By the way, please do not bring balance discussion or hateful BW vs. SC2 discussion into this. Thank you.
Race Design
One thing that's been weighing heavily on my mind is the concept of race design. That is, how is a race designed? What central themes unify the entire race? What is the difference between a random coalition of units and an actual race?
We all know how each race is supposed to feel like.
Terran: The Terran humans are rugged and adaptable. They love their big guns and heavy machinery, probably because without these assets, the Terrans would surely meet their demise. They are not many in number (like the Zerg) and they are not particularly strong when alone (like the Protoss).
Protoss: The Protoss aliens are advanced beyond our imagination. Each Protoss unit is costly, but that means their units are the strongest around (a Zealot beats a Marine and a Zergling, etc.). They heavily utilize psionic powers such as their Pylon matrix and High Templars casting Storms. Each unit is so precious to them that even the Zealots are teleported out of the battlefield before they die.
Zerg: The Zerg is the Swarm, filled with many fast low-cost units. An individual Zergling will not be able to accomplish much, but 1,000 Zerglings might. Each Zergling is a speedy little critter and entire Zerg armies descend upon you rapidly with little warning. They require no technology, only the pinnacle of evolution itself.
This is what Zerg should look like.
Where did these "race designs" come from? Well, the answer lies in the game's predecessor - StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War. For the most part, Blizzard has been sticking to these race designs, but recently, I have started to notice a disturbing trend. The Loss of Identity
In a post by a fellow TeamLiquider, he or she mentioned that in Heart of the Swarm, Terran needs to play more like a Zerg. My mind immediately jumped to this conclusion: Terrans must rush to the lategame as fast as possible, power their economy, then build a super slow and powerful deathball army. In other words, I have begun to identify Zerg as the slow, expensive army. Obviously, this is due to the Infestor/Brood Lord/Corrupter army that is so popular in Wings of Liberty.
What about Protoss? Well, it is true that their army still consists of the fewest number of units. However, I'm sure many of you have experienced this - their units just feel more fragile than their Brood War counterparts. In Brood War, I could trust a Dragoon (well, I wouldn't trust it to move, but you get the point...) but in StarCraft II, I feel like the Stalker is so fragile. I'm scared to have a Stalker face a Roach, I'm scared to have a Stalker face a Marauder. Many arguments have been made about how the Warpgate research leads to weaker Gateway units, but the point is this: I have begun to identify Protoss units as fragile, they are not strong enough by themselves. They need numbers (such as a Blink Stalker timing that overwhelms the Zerg) or heavy support (Colossus, Templars, Archons, Motherships, oh my!).
Finally, there is Terran. It is hard to comment about Terran because the play styles are so diverse, from mech to bio to biomech to sky to skymech to biosky. Many people agree that Blizzard designed the Terran race best, although many also complain that Terran can be "fixed" through changes such as increased Tank damage. Certainly, Siege Tanks are not as strong anymore - if I have a decent number of Zealots or Zerglings, I feel comfortable attacking directly into a Tank line.
Balance and game design are two important aspects of the game. Without balance, a competitive progaming scene and the casual ladder scene suffer greatly, with certain races becoming foolish choices or the outcome of a match being decided at the very start. Without good game design, the game is doomed as a spectator scene - for example, if the only viable unit for Terran was the Viking and every TvT was just a battle of who could get more Vikings out, would you still enjoy TvT? Race Design Leads to Game Design
Yet I contend that another equally important aspect of the game is race design. When I play Zerg, I should feel like a Swarm, not a moving bulldozer. In fact, I believe that race design is even more important than game design because the unique identities of each race lead to good game design.
Those who promote good game design might encourage the addition of a strong, expensive unit to the Zerg arsenal. This unit might promote good micro and positioning, might increase defender's advantage, might encourage multitasking, might break up the deathball, etc. In other words, this unit might be ideal for game design.
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.
There are a lot of complaints about deathball vs. deathball fights. However, what about Brood War TvP? Many people would praise Brood War TvP, and the dynamic is slightly different. In Brood War TvP, the Terran builds what is essentially a deathball - a doom army of Siege Tanks, although there is much positioning and strategy involved. The Protoss must be everywhere on the map, relentlessly expanding, and overwhelming the Terran with numbers. Thus, Brood War TvP is slightly different - it's not deathball vs. deathball, but rather deathball vs. non-deathball.
Perhaps it's not the deathball which makes gameplay uninteresting, but the prevalence of deathball vs. deathball in every game. Right now, each race can create a deathball, leading to tons and tons of games which are deathball clashes. However, what if the entire Zerg race was designed to be fast-moving and low cost, forcing them to abandon the deathball style? Then half of the games (ZvT, ZvZ, ZvP) would look different, and perhaps more interesting to watch.
Maybe we wouldn't have to see this every game...
If every race were very different from each other, then every non-mirror matchup would become a clash of play styles. In turn, the mirror matchups would become more interesting, even the "deathball race" mirror matchup, because we wouldn't see deathball vs. deathball every single game, only in one matchup.
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.
Disclaimer: This post is just my opinion, I am not an expert game designer so I do not pretend to hold all the answers. I am just presenting this opinion in hopes of starting a community discussion.
Poll: How important is race design to you?
Very important - I chose X race because I wanted to play a certain way! (765)
80%
Important, but not as important as balance/game design (155)
16%
Not important at all (18)
2%
Slightly important - I guess Zerg Colossi would feel weird (13)
1%
951 total votes
Your vote: How important is race design to you?
(Vote): Not important at all (Vote): Slightly important - I guess Zerg Colossi would feel weird (Vote): Important, but not as important as balance/game design (Vote): Very important - I chose X race because I wanted to play a certain way!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote: I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
Initially I -didn't- vote "Very important - I chose X race because I wanted to play a certain way!" but the more I think about it, the more I should have voted for that. I play Terran, and when i'm not Terran (like in HOTS im Zerg) I'm trying to play the mobile Terran playstyle with Roach Hydra Viper.
On January 06 2013 06:58 Sajaki wrote: Initially I -didn't- vote "Very important - I chose X race because I wanted to play a certain way!" but the more I think about it, the more I should have voted for that. I play Terran, and when i'm not Terran (like in HOTS im Zerg) I'm trying to play the mobile Terran playstyle with Roach Hydra Viper.
I used to just dabble around casually with random. Then I fell in love with SC's heavy marine/tank timing attack style, where he would trade armies repeatedly, barely coming ahead cost effectively, until he withered his opponent down and finished him with a final push.
