|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 30 2026 16:22 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 07:56 Wintex wrote:On May 30 2026 04:09 Charoisaur wrote:On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote:
Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful Not sure where this misconception comes from that the number of starting workers affects this, maybe everyone thinks of early WoL when they think of 6 worker start? For most of Hots 3+ bases was just as standard as it is today, just watch any INnoVation games from back then. The only difference this change makes is wasting everyones time for the first 2 minutes of the game This is probably just a vibes based take you're having, Charoisaur, but SC2 in general has been friendly to eco games ever since map making wasn't a complete fiesta. There was a ton more diversity in the early parts of the game back then. I don't want to discuss how the efforts of trying to adjust the economy so 3 bases didn't economically cap you kinda shifted the balance of the three ways of playing, but it clearly changed the win conditions significantly. Reducing the early game literally narrows the time actions are possible. Additionally, leaving yourself on fewer bases even for a slight moment puts you so far behind. You're wrong, you just have nostalgia for early WoL which won't come back. Lambo explained it here very well why you're wrong. This change does nothing except wasting 1 minute of everyones time every game. If you don't remember HotS TvZ anymore, Inno literally played reaper expand into fast 3CC every single TvZ and it was safe against everything
Lambo saying that a 12 pool essentially is the equivalent of an 8 pool is ridiculously wrong and misrepresenting the economical commitment of fhe former vs the latter, which honestly I find to be shocking for a pro player.
|
On May 30 2026 17:47 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 16:22 Charoisaur wrote:On May 30 2026 07:56 Wintex wrote:On May 30 2026 04:09 Charoisaur wrote:On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote:
Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful Not sure where this misconception comes from that the number of starting workers affects this, maybe everyone thinks of early WoL when they think of 6 worker start? For most of Hots 3+ bases was just as standard as it is today, just watch any INnoVation games from back then. The only difference this change makes is wasting everyones time for the first 2 minutes of the game This is probably just a vibes based take you're having, Charoisaur, but SC2 in general has been friendly to eco games ever since map making wasn't a complete fiesta. There was a ton more diversity in the early parts of the game back then. I don't want to discuss how the efforts of trying to adjust the economy so 3 bases didn't economically cap you kinda shifted the balance of the three ways of playing, but it clearly changed the win conditions significantly. Reducing the early game literally narrows the time actions are possible. Additionally, leaving yourself on fewer bases even for a slight moment puts you so far behind. You're wrong, you just have nostalgia for early WoL which won't come back. Lambo explained it here very well why you're wrong. https://youtu.be/FDW8iHtGmvo?is=RqXMK0hjVC9VE1B_This change does nothing except wasting 1 minute of everyones time every game. If you don't remember HotS TvZ anymore, Inno literally played reaper expand into fast 3CC every single TvZ and it was safe against everything I like both you and Lambo, but you’re both wrong :p Part of what made SoS such a great player was his ability to do wonky things off of levels of mind games and tech choices LoTV just accelerated the game to be more eco focused, and less strategically diverse and more about raw mechanics. Blizz basically abandoned 4 player maps in this expansion, that worked previously for this exact reason. One can’t actually do anything with scouting information if you pick the wrong starting location to scout with the faster eco. If it’s eco heavy, you can’t punish it, if they’re cheesing you, you’re already dead
Well said, pretty much hits the nail on the head.
|
now fix the need to have a separate installation for PTR, makes no sense.
|
I'd argue that a lower worker start mostly makes 1 base all-ins more viable to the extent that they increase the opportunity cost of scouting, and even that doesn't matter much since players have certain preferences in game design and don't understand game theory well enough to see what they imply (and on top of that, the game is too complicated to truly solve the opening strategy).
People generally want cheese to be bad if scouted, that's one of the basic premises of RTS strategy. Suppose Race A has a "perfect" cheese in the sense that it wins every time it goes unscouted and loses every time the opponent scouts it. Let's say Race B only has macro strategies against A and can choose whether or not to scout, something that comes with a certain opportunity cost. Suppose this cost in a macro game is x percentage points; specifically that Race B wins (50-x/2)% of the macro games when they scout, and (50+x/2)/% of the time when they don't.
