|
On June 12 2026 05:01 ProTech wrote:
In theory, a slowed down game should cater to lower tiers of play, at least that's how it was from 1998 - 2015
my sister-in-law loves the lore and the campaign. At best, she was a Gold level player in 1v1s. She preferred the slowed down game. She quit playing 1v1 after the LOTV expansion. She continued to play 2v2s with me in the WoL mode until Blizzard merged the different ladders 2v2s into 1.
i prefer the C&C "fast and fluid" feel that develops out of LotV's higher worker count. However, if they slow down the economy with this patch i'll give it a shot
|
On June 12 2026 05:58 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 05:01 ProTech wrote:
In theory, a slowed down game should cater to lower tiers of play, at least that's how it was from 1998 - 2015
my sister-in-law loves the lore and the campaign. At best, she was a Gold level player in 1v1s. She preferred the slowed down game. She quit playing 1v1 after the LOTV expansion. She continued to play 2v2s with me in the WoL mode until Blizzard merged the different ladders 2v2s into 1. i prefer the C&C "fast and fluid" feel that develops out of LotV's higher worker count. However, if they slow down the economy with this patch i'll give it a shot
Right, and I think that gamers in RTS on average share a similar perspective. AOE franchise is doing extraordinarily well and I think a very large portion of that player base are Starcraft gamers that simply made the switch NOT because they think SC is bad, but because the way that LoTV is designed is extremely bad for a casual experience.
And what Blizzard got wrong for a very VERY long time is trying to cater more to the e-sports scene rather than catering to actual players, which is what resulted in its overall demise.
|
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision
|
Whack a Mole balance design is actually a perfect way to describe this lol, well played.
|
On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision
The main reason why this has been so difficult is because of the eco changes IMO. High eco start is absolutely TERRIBLE for any RTS, and most of the games on the market do not have this type of non-sense.
|
Northern Ireland27405 Posts
On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision
It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years.
I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat.
|
On June 15 2026 07:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years. I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat.
and yes I agree broadly speaking, that the balance in terms of unit interactions are pretty good at the moment. it's just the economy that has made the game pretty unfun for the better part of a decade.
however, things like free siege mode, and free injecting will probably have to be patched, as these are macro mechanics designed for the influx in eco.
|
On June 15 2026 09:21 ProTech wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2026 07:59 WombaT wrote:On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years. I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat. and yes I agree broadly speaking, that the balance in terms of unit interactions are pretty good at the moment. it's just the economy that has made the game pretty unfun for the better part of a decade. however, things like free siege mode, and free injecting will probably have to be patched, as these are macro mechanics designed for the influx in eco.
Remember the LotV design choices did not come from nothing! I can vividly remember how WoL and HotS e-sport matches started with casters struggling to fill the time when the players made nothing but buildings and workers. Also, kids nowdays want to get right into the action, even the LotV speedrun eco feels slow by today's standards; kids want to be bombed with impressions and earn millions right off the bat, did anyone play "Steel a Brainrot"?
Siege mode and injects won't ever be patched, as you would have to redesign the entire game. Starbow and another MOD were moderately successful some point, feel free to make another one!
|
On June 15 2026 09:21 ProTech wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2026 07:59 WombaT wrote:On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years. I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat. it's just the economy that has made the game pretty unfun for the better part of a decade.
I think I asked you this before and I don't remember getting an answer, so I will try again: Why exactly are you playing a game for a decade that has been "pretty unfun"?
|
a 3-race, diverse race game with interesting combat starting as quickly as possible along with 3 balanced factions/races is a hard problem. i don't think it'll ever be "solved". i want diverse races so i will have to tolerate imbalance.
If some guy who is technically 10% worse than me defeats me.. meh. who cares. Flip that around and again... who cares.
