I'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.)
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.
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.
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.
Bit too much to really go over in depth. There are way too many subjective numbers and assumptions about the game. Its particularly egregious on topics relating how things "should work." For example redesigning the mineral costs of things as a reflection of their HP. Weird, arbitrary, nonsensical design. Stuff like saying hellions are uncounterable and unfun, are either wrong or subjective. The essay itself is also very unfocused, and wanders all over the place with sweeping suggestions, and frequently those suggestions are incomplete. "Replace the bunker with some other static defense."
It's very hard to get anything truly coherent out of it. It's like you came up with a list of 30 small unconnected things to change about the game. There's no real way to evalute those changes as part of a whole, and basically creates a far different theoretical game.
I think the biggest problem is that the game is still played at faster game speed, when the changes during the 10 years have already made the game so much faster. Fights between even 200/200 armies can last for less than 10seconds and players just don't have time to control all of their units properly, which results in balls of units just crashing into each other.
The start of the game is so quick that i doubt anyone would get bored even if their units moved a bit slower and i think those few extra seconds of micro time in battles would make the game a lot more enjoyable both playing and watching.
Appreciate the effort put but I concur with Mr. Russano. I honestly cannot take your statement on micro not being balance seriously. While I do believe that some compositions are less important to micro than others and sometimes changes to even out the playing field should be implemented, the premise that not getting good in a 1vs1 game where balance does not mean much until you hit a certain threshold is just plain anathema. I personally believe around 4.2k mmr, a point in which arguably you begin to sorta play the game´s strategies and not against your mechanical fundamentals, is the point at which you may begin to ask for redesigns and so.
I appreciate the idea of giving more options, but I believe the way you go with this is rather non-fleshed out or just plain wrong. It also feels like you want this game to be just about the number of resources spent on an army and how this should have a mirrored impact on the outcome of a fight (stalkers and speedlings example). Positioning, advantages and other micro aspects are important and the same unit composition should perform differently according to the minor circumstances under which it is forced to fight. Overall it just feels like you dont like asymmetry in a game which thrives off of the interactions the races have between them.
Starcraft has balance and design problems but if you ask me these are seldom a product of unit hp, ratios. etc... and they tend to lean more towards the speed and the economic changes introduced in LOTV.
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
so you come up with some arbitrary ideal how starcraft "should be" in your head and try to slam some epic dunks on people who actually play it? rly don't get the reason you present your ideas in such an obnoxious way : PPP
On October 07 2020 22:10 lolfail9001 wrote: I am not even sure if I should appreciate effort or disdain the message.
Well you can also do both I defnatly appreciate the effort he made to put all this up, but at the same time disregard this, as it is so subjective and arbitrary and full of personal opinions stated as facts, that I didn t even put the effort in to finish reading everything, but stopped about half way through.
On October 07 2020 22:30 Russano wrote: It's very hard to get anything truly coherent out of it. It's like you came up with a list of 30 small unconnected things to change about the game. There's no real way to evalute those changes as part of a whole, and basically creates a far different theoretical game.
On October 07 2020 22:52 Steelghost1 wrote: Appreciate the effort put but I concur with Mr. Russano. I honestly cannot take your statement on micro not being balance seriously. While I do believe that some compositions are less important to micro than others and sometimes changes to even out the playing field should be implemented, the premise that not getting good in a 1vs1 game where balance does not mean much until you hit a certain threshold is just plain anathema. I personally believe around 4.2k mmr, a point in which arguably you begin to sorta play the game´s strategies and not against your mechanical fundamentals, is the point at which you may begin to ask for redesigns and so.
Thanks for the feedback guys. It's really appreciated. I think you're right, and I should've split it up into multiple parts.
My main "complaint" is that the fun is being sucked out of the game. Instead of giving options to deal with certain things, certain things get nerfed to death.
My MMR varies greatly over the seaons. I jitter between 3.2k mmr and 4.2k mmr; playing as an 100 apm zerg. So it's very frustrating that someone can get 100% winrate against me, just by having 200 apm, and out-micro everything, while his macro-fundamentals are not even there (and therefore also stuck in "my league").
On October 07 2020 22:30 Russano wrote: It's very hard to get anything truly coherent out of it. It's like you came up with a list of 30 small unconnected things to change about the game. There's no real way to evalute those changes as part of a whole, and basically creates a far different theoretical game.
On October 07 2020 22:52 Steelghost1 wrote: Appreciate the effort put but I concur with Mr. Russano. I honestly cannot take your statement on micro not being balance seriously. While I do believe that some compositions are less important to micro than others and sometimes changes to even out the playing field should be implemented, the premise that not getting good in a 1vs1 game where balance does not mean much until you hit a certain threshold is just plain anathema. I personally believe around 4.2k mmr, a point in which arguably you begin to sorta play the game´s strategies and not against your mechanical fundamentals, is the point at which you may begin to ask for redesigns and so.
Thanks for the feedback guys. It's really appreciated. I think you're right, and I should've split it up into multiple parts.
My main "complaint" is that the fun is being sucked out of the game. Instead of giving options to deal with certain things, certain things get nerfed to death.
My MMR varies greatly over the seaons. I jitter between 3.2k mmr and 4.2k mmr; playing as an 100 apm zerg. So it's very frustrating that someone can get 100% winrate against me, just by having 200 apm, and out-micro everything, while his macro-fundamentals are not even there (and therefore also stuck in "my league").
Uh, there's no amount of micro without the macro that should beat you. If that's the case you suck at macro more than you're admitting or the enemy sucks at macro way less than you think.
Just sayin that there may be a slight bias in your evaluation.
Like look, my Terran is pathetic and with the recent tempest change my Terran is even more pathetic. So what, I deal with it how I can. Currently there's not a build in the lower leagues that wouldn't be fixed by - don't get supply blocked, watch the mini-map and build more workers.
At HotS the old SHs were the greatest example of bad situation in lower leagues vs top leages. At the pro level SHs were fine. Cancer but fine. At the bottom they were more of an issue. And while I hate the route LotV went with more harass, more speed and less camping, I don't think we have similar situation like I described.
