EPTRazzia of the Blizzsters
Note: the text includes elements/parts from this post, which is why you may have feelings of déjà vu.
Note 2: some parts of the text are not easy, so read carefully.
Changelog: fixed one English mistake. Thanks to Beelzebro!
Fixed another English mistake. Thanks to hewo!
Fixed another English mistake. Thanks to bblack!
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/691517WolfRider2.jpg)
Spaghettification
1
All things being equal, doubling the amount of workers at the start of the game naturally leads to an increased rhythm of development; but contracting time fatally means less possibility of control from the user. Contracting time = less control = more “time-based” mistakes = increased randomness. Strategy relies on planning, which means enough time to think. If the RT part of RTS is violently compressed then the S withers away too by force. Where the delicate balance and tangle between “mechanics” and “strategy” relies on making sure that mistakes occur both from the user (who must always crave for time, but reasonably) and his opponent (whose main job is to actively try to force more mistakes from his second nemesis), the current direction LotV is taking is very dangerous. LotV's new temporal environment skews the original allocation to the point that players might essentially fight and defeat… themselves. The winner might increasingly be the one who merely capitalizes on a severe, spontaneous blunder generated and immediately aggravated by time pressure, rather than being the one who manipulates his opponent into making that mistake. The interaction between players that creates the game and its tension is in danger, replaced with mere “punishing mechanics” based on forced loss of control.
2
WoL started as a one base fest; LotV is now going down the route of starting with 3 bases by default. Maybe there is a middle ground between those two extremes? Why would diversity be an issue? If early game was deemed as problematic—but who decreed that, and on whose authority?—exactly why would the necessary cure be its removal? Next time your arm is itching, remember not ever to fetch a Blizzard physician: their solution would be to amputate. Surely this way of thinking sounds very advanced for the Ostrogoth medicine at the height of the fifth century, but what about 2015?
Ironically, this frantic pattern of forced expanding may backfire and result… in increased passivity. Since the efficiency of harassment during the 3 bases phase will be reduced by hyper-development, even with the new tools on steroids, players may simply elect instead to proceed with their macro activities before being forced to consider confrontation because of the time bomb. In the end, the change might prolong the “passive period,” artificially filled with an explosion of semi-automated actions. Scouting might end up weakened too, with sudden, wild tech switches becoming the norm thanks to the increased mass of ressources stored each minute. Players might still build their max army, then dance around uncomfortably (knowing the initial clash would be the end as all alive expansions are nearby), and eventually proceed with the ritual sacrifice.
Harassment tools cannot be the answer to this problem: (1) either they're powerful enough to stop hyper-development by themselves, in which case the game will simply turn into a worker hunting contest (see for instance WoL TvT before the Blue Flame nerf); or (2) they're not, and hyper-development will prevail at first before being brutally stopped during the 4+ bases stage (where spread bases become too hard to defend, resulting in a sudden collapse of economies). Should the ETA balance be properly re-calibrated, the central question would still be untouched. A common complaint is that harassment tools are already too destructive: players are frustrated by the speed at which their mineral lines evaporate under the fire of various tools. But what is that debate, if not the one of control?
3
The economy of the SC2 player revolves around three aspects, which are Dexterity, Attention and Knowledge. All of them are tested through the trial of Time. This is why intense multitasking pushes players towards the limit. Multitasking is the primary and highest “skill stretcher” because the time constraint makes it difficult/impossible to perfectly combine those elements. There are indeed set, physical barriers that find their source in the limitations of the human body. Resources like attention and eaps (effective actions per second) are not indefinitely extensible. For instance, currently, eaps has a soft cap at 4 (on average). Even DRG on steroids would not reach 5. There is no measure for attention, but past a certain threshold it's similarly impossible to answer the excessive influx of information; hence why even pros, whose discipline aims at managing the economy of attention in the most efficient way, regularly miss stuff on the minimap or even on their very screen.
So what happens when multitasking becomes intense, when the rhythm increases? Players lose control and blunder. The problem with the current LotV economy is that it does not contract time punctually, but globally. This means players will control less and less what happens in the game: over-contracting time by force can only disfigure the necessary RTS equilibrium between “total control” (pure strategy) and “zero control” (pure luck).
Yet SC2 already suffered a lot because of the time razzia. No more than four words are needed to define its motto: speed instead of depth. The “excitement doctrina” ended up trying to artificially conceal the shallowness of its new strategic conceptions with a violent contraction of time, just like the immense plot holes of all bad blockbusters are partially hidden by shiny “new” special effects, wild camera moves and sheer propaganda. They call this bogus approach “innovation”. In their fantasy, it's probably supposed to look flash. LotV is currently going even further this way, with the consequence that the competition would further be compressed due to the narrowing of the array of skill. The theoretical skill ceiling shall be higher than ever, yet of course absolutely unreachable; thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. what humans can achieve best in reality, will crumble.
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/390709Skillreduction.jpg)
This is what happens to skill when you contract time towards zero. It shrinks and ends up disappearing. Fatally, skill gap follows the movement.
The theoretical skill ceiling in SC2 is infinite and out of reach, and thus does not matter at all; you could indeed always try to micro each of your individual units, but the absolutely massive diminishing returns make it worthless in practice (not to mention you have other, more important things to do). What matters is thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. how far you can push human limits to achieve the most within a given time frame. Contracting time does raise the skill floor (the threshold of difficulty) but it decreases the practical skill ceiling too (the potential room for mistake-free play). Therefore, it contracts the skill gap itself: on average, the authentic skill difference between players produces less and less difference in actual results, which means that players become increasingly closer to each other and have less and less ways to differentiate themselves. The terminal phase of this movement is the very disparition of skill.
Think about how you could try to win against a world champion. In the picture above, the world champion's skill is the huge orange star at the left. Your own skill, I am afraid, is that tiny little white star at the right. You can't magically make it grow, so how do you erase the skill gap? You could for instance try handicaps. The champion would start with penalities, for instance less pieces in chess or less workers in a SC2 game. But then, you quickly realize this doesn't work. You didn't suppress the skill of the champion, so he still beats you. He humiliates you. You're a rancorous, vicious creature; you want to win. You can of course make the handicap heavier to make his skill impotent, but it remains obvious you simply won because he had considerably less tools at the start of the game. So you use another way to achieve the same goal—a more subtle, wily approach. You attack his very faculties in order to destroy skill at its heart. He would still retain his theoretical skill—the huge orange star—but he would not have the practical means to “enforce” it. Therefore, his practical skill would decrease to the size of your tiny little white star, and you would have “fair competition”. For instance, a world chess champion would simultaneously play against 120 amateurs with only 3 seconds to play per opponent; the violent contraction of time (at least 1:120) would make him lose control, and thus his pratical skill would considerably decrease to the point a strong amateur would probably be able to challenge him (despite the same event being a no match in normal conditions). In SC2, the amateur could set a 50% handicap on the hit points of the champion's units: not only they would be weaker, but more importantly he would have less time to control them, so his superior “micro skills” would be nullified.
Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're still in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”. Blitz chess is another dazzling example of that: pressured by time, world-caliber players start making absolutely grotesque, newbie-like blunders. Contracting time decreases the quality of play, even if the competition can somewhat stand for a while (though increasingly turned inwards, towards oneself). Should you proceed for too long in that direction, skill itself would start to disappear, replaced with the functional equivalent of luck.
Sorry to insist so much, especially as the mechanism is a priori simple, but it's absolutely critical to understand the heart of the swindle. The question is not at all whether chess is a turn-based game while SC2 is RT. The mechanism is strictly identical in both cases, it's simply translated differently—and in a much more complex way—in RTS (where the “time factor” is retroceded in various domains). Take for instance Marine vs Baneling splitting within a set time frame; say, 3 seconds (after that, your commands are greyed out). First mission: splitting 6 Marines vs 12 Banelings. Second mission: splitting 12 Marines vs 24 Banelings. Third mission: splitting 24 Marines vs 48 Banelings. The theoretical skill ceiling was unchanged: losing 0 Marine (assuming stim and offcreep). Why did the practical skill ceiling rise? Because “time pressure” was increased. Intuitively, we see that past certain thresholds, everyone will more or less fail, so “skill” will increasingly be replaced with luck: players will simply box frantically everywhere and random stuff will happen. Control will be lost. (A contrario, if we give too much time, control becomes too easy—control becomes total.) There are various ways to “contract time”: give less actual time, increase the amount of actions to perform, increase the movespeed or damage of the units, etc.
Macro-wise, this phenomenon lies in the speed of development (economy, production, technology). In LotV, the main accelerating factor is currently embodied in economy.
Supernova
4
How did we come to this?
SC2 bears all the glaring flaws of a “forced child”. The original Blizzsters didn't try to make a good game, they tried to make an esport. That was the original sin of SC2. What had once been reached by accident would this time be fully enforced.
The SC2 crew thus asked itself, “what makes a good esport”? What makes it exciting? And they came up with 4 different points. It needs to be (1) watchable, of course; (2) simple; (3) skill-based; (4) uncertain.
In short, the SC2 crew was plagued with a common disease of the ill-named “modernity”: they thought backwards. Their previous work had “delivered excitement” because of its inherent quality. Here, work would focus on building that excitement. But as the SC2 crew would learn over years, one does not simply force things. Neither genius nor passion can be faked, and the best intents often backfire.
If the SC2 crew doesn't stop thinking that way, the original sin of SC2 shall remain its eternal curse. What do players want? Do they want an “esport”? Do they want a balanced game? Hell no. They want to have fun. In a competitive environment, where does fun come from? This is easy to determine as the endless legions of ragers flood us with daily information about that. If we consider the most common expressions/sources of rage:
(1) Balance complaints
(2) “No skill low apm”
(3) Build order losses and cheeses
(1) What do balance complaints tell us? Surprisingly, nothing. There is indeed the case of mirrors. In fact, this is where the complaints are sometimes by far the most violent. The traditional culture of rivalry between races of course leads to spectacular explosions of rage, but if “balance” was truly the problem we would not notice this phenomenon among mirrors. Yet it's there; and, what's more, it may even be stronger. “This is not about balance,” says Mr. Rage, “it's about design”.
(2) When Mr. “450 apm” rages at his “no skill low apm” opponent, he actually deems unfair a certain “over-efficiency” of the user input, i.e. the ease at which Knowledge is translated into victorious actions.
(3) Why do people almost universally hate build order losses? Because the loss has become unavoidable, sometimes purely because of external factors. Why do some people hate cheeses? Because the loss is brutal and likewise inevitable past a certain threshold.
Those phenomenons are linked to the same “too easy” theme. What is “too easy”? It is “no control needed”. “Ez race” = no control. “No skill low apm” = no control. “BO loss” = no control. “Luck” = no control.
We now have the solutions to all the “primitive issues” stemming from the Original Sin. In their original approach…
[The game] needs to be (1) watchable, of course; (2) simple; (3) skill-based; (4) uncertain.
… the Blizzsters blundered badly:
(A) They confused “simple” with “simplistic”. Hello, hardcounters. What is the characteristic of a hardcounter? Too efficient = too easy = no control. Mechanics were a target of the simplification process too. Mechanics were made easier, which “paradoxically” resulted in less control.
(B) “Uncertainty” was conceived as “pure randomness” and thus “luck,” instead of coming from the clash of skill. Luck = no control.
(C) Their very definition of “skill” was in the end doubtful. “Skill” was conceived in an unilateral way. The interactions were not taken (enough) into account. “Skill” meant making the right choice (building the right “counters,” using the right spell, etc.). The SC2 crew failed to conceptualize that 1 + 1 = 3. Control was not well allocated between players. This is the only way a spell like Force Field ever made it into the game. No interaction = no control from one of the sides. In the end, skill was increasingly conceived as (a) learning things by heart and (b) “dealing with luck,” which is to say… learning how to “roll the dice”. More luck = less control.
(D) As a result of this, “watchability” came to suffer. Symbolically, what wrongly came out first was the first thing to be affected. People are only interested in watching if there is, on average, significant control involved. “Watchability” is not a mere “visual aspect,” it's a mental operation. To be watchable, things don't only need to be “pretty,” they also need to make sense.
SC2 IS FRUSTRATING BECAUSE IT REMOVED FAR TOO MUCH CONTROL FROM THE PLAYER.
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/251829Control.jpg)
Control vs loss of control. Self-explanatory, really.