But then, with the Queen buff, Zerg gets free full 3 base saturation every game and timing attacks became highly ineffective. Timings were the reason I picked Terran, late game 200/200 battles never really appealed to me.
The new medivacs help a lot with mid game aggression in HOTS, but I agree with you that Zerg has become more Terran than Terran in HOTS.
Good post, agree on what you said. I'm not sure what the "Important, but not as important as balance/game design" answer means. I think balance is still more important, but to clarify what I mean: there should not be a point in the game where the other race cannot win anymore, regardless of what happened prior to that. (aka mass infestor or bl/infestor). Sorry if you meant something else, like symmetry in balance or whatever.
Currently nothing is like what you would expect from the races. Zerg gets free 3 base and is safe and then beats everything once they get enough infestors. Protoss units suck in low numbers. Terran maxed armies are trash.
On January 06 2013 07:11 ejozl wrote: I like it that there is more styles of play for each race, but nevertheless I still totally agree with you.
I love different styles of play. I love how MarineKing can go pure Bio and Mvp can go pure Mech.
However, I think different styles of play can become even more interesting when the races are clearly defined. In that case, it becomes interesting to see how each player takes the strengths/weaknesses of the race and makes them his/her own.
For example, let's say that Zerg is the race where their units are crap, but there's just so many of them. NesTea is now the God of Decision Making and DongRaeGu is the God of Multitasking. DongRaeGu uses his multitasking to constantly throw units everywhere, catching units off guard, runbys, drops, he's the Swarm, he's everywhere! On the other hand, NesTea cannot multitask like that, so he amasses a large army. Then, using his great decision making, he always makes sure that his large Swarm army is ALWAYS where it needs to be, always where it is most effective.
Now we see that neither player is going Infestor/Brood - the Zerg race's strength is numbers, its weakness is that each unit isn't very effective. But two players can accommodate these weaknesses and bring about two distinct styles of play. Perhaps DongRaeGu is not as experienced as NesTea so he could never hope to make as good decisions and NesTea could never hope to have DongRaeGu's handspeed. Neither of them can hope to just charge straight through the map with a deathball since they chose Zerg. Still, unifying the race doesn't mean only one playstyle.
Note that I just chose NesTea and DongRaeGu as examples.
On January 06 2013 07:11 ejozl wrote: I like it that there is more styles of play for each race, but nevertheless I still totally agree with you.
I love how MarineKing can go pure Bio and Mvp can go pure Mech.
Awesome post! I Pretty much agree on everything.
And since when anybody has been able to go pure mech after the launch at the highest level? Even the only spooniest terran ever goody admitted hes defeat and figured that pure mech ist't that viable. Although we have seen mech many times against Z these days but they havent had that great succes.
But still, as BW lover i was kinda dissapointed to these roles, and how did they turn out. Whit few months of gameplay on hots, I fell simply terrible (as T player) to rush to those fast OC builds every single game (use a lot of reaper openings though aswell), and then go bio. just mines and hellbats alone wont fix mech, and whitout mech we cant have the same vibes as BW terran, as it started to roll out from its base carefully leap frogging and protecting army whit careful mine placements. We just see silly 1 T stim and fight over in a heartbeat, ending in fungals or storms/baneling hits.
My fear is that, we arent going to see ANY of those feelings that at least i felt watchin BW in the future of HOTS.
[EDIT] It's pretty funny that you say that dont compare BW and sc2, but you start your post gathering the roles of each race that blizz put on their shiny introduction videos at launch of sc2. You also compare even the TvP gameplay of BW vs SC2, so why anyone else couldnt point those out? Its pretty clear that those roles arent as black and white, but why cannot we use that as a mindset, which were the actual roles that blizzard originally wanted to design and shape the game?
On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote: I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
They buffed the living shit out of hydras.
Not really, they got a speed upgrade but other than that their stats are exactly the same.
On January 06 2013 07:11 ejozl wrote: I like it that there is more styles of play for each race, but nevertheless I still totally agree with you.
I love how MarineKing can go pure Bio and Mvp can go pure Mech.
And since when anybody has been able to go pure mech after the launch at the highest level? Even the only spooniest terran ever goody admitted hes defeat and figured that pure mech ist't that viable. Although we have seen mech many times against Z these days but they havent had that great succes.
Sorry I should have clarified, I meant vZ. I was thinking of MarineKing's pure Bio style vs. DongRaeGu in MLG Winter and Mvp's pure Mech style (recently) vs. players such as Life in GSL.
This idea of Race design vs Game design isn't new.
I agree to some points presented here that address the current problems in WoL (Brood lords + Infestors), but I disagree that each race does not have a distinct identity except Terran.
Terran as presented does have a flexibility of strong positional play as mech and strong mobility play with MMM drops/pokes etc. HoTS further promotes both positional play with widow mines and hellbats and mobility plays with very strong medivac buffs.
tl dr Terran; They're fine in both WoL and HoTS.
Zerg I think is the point of contention for many people. People simply think it should be merely mobile/weak/swarmy. That race design would only promote boring macro, make units and a move them against the opponent until the enemy is dead. But we clearly do not want zerg to be simply Big strong units late game that is nearly impossible to beat for cost/cost either (as in BL/Infestors).
The zerg is in essence: Swarms of units, not necessarily fast or cheap, but lots of them. And either hitting with 1) lots of cheap, mobile units or 2) lots of free units from slow, expensive units.
Zerglings, banelings and Roaches are really massable, even mutalisks, ultralisks for T2/T3 have one of the cheapest/lowest build times relative to their counterparts in P/T to make them swarmable. BL, Swarm Hosts, Infestors all make more units and fit into the second category.
The best way that zerg is being changed to its original race-feel is via change in infestors and hydralisks. Infestors still remain strong enough with fungal projectile, but it becomes MUCH MUCH harder to actually land good fungal growths. Most people who play HoTS beta would affirm this. The problem with infestor was that it was a unit that it was the ultimate unit, that was capable of doing everything.
Hydralisks in WoL are the epitome of not-really-zerg-unit. Very expensive for its role and has really no synergy with the swarm mentality. It feels more like a protoss unit than a zerg unit due to its reliance on support. HoTS fixes this problem with making them faster, and allow them to move on par with roaches/lings to add their power to the mobile aspect of zerg.
tl dr for zerg; Units that swarm either: cheap-fast-swarm or slow-strong swarm. Bliz is fixing Infestors that are too individually strong; and is fixing Hydras that neither fit the role of cheap-fast-swarm and slow-strong-swarm to fit the role of the former.