I appreciate the effort and the quality of the product you have produced to present your idea's, I expect that you are successful or will be, in your private life.
I found it, interesting and easy to follow; some of your idea's may hold merit. Overall, I did not come to agree with your points.
I think one of starcrafts defining features is "Micro is balance" or maybe even more true "Micro is imbalance". The game is partially defined by your command and grace with a mouse to control armies and the units in both games were designed to reflect this. I think the premise of "Just-war rts" makes sense. I do not think it would result in a game as good as this.
The value of units changes depending on who holds them. That is the magic. Work hard and the value can improve.
This isn't my only disagreement, but I don't have your energy to present so many idea's together clearly and coherantly.
On October 07 2020 22:30 Russano wrote: It's very hard to get anything truly coherent out of it. It's like you came up with a list of 30 small unconnected things to change about the game. There's no real way to evalute those changes as part of a whole, and basically creates a far different theoretical game.
On October 07 2020 22:52 Steelghost1 wrote: Appreciate the effort put but I concur with Mr. Russano. I honestly cannot take your statement on micro not being balance seriously. While I do believe that some compositions are less important to micro than others and sometimes changes to even out the playing field should be implemented, the premise that not getting good in a 1vs1 game where balance does not mean much until you hit a certain threshold is just plain anathema. I personally believe around 4.2k mmr, a point in which arguably you begin to sorta play the game´s strategies and not against your mechanical fundamentals, is the point at which you may begin to ask for redesigns and so.
Thanks for the feedback guys. It's really appreciated. I think you're right, and I should've split it up into multiple parts.
My main "complaint" is that the fun is being sucked out of the game. Instead of giving options to deal with certain things, certain things get nerfed to death.
My MMR varies greatly over the seaons. I jitter between 3.2k mmr and 4.2k mmr; playing as an 100 apm zerg. So it's very frustrating that someone can get 100% winrate against me, just by having 200 apm, and out-micro everything, while his macro-fundamentals are not even there (and therefore also stuck in "my league").
So if your opponents are really the same lvl as you, then yes a high apm terran can be irritating to play against. But they are your mmr for a reason, so if they micro a lot it will just mean they bank a lot of money and their macro is bad. So even if you lose a lot to their multi prong harass, just remember they are the same lvl as you for a reason, and they probably only built 3 scv's and a racks in the last minute.
Anyhow going back to your post it was hard to read past the "hellion runby's cant be countered as they are too fast etc" Simply a good amount of speedlings on creep or queens really do the job, but it can be hard if you dont creepspread at all which is common at lower lvl.
Also I cant agree with the "a single spore crawler in the mineral line should deal with libs/banshees that are being micro'd. A spore crawler in the mineral line deals with most AA harass, but when the terran actually puts in APM they should get more out of their harass, it would be dumb if that wasnt the case. As sc2 would then just be a rock/paper/scissors game. By micro'ing their units they beat your spore crawler, but by using that APM they again are not doing other things at the same time. You can also simply micro your spore crawler by uprooting it and then simply rooting it under the lib siege zone.
I think you just focus on the micro aspect too much as a player. You dont have to be fast at all to be a good player. There are players like GenieS (mid gm protoss avg of 95 APM) that concentrate on their builds and are efficient with their actions beating players that are twice or even thrice as fast as them on the daily. I think thats one of the good things of sc2. Where being fast can be a advantage, but being solid as hell and having a good gameplan is even better. Especially as you are a zerg you dont have to be a fast player. Aim to be solid, have a plan and you should be ready to rumble.
I am not sure what the post-game graphs you posted are supposed to prove. If you want to prove a point why not post the replay or video? I would bet the problem in this game was not the opponent having better micro. Not in Diamond.
I really lost my interest when you said that Hellions have no counter and can only be zoned out. Well that's bullshit. Queens both shred and zone out hellions, and if they commit to dive past queens you kill 6 hellions with 14 lings + Queens ez. How is that not a counter if you know Hellions are coming. I am not even mentioning you can make a few Roaches and that you can build a (semi)wall in front of your natural and counter Hellions with just good positioning.
I am also a Zerg in D2/D1 and the graphs you posted is typically how it looks like when I have a bad engagement vs Terran. If I headbutt my army into tanks or take an engagement in a choke or without surround then that's how it ends, it doesn't matter that you are ahead 2 bases, because of the snowball effect. I understand it's frustrating if you are ahead whole game and lose in one engagement but same would happen if Terran donated his whole army to your Lurkers.
My MMR varies greatly over the seaons. I jitter between 3.2k mmr and 4.2k mmr; playing as an 100 apm zerg. So it's very frustrating that someone can get 100% winrate against me, just by having 200 apm, and out-micro everything, while his macro-fundamentals are not even there (and therefore also stuck in "my league").
It's like saying "I have a great forehand but my backhand sucks, therefore tennis should change its rules and remove backhand from the game so I can finally win all my matches using forehand only".
SC2 is a complex game requiring multiple skills, and you can't win focusing on one thing only.
In the above example it seems to me like your macro is unable to compensate for your lack of micro. This means that your opponent is more skilled at micro but equally skilled (or not much worse) in macro department, so maybe your macro is not that good after all? And all this without taking into account any decision making process like: map, available strategies, data gathering/scouting, reacting to information, positioning, choosing good time to engage etc. etc.
If micro was your only problem you would probably be a tournament level player already.
The sheer variety of lair-tech available to Zerg is something I struggle with, both playing as, and playing against Zerg. Swarmhosts are a unit I find to be quite un-Starcrafty, and there are others... Perhaps my feelings about them or perhaps my inner need to "have fun" makes me gravitate towards squishier, more finesse-based unit compositions (I will gladly die on the cross of ling-bane-muta if my opponent's unit composition isn't a complete checkmate). This is probably why I don't play Zerg anymore as a main race (since late WoL) and prefer Terran. I have the APM, but literally lack the patience to fuck with slower, more cost-efficient units, even if they mean a higher win%.