5
One example of the tragic aftermaths of the “holy esport mantra”: fundamentally, where does the “12 workers at start” idea come from? It comes from the “tyranny of the spectator”. Mr. Viewer is not happy with the downtime at the beginning of the game. But Mr. Viewer does not ask himself if the player is happy with being immediately rushed into action. Maybe the player liked to have this small downtime, maybe he “stupidly” liked to micro his workers on mineral patches, maybe he liked to think about his opening and the strategy he would use; maybe he liked to chat with his allies in team games; maybe he was bored indeed, but could then think about whatever he wanted; or maybe he never gave too much thought about it. Mr. Viewer does not care; he wants to consume esports. Mr. Viewer ends up being blasé because he has actually hundreds of hours of content available; but the quality is not quite there; therefore, Mr. Viewer wants to further maximize his utility. Plagued with the second common disease of “modernity,” short-sightedness, Mr. Viewer does not see that his short-term demands may spectacularly backfire in the future (see part I), fueling an “always more” drug-like logic, piling up artificial entertainment upon forced excitement in a rabid succession of blurry, shiny images. What will Mr. Viewer then do, once he's tired of the spectacle? He will say, “This game is shit” and sail away.
Where is the fault in Mr. Viewer's reasoning? He does not see that what is good for the player is generally good for the spectator, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Think about it. Emotional factors aside (which are a huge deal), where does the pleasure in watching SC2 come from? From the control players have. Why are spectators upset by “anticlimatic” ends or games? Because the loser was lacking control. Fortunately, most of the time, stars line up and the “interest” of players and spectators is the same. But the sense of the relationship is player → spectator, not the reverse.
Take for instance football (soccer), the current number one sports in the world. Football is unintended design. Football is an accident. Football was not “created for spectators”. Various forms of “proto-football” were once played; people acted during centuries and their collective action ended up creating what we now call “football”. Then, it ended up being increasingly institutionalized, standardized. Then the “ballon rond minds” started thinking more and more about “spectators”. They didn't start the process with, “well, how are we going to make the spectacle shiny? Shouldn't we attach a bunch of fireflies to balls so the competition looks neater? Shouldn't we craft the ball out of some slippery material to create excitement for the spectator?”
I mean, what is fundamentally interesting in watching players pushing a goddamn ball over freaking grass for 90 minutes? What is fundamentally interesting in watching two players throw a tiny yellow ball at each other during hours? There is no intrinsic interest in those activities; they're arbitrary. You watch this because you were interested; you were socialized into a certain activity, you ended up liking it and you built your interest out of that. “Spectating” is an emotional and mental operation. If you don't know the rules of a game, for instance, you cannot watch; you're blind. You look at colors, forms, movement, but you don't understand. You're not a “spectator,” you're a corpse. Sense is your true eye.
6
Back to SC2. Think about the various negative feelings many of its own players have towards it. What makes the game frustrating? What makes it stressful? What creates the so common ladder anxiety? “Competitiveness”? No. (Or rather, not only.) Some people affected by this in SC2 are competing outside with no problem whatsoever. What lies behind all of this is the lack of control. You know you are going to lose, of course; but above all, you know that you will lack ways to manage that. Therefore, over time, a good part of the so-called “community” gradually turns into episodic players, full-time spectators. Some of those spectators tend to forget how playing feels. Besides, unlike the player who acts and lives the action, the spectator is passive and powerless. He has no way to impact what happens within the game. Yet he's not necessarily happy with what he witnesses. So he asks, especially as he knows he's been placed on a golden pedestal. He asks luxury patches, he asks changes, prone to formulate demands which further remove control. Too happy to pursue their razzia, the Blizzsters oblige.
Didn't it occur to you how suspicious it was that Blizzard started playing the “I have understood you” chorus more and more? Look at this—don't you find it extremely odd that Blizzard suddenly appears to be in touch with reality? Look at the titles: “More action, More harassment options, Incentives to go on the offense, Micro opportunities on both sides, Army vs Army Micro, Differentiate player skill better, Improve weaker design units/abilities”—should we make a poll about it, what African dictator score would this program get? 98%, 99%? Who can say no to such good intents?
So, things are straightforward. Either (1) the SC2 crew was suddenly stricken with a “holy revelation” on its way to Heaven or (2) there's a huge snag. Considering they spent 5 years refusing to listen to many sensible things, only giving way with the greatest reluctance after prolonged user-based campaigns, common sense tells me to vote for the “huge snag” option.
How do demagogic politicians deceive fools so fools keep voting for them? They talk about High Values such as “Democracy,” “Freedom” or “Justice”; then, once elected, they give the keys to the banksters—that is to say, when they're not banksters themselves. Here, it's the same thing: they talk about “Action,” “Aggression” or “Micro”. You, as a spectator, think about your average SH game; and of course you buy that. But all of this is the functional equivalent of a manipulative operation since you forgot about the historical linking, the actual chain of events. For instance, where do Swarm hosts come from? In broad outline, to deal with turtling “deathballs”. Why did “deathballs” come to exist? Ultimately because of a set of decisions aiming at pleasing the crowd, i.e. at crafting something that was “good for spectators”. The ingenious sophism from the Blizzsters is to use the spectator as a solution to the original problem that was… the spectator.
Why did SC2 purposefully, systematically remove control from the user in various domains? Because the Original Blizzsters thought that (1) spectators come first; (2) spectators must be excited; (3) excitement = randomness.
Our enemy has no face, no voice, yet its shadow is immense and it rules absolute. It is by far the best tyrant because it is an impersonal tyrant. You can find it everywhere; it is slippery, deceitful, yet oddly efficient in subtle ways. It is “Mr. Viewer”. Not only does Mr. Viewer's Roman-like, built-in mischievous joy directly conflicts with the activity of the traditional big cat that is the player, but it even colonizes the big cat—which, increasingly acculturated to the slightly sadistic environment, ends up climbing the terraces to give the thumb down… at himself!
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/478260MrViewer.jpg)
SC2 was made as an esport, i.e. as a game of spectators. But a game is not played by spectators. A game is played by players. A “game of spectators” is a contradictio in adjecto. It can only fail. It failed. It is now time to set things right. Paradoxical as it may be: for the sake of the spectator… the spectator must withdraw. SC2 has to be made as a game of players. Not only spectators are already there, but they will massively flood in (or come back) if things are set right at the design table—where players are the priority, and spectators should eat the leftovers. Blizzard has indeed the priceless chance to be supported by a very patient “community” because of the emotional bond from the early years.
LotV will completely fail if it keeps removing control from the actual user. LotV will only succeed if it restores control to the actual user.
Players need to take back control.
