EPTI've been writing this essay for a while, but I can't find people willing to enter a discussion with me. I hope the TL community can give me some constructive feedback. I also hope that my analysis will resonate with your feelings, no matter what race you play.
Everything wrong with StarCraft II
And how to fix it
By SKTrashCan, August 2020
Introduction
Starcraft II just celebrated its 10-year anniversary by releasing patch 5.0. In my opinion, there are still lots of ways that the game can be improved. This document gives a thorough analysis on the flaws and how to fix them. So, let’s get started.
What I think StarCraft II should be like
The game should be fun.
I’ve asked some random opponents on the ladder what they find fun about playing their race. Terran players usually play this race because “it is natural”, referring to the classic movie Starship Troopers (humans vs bugs), or because they want to feel like a micro-god when they play marine marauder medivac (and get a lot of relative value out of those units). Protoss players like playing the “Death Ball”, Carriers, or “the challenge” (because at the time of writing this, protoss is statistically more likely to lose). Zerg players like the more strategic thinking, “the easy win” (because at the time of writing this, zerg is statistically more likely to win), or “ZvZ is the least annoying mirror-matchup”.
Based on the answers of the different-race players; you might think there is no simple answer to what makes the game fun. However, I think the game requires two things to make it fun:
1) Your choices should matter.
2) A healthy balance between a “catch-up mechanic” and losing/ending the game when you’re far behind (or winning when you’re far ahead).
Your choices should matter
This applies to many aspects of the game. It may be so obvious, that it’s forgotten by most people. You make choices regarding StarCraft II all the time. It starts with: what race do you find fun to play? Ideally a “choice” means that every decision you can make, should have multiple (at least two) viable options. When the choice is “Do A, or not-A”, and doing not-A means you lose, it’s not really a choice. You can have fun games that have no choice, like dance-dance-revolution, where you must follow the pattern of the song. But that is not the fun one should seek in StarCraft II.
To use the classic game rock-paper-scissor as an example: this game is boring, because you have too few choices. If I know that my opponent goes rock, my only viable option is paper. Going rock too, is not really a counter, because you don’t get an advantage, and scissors is a loss. If the game was modified to rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock, you have two viable options to counter rock (spock, or paper). This way, you don’t have to play like a mindless drone, but you can choose your strategic path according to your preference.
The healthy balance between catching-up, and inevitable loss
This means you should be able to kill stuff (easily). The game is not fun, if you have a huge advantage within 5 minutes of the game, but then the opponent can move into a stalemate position for 15 minutes, where you have no other option (no choice!) than to escalate your advantage, before you can actually eliminate your opponent (example: Scarlett vs Bunny, watch?v=REpa5GqUNRk).
What makes StarCraft II different from other multiplayer games
Since StarCraft II is a Real Time Strategy game, these three elements should be a major part of the game: 1) The real-time aspect, which is split into 1a) macro and 1b) micro. 2) Strategy. For the sake of making a point, and since the game is already (sort-of) designed this way, I am going to put numbers on these three key features.
The game should focus mostly on economy (macro). This should account for ~56% of the victory. If you have more money, you can make more army. More army beats less army.
The game should have a lot of strategy too. This is the decision making, the unit composition, the build order, etc. This should account for ~28% of the victory.
Another ~14% of the victory should be decided by micro. This would include “where the battle takes place”. If you want “more micro” (I’m looking at you, terran players who think stutter-step-stimming is a legit way to win; or protoss players who like to immortal-warp-prism-juggle), I recommend playing WC3. Or if you like bashing buttons at exactly the right time, maybe guitar hero is more your style
. (Don’t get me wrong, those games are fun too. But StarCraft II has this mechanic as a tertiary element, not as a main element. It’s not fun if EVERY SINGLE MATCH has the same 10 minutes of early game.)The remaining ~2% of the victory can be decided by the map (design, spawning position, etc.)
Simplified example
+ Show Spoiler +
Let’s look at the implication of these numbers in the simplest form: a terran mirror matchup. If player A has 10% more income than player B, in the battle he brings 22 marines, vs, 20 marines. If this battle is played out to the death, the 10% advantage will lead to ~9 marines surviving for player A, and 0 marines surviving for player B. (Conclusion: +10% money converted into army = relative advantage of 9 marines).
The alternative, is that player A invests his +10% economy in an upgrade. If he gets +1 attack (or +1 armor) ~ +/-17% dps, then player A is left with ~5 surviving marines. (Conclusion: +10% money converted into upgrade = relative advantage of 5 marines).
