An obvious choice for such a new race would be the Xel'naga, an already existing race withing the Starcraft Universe, and with defined characteristics and assests. Perhaps they'd be too similar to the protoss, but there's a lot of way in which you can differentiate the two.
What's TL's opinion on this matter? Could this be a realistic way of increasing the diversity and interest in the game, or is it just going to cause more problems? Would you all be willing to learn another race?
Poll: New race in SC2?Bad idea, would have negetive effects. (250) 41% Good Idea, would like to see it. (169) 28% Interesting, but too difficult to do. (163) 27% Would have to see, unsure. (22) 4% 604 total votes Your vote: New race in SC2? (Vote): Good Idea, would like to see it.
(Vote): Interesting, but too difficult to do.
(Vote): Bad idea, would have negetive effects.
(Vote): Would have to see, unsure.
Alternatively, the idea of "factions" of each race has come up. Examples could include something along the lines of
-Confederate Terran and Rebel Terran
-Auir Protoss and Shakuras Protoss
-Primal Zerg and Kerrigan's Zerg
The factions would be essentially similar but with minor differences and perhaps a couple unique units. This would be a lot simpler to design and impliment as a lot of the pieces to make this a reality are already in place. We could add in more units without overloading each race. This actually I think is a better idea than a 4th race.
|
It'd be even harder for newer players to get into SC. Knowing enough build orders for 3 matchups with 5+ maps is already a struggle, adding another race just makes it worse. They're already having trouble balancing 3 races, 4 would probably just create more balance whine which is the last thing SC needs.
|
It's difficult enough balancing 3 races in this game. Adding a 4th and yea that's it your done.
|
They'd have to come up with some very fresh ideas on how to make the race feel completely different from each of the other races. The beauty of Starcraft is how each faction feels truly unique from the others, so they'd have a high standard to uphold. But yes, I'd be very much enthused to play Starcraft with 4 factions. I could probably tolerate as many as 8. In CnC Mashup, the 5 faction are a lot of fun, but they certainly don't feel terribly unique from each other. Even that one crazy mod that added another 2 or 3 factions didn't manage to attain the level of variety in their total game as Starcraft has in just 3 factions. So it's an idea that I adore, but I'd need to see some extremely promising concepts demoed before I'd gain any confidence in it.
Fun fact: the UED was discussed and planned as a 4th race early in BW's development, before more conservative minds prevailed and we ended up with the game we knew and loved for 11 years.
|
Earliest it can be considered is 5-odd years from now when they start developing SC3 (you know it'll happen).
|
On March 16 2015 14:48 ROOTiaguz wrote:
It's difficult enough balancing 3 races in this game. Adding a 4th and yea that's it your done.
I don't know, is the balance in this game so bad right now that adding a 4th would be impossible? It would certainly create more issues, but those issues would also come up less frequently as you'd be playing against those issues and races less.
|
I played ALOT of Dawn of War, RTS with much more races than SC2 (nine I think).
I cant say the developers cared that much about patching and balacing at the end, but when it becomes to many races it is impossible do balance every race vs each other.
I think it probably can be done with four races. Perhaps not perfect. But surely done.
However, Blizzard is probably one of the slowest organisations excisting when it comes to patching the game, coming up with new ideas, and so on. If we dared to change small stats a lot more often and added weaker units and then slowly patching them until they became better, I dont see a problem with a fourth race at all. However, I dont see that happend. Ever.
|
On March 16 2015 14:47 TAMinator wrote:
It'd be even harder for newer players to get into SC. Knowing enough build orders for 3 matchups with 5+ maps is already a struggle, adding another race just makes it worse. They're already having trouble balancing 3 races, 4 would probably just create more balance whine which is the last thing SC needs.
Dont think learning builds on specific maps is what makes the newcomers considering SC2 hard.
Its more the intensity of multitasking, microing and macroing 
If they place the barrack down on 12 or 13, I dont think it matters at all for them 
|
On March 16 2015 15:05 Glorfindel! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 14:47 TAMinator wrote:
It'd be even harder for newer players to get into SC. Knowing enough build orders for 3 matchups with 5+ maps is already a struggle, adding another race just makes it worse. They're already having trouble balancing 3 races, 4 would probably just create more balance whine which is the last thing SC needs. Dont think learning builds on specific maps is what makes the newcomers considering SC2 hard. Its more the intensity of multitasking, microing and macroing If they place the barrack down on 12 or 13, I dont think it matters at all for them
yeah obvious thats one of the key problems for newbies but i'm just talking in relation to the OPs idea. Knowing more build orders and on what maps with 4 races is certainly another hurdle for newcomers which certainly isnt needed.
|
On March 16 2015 15:10 TAMinator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 15:05 Glorfindel! wrote:On March 16 2015 14:47 TAMinator wrote:
It'd be even harder for newer players to get into SC. Knowing enough build orders for 3 matchups with 5+ maps is already a struggle, adding another race just makes it worse. They're already having trouble balancing 3 races, 4 would probably just create more balance whine which is the last thing SC needs. Dont think learning builds on specific maps is what makes the newcomers considering SC2 hard. Its more the intensity of multitasking, microing and macroing If they place the barrack down on 12 or 13, I dont think it matters at all for them yeah obvious thats one of the key problems for newbies but i'm just talking in relation to the OPs idea. Knowing more build orders and on what maps with 4 races is certainly another hurdle for newcomers which certainly isnt needed.
I feel like build orders affect the already commited players a lot more than the newbies, and for them it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. Some build orders might even carry over a lot depending on how the new race would work.
|
There are a number of creative difficulties, mainly making a new race that is sufficiently distinct from the existing ones both lore wise and design wise, and also making it mesh with the existing campaign. Using the Xel'naga helps solve some of those problems, but also introduces others, since the Xel'naga are supposed to be on a higher plane of power. These alone makes it nearly impossible to implement elegantly in SCII.
The balance problem is why it shouldn't be implemented. Adding a fourth race nearly doubles the burden of evaluating each balance change, and also doubles the chances of things going wrong. Warcraft III your examples suffered from balance problems due to that. No RTS has succeeded in balancing four races successfully, and while it probably can be done, it can probably only be done with a game with that goal specifically in mind from the start. Shoehorning in a fourth race would result in inevitable failure balance wise.
|
I recall a rather interesting argument about how having an even number of races (4 in the case of Warcraft 3) creates a special and particular difficulty about balancing in relation to competitive tournament formats.
Suppose that 'perfect racial balance' was not the current state of the game and that there were some strong and weak match-ups. For the illustrative example, let's say that you were an Undead player in WC3:
- there would be the UD vs UD mirror match of course, which will always be 'balanced' in virtue of being the mirror
- but let's suppose that in the current balance: UD had weak match-ups against Human and Night Elf, but was strong against Orc
Supposing a fairly balanced distribution of player races in a tournament, that means that in playing UD during a tournament, one would expect to be disadvantaged (or play an unfavourable matchup) in 66% of the games played. In 2 out of the 3 non-mirror matches, you would be in for a tougher time just because of the race you play.
And I suppose it is also possible for some race to be favoured in 3/3 of the other non-mirrors and for another race to be 0/3.
***
Since achieving 'perfect balance' is not an easy thing, perhaps it would be better (or at least, less problematic) for there to be an odd number of races. This way, it is more possible to have an asymmetric 'balance.'
For example, perhaps it would be less problematic for tournament prospects if the racial 'balance' was something like:
TvT is the mirror, balanced by nature
TvP is slightly T-favoured
TvZ is slightly Z-favoured
Thus there is an equal number of favoured and unfavoured prospective matches in a tournament bracket.
***
So, four races might be tricky - but not because four is more than three and is thereby trickier (which it would be). But because four is an even number.
But what about making it an odd number again by adding in 'the fifth race'? [No, that's not intended to be an allusion to anything]. I imagine the balancing would be even more nightmarish with so many variables and match-ups to consider at that point.
|
Well if we look at WC3, it seems possible kinda?
Maybe wc3 was a better game for having more races because of tavern heroes and stuff?(I have never played wc3).
Maybe sc2 is easier to balance 4 races because the races do not have crazy hero units and such?
It's a tough one for sure, I personally welcome the idea and it would be very fun to me, but probably destroy competative play for quite awhile, if not, forever.
