|
This isn't really an SC2 thread. It may not really be going to be a useful thread. I have some problems with the way SC2 plays atm, but I'm not Blizzard, I'm not connected to Blizzard, and they're way better at making games than I am so lol I have ideas w/e. I'm sure issues will get fixed in expansions anyway. Thus a blog rather than another SC2 general thread.
That said, when I watch a bunch of games of Starcraft 2 I've found one major issues that repeatedly irritates me: The Sentry totally doesn't look like a Gateway unit. It's a cyber core gateway unit that looks like a robo unit, is a caster, and is available early game. Wait, what?
So we have, item: the Sentry looks weird.
We also have, incidentally, item: the immortal is a super-goon. (It's a bird! It's a plane! Why the hell is an Immortal parachuting down from that skyscraper?!?!)
Hold those thoughts.
As I was contemplating this, and comparing the new thing to Brood War, I discovered the problem with SC2. And while I don't mean to be a pompous ass, I really do mean THE problem. I really think it's the biggest issue at the moment. Got that? Here it is: one of the fundamental principles of game design that, as much as anything else, was probably responsible for Brood War's success was the Law of 1-to-1. 1 building, 1 unit unlocked. I can think of exactly five(ish) exceptions:
1) Academy - Firebat + Medic. This didn't matter because firebats weren't used much. Medic + Comsat might actually be the more important exception here.
2) Armory - Goliath + Valkyrie. This doesn't really count because valkyries and goliaths aren't used together like, ever (discounting some weird TvZ mech builds), plus the whole starport thing.
3) Archives - Dark Templar and High Templar. This counts, but note two things: first, the result is that DTs are available at a "cheese" timing because of this, and second, HT require storm to be any use at all.
4) Stargate - Scout and Corsair. This totally doesn't matter because scouts have been used seriously like twice in the last 10 years of Brood War.
5a) Spire - Mutalisk and Scourge. This is the only instance that was 1) designed into the original (not the expansion) and 2) sees frequent use (if mainly in ZvZ) - which mainly goes to show that Zerg is weird.
5b) Greater Spire - Guardians and Devourers. Neither is used very often; almost never are both used at the same time (Hive ZvZ or one of those hour-long PvZs are the only things I can think of).
So, five exceptions, one-ish but a maximum of three (Medic+Comsat, DT+HT, Muta+Scourge) that actually matter. Hokay.
Let's start listing the violations in SC2:
1) Cybernetics Core - Stalker and Sentry. Both used extensively.
2) Stargate - Phoenix and Void Ray. Both used extensively.
3) Robotics Bay - Immortal, Phase Prism, and Observer. PP actually isn't used widely yet, but that will probably change. Obs is duh. Immortal well yeah.
4) Fleet Beacon - Carrier and Mothership. Neither used that often that I'm aware of.
5) Barracks with Tech Lab - Marauder and Reaper. At current patch, used in very different situations, Reaper not used widely.
5a) Tech Lab - Marauder, Reaper, Tank. Kind of counts because of add-on switches.
6) Starport - Medivac and Viking. Both used widely and at the same time.
7) Starport with Tech Lab - Raven and Banshee. Both are fairly common although the Raven less so.
8) Spawning Pool - Zergling and Queen. Kind of only half counts because Queen is necessary to Zerg macro, though anti-air means it does count. Meh.
9) Spire - Mutalisk and Corruptor. As in BW this only kind of counts.
This is 9 violations of the Code, and at least 6 affect common gameplay (Core, Stargate, Robo, Barracks w/Lab, Starport, and throw the other possibles but mainly the Starport w/Lab in for a 6th).
Being as kind as possible to SC2, and as mean as possible to BW, SC2 has twice as many violations as BW. Does this affect gameplay? Why yes, I think it does. So let's play with our tech trees a little bit to see if we can fix things. Protoss is the easiest IMO.
+ Show Spoiler [Key] +I'm terrible at trying to draw with ASCII so I went with LOGIC! To read the charts:
THEN means there are going to be a bunch of options unlocked by the previous building
OR means one of those branches on the tree - as in robo or stargate or templar. Refers back to building before THEN
AND means a branch on a branch - refers back to next to latest building.