Try to stop and think for a moment about how large an opportunity cost, how large an x, you would allow. I'd definitely say 20% is out of the question: 40% vs. 60% for scouting vs. not scouting in a macro game seems like egregiously bad design to me. If that's too much, then what's the limit, is it 10%, 5%, or maybe just 1%?
You can easily calculate that the Nash equilibrium for the scenario; this is the strategy (or combination of strategies from Race A and B) where neither player can be exploited (i.e. lose win-rate) by the other one doing something different. It has Race A cheese x/(100+x)% of the time, so roughly x% if scouting is cheap.
This makes sense, right? The cheaper it is for B to scout, the more they'll do it and the less you'll want to cheese. As it turns out, that's not exactly the explanation; the equilibrium strategy is for Race B to scout half the time no matter the value of x (unless the opportunity cost is exactly 0 in which the game degenerates and you should obviously just scout every time). Essentially, the threat of B increasing their scout rate at a low cost should in principle be enough to make A stop cheesing, whereas A still wants to cheese at a certain (low) rate to keep B honest.
In practice, this kind if scenario would be hard to isolate from all the other things that are going on in an actual game of Starcraft but I'd argue that people also wouldn't analyze the strategy correctly. In this example, the game is perfectly balanced in theory; the optimal strategy gives both players a 50% win rate. In reality, if the opportunity cost were e.g. 2%, I imagine the common wisdom would dictate that Race B should just scout every game rather than only half the time: it's so cheap anyway, and the all-in is a strong threat. Then Race A would correctly conclude that they should just never use the cheese.
Thus, cheap scouting can push even a strong all-in strategy entirely out of the game at the cost of a slight imbalance: Race A now wins 51% of games; a real difference but probably not large enough to cause serious balance complaints or changes in itself. And even if the game were changed to even out this difference, that would in principle make Race B overpowered since they are actually handicapping themselves by scouting too often.
On the other hand, if the opportunity cost of scouting were huge, say 20%, Race B (and viewers) would probably feel bad about the state of the game. Maybe they would rarely scout because it's so expensive and the all-in would get nerfed for being "too strong" even though it's theoretically balanced. Even if everyone were following the optimal strategy so that the win-rate were balanced, I'm not sure people would be happy. After all, Race B is scouting at a huge cost half the time, while it only pays off 1 in 6 of those games (so 1 in 12 games overall). At the same time, they straight up lose 1 in 12 game to an unscouted all-in, and in total, 5/6 of the time, you have macro games which are hugely imbalanced in one direction or another from the beginning.
Of course, this modeled scenario is exaggerated and grossly simplified; for example, it doesn't take skill and execution into account, but I believe it's reasonable to say that aspects of early game strategy in SC2 behave roughly like this, both in terms of game theory and psychology. In my opinion, the best way to add viable and exciting all-ins to the early game is to have more skill involved in both scouting and denying information but this is somewhat at odds with with the design of the game. All this is not to argue for or against the 8 worker start, just to discuss what can actually be achieved in terms of early strategic variety.
|
On May 30 2026 20:54 ArtyK wrote:
But what if we gave queens the armored tag?
But what if we removed the queen?
Change all the races as much as Protoss got changed
|
Agreed, protoss changes are massive. Warp gate change is more of an issue than worker count.
|
I think they killed the ghost with 75 energy "steady targeting". And 100hp means a steep vulnerability for it. I wouldn't mind reverting the attack and range buffs when these 2 stats are reverted too.
|
On May 30 2026 06:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 06:03 Hider wrote:On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote:
Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful Is the creativity so limited so noone can think of any other way to buff 1-base cheese/allins while maintaining 12 workers?? There are limits to creativity, this is one. And I don’t think people are necessarily talking just about cheeses or all-ins here. Aggressive but economically focused builds are just outright bad with 12 worker starts. Some tech-centric aggression is also just outright bad too. If we consider the ETA triangle (economy, tech, army) and tradeoffs I’d argue that LoTV’s existing economy really skews things to eco openers. It’s usually just better to go eco because you’ll also get the army and tech as you go In previous iterations there was more of a trade between focusing on each area
What limits to creativity? You do not think it's possible to experiment with build-times/research times/otherstats? Do you have any evidence to suggest this? I suppose most like likely you haven't really thought this through and is limited in scope to only evaluating a single variable - which is exactly what i criticize. Lack of creativity.