(Just wait for WC4 to come after LoTV hehehehehe)
|
On March 16 2015 15:54 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote:
I recall a rather interesting argument about how having an even number of races (4 in the case of Warcraft 3) creates a special and particular difficulty about balancing in relation to competitive tournament formats.
Suppose that 'perfect racial balance' was not the current state of the game and that there were some strong and weak match-ups. For the illustrative example, let's say that you were an Undead player in WC3:
- there would be the UD vs UD mirror match of course, which will always be 'balanced' in virtue of being the mirror
- but let's suppose that in the current balance: UD had weak match-ups against Human and Night Elf, but was strong against Orc
Supposing a fairly balanced distribution of player races in a tournament, that means that in playing UD during a tournament, one would expect to be disadvantaged (or play an unfavourable matchup) in 66% of the games played. In 2 out of the 3 non-mirror matches, you would be in for a tougher time just because of the race you play.
And I suppose it is also possible for some race to be favoured in 3/3 of the other non-mirrors and for another race to be 0/3.
***
Since achieving 'perfect balance' is not an easy thing, perhaps it would be better (or at least, less problematic) for there to be an odd number of races. This way, it is more possible to have an asymmetric 'balance.'
For example, perhaps it would be less problematic for tournament prospects if the racial 'balance' was something like:
TvT is the mirror, balanced by nature
TvP is slightly T-favoured
TvZ is slightly Z-favoured
Thus there is an equal number of favoured and unfavoured prospective matches in a tournament bracket.
***
So, four races might be tricky - but not because four is more than three and is thereby trickier (which it would be). But because four is an even number.
But what about making it an odd number again by adding in 'the fifth race'? [No, that's not intended to be an allusion to anything]. I imagine the balancing would be even more nightmarish with so many variables and match-ups to consider at that point.
I've heard that argument and never been particularly convinced. The main argument for it, is that Brood War ended up like that, but I don't think that a game that is more or less regularly patched should aim for that. If your balance changes are precise enough to aim for small enough edges in match-ups so that tournaments would not be affected overly by race-related bracket luck, you should just aim for absolute balance instead. If you don't have that precision, aiming for small edges might result in match-ups that are severely imbalanced more so than their supposedly symmetric counterparts (which to a milder extent happened in BW).
Either way I agree that for whatever reason, balancing multiple (4+) races has never been met with much success.
|
Ever heard of WarCraft 3? Ohhhhh yea.......
EDIT : No , not in StarCraft, Do you think they could had a 4th race in BroodWar ? I don't think so....
|
It would be really cool to see but it would most likely never work lol.
|
I like the idea, it would do wonders and be amazing.
The thing is, to implement this it would take tooons of work. Maybe it would be possible 3-4 years after lotv and lets be honest who thinks blizzard has the will to put down that kind of investment in starcraft at this point.
It would be cool, it could bring SC2 back to glory but it is just so unlikely it isn't worth considering to be frank. Its not going to happen, if it did it would be magical though..
|
I'm surprised by the overall negative response. Surely there'd be issues but overall its an interesting enough idea to look into I'd think
|
There are tons and tons of ways of diversifying the game that hasn't been explored already. Diversify maps. Make it so that at least two different macro styles are viable per race per MU. Make less "rigid" unit concepts. edit : and new units ofc. etc etc.
No need to add a fourth race. It worked in WC3 (and even then, some people would tell you that WC3 wasn't really that balanced, although it mainly was) because while being a RTS too, WC3 was a totally different concept compared to SC2, and since what you did with your units was way more important than which units you had (and when you had them), imbalances could be fought by simply playing better than your opponent (that's true in SC2 too, but to a much lesser extent).
Additionally I seriously doubt that this would magically bring SC2 back to the top eSports status. If anything new players will find it even more complicated AND people will have even more reasons to complain about imbalance. Casuals get bored because of having to spam 50+ APM and having to look and think at multiple things at the same time, not because of having "only" three races, which is already a fucking high number.
|
I personally would like to see it but it obviously will make balancing the game more difficult.
|
its a great idea . .the idea. i would be all for it. some comments saying new players would . . negative rant here are completely useless. New players wouldn't know the difference, they arent bothered about build orders and things like that, most of them team and arcade anyway. I think its good but that key word. balance, but then what. we have humans, we can relate, we have a robot/psionic race, seen enough movies to get that and we have the aliens . . . .nuff said. We can all relate. What type could be propose which like with sc FEELS different event though essentially all the units are kind of the same just super cleverly changed enough to feel different. Its the best game in the world. A 4th race, maybe not for the sc2 expansion but for a sc3 in 10 yrs time . . .well, they have time!
|
The issues that would generally arise are:
- harder to balance
- harder to design fun gameplay... think of it, we have 6matchups already and some matchups aren't that great but there is little you can do about it without fucking the rest. With 4races you have 10 matchups...
- harder to get people to watch games/tournaments because "their race" is playing much less.
and then you'd get big issues with implementing it competitively into the existing game:
- people have no clue about the fundamentals: Say there is a macro mechanic like inject... this takes a few months to figure out how important it is and how to implement it into gameplay
- there are no control routines and hotkey setups
- because of all that above, balance would wildly swing for months. The race would be severely underplayed at first unless it was severely broken to make up with the inexperience. Than a lot of patches would have to fix the balance later on which makes it very hard to find a consistent playstyle with it as it would be up to blizzard to decide what to keep and what to throw out. A lot of players would be very frustrated playing with or against it due to that.
|
I see the complexity jump being comparable to jumping from 3 ^3 to 4 ^4 (27 and 256 respectively). I know that's a pretty vague statement, and i'm not saying it can't be done. I just think that the game would have to be re-designed from the ground up (units wise) for all four races. If not, then the fourth race would be a mix/match of unit types that are already in the game to somehow fit into the current build of counters, which doesn't sound very much like a Blizzard game to me.
|
If we are going to have a fourth race for SC3, I'd rather have WC4
|
I'm also somewhat surprised about all the negative comments. I mean, sure, a fourth race would create 4 new matchups, which would not be easy to balance out, but it wouldn't be impossible I think.
I also believe that a time will come in maybe 5-10 years, when the game will have to be given something fresh, something new, to keep the interest of players. Obviously there is Legacy coming up soon, that will bring some freshness to the scene and it will also take some time to balance it appropriately, but its effect will not last forever.
If ever SC3 is made, I think adding a new race is an excellent way to raise people's attention. I personally wouldn't mind changes in the game before that, making maps/units/etc. a bit more "free", less rigid, as OtherWorld said.
And no, it would definitely not make SC the top eSport again (although who knows what happens till then), but it could make the whole game feel a bit less stale.
By the way, I just recently thought about how awesome it would be to create a mod with the Hybrid as a playable race. There are even whole unit models for that, so it would actually be possible. Too bad I'm not good at making stuff like that... 
|
On March 16 2015 23:47 Ctone23 wrote:
I see the complexity jump being comparable to jumping from 3 ^3 to 4 ^4 (27 and 256 respectively). I know that's a pretty vague statement, and i'm not saying it can't be done. I just think that the game would have to be re-designed from the ground up (units wise) for all four races. If not, then the fourth race would be a mix/match of unit types that are already in the game to somehow fit into the current build of counters, which doesn't sound very much like a Blizzard game to me.
Yeah, I agree that if the other races are left mostly untouched, it may be hard to fit in exciting new units into the existing game.
I don't get those numbers, though. For 3 races, there are 6 different matchups that have to be balanced (and 3 of them are mirrors, so technically already balanced). For 4 races, there would be 10 mathcups, 4 of which are mirrors. So I believe the complexity jump would not be as bad as you said, but I concede it may be difficult (not impossible, though).
|
if anything we should be removing Protoss and making a balanced TvZ matchup that is fun to watch instead of PvP finals in every tournament Life or Maru arent in, let alone adding new races wtf.
|
On March 17 2015 00:17 Connor987 wrote:
if anything we should be removing Protoss and making a balanced TvZ matchup that is fun to watch instead of PvP finals in every tournament Life or Maru arent in, let alone adding new races wtf.
Although adding another race would decrease the chance of pvp finals as well .
|
On March 17 2015 00:17 Connor987 wrote:
if anything we should be removing Protoss and making a balanced TvZ matchup that is fun to watch instead of PvP finals in every tournament Life or Maru arent in, let alone adding new races wtf.