Meteorite bombing
7
Creation is characterized by “unintended design”. When you create something, it always goes beyond what you first imagined. The idea takes off and you no longer control it. Creation is this flickering synergy. This whole text, for instance, started as a mere 4 lines remark on an obscure subforum. Then it expanded uncontrollably to become a fierce prosecution case against the self-sustaining system initiated by the Blizzsters.
Being a RTS designer is a strange experience. Regardless of how clever you are, you always end up being a fool. You need to end up being a fool. You carefully craft something, you plot for hours and days and nights and weeks, you are the Machiavellian Master. Then the user selects your toy and breaks it. For instance, the first designers—naive by necessity—once crafted this common thing now called “defensive building”. “Since people attack,” they thought, “they will also need to defend—we'll give them special tools for that”. And so Defensive Towers were born. Then, as soon as the alpha tests began, this happened:
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/317798Towerrush.jpg)
Triumphant entrance of the Tower Rush.
![[image loading]](http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-17-2014/x17LSz.gif)
Shock and stupor. The player is not at all interested in using the defensive building for defence. He immediately uses it… offensively. Yet, if you think about it, this was perfectly logic; this was even silently announced. What happens as soon as there are rules? People cheat. The implicit rule of a defensive building is, well—“it's for defence”. But players, mischievous imps as they are, do not want to hear about such rules. So, they flip the table and go Tower Rush. In short, players appropriate themselves the tools they were given, manipulate them and turn them against their very “intended use”. This process is perfectly natural. In our domain, you cannot and should not be a “dictatorial designer”. This is another contradictio in adjecto. You're a creator. Your destiny is to be a fool. You craft the cocoon, and then you let the butterfly go.
Unfortunately, the Blizzsters were heavy-handed, and the intrusive creationist approach is a huge problem in SC2. This is directly correlated to the original philosophy of the “holy esport mantra”. As a result, the SC2 crew is trying too hard. They need to relax, really. More control for the player = less control from the designer. This does not mean less work; this means working better. The main problem with many SC2 creations is that they come with attached, internal “directions for use”. But the instruction manual cannot be a 800 pages treaty, nor should it be excessively incorporated into the unit itself.
Especially as spontaneous emergence always finds a way: we remember Colossi being sold as this sick “cliffwalking raider” or Swarm hosts as this exciting “siege breaker”. Tell us more about that? Unintended design always happens. It cannot not happen. It happened countless times in SC2 and will happen again. Even with the easiest and dumbest tools ever, players will find ingenious ways to “cheat”. Goblins are made to outfox Orcs. The problem is that accidental creation is a two-edged sword: it can turn good, but it can also go very badly. Oh, Swarm hosts did end up being a siege breaker in the end. The Blizzsters simply forgot to mention the siege would last years.
I spoke about the “control architecture” within the game, but it also exists around the game. In fact, it is no coincidence if this “omnipotence paradigm” can be felt everywhere. A third trait of “modernity” is that power in a given field tends to become increasingly intrusive because of hyper-rationalization. Blizzard wanted to control everything. This is why there is no LAN, this is why everything had to go through Battle.Net with a single account, this is why they were eventually forced to create WCS. But you cannot control everything. The more you try to maintain your grip, the more you need increasing power to seize what inevitably tries to slip out of it. The terminal phase is that you end up choking what you wanted to control.
The expansionnist project has to stop somewhere. There should even be retraction.
8
The SC2 designers had probably little idea about what they were doing when they forsook the “mechanical barriers” from SC1. Now it takes 3 times the effort to even think about vaguely viable stuff because “smartcasting” threatens to make every spell over-efficient, the pathing engine makes army stacking explosive, the unlimited unit selection makes it extremely easy to maneuver and capitalize on advantages, etc. Thus quality of design has to fully compensate for every single of those aspects. This is not undoable by any mean, but it's hellishly hard. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Any decrease in the “mechanical difficulty” department has to be compensated somewhere in strategic complexity, otherwise it's far too trivial to put the “Knowledge” aspect into actions to reach victory. But as people would realize over years, strategy is intimely connected with mechanics. If I can't take my whole army and walk across the map in 30 seconds to vaporize everything, then I have to capitalize on my victorious engagement in another way; this leads to more refined tactics, and eventually higher strategic complexity. Where mechanics are excessively simplified, strategy ends up crumbling too: triumphant entrance of the “1a” paradigm.
“Macro mechanics” were one of the attempts at recreating a mechanical barrier setting apart gods from mortals. Unfortunately, by trying to fix a problem it merely shifted it: macro mechanics ended up increasing the severity of the trial of Time. Macro mechanics indeed all speed up development.
Toning them down directly is a possibility: reducing the amount of minerals MULEs harvest, reducing the amount of larvae produced, reducing the increase in production boost. But it can also be done indirectly. Macro mechanics were once partially “bolted”. For instance, quick 3Nex, 3 hatch or 3OC builds were once unplayable as a standard. But a succession of patches, maps changes and strategic improvements increasingly made them the norm. + Show Spoiler [Details] +
In ZvP, the generalization of FFE openings, then the MSC increased the basal rhythm of development. In TvZ, the Queen patch was an abrupt accelerator (even if there was a natural movement in progress). In TvP, maps encouraged 1 rax FE, then the MSC similarly terminated a few openings which held up Protoss' development. Mirrors are the least affected.
9
The original pact of SC2 was “less burdensome mechanics, more exciting action”. But kicked out through the doorway, mechanics do come back through the window. What do people consider the “best micro”? What is considered the most “exciting action”? The ones that require the most difficult “user inputs”—the ones where the situation itself recreates… the limited unit selection. Think about individual Blinks. Think about splitting Zerglings against Mines or Marines against Banelings. The common point between those interactive actions is that you don't select your big blob to perform a collective action. You select a small part of your army to do an efficient, precise action. This is actually one of the rare points in which SC2 has reached an improvement by accident—the increased contraction of time can lead to more tense micro.
Thus it is no accident if AoE was the main factor in the emergence of new “micro mechanics”. But then, there's still the problem of (1) contraction of time and (2) ease of use, i.e. brainless AoE juggernauts evaporating stuff too fast. This is why the Colossus, for instance, is considerably inferior to Siege Tanks; the latter requires finesse thanks to the inherent tension of the Siege Mode, while the former almost never does and is fine operating in autopilot most of the time. This is the difference between “burst damage” with vulnerabilities (including friendly fire!) and “dps” in an all-round body; this is the difference between a unit which can be manipulated at will by the opponent (catching it unsieged, forcing Siege, getting close, turning its fire against the owner, etc.) and another one which necessarily ends up being the nodal point of a hardcounter system. Of course, past a certain threshold, both raise firepower issues; but fundamentally they're very different in the way they function. The Colossus is literally the anti-Siege Tank.
