So for instance in AoE 2 I liked the Goths a LOT even though they were kinda questionable, for instance. To me the difference is that a race is a theme and units are metaphors and devices used to explain and complement that theme, if that makes any sense.
Race Design vs. Game Design - Page 4
Forum Index > SC2 General |
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
So for instance in AoE 2 I liked the Goths a LOT even though they were kinda questionable, for instance. To me the difference is that a race is a theme and units are metaphors and devices used to explain and complement that theme, if that makes any sense. | ||
imEnex
Canada500 Posts
| ||
macncheezeplz
United States93 Posts
| ||
LaLuSh
Sweden2356 Posts
There will be no non-deathball vs deathball games as long as all races' incomes are conformed under the same economic ceiling. Can read more about it here and here. | ||
Entirety
1423 Posts
Still, I feel like race identity is a problem by itself, and it cannot be fixed without fixing mining first. However, fixing mining might lead to the conclusion that the races are too similar = bad gameplay. | ||
uuurbAn
United States16 Posts
| ||
yeastiality
Canada374 Posts
On January 06 2013 12:21 uuurbAn wrote: For me, it wasn't just the race which made me pick zerg. It was seeing what Jaedong was able to do in BW with mutaslisks that got me picking zerg in WoL beta (my first rts game) Same here! ...and then I found that half of this game is designed to hard-counter mutalisks so that there's no point developing skill with them | ||
Misacampo
167 Posts
| ||
Khai
Australia551 Posts
I think the same could be said of both SC2 and D3, the new Blizzard personnel decided that they wanted a make a sequel with a new identity which resulted in the loss of many attributes we enjoyed in their predecessors. | ||
lemonbone
Hong Kong154 Posts
The biggest problem is Dustin Browder T_T | ||
Felvo
United States124 Posts
| ||
DodgySmalls
Canada158 Posts
The reason we see so many games play out the way they do is because taking expansions in sc2 just isn't as important. I feel like in brood war there was a great amount of strategic depth that revolved almost entirely around the acquisition (or defense) of expansions. Race design IS important, but I would disagree that it's important in the way you present it. Every race should have a unit to fufill all the roles, every race needs some meatier units, some more fragile units, and some spellcasters. The problem is that because the game design is not the greatest, the game becomes MORE about winning battles and LESS about moving/positioning your army and expanding. This is why 45 minute brood war games were so mind blowing and exciting and 45 minute SC2 games are so utterly boring. I would say the main reason why race design is important is more about giving people something to find interest in as spectators and players (giving players a reason to cheer for one race over another etc) rather than to create a balanced game. | ||
KT(Rolster)HaunteR
Korea (South)22 Posts
On January 06 2013 06:55 decado90 wrote: They buffed the living shit out of hydras. What? All they did was give them speed off the ground. They still die to everything including hellions. | ||
YumYumGranola
Canada341 Posts
And you know Zerg don't really fight war in any conventional way so rules don't apply, they should be ultimately unstoppable unless Terran can stomp them out quickly enough. This was more true pre queen patch, and I think this did the most to destroy TvZ as the flagship matchup of SC2 | ||
Entirety
1423 Posts
On January 06 2013 14:04 YumYumGranola wrote: I really like the concept of each race having very distinct play styles, but I don't think that it's necessarily a problem if races have an identity change between games. Frankly I think SC2 Terran play style is more believable than BW. I mean really, in conventional war technology is king and the thought that Terran tanks could stand against toss technology is kind of laughable. I would more picture Terran as the scrappy race who's armies stand no chance but bravely march on and hope that Will Smith can do enough damage to the aliens base and turn the tide. And you know Zerg don't really fight war in any conventional way so rules don't apply, they should be ultimately unstoppable unless Terran can stomp them out quickly enough. This was more true pre queen patch, and I think this did the most to destroy TvZ as the flagship matchup of SC2 Is it just me, or are you advocating imbalance? o.O It seems like you encourage Terran to be underpowered ("I would more picture Terran as the scrappy race who's [sic] armies stand no chance . . .") And then you go on to say that Zerg lategame should be overpowered, so you have to kill them early. (". . . they should be ultimately unstoppable unless Terran can stomp them out quickly enough.") Sorry if that was not your intended meaning. StarCraft is a franchise, StarCraft 1 and StarCraft 2 are not so disconnected. StarCraft 1 had a plot and StarCraft 2 advances that plot. I don't think race identities should change so drastically in between StarCraft 1 and StarCraft 2 unless there is a good plot-based reason for it. For example, the Protoss clone themselves, and there are millions of clones but none of them are as strong as the original. Now there is a plot-based reason for Protoss to be the Swarmy race. | ||
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