Subtle balance whine yo
|
On March 16 2015 23:28 Big J wrote:
and then you'd get big issues with implementing it competitively into the existing game:
- people have no clue about the fundamentals: Say there is a macro mechanic like inject... this takes a few months to figure out how important it is and how to implement it into gameplay
- there are no control routines and hotkey setups
- because of all that above, balance would wildly swing for months. The race would be severely underplayed at first unless it was severely broken to make up with the inexperience. Than a lot of patches would have to fix the balance later on which makes it very hard to find a consistent playstyle with it as it would be up to blizzard to decide what to keep and what to throw out. A lot of players would be very frustrated playing with or against it due to that.
This is the main issue imo. It would be completely new, with at least one macro mechanic distinctly different from the current races. It would be interesting, sure, but it would completely break everything. And then, at the pro level, how many players would switch races to that unless it's blatantly OP? Not very many I would assume. The focus is on Protoss, Terran and Zerg, those are the races where you can learn some basics in the campaigns, that's what you can find guides etc. for, so that's what new players start with. That's why a new race in SC2 just seems like a bad idea. SC3 starting out with 4 races would work, but just adding one to SC2 years after release? Nah.
|
Not a fan of this lore wise. I would only accept the UED and primal zerg as new "races". Even then is doesn't make sense unless the game play is significantly different from vanilla terran and zerg.
|
I'd prefer three very well balanced and complex races than a fourth one which may sacrifice the aforementioned qualities to a good race in a RTS. Fourth race would be interesting but only adds more challenge to the newbie friendly landscape.
|
On March 17 2015 00:48 PhoenixVoid wrote:
I'd prefer three very well balanced and complex races than a fourth one which may sacrifice the aforementioned qualities to a good race in a RTS. Fourth race would be interesting but only adds more challenge to the newbie friendly landscape.
Agreed.
Plus, it makes no sense in SC2. Adding an entire fourth race in the final expansion doesn't allow for any growth/ new units of this fourth race. I'd say it'd be an interesting idea for SC3, but based on the storyline, I have no idea what this fourth race/ species could possibly be, let alone how to balance it or make it interesting/ novel compared to T/Z/P.
|
Would be good for selling more expansions. Would be beyond terrible for progaming. I don't trust Blizzard (or anyone) for being able to balance a 4-race RTS.
|
We have enough problems as is. Have you not been paying attention to the tournaments
|
A question like this is similar to what Age of Mythology faced with their expansion which introduced a fourth race to the original three. While I haven't been able to play the AoM expansion the introduction of a fourth race definitely changed the landscape of the game competitively. Is there anyone who can provide some anecdotes to how Atlanteans changed the game?
|
I don't think it's the matter of whether we want 4th race or not, it's more like SC2 needs some massive changes in order to become more popular. If anyone asked if I would like to see 4th race in BW or 5th in WC3 I would be against it, because these games were already good enough and all you needed to do is to improve some minor details. SC2 on the other hand... I think we could all agree something needs to change.
Yes, we could all argue if bringing 4th race would be the most accurate way to improve SC2. It would be harder to balance the game, pro players would need time to learn how to play competitively etc. Instead, we could just focus on improving the game and avoid all the chaos. But if you think about it... adding a new race would certainly create massive HYPE. It could even interest people who have stopped playing SC2 or any RTS games long time ago. A lot of people would be like "Oh my, new race! I must see that!".
If Blizzard would do it right (good balance, interesting units etc), everyone gains. More people would be interested in purchasing the game, so Blizzard earns more money. Tournaments would attract larger viewership because matchups are more diversed and in the beginning there would also be a lot of 'new race hype'. With more people interested in Starcraft we would get more sponsors to support pro players, so our scene grows overall.
We can't just focus only on creating a balanced, competetive game, we need to create more hype as well to attract more casual players and viewers.
|
Adding a 4th race would be interesting because of the mass-seppuku it would cause, it would definitely make news headlines globally.
|
Jesus, people and their math in this thread
today we have 6 matchups, 3 of which is mirrors and 3 non-mirrors.
with 4 races we can have 10 matchups, 4 mirrors and 6 non-mirrors.
Based on the fact that most boring matchups are usually mirrors, i would say that 6 non-mirrors is better than 3 non-mirrors. On another note if balancing only 3 matchups is so crazy hard, think about balancing 6 of them. Crazy!
PS. this being said i would still not want to have a 4th race in sc2. Let it be some other game.
|
People that keep saying WC3 did this dont understand the how UP undead was.
|
Starcraft in my opinion did have 4 races. The 4th being Terran Mech. It played 100% diffrent than Bio in BW.
As for adding an actual 4th Race. I think it would be exciting, and I would fully support it. Especially since SC2 has felt pretty stale
|
Add a new race will require to change a lot the three currents races we have. So I'm not sure it could still the Starcraft we know. ^^
|
It's already taking Blizzard ages to balance the new stuff from LotV, so a new race would be balanced in 1-2 years
|
less options the better right?
|
Warcraft didn't expand until the 3rd game, so it may take a while.
|
On March 16 2015 14:48 ROOTiaguz wrote:
It's difficult enough balancing 3 races in this game. Adding a 4th and yea that's it your done.
Bit of a slippery slope argument. It's difficult to balance a game with two different factions, yet Starcraft exists and manages to uphold a reasonable balance between three factions. Nothing there implicates a 4th faction would be unmanageable.
If it's a good idea, that's another question.
Personally I'd like to have a new race to rekindle my interest in SC2. the worst thing that could happen is that I'd continue not to play it.
|
On March 17 2015 01:28 mikumegurine wrote:
less options the better right?
I don't see why this needs to be the case. Simpler to balance, yes. But perhaps more variety makes watching more exciting
|
We had 4 Races in WC3. Yet still people say they are not balanced after over 20 patches and the major addon.
Despite Blizzard wanted to bring the 5th race, the naga, but could balance em and scrapped the idea.
A 4th Race bringing in via addon into SC II is impossible. The Balance we have at the moment needed 5 years (+7 more of development) for 3 races. Adding another race will break this balance so hard, that you cant wait another 5 years till rebalance.
I mean, its not to hard to do a new race into SC II, call it Xel Naga (not really working because they have the power of "gods") or call it UEF. It is just impossible to balance it in time.
|
On March 17 2015 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I don't see why this needs to be the case. Simpler to balance, yes. But perhaps more variety makes watching more exciting
would it?
I'm already less interested in certain matchups just because I don't play them and I don't really care if the Stargate was built before the nexus, after the nexus or after the nexus finished when I'm not playing Terran these days.
Actually, I had a friend lately saying that he wasn't that interested in LoL games when none of his champions where playing. Just this Sunday I could have made room to catch at least some of the IEM finals, but I wasn't particularily interested because it was PvP and decided to do other stuff.
If we rewind back one year I remember a lot of people being very vocal about not watching GSL aside from Maru's games.
With 4/10 instead of 3/6 matchups in which "your race" plays a lot more people might probably just skip matches and eventually abandon ship alltogether. So more variety might not make watching more exciting.
|
On March 17 2015 02:02 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 01:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 01:28 mikumegurine wrote:
less options the better right? I don't see why this needs to be the case. Simpler to balance, yes. But perhaps more variety makes watching more exciting would it? I'm already less interested in certain matchups just because I don't play them and I don't really care if the Stargate was built before the nexus, after the nexus or after the nexus finished when I'm not playing Terran these days. Actually, I had a friend lately saying that he wasn't that interested in LoL games when none of his champions where playing. Just this Sunday I could have made room to catch at least some of the IEM finals, but I wasn't particularily interested because it was PvP and decided to do other stuff. If we rewind back one year I remember a lot of people being very vocal about not watching GSL aside from Maru's games. With 4/10 instead of 3/6 matchups in which "your race" plays a lot more people might probably just skip matches and eventually abandon ship alltogether. So more variety might not make watching more exciting.
Sure, I think the anecdotes could go either way, really. If people are tired of seeing the same match-up over and over again, then more match-ups could be helpful to keep things new and refreshing. If people are really only interested in a few match-ups (e.g., because of relatability to their own matches), then it wouldn't help.
|
They're having trouble creating new units for 3 races for a game that's been around 5 years.
