Race Design vs. Game Design - Page 8
Forum Index > SC2 General |
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
Artisian
United States115 Posts
The problem with this is that such a unit is distinctly Protoss and should not be given to the Zergs. By only giving each race the type of unit that is suited for them, this creates a separation of identity. Zerg doesn't feel like Protoss which doesn't feel like Terran. They have distinct play styles. This creates interesting gameplay, simply because two distinctly different play styles clash against each other. ... Unifying a race does not mean limiting a race's strategies. For example, make Protoss units strong and expensive, and remove Warp Gate and ridiculous mobility. Now, Protoss has a strong identity, but that does not mean every Protoss must play the same. MC can utilize the strength of Protoss units and devise great timing attacks, HerO can utilize the fact that Protoss units are strong by splitting them up and harassing - after all, even a small clump of units will be able to fend for themselves. Another Protoss (I don't know, Creator?) might favor a macro deathball style. However, no matter how you use the units, you know that Protoss units are strong and Zerg units are inherently weaker - and it is this conflict which will produce good games. I kinda feel like these two paragraphs contradict each other. Zerg has expensive units that pack a huge punch on their own, ultralisks, infestors, defilers, brood lords, and guardians to name a few. The zerg leviathan feels zergy even, and that's bigger than a mothership. I find that when each race has a style naturally dictated to them, you get a stale game that gets old as it gets solved, but when each race can play as any given style (turtle, harass, mass eco, you get the idea) but with different strong points within each (protoss has the simpler static d in photon cannons, while zerg might have the fastest harass units, and terran can get the most out of their base advantage with over saturating mules). Maybe this is just an objection to semantics, but I hate the idea of each race dictating a play style, or even a subset of play styles, because knowing that zerg can't build a deathball, or protoss can't harass (see WoL early game) makes games boring and repetitive. | ||
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On January 07 2013 20:42 Grendel wrote: Remind me of what a deathball is again then? The army I'm talking about doesn't need to be a maxed army. It's all about killing expansions, being mobile, outmacroing the opponent. Trading costINeffeciently with the opponent, but just having a superior economy. How is that even comparable with a real deathball of Infestor Brood lord, or sky toss or the mech in SC2..? And if that is a deathball, how is that any different from Broodwar where it was just about the same (Especially ZvP and TvP), with the exception of ZvT where it was all about small engagements with melee units, lurkers and defilers. I honestly don't see the difference, but call me wrong however you like.. Its not, however this is nothing like how you explained in the first post. Which seemed like a deathball consisting of lots of smaller deathballs. Regardless you still have a split up army of smaller deathballs attacking expansions. Armies in BW no matter what size, did not move in balls unless the player specifically made them to. They moved much more naturally. Deathballs existed in BW too, especially in PvP. However to move in a deathball required a lot of patience and a deathball was less mobile than a non-deathball army. However a non-deathball army would be less effective than a deathball army of the same size. Often in PvP you would have 200/200 army clashes, however the results were drastically different depending on how the protoss managed his "deathball". Often you might see a 200/200 army running across the map in a spreadout line (which is not a deathball), and you ram your deathball straight through the middle (a flank) and completely destroy your opponent, however doing this requires skill. In SC2 its the complete opposite, the skill is keeping your army spreadout. However considering BW still evolved into deathball vs deathball situations especially in lategame PvP, SC2 has just made it 100x easier to do the same thing, and progamers will want to continue doing deathball vs deathball because its the most optimal dps/defense wise. Unfortunately SC2 in its current state is not going to change, until pathing is changed. | ||
Garmer
1286 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:27 naastyOne wrote: Lol, in that case vulture, hydralisk and dragoon from BW are also exactly same. But since aperently that is all you manage to say, you may want to formulate your point better. hidra , goon and vulture the same??? i'm done sry, but i don' think you have understood how BW work | ||
NubainMuscle
South Africa423 Posts
However, to play devil's advocate, Starcraft II is set years after Starcraft: Broodwar. The races are adapting to the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents. With a little imagination it makes sense. For example, Kerrigan is a former Terran, so she is aware of how effective the very defensive, turtle style of the Terran can be. She has perhaps influenced the evolution of the Zerg race to adopt some of these characteristics. The Zerg are not as effective as a swarm as they used to be but they are infinitely more effective turtling, hoarding resources, and spreading creep to nourish their armies. Same with protoss. Protoss Broodwar units had notoriously bad control (reavers, dragoons). Now, protoss units look more "arachnoid" than before (stalkers, colossus). The units move and operate very smoothly. I'm willing to chalk these differences up to the growth and evolution of the races as they learn from their enemies. Perhaps the weak(er) 200/200 Terran armies reflect the strife and division among factions of the Terran race ;P | ||
Coffeeling
Finland250 Posts
Style is born from the utilization and player-driven emphasis of small differences. In that, I think that each race's "dragoons" are good, for example. They serve a purpose but do it with a twist. Lings and Hellions, same. But the game is so fast you don't see a lot of that. Stuff goes boom so fast trying to actually control stuff is often detrimental. That should seem like a cause for alarm. Time advantages in SC2 are so absolute they create games that feel scripted instead of player-driven. That is a big detriment to entertainment, at least for me. Likewise, you don't have to go out of your way to make Zerg swarmy in a sophisticated way like Blizz is doing. Just playable 1 supply units is enough. Zerg and bio should have a lot of stuff on the board for the grinder, and that one thing is enough for it. Most beautiful things in games are emergent and born from small nuance. Blizzard might have given up balancing by sledgehammer, but their unit designs are still just that. | ||
Nerski
United States1095 Posts
Factor 1: The increased speed of the game, which leads to faster maxing and far less time to make interesting choices on your way to that maxed army. Factor 2: The hard counter system where in you are forced to have unit X by the time your opponent can have unit Y or you die. Because of those 2 factors the insane speed of the game, and the units you 'must have' in order to survive. Choices are extremely limited and your time to make those choices is extremely limited. This doesn't hamper competition per say but it does force you down some very specific paths and takes away a lot of the identity of the races. | ||
| ||