Fun > Balance
On June 15 2026 15:29 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2026 09:21 ProTech wrote:On June 15 2026 07:59 WombaT wrote:On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years. I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat. and yes I agree broadly speaking, that the balance in terms of unit interactions are pretty good at the moment. it's just the economy that has made the game pretty unfun for the better part of a decade. however, things like free siege mode, and free injecting will probably have to be patched, as these are macro mechanics designed for the influx in eco. Remember the LotV design choices did not come from nothing! I can vividly remember how WoL and HotS e-sport matches started with casters struggling to fill the time when the players made nothing but buildings and workers. Also, kids nowdays want to get right into the action, even the LotV speedrun eco feels slow by today's standards; kids want to be bombed with impressions and earn millions right off the bat, did anyone play "Steel a Brainrot"? Siege mode and injects won't ever be patched, as you would have to redesign the entire game. Starbow and another MOD were moderately successful some point, feel free to make another one!
i prefer the first 3 minutes of any Red Alert 3 or C&C 3 game over Starcraft Brood War. SC:BW is one of the best games ever made, however, the first 90 seconds are boring. Blizzard tried to make the very start of an SC2 game fun. Both Browder and Morten came from C&C so its no big surprise they were amenable to a faster start. David Kim was a CoH guy I think and that game starts faster as well. Hell look at Battle Aces.. that'll tell you how important a fast start is to a game in the eyes of David Kim. I'm not surprised guys like Browder, Kim, and Morten opted for a faster start.
It is fascinating how our generation tolerates those first few minutes of boredom and yet hte Boomers and Gen-Zers will have none of it. They want instant action the second they touch the controls. Hell, the boomers and Gen-Zers don't want to put up with load times... never mind matchfinding times and update patches.
|
LotV was definitely the start of battle aces, they tried to make the jump into the game instantaneous and even removed macro boosters, to be a much more micro oriented game. They might've had internal disagreements because just before dkim left blizzard they did a big patch in 2017 to revert the game to become more similar to hots. This was an increase in mineral patches, and trying to improve turtling, giving back the stationary but much more powerful siege tank, as opposed to the micro intensive flying siege tank.
|
On June 15 2026 19:46 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2026 09:21 ProTech wrote:On June 15 2026 07:59 WombaT wrote:On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years. I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat. it's just the economy that has made the game pretty unfun for the better part of a decade. I think I asked you this before and I don't remember getting an answer, so I will try again: Why exactly are you playing a game for a decade that has been "pretty unfun"?
starcraft is starcraft, I enjoy piloting the races, and what I play specifically is not balanced at all. figuring out ways to make imbalance work is what I find fun. this however does not change the fact that LOTV is the absolute worst iteration of starcraft we've ever seen since 1998, and i firmly believe its because of the escalated economy.
|
On June 15 2026 15:29 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2026 09:21 ProTech wrote:On June 15 2026 07:59 WombaT wrote:On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years. I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat. and yes I agree broadly speaking, that the balance in terms of unit interactions are pretty good at the moment. it's just the economy that has made the game pretty unfun for the better part of a decade. however, things like free siege mode, and free injecting will probably have to be patched, as these are macro mechanics designed for the influx in eco. Remember the LotV design choices did not come from nothing! I can vividly remember how WoL and HotS e-sport matches started with casters struggling to fill the time when the players made nothing but buildings and workers. Also, kids nowdays want to get right into the action, even the LotV speedrun eco feels slow by today's standards; kids want to be bombed with impressions and earn millions right off the bat, did anyone play "Steel a Brainrot"? Siege mode and injects won't ever be patched, as you would have to redesign the entire game. Starbow and another MOD were moderately successful some point, feel free to make another one!
its defintely rumored that that was the main reason for the echo changes which is bat-shit crazy tbh.
i dont know how things will evolve and change as time goes on but i do speculate things like i mentioned will have to get patched.
|
On June 15 2026 15:29 Slydie wrote:
Remember the LotV design choices did not come from nothing! I can vividly remember how WoL and HotS e-sport matches started with casters struggling to fill the time when the players made nothing but buildings and workers.
I would say that's a caster issue, more than anything. And hell, ever tried watching something like pro LoL or DotA? Especially in the former, there are huge chunks of downtime even well into the game!
Also, kids nowdays want to get right into the action, even the LotV speedrun eco feels slow by today's standards; kids want to be bombed with impressions and earn millions right off the bat, did anyone play "Steel a Brainrot"?