There are so many variable that determine whether cheese/allin is strong. And one variable got changed - and IMO this is the fundamentally correct change - it is not fun to do effectively nothing in the early game. However, other variables must be changed to go along with it. Creativity comes into play when being able to identify these variables and thinking of other ways to accomplish the desired goals.
|
On May 31 2026 05:52 Think13 wrote:
I think they killed the ghost with 75 energy "steady targeting". And 100hp means a steep vulnerability for it. I wouldn't mind reverting the attack and range buffs when these 2 stats are reverted too.
That make sense, ghost as Terran's core unit, is the only thing that could have been used to counter Zerg's spell casters.
Ghosts should not become stronger as basic combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay. The real problem is 75 energy Steady Targeting, because it directly reduces Ghost spell output and makes Terran much weaker in late-game spell trading.
I would much rather keep Ghosts at 2 supply, keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy, install uncancelled steady targeting is necessary, and remove the attack/range buffs if needed.
I just don't make sense why the balance council always buff Zerg systematically, given new ability upgrades to infester and hydra, modify attack speed for Brood, change volume of Ultralisk, decrease evolution upgrades cost. Meanwhile nerf either Terran or Protoss in anything, the Libs, Thor, Tank, Ghost, Raven all get nerfed for not only one time, i think this game will be ZergCraft soon.
If they keep nerf Terran but buff Zerg, I am gonna quit for sure, and I will post comments in everyplace I could have found, tell anyone who I may tell, do not waste a single second in this game if you are not going to select Zerg to play.
|
On May 31 2026 06:30 WSH32 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2026 05:52 Think13 wrote:
I think they killed the ghost with 75 energy "steady targeting". And 100hp means a steep vulnerability for it. I wouldn't mind reverting the attack and range buffs when these 2 stats are reverted too. That make sense, ghost as Terran's core unit, is the only thing that could have been used to counter Zerg's spell casters. Ghosts should not become stronger as basic combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay. The real problem is 75 energy Steady Targeting, because it directly reduces Ghost spell output and makes Terran much weaker in late-game spell trading. I would much rather keep Ghosts at 2 supply, keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy, install uncancelled steady targeting is necessary, and remove the attack/range buffs if needed. I just don't make sense why the balance council always buff Zerg systematically, given new ability upgrades to infester and hydra, modify attack speed for Brood, change volume of Ultralisk, decrease evolution upgrades cost. Meanwhile nerf either Terran or Protoss in anything, the Libs, Thor, Tank, Ghost, Raven all get nerfed for not only one time, i think this game will be ZergCraft soon. If they keep nerf Terran but buff Zerg, I am gonna quit for sure, and I will post comments in everyplace I could have found, tell anyone who I may tell, do not waste a single second in this game if you are not going to select Zerg to play.
Of course, you'd prefer Ghost to remain imbalanced, like any other Terran whiner. Why invent anything when you can build the same deathball out of Ghosts every game and not have to invent anything. What's on the horizon? Ultras - pew pew, Lurkers - pew pew, Broodlords - pew pew, Corruptors - pew pew, Vipers - EMP, Infestors - EMP. GG WP. 1k3 resource losses. It's been very interesting to watch TvZ in recent years (no).