SC2's hard-counters are imo too hard, which forces your hand in terms of what you "should" make. The idea of rock-paper-scissors is too strongly entrenched into the design philosophy of the game, imo.
I also think that the "difficulty" of macro is vastly disproportionate between certain race/composition combos, which can result in either less or more time to micro being available. If I'm making roach-hydra, for example, it's piss-easy to smash out an enormous army which I can practically watch the whole time and therefore maintain. The damage potential of this composition is limited by your ability to traverse the ground, however, so your ability to actually exploit the superior beefyness or strength feels more stifled and is less fun (until nydus). Whereas the more micro-intensive composition of muta-ling-bane is much harder to produce and maintain without more of your attention being devoted to expanding and injecting, creep-spread, balancing income, etc. While banelings can be extremely good, they can also get extremely dunked on, same with mutas and lings. With less time to devote to controlling your army, the possibilty for it to get wrecked is higher, particularly if the army lacks range or tends to clump. So, while this composition is more "fun", it is also more "frustrating".
EDIT: I'm not convinced the game is supposed to be "fun" by default. You have to find a way to extract enjoyment out of it yourself. At least, that's how it feels.
All diverse race RTS games with 3+ races are never balanced. They might be very close to balanced at one specific level of play. MAYBE. At most other levels of play they are moderately to severely imbalanced. meh, I'm happy to play a moderately imbalanced RTS game because the diversity of the races makes it fun.
The fun is more important than a 100% "fair" playing field. If I'm playing hte weakest race is SC2 that also happens to be the most fun race for me I'm fine with that. I'm willing to tolerated being lower ranked on the ladder than i "should be". Its not that big a deal having a lower ranking... I'd rather have the fun that comes with diverse races than a game closely balanced like Chess.
It's interesting to see "Everything Wrong" from a Zerg's perspective... It really looks like you just wrote a giant shit post because you don't know how to defend against hellions and cyclones...
Some of the suggestions here are novel, but also not well thought-through. I straight disagree with most of them.
Starcraft 2 would be a much less interesting game if it was forced to be so easy to calculate how much you need to optimally counter any given situation. There's something distinctly beautiful about stalkers needing to shoot 8.05 volleys to kill a roach (not considering regen). These jagged edges in overkill are where tri-race balance can diversify and grow. If every matchup required the same number of units to counter the opposing side, then the three races would feel very similar.
On October 08 2020 00:02 RHoudini wrote: "Everything wrong with StarCraft II"
The premise of your post is so wrong. The game has never been better than today, SC2 is great to play and great to watch.
Also yeah, this. I just wish my computer was strong enough to handle a 4+ base economy without lagging lol.
Everyone has a list of things they hate playing against.
If Blizzard nerfed blink, dts, chargelots and carriers the game would be much more enjoyable for me. But it would be in a worse state overall.
What you personally dislike about the game is not same thing as what is wrong with the game overall. I do not think it is even possible to reach a consensus about what should be changed since everyone have their own opinion based on their weakest matchup and preferred play style.
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.
Ouch, that was extremely subjective, and made you lose me a bit. Both spines, roaches and mutas CAN be out very quickly if you want to hard counter them, but just making a bunch of queens to take no damage from them work fine as well.
Calling for how army comp should be so much more important is also an enormous advantage for Zerg with how production is working. Also, how didn't you touch queens ad creep?
Hello!, i loved reading your post, but i have to disagree with it.
I love playing RTS in general, tried most of them, from casually to "competitely". I used to play alot of sc2, back in hots (during blink stalker era, and a few months after it), reaching low masters with terran, and now i just did my placements for lotv.
I like to play aoe2 too, i played it almost every day after DE came out (great game), i got to top 500 but i got a little bit bored so i came to play some starcraft again.
From my personal point of view, i do think the charm of sc2 is that sweet balance between micro/macro, where flashy terran movements, monster macro zerg play, extremily technical army control from protoss (at least back in hots comps with bstalkers/sentries/ht/collosi i dont know the standard toss comp nowdays) all have their spot within the game, because this is an assymetrical rts, where every race has their own identity, if you remove the adventage/ability to micro like a mad man your MMM or juggle immortals to win games, then this game would be pretty boring for me.
What you want (and mostly described in your essay) is a RTS like age of empires 2, i think you would enjoy that game alot (thinking about the changes you proposed), the game has alot of simmetry, with a few discrepancies between civilizations.
Aoe2 is WAY WAY more focused on macro (need to balance 4 ress) and strategy (lots of terrain advantages, thinking about unit comps etc), it's common to find low apm players in the top rankings (there is a pro that has below 200apm) and he is at least top20-30 in the world. Since aoe2 is a slower game, you dont instantly lose matches if you are out of position with your army (this is the most punishing thing that sc2 has from my POV, and what i really dislike about the game) since there are pretty few explosive fights where you lose everything in less than 10seconds (mangonel vs archers might be an exception).
Adding to your ideal idea of tiers, that is exactly what Aoe2 does. Every unit is an upgrade from their previous tier, with more eHP/DPS locked behind tech. Problem with this is you lose ALOT of uniqueness to every unit, your same unit tier1 will do the same role as a tier2, etc, since they are just an upgrade from the previous one.
If you think decreasing the adventage of micro will lead to a better experience in the game, it will most likely end up going all the way to the other spectrum where turtling games will take place over any other type of gameplay. Again, aoe2 is mostly about macro/strategy, and the meta of that game is just wall wall wall and boom behind it(expand), since it is pretty hard to win just microing your units (there are a few exceptions) when your units are slow or have alot of attack delay (for example, cavalry archers, are designed to be a raiding unit, rewarding the multitask/micro oriented player, but since their attack delay is horrible they are almost useless in most cases) that the correct play becomes just turtling and ecoing up, and games can become pretty long even if you are ahead since min5-10 from an early raid.
The only thing i would change about sc2 is the speed, mostly in fights, so they dont get over in few seconds, but that's just my opinion, i mostly enjoy the current state of sc2 (at least from my experience with hots).