This leads us to “unit design”.
+ Show Spoiler +
(A brief summary about what's wrong with Blizzard's conception of micro here)
10
Changing relations between things to add/recreate interesting interactions and/or mechanics is quite simple as the original “versatile core” is still fully present. Units have indeed tons of modifiable variables: mineral, gas, supply, production time; hit points, attack, armor, range, turn rate, damage point, etc. They can all be used to fix many of the current issues (along with drastic changes in the way the economy works). There are a few fundamental flaws with SC2 unit design. Non-exhaustive list:
(1) Excessive bastardization
(2) Excessive inflation
(3) Excessive automation
(4) Excessive asymetric efficiency
Which can be summed up as: (1) too blurry, (2) too big, (3) too easy, (4) too harsh in its specialization. Many SC2 units lack versatility in a needed area, but are over-efficient in another given domain. The accumulation of flaws leads to the worst type of unit ever: the low-skill, over-specialized, over-expensive hardcounter.
“Excessive bastardization” is when the identity of a unit ends up being clouded and weakened with counter-intuitive attributes. Example: light infantry is typically weak regarding hit points, cheap and massable. Adding beefiness to Zerglings would for instance make no sense. Example: a piece of artillery is typically costly, slow, fragile and powerful. But the “culture of the bastardization” does not want to hear about “weaknesses” (necessary weaknessses) and rounds things. Besides, contraction of time naturally takes its toll on an inherently slow material like the artillery. So the designers take a piece of artillery and put it on steroids, increasing its attack rate and giving it special movement; this bastardization is then called “improvement,” with the designers failing to see that a piece of artillery without the traditional weaknesses of a piece of artillery makes little sense.
“Excessive inflation” is when the various costs—mineral, gas, supply, production time—are set too high for no valid reason, blocking cumbersome amounts of resources. Example: the first Colossus costs 200/200 (robobay) + 300/200 (unit) + 200/200 (range). Example: the Thor as a big fat slow unit instead of a 2 supply, medium-sized mobile walker. Example: Roaches and Hydralisks as 2 supply creatures (while their role would rather put them at 1), Ultralisks as a 6 supply mammoth. Excessive inflation = less control about the allocation of resources, including army positioning (you can split three Goliaths, you cannot split a Thor). Why do people hate the Colossus? Because the Colossus is like banksters from Wall Street: “too big to fail”.
“Excessive automation” is when the unit itself does things you should do yourself. Examples: the moving shot from Phoenixes or Cyclones under “Lock On”; Charge from Zealots; how Zerglings surround (partly). Excessive automation = less/no control.
“Excessive asymetric efficiency” is fairly straightforward and leads to various over-specialized hardcounters, too efficient in some domains while almost useless in others.
There are other things to consider such as critical mass, excessive synergies, the sharpness of the efficiency-time curve (for instance, in WoL and HotS Roaches were fundamentally a 3b all-in unit), etc.
All of this is a question of equilibrum. Just like for venom, “the dose makes the poison”. Not all units can be made equally used and equally interesting at all the phases of the game, of course (for instance, I don't consider the necessary rarity of capital ships an argument against their very existence), but there's definitely room for improvement for tons of them, before even thinking about new units.
11
Take for instance the Banshee. In LotV, the Banshee was given a new upgrade, “Hyperflight Rotors”. It increases the Banshee’s movement speed by 1. What is Blizzard's reasoning? “Banshees are not used enough, so we'll make them uncatchable by ground units; this way, people will build more Banshees; this way, their opponent will be forced to build the existing anti-air counters, which belong to the underused units as well”. This reasoning is fundamentally aberrant as it will invariably lead to the well-known HotS early game TvP Oracle problem, triggering a forced chain of reactions instead of giving freedom to the user with versatile tools. Initially, Blizzard even considered 7 range Banshees—what kind of nonsense is that? Such extreme measures could only beg for more hardcounters. One needs to be much more subtle.
Why wouldn't you start with simple tweaks to the Banshee such as decreasing its cost? One could, for instance, decrease the cost of the Banshee from 150/100/3/60 to 125/75/2/50 (possibly increasing Cloak cost to 125/125 so the initial investment cost of the first Cloak Banshee remains untouched; it depends on what tests would say). What do we achieve with that? (1) We don't alter the current interactions involving the Banshee; (2) we encourage players to mix in more Banshees because of the reduced costs; (3) it's easier to send small squads of Banshees in different places of the map; (4) we don't force the opponent to build specific counters, for instance Corruptors, Vikings or Phoenixes.
12
The example of how the SC2 crew dealt or intended to deal with the “Mutalisk problem” in WoL PvZ is highly symbolic of their approach. Mutalisk is problem? Solution is counter. Mutalisk is problem? Solution is “Phoenix with range”. Mutalisk is problem? Solution is “anti-air AoE Tempest”. They don't think about subtle changes like manipulating the dynamics of the match-up. They don't think, “maybe the problem comes from the fact that Zerg reaches those huge Mutalisks flocks too easily”. They don't think, “maybe the asymetric speed of development is the problem”. They say, “Mutalisks are the problem”. And, since players are tired of losing to mutas and (legitimately) end up raising their fists, asking for blood, they comply. They give the “counters”. Of course, they are hardcounters. Consequence of the new hardcounters when the game evolves? Mutas become cheesy, builds/counters become coinflippy and no one is happy.
The Mammoth in the Room
Another example of “dictatorial design,” look at the evolution of the Ultralisk.
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/338973Ultralisk2.jpg)
I mean, seriously… what's next? Marine bullets healing Ultralisks?
Why would the “solution” to whatever was deemed problematic ever be to turn the relation into the most extreme form of hardcounter? Please don't think this is a racial demand: it also stands true with the Zealot, and even within ZvZ itself! (If it ever goes to that stage, that is.) Why would you further lock the Ultralisk into the role of a juggernaut when you could simply remake it as a lower supply variant, quicker and more agile, and increase its statistics that way if need be? Why can't Zergs have the gracile units their very race calls for? Why does Life's ultra micro have to be barely more efficient than the (inexistent) one from a low master?
