|
Hey guys,
Just bringing up a point of discussion. I always wondered what the differences were when comparing BW to SC2 in terms of Unit Supply. Example how Tanks in BW are 2 supply but 3 supply in SC2. So then I decided to make a little table.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/PgLRCbD.png)
The first difference is that the gaps between races are much large in every single case in Broodwar than they are in SC2. The second difference being that in general, units in Starcraft 2 have a higher average Supply than compared to Broodwar.
Its obvious that in Broodwar, factions were created to much more resemble each race's style of play. (Protoss=Quality, Zerg=Quantity, Terran=Average)
Obviously the change in style in SC2 could be due to evolution in each race's story (Terran more technologically advanced, Zerg evolving to be bigger and better, Protoss stalling?).
But in terms of gameplay it causes matches to field smaller arms than when compared to Broodwar. I wonder how the dynamic of the game would change if we more closely tried to follow the Supply Count dynamics of Broodwar in SC2.
|
I didn t know that most of supply cost by units is less in BW than in SC2.
For example, i would be happy to see an upgrade in late game for Zerg in order to increase the max supply count to 210.
It s interessant to look at the Lurker supply cost because a Lurker is 1.5 X times bigger in term of supply cost in SC2, so as a lurker has also 20 base damage, the unit should decrease his base damage by 1.5 also...
Edit : Oups... If supply lurker is 1.5 times bigger so base damage also... my bad. But it can explain why Blizzard fix the total damage to 20 + 10 (against armored) = 30 ( = 20 x 1.5).
Does Blizzard fix the base damage of SC2 Lurker in copying BW Lurker base damage ? and just added a +10 armored ...
What i ve already proposed : 20 + 10 => 15 + 15
Always looking closely to a Lurker tweak ....
|
|
|
On October 17 2021 23:54 Vision_ wrote:
I didn t know that most of supply cost by units is less in BW than in SC2.
For example, i would be happy to see an upgrade in late game for Zerg in order to increase the max supply count to 210.
It s interessant to look at the Lurker supply cost because a Lurker is 1.5 X times bigger in term of supply cost in SC2, so as a lurker has also 20 base damage, the unit should decrease his base damage by 1.5 also...
What i ve already proposed : 20 + 10 => 15 + 15
You added a new argument to Lurker tweak
why Zerg to 210? that's just dumb, especially when, if they stored larva, can instantly max compared to Protoss (not gateway units) and Terran who have to wait to build all the way up to 200.
|
Thanks for the effort 
It was rather well known that there was a supply cost inflation with sc2 which manifests itself with players hitting 200/200 far more often and much faster. It is quite common for sc2 games to be played with maxed armies whereas it is rather rare view in bw.
The changes that made the biggest impact on the sc2 would be for Hydralisk and Siege tank (also Marauder and Ultralisk to lesser extend).
The Zerg is no longer so much about the mass of units especially if you go for Hydra/roach tech tree.
Siege tanks supply increase mean that it is harder to create big "no-go" zones around the map and the tank lines are much shorter in sc2 than in bw which with addition to dmg nerf makes busting the terran much easier.
|
On October 18 2021 01:15 egrimm wrote:Thanks for the effort It was rather well known that there was a supply cost inflation with sc2 which manifests itself with players hitting 200/200 far more often and much faster. It is quite common for sc2 games to be played with maxed armies whereas it is rather rare view in bw. The changes that made the biggest impact on the sc2 would be for Hydralisk and Siege tank (also Marauder and Ultralisk to lesser extend). The Zerg is no longer so much about the mass of units especially if you go for Hydra/roach tech tree. Siege tanks supply increase mean that it is harder to create big "no-go" zones around the map and the tank lines are much shorter in sc2 than in bw which with addition to dmg nerf makes busting the terran much easier.
Yes you right, A roach tweak could be considered in decreasing his supply cost to one (As they was looking for in the Beta), but the design could be really ugly. LoL
|
On October 18 2021 01:22 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2021 01:15 egrimm wrote:Thanks for the effort It was rather well known that there was a supply cost inflation with sc2 which manifests itself with players hitting 200/200 far more often and much faster. It is quite common for sc2 games to be played with maxed armies whereas it is rather rare view in bw. The changes that made the biggest impact on the sc2 would be for Hydralisk and Siege tank (also Marauder and Ultralisk to lesser extend). The Zerg is no longer so much about the mass of units especially if you go for Hydra/roach tech tree. Siege tanks supply increase mean that it is harder to create big "no-go" zones around the map and the tank lines are much shorter in sc2 than in bw which with addition to dmg nerf makes busting the terran much easier. Yes you right, A roach tweak could be considered in decreasing his supply cost to one (As they was looking for in the Beta), but the design could be really ugly. LoL
"Balance" is always hard to achieve with exact numbers. However the general design goal should be easier.
SC2 beta obviously had a lot of issues, imba roach being one of them. Still I believe they were onto something with first proposal of 1 supply. It would be cool to see it revisited
Something like:
supply cost 2 -> 1
attack range 4 -> 3
Goal of decreased attack range is to make mass roaches strategies weaker as it would be harder to deal dmg with all units at once.
|
Yes, this was a big thing that stood out to many ppl (including me) very strongly in the early days of SC2. Actually seeing it laid out in numbers, though, it's less drastic than I'd remembered, which matches my general change in impressions watching SC2 over time.