To your post, i do think most of your changes are just change sc2 to aoe2 (in terms of gameplay if you have played it) which is not a good idea since the focus of both of those games are vastly different. I hope you have a nice day. (sorry if my english is not good enough in certain parts)
First, you list stuff what you consider fun. And the reason for why you like it. Ok, a subjective start is not strange ofc.
Then you mention "This applies to many aspects of the game. It may be so obvious, that it’s forgotten by most people" - why do you say this? It looks more like it a thing that you "think" rather than know. I mean, how have you acquired this information "from most people"? ... so again it is just something YOU like and value.
Looking down further in the text a lot revolve around things that you like, and you seem to want these things not just to be your own opinion but more a generalizing aspect of sc2. "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)" is very strange statement for me. - Your statement would almost mean unit control should have no impact of the game. But then again, you clearly prefer macro way more than micro =)
Well, I did not read the article to the end, but from most of what I read it feels like reading a text saying: This is what I like and dislike when I play sc2. I like macro more than micro, so i want more macro than micro. I am annoyed with some terran and toss unit so I want that fixed... etc. (ofc i am exaggerating a bit, but not by much).
A lot of the reasoning is strange. At first glance it look well thought out, but when you start to read it is a mixed bag of opinions and facts which are not facts but rather things you think. Maybe it would have been better to just list your suggested balance changes or something like that.
I dont know. This text seem like a lengthy balance whine-ish thing.
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.
Ouch, that was extremely subjective, and made you lose me a bit. Both spines, roaches and mutas CAN be out very quickly if you want to hard counter them, but just making a bunch of queens to take no damage from them work fine as well.
Calling for how army comp should be so much more important is also an enormous advantage for Zerg with how production is working. Also, how didn't you touch queens ad creep?
Speedlings on creep are way faster, you can build a wall and place queens in it, you can build a FULL wall. Later in the game it doesn't matter that much, you can build spines and stuff.
To add to yours post.
Edit> To add salt into injury, Winter did 100 APM challenge into masters. he did it with like 95 % win rate. If you want to play with low APM you can get to masters. There was even a pro with like 120 APM(cannot remember name now). Sure, it wasn't a high level pro, but he was able to get to the top! Just think about that for a while. APM is useless unless you can put it into a good use. Most players on the ladder cannot do that once they're over 120. And I'm being way too generous
I agree with your asseement that "just get better" isnt a good thing to say.
Pros and people here saying "oh you could totally beat that, just get better" is the most useless advice. You are not better, and you will not get better noticeably for maybe months. But you know what? your opponent is also not better, youre suppoused to be close in skill. So If a strat is too strong, or a unit comp, or whatever in your respective league "get better" is not a valid answer. I also agree balance affects all leagues.
However I found some flaws with what you were saying. You are saying macro can't overcome micro, but it literally can. The way to go from bronze to diamond is to get better macro. Micro can help but macro will trump it. But of course there comes a point where you will need both.
Still, even with your examples if you have better macro you should be able to win.
For example you mention hellions. If you have better macro you can create a wall with 2 evo chambers and 1 spine crawler. Since you have better macro you can afford those minerals right? Who cares if you already have two evos, build another two at your expantion. If it stops you from losing 20 drones by an harass it's worth it.
Same with spores. 1 spore doesn't cover all the mineral line? Build two. There you will use your better macro to stop "better micro". What you're suggesting of increasing the range of spores would literally make units useless. Why would you make an oracle/lib/phoenix/banshee if 1 single spore counters it and kills it? Might as well delete those units.
Or in the case of protoss for example. Your micro is not enough to manage storms, disruptors, feedback, FF? Just make 20 gateways and 10 colossus with your great macro. Or as zerg just make more units. Were you around when Stephano made his 200/200 roach strat at minute 10 in WoL? (game was slower back then son 200/200 was unheard of at that minute). He literally did what you are saying is impossible, he just made roaches, so even if you made the counter, the better "macro" and timming push made it super hard to defend because he had so many more units than you.
One of the things zerg is good at is remaxing. So if you have good macro you should be able to remax and lose 2 armies. You need to fight away from your base though. With zerg try to defend in the lategame as little as possible. If they kill all your army at your natural of course you're going to lose. If they kill it at their natural though, by the time they arrive at your base you already remaxed.
Also you literally suggested to nerf batteries, PF, bunkers, but buff zerg static defense...don't you think that's a little biased?
Appreciate the effort. I think some of your ideas are in the right place, but other's are very biased.
EDIT: Finally there are other ways to counter units. For examples, banshees and hellions: better scouting. Sure, they can kite and cloack and whatever, but if you know they are coming, and from where they are coming, you can set up a trap with a flank, or position your spores/queens. That, is strategy, and you talked a little bit about it, but I dissagree with your conclusion. Strategy can trump micro sometimes too!
I was looking for another classic Vision post, but this is just meh. Its too serious for trolling and too dumb to be taken seriously.
But hey, you can suggest to all the athletes in the world of sport to just not use their speed and the fact that they are better then you as an advantage, because you think its not fun. I am sure you will find a lot of support !
Hey Usain Bolt ! Please stop running (microing) so fast... I know I may be a 100kg slowpoke, but my sprint strategy is as good as yours, not to say I even have the same boots as you (macro) ! I should have equal chance to win, please go slower mate
THat's plat 1/dia3 - dia 1 range? Just wanting to be sure. Not about league shaming the OP. I play unranked and rank myself by the person I beat and I usually don't check the MMR numbers of my opponents(why would I)
I stopped at around the point where you were talking about "fun" and being able to beat a micro-focused player. I have to say, keep at it. Once you graduate high school and university, you might become a valuable member of blizzard team. Your view of the game and balance is yet too immature, and as long as it only revolves around you and your subjective preference, few will even take the time to even read through 50% of your proposal.
Impressive work put into it but its very incoherent. Especially the definition of "counters" seemed like mumbo jumbo to me. It is totally uninteresting how two different units in bulk fare against each other in a vacuum without micro. No fight is normally x units against y units, there are generally tanky units in front, dps/splash behind and other tech units, some which require micro. Like how would that work for spellcasters, I guess templar with storm doesnt counter mass marine by your definition.