Yes, I realize it's a little confusing. May have to make Paint renditions?
+ Show Spoiler [Redone Protoss Tech Tree] +Gateway - Unlocks Zealot
|
|
Cyber Core - Unlocks Stalker
THEN
|
|
Dark Shrine* - Unlocks Blink, Warp Gates
OR
|
|
Citadel of Adun - Unlocks Immortal**
|
|
Templar Archives - Unlocks High Templar (W/Dark Shrine Unlocks Dark Templar)
OR
|
|
Robotics Facility - Unlocks Phase Prism
|
|
Robotics Bay - Unlocks Colossus
AND
|
|
Observatory** - Unlocks Sentry, Observer
OR
|
|
Stargate - Unlocks Phoenix (With Dark Shrine Unlocks Void Ray)
|
|
Fleet Beacon - Unlocks Carrier, Mothership * Yes, I make the Dark Shrine a lynch pin of a lot of the tech tree. But think about it... fits in beautifully with the BW storyline, loss of Aiur, etc. All the new Protoss tech is DT tech: this is the way it should be. ** I don't care what Blizzard's fluff says atm, the Immortal looks like a goon and doesn't make sense as a robo unit. Citadel was always an excuse to delay Templar tech anyway instead of a useful building, so make it good for something. Dark Shrine can take the place of the Citadel in the new tree. *** TBH I just don't like the Sentry and I think it's a stupid unit. But if you're going to have a caster with attack it should be a lategame unit. I also think taking the Observatory out of the game was dumb... so put it back in and with a name like "Sentry" that fits right in there. Beef it up if you have to to justify the new tech position. Or if you have to scrap the observatory and keep it scrapped, put obs in the facility and sentry in the bay. Yes, you're going to have to patch Zeal/Stalker so Protoss can hold early game pushes. Your point?
Next up, Terran: while the add-on advancements are a logical progression from Brood War, they end up pushing too much stuff up the tech tree too early. Let's try something a little different:
+ Show Spoiler [Redone Terran Tech Tree] +Barracks (can build Reactor)
THEN
|
|
Tech Lab for Barracks - Unlocks Reaper, Nitro Packs research
|
|
Ghost Academy* - Unlocks Ghost
OR
|
|
Factory - Unlocks Hellion, Marauder**
THEN
|
|
Tech Lab for Factory - Unlocks Tank, Concussive Shells (Barracks add-on)
Siege, Blue Flame
|
|
Armory - Unlocks Thor
OR
|
|
Starport - Unlocks Viking
|
|
Tech Lab for Starport - Unlocks Medivac***, Banshee
AND
|
|
Fusion Core - Unlocks Raven****
|
|
Tech Lab for Core - Unlocks Battlecruiser * Because seriously how does Ghost go from being ultimate tech on Terran tree to Tier 2? At least delay a little for plausibility... also this way you can have nukes that actually do serious damage without breaking the early game. **The Marauder would still build at the barracks. Might need to fiddle with this - needs a reactor to build a Marauder? Can only build one at a time from each Barracks with or without reactor? *** Or maybe doesn't need the Tech Lab, whatever. **** Whatever happened to the Science Facility? This isn't streamlining the game, it's sort of squashing it into a shape we thought we wanted.
Zerg... I actually don't have any comments about Zerg. But I think if you fix the other two tech trees, since Zerg stuck to the 1-to-1 principle best in the new game anyway most of the problems Zergs have been whining about would "magically" disappear.
 
|
hmm actually i kind of like this... unfortunatly all other responses following this are probably gonna be negative
|
Actually, the Immortal was a Gateway tech unit back in the SC2 alpha while the Sentry was Robo tech. Early development videos of SC2 show Immortals being warped in from Warpgates, and the animation still exists in the game's files.
However, the Sentry was too weak to be so high up in the tech tree as a Robo unit, and the Immortal was too powerful to be a Gateway unit, so they switched places. Also, Immortals being a Gateway unit means that they can be mass warped in when Warpgate is researched, which may be imbalanced considering how powerful they are. Even with stat tweaks, their Hardened Shields still make them really difficult to kill at any stage of the game. Making them Robo units limits their production even though it doesn't make sense lore-wise.