Protoss, race-wise in SC2, are the race that emphasizes on synergy. I really disagree with that each units should be super-strong and super-expensive. After the fall of Aiur and death of the matriarch, the protoss have become quite fallen from their glory days of the mightiest warriors.
Protoss units still can hold one's own in a fair fight, but against the numbers of the Zerg swarm and trickeries of the Terrans, they must stand united. So I believe that current WoL Protoss represents this very well in the infamous "death ball" complex, the protoss desire to purify the enemy in one unbeatable mixture of units.
But Blizzard is adding a new dimension to the race to emphasize not only the Khalai (the strong direct combat- represented by the good old Dragoon, zealots, immortal, collosi, etc.) but the Nerazim (the stealthy strikers- represented mainly by Stalkers, Pheonix, DTs in WoL). And of these only Blink Stalkers were viable Nerazim tactics in WoL.
The early mothership core allows more Nerazim type of assault early on with basic gateway units when the enemy is still massing up the armies by permitting retreat with recall when Khalai would normally not. The addition of Oracle's sneaky assault on helpless workers, cheaper dark shrine, high range Tempest, and Void rays that are more tactical in activating its abilities, and enhanced pheonix range are all signs of emphasis on the sneaky hit/run tactics that Protoss were not as good in WoL.
And Nerazim tactics are not simply restricted to itself either. In great numbers, the Tempest/Void rays/Oracles become a Khalai styled force of direct confrontation. The saved gateway units from core recall adds to the robotics units to make a synergetic force. The protoss retains synergetic in conjunction to its stealthy roots in HoTS.
tl dr protoss; Protoss is either Khalai-deathball or Nerazim-stealth. WoL lacked Nerazim styled plays, but in HoTS both types of plays are encouraged by mobile air units + mothership core recall for early aggression that isn't all-in.
I think the point you brought up about loss identity was insightful, and the anecdote you provided for it is definitely something we all know about.
However, I think it's important to note that a race does not necessarily mean a play-style. For example, in BW you had "greedy" and "hungry Zergs, players who took the same race and painted radically different pictures on their canvasses.
Blizzard has made it clear that they want different options for each race to be viable (especially with them tinkering with mech in the current HotS beta). However, their approach to it has seem questionable and mostly opaque. For example, there was a post not so long ago on TL about mech being a play-style and siege tanks being the core to its identity (units made out of a factory do not mean mech, it is simply a slower, clunkier "bio" if all it does it a-move). Accordingly, the Warhound was removed and Blizzard made note of it in the patch notes by mentioning that they were beginning to realize that just because a unit came out of a factory did not make it "mech". The part that grips me the most about Blizzard's response is that they're not necessarily clear about their design philosophy. They mention specifics about race win ratios and unit numbers, but nothing about a general overview on what's considered important.
The point? Things like how the game is essentially capped on 3 base mineral saturation (LaLush made a note of this very early on), unit pathing, and unit design that seems to cater to casuals (casters have strong interactions with other units but not with the map) concern overall design philosophy which supersedes design concerns. It's basically the mindset and the design factors would be the ideas spawning from it. Deathball syndrome is IMO a consequence of said philosophy because economically speaking, it's the best way to play.
Back in 2010 i started out as P but watching all those T back then made me so want to switch to T, having such versatility. But as the meta has been adapting the game became more and more boring for a T. Definetely game design comes out of race design.
I have to agree with this idea. I mean to some extent it should be obvious; that is the whole point of having three races in the first place; they're supposed to be different in terms of feel and play style, that's what makes them interesting. Instead when you analyze the play styles being shown at the pro-level, the zerg doesn't feel like a swarmy race, and the protoss are extremely fragile except for forcefields up until they get the all-powerful colossus or high-templar (which are fragile too if you don't back them up).
Maybe they're trying to redefine the races, but I don't see anything distinct besides really simple building distinctions, like larvae and hatcheries vs warp gates vs individual buildings producing units. Its just not enough
Really, Really good post... Pretty much agreed with everything you SaiD...
I think the viper fits quite well with the zerg mentality, if the brood lord were to be removed from the Game/changed drastically. atthe moment the brood lord is a Really good siege unit, that is incredibly slow. To me, it is probably the most boring unit in the Game... The mutalisk is far more interesting... Even the ultralisk provides more interesting games... Positions matter when you have an ultralisk based army.
Random player here (Just if you assume I am race-biased).
Sometimes I feel like this game is too balanced. Except in PvP and more or less in TvP do exist openers which are safe in nearly every situation if executed well. These days most of the games are rushes into an end game with players cutting corners where ever they can. I miss things like crazy long 1 vs 1 base micro wars and players taking fast expos being considered as ballsy.
Zerg was the "Fear me, I have tons of units"-race. Now it is the "Fear me, I have a high tech!"-species. Terran always meant for me "F*ck this, I'm taking my SCVs and eat you alive". Now it has changed to "F*ck you, I'll outmacro you". Protoss always made their enemies think "Omg, he is taking another expo". Now they are like "Omg, he is not taking his expo, he is allining me for sure!!!"
I didn't watch much HotS yet, but I doubt they consider changing this. And also, you can call me a "casual" fool trying to ruin this game, but seriously, what do you think is more viewer-appealing? Aggressive players beating the sh*t out of each other since minute 5 of the game or passive SimCity into endgame? A good RTS is like sex, the less you are touching each other, the less fun you are having, lol.
I've wondered sometimes whether it's better to design match-ups rather than races, since you never use a race in a vacuum. Something you often see is that a race plays differently depending on the match-up: zerg is more tech-focused versus protoss and more based on overwhelming numbers when playing against terran, and I can't help but think that this is an effect of designing on a race level, since then the interactions with other races become a lot more difficult to predict and could lead to different dynamics that you might wish for.
i used to play zerg when it was so much more swarmy was so fun now that style is just inefficient and camping with infestors is rewarded whatever happend to zerg sick multitasking i want it back!
lol it seems like zerg and protoss are always surpassing Terran in food no matter whenever in the game. But then again if Terran was to surpass protoss in food early in the game, Terran wouldn't feel like terran.