If he gets combat shields upgrade (+10 HP ~ 20% HP) instead of +1 attack, then player A is left with ~5 surviving marines. (Conclusion: +10% money converted into upgrade = relative advantage of 5 marines)
If he gets a factory and hellions instead (assuming 2 marines = 1 hellion, so he can make 10 hellions), then player A is left with ~3 surviving hellions. (Conclusion: +10% money converted into tech = relative advantage of 6 marines)
And finally, let’s say player A has no economic advantage, but micro’s his heart out. Then player A is left with ~3 marines compared to 0 marines for player B. (Conclusion: microing in an equal battle = relative advantage of 3 marines)
So the current ratio between “army” : “tech” : “micro” is, in this very specific example, approximately 9: 5 or 6 : 3, which I will simplify to 3:2:1. I think this is close enough to my personal preference (4:2:1), if you factor in the simplicity of this example and the fact that I didn’t factor in the gas required for the tech-options.
The alternative, is that player A invests his +10% economy in an upgrade. If he gets +1 attack (or +1 armor) ~ +/-17% dps, then player A is left with ~5 surviving marines. (Conclusion: +10% money converted into upgrade = relative advantage of 5 marines).
If he gets combat shields upgrade (+10 HP ~ 20% HP) instead of +1 attack, then player A is left with ~5 surviving marines. (Conclusion: +10% money converted into upgrade = relative advantage of 5 marines)
If he gets a factory and hellions instead (assuming 2 marines = 1 hellion, so he can make 10 hellions), then player A is left with ~3 surviving hellions. (Conclusion: +10% money converted into tech = relative advantage of 6 marines)
And finally, let’s say player A has no economic advantage, but micro’s his heart out. Then player A is left with ~3 marines compared to 0 marines for player B. (Conclusion: microing in an equal battle = relative advantage of 3 marines)
So the current ratio between “army” : “tech” : “micro” is, in this very specific example, approximately 9: 5 or 6 : 3, which I will simplify to 3:2:1. I think this is close enough to my personal preference (4:2:1), if you factor in the simplicity of this example and the fact that I didn’t factor in the gas required for the tech-options.
Micro is NOT balance
Let’s talk about balance! (Without getting too whiny)
Things that annoy me greatly about the current state of StarCraft 2, is that some stuff just can’t be killed, especially by lower league players. Examples are “generic turtle style” where buildings can’t be killed (cost efficiently), or hellions, mutalisks, oracles, etc. - these units are so fast that they can’t be chased and killed, only zoned away (and not killed).
To paraphrase Lowko:
“Don’t blame the balance, blame yourself. Just get better.”
This is a statement I highly disagree with. To paraphrase Lowko again: “100 supply worth of Carriers have the same value for a Diamond-League player as for a Grand-Master-League player. 100 supply worth of marine/marauder/medivac is way less valuable for a Diamond-League player than for a Grand-Master-League player.”
The solution is not that the Diamond-League player needs to get better, but that the Diamond-League player needs an alternative.People want to be able to have fun, without getting better. Just like in sports, you don’t need to compete at the highest competitive level to have fun. If I want to casually play the game with 60 apm, and “not micro”, I should still be able to win any game I play against a microing player (if I just play better in general). The current balance allows the microing player to exploit a gimmick in the game that can only be countered with intense micro (and no strategic decision making). Similarly, if I play against a casual player, who decides to turtle, I should be able to win within 5 minutes, because I have a non-micro counter to turtle. Instead of letting the player waste 25 minutes of my time.
Also, online tournaments tend to favour players who have less lag, because their micro can give an (unfair) advantage. Maybe some players will say that turn-based games would be a better game to play if you don’t like micro. I think the “real time” fun of the strategy game could be found in other things, like scouting, build-order execution, multi-tasking, and a bit of micro, like setting up a concave, or focus firing. That can still give an advantage of ~15% (which is in line with my feeling on how much micro should contribute to the game).
As an example, where protoss warp-prism-immortal-juggling had an advantage in the range of 33% - 50%. (Too ridiculously strong, imho.)
Defining balance
Wording what balance is precisely, is not trivial. Let’s first look what Liquipedia has to say about what is NOT balance:
Three myths about game balance (source liquipedia)
Definition of Overpowered (OP): a unit or ability that is the best choice in a disproportionate number of situations (marginalising other choices) and/or excessively hard to counter by the opponent compared to the effort required to use it.