Also, moving the Sentry up the tech tree and buffing Zealots and Stalkers may not be too great of an idea. Zealot and Stalker buffs for early game survival may lead to late game imbalance, where having a larger army of them greatly multiplies the effects of the buff and may make them too powerful. Also, the Sentry's abilities are designed for early and mid game survival and pressure, and moving them up the tech tree too much may cause them to be underused, especially since there are better high-tech units for the gas to be invested in.
In addition, forcing an observatory to be required for observer production makes it too difficult for the Protoss to get decent mid-game scouting. A major problem in SC2 is the power of 1-base all-ins and harassment builds that, when not scouted, can be way more devastating than anything found in BW. Forcing an Observatory makes the game much more volatile by limiting Protoss scouting options and causing them to be much more vulnerable to powerful, unscouted mid-game builds. In fact, there used to be quite a few people on TL, including Idra, who wanted to counter SC2's early/mid-game volatility by creating easier scouting, one of which was to move the observer down to Cyber tech.
As far as the changes to the Terran tech tree go, I disagree with the changes to the Marauder and Raven.
Considering that the Cyber Core and the Roach Warren are already very cheap tech buildings at 150 minerals each, requiring the more expensive Factory for Marauder production does seem to make Terran early and mid games more vulnerable, especially against Roach or Stalker pushes. Also, it would become too gas-heavy to quickly tech to Marauder due to the combined gas prices of the Factory, Tech Lab (or Reactor), and Marauder itself.
In addition, the Raven is quite important for detecting and defending against the plethora of mid-game cloak play in all matchups, such as from Banshees, burrowed Roaches, and DTs. Yes, Terran has scan, but it is extremely easy for greedy MULE use to completely use up any Scan energy and lead to terrible, terrible damage from any harassment from cloaked units. Considering that the Protoss gets observers straight from the Robo and Zerg gets Overseers straight out of Lair tech, it would be unfair for Terran to have their mobile detection be so high up in the tech tree.
Also, the existence of many more mid-game spellcasters, such as the Sentry and Infestor, means that Terran needs to be able to tech to Ghosts earlier to counter them with EMP.
Nevertheless, I do agree that the Terran tech tree in SC2 looks a bit wonky compared to BW, probably due to the Tech Lab mechanic being so prominent. However, I disagree with the Raven change and would suggest that the Banshee be changed to the Fusion Core instead, especially considering that Terran already has a myriad of effective harassment openers.
|
1) Academy - Firebat + Medic. This didn't matter because firebats weren't used much. Medic + Comsat might actually be the more important exception here.
If you are going for a sunk break build, my recollection is that medics and firebats are pretty common, as well as a quick scan of the sunk line before going in, or deciding to back off.
|
Also firebats are used cause they arent affected by Dark Swarm
Honestly I think you're way off. I don't think this would improve the way the game feels or plays at all. It would be a big change for sure but honestly I kinda doubt it would even be balanced, Protoss is just terrible early game without sentries. really terrible. I don't even understand why it's not okay to have an early game caster unit.
|
You are wrong on the spire point, Mutas AND Scourge are used in every MU together. And High Templar are useful before the storm in PvZ, there is a whole build around it (4 gate 2 archon). Also DTs can be used when a hole in the defense is noed, not only or cheese.
Aside from that, I can kinda see where you are going, but I cannot say I am 100% in favor of it, because there is a wide variety of units compared to SC1 and the change might make the game tedious. You should do a custom map where you have implemented those changes and see how the game plays out
|
You have adequately explained the difference between SC2 and BW in that BW has less buildings that unlock multiple units.
What you have not explained is why this is a bad thing in SC2.
|
On April 11 2011 12:31 Mortician wrote:
You are wrong on the spire point, Mutas AND Scourge are used in every MU together. And High Templar are useful before the storm in PvZ, there is a whole build around it (4 gate 2 archon). Also DTs can be used when a hole in the defense is noed, not only or cheese.
Point. Though as it happens I did list the HT+Dt as one of the "real" violations of the rule.