The biggest and most impactful supply changes, as has been said, are definitely the hydra being 1 supply in BW vs the Zerg having a somewhat supply inefficient (though also still quite mass/swarmy) comp in roach/hydra/ravager in SC2, and also the Siege Tank becoming a more supply inefficient unit for the Terran. Pure bio being a more viable strat in SC2 kind of counterbalances the latter, though, while for the former, the addition of the .5 supply Baneling gives SC2 Zerg one of the most supply efficient comps in either game.
So I think when you look at it in more depth, it's a bit more complicated than just SC2 armies having more supply. The reason ppl in SC2 max out faster isn't predominantly supply, it's mostly the economy and production mechanics making it easier to field bigger armies faster. BW with 12-worker start + Mules/Chronoboost/Inject Larva & Multiple Building Selection would be absolutely broken.
|
On October 18 2021 02:20 Captain Peabody wrote:
Yes, this was a big thing that stood out to many ppl (including me) very strongly in the early days of SC2. Actually seeing it laid out in numbers, though, it's less drastic than I'd remembered, which matches my general change in impressions watching SC2 over time.
The biggest and most impactful supply changes, as has been said, are definitely the hydra being 1 supply in BW vs the Zerg having a somewhat supply inefficient (though also still quite mass/swarmy) comp in roach/hydra/ravager in SC2, and also the Siege Tank becoming a more supply inefficient unit for the Terran. Pure bio being a more viable strat in SC2 kind of counterbalances the latter, though, while for the former, the addition of the .5 supply Baneling gives SC2 Zerg one of the most supply efficient comps in either game.
So I think when you look at it in more depth, it's a bit more complicated than just SC2 armies having more supply. The reason ppl in SC2 max out faster isn't predominantly supply, it's mostly the economy and production mechanics making it easier to field bigger armies faster. BW with 12-worker start + Mules/Chronoboost/Inject Larva & Multiple Building Selection would be absolutely broken.
This is a perfect summarization imo, BW didn't have the same macro boosting mechanics and overall SC2 is just a way faster paced game in general.
|
On October 18 2021 01:02 AzAlexZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 23:54 Vision_ wrote:
I didn t know that most of supply cost by units is less in BW than in SC2.
For example, i would be happy to see an upgrade in late game for Zerg in order to increase the max supply count to 210.
It s interessant to look at the Lurker supply cost because a Lurker is 1.5 X times bigger in term of supply cost in SC2, so as a lurker has also 20 base damage, the unit should decrease his base damage by 1.5 also...
What i ve already proposed : 20 + 10 => 15 + 15
You added a new argument to Lurker tweak why Zerg to 210? that's just dumb, especially when, if they stored larva, can instantly max compared to Protoss (not gateway units) and Terran who have to wait to build all the way up to 200.
Also Zerg is already the only race that can go over 200 supply
|
By the way, this isn't a balance whine. I actually think the balance is quite good in Starcraft 2. But we should see Broodwar as inspiration because it is the best RTS of all time.
|
I like how the special/heavy units have more supply cost from a purely aesthetic choice. It's fucking bonkers that a Siege Tank is just 2/1 vs the Marine. I know units are supposed to represent dozens, or hundreds of lore units, but still.
|
On October 18 2021 08:40 AssyrianKing wrote:
By the way, this isn't a balance whine. I actually think the balance is quite good in Starcraft 2. But we should see Broodwar as inspiration because it is the best RTS of all time.
I think I heard from someone said that, it looks like WC3 was adapted more from BW in term of the pacing and macro, it take longer to have maxed out army fighting, if it even reach that point. SC2 is made with the intention for ESport tournament, with faster pace macro and micro cycle and non-stop action everywhere.
|
But the question is sometimes, what makes a game an E-Sport game? Is it the love for the game of how incredibly designed or balanced it is, or both? Broodwar I'm pretty sure wasn't designed for E-Sports in mind but it's one of the best E-Sports of all time
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 18 2021 08:40 AssyrianKing wrote:
By the way, this isn't a balance whine. I actually think the balance is quite good in Starcraft 2. But we should see Broodwar as inspiration because it is the best RTS of all time.
Who gave that title to BW?
|
On October 18 2021 05:11 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2021 01:02 AzAlexZ wrote:On October 17 2021 23:54 Vision_ wrote:
I didn t know that most of supply cost by units is less in BW than in SC2.
For example, i would be happy to see an upgrade in late game for Zerg in order to increase the max supply count to 210.
It s to look at the Lurker supply cost because a Lurker is 1.5 X times bigger in term of supply cost in SC2, so as a lurker has also 20 base damage, the unit should decrease his base damage by 1.5 also...
What i ve already proposed : 20 + 10 => 15 + 15
You added a new argument to Lurker tweak why Zerg to 210? that's just dumb, especially when, if they stored larva, can instantly max compared to Protoss (not gateway units) and Terran who have to wait to build all the way up to 200. Also Zerg is already the only race that can go over 200 supply
And also they don't even need to. Maxed out zerg can still increase it's army value further by upping the baneling count. That's why zergs going over 100 drones playing lingbane is strong despite them trading against theoretically a much higher army supply.
|
On October 18 2021 23:24 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2021 08:40 AssyrianKing wrote:
By the way, this isn't a balance whine. I actually think the balance is quite good in Starcraft 2. But we should see Broodwar as inspiration because it is the best RTS of all time. Who gave that title to BW?
It was me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