It seems you don't want to play stacraft 2, you want to play a made up game that is so radically different from starcraft 2 you need a post this long just to explain all the changes you want.
There is nothing wrong with sc2 and if this game is not for you that is fine, you can either work on your micro and attention, be happy where you are or move on.
What's sad is you put so much effort in to that post and no-one will care, blizzard will never read it and you have wasted your time and energy for nothing.
God knows how many passionate posts I've started writing and half way through I think to myself why am I even writing no-one cares and it won't change a damn thing anyway.
So learn from me my friend don't waste your time putting all this energy into posts like this, if you want to make a difference in sc2 you need to become a relevant person in the community so your voice matters more or you will have no effect on the decisions being made.
Other then that I do disagree with most of the things you write in your post.
On October 08 2020 09:12 Dedraterllaerau wrote: What's sad is you put so much effort in to that post and no-one will care, blizzard will never read it and you have wasted your time and energy for nothing.
God knows how many passionate posts I've started writing and half way through I think to myself why am I even writing no-one cares and it won't change a damn thing anyway.
So learn from me my friend don't waste your time putting all this energy into posts like this, if you want to make a difference in sc2 you need to become a relevant person in the community so your voice matters more or you will have no effect on the decisions being made.
Other then that I do disagree with most of the things you write in your post.
I gave his post a fair try, because I noticed the length of it, and thought that if somebody put that much effort into something, it's at least worth a skim. I think most people who replied thought the same. You can't reasonably expect others to take you seriously when your entire thesis is based solely on your bias, and not taking into consideration others' perspectives.
If any of the pro casters, top streamers, or pros put out something this blatantly nonsensical, it would probably be treated even more harshly, and memed to death.
Don't even get me started with how he titled his proposal "Everything wrong with SC2 and how to fix it." Someone nominate this guy for a nobel prize. He has single-handedly solved a complex RTS game that Bliz has been workin on for over a decade.
On October 08 2020 04:33 [Phantom] wrote: I agree with your asseement that "just get better" isnt a good thing to say.
Pros and people here saying "oh you could totally beat that, just get better" is the most useless advice. You are not better, and you will not get better noticeably for maybe months. But you know what? your opponent is also not better, youre suppoused to be close in skill. So If a strat is too strong, or a unit comp, or whatever in your respective league "get better" is not a valid answer. I also agree balance affects all leagues.
However I found some flaws with what you were saying. You are saying macro can't overcome micro, but it literally can. The way to go from bronze to diamond is to get better macro. Micro can help but macro will trump it. But of course there comes a point where you will need both.
Still, even with your examples if you have better macro you should be able to win.
For example you mention hellions. If you have better macro you can create a wall with 2 evo chambers and 1 spine crawler. Since you have better macro you can afford those minerals right? Who cares if you already have two evos, build another two at your expantion. If it stops you from losing 20 drones by an harass it's worth it.
Same with spores. 1 spore doesn't cover all the mineral line? Build two. There you will use your better macro to stop "better micro". What you're suggesting of increasing the range of spores would literally make units useless. Why would you make an oracle/lib/phoenix/banshee if 1 single spore counters it and kills it? Might as well delete those units.
Or in the case of protoss for example. Your micro is not enough to manage storms, disruptors, feedback, FF? Just make 20 gateways and 10 colossus with your great macro. Or as zerg just make more units. Were you around when Stephano made his 200/200 roach strat at minute 10 in WoL? (game was slower back then son 200/200 was unheard of at that minute). He literally did what you are saying is impossible, he just made roaches, so even if you made the counter, the better "macro" and timming push made it super hard to defend because he had so many more units than you.
One of the things zerg is good at is remaxing. So if you have good macro you should be able to remax and lose 2 armies. You need to fight away from your base though. With zerg try to defend in the lategame as little as possible. If they kill all your army at your natural of course you're going to lose. If they kill it at their natural though, by the time they arrive at your base you already remaxed.
Also you literally suggested to nerf batteries, PF, bunkers, but buff zerg static defense...don't you think that's a little biased?
Appreciate the effort. I think some of your ideas are in the right place, but other's are very biased.
EDIT: Finally there are other ways to counter units. For examples, banshees and hellions: better scouting. Sure, they can kite and cloack and whatever, but if you know they are coming, and from where they are coming, you can set up a trap with a flank, or position your spores/queens. That, is strategy, and you talked a little bit about it, but I dissagree with your conclusion. Strategy can trump micro sometimes too!
I was going to reply to this post but what phantom said pretty much sums up the matter, although I disagree about the balance Point, I think balance effects all leagues but balance is also totally different in all leagues for instance at the pro level I think pvt is Protoss favored but at the low masters level I play at I think it’s the other way because Protoss players are not good enough with their execution,scouting,micro ect to hold terrans powerfull allins. As soon as toss get to a point that they can hold the allins most of the time the race becomes to strong because the collosi disruptor stalker army is extremely strong. Vs bio. Similar microcosms exist throughout the ranking system, Terrans who don’t have strong build orders,micro and reactions to allins stand no chance vs Protoss, Zerg in low leagues are disadvantaged because they can’t macro well enough to get good value from the race. Zerg in higher leagues typically struggle vs mech and sky toss but pro zergs can make these strays look non-viable ect.
Other than that completely agree with phantom
On a personal note I would add that a lot of us sc2 players like micro, it’s flashy, it’s fun to watch players like ByuN and Parting push the envelope of what’s possible to achieve with the same set of units joe smoe masters player uses, and it’s very satisfying to execute a fight well. Further good micro management is one of the key comeback mechanics in the game it lets the player who is behind use superior execution to get the same value out of their smaller force as their opponent and potentially recover.
Micro in Starcraft and Starcraft 2 (any RTS for that matter) is very much the manifestation and intersection of a player's awareness, crisis management, decision-making, speed and accuracy. To dismiss these as irrelevant strengths is truly laughable. There aren't many or any on TL.net (or any RTS community for that matter) who could possibly agree with dumbing down the game even half of the extent proposed.