Nowhere near as important as the overall game design. As far as I'm concerned, an RTS game is better off not having different factions at all, but instead foster different playstyles with the same units and tech tree accessible by all players.
Designing a game around three asymmetric races seems very much like a fool's errand and not really worth the problems it inevitably creates.
On January 06 2013 08:38 Talin wrote: Nowhere near as important as the overall game design. As far as I'm concerned, an RTS game is better off not having different factions at all, but instead foster different playstyles with the same units and tech tree accessible by all players.
Designing a game around three asymmetric races seems very much like a fool's errand and not really worth the problems it inevitably creates.
I had a sort of similar thought which I turned into a blog, if you're interested.
I think the downfall of competitive WC3 was ultimately that it couldn't support four races. A lot of the match-ups were broken and a lot of the races had really forced differences between them that only ended up working in some cases. I think having a lesser number of races, but trying to make sure that the mechanics they do have are really polished and functional, is superior for design.
I disagree with the idea that race forces you to play in a certain way. Protoss should have options to be mobile, Zerg to be cost effective and Terran to make a deathball. I think that limiting players just because some playstyles don't fit racial image is wrong.
I think you can have both eloquent race design and game balance. The original series did it so well.
This was one of my biggest disappointments with SC2. What was the point of the Roach? It was supposed to be a hard-to-kill tank unit. I remember developers talking about having to focus fire to get rid of them. They talked about how its bug-like qualities would be a great addition to the race. In the end it doesn't fulfill it's original role or add anything new to the race. It would have been more zergy to add an upgrade that gave lings the ability to jump over each other and swarm a unit or give hydralisk the ability to regen and burrow-move instead. Same thing with marauders. Why did they give a glass cannon and positional race such a versatile unit? It feels like a dragoon with stim.
I will say that they did add some things which I liked. Like ghosts with the ability to snipe and queens having a much bigger role to the management of the hive. But for everything I like, there seems to be something in there that doesn't make sense.
To me it seems like they ran out of ideas for each individual race and instead started to borrow from the other races.
It's like we ended up with 3 very similar races just with different skins. All races really play overall very similar. I play a lot of random in HoTS after a year of Zerg and I don't really have to change my mentality with whatever race I get. Expand, harass, death ball.
Race design is fucking important as hell, to me. I feel like the races lost their identity in SC2, I cannot identify the Protoss having strong but high supply cost armies when Stalkers are so fragile and die to Marauders/Roaches easily. The sheer overwhelming numbers of Zerg is lost in Infestor/Corrupt/Broodlord armies.
Unfortunately being this late into development I don't think Blizzard has a lot of legroom to work with, the changes would probably be too drastic to reorder them into race designs/identities, at least not in small incremental changes. The biggest inherent problems are the new mechanics like larva injects and warpgates that make it impossible to balance around. Warpgate units made it so gateway units are weaker than they traditionally were in BW. Additional factors like Terrans retaining the archaic unit production/rallying also make it so maps cannot be too large where Protoss or Zerg has an advantage. With so many factors in mind, SC2 is an entirely different game from BW.
Excellent post OP, I'm one of the people that agree with a tank damage tweak coming back into the game, I can't speak for the other two races though of course.
I thought it was just only me and a few others who thought zerg is disappointing as hell. Deathball/turtle style zerg should just be made completely nonviable imo.
The game design is what it is because of several reasons. If Zerg had only mass and weak units, end game toss or terran composition would own it. At least in starcraft 2. They had to have something to equalize it. In this case, it is broodlords (and mass infestors in some cases). Whether broodlords are or are not zergish, is another question. End game TvP is also a good example of it - Protoss are usually superior per cost unless terran outmaneuver them. Even though warpgate is a big factor in this, it is not only on it's own.
On January 06 2013 10:39 NightOfTheDead wrote: The game design is what it is because of several reasons. If Zerg had only mass and weak units, end game toss or terran composition would own it. At least in starcraft 2. They had to have something to equalize it. In this case, it is broodlords (and mass infestors in some cases). Whether broodlords are or are not zergish, is another question. End game TvP is also a good example of it - Protoss are usually superior per cost unless terran outmaneuver them. Even though warpgate is a big factor in this, it is not only on it's own.
I feel like if all over zerg was fast, cheap and terrible, it would be extremely hard for terran and protoss to reach that heavy late game play. Could you imagine getting to a deathball if you had 1 supply roaches, speedras and swarmlings attacking you?
OP has some great points. As a Zerg player, I got into the game wanting to swarm opponents, use a ton of lings, apply pressure constantly, and win with a fast, mobile army that weathered away at my opponent. Instead, I turtle up and slowly move out with a deathball.
Are there times when races are played as their original design intended? Of course! But I think that it's pretty clear that the trends are showing constant deviation from this design.
However, BW TvP is far from any deathball situation. Positional games with vultures, spider mines, (real) siege tanks, proxy turrets, and goliaths (of which is seen in the vast majority of BW TvP games) is far from being any sort of deathball. It is not even close. Terrans have to secure locations with mines, harass with vultures, and slowpush their siege line -- not indicative of deathball. Not to mention it is so much harder to macro and max out in BW. Whether good or bad, there are a myriad of reasons why deathballs barely exist in BW.
Overall, I agree with you, though. My thoughts since SC2 day 1. I know that BW and SC2 are completely different games, but too bad nothing have/will be done about it beside bandaid fixes.
The reason the mass weak zerg worked in lategame BW was because Dark Swarm enabled the zerg army to a crazy degree. The support that the Defiler brought was insane. A few of them enter the field and suddenly the zerg army becomes super hard to engage despite being at the ends of the tech tree for either race. The infestor becomes more of an offensive-aid then the support caster it should have been.
However, BW TvP is far from any deathball situation. Positional games with vultures, spider mines, (real) siege tanks, proxy turrets, and goliaths (of which is seen in the vast majority of BW TvP games) is far from being any sort of deathball. It is not even close.
Overall, I agree with you, though. My thoughts since SC2 day 1. Too bad nothing will be done about it beside bandaid fixes.
On January 06 2013 10:57 Warpath wrote: The reason the mass weak zerg worked in lategame BW was because Dark Swarm enabled the zerg army to a crazy degree. The support that the Defiler brought was insane. A few of them enter the field and suddenly the zerg army becomes super hard to engage despite being at the ends of the tech tree for either race. The infestor becomes more of an offensive-aid then the support caster it should have been.