Maybe Terrans should at least think a little about their troop composition in the new patch.
|
On May 31 2026 06:30 WSH32 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2026 05:52 Think13 wrote:
I think they killed the ghost with 75 energy "steady targeting". And 100hp means a steep vulnerability for it. I wouldn't mind reverting the attack and range buffs when these 2 stats are reverted too. That make sense, ghost as Terran's core unit, is the only thing that could have been used to counter Zerg's spell casters. Ghosts should not become stronger as basic combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay. The real problem is 75 energy Steady Targeting, because it directly reduces Ghost spell output and makes Terran much weaker in late-game spell trading. I would much rather keep Ghosts at 2 supply, keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy, install uncancelled steady targeting is necessary, and remove the attack/range buffs if needed. I just don't make sense why the balance council always buff Zerg systematically, given new ability upgrades to infester and hydra, modify attack speed for Brood, change volume of Ultralisk, decrease evolution upgrades cost. Meanwhile nerf either Terran or Protoss in anything, the Libs, Thor, Tank, Ghost, Raven all get nerfed for not only one time, i think this game will be ZergCraft soon. If they keep nerf Terran but buff Zerg, I am gonna quit for sure, and I will post comments in everyplace I could have found, tell anyone who I may tell, do not waste a single second in this game if you are not going to select Zerg to play.
So Ghosts should be a pure counter-unit, correct? That means a couple of Cracklings should be able to easily demolish 8-10 Ghosts, yes? Because it is a counter-unit based on their spellcasting-ability. If you don't use their abilities, they should be as useless as HTs, Vipers, Infestors etc.
That's the kind of Ghost you want? Excellent, me too! Lets nerf the Ghost! \ o /
Or to give the none-snippy reply:
You are wondering why Zerg units get upgraded and tweaked so much? Lets just look at them:
So Zerg needs Ultralisks, which get countered by Ghosts, then they need Brood Lords, which get countered by Ghosts, they also need Infestors for which the Terran has to counter with Ghosts and of course Zergs desperately need Vipers to force the Terran into producing Ghosts as a counter.
...huh.
|
Revising my first impression of the Gateway change:
You need to pay 50 minerals AND 50 gas for each gateway to be able to switch into warpgate? Holy shit that's a huge nerf
Guys, warping in at any pylon for 3 sec vs 3.6 sec is significant, but it's not as huge as needing to spend say 400 minerals 400 gas to have 8 warpgates on 3 bases where you had those warpgates for free in WoL/HotS.
The switching between Warpgate an Gateway is too clunky and weird too.
Just make it so that you decide whether to invest into upgrading some of your gateways into warpgates. That's already enough isn't it? Once they're warpgates, the only difference is you get to warp in from then on. Don't make it produce units slower or have to manage switching your gates and warpgates back and forth, that just seems so silly and unfun.
If you really want to make it a little cute, then sure maybe Gateways can produce units ~2 seconds faster. But don't NERF warpgate production, wtf? What are you giving in return?
And put the research back on the core.. this is like if we saw a PTR where they actually moved the immortal to the gateway. Please, just don't.
|
|
|
On May 31 2026 10:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Revising my first impression of the Gateway change:
You need to pay 50 minerals AND 50 gas for each gateway to be able to switch into warpgate? Holy shit that's a huge nerf
Guys, warping in at any pylon for 3 sec vs 3.6 sec is significant, but it's not as huge as needing to spend say 400 minerals 400 gas to have 8 warpgates on 3 bases where you had those warpgates for free in WoL/HotS.
The switching between Warpgate an Gateway is too clunky and weird too.
Just make it so that you decide whether to invest into upgrading some of your gateways into warpgates. That's already enough isn't it? Once they're warpgates, the only difference is you get to warp in from then on. Don't make it produce units slower or have to manage switching your gates and warpgates back and forth, that just seems so silly and unfun.
If you really want to make it a little cute, then sure maybe Gateways can produce units ~2 seconds faster. But don't NERF warpgate production, wtf? What are you giving in return?
And put the research back on the core.. this is like if we saw a PTR where they actually moved the immortal to the gateway. Please, just don't.
That's my exact issue with the patch. If changes go forward as-is, I don't think I'll play StarCraft 2 anymore or I'll at the very least consider switching to terran. I have played more than enough StarCraft 2 anyway, so no big deal either way.
|
On May 31 2026 10:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
If you really want to make it a little cute, then sure maybe Gateways can produce units ~2 seconds faster. But don't NERF warpgate production, wtf? What are you giving in return?