On April 11 2011 12:22 CDRdude wrote:
If you are going for a sunk break build, my recollection is that medics and firebats are pretty common, as well as a quick scan of the sunk line before going in, or deciding to back off.
On April 11 2011 12:31 Turgid wrote:
Also firebats are used cause they arent affected by Dark Swarm
I didn't think about the sunken break, although that's one of those things that falls in and out of use as habits, maps, and playstyles cycle. I did consider late-game firebats but at that point it doesn't really count as "new" tech.
On to the misguided/misreading criticism (probably my own fault for being unclear):
On April 11 2011 12:31 Turgid wrote:
Honestly I think you're way off. I don't think this would improve the way the game feels or plays at all. It would be a big change for sure but honestly I kinda doubt it would even be balanced, Protoss is just terrible early game without sentries. really terrible. I don't even understand why it's not okay to have an early game caster unit.
Several possible ways to address this here.
1) Sentries are the #2 (behind Colossus) unit accused of making Protoss imba now.
2) Yes, it would be a big change and the game would have to be rebalanced a bunch.
3) I'm not objecting to a caster per se, but to the multiple-unlock characteristic of SC2.
And on that subject:
On April 11 2011 12:31 Mortician wrote:
Aside from that, I can kinda see where you are going, but I cannot say I am 100% in favor of it, because there is a wide variety of units compared to SC1 and the change might make the game tedious.
This is simply inaccurate. To take one example:
Brood War Protoss: Zealot, Dragoon, Scout, Corsair, Carrier, Arbiter, High Templar, Dark Templar, Archon, Dark Archon, Shuttle, Reaver, Observer (14)
SC2 Protoss: Zealot, Stalker, Sentry, Phoenix, Void Ray, Carrier, Mothership, High Templar, Dark Templar, Archon, Phase Prism, Observer, Immortal, Colossus (14)
And lest we think this is just a Protoss thing:
Brood War Terran: Marine, Firebat, Medic, Vulture, Siege Tank, Goliath, Wraith, Dropship, Valkyrie, Science Vessel, Battlecruiser, Ghost (13)
SC2 Terran: Marine, Reaper, Marauder, Ghost, Hellion, Siege Tank, Thor, Viking, Medivac, Banshee, Raven, Battlecruiser (12)
And just to be perfectly clear:
Brood War Zerg: Zergling, Hydralisk, Lurker, Mutalisk, Scourge, Queen, Infested Terran, Defiler, Ultralisk, Guardian, Devourer (11)
SC2 Zerg: Zergling, Queen, Baneling, Hydralisk, Roach, Mutalisk, Corrupter, Infestor, Ultralisk, Brood Lord, Overseer (11)
The number of units hasn't changed at all. Now, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "variety". It's possible you could argue that SC2 has the same number of units but less overlap/more used regularly (a prime example might be no sair/scout issue in SC2 atm), but I don't think SC2 has developed far enough to compare for certain. Obviously there are a bunch of different units but I don't think that that necessarily means the overall diversity is increased. 3+5 = 2+6 even though I'm using different numbers.
Which brings me to:
On April 11 2011 13:39 Dhalphir wrote:
You have adequately explained the difference between SC2 and BW in that BW has less buildings that unlock multiple units.
What you have not explained is why this is a bad thing in SC2.
I don't know if it's going to be a bad thing in the long term. However, the basic issue I have is that on the risk/reward scale it means that, across the board (except for Zerg basically) teching is the way to go because you're getting more for less. It essentially removes the point of harassing with "a" zealot. It forces the entire game towards mid- and late-game armies and harass, when it happens, being mainly with tech units. Whether or not that's really going to be a bad thing remains to be seen. Whether or not it will stay that way, or if there are timings that will be found where early game units are useful by themselves, remains to be seen... but right now they're not (except for cheese, about which well it's cheese).
On April 11 2011 12:31 Mortician wrote:
You should do a custom map where you have implemented those changes and see how the game plays out
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
If you dont know if this is a bad thing in the long term, why would you define this as THE problem of SC2? There are many other ''problems'' that SC2 encounters, this certainly does not look like a big one, you haven't even acknowledged it self as a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