The reasoning is always the same. Stop using versatile units. Build hardcounters. Problem is Ultralisk. Solution is Thor. Build Thor. Problem is Ultralisk. Solution is Cyclone. Build Cyclone. Right click Cyclone so Ultralisk doesn't kill Cyclone. The result of the intrusive creationist approach is a game of cubes. You insert cubes of different shapes into other cubes of different shapes according to the will of the designer. This is insulting for players, this is unworthy of Starcraft. Starcraft is not a game of cubes.
+ Show Spoiler +
“But you don't understand, if we don't do things like this Terran stays on bio 24/7, as they did for years because bio is OP!” (1) Terran doesn't transition to mech from bio and vice versa; (2) why do you want to force players? (3) you witnessed bio the majority of the time for 5 years because the SC2 crew refused to properly (re)build mech, and instead promoted horrors like camping into mass Ravens, which is not mech; (4) Protoss and Zerg too would be forced to build whatever hardcounters they have against the new mammoth on steroids.
If the problem is really “Marines OP” or “bio OP” or “Terrans being lazy bastards and wanting to counter everything with Mariners,” then ask yourself why the hardcounter system is everywhere to be seen. Ask yourself why ZvP has frustrated both sides for years despite regularly featuring way more unit diversity than TvT or TvZ. Or keep sleeping and enjoy your game of cubes.
If the problem is really “Marines OP” or “bio OP” or “Terrans being lazy bastards and wanting to counter everything with Mariners,” then ask yourself why the hardcounter system is everywhere to be seen. Ask yourself why ZvP has frustrated both sides for years despite regularly featuring way more unit diversity than TvT or TvZ. Or keep sleeping and enjoy your game of cubes.
*
Completeness is the natural consequence of the intrusive creationist design. Players are dispossessed from their own creative potential and only have to apply the instruction manual. But players, whatever they might say out of bad faith after defeat, do not want to apply the instructions of a manual. They want to find their own solutions within the given frame. They don't want the game to be created “solved,” they want to solve the game themselves. SC2 suffered because the “completeness of the circle of the counters” is inherently an inflationnary process leaving less and less room for the player.
Completeness is toxic for the game. Structural holes are what makes things interesting. For instance, Terran would stop being Terran if they received some metaphysical horror like the “tech reactors” from the campaign or static defence (or more brainless melee units). Having those structural holes within the architecture of the race is what defines it. Working around structural holes is players' job.
13
Yet what is the motto of the Blizzsters? “Forging ahead regardless”. What are new units? A false debate.
They may or may not be good, useful, “imbalanced,” etc. But the real debate lies elsewhere. For instance, let us examine the new units from HotS: Hellbats, Mines, Swarm hosts, Vipers, the MSC, Oracles, Tempests. As HotS moves towards its twilight, what units proved to be absolutely inescapable and positive for the game? Were Tempests (initially conceived as an AoE anti-muta unit…) necessary considering the Carrier remained in the gutter for 5 years? As for units that did see a lot of use, did they truly stand the trial of time? If not, can't they be further improved? After all, Hellbats, Mines, Swarm hosts, the MSC and Oracles became a staple of certain match-ups.
Consider for instance 4M replacing Marines/Tanks. There was a huge amount of confusion about why Marines/Tanks was no longer viable in standard HotS TvZ. People brought up the new muta regen, Vipers, the original beta nerfs, bigger maps, etc. All true, but what was the final nail in the coffin? Tanks were killed by hyper-development. Marines/Tanks in TvZ started being in serious troubles in May 2012, because a traditional piece of artillery coming from traditional means of production is absolutely unable to survive in a “modern” environment of hyper-development, threatened (1) to be overwhelmed by hords of cheaper, easily reproducible units and (2) of obsolescence because the opponent might rush superior technology. + Show Spoiler +
Terrans kept using Tanks because at this time, they had nothing else.
The MSC is a typical case of crude design. Instead of reorganizing the basic Gateway/Warpgate tech tree to deal with the issues Protoss was facing, they added a Swiss Knife hero unit (initially, it even had detection!) and ruined what could have been a good idea, i.e. a microable flying unit with moderate harassment and scouting possibilities in the early game. Then, they keep building on top of this shaky fundation.
Oracles are a typical case of a good intention that ended up failing (1) because the “deathball model” was not broken and (2) because it was implemented according to the “excessive asymetric efficiency” logic. Interactions with Marines are, for instance, considerably reduced compared with a Banshee because of a few wrong values (damage, range, damage point).
Another thing to consider would be Medivacs picking up Tanks in Siege Mode. Of course, semi-teleporting Tanks look good; besides, it is mechanically demanding; it brings micro and multitasking. But in the end, won't its very violence kill the thing? Won't it trigger people to use hardcounters such as Phoenixes openings so they're not exposed to that? Besides, is it really the role of an artillery unit to smoothly move around with considerable mobility? Why would the core unit of a composition which should be less maneuverable by default (mech) have access to hyper-mobility? This kind of conception sounds like the typical “trap for viewers” to me, a deceitful Colossization of the Siege Tank. It may backfire.
In the end, it is no coincidence if neither the Warhound nor the HERC even made it. What purpose did they fulfill? Exactly why would Terran need Protoss bodies among its ranks?
So, when assessing new units, the first question one should ask is: what does this unit do that an overhaul of the already existing ones—especially those who are underused—can't? And aren't we heading towards a leveling of the necessary landscape?
Wouldn't a logic approach be: first reorganization, then innovation?
The Fault in Our Stars
14
Promoting aggressive multitasking means promoting low-medium risk, low-medium reward operations. Huge risk leads to deathballing: why would you move out if you risk losing everything, which means immediate checkmate? Multitasking is thus heavily affected by parameters like “excessive inflation” or “excessive defender's advantage” coming itself from “excessive efficiency in aggressive tools”.
“Low risk” does not mean “zero risk”. Zero risk = zero interest. Zero risk finds its source in the flawed, unilateral conception of “skill” discussed above (part II). 1 + 1 = 3. Interaction prevails over narcissistic joy. The opponent needs some room to have control too.
Current examples of bad/dubious concepts tending towards zero risk: Recall from the MSC; Warp Prism pick-up range; Release Interceptors from the Carrier; Tactical Jump from the Battlecruiser; uncatchable units; possibly Medivacs picking up Tanks in Siege Mode; etc.