IMO adding a 4th race would require a simpler game similar to AoE where the races are much more similar OR huge amounts of time spent balancing...
|
I think that Blizzard should seriously think about implementing 4th faction. Maybe in SC III? For quite a long time now we have 3-faction based competitive RTSes.
I mean it's not easy that's for sure, but if you'd make 4th faction very hard to play but superior when mastered, it would give it some good ground.
I am thinking something about VERY expensive units (more expensive than Protoss in all 3 resource types), micro heavy and skillshot heavy units, but macro easy instead (for example no workers, but different kind of macro play).
Graphics I think they should look something like Biomechanical, and with physically weird movements. Though they should look neither like bugs nor humanoids. Something like robots and cyborgs maybe? Though not like from fantasy books or movies. Something original. Good enough for people not to say that it is too Terran, too Zerg or too Protoss, but the faction itself is still SC-genre based...
Let's say that all of their units would have Shield Ability so that automatically would make them with energy, something like ability units, but faster recharging.
Let's say their first unit costs 150minerals and 2supply, is quite big and looks something like thai boxer in gel form with metallic "holder" constructions. Something like weird mass in the glass container, wierd form. It would have 110 life and would have an ability which would give him 50 shield for 5 seconds and it would cost 100/200 energy, or we could call it psi since if every unit has it, they are something like protoss shields but used for abilities. Shield ability cost could vary from unit to unit, changed when the prices changes, but only 50/75/100. Tier I 100, Tier II 75, Tier III 50 or something like that.
Also Tech could be slower than other factions, making it necessarily aggressive and Tier I unit spamming faction, in the early game. Tier III army could consist of very expensive units making it hard to rebuild not because of time, but because of resource deficiency.
Also a good idea is that their first unit could be Light, Biomechanical?
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
On March 16 2015 14:48 ROOTiaguz wrote:
It's difficult enough balancing 3 races in this game. Adding a 4th and yea that's it your done.
pretty much this
|
On March 17 2015 05:44 xtorn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 14:48 ROOTiaguz wrote:
It's difficult enough balancing 3 races in this game. Adding a 4th and yea that's it your done. pretty much this
I would not even call that an argument. It is a statement that is definately debatable. So please debate and make a point instead of beeing unconstructive. This pretty much sounds like: " I dont like it, starcraft should have only three races!"
|
I would love it, but it would be really hard to do.
|
Impossible to have another race. Balance will fuck up, and Blizzard is struggling haveing 3 races... imagine with 4 lol
|
xel naga race OR protoss-zerg hybrid race (but would be too powerful)
|
WARCRAFT FOOOUUUUURRRRRRR???!??!?!?
|
They could pull off introducing a fourth race and get a decent balance, but to say it would be risky is an understatement. 3 races works well in the Starcraft type RTS model as the races have enough variance to keep things interesting in that department. AoE and some other RTS games have many races, but the variance between them is much more subtle and in those games it really feels like new races could be added on without causing too much of a stir.
|
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out.
|
I think they should do it as a side project. I'm an avilo fan, so I have to say what he always says: Use the public test server. You could have two 1v1 options: The standard three races; and, the four races. It would be a fun play style, like the two player 1v1 thing that they're adding in LotV. It would be fun.
|
On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out.
This is called "Innovative thinking."
|
On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out.
Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races!
|
Let's add the Xel Naga, you can just hybridize everything. Psy storm as a projectile.
|
I vote we remove almost all macro aspects of the game, add hats, rename Starcraft2 to Starcasual2 and watch the incredible rise in popularity.
If we can't fight all the other popular games, lets join them.
|
On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races!
That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit.
|
People who say "you cannot balance it" kinda take the easy way out.
I think in the current time where matchmaking is possible and you can collect all the data fairly easily it would be absolutely possible to balance the game with 4 races.
To make it unique is kinda the hard part (if you wanna stay with the starcraft feeling)
|
On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit.
I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races:
BW Terran (T1)
SC2 Terran (T2)
BW Zerg (Z1)
SC2 Zerg (Z2)
BW Protoss (P1)
SC2 Protoss (P2)
That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races
Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc.
|
On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc.
We could even keep it somewhat within lore and have
Confederate Terran
Rebel Terran
Auir Protoss
Shakuras Protoss
Primal Zerg
Kerrigan's Zerg
Each with minor differences and maybe a unique unit or something. It'd be a good way to mix it up without having horrible balance issues and wouldn't take nearly as long to design, all the pieces are already there to do that
|
On March 17 2015 06:47 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc. We could even keep it somewhat within lore and have Confederate Terran Rebel Terran Auir Protoss Shakuras Protoss Primal Zerg Kerrigan's Zerg Each with minor differences and maybe a unique unit or something. It'd be a good way to mix it up without having horrible balance issues and wouldn't take nearly as long to design, all the pieces are already there to do that
A very good point
|
wow im already excited for that change. I hope it happens in lotv.
edit: also if that happened we could finally put to rest the debate which is better bw or sc2 because the units could duke it out.
|
On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc.
Sounds a bit like C&C Kanes Wrath, where the three main factions got specialized sub-factions.
|
It's settled then!
Who's got Blizzard's phone number? We just solved StarCraft.
|
As they say in street fighter, not every character needs to be equal as long as they're fun. As long as there are characters who are roughly equal and strong.
|
I accept challenge to master 12 match ups
|
On March 17 2015 06:47 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc. We could even keep it somewhat within lore and have Confederate Terran Rebel Terran Auir Protoss Shakuras Protoss Primal Zerg Kerrigan's Zerg Each with minor differences and maybe a unique unit or something. It'd be a good way to mix it up without having horrible balance issues and wouldn't take nearly as long to design, all the pieces are already there to do that
That is a good idea and quite feasible.
But if we think Terran-mech and Terran-bio as different 'races' that could work too. The problem is make bio and mech work in every matchup.
Of course, the same would go to Zerg: 'muta-bane-ling faction' and 'roach-hydra-corruptor faction', and Protoss: 'templar faction' and 'robo faction'
You'd have to make all these factions work.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On March 17 2015 07:48 Ace Frehley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 06:47 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc. We could even keep it somewhat within lore and have Confederate Terran Rebel Terran Auir Protoss Shakuras Protoss Primal Zerg Kerrigan's Zerg Each with minor differences and maybe a unique unit or something. It'd be a good way to mix it up without having horrible balance issues and wouldn't take nearly as long to design, all the pieces are already there to do that That is a good idea and quite feasible. But if we think Terran-mech and Terran-bio as different 'races' that could work too. The problem is make bio and mech work in every matchup. Of course, the same would go to Zerg: 'muta-bane-ling faction' and 'roach-hydra-corruptor faction', and Protoss: 'templar faction' and 'robo faction' You'd have to make all these factions work.
Some of us like to go bio-mech though, what happens then?
I like the confederate/rebel terran etc idea.
|
On March 17 2015 07:49 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 07:48 Ace Frehley wrote:On March 17 2015 06:47 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc. We could even keep it somewhat within lore and have Confederate Terran Rebel Terran Auir Protoss Shakuras Protoss Primal Zerg Kerrigan's Zerg Each with minor differences and maybe a unique unit or something. It'd be a good way to mix it up without having horrible balance issues and wouldn't take nearly as long to design, all the pieces are already there to do that That is a good idea and quite feasible. But if we think Terran-mech and Terran-bio as different 'races' that could work too. The problem is make bio and mech work in every matchup. Of course, the same would go to Zerg: 'muta-bane-ling faction' and 'roach-hydra-corruptor faction', and Protoss: 'templar faction' and 'robo faction' You'd have to make all these factions work. Some of us like to go bio-mech though, what happens then? I like the confederate/rebel terran etc idea.
What I mean is that: if bio and mech are viable in every match-up, it'd be like you have 2 races in one terran, because bio and mech are completely different. Therefore, the only thing needed would be to balance what we already have to make all 'factions' to be viable. Of course if you want to mix the 'factions', you can, too.
If mech was viable against protoss, or roach-hydra was viable against bio long term, we'd have 'new' matchups
Just an idea
|
On March 17 2015 06:47 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc. We could even keep it somewhat within lore and have Confederate Terran Rebel Terran Auir Protoss Shakuras Protoss Primal Zerg Kerrigan's Zerg Each with minor differences and maybe a unique unit or something. It'd be a good way to mix it up without having horrible balance issues and wouldn't take nearly as long to design, all the pieces are already there to do that
It would be cool to add a third sub-faction to each faction with stuff from the campaign. Imagine Terran with those Diamondbacks and robot cats, Zerg with those campaign morphs, or Protoss with whatever the heck they're getting in LotV like the splash-damage Zealot.