As someone who has kids and has played a bit of one or two "Steal a X" games (there are many varieties, all essentially clones), they are a completely different genre and a completely useless comparison here. It's also not as much a generation-specific thing as you suggest. Idle/clicker/simulator games that are all about rapidly increasing numbers and chasing the next bit of dopamine from an upgrade are marketed to all ages in the mobile sphere. You got kids playing Steal a Brainrot and you got parents playing Eatventure, both are ticking the same primordial brain boxes.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate your overall point about attention spans, but I think it's overstated.
Siege mode and injects won't ever be patched, as you would have to redesign the entire game. Starbow and another MOD were moderately successful some point, feel free to make another one!
I agree with this though, we have powerful editors that allow us the ability to borrow well-made engines to do our thing. I never properly figured out SC2's, but it was always my dream to make my own newly-balanced races in WC3, and if WC3 Reforged hadn't been such a terrible failure I would've bought it and gone back and made another attempt :D
--------------------
The thing few people seem to talk about in these discussions is gamefeel, what the player brings to the experience. Building up a base is innately fun when you have to work to do it. Everyone always talks like something going a bit slowly is "bad design" and "not respecting the player's time" and yet there are millions of people hitting a few numbers on their keyboard in a set rhythm they could do in their sleep (or don't need to do close to perfectly) to kill the latest trash mob in their MMO of choice. There are millions of people playing gacha games where the base "gameplay" only barely strings together the next chance to acquire waifu/husbando. If the player has a goal, they are happy to do things to work towards that goal, even if they are repetitive or slow or simple. The first minutes of a low-econ-start Starcraft game are like that.
When you're on a tl.net and we're all discussing the toppest tier gameplay of the pros that we strive to be or live vicariously through, this gets lost. Pros who can execute the first two minutes essentially perfect every time (or invent new hyper-optimised gameplay like mineral boosting) might find it tedious, but you don't have pro players in a well-funded scene without a broadly fun game, and those casuals need that "building up" feeling. "no rush 20" might be lol here, but it's real.
A good RTS game should have a bit of Sim City feel in it. No, not 심시티, the feeling of creating a base. The funny thing is, BW has a higher skill ceiling, and yet it also appeals better to noobs because those players have simple things they can do to feel productive. You get in a SC2 game with the modern eco and all your workers go mine for you, you have less time before a rush is potentially coming for you, and while yes you will still be building up a base, now it's all so streamlined that the only skill you can demonstrate in building up your base is knowing precise build orders to not get left behind. Which is the least fun part of playing an RTS casually and mostly consists of Google.
You are also even more encouraged to do unintuitive-for-noobs things like instantly expand. No I'm not like, super anti-automine or MBS or whatever. I just think a lot of "game design" talk misses how gameplay feels, misses the idea of push and pull, etc. I don't think the macro mechanics were ever quite as "tactile" for noobs to serve as a replacement for the improved worker AI and automation that came with the SC2 engine. Or, to put it slightly differently, awful tank controls added something to the horror of Resident Evil and manually telling your workers what to do adds something to the "base building" feeling of an RTS that makes them satisfying to a broader group of people than just the hyper competitive micro/macro gods. And going to a jumpstarted economy takes even more of this away.
Are we really arguing that saving viewers a few minutes where commentators have to come up with something interesting to say (like, I dunno, building up narratives about the game being played?) is worth stripping out one of the big things that made these games so broadly appealing in the past? I don't think you even have an esports scene if you don't grab the beginners who can aspire to the pros.
If we want the RTS genre to be jumpstarted, you know, mainstream again, I actually think something that recaptures the base building feeling and draws people in with a good campaign is the blueprint. The perfect version of a Battle Aces* game might be the best way to draw in the already RTSpilled crowd, but I don't think it's the approach to try to unite n00bs and gosus in loving a game, the way we could back in the Brood War days.
* I have not played Battle Aces so I might be talking out my ass here especially.