I never played broodwar, what did a defiler do that was so powerful?
On January 06 2013 10:53 peanutsfan1995 wrote: OP has some great points. As a Zerg player, I got into the game wanting to swarm opponents, use a ton of lings, apply pressure constantly, and win with a fast, mobile army that weathered away at my opponent. Instead, I turtle up and slowly move out with a deathball.
Are there times when races are played as their original design intended? Of course! But I think that it's pretty clear that the trends are showing constant deviation from this design.
I picked zerg almost 2 years ago due to watching idra and loving the swarm feeling of zerg. Now today, I look at it and most people are just getting to the gross, slow, immobile broodlord infestor. I get sad every time I see late game because it was never what I wanted to play like. Even today at mid master, I still never make broodlords. Sure, it hinders me, but I'd rather try and play the swarm rather than the brood infestation.
On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote: I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
They buffed the living shit out of hydras.
Not really, they got a speed upgrade but other than that their stats are exactly the same.
Exactly, and Hydras are still shit, just - less shit, but people still laugh at you in hots beta when you make them, but sometimes loss because they are slightly better, and don't do anything about them ^^
Also, Swarm host is even worse, they are sooo bad and not at all worth their cost
On January 06 2013 08:12 Grumbels wrote: I've wondered sometimes whether it's better to design match-ups rather than races, since you never use a race in a vacuum. Something you often see is that a race plays differently depending on the match-up: zerg is more tech-focused versus protoss and more based on overwhelming numbers when playing against terran, and I can't help but think that this is an effect of designing on a race level, since then the interactions with other races become a lot more difficult to predict and could lead to different dynamics that you might wish for.
On the contrary, I personally feel that designing a race comes first. Then, the interactions between the races cause the matchups to play out differently, leading to different ways the race is played.
For example, let's just assume
Zerg = fast, swarmy, low cost, numbers Protoss = slow, expensive, strong units Terran = middle of the road, very defensive race, adaptable
Now that we've designed the races, let's take a look at how the matchups might play out:
ZvZ: both armies are fast and mobile, leading to lots of threats, runbys, darting across the map, high intensity micro. Imagine Ling/Bling wars, imagine Muta vs. Muta, imagine that kind of mobility throughout the entire game. Overall, ZvZ becomes the highest intensity matchup
TvT: since Terran is very defensive, you have lots of positioning, the classic TvT chess game. It's very hard to attack into the Terran because the Tanks + PFs + Bunkers + Turrets just give Terran huge defender's advantage. It's all about positioning here, patience and maneuvering. Yes, Mech vs. Bio is still viable, the Bio player has to exploit holes in the Mech player's defenses. The Mech player has to patiently push before getting overrun by a better economy
PvP: now that both armies are super strong, maybe this will be the deathball matchup with large army clashes. Maybe strong Gateway units means that you no longer need those heavy impact units (Colossi) and we can see more harassment and army splitting. Whoever can pick off a good chunk of units or have better engagements gets a decisive advantage
ZvP: The Zerg must constantly trade and threaten runbys, delaying the inevitable push. Protoss must hold off these attempts, amass a super army, and go for the throat. However, a few Protoss units can hold off the fort since they are so strong, so runbys aren't a perpetual problem.
ZvT: Terran is much stronger defensively, so it will be harder for Zerg to break through. A Zerg needs great patience and right as Terran moves out, right when they go to position their Tanks, Zergs must strike right then.
TvP: The greatest sword vs. the greatest shield... the Terran must defend well, the Protoss must break straight through
Now, looking at each of the races, you can see that they have different play styles depending on the matchup, but that is all thanks to their race's fundamental strengths/weaknesses.
On January 06 2013 10:57 Warpath wrote: The reason the mass weak zerg worked in lategame BW was because Dark Swarm enabled the zerg army to a crazy degree. The support that the Defiler brought was insane. A few of them enter the field and suddenly the zerg army becomes super hard to engage despite being at the ends of the tech tree for either race. The infestor becomes more of an offensive-aid then the support caster it should have been.
I never played broodwar, what did a defiler do that was so powerful?
The defiler had 3 spells. Consume would kill a target zerg unit and return energy to the defiler. Plague was a spell that did an insane amount of damage over time directly to HP (ignored shields) but couldn't kill a unit, it always left it at 1 HP. It did have friendly fire, so you had to be careful with it.
The strongest, most useful spell, the one that synergized with zerg the best though was Dark Swarm. DS placed a cloud on an area, and all zerg units in that cloud would receive less damage from ranged attacks and aoe. DS was so strong that, if properly microed, you could break entire siege lines with it. The way it worked was also very elegant, lings, lurkers, ultras and hydras weren't replaced or phased out of the zerg army, but they just became more cost efficient once DS was out.
On January 06 2013 10:57 Warpath wrote: The reason the mass weak zerg worked in lategame BW was because Dark Swarm enabled the zerg army to a crazy degree. The support that the Defiler brought was insane. A few of them enter the field and suddenly the zerg army becomes super hard to engage despite being at the ends of the tech tree for either race. The infestor becomes more of an offensive-aid then the support caster it should have been.
I never played broodwar, what did a defiler do that was so powerful?
To start, its worth saying that it had an ability called Consume, it would target ANY friendly zerg unit, kill it, and give the defiler 50 energy. In pair with zerglings, they basically had unlimited energy. This basically said that you didnt need to have 20+ of these guys to be useful.
The big spell was Dark Swarm, under a fairly large surface area, any unit under it would take 0 damage, discluding melee attacks, and splash damage. This was used a lot in junction with ling/lurker (mostly vT) attacks to force the enemy to retreat away from the area. It made defending bases hell as you hardly have anything to deal significant damage to stuff underneath.
There was also plague, a semi-large area spell that would attach a damage-over-time to anything (including buildings and friendly units) dealing 300 damage over a semi-slow rate, but unable to kill a target. I mostly see it used against sceince vessel clouds once they got out of control, or to deflect large bio attacks when the rest of army lacked positioning or delay attacks.
I honestly dont know exactly what they did in PvZ, i usually saw it with ultras to attack protoss bases that were covered in cannons.
On January 06 2013 08:02 Prugelhugel wrote: And also, you can call me a "casual" fool trying to ruin this game, but seriously, what do you think is more viewer-appealing? Aggressive players beating the sh*t out of each other since minute 5 of the game or passive SimCity into endgame? A good RTS is like sex, the less you are touching each other, the less fun you are having, lol.