Starcraft 2 definitely isn't perfect in it's design, but it's wayyyy better than when I played it competitively. I won't pretend like I did an in-depth analysis of your data, but it seems like some of your metrics don't make that much sense.
It's hard to analysis balance using this kind of incomplete math because some units (like the cracklings) are obviously super strong (their dps and HP/100minerals is great), but they are also counterable (actually you could argue not really but whatever), melee units that can also be super inefficient. It's up to the player to make them efficient by choosing good engages.
I won't bash you though, I appreciate reading this casually on my Wednesday night. Great effort, thumbs up
I thought OP has some interesting takes. I don't agree with it all but there is certainly some things I've thought about myself. My biggest complaint about Starcraft 2 at the moment is that it feels more like OSU + competitive fps in terms of precision of clicks required rather than a RTS. This is the biggest reason I get a lot more enjoyment out of Wc3/AoE over Sc2. I do love all the games though.
There's a weird amount of disproportionately combative replies to OP simply voicing his thoughts.
On October 08 2020 17:54 Concentration wrote: I thought OP has some interesting takes. I don't agree with it all but there is certainly some things I've thought about myself. My biggest complaint about Starcraft 2 at the moment is that it feels more like OSU + competitive fps in terms of precision of clicks required rather than a RTS. This is the biggest reason I get a lot more enjoyment out of Wc3/AoE over Sc2. I do love all the games though.
There's a weird amount of disproportionately combative replies to OP simply voicing his thoughts.
I disagree. Its not a weird amount i would say. Had his writing been a blog wherein he at the beginning indicated what he was about to write was something he was experiencing sc2 and how his suggested changes would make it fun for him - then the replies would have been very different in tone, most likely.
But this is not the case. He present stuff, which are personal and subjective, as they are some general consensus. And that kind of thing can trigger people to respond.
For example, if i were to post something like "what is wrong in country X and how to fix it" and then start to list what i think is good for a country, what i like to have in a society and then write 100 pages about it, mostly filled with cherry picking stuff and makes some quasi-reasoning to support my thoughts and take stuff out of context and being in general obviously subjective. Then people would either get triggered and comment all what is wrong with my reasoning or discard it completely. And the reason for that would be the ambition of the text. Had I instead started with the article saying "this is what i think" and then be very clear in the text what is actual, real, facts and what are my opinion and feelings etc.
So, because of his ambition and tone, it is not surprising people respond the way they do. However, even though the replies are negative i think most are having a rather polite tone, or at least not hating.
The text is like reading something from a person who thought that a lot of text makes it analytical and well thought out, and this is ofc not the case.
But the text was for sure a nice mixed bag about what he likes and dislikes. The "analytical" parts or when he arguments about his ideas.... thats when it breaks down. It lacks too much. So it becomes "impossible", or too time-consuming, to give a serious or good reply regarding that.
The hostility just seems unnecessary considering this is a place to discuss Starcraft. A video game. His post wasn't rude or offensive. So why is it met with such animosity?
On October 08 2020 17:54 Concentration wrote: I thought OP has some interesting takes. I don't agree with it all but there is certainly some things I've thought about myself. My biggest complaint about Starcraft 2 at the moment is that it feels more like OSU + competitive fps in terms of precision of clicks required rather than a RTS. This is the biggest reason I get a lot more enjoyment out of Wc3/AoE over Sc2. I do love all the games though.
SC2 gives the most complete package of competitive gaming. There is no game whose skill set cannot be transferred over to SC, whereas the converse is not true. SC requires competence in every aspect of gaming: fast and accurate mouse/keyboard control, timing accuracy, strategic thinking, rhythmic action, reaction to sound and subtle visual cues, multi-tasking, world building, and psychological warfare. There's probably more that I'm leaving out. There's a reason why it's considered the hardest game, and why most people prefer less mentally taxing games. I never got into brood war, though, despite being about 12yo when it was launched, because everything about it looks so damn awkward. When TY said that playing brood war made his hand hurt, I understood immediately why. RTS means real-time strategy, but brood war made it look like it was much less about strategy and more just furious hand movements.
OP's ideal game probably already exists as one of the arcade games; he probably would enjoy Nexus Wars or Direct Strike.
On October 08 2020 18:47 Concentration wrote: The hostility just seems unnecessary considering this is a place to discuss Starcraft. A video game. His post wasn't rude or offensive. So why is it met with such animosity?
StarCraft is not just another video game to the people on this forum though. The author here presumes to hold some form of objective truth and can "fix" "everything wrong with" this game.
On October 08 2020 18:47 Concentration wrote: The hostility just seems unnecessary considering this is a place to discuss Starcraft. A video game. His post wasn't rude or offensive. So why is it met with such animosity?
StarCraft is not just another video game to the people on this forum though. The author here presumes to hold some form of objective truth and can "fix" "everything wrong with" this game.
Basically this and most people here have seen at least 50 different texts from people who all had a different "objective truth" on how to "fix" the gane.
which is why I initially thought it would be a parody post when I saw the title.
On October 08 2020 18:47 Concentration wrote: The hostility just seems unnecessary considering this is a place to discuss Starcraft. A video game. His post wasn't rude or offensive. So why is it met with such animosity?
StarCraft is not just another video game to the people on this forum though. The author here presumes to hold some form of objective truth and can "fix" "everything wrong with" this game.
Basically this and most people here have seen at least 50 different texts from people who all had a different "objective truth" on how to "fix" the gane.
which is why I initially thought it would be a parody post when I saw the title.
You bring up an interesting point. It is indeed a sign of our modern times that the line between parody critique and real criticism can be indetectible.
On October 08 2020 18:47 Concentration wrote: The hostility just seems unnecessary considering this is a place to discuss Starcraft. A video game. His post wasn't rude or offensive. So why is it met with such animosity?
I dont see any hostility. Most people seem to acknowledge that he put effort into his post, yet disagree with most if not all of what he said. Nobody said that he should not have posted it and only some point out that maybe starcraft is not the game he is looking for which is fair game imo. In fact i am quite pleased about the positivity of all the responses.