Actually, I have a hunch that they're already doing this subfaction idea with the new co-op game mode in LotV.
|
On March 17 2015 07:55 Ace Frehley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 07:49 The_Templar wrote:On March 17 2015 07:48 Ace Frehley wrote:On March 17 2015 06:47 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc. We could even keep it somewhat within lore and have Confederate Terran Rebel Terran Auir Protoss Shakuras Protoss Primal Zerg Kerrigan's Zerg Each with minor differences and maybe a unique unit or something. It'd be a good way to mix it up without having horrible balance issues and wouldn't take nearly as long to design, all the pieces are already there to do that That is a good idea and quite feasible. But if we think Terran-mech and Terran-bio as different 'races' that could work too. The problem is make bio and mech work in every matchup. Of course, the same would go to Zerg: 'muta-bane-ling faction' and 'roach-hydra-corruptor faction', and Protoss: 'templar faction' and 'robo faction' You'd have to make all these factions work. Some of us like to go bio-mech though, what happens then? I like the confederate/rebel terran etc idea. What I mean is that: if bio and mech are viable in every match-up, it'd be like you have 2 races in one terran, because bio and mech are completely different. Therefore, the only thing needed would be to balance what we already have to make all 'factions' to be viable. Of course if you want to mix the 'factions', you can, too. If mech was viable against protoss, or roach-hydra was viable against bio long term, we'd have 'new' matchups Just an idea
I wouldn't want the races to be so defined to one style. One of beauties of starcraft is you can play races with multiple styles, or even change up style midgame. I'd want to maintain that, but with some minor variations to keep it a fresher.
|
Balancing 3 races around various playstyles should be a higher priority than adding a 4th race.
|
They added new races into Dawn of War all the time and it kept things fresh and interesting, though that game is a lot less complex.
It'd be harder to balance, but awesome nonetheless.
That said, you'd need to find a race within the lore. Unless they invent something new entirely for SC3.
|
Would have kept SC2 fresher for players and fans, that's for sure.
Fun and a little imbalance here and there > Total Balance.
|
It would be interesting to say the least.
|
On March 17 2015 08:01 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 07:55 Ace Frehley wrote:On March 17 2015 07:49 The_Templar wrote:On March 17 2015 07:48 Ace Frehley wrote:On March 17 2015 06:47 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:35 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On March 17 2015 06:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 17 2015 06:19 capu wrote:
if the balance doesnt work out with 4 races we could add in the fifth race to help out balancing things out. Just split each of the three current races into two sub-races each and voila!, six races! That's... Actually a cool idea. Reminds me of Red Alert where you had several Allied and Soviet countries each having a unique unit. I'd imagine they can't really take only half of one race and make a new race, so obviously the solution would be to have the following six races: BW Terran (T1) SC2 Terran (T2) BW Zerg (Z1) SC2 Zerg (Z2) BW Protoss (P1) SC2 Protoss (P2) That way there's still many of the same core units, and they'd just need to re-balance old with new races Imagine not just having a TvZ, but a T1 v Z2, etc. We could even keep it somewhat within lore and have Confederate Terran Rebel Terran Auir Protoss Shakuras Protoss Primal Zerg Kerrigan's Zerg Each with minor differences and maybe a unique unit or something. It'd be a good way to mix it up without having horrible balance issues and wouldn't take nearly as long to design, all the pieces are already there to do that That is a good idea and quite feasible. But if we think Terran-mech and Terran-bio as different 'races' that could work too. The problem is make bio and mech work in every matchup. Of course, the same would go to Zerg: 'muta-bane-ling faction' and 'roach-hydra-corruptor faction', and Protoss: 'templar faction' and 'robo faction' You'd have to make all these factions work. Some of us like to go bio-mech though, what happens then? I like the confederate/rebel terran etc idea. What I mean is that: if bio and mech are viable in every match-up, it'd be like you have 2 races in one terran, because bio and mech are completely different. Therefore, the only thing needed would be to balance what we already have to make all 'factions' to be viable. Of course if you want to mix the 'factions', you can, too. If mech was viable against protoss, or roach-hydra was viable against bio long term, we'd have 'new' matchups Just an idea I wouldn't want the races to be so defined to one style. One of beauties of starcraft is you can play races with multiple styles, or even change up style midgame. I'd want to maintain that, but with some minor variations to keep it a fresher.
I agree. I wouldn't want people to be forced into picking a tech route before the game even starts. Why bother scouting if you know your opponent *can't* go bio, lol.
|
To me it feels like adding a fourth race in starcraft would be like adding a third color in chess. Starcraft is strarcraft. If you want more races make a new game. I'm usually liberal & open minded but in this matter I am as conservative and religious as you can get 
|
but they can't even balance 3 races
|
I think some progamers would have a backup race in case their main ever became the worst of the 4.
|
It would be cool to have a mech/robotic exclusive race... artificial race created by Terran/Protoss ... but again... difficult to balance ...
|
|
|
Balance, in terms of having winrates between 45% and 55% for all matchups wouldn't be much of a problem. Don't think sc2 has been significantly more than 5% of at any point, except maybe very early WoL or something, so I really don't understand what people are complaining about. Inf act, sc2 has been very close to 50% in all three matchups a lot of the time I think.
The problem would be to make the matchup interesting. Like "the SH vs mech issue" will now have 6 (10 with mirrors) matchups to appear rather than 3 (6), so there will be more things like that, and the devs will have less time to make each MU refined.
Would be fun to see if they can come up with new mechanics though! It'd have to be a really different feel to the fourth race for it to make any sense.
|
in classic literature, satanic symbolism and RTS....
3 is the ultimate number.
they should just stay with 3 races .. it facilitates the perfect mix of simplicity and depth.
|
It worked for WC3 because of the way the game worked, which is pretty different to SC2. The biggest concern I have, despite theorycrafting a lot of this, is that balancing all 4 races is neigh-impossible and it will make an already difficult game, extremely confusing for new players, remember, SC2 needs growth, now a supremacist ideology.
|
Wc3 is not a great example of a game with 4 races. Some of the matchups were terribly balanced (orc vs. undead). And then the rng... pray your blademaster gets claws of +6 attack and not ring of protection. Not to rip on wc3, I find it to be a fun game, and in the end it's not terribly balanced, but it's not exactly something to point to either.
As for a fourth race in sc2, you'll be increasing the matchups from 3 to 6 (not including mirrors). Even if we assume it's only twice as difficult (this is almost certainly wrong), it's really not worth it. It's significantly more important to have 3 deep matchups than 6 shallow matchups.
|
Adding a new race would bring 10 instead of 6 total matchups and 6 instead of 3 non-mirrors. That's twice as many interactions as there are now. Balancing a game with 3 fundamentally distinct races in terms of win rate is hard, 4 is much harder. Each balance change to fix one matchup has more side-effects on other matchups. Add to that the design goal that each matchup should also be fun, varied, dynamic, skill-based and exciting to play with multiple viable styles, and you have a truly Herculean task that, to my knowledge, has never been accomplished in video game history.
|
I think WC3 was the better game but the worse E-Sport. That is due to its random nature, but also due to its four races which made it more difficult to balance. So adding a fourth race would be a double edged sword. On the one hand, you'll likely get more eyes, on the other hand, the game would be a competitive farce.
If WC3 players had been as good the best SC2 players are now, no Orc would have ever lost against an Undead or won against a Human.
|
I think adding a race is a cool item to speculate about. Purely speculation. The more matchups you throw in that we the developers need to balance around locks up the other matches to have less balance variance.. theoretically.
Maybe it would be a different story if Blizzard had developed (and continued to develop) this game differently.
|
I think people are too afraid of balance problems.
As i said before, we have matchmaking these days and a lot more data available to make games balanced.
Four races would be totally doable in that regard imo.
|
I'd rather see more variety in the units of the three existing races going forward than have their options further limited by the introduction of a fourth race. EG: terrans have the marine, so neither Zerg nor Protoss can have anything too similar to the marine. I think a fourth race would consume all the remaining air, as it were.
|
In my opinion, the main reason sc2 is dying is because its changing -too much- and it is driving players away, much like WoW. Nobody wants to invest 20 hours a week into something, to have their progress made largely irrelivant by a balance patch or expansion.