And put the research back on the core.. this is like if we saw a PTR where they actually moved the immortal to the gateway. Please, just don't.
I mean, you are getting something in return? The gateway produces units at 18s instead of 27s once you get the research, which is quite a bit faster? It's not nothing haha
If you're going for a warpgate push, 4 gates are the gas of 4 stalkers, but it's a 1 time cost(and you can just swap back to faster prod after you're done warping), and you'd have the the minerals for 3 zealots.
I do think it should still be on the cybercore though, it feels really awkward on gateway
|
Hoping the developers are reading these suggestions, I’d like to bring up another change that I think would eliminate a huge amount of frustration from the game.
Make certain units briefly stunned when unloaded from transport units, similar to how it worked in Brood War. In this case, Disruptors unloaded from Warp Prisms and Widow Mines unloaded from Medivacs.
I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that Widow Mine drops aren’t overly effective, even when the Protoss player reacts in time. On top of that, a single mistake can instantly end the game.
In my opinion, it’s time to address this.
|
Italy12247 Posts
Random gut reactions regarding the Warpgate changes:
1) Putting the research on the gateway basically means Protoss has one less unit in the early game (because your one gate is busy researching warpgate). That seems iffy to me build order wise, it's not like your initial gateway units are terribly strong anyway and one less stalker/adept/zealot encourages you to not even be on the map early on
2) If gateways are never worth using over warpgates then you're just outright removing ~300-500 gas from Protoss. As a rule of thumb, making 3-5 sentries and then losing them for nothing tends to not end up well.
3) How can gateways be worth using over warpgates when you have to rally your units across the map to make use of them anyway? Sure I may builds units faster, but if, say, I'm defending a 3rd and my units have to spend ~10s running from the main what did I gain exactly?
I like the idea of shaking things up, I just don't see what this does other than nerf Protoss which of course the community loves.
On May 31 2026 10:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
this is like if we saw a PTR where they actually moved the immortal to the gateway. Please, just don't.
Counterpoint: please do so we can get the gang back together to write the New Great Book of Protoss Bullshit
|
On May 31 2026 09:31 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2026 06:30 WSH32 wrote:On May 31 2026 05:52 Think13 wrote:
I think they killed the ghost with 75 energy "steady targeting". And 100hp means a steep vulnerability for it. I wouldn't mind reverting the attack and range buffs when these 2 stats are reverted too. That make sense, ghost as Terran's core unit, is the only thing that could have been used to counter Zerg's spell casters. Ghosts should not become stronger as basic combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay. The real problem is 75 energy Steady Targeting, because it directly reduces Ghost spell output and makes Terran much weaker in late-game spell trading. I would much rather keep Ghosts at 2 supply, keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy, install uncancelled steady targeting is necessary, and remove the attack/range buffs if needed. I just don't make sense why the balance council always buff Zerg systematically, given new ability upgrades to infester and hydra, modify attack speed for Brood, change volume of Ultralisk, decrease evolution upgrades cost. Meanwhile nerf either Terran or Protoss in anything, the Libs, Thor, Tank, Ghost, Raven all get nerfed for not only one time, i think this game will be ZergCraft soon. If they keep nerf Terran but buff Zerg, I am gonna quit for sure, and I will post comments in everyplace I could have found, tell anyone who I may tell, do not waste a single second in this game if you are not going to select Zerg to play. So Ghosts should be a pure counter-unit, correct? That means a couple of Cracklings should be able to easily demolish 8-10 Ghosts, yes? Because it is a counter-unit based on their spellcasting-ability. If you don't use their abilities, they should be as useless as HTs, Vipers, Infestors etc. That's the kind of Ghost you want? Excellent, me too! Lets nerf the Ghost! \ o / Or to give the none-snippy reply: You are wondering why Zerg units get upgraded and tweaked so much? Lets just look at them: So Zerg needs Ultralisks, which get countered by Ghosts, then they need Brood Lords, which get countered by Ghosts, they also need Infestors for which the Terran has to counter with Ghosts and of course Zergs desperately need Vipers to force the Terran into producing Ghosts as a counter. ...huh.