In other TL forums he probably would have been ripped to shreds much harder for a post like this and the thread would be locked very quickly.
I recognize the time you spent writing this post, but so much of what you said is significantly wrong. I think the most telling section was where you complained of turtling yet wanted to see spores get a range increase to 14. It reads, and from point of view is, a list of complaints about specific games you had lost.
You definitely have a zerg point of view from some of the things you asked for (like being unable to wall against lings). Have you considered playing random? It will give you some perspective on what it takes to utilize other races and provide greater respect for your opponents.
I guess I appreciate the effort you put into this but I just fundamentally disagree lol, the degree of control and finesse in sc2 micro makes it unique from almost any other contemporary rts game and I think this is great. I also don't think think there is a problem with units having different value to players of different skill. Your post also feels very zerg biased? Maybe you just play zerg and are speaking to what you know idk
There is so much wrong with this game that doesn't require a 5000+ character post.
1. Worker starting count is too high. 2. Warpgate mechanic is flawed 3. Economy is not balanced between races. 4. Map balance is horrendous. No variety, only 2 player starting locations constantly = cheese 24/7 on the ladder.
These issues have been constantly raised by players since LotV came out. Nothing has ever been addressed.
On October 09 2020 15:12 RandomPlayer416 wrote: There is so much wrong with this game that doesn't require a 5000+ character post.
1. Worker starting count is too high. 2. Warpgate mechanic is flawed 3. Economy is not balanced between races. 4. Map balance is horrendous. No variety, only 2 player starting locations constantly = cheese 24/7 on the ladder.
These issues have been constantly raised by players since LotV came out. Nothing has ever been addressed.
Are we just making random statements, or do you have some sort of reasoning behind that list?
Wait, let me try!
1. Worker starting count is too low. 2. Wargate mechanic isn't strong enough 3. Economy between the 3 races is too identical. There's no diversity. 4. Map balance is too good. They should be designed to favor 1 race.
The biggest problem is about Zerg they nerfed so much stuff you don't have any options (and you never had a lot before), you are forced into few strategies, it's all about knowing how to scout what the other is doing, knowing how to react, and excecute it as perfectly as possible.
With P/T it's different they have multiple options, and they choose a playstyle they like without being forced to master them all
The onl way to have fun as Zerg is to offrace sometimes, else you get so bored.
On October 10 2020 02:19 Tyrhanius wrote: The biggest problem is about Zerg they nerfed so much stuff you don't have any options (and you never had a lot before), you are forced into few strategies, it's all about knowing how to scout what the other is doing, knowing how to react, and excecute it as perfectly as possible.
With P/T it's different they have multiple options, and they choose a playstyle they like without being forced to master them all
The onl way to have fun as Zerg is to offrace sometimes, else you get so bored.
I'm not convinced about your assertion that Zerg lacks options, or that they have been nerfed into uselessness. Zerg actually have many options, and the ability to produce those options on a huge scale. They have a good variety of answers to single problems, too.
The ground army can basically teleport between locations (nydus) at lair tech; that's pretty fucking sick. In BW, you not only needed a hive, but needed to construct the exit at a location that already had creep, and you were limited to one exit per nydus. Nydus was still good in BW; in SC2 it's outrageously better.
I'm pretty sure that Zerg are the only race with some units that fall into the category of "neither armored, nor light". These units (Ravagers, Queens, Banelings) are staples of a robust composition, because there really isn't a hard counter to them other than archons, disruptors, ghosts and flying units for those that can't hit air (archons are pretty terrible against ravagers and not spectacular against queens due to their AoE's restricted radius). Note the tier of these units.
I would bet that the main reason many Zerg players struggle is their own inability to create and control an appropriately complex unit composition to battle their opponent's diverse composition, because the temptation to spam one unit is far too great.
EDIT: Overseers and overlords are also neither armored nor light, but are not really combat units. Frankly, overseers always seemed to me like a stupid change from BW; Zerg already had detection in all their overlords. I'm not the biggest fan of the droplord change, but I'm sure there were reasons.
On October 10 2020 02:19 Tyrhanius wrote: The biggest problem is about Zerg they nerfed so much stuff you don't have any options (and you never had a lot before), you are forced into few strategies, it's all about knowing how to scout what the other is doing, knowing how to react, and excecute it as perfectly as possible.
With P/T it's different they have multiple options, and they choose a playstyle they like without being forced to master them all
The onl way to have fun as Zerg is to offrace sometimes, else you get so bored.
I don't agree with that assesment. How is it possible you have like 3 playstyles of Zergs on the pro level with such nerfes and the majority of players can play anything as they're limited mostly by their mechanics more than the game balance
As with many others I think this is a well put-together post although I do rather disagree with quite a lot therein.
I love the mechanical side of the game and it adds a lot of depth in terms of strategy as well. Doors can be opened or closed in terms of viable strategy and tactics based on one’s ability to micro their army well or badly.
In a sense you are both a general dictating a strategical plan, a field commander dealing with the logistics of executing the plan and you can control troops down to the individual level. The good Starcraft player is good at all of these things.
Which, on a purely personal level is something I enjoy. While I can imagine it being frustrating to have a better strategy and lose to a brainless mechanical machine of a player, I don’t mind that so much. Just another layer to factor in.
Throughout military history there are great plans that lead to disaster through terrible execution, or information black spots, as well as terrible plans that have been salvaged by elite troops on the ground.
I tend to think of SC in these kind of terms anyway, of course not everyone else will! As to whether those elements are weighted correctly is another thing to ponder according to personal tastes.
Cheers for the OP think it stirred some decent discussion anyway.
On October 10 2020 02:19 Tyrhanius wrote: The biggest problem is about Zerg they nerfed so much stuff you don't have any options (and you never had a lot before), you are forced into few strategies, it's all about knowing how to scout what the other is doing, knowing how to react, and excecute it as perfectly as possible.