Definition of Gimps (underpowered): a unit or ability that isn't viable to use in most situations.
1. If a player wins 50% of the time when playing against an equally skilled player, the game is balanced.
Gimps and OP units don't necessarily affect the probability of victory. Consider a game similar to rock-paper-scissors that has one more option "pinky" which always loses when used. The game rock-paper-scissors-pinky is imbalanced because it has a "gimp". No player would ever use the "pinky". Rock-paper-scissors-pinky is a fair game but its units aren't well balanced.
2. In an imbalanced game with players of exactly equal skill - one player will win more often when they choose the strategic path that is overpowered.
For example take rock-paper-scissors-wand where wand beats rock and paper. Paper becomes a gimp because wand is superior in every scenario. Wand and scissors are OP (they win in 2 situations instead of 1). The resulting game is just rock-wand-scissors. Using wand as opposed to rock (which isn't OP) doesn't improve the chances of winning because it can be just as easily countered (by scissors).
3. In a perfectly balanced game, players will make their strategic choices based on factors such as their personal preferences, playing strengths, or playing styles rather than on an inherent advantage in one option.
In any strategic game, all choices should focus on strategic viability. If more than one viable option exists, only then should preference or style weigh in.
Definition of Gimps (underpowered): a unit or ability that isn't viable to use in most situations.
1. If a player wins 50% of the time when playing against an equally skilled player, the game is balanced.
Gimps and OP units don't necessarily affect the probability of victory. Consider a game similar to rock-paper-scissors that has one more option "pinky" which always loses when used. The game rock-paper-scissors-pinky is imbalanced because it has a "gimp". No player would ever use the "pinky". Rock-paper-scissors-pinky is a fair game but its units aren't well balanced.
2. In an imbalanced game with players of exactly equal skill - one player will win more often when they choose the strategic path that is overpowered.
For example take rock-paper-scissors-wand where wand beats rock and paper. Paper becomes a gimp because wand is superior in every scenario. Wand and scissors are OP (they win in 2 situations instead of 1). The resulting game is just rock-wand-scissors. Using wand as opposed to rock (which isn't OP) doesn't improve the chances of winning because it can be just as easily countered (by scissors).
3. In a perfectly balanced game, players will make their strategic choices based on factors such as their personal preferences, playing strengths, or playing styles rather than on an inherent advantage in one option.
In any strategic game, all choices should focus on strategic viability. If more than one viable option exists, only then should preference or style weigh in.
So my wording will be: Balance is when every unit has an equal amount of counters.
What I think what counts as a counter
Before, I used the word counter freely. I am going to (re)define a counter to clarify above statements:
You take 8 units of type X. Then you take an equal value amount of units of type Y. When unit Y a-moves, they should be able to kill the X-units, no matter how much these X-units are microed, and at the end of the battle, some of the Y-units remain.
(Why 8? Fairly arbitrary, but deliberately chosen. I think it’s nice to have a number with at least two powers of 2 in it - since it makes things like 25% and 50% easy to calculate. Four seems a bit too few; twelve seems impractical, since it is hard to have encounters where 12 non-small units are engaging to their full potential.)
This definition of counter immediately creates a problem for the fastest unit. Let’s say the X-unit is the fastest unit in the game. Then by using the micro “run away”, the Y-units will not be able to kill the X-units. I can think of no practical way to truly fix this. However, I propose that units (by default) can NOT move in their attack-cooldown phase. So if a unit wants to attack, it must stand still. This way, when the micro “run away” is used, the X-unit can’t deal any damage. One the one hand, this doesn’t really change the “move into stalemate position”-scenario. On the other hand, you don’t need to be able to kill all units: the victory condition is “kill all structures”.
I think it will be fun, if (most) units can switch to stutter-step-mode (as an activated ability / micro potential), but then the unit will do half-damage. It would also add some “skill level potential”: choose your position before you attack. If you let your zerglings do a wrap-around first, while in full-damage-mode, they have a great engagement. If some of them start attacking and the enemy moves back, the attacking zerglings can’t follow and block the pursuit of the non-attacking zerglings. When in half-damage-mode, you don’t have that problem, but you won’t be able to kill the units as fast.
Give players optionS, instead of “only one option” (or like in current balance: no option at all)
To encourage strategic decision making, more choices should be available (and viable). The choices are fairly evident: if you want to gain an advantage, you can
- Get a superior economy (units don’t matter, because more stuff beats less stuff);
- Get a unit composition that counters the other player’s unit composition (win through superior technology);
- Get great engagements (positional play, micro, etc).