Adding a new race would probably get you a big influx of players, but you would hugely irritate all the existing players who have spent months of time perfecting their build orders for each match up.
I think instability is the greatest threat to esports
|
Why would you need a new race when you can just fix Protoss?
|
On March 17 2015 23:55 TheDwf wrote:
Why would you need a new race when you can just fix Protoss?
Because Blizzard doing that is less likely than a new race in SC2
|
On March 17 2015 17:37 Scorch wrote:
Adding a new race would bring 10 instead of 6 total matchups and 6 instead of 3 non-mirrors. That's twice as many interactions as there are now. Balancing a game with 3 fundamentally distinct races in terms of win rate is hard, 4 is much harder. Each balance change to fix one matchup has more side-effects on other matchups. Add to that the design goal that each matchup should also be fun, varied, dynamic, skill-based and exciting to play with multiple viable styles, and you have a truly Herculean task that, to my knowledge, has never been accomplished in video game history.
Crazy idea: How about balancing each match-up individually, with their own stats of research time, damage output, etc...
For example:
Blink research time
In PvZ: X seconds, in PvT: Z seconds, in PvP: Y seconds
Roach: X damage against terran, Y damage against protoss, etc...
It'd probably be simpler than this whole armored, light, psionic thing
This way you balance each match-up without breaking the others
It's an easy way out, even though completely inelegant
|
On March 18 2015 00:00 Ace Frehley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 17:37 Scorch wrote:
Adding a new race would bring 10 instead of 6 total matchups and 6 instead of 3 non-mirrors. That's twice as many interactions as there are now. Balancing a game with 3 fundamentally distinct races in terms of win rate is hard, 4 is much harder. Each balance change to fix one matchup has more side-effects on other matchups. Add to that the design goal that each matchup should also be fun, varied, dynamic, skill-based and exciting to play with multiple viable styles, and you have a truly Herculean task that, to my knowledge, has never been accomplished in video game history. Crazy idea: How about balancing each match-up individually, with their own stats of research time, damage output, etc... For example: Blink research time In PvZ: X seconds, in PvT: Z seconds, in PvP: Y seconds Roach: X damage against terran, Y damage against protoss, etc... It'd probably be simpler that this whole armored, light, psionic thing This way you balance each match-up without breaking the others
That's like way too much work compared to just keeping it as it is and balancing races as whole across matchups when needed.
On March 17 2015 23:40 Raneth wrote:In my opinion, the main reason sc2 is dying is because its changing -too much- and it is driving players away, much like WoW. Nobody wants to invest 20 hours a week into something, to have their progress made largely irrelivant by a balance patch or expansion. Adding a new race would probably get you a big influx of players, but you would hugely irritate all the existing players who have spent months of time perfecting their build orders for each match up. I think instability is the greatest threat to esports
I have to disagree. Balance patches are absolutely necessary to keep SC2 going on the level of actual professional esports. I've heard way more people say "I've stopped playing SC2 because Blizzard doesn't fix X" than say "I've stopped playing SC2 because Blizzard changes too many things all the time." In an RTS, stagnancy is death for competitive esports because it will become boring as a spectator sport and will then be unable to sustain itself.
|
U can theorycraft all u want, but Blizzard has lotsa stuff to do with the current game. It's very safe to say, that any kind of 4th race or derivations of existing races is/ are unlikely to be implemented. U can use ur idea for a new game, maybe sc3? Sc2 won't "benefit" from this idea.
|
Balancing four races is almost impossible, especially if you want them to have different playstyles. Besides, what kind of race could be added? Xel'naga would be stupid, because OP. Same goes for the hybrids. Factions of existing races might be an idea, but I don't think that something like this will ever be considered by Blizzard.
|
On March 16 2015 23:12 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
I'm surprised by the overall negative response. Surely there'd be issues but overall its an interesting enough idea to look into I'd think
the problem is that it's not just "one new race to balance," it's four new matchups to balance, all of which will indirectly affect 6 other matchups. if banshees are overpowered against race X, what do you do? nerf banshees? then what happens in tvz and tvt? then you change other zerg and terran units which affect the other matchups, etc. etc. the structure of codependent balance in six matchups is bad enough, and you're not going from "3 to 4 races" you're going from 6 to 10 matchups. is it impossible? no, but 6 matchups isn't impossible either and it's already really hard. 10 matchups would be really really really hard.
they'd either have to do a miracle job of balancing or simplify a lot of game elements to simplify balance, which i don't think most people want. it's especially difficult because t/p/z are pretty asymmetrical in style and all have unique requirements for adaptability & survivability, like bunkers and mules for terran, forcefields for protoss, overlord scouting and mass larvae for zerg, etc. it's not a matter of doing some math to make a new balanced race, you have to come up with a concept that's unique, balanced, survivable and cool, AND make sure that nothing about it breaks the survivability mechanics for the other three races. balance isn't just unit interaction, it's also "allow each race to play defensively against aggression and not automatically fall behind in the long game," which is already one of the big issues people have with protoss for example
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On March 17 2015 23:40 Raneth wrote:
In my opinion, the main reason sc2 is dying is because its changing -too much- and it is driving players away, much like WoW. Nobody wants to invest 20 hours a week into something, to have their progress made largely irrelivant by a balance patch or expansion.
For some perspective, Dota has sweeping changes two to three times a year (drastic changes to many heroes and sometimes reworking core mechanics) and League does this in between LCS seasons and they're among the biggest games out there. In the past I would have agreed with you but after some time I think it breathes a lot of life into the game, giving new chances to try out old strategies and mess with new ones. I don't think SC2 is even close to the point of being too frequently updated yet.
|
On March 17 2015 23:55 TheDwf wrote:
Why would you need a new race when you can just fix Protoss?
your right, toss could use a buff
|
On March 18 2015 00:42 virpi wrote:
Xel'naga would be stupid, because OP. Same goes for the hybrids. Factions of existing races might be an idea, but I don't think that something like this will ever be considered by Blizzard.
starcraft is already about humans discovering two alien races, i'm not sure it's implausible to add another one
|
I'm in the "interesting but too hard" camp. Anymore balance changes (mostly revolving around the new HotS units) just feel shoehorned because if they change one aspect it breaks another. Like spores now doing +bio because mutas were not working ZvZ. Tempest doing massive damage to air but not ground. Widow Mines doing shield damage. It is all very unintuative and sloppy. To add another race I feel they'd have to go almost back to the drawing board on all three and start from scratch. Trying to shoehorn in another race into SC2 at the moment would just be insanely difficult to impossible.
|
On March 18 2015 01:00 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2015 23:40 Raneth wrote:
In my opinion, the main reason sc2 is dying is because its changing -too much- and it is driving players away, much like WoW. Nobody wants to invest 20 hours a week into something, to have their progress made largely irrelivant by a balance patch or expansion. For some perspective, Dota has sweeping changes two to three times a year (drastic changes to many heroes and sometimes reworking core mechanics) and League does this in between LCS seasons and they're among the biggest games out there. In the past I would have agreed with you but after some time I think it breathes a lot of life into the game, giving new chances to try out old strategies and mess with new ones. I don't think SC2 is even close to the point of being too frequently updated yet.
It is difficult to compare SC2 to DOTA/LoL simply because of the drafting process. I actually had an idea for a custom map which gives SC2 a drafting screen. Sort of like monobattles but you select your race then you draft units. So if one unit is completely broken in say TvP you can ban it out during the pick/ban phase. I have no idea if it would work but it seemed like a novel idea. No clue if it exists already. It obviously wouldn't work in SC2 as it stands because if I banned out say Colossus in TvP the matchup would be horribly broken.
|
On March 18 2015 01:16 Tenks wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 01:00 Heyoka wrote:On March 17 2015 23:40 Raneth wrote:
In my opinion, the main reason sc2 is dying is because its changing -too much- and it is driving players away, much like WoW. Nobody wants to invest 20 hours a week into something, to have their progress made largely irrelivant by a balance patch or expansion. For some perspective, Dota has sweeping changes two to three times a year (drastic changes to many heroes and sometimes reworking core mechanics) and League does this in between LCS seasons and they're among the biggest games out there. In the past I would have agreed with you but after some time I think it breathes a lot of life into the game, giving new chances to try out old strategies and mess with new ones. I don't think SC2 is even close to the point of being too frequently updated yet. It is difficult to compare SC2 to DOTA/LoL simply because of the drafting process. I actually had an idea for a custom map which gives SC2 a drafting screen. Sort of like monobattles but you select your race then you draft units. So if one unit is completely broken in say TvP you can ban it out during the pick/ban phase. I have no idea if it would work but it seemed like a novel idea. No clue if it exists already. It obviously wouldn't work in SC2 as it stands because if I banned out say Colossus in TvP the matchup would be horribly broken.