15
Players need time for proper multitasking. If you have 10 tasks to perform in 3 seconds, you may for instance score a 8/10. If you have 15 tasks to perform in those same 3 seconds, you will fail them even more, which in the end will discourage you from even trying because you know you won't have control. One of SC2's problems is that, at times, the game punishes aggressive multitasking because of hyper-development. It is simply better to allocate your user resources to passive building rather than “being cute”.
Paradoxically, the game needs to be slowed down… so players increase the rhythm themselves with multitasking. What needs to be slowed down is the speed of development, not the global clock itself (= you don't need to put the game on “fast” instead of “fastest”). This is why WoL was “slower” than HotS despite game speed being untouched. This is also why WoL TvZ became considerably faster post-Queen patch. Just like in physics, matter itself “contracts time”: in SC2, for the player, a fight with 80 units is much faster than a fight with 20 units. Yet the associated stake is often higher. It is thus better if players reach the “80 units” stage later (gradually). In short, smaller battles with incremental gains instead of systematic big battles crowning the victor. This is what the SC2 crew is trying to do, but they're taking the wrong route with the rabid game of starvation and over-destructive harassment tools to compensate.
16
Derisory control requirements is why camping into 1a out of zero attention tools is universally despised. But special caution must be paid to the situation: the fundamental problem is neither “aggression” nor “defense”. Blizzard has not understood why aggression can be good or defence can turn bad, which is why they have given birth to various horrors that mutilate the game because of their unbeatable operational effectiveness in either of those sides. Aggression can be hollow, same as defence can be skillful. Thus, the “all aggression = good” doctrina makes no sense. Early WoL PvP was strictly built upon “constant aggression”; ask Protoss players if it was a satisfactory match-up.
Hence the necessity to find the right equilibrium between attacking and the legitimate defender's advantage. Certain concepts tend towards an inherent attacker's advantage (e.g. Warpgate, boost Medivacs, muta regen), which is fundamentally absurd. The attacker has the privilege to choose when and where he attacks, so the defender obviously needs “counter-privileges”. Defender's advantage comes from various things like terrain (ramps, chokes), superior vision (information), unit formation (concaves), closer production, artillery units, etc. Spoon-feeding players with specific units like the MSC is crude.
17
Asymmetric design is another area where dosing mistakes prove lethal. In itself, the principle is sound as it ensures one of the sides has interest in moving out on the map to capitalize on its strong windows. But if asymmetric design is poorly implemented, particularly on the back of a flawed economy, the stronger side on the long-term will simply play the clock and camp, knowing its odds at winning passively raise with each passing minute. This will prompt the weaker side on the long-term to focus everything on early or midgame, eventually all-inning before the Xth minute because its odds are too terrible afterwards anyway. Many match-ups fell into that kind of trap during the history of SC2. Mapmakers are held hostage by such considerations and cannot perform miracles…
Stardust accretion
18
What is the only thing more obnoxious than the “tyranny of the spectator”? Its twin brother: the excuse of the “casual”. Have you noticed how the mythical “casual” is a strange creature? Quite oddly, it is clever enough to pull out the credit card to buy the game, but after this the casual becomes the most fragile butterfly whose wings were ever to disturb the ether. It must be cherished and pampered like a spoiled brat. Everything becomes so “confusing” and “complicated” for the casual. The casual, for instance, cannot understand that there are several starting locations on the map. It cannot understand that there are different resources layout for bases. Yet it intuitively understands far more complex phenomenons. Even more impressive, the casual knows how to find his bearings in the current Battle.Net, a performance which cheerfully pulverizes the feat that is bird migration. The casual, however, cannot experiment. If it's a child, it's quite a slow one. Everything must be fed to the casual. He must be kindly guided, step by step, towards the Holy Graal. The casual cannot use his brain; absent-minded butterfly, he has mislaid it. A good thing breathing is autocast, or the casual would forget about it and die—poor, miserable creature born to suffer and pass.
19
Time is our enemy in more than one way. The slow movement of plate tectonics occurs beneath our very feet, so we don't feel it. Each year, there will be a “best 40 games of the year” election that will crown a victor. We barely remember what playing was like the last year, so we may spontaneously think that each passing year is an increasing success. Mental saturation through information bombing takes its toll on our very ability to measure the quality of the game.
False debates are our second enemy.
The debate is not whether or not Cyclones are “OP”. Of course they are. How could the bastard son of the Warhound and the Phoenix avoid its genetic fate?
The debate is not about “buffing is good, nerfing is bad,” as if you couldn't make catastrophic changes to the game with ill-conceived buffs or open tons of options with well-targetted nerfs.
The debate is not whether or not “SC2 is dying”; SC2 as an esport, that is. Pure creature of the “tyranny of the spectator,” this soporofic theme is for long known as null and void—don't we have the undying assurance of John Bain's favorite appendice?
The debate is not about “racial polarization”. The classic balance debates between Protoss, Terran, and Zerg are, for instance, irrelevant as of now. They're dangerous because the traditional agonistic culture between factions can be put to good use to mask the deep-rooted issues (which generated the vast majority of balance questions anyway). Short-sighted users shall be jealous of “the shiny tools others get” and will ask Blizzard the same for “their camp,” failing to realize that they're completely falling into the oldest trap on Earth called “divide and rule”. People should instead unite and camp Blizzard's door so they have a playable RTS first. Otherwise, they will only get (1) an even worse game, (2) an even worse competitive scene, (3) an even worse balance.
As LotV beta begins, we are at the parting of the ways. SC2 is going through a huge identity crisis. Supporters of the “full macro path” who think cheese and early game are “boring” and partisans of the “philosophy of action” should rather keep thinking ahead, go back to the roots of the “holy esports mantra” and remember its motto: “everything must be visible”. In a RTS, what is ultimately the quintessential element that isn't tangibly visible? Strategy.
20
Playability and thus “enjoyability” come from control over various aspects. This is why people involved in games of pure chance systematically develop absurd habits and beliefs in order to recreate the control they no longer have. Control should not be absolute, but there are thresholds to respect. There are different temporalities within the game which have to be carefully calibrated to ensure the survival of control and, ultimately, sense. The quality of the game flows from its “control architecture”. But its identity too.
None of this is new material. There was no secret plot. The razzia of the Blizzsters was openly led. There were people who warned others from this all along. They were deliberately confused with “elitists” and mocked for being “neophobic” or “nostalgic”. They were depicted as “naysayers” or “declinists”. Storm crows are never appreciated; yet their wings too were blessed by the sun. Who knows? Perhaps they're here to announce the sun—the possibility of another sun.