Lmao, I agree with this. Macro games are fun, but I feel Blizzard kind of cheated going "hey we want a macro game, no one is able to kill each other before 15 min", which just takes away the reason why macro games are fun. There is tension between the players, action around the map to prevent scouting and try to get an edge. If you have NR15, it's just 2 big armies clashing into each other and check who countered their opponent better(for the most part). Anyway this was a bit offtopic
I agree with the OP, that the general race design has been messed around with. That being said I'm unsure of the purpose of this thread. The main problem is imo just that protoss and zerg are not actually fighting with the *meat* of their army. Zlots and stalkers are not fighting units, one is a tank and the other is a sniper(except when you only go stalker). Zergling is not a fighting unit it is a tank. Warp gate and MMM being to strong(compared to the other fighting units) is I think the main issue. All the support units are way to prevalent as the real damage dealers for Z/P.
For instance, Zerg "used" to be the least cost effective race and I hope we all agree it should be the case. Zerg economy if untouched is absolutely imba and IT SHOULD BE, because they are not cost effective. That is why things like the Queen buff totally ruined the match up and you identify Zerg as the "slow and cost effective" army. I remember the good old times when Zerg where forced to crack out as many units as possible all the time, that way the game was balance and it made up for great spectating, being on Tier 2 for much longer. Unfortunately nowadays Zergs get T3 units at 14 min vs P and at 18 vs T.
I remember when a while ago (feels like forever ago) if we used to look at the resource lost tab Zerg were ALWAYS at a disadvantage and that is only natural. Now if I had a penny for every time I hear Khaldor or Wolf say on GSL say "Zerg is ahead of X in the units lost tab" meaning, they have been more cost effective than Terran or Protoss. It's not supposed to be that way... You are right, no one is afraid of 1-A into a siege tank line. Between infested terrans, huge economy, etc. Zerg can do that all day long and it's never cost efficient for the T player, like.. EVER.
I think the race design is somewhat fine, the main reason why the game is bad at the moment is that they totally fucked up the balance. I.E. how much does a unit cost, how much damage it does etc. which lead to this absurdity we witness nowadays. I believe by fixing the balance, the race design will seem just good again. I think we can all agree that Zerg felt definitely more "swarmy" in 2011 than in 2012. Endless marine/tank vs ling/bane/muta fights occured all over the map. That was very fun and it took more skill for the Z player than A moving with 200/200 broodlord, infestor or whaver he decides to A move with.
On January 06 2013 08:12 Grumbels wrote: I've wondered sometimes whether it's better to design match-ups rather than races, since you never use a race in a vacuum. Something you often see is that a race plays differently depending on the match-up: zerg is more tech-focused versus protoss and more based on overwhelming numbers when playing against terran, and I can't help but think that this is an effect of designing on a race level, since then the interactions with other races become a lot more difficult to predict and could lead to different dynamics that you might wish for.
On the contrary, I personally feel that designing a race comes first. Then, the interactions between the races cause the matchups to play out differently, leading to different ways the race is played.
For example, let's just assume
Zerg = fast, swarmy, low cost, numbers Protoss = slow, expensive, strong units Terran = middle of the road, very defensive race, adaptable
Now that we've designed the races, let's take a look at how the matchups might play out:
ZvZ: both armies are fast and mobile, leading to lots of threats, runbys, darting across the map, high intensity micro. Imagine Ling/Bling wars, imagine Muta vs. Muta, imagine that kind of mobility throughout the entire game. Overall, ZvZ becomes the highest intensity matchup
TvT: since Terran is very defensive, you have lots of positioning, the classic TvT chess game. It's very hard to attack into the Terran because the Tanks + PFs + Bunkers + Turrets just give Terran huge defender's advantage. It's all about positioning here, patience and maneuvering. Yes, Mech vs. Bio is still viable, the Bio player has to exploit holes in the Mech player's defenses. The Mech player has to patiently push before getting overrun by a better economy
PvP: now that both armies are super strong, maybe this will be the deathball matchup with large army clashes. Maybe strong Gateway units means that you no longer need those heavy impact units (Colossi) and we can see more harassment and army splitting. Whoever can pick off a good chunk of units or have better engagements gets a decisive advantage
ZvP: The Zerg must constantly trade and threaten runbys, delaying the inevitable push. Protoss must hold off these attempts, amass a super army, and go for the throat. However, a few Protoss units can hold off the fort since they are so strong, so runbys aren't a perpetual problem.
ZvT: Terran is much stronger defensively, so it will be harder for Zerg to break through. A Zerg needs great patience and right as Terran moves out, right when they go to position their Tanks, Zergs must strike right then.
TvP: The greatest sword vs. the greatest shield... the Terran must defend well, the Protoss must break straight through
Now, looking at each of the races, you can see that they have different play styles depending on the matchup, but that is all thanks to their race's fundamental strengths/weaknesses.
Not like i want to piss you off or something, but i am wondering if that's the idea you have behind how it should work, or how it works right now. Because neither ZvP, ZvT or TvP work that way. All of them are the opposite actually.
On January 06 2013 08:38 Talin wrote: Nowhere near as important as the overall game design. As far as I'm concerned, an RTS game is better off not having different factions at all, but instead foster different playstyles with the same units and tech tree accessible by all players.
Designing a game around three asymmetric races seems very much like a fool's errand and not really worth the problems it inevitably creates.
I had a sort of similar thought which I turned into a blog, if you're interested.
I think the downfall of competitive WC3 was ultimately that it couldn't support four races. A lot of the match-ups were broken and a lot of the races had really forced differences between them that only ended up working in some cases. I think having a lesser number of races, but trying to make sure that the mechanics they do have are really polished and functional, is superior for design.