It wouldn't work with units but I think that a system like that could work with upgrades instead of units. If you add all the crazy upgrades from the campaigns and then make a draft so that each player can prevent his opponent from using a fixed number of them, I mean.
|
On March 18 2015 01:23 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 01:16 Tenks wrote:On March 18 2015 01:00 Heyoka wrote:On March 17 2015 23:40 Raneth wrote:
In my opinion, the main reason sc2 is dying is because its changing -too much- and it is driving players away, much like WoW. Nobody wants to invest 20 hours a week into something, to have their progress made largely irrelivant by a balance patch or expansion. For some perspective, Dota has sweeping changes two to three times a year (drastic changes to many heroes and sometimes reworking core mechanics) and League does this in between LCS seasons and they're among the biggest games out there. In the past I would have agreed with you but after some time I think it breathes a lot of life into the game, giving new chances to try out old strategies and mess with new ones. I don't think SC2 is even close to the point of being too frequently updated yet. It is difficult to compare SC2 to DOTA/LoL simply because of the drafting process. I actually had an idea for a custom map which gives SC2 a drafting screen. Sort of like monobattles but you select your race then you draft units. So if one unit is completely broken in say TvP you can ban it out during the pick/ban phase. I have no idea if it would work but it seemed like a novel idea. No clue if it exists already. It obviously wouldn't work in SC2 as it stands because if I banned out say Colossus in TvP the matchup would be horribly broken. It wouldn't work with units but I think that a system like that could work with upgrades instead of units. If you add all the crazy upgrades from the campaigns and then make a draft so that each player can prevent his opponent from using a fixed number of them, I mean.
Interesting twist. I like it. So you could draft things like having medivacs pick up sieged tanks, Viking splash and the likes. May be a fun map.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I've always wanted to experiment with a draft system in SC2, I love the idea but its a totally different approach so you probably can't do it alongside how SC2 actually exists now. It seems like it would have some merit to explore.
|
you could accomplish something similar by having a tech system like some other RTS where tech isn't tied to the same resource pool as units and infrastructure, like having tech unlock over time based on research structures or just using a separate resource altogether. again, not directly applicable to SC2 but worth thinking about
|
I do know a common complaint about previous eSport fans of SC2 is that the games were monotonous. As an avid player I understand the subtle differences and mindgames going on during the games but the majority of the games still end up with MMMV vs Gateway+Colossus and often times it is difficult to understand why one side won unless you really know the intricacies. So the complaint of "every game is the same" is somewhat valid. With some form of ban/draft phase you could at least force the metagame a tad. But I do like the idea of being able to ban/draft upgrades instead of units. That is a really smart idea IMO.
|
Screw Xel'naga, make the new race Hybrids!! I know it would be hard but I think it would be awesome. If given the time and resources I definately think it could be done. However, I also know it will never happen. SC2 is the pinnacle of RTS. The whole triangle thing just cannot be outdone. Starcraft just hit that perfect note and blizzard is going to let it ring as long as we'll pay to listen.
|
I would love to see that faction idea
|
On March 18 2015 01:43 Tenks wrote:
I do know a common complaint about previous eSport fans of SC2 is that the games were monotonous. As an avid player I understand the subtle differences and mindgames going on during the games but the majority of the games still end up with MMMV vs Gateway+Colossus and often times it is difficult to understand why one side won unless you really know the intricacies. So the complaint of "every game is the same" is somewhat valid. With some form of ban/draft phase you could at least force the metagame a tad. But I do like the idea of being able to ban/draft upgrades instead of units. That is a really smart idea IMO.
And then everybody bans the Terrans from using stim.
|
On March 18 2015 03:17 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2015 01:43 Tenks wrote:
I do know a common complaint about previous eSport fans of SC2 is that the games were monotonous. As an avid player I understand the subtle differences and mindgames going on during the games but the majority of the games still end up with MMMV vs Gateway+Colossus and often times it is difficult to understand why one side won unless you really know the intricacies. So the complaint of "every game is the same" is somewhat valid. With some form of ban/draft phase you could at least force the metagame a tad. But I do like the idea of being able to ban/draft upgrades instead of units. That is a really smart idea IMO. And then everybody bans the Terrans from using stim.
Well that's not to be conceptualized with SC2 as we know it exactly now. Maybe with upgrades such as splash damage for vikings or all the crazy shit from the campaigns there would be worse things to be banned than stim for a non-T player.
|
Great idea for a discussion.
C&C Generals had 3 races
C&C RA and Tiberian Sun had 2 races
It kinda feels like with a few exceptions, 3 (or less) is the magic number.
|
I really like the idea of drafting units and/or upgrades. I mean I could very well imagine a group of "core units and upgrades" for each race that are unbannable, and then a group of "units/upgrades of choice" that you can choose from/ban. Kind of a "do your own faction" if you will. That way, each player can create his own variant of a race.
This would also help the balance team immensely as it would kinda work like a MOBA: any kind of obviously OP stuff would get insta-banned, but there would not be any need for emergency patching. Plus, having optionnal stuff would leave blizz free to rework unused units/upgrades in between patches (and nerfing the overused ones), which would keep the game fresher (as there could be something new to look to every season or two). It would also allow having several units that slightly overlap (imagine having the choice between having vultures, helions or both ?)
It would also add some complexity/strategy to the game, as well as requiring more adaptation and quick thinking. Less "I'll just do the same build all day e'rry day on all maps". But that's just my 2 cents.
|
On March 19 2015 23:30 LoneYoShi wrote:
I really like the idea of drafting units and/or upgrades. I mean I could very well imagine a group of "core units and upgrades" for each race that are unbannable, and then a group of "units/upgrades of choice" that you can choose from/ban. Kind of a "do your own faction" if you will. That way, each player can create his own variant of a race.
This would also help the balance team immensely as it would kinda work like a MOBA: any kind of obviously OP stuff would get insta-banned, but there would not be any need for emergency patching. Plus, having optionnal stuff would leave blizz free to rework unused units/upgrades in between patches (and nerfing the overused ones), which would keep the game fresher (as there could be something new to look to every season or two). It would also allow having several units that slightly overlap (imagine having the choice between having vultures, helions or both ?)
It would also add some complexity/strategy to the game, as well as requiring more adaptation and quick thinking. Less "I'll just do the same build all day e'rry day on all maps". But that's just my 2 cents.
Totally agree with everything, maybe except for drafting units. I'm fine with upgrade drafting, but I don't think drafting units could be done in a sensible way.
As said earlier, I would like a system where there are different "versions" of upgrades for certain units. For example, you could choose charge, splash, or extra health for Zealots. Your opponent could ban one, and you could choose from the remaining two (maybe even without your opponent knowing which one you chose, I don't know). Then you could have this triple upgrade choice for other units as well, which would give a nice variety of games.
|
I really wouldn't like any kind of pre-game myself. I'd like to jump straight in and get playing thank you very much.
|
That would be pretty sick.
|
I'm a long time BW player and been with SC2 since the start.
I imagined another race for StarCraft .. pure mechanical race. An AI race. Almost like the Terminator movies. It would sort of set up all the races on a continuum - Zerg is totally bio, Terran and protoss a mix, and new racing being fully Artificial.
I imagined the story arch being that the Terran create it to battle the zerg, and of course it works really well but then gets out of hand and becomes the real enemy.
Would be awesome.
|
On March 20 2015 06:40 CursOr wrote:
I'm a long time BW player and been with SC2 since the start.
I imagined another race for StarCraft .. pure mechanical race. An AI race. Almost like the Terminator movies. It would sort of set up all the races on a continuum - Zerg is totally bio, Terran and protoss a mix, and new racing being fully Artificial.