I hope people don't get drunk with the liqueur of their own hope, only to wake up later with a severe hangover. I hope people don't close their eyes with the “give them time” mantra, as if those topics weren't years old, as if similar problems hadn't arisen before in other games, as if other sectors weren't concerned, as if those issues weren't significant of a more global movement. I hope people don't fall into the trap of “one game vs another,” whatever this “another” is.
+ Show Spoiler +
I take one example of why the “BW vs SC2” trench warfare is counter-productive and stupid. The only thing to defend here is Starcraft.
Splitting the Vulture into the Hellion, the Hellbat and the Widow Mine is potentially genius. There is a lot to do with this “1 into 3” formula. You can actually move Mines, which would be the dream of any BW player! You can actually add further versatility to the primary mech unit, which would be the dream of any BW player! With simple tweaks to the two extra units in SC2, we can obtain a brilliant result, both for bio, biomech and mech play. Instead of that, what do we get? (a) An 1a AoE Zealot [problem is Zealot? Solution is counter-Zealot] and (b) a 2 supply little bomb. The initial mistake of downgrading the Vulture into a monodimensional unit can perfectly be fixed with the very tools SC2 recreated, with an even better as a result. The potential here is immense. The Hellion-Mine-Tank trio can easily surpass its ancestor.
Instead of working together towards that kind of goal (it's just an exemple), we'll have holy avengers waste our time with their “you want to recreate BW 2.0” motto, out of some misguided rancor or sense of pride which end up being toxic for the very game they pretend to love. Yet we see that SC2 can use even its very weaknesses to bounce back—so what's the point in ideological approaches?
Splitting the Vulture into the Hellion, the Hellbat and the Widow Mine is potentially genius. There is a lot to do with this “1 into 3” formula. You can actually move Mines, which would be the dream of any BW player! You can actually add further versatility to the primary mech unit, which would be the dream of any BW player! With simple tweaks to the two extra units in SC2, we can obtain a brilliant result, both for bio, biomech and mech play. Instead of that, what do we get? (a) An 1a AoE Zealot [problem is Zealot? Solution is counter-Zealot] and (b) a 2 supply little bomb. The initial mistake of downgrading the Vulture into a monodimensional unit can perfectly be fixed with the very tools SC2 recreated, with an even better as a result. The potential here is immense. The Hellion-Mine-Tank trio can easily surpass its ancestor.
Instead of working together towards that kind of goal (it's just an exemple), we'll have holy avengers waste our time with their “you want to recreate BW 2.0” motto, out of some misguided rancor or sense of pride which end up being toxic for the very game they pretend to love. Yet we see that SC2 can use even its very weaknesses to bounce back—so what's the point in ideological approaches?
I hope people realize the “blind faith” attitude is no more productive than whatever “negative nancies” they want to see. “Heaven has its foundations, angels cannot lose their wings,” drone the zealots who claim we should not probe the bottom of the tank. There were lots of critics, of course, but always cultists found ways to excuse their divinity. Be content to enjoy a small part of their Eternal Grace. Trust the Holy Name of the Brand. Be patient. Be positive. But since 5 years that the joyous positivity of the gang of Care Bears exists, what did it achieve? How many of the original Care Bears themselves are still there? In the end, didn't they grow weary of reaping disenchantment after sowing expectations for so long?
Reality is a boomerang. Blame and kill the messengers at your heart's content, reality remains.
21
There is plenty of potential left within SC2 to turn it into a brilliant game. There is so much better to do than giving birth to a “poltergeist game”. Making things reasonably chaotic ≠ making all things a living chaos. Here too, the dose makes the poison.
Yes, LotV beta is just starting. But is it starting in the right direction? Besides, if you don't even know your own goal, what exactly are you testing?
The LotV beta is the opportunity for designers to amend SC2 by focusing on two aspects: (1) restoring control to players, which means both adequate rhythms and the freedom to make strategic choices; (2) crafting possibilities of complex interactions out of simple concepts. How many of the new units are simple “stand & shoot” stuff?…
![[image loading]](http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/830777MOBAfy3.jpg)
WE NEED MORE BUTTONS! C'mon, Blizzard. I know you can MOBAfy Protoss harder.
+ Show Spoiler +
Units = workers and subunits excluded. Productive active abilities such as morphing, injecting, tumors or building ammunitions excluded. Redundacy excluded (stim, Cloak and Burrow all counted as one, but Burrow move is specific so counted separately). Charge excluded (autocast). Oracle counted as a pure spellcaster. Active abilities of dropships (Overlord, Prism; the Medivac is a spellcaster) excluded.
Do we want games like this to become the norm? At 4 minutes 10, both players have already four town halls (7 of them being finished) and DeMusliM is quietly adding dual Armory. The first “interaction” between the players occurred at 8 minutes (= 11 old SC2 minutes). None of them ever scouted each other (people who think the new economy will nuke low-skill all-ins/cheeses are completely deluded). Past the fourth base stage, the game predictably turned into bowling, with workers as pins falling left and right because bases are too spread to be protected. After right clicking a bunch of Cyclones during a few minutes, DeMusliM won what I struggle to define as a 1v1. The Blizzsters managed to create the impressive concept of a “narcissistic duel,” a kind of “1?1” where both players cook in their respective corners into someone wins.
The material is right there; there are many elements from WoL, from HotS, even from LotV which can be recombined. Even bad concepts can be salvaged. But this needs to be done with coherence—or rather, another coherence…
It is easy to lose one's way and bathe in the excitement of novelty. But the novelty effect is doomed to wear off. After all, this is a RTS—users have to be strategist too. Not everything will be set in stone after the end of LotV beta, but the window to discuss some things will definitely be closed when LotV starts. The chosen concepts will need to stand the corrosion of time, thousands of games, the normal wear and tear of increasing standardization.
Why don't we stop a moment to listen to the words of a wise man? “We don't want to just add another three units to the game for this expansion, three units to the game for the next expansion. That would be a very bloated game for us at that point and the chances that some of those units would be duplicates of other units that already exist in the game in one form or another would be extremely high.” — Who is the wise man who said this before HotS?
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/625995dustinbrowderstarcraftii.jpg)
Brood War was a revolution for Starcraft.
The Frozen Throne was a revolution for Warcraft III.
Lord of Destruction was a revolution for Diablo II.
LotV has no business being a mere reform. It needs a revolution. Only then can we complete the list above and say, a few years from now on:
Legacy of the Void was a revolution for Starcraft II.