And if my thinking really all is just driven by nostalgia, then maybe the genre truly is not coming off of life support after all =(
|
Northern Ireland27405 Posts
I think an underrated factor as to RTS popularity is simply how good veterans are at these games nowadays.
With that comes optimisation and an almost inevitable decline in variability
I see this in other genres too, but I think it’s particularly impactful in RTS because a chief appeal is meant to be in outhinking and out scheming your opponents
|
On June 16 2026 10:48 Turbovolver wrote:
That doesn't necessarily invalidate your overall point about attention spans, but I think it's overstated.
Also, the child brain naturally has a shorter attention span. It is a standard part of brain development.
Ritalin use has gone way up since 1980 and I think that's bad.
|
in my honest opinion, we should have gone even further. start with 6 workers, and either:
add 1 unit / race, or add 3 units (e.g. 1 at barracks 1 at factory 1 at starport). there are enough units in campaign to get inspiration from.
game needs a complete shake up to make it not feel scripted when watching.
also would give the new blood a chance against those 16 yo grinding mechanical dinosaurs that dominate the scene.
|
On June 17 2026 04:52 mathphyswithvic wrote:
in my honest opinion, we should have gone even further. start with 6 workers, and either:
add 1 unit / race, or add 3 units (e.g. 1 at barracks 1 at factory 1 at starport). there are enough units in campaign to get inspiration from.
game needs a complete shake up to make it not feel scripted when watching.
also would give the new blood a chance against those 16 yo grinding mechanical dinosaurs that dominate the scene.
Yeah i don't really understand the logic behind 8 workers, doesn't really make sense. My guess is some random attempt to see what it's like. 4 --> 6 --> 12 --> 8
but who knows.
|
On June 15 2026 07:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years. I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat.
So regarding balance, I quite disagree.
People have the false impression that if winrate is ~50% it is a balanced game (yay mathematics, nay logic).
MMR system is designed in this way, so in no way having 50% winrate across the board implies it is a balanced game.
Let us do a gedankenexperiment (thought experiment), albeit exagerated:
Imagine this: every time you get over 50% winrate vs Terran, you face Maru, and quite suddenly the MMR SYSTEM humbles your over 50% winrate by making you lose (well what you expect vs Maru?), and return back to 50%.
While this experiment is purely imaginary, the idea stands. Unless you are top top or bottom bottom you will hover around 50% win rate and this is where majority of ladder hovers. Moreover, it is not indicative of game balance, at all.
edit1: p.s. in my opinion, the only metric that truly shows balance, is tournament wins.
|
On June 17 2026 14:00 mathphyswithvic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2026 07:59 WombaT wrote:On June 14 2026 18:46 Drahkn wrote:
SC2 balance has never truly been addressed, they have played wack a mole since release and to scared of major redesign and did easy quick fixes throughout its lifespan. Only a true redesign and major changes like adding or removing units will put this game where it should be. Needs a new vision It is quite a bloody well-balanced game with genuine factional assymetry, and has been for years. I do agree there’s been some scope for more radical design changes for quite some time, 100% on board there, but I think one can also neglect the former somewhat. So regarding balance, I quite disagree. People have the false impression that if winrate is ~50% it is a balanced game (yay mathematics, nay logic). MMR system is designed in this way, so in no way having 50% winrate across the board implies it is a balanced game. Let us do a gedankenexperiment (thought experiment), albeit exagerated: Imagine this: every time you get over 50% winrate vs Terran, you face Maru, and quite suddenly the MMR SYSTEM humbles your over 50% winrate by making you lose (well what you expect vs Maru?), and return back to 50%. While this experiment is purely imaginary, the idea stands. Unless you are top top or bottom bottom you will hover around 50% win rate and this is where majority of ladder hovers. Moreover, it is not indicative of game balance, at all. edit1: p.s. in my opinion, the only metric that truly shows balance, is tournament wins.
no casual player base, no pro scene. it's a pretty bad idea to try and balance the game around the pro scene. while I do agree that tournament metrics are pretty much the only indication of balance, if you want the game to succeed you better be making it fun for the casual player base, not the top .0000001% playerbase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