These options should be viable for most (or all?) situations. Teching-up should lead to a reward. In the current balance, “marine marauder” and “zealot stalker” and “ling bane” are the “bread and butter”. These are tier-1 units that are viable for most of the game. The main reason is that these units have insane HP and DPS relative to their cost, as can be seen in the table below. Even +1 upgrades aren’t really a choice. They are so cheap, that there are almost no units that you can get for that price. So investing that money in an army unit is not an option, and the player is left only with the possibility to invest in the upgrade.
[Table]
For the life of me, I can’t comprehend why I would make mutalisks as a zerg player, if I see that my opponent has marines. Mutalisks-tech takes much longer to research than stim, and these mutalisks just melt without doing any damage to stimmed marines. This is not a good reward system. A higher tech unit, should always counter a lower tech unit. This creates the option: I can counter marines with “the” tier 1 counter, or I can invest in tier 2 technology, and make any unit to counter the marines.
The larger implication of this, is that there will be no “meta game” as we know it today. There will be no “marine marauder” standard, because this composition only works in certain situations. Another example of the current “meta game” / lack of options: try playing the game without making the unit that is very common (the current meta game). For example, try never making roaches as zerg; or try never making hellions/hellbats as terran. I am willing to bet that your win-ratio will drop drastically, which would prove these units are overpowered.
On the subject of choices and options: “When your opponent attacks, defend. If he defends, expand. If he expands, attack.” - Artosis. It’s one of the rock-paper-scissors mechanics of the game. Expanding should be countered by attacking; attacking should be countered by defending; and defending (turtle) should be countered by expanding (macro). But this should NOT be the only / exclusive way to win, otherwise there would be no strategy involved.
Note, in the current balance it is practically impossible to deny or delay the first expansion (to the natural). So basically, this is a lack of choice, which makes the game less interesting.
Things to avoid
Figure 1: ZvT - Terran harrasses with hellions from ~5:00 - ~6:00. After losing all his hellions, realises he hasn’t been macroing, and drops a ton of mules. Classic “micro, micro, micro…. Oh, wait: macro! (Mule-spike at ~8:00)”
Figure 2: ZvT (same game) - At the end of the game, being behind in economy all game, Terran forces one (!) engagement, destroys all of zerg’s economy and kites all of zergs army (tier 3, max upgrades) while barely taking damage himself.
This game displayed in figures 1 and 2 was not fun, because it is very frustrating:
- Hellion harassment can’t be countered. Hellions are too fast, and can kite. They can be zoned (which is not countering), and zerg has to wait for terran to mismicro.
- Even when the only lost mining time is the only damage that zerg takes, and being ahead economy-wise pretty much all game, it is still not possible to break Terran’s defensive position.
- An inferior army (tier 1 + tier 2) can kite tier 3 units super hard, causing game-losing damage to the zerg army and zerg economy.
Turtling and Static Defense
I feel that static defense is a part of StarCraft, and therefore it should exist. However, I think it is really hard to find a good balance between: static defense being worth the investment vs static defense being unbreakable. A thing that I currently find frustrating, is that a spore crawler in my mineral line doesn’t cover my mineral line against a microed banshee, or a liberator; thereby making it a useless investment. If the static defense is considered a viable option, it should at least do some damage (to everything). Therefore, I propose that the range of static anti-air defense is increased (a lot). I would suggest a range of 12 or 13, and increasing the sight to match (13 or 14). This increased range is to compensate for the lack of mobility.
With a huge range, the static defense is guaranteed to always get off the first shot, and limit the time that an enemy can be inside its zone. However, since static defense is “tier 1” technology, I feel like its dps should be comparable to a tier 1 unit. I would suggest a high rate of fire, and low damage per impact. This would make higher tier units (with more armor) more resistant to static defense; light units have the least amount of armor and are usually fast, so they get limited time in the defended zone. This change would also have a downside: it allows to defend choke points with an insane amount of static defense (placed in a concave, focussed on one spot).
Maybe cannon rushes will become too powerful if the range of cannons is increased. Then again, cannon rushes are used to either attack buildings or mineral lines. Buildings have extra armor, negating most of the low-yield attacks of a cannon. And I also propose that a slower, armored worker is added to the game, to mitigate some of the cannon rush strength. So maybe having a large anti-ground range isn’t too powerful. This will require some testing.