Yeah, agreed. Fewer races and smaller differences. Like in SC2, Zerg is way too fast and swarmy compared to Protoss --> Protoss cant deal with zerg outside of deathball play. Or Terran bio --> because it is meant to be somewhat standalone it has to be able to deal with the other low tier playstyles in the longrun, forcing opponents to tech. On the other hand: the speedrelation between stalkers and bio is small --> interesting dynamics Terran midtier (tank, hellion) is only slightly stronger in direct combat than terran lowtier --> multiple TvT playstyles
Basically, dynamics and playstyles stem from small differences and advantages. Big differences in overall race design lead to very clear restrictions. (dont be out on the map against zerg; dont stay on lowtier vs bioterran; dont fight against Protoss in chokes...) Which leads to very "designed", therefore, predictable gameplay. (probably seen best in PvZ)
Im not sure its fair to say that a certain race should be played a certain way, because our expectations for how the races should be played are heavily influenced by the way that they were played in bw. However, the vibe that the community gives off (and I agree with it) is that the races may be fundamentally flawed right now. Should a seige line not be able to hold off any attack (particularly the tier one zerglings and zealots) that is carelessly thrown into it? should the zerg race be strongest when it is building a slow, powerful force? should protoss units have to have expensive support units to be effective? it certainly goes against the identity that we have made for the races, but maybe we are wrong and the design right now is okay. But that stance just doesnt seem right, does it?
On January 06 2013 08:12 Grumbels wrote: I've wondered sometimes whether it's better to design match-ups rather than races, since you never use a race in a vacuum. Something you often see is that a race plays differently depending on the match-up: zerg is more tech-focused versus protoss and more based on overwhelming numbers when playing against terran, and I can't help but think that this is an effect of designing on a race level, since then the interactions with other races become a lot more difficult to predict and could lead to different dynamics that you might wish for.
On the contrary, I personally feel that designing a race comes first. Then, the interactions between the races cause the matchups to play out differently, leading to different ways the race is played.
For example, let's just assume
Zerg = fast, swarmy, low cost, numbers Protoss = slow, expensive, strong units Terran = middle of the road, very defensive race, adaptable
Now that we've designed the races, let's take a look at how the matchups might play out:
ZvZ: both armies are fast and mobile, leading to lots of threats, runbys, darting across the map, high intensity micro. Imagine Ling/Bling wars, imagine Muta vs. Muta, imagine that kind of mobility throughout the entire game. Overall, ZvZ becomes the highest intensity matchup
TvT: since Terran is very defensive, you have lots of positioning, the classic TvT chess game. It's very hard to attack into the Terran because the Tanks + PFs + Bunkers + Turrets just give Terran huge defender's advantage. It's all about positioning here, patience and maneuvering. Yes, Mech vs. Bio is still viable, the Bio player has to exploit holes in the Mech player's defenses. The Mech player has to patiently push before getting overrun by a better economy
PvP: now that both armies are super strong, maybe this will be the deathball matchup with large army clashes. Maybe strong Gateway units means that you no longer need those heavy impact units (Colossi) and we can see more harassment and army splitting. Whoever can pick off a good chunk of units or have better engagements gets a decisive advantage
ZvP: The Zerg must constantly trade and threaten runbys, delaying the inevitable push. Protoss must hold off these attempts, amass a super army, and go for the throat. However, a few Protoss units can hold off the fort since they are so strong, so runbys aren't a perpetual problem.
ZvT: Terran is much stronger defensively, so it will be harder for Zerg to break through. A Zerg needs great patience and right as Terran moves out, right when they go to position their Tanks, Zergs must strike right then.
TvP: The greatest sword vs. the greatest shield... the Terran must defend well, the Protoss must break straight through
Now, looking at each of the races, you can see that they have different play styles depending on the matchup, but that is all thanks to their race's fundamental strengths/weaknesses.
Not like i want to piss you off or something, but i am wondering if that's the idea you have behind how it should work, or how it works right now. Because neither ZvP, ZvT or TvP work that way. All of them are the opposite actually.
That's how I think the matchups would play out IF the races had clear identities.
really like your post. As someone who has played a lot of sc2 and loves it, but knows there are a lot of things which could be better and am always thinking about that kind of thing, i suppose i am an aspiring game designer, and so found your post really interesting.
Anyways, onto your post;
Those who promote good game design might encourage the addition of a strong, expensive unit to the Zerg arsenal. This unit might promote good micro and positioning, might increase defender's advantage, might encourage multitasking, might break up the deathball, etc. In other words, this unit might be ideal for game design.
The problem with this is that such a unit is distinctly Protoss and should not be given to the Zergs
The lurker, do you not think that the lurker was every one of these things. Promote's good micro and positioning, increases defenders advantage, encourages multitasking (coming with flanks of lurkers and also the enemy splitting their army against them), and breaks up the deathball. Although race identity is a nice thing to have, i think gameplay and game design is more important. I don't want to start another BW vs SC2 discussion, but i hope most of us can agree that the lurker was one of the units of BW that made BW great. I personally think that if you have a unit that does all these things for zerg in sc2, like the lurker did in BW, then even if it doesn't feel 'zergy' it should still be put in the game. Having a balanced, fun to watch and fun to play game must surely come above how it feels to play a race, because feeling how a race is played wears off, whereas good gameplay doesn't.
I agree in full with the sentiments from the OP. I believe that in SC2, the identities of the races have kind of been lost and it negatively impacts the gameplay to varying amounts.
Zerg has lots of cheep and fast units that are surprisingly cost effective, but they also have a very strong late game deathball. Protoss has a lot of expensive units that are surprisingly fragile, they also rely on artificial ways to supplement their strength, and they have a surprising amount of mobility. Terran still feels just right, it still has a good amount of positional play, mobility and strong units, but the positional play part has been heavily undermined by some unnecessary tweaks to tanks and by the huge mobility of zerg armies and zealots.
This is also part of the reason why I sometimes have said, and I continue to say that I don't think Blizzard knows what it is doing. I don't mean they literally have no clue what to do in designing and balancing SC2, but they don't have a clear and coherent vision of the strengths and weaknesses of each race and how they should play out and interact with each other. The lack of direction was very apparent in horrible unit design attempts such as the Warhound and the lack of direction of design in the Oracle for the longest time.
I really like this because I started playing Zerg for the reason that I could mass on Roaches and Zerglings, and just sort of plow my way through the enemy with good macro. I absolutely hate the Broodlord because I can't really plow my way. Lose the units and I lose the game essentially. I really enjoyed this post and you pointed out the homogenization of Starcraft 2.
On January 06 2013 11:35 Destructicon wrote: I agree in full with the sentiments from the OP. I believe that in SC2, the identities of the races have kind of been lost and it negatively impacts the gameplay to varying amounts.
Zerg has lots of cheep and fast units that are surprisingly cost effective, but they also have a very strong late game deathball. Protoss has a lot of expensive units that are surprisingly fragile, they also rely on artificial ways to supplement their strength, and they have a surprising amount of mobility. Terran still feels just right, it still has a good amount of positional play, mobility and strong units, but the positional play part has been heavily undermined by some unnecessary tweaks to tanks and by the huge mobility of zerg armies and zealots.