Terran still feels "versatile (whatever that is supposed to mean, isn't that the best thing to be?)" in that they have a lot of play style options, can lift off and salvage, and can be very defensive (another thing I associate with terran). Their units (with the exception of the marine) feel about middle of the road cost-effectiveness wise as well. We all know protoss gateway units aren't what they used to be, and rely on the sentry. But colossi, high templar, and even immortals still feel like strong "power" units that are protoss-like. I do think stargate needs a bit of a buff overall to match that, but warp-ins feel like protoss to me now (is that a success on Blizzard's part?). In HotS they are starting to see better stargate units and starting to feel more like a "complete" package like terran. Zerg is the big issue at this point, imo. Really, the only things that still "feel" like zerg units to me are zerglings and mutas. Everything else is way too cost effective (potentially) to be a zerg unit. Roaches are protoss units (zealots with range basically), hydras are either amazing or crap (and have insane dps for a zerg unit), we all know infestors are a joke right now. Brood lords are basically guardians on crack. Ultras are still ok, but they have never been very representative of the race, more an exception rather than the rule. Queens are probably the best 150 minerals you can spend (they are good against everything). Basically, everything is too strong for its cost, or really the units are designed like protoss or terran units, not zerg units. And free units (which only gets worse in HotS). I don't know why Blizzard currently feels like "free units" are zerg-like, because that really means very cost-effective units (again, not zerg). There really isn't an easy way to fix this either, but hopefully we'll see more low-cost, low supply units come out in LotV. | ||
worldpeace30
United States106 Posts
edit: This does not come from somebody that hates racial differences. I think racial differences are great. I just hate when Blizzard won't change badly designed units and claim the unit "is wonderful because it fits this racial trait for the race." edit: I am not yelling at anyone I just believe this is a very delicate and potent issue that has the potential to ruin this game so I'm sorry if I come across as rude and uncaring about a nice blog. | ||
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
What is the difference between a random coalition of units and an actual race? Nothing, other than perception. Here's a great example from the above post: Zerg is the big issue at this point, imo. Really, the only things that still "feel" like zerg units to me are zerglings and mutas. Everything else is way too cost effective (potentially) to be a zerg unit. Roaches are protoss units (zealots with range basically), hydras are either amazing or crap (and have insane dps for a zerg unit), we all know infestors are a joke right now. Brood lords are basically guardians on crack. Ultras are still ok, but they have never been very representative of the race, more an exception rather than the rule. Queens are probably the best 150 minerals you can spend (they are good against everything). Basically, everything is too strong for its cost, or really the units are designed like protoss or terran units, not zerg units. And free units (which only gets worse in HotS). I don't know why Blizzard currently feels like "free units" are zerg-like, because that really means very cost-effective units (again, not zerg). There really isn't an easy way to fix this either, but hopefully we'll see more low-cost, low supply units come out in LotV. HardlyNever goes through a checklist of why every zerg unit you can name in WoL isn't a zerg unit, based on his arbitrary distinction of what is zerg and what isn't (informed by our collective memory of zerg from BW no doubt). But this amounts to complaining that you don't like the identity of zerg, not that it doesn't have its own identity...??? It's all in your head. From the perspective of a competitive game system, it doesn't really matter. From the perspective a game meant to sell copies and possibly be a spectator sport, it's certainly a problem if there is dissonance between player/viewer expectation and experience, mediated both by the hard game mechanics and all the cosmetic rubbish. And yes, I know those two things are entangled. That said, from the perspective of game design, it may be a valid criticism to say: if you set out to make a game with 3 distinct races but you don't have 3 races that feel so very unique and distinct, that's a failure. Race design isn't some foreigner TL blogger complaining that Zerg doesn't have enough swarmy units. Agreed. | ||
YumYumGranola
Canada341 Posts
On January 06 2013 15:58 Entirety wrote: Is it just me, or are you advocating imbalance? o.O It seems like you encourage Terran to be underpowered ("I would more picture Terran as the scrappy race who's [sic] armies stand no chance . . .") And then you go on to say that Zerg lategame should be overpowered, so you have to kill them early. (". . . they should be ultimately unstoppable unless Terran can stomp them out quickly enough.") Sorry if that was not your intended meaning. StarCraft is a franchise, StarCraft 1 and StarCraft 2 are not so disconnected. StarCraft 1 had a plot and StarCraft 2 advances that plot. I don't think race identities should change so drastically in between StarCraft 1 and StarCraft 2 unless there is a good plot-based reason for it. For example, the Protoss clone themselves, and there are millions of clones but none of them are as strong as the original. Now there is a plot-based reason for Protoss to be the Swarmy race. Not exactly. If a Protoss player and a Terran player tried to play in the exact same way and then the Terran got rolled every time then it doesn't really mean it's imbalanced because that just means Terran isn't playing to it's strengths. Just because F16's don't stand a chance against alien space ships doesn't mean that Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum aren't crazy OP . I was just talking about the feeling of playing Terran. I personally enjoy playing Terran the most because it always feels like you're scratching out victory against the odds by fighting scrappy. In the end it could work out that it's just as difficult to stop Terran from doing that, but that's just the feeling I get playing Terran so it can still be balanced but feel different. Just like the OP talked about, the fact that one max army is better than another doesn't make the game imbalanced any more than BW was imbalanced because 3/3 mech was monstrously powerful. | ||
AnomalySC2
United States2073 Posts
On January 06 2013 08:11 StarMoon wrote: Give me my siege tanks back! I play BW half the time because I make tanks in WoL and it makes me sad... BW Tanks would be faceroll with the easier macro of SC2. They can't make them super strong like in BW because the UI is easier, this is just the way it is. | ||
| ||