I feel like any form of turtling should be discouraged, since it is not fun. I propose that walls can’t be made unit-tight. Every building that has an n x m footprint, will only block (n-1) x (m-1) of pathing. (This means every side has 0.5 space open. When another building is placed next to it, the size-1-units can still pass through.)
Planetary fortresses serve no purpose other than turtling, so should be removed from the game. Terran bunkers may be classic, but are total bullshit. They are incomparable to the static defense of the other races, and therefore practically impossible to balance.
- Bunkers have less range.
- Bunkers cost more money (because you need to put marines in it).
- Bunkers cost supply (because you need to put marines in it).
- Bunkers give “free hitpoints” in certain situations. (When a bunker takes 90% damage, and is salvaged, you have gotten 90% of the HP for 25% of the cost, which effectively means you get 67.5% of the HP for free.)
- Bunkers can shoot up (when they have marines in it).
- The DPS of bunkers scales with upgrades.
- The DPS of bunkers is much higher.
Terrans need a new form of static anti-ground defense.
Maps
The maps in the current map pool have a distance between two bases of ca. 35 seconds. This means that the defender will have an economic advantage of 35 seconds. (Player A will move out with his army, and then player B will have 35 seconds to respond to that.) The first expansion is usually closer to the opponent. So after both players have expanded, the distance will be reduced to ca. 30 seconds.
These numbers can be used to estimate the cost/benefit-point of expanding. At the moment, an expansion costs 400 minerals (300 for zerg). At the moment, a worker mines ca. 0.9 minerals/second.
So player A moves out his army at the moment player B is expanding. This means that the army of player A is 400 minerals more than the army of player B (since B invested 400 minerals in expanding). However, player B also has ~30 seconds to catch up on those 400 minerals.
(400 [minerals] / 30 [seconds] / 0.9 [minerals/second/worker] = 15 workers) For the first expansion, the “safe” time to expand, is when you have 15 mining workers.
The current design starts you with 12 mining workers, so in practice the first expansion is “not a choice”, and is therefore not fun (in my opinion). To make the game more strategic, there should be a choice between expanding, or investing that money in more army (or tech). (Once upon a time, Blizzard changed the number of starting workers, because basically everyone was taking the natural expansion. Instead, I think they should’ve made early aggression more viable.)
Tech Tree
The tech tree as it is in current balance is displayed below. I have added what I think are the tiers in the technology.
- Tier 0 is what drives the economy.
- Tier 1 is the basic army units that require only 1 type of building.
- Tier 1.5 is the same level as tier 1, but requires two buildings.
- Tier 2 is the intermediate level. The buildings of this level are more expensive, and the units of this level are stronger (relative to tier 1).
- Tier 2.5 is the same level as tier 2, but requires an additional building.
- Tier 3 is the latest possible tech. To get to tier 3 tech, you need to build at least 5 non-tier-0 buildings.
[Table]
From this table, it is clear that the current game state has the following flaws:
- Zerg has no decent late-game anti-air, since all anti-air stops at tier 2;
- Protoss feels very tech-y, but only because they get to skip the barrier from tier 1.5 to 2, and technically they have no tier 3 units;
- A lot of units do NOT have a direct counter from another race unit;
- Due to the effortless transfer of tech-labs, terran can advance tech more easily than other races.
Proposed redesign
Assumptions
- Tier 0 should be equal for all races. Economy should work the same.
- Economy should count twice as hard as unit composition.
- Unit composition should count twice as hard as micro.
- Every unit has a (non-micro) counter.
- Investing in higher-tier technology, economy, or army should have a cost/benefit point.
- Turtling should be discouraged.
Logical conclusions from assumptions
- If units can be at best 15% more effective when microed, then a hard counter to a unit should be ca. 30% more effective.
- More stuff beats less stuff. It is hard to put a number on this. As an example in current balance, where speedlings fight against 8 stalkers (1000 minerals + 400 gas):
* 22 speedlings (650 minerals + 100 gas) result: stalkers win (2 stalkers remain)
* 24 speedlings (700 minerals + 100 gas): result: speedlings win (6 speedlings remain)
* 24 speedlings and micro result: speedlings win (10 speedlings remain)
* Or even 8 stalker vs 9 stalker, means 9 stalkers wins with 4 stalkers remaining.
So a tiny advantage in economy (in the example allowing you to produce +12.5% units), can make your army (+40% - +50% more effective). (In other words, economic advantages spiral out of control.)