I imagined the story arch being that the Terran create it to battle the zerg, and of course it works really well but then gets out of hand and becomes the real enemy.
Would be awesome.
Sounds like the plot of Avengers 2 ! We shall name this race the "Ultrons".
:D
On a more serious note, the idea of a purely mechanical race is intriguing. I mean I'm not sure adding a 4th race is possible (due to everything that was discussed previously), but if it is possible, a fully mechanical one could be fun.
|
On March 17 2015 23:40 Raneth wrote:In my opinion, the main reason sc2 is dying is because its changing -too much- and it is driving players away, much like WoW. Nobody wants to invest 20 hours a week into something, to have their progress made largely irrelivant by a balance patch or expansion. Adding a new race would probably get you a big influx of players, but you would hugely irritate all the existing players who have spent months of time perfecting their build orders for each match up. I think instability is the greatest threat to esports
the breadth of strategies being employed in the last year have remained virtually the same. are we talking about SC2 and Blizzard's shitty patches or another game here lol
|
Hey guys got one more idea. I think it would ease the work if 3rd resource type would be introduced, if we are not considering supply as resource type. It could be something that 4th race would require more than the 3 other factions. Something like Protoss requires gas now compared to other 2 factions.
Now, the 3rd resource type wouldn't be in your main or natural. It could have some kind of specific mining type. The resource should be considered more valuable than gas, and be in strategically hard to obtain places, like middle of the map, or even guarded by neutral factors. It should be in the way that 4th faction requires it the most, but has the easiest potential to mine it.
Not all units would require it. But some units in current 3 races would require it, while the 4th race would need it necessarily to Tech, making the extremes of all-ins and timing attacks even more. Also, map presence and map control.
|
4 races is fine, and the most important thing that 4 races is fun and much deeper gameplay involved in every matchup. Those who played war3 knows this.
|
On March 23 2015 18:56 Tome5 wrote:
Hey guys got one more idea. I think it would ease the work if 3rd resource type would be introduced, if we are not considering supply as resource type. It could be something that 4th race would require more than the 3 other factions. Something like Protoss requires gas now compared to other 2 factions.
Now, the 3rd resource type wouldn't be in your main or natural. It could have some kind of specific mining type. The resource should be considered more valuable than gas, and be in strategically hard to obtain places, like middle of the map, or even guarded by neutral factors. It should be in the way that 4th faction requires it the most, but has the easiest potential to mine it.
Not all units would require it. But some units in current 3 races would require it, while the 4th race would need it necessarily to Tech, making the extremes of all-ins and timing attacks even more. Also, map presence and map control.
I dunno. I mean zerg also need gas right now, and so do terrans when playing mech. I don't think adding another ressource (one more "dimension" in the game) would simplify anything tbh.
|
On March 17 2015 23:40 Raneth wrote:In my opinion, the main reason sc2 is dying is because its changing -too much- and it is driving players away, much like WoW. Nobody wants to invest 20 hours a week into something, to have their progress made largely irrelivant by a balance patch or expansion. Adding a new race would probably get you a big influx of players, but you would hugely irritate all the existing players who have spent months of time perfecting their build orders for each match up. I think instability is the greatest threat to esports
I disagree here immensely. Unless you are absolute top tier pretty much everything from WoL carried over to HotS which will carry over to LotV. Most games of SC are still more a battle against yourself than your opponent until you get to a certain level.
|
On March 16 2015 16:04 Riquiz wrote:
Well if we look at WC3, it seems possible kinda?
Maybe wc3 was a better game for having more races because of tavern heroes and stuff?(I have never played wc3).
Maybe sc2 is easier to balance 4 races because the races do not have crazy hero units and such?
It's a tough one for sure, I personally welcome the idea and it would be very fun to me, but probably destroy competative play for quite awhile, if not, forever.
(Just wait for WC4 to come after LoTV hehehehehe)
wc3 was never full balanced
there was matchups win winrates like 80+% that was nearly unwinable at all
starcraft winrates when people scream for nerfs and how op a race is are like 56% ... never above 59%
4 races are NOT balancable totaly that every mu is fair
|
Still waiting for Space Orcs to be added to the game.
|
I think a 4rth race is a bad idea.
Not because its too hard or balance or whatever--that's arbitrary. Warcraft 3, the Age of ____ series, etc... all work with 3+ races. The problem with a 4rth race in Starcraft is identity and brand. Just as its arbitrary that 3 is the number of races starcraft has--adding a 4rth will do nothing but make that brand of starcraft "different" or "othered" by the previous brands of starcraft.
Now... splitting the races to factions is something that would actually be fantastic and creates a lot more drama in matches as it allows different players to emphasize different aspects of their skills while still being 90%-95% similar to their other races. It would also allow buffs of the late game units each faction exemplifies.
For example, lets say theres a Light Templar faction (without DTs, but has a buffed High Templar) and a Dark Templar faction (without High Templar, but a buffed DT)
One faction could be the reaver faction, the other the colossus faction
One the medivac faction, the other the medic/dropship faction etc...
And they can make signature units stronger knowing that each race loses something for that buff. It'd be awesome for viewers especially if neither viewers nor the opponent can tell which faction they are fighting. The games would be 90% similar until tier 3 tech happens and suddenly "Oh no! High Templars!"
People would get excited with anticipation as they track upgrades, build order, and expansion styles to figure out what late game unit the player is prepping for.
|
On March 19 2015 23:30 LoneYoShi wrote:
I really like the idea of drafting units and/or upgrades. I mean I could very well imagine a group of "core units and upgrades" for each race that are unbannable, and then a group of "units/upgrades of choice" that you can choose from/ban. Kind of a "do your own faction" if you will. That way, each player can create his own variant of a race.
This would also help the balance team immensely as it would kinda work like a MOBA: any kind of obviously OP stuff would get insta-banned, but there would not be any need for emergency patching. Plus, having optionnal stuff would leave blizz free to rework unused units/upgrades in between patches (and nerfing the overused ones), which would keep the game fresher (as there could be something new to look to every season or two). It would also allow having several units that slightly overlap (imagine having the choice between having vultures, helions or both ?)
It would also add some complexity/strategy to the game, as well as requiring more adaptation and quick thinking. Less "I'll just do the same build all day e'rry day on all maps". But that's just my 2 cents.
I've been thinking the same thing over the past couple of weeks. I think the future of the RTS genre (if it is to survive) is to get rid of the race-concept and instead create a pick/ban-system. You can in theory have like 40-60 different units to choose from since it would be ok if each unit would be overlapping here.
I feel that just - besides making it easier to balance - also opens rooms for alot more diversity and new options. Moreover, you could create a F2P-model based on this (since it wouldn't be dead neccesary to own all units).
|
On March 24 2015 00:34 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2015 23:30 LoneYoShi wrote:
I really like the idea of drafting units and/or upgrades. I mean I could very well imagine a group of "core units and upgrades" for each race that are unbannable, and then a group of "units/upgrades of choice" that you can choose from/ban. Kind of a "do your own faction" if you will. That way, each player can create his own variant of a race.
This would also help the balance team immensely as it would kinda work like a MOBA: any kind of obviously OP stuff would get insta-banned, but there would not be any need for emergency patching. Plus, having optionnal stuff would leave blizz free to rework unused units/upgrades in between patches (and nerfing the overused ones), which would keep the game fresher (as there could be something new to look to every season or two). It would also allow having several units that slightly overlap (imagine having the choice between having vultures, helions or both ?)
It would also add some complexity/strategy to the game, as well as requiring more adaptation and quick thinking. Less "I'll just do the same build all day e'rry day on all maps". But that's just my 2 cents. I've been thinking the same thing over the past couple of weeks. I think the future of the RTS genre (if it is to survive) is to get rid of the race-concept and instead create a pick/ban-system. You can in theory have like 40-60 different units to choose from since it would be ok if each unit would be overlapping here. I feel that just - besides making it easier to balance - also opens rooms for alot more diversity and new options. Moreover, you could create a F2P-model based on this ( since it wouldn't be dead neccesary to own all units).
I hope this will never come true, nothing is more annoying than not having full options cause it is "free to play".
The whole pick and ban phase of mobas could really be an interesting concept for a rts, but not having all units at the beginning would suck extremely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