This is also part of the reason why I sometimes have said, and I continue to say that I don't think Blizzard knows what it is doing. I don't mean they literally have no clue what to do in designing and balancing SC2, but they don't have a clear and coherent vision of the strengths and weaknesses of each race and how they should play out and interact with each other. The lack of direction was very apparent in horrible unit design attempts such as the Warhound and the lack of direction of design in the Oracle for the longest time.
As I already posted above you, totally agree with the Zerg issue. But another good point I forgot and you brought up has to do with the mobility of Protoss players. Blink stalkers are super fast, and to some extent, because the warp-in mechanics and how cheap zealot run byes are it feels definitely very "fast" paced race. Protoss should definitely feel a bit "slower". And you have another good point about the Oracle. While my sadness to see tanks being totally useless and so easily 1Amoved into.. is just.. indescribable
I might be one of the few people (or many) but I pick a race off of thematic ideas rather than actual game balance, so if there's a lore or factor that catches my eyes I'll grab that even if it's not a great race in terms of power or ability.
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.
You present the problems to which I believe I have already presented the causes. The biggest cause being the following:
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.
Yes, I totally agree. In StarCraft 2, if Protoss units were the most effective, etc. then Protoss would always win because of mining scaling (3 additional bases for Zerg wouldn't be enough to overcome Protoss's strength).
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.
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)
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
Great read, in my opinion race design is important and I'd like the game to remain faithful to BW and not have Zerg feel like a bulldozer race late-game (my biggest dislike in sc2). But unfortunately I'd say this article came too late and given there was no way of knowing before the game was released and given that Blizzard has made the decision there will be no turning back now...
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.
When SC2 first came out I loved watching late game because it was kinda rare. Now too much late game once people learned to marco. Since there is not much reason to rush a 4rd base, a lot of games are now based on around 3 bases turtle. This forces all 3 races play similar to each other.
As I voted, I find race design EXTREMELY important to why I picked my race. I picked zerg to counter attack, run around then map, flank, etc. etc. My current worst match up is zvp because of the fact that I have a hard time controlling broodlord infestor, the slow "op" army. I mean, I could just be more patient and control things better but I find the battle to be so boring that I end up dying either way. I wish zerg late game felt more zerg. Also, great post :D
I would tend to agree with LaLush in that I feel that the MAIN issue with starcraft is game design.
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.
On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote: I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
They buffed the living shit out of hydras.
What? All they did was give them speed off the ground.
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
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.
I think terran and protoss are there or almost there.
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.
I absolutely disagree on this whole blog. It tries to pigeonhole the bloggers perception of what races in Starcraft 2 should be and then package beliefs as "are you with race design or are you against it". Real race design is not based around the way the Broodwar foreign community saw Starcraft. Real race design is letting the South Koreans have a hand in the design of Starcraft 2 because they are the ones that understand how to make the game run smoothly and what concepts they're looking for in the game which promote skill and competition. Race design isn't some foreigner TL blogger complaining that Zerg doesn't have enough swarmy units. Authority on racial differences comes from Korea because they know how the game works smoothly not from Broodwar foreigners writing blogs. I'm very pro asking Koreans how they feel about the game before I ever tell Blizzard to have their hand at making any Starcraft 2 unit more "swarmy" or more like "real mech".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the problem with Zerg consisting of a bunchg of fast cheap units in large numbers is the enemy jsut sits there deathball in one place and trades super cost effectively
terran and toss can make a deathball where quantity doesnt count anymore it doesnt matter how many zerglings you run at a maxed out toss army hell hold out indefinently so the only way to counter it is with quality
On January 06 2013 17:08 Forikorder wrote: the problem with Zerg consisting of a bunchg of fast cheap units in large numbers is the enemy jsut sits there deathball in one place and trades super cost effectively
terran and toss can make a deathball where quantity doesnt count anymore it doesnt matter how many zerglings you run at a maxed out toss army hell hold out indefinently so the only way to counter it is with quality
This... I'm not really surprised that this thread just turned into another Zerg whine thread really. Every other post is "Terran and Protoss are fine, Zerg is too good"... LOL..
I remember this game from Spring Championship at MLG, MKP vs DRG... They both open quick 3 bases, no blows are exchanged, DRG goes Muta/Ling, covers half of Cloud Kingdom in creep, and is trying to take a 4th as MKP moves out with his first army. He catches MKPs Marine/Tank/Medivac army on creep with Ling/Bling/Muta, absolutely crushes it, but 2 minutes later, MKP has another force of equal size at DRGs 4th, and DRG has to abandon it, to get time to have a big enough army to crush it. He sacs the 4th, taking the base on the other side, but absolutely crushes the push. That's 2 Terran armies crushed with all the mighty Zerg swarm can produce, but supplies are still almost even, when MKP moves out with his 3rd army....
DRG is now on 4 bases vs 3, and his creep is actually at MKPs 4th on Cloud Kingdom. He's building a 5th hatchery at the position where he had taken his 4th originally, and MKP denies it, they fight again, on creep, and this time, DRG barely kills MKPs push and falls behind in supply.
We saw these games before in the GSL, again and again, until Zerg started using Infestor. Artosis used to call it the "SC style", where Terran built army after army and kept trading with the Zerg, until the cost inefficiency became insurmountable for the Zerg, no matter how many extra bases the Zerg had.
By the time DRG and MKP played this game though, Infestors were part of the metagame, and just as DRG fell behind with Muta/Ling, he managed to squeeze out Infestor tech. MKP, who had been on 3 bases vs 4 the whole time, was unable to take a 4th, because DRGs insane creep spread denied it. That gave DRG enough time, to take yet another base, and get out Infestor/Ultra.
The next time they fought, they were once again equal in supply but this time, DRG was actually cost efficient, thanks to fungals finally allowing banelings to do what they're supposed to do, trade cost efficiently with Terran bio. He finally crushed MKPs army without losing even more resources himself, and from there went on to win the game.
I'm sorry so many Terrans miss those games, where Zerg would crush push after push only to run out of steam and eventually lose. I don't miss them one bit.
Well, the only thing I can add in terms of race was there seem to be no benefit to the Zerg to have separate the corrupter from an anti-air unit point of view.
Technically, I feel the real problem I see with the Zerg race