You think the Ghost can counter everything only because you are bad at using mass Banelings to damage Terran’s economy. Like I said before, the Ghost is the only solution under the current circumstances, because almost every other important Terran unit has been nerfed in multiple times. If you do not want to see Ghosts anymore, okay, then let’s bring back Raven's PDD and restore Seeker Missile damage. You cannot keep numerically nerfing the entire Terran army. Mech is already gone. And I know you Zerg players just love watching Terran players make one mistake in infantry positioning, so mass Lurkers and Ultralisks can wipe out the entire Terran troops in a blink of eye. Do not fucking forget that Marines and Marauders are basic units. They are not designed to counter your high-value advanced units. In short, the Ghost is not strong enough. You suck at ZvT because you are not Serral.
|
Northern Ireland27288 Posts
On May 31 2026 06:25 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2026 06:28 WombaT wrote:On May 30 2026 06:03 Hider wrote:On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote:
Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful Is the creativity so limited so noone can think of any other way to buff 1-base cheese/allins while maintaining 12 workers?? There are limits to creativity, this is one. And I don’t think people are necessarily talking just about cheeses or all-ins here. Aggressive but economically focused builds are just outright bad with 12 worker starts. Some tech-centric aggression is also just outright bad too. If we consider the ETA triangle (economy, tech, army) and tradeoffs I’d argue that LoTV’s existing economy really skews things to eco openers. It’s usually just better to go eco because you’ll also get the army and tech as you go In previous iterations there was more of a trade between focusing on each area What limits to creativity? You do not think it's possible to experiment with build-times/research times/otherstats? Do you have any evidence to suggest this? I suppose most like likely you haven't really thought this through and is limited in scope to only evaluating a single variable - which is exactly what i criticize. Lack of creativity. There are so many variable that determine whether cheese/allin is strong. And one variable got changed - and IMO this is the fundamentally correct change - it is not fun to do effectively nothing in the early game. However, other variables must be changed to go along with it. Creativity comes into play when being able to identify these variables and thinking of other ways to accomplish the desired goals.
Just how Legacy plays, especially now it’s more figured out
I think there’s plenty of scope for creative solutions to various things, but there’s a few fundamental issues that one can’t tweak their way around
Chiefly, Legacy’s eco ramp up and how it impacts 4 player, even 3 player maps. It just changes a lot of things timing wise. Crudely speaking, the game state is further along than prior, but scouting timings have remained largely the same.
Which ultimately has the effect that it’s more punishing if you scout the wrong location first. Crudely speaking, if you get the late scout and your opponent went big greed, you’re already behind and can’t really catch up by cutting corners. If your opponent is all-inning you, you may already be dead.
That’s just one facet, but I think that specific one isn’t something that can be fixed by tweaks, it’s very fundamentally tied to the eco pace. So that’s what I meant by limits to what creativity can do.
And in a general sense a slower pace gives more options, especially to make reactive decisions in early phases.
There are also downsides, idle downtime etc in a slower start that are pretty fundamental.
SC2 and games like it are obviously strategy games, but they’re also build order games. You have to make a lot of decisions ahead of time, probably when you’re queuing, and within the game itself. Which makes improvisational adjustments tricky if they deviate from one’s initial plan. And the faster the game is in navigating a build, generally the harder it is to fork off. It’s not impossible, that would be hyperbolic, but I (hope) that logically tracks.
I think it’s a bit of a mistake in how other modern entries are approaching things too. They’re still kinda sticking to the classic build order style of RTS, and assume if you just speed the game up or make macro easier or whatever it’ll appeal to casuals. But I think what you end up with is actually frustrating to many. No matter how fast you make it or how many QoL changes, if the strategy game becomes ‘do my build I was planning to do in the lobby, with maybe a few adjustments’, there’s less scope for experimenting or those organic moments of a good plan hatched on the spot coming together.
I find a lot of your ideas on new styles and approaches to RTS very interesting and more appealing to me than many others, but I think one almost has to build a game around it first. SC2 or w/e are already linked to certain kinds of systems
|
Exciting 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