With P/T it's different they have multiple options, and they choose a playstyle they like without being forced to master them all
The onl way to have fun as Zerg is to offrace sometimes, else you get so bored.
I'm not convinced about your assertion that Zerg lacks options, or that they have been nerfed into uselessness. Zerg actually have many options, and the ability to produce those options on a huge scale. They have a good variety of answers to single problems, too.
The ground army can basically teleport between locations (nydus) at lair tech; that's pretty fucking sick. In BW, you not only needed a hive, but needed to construct the exit at a location that already had creep, and you were limited to one exit per nydus. Nydus was still good in BW; in SC2 it's outrageously better.
I'm pretty sure that Zerg are the only race with some units that fall into the category of "neither armored, nor light". These units (Ravagers, Queens, Banelings) are staples of a robust composition, because there really isn't a hard counter to them other than archons, disruptors, ghosts and flying units for those that can't hit air (archons are pretty terrible against ravagers and not spectacular against queens due to their AoE's restricted radius). Note the tier of these units.
I would bet that the main reason many Zerg players struggle is their own inability to create and control an appropriately complex unit composition to battle their opponent's diverse composition, because the temptation to spam one unit is far too great.
EDIT: Overseers and overlords are also neither armored nor light, but are not really combat units. Frankly, overseers always seemed to me like a stupid change from BW; Zerg already had detection in all their overlords. I'm not the biggest fan of the droplord change, but I'm sure there were reasons.
You decide to defend until 3 bases saturation or what ? random cheeses ?
You have the choice between quens/lings or ?
Nyndus ?! Or it's the dirtiest all-in or you can't plan to make it before 10min.
With T with a single 1/1/1 you want 5+ different combinaisons, you have so much different playstyle/BO that are viable
With P you can go robot, stargate, oracl pheonix, skytoss, DT, blink.
With Z, you're like "Well burrow seems cool what about doing some fast burrow thing ? Ah no, i can't, it's 100% trolling. Oh yeah they even nerfed burrow movement for roach, like it was an issue..."
No just drone, wait until 9min to be allowed to start to do something that is different than the last game.
On October 10 2020 02:19 Tyrhanius wrote: The biggest problem is about Zerg they nerfed so much stuff you don't have any options (and you never had a lot before), you are forced into few strategies, it's all about knowing how to scout what the other is doing, knowing how to react, and excecute it as perfectly as possible.
With P/T it's different they have multiple options, and they choose a playstyle they like without being forced to master them all
The onl way to have fun as Zerg is to offrace sometimes, else you get so bored.
I'm not convinced about your assertion that Zerg lacks options, or that they have been nerfed into uselessness. Zerg actually have many options, and the ability to produce those options on a huge scale. They have a good variety of answers to single problems, too.
The ground army can basically teleport between locations (nydus) at lair tech; that's pretty fucking sick. In BW, you not only needed a hive, but needed to construct the exit at a location that already had creep, and you were limited to one exit per nydus. Nydus was still good in BW; in SC2 it's outrageously better.
I'm pretty sure that Zerg are the only race with some units that fall into the category of "neither armored, nor light". These units (Ravagers, Queens, Banelings) are staples of a robust composition, because there really isn't a hard counter to them other than archons, disruptors, ghosts and flying units for those that can't hit air (archons are pretty terrible against ravagers and not spectacular against queens due to their AoE's restricted radius). Note the tier of these units.
I would bet that the main reason many Zerg players struggle is their own inability to create and control an appropriately complex unit composition to battle their opponent's diverse composition, because the temptation to spam one unit is far too great.
EDIT: Overseers and overlords are also neither armored nor light, but are not really combat units. Frankly, overseers always seemed to me like a stupid change from BW; Zerg already had detection in all their overlords. I'm not the biggest fan of the droplord change, but I'm sure there were reasons.
You decide to defend until 3 bases saturation or what ? random cheeses ?
You have the choice between quens/lings or ?
Nyndus ?! Or it's the dirtiest all-in or you can't plan to make it before 10min.
With T with a single 1/1/1 you want 5+ different combinaisons, you have so much different playstyle/BO that are viable
With P you can go robot, stargate, oracl pheonix, skytoss, DT, blink.
With Z, you're like "Well burrow seems cool what about doing some fast burrow thing ? Ah no, i can't, it's 100% trolling. Oh yeah they even nerfed burrow movement for roach, like it was an issue..."
No just drone, wait until 9min to be allowed to start to do something that is different than the last game.
Well, that's your take on it. You could always try to mix in some lower economy plays. 3 base saturation is literally 66 drones, plus buildings and static defenses (more drones). If you think greed of that magnitude shouldn't be punishable, I don't know what to tell you.
EDIT: Zerg in BW is able to function and survive on lower supply (but not lower base count) than either T/P. Making units in BW is IMO far more of a commitment than it is in SC2 and each drone you lose is a much more massive loss.
My main "complaint" is that the fun is being sucked out of the game.
One reason could be players greeting other players with stuff like "DIE C%&T DIE!!" at the start of games in reply to "glhf", like you do.
SC2 only really has peepmode, but join a clan or something and play customs. If you just play ladder you are going against strangers with their only goal is to kill you. A friend, clan mate, or a practice partner is more likely to be nice and even play nice against you. You can ask them to do the cheese you always lose to so you can practice it, or if you guys want to play a macro game you can both open greedy. SC2's infrastructure is based around 1v1 ladder, but really find a discord, make some connections and play with people
I am thinking about creating a redesign mod and it goes... exactly against what you suggest I mean, I was thinking - what if expanding was fast and cheap, but each base contributes less to your economy. So - the goal of the first 6 minutes would be to set up 6 mining bases while trying to stop the opponent of doing the same. Also add that bases can never be fully mined out.
Not going for 6 bases would be a mistake (not a choice), but how you do it and where exactly you expand is what matters.
And why? Because I think matches in general are much more interesting if they take place over the whole map, rather than in one or two bases. So I would like to turn the game more into land-grab. The more land you control, the better your economy is.
EPT
. (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.)![[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)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/UJXRpmL.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/l0Gc5zg.gif)