- (Therefore) The economics for all races should be balanced (very precisely). (So a redesign of mules is mandatory, since terran can mine ~2x more minerals/minute from a single base compared to protoss or zerg.)
- Upgrades, in general, make your units ~10% stronger. In order to make upgrades a strategic choice, the cost of the upgrade(s) should have a tipping point with regard to army size. (In other words, in some situations it should be more beneficial to make more army units, instead of making the upgrade.)
- Expanding should have potential negative consequences (not in current balance, where 1-base is literally non-viable).
- Walling with buildings should no-longer be possible. (Can still block larger units)
- Protoss needs a tier-2-unlock-building, like the Citadel of Adun in SC:BW.
- Damage of units should be balanced at “maximum micro potential”. (Or in case of widow mines: maximum damage when the opponent doesn’t micro.)
Additional design suggestions
- Minerals should relate to the unit’s HP.
* Tier 0: 0.8 HP / mineral (HP:shield-ratio 1:1)
* Tier 1: 1.0 HP / mineral (HP:shield-ratio 2:1)
* Tier 2: 1.2 HP / mineral (HP:shield-ratio 3:2)
* Tier 3: 1.5 HP / mineral (HP:shield-ratio 4:3)
- DPS should relate to the unit’s food-cost.
* Tier 0: 4.5 / food
* Tier 1.0: 5.0 / food (min:gas-ratio ~ 3:1)
* Tier 1.5: 5.5 / food (min:gas-ratio ~ 3:1)
* Tier 2.0: 6.0 / food (min:gas-ratio ~ 3:2)
* Tier 2.5: 6.5 / food (min:gas-ratio ~ 3:2)
* Tier 3.0: 7.5 / food (min:gas-ratio ~ 4:3)
- It should take 8 shots to kill an equal unit. (1 hit = ⅛ of unit’s HP).
- A building that’s being constructed should take more than 8 food worth of tier-1 units to cancel. Also, a building’s HP should be related to the cost (in minerals).
* Assuming 8 food, tier 1 unit results in 40 dps, so building construction speed should be at least 41 HP/s (rounding up to 50)
* The cost of a building should be ~5.0 HP / mineral.
* Pylons/supply depots/overlords can’t be built too quickly, to make the supply block mechanic a thing. So this “building” can be the exception.
- Building hit-box should be -0.5 of a square. This way, when two buildings are placed next to each other, there is 1 square of space between them. Walling with a unit to block (like protoss does with zealot), is still okay. (At least you’re making units.)
- Remove, or completely redesign the following buildings that are only there to encourage turtle strategy: bunker, shield battery, planetary fortress.
* Since static defense is a building, it is armored, so it is “countered” by anti-armor units. However, because it is a building, it has ~5x more HP than usual. [Unanswered questions: does it need more range? It would be nice if a static defense could attack any unit that can attack it, to make it a worthy investment; but you don’t want cannon-rushes to be too powerful. Maybe only increasing the sight of static defense would make it a worthy investment. Should static defense have a high attack rate? Or maybe a high single-shot damage? Splash damage?]
- Re-evaluate the larvae-mechanic. Do you need a Lair to make tier-2 units from larvae? Do larvae need to spawn slower to prevent zerg from maxing out in tier-3 units within 30 seconds?
- Repair-speed maximum = build speed = 50 HP/s for buildings; 5 HP/s for units. (Not per SCV, but per building or unit.) Shield regeneration speed = 12.5 shield/s for buildings; 1.25 shield/s for units. Zerg health regeneration = 6.25 HP/s for buildings; 0.625 HP/s for units.
- Currently, the maps have a “rush distance” of ~35 seconds. This means that the defending player has a 35 second economic advantage when his base is attacked (except with warpgate units that can be warped in closer, or with proxy buildings). Assuming ~50 minerals per worker per minute, the economic advance on a standard saturated base (16 workers) would be ~450 minerals. In order to encourage the decision making on expanding/making more army, change the cost of a Nexus and Command Centre to 500 minerals and Hatchery to 400 minerals.
Last thoughts
I would be super happy to receive some constructive feedback, or hear from people that are willing to work on this balance design. Maybe the new editor will make it easy to create a mod. I am also happy to help out in an organised tournament, so we can test the balance changes on a larger scale.
GamerSKTrashCan@gmail.com
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2ifcEvM.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OHZQJft.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lZ9bQL8.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2zUSPMg.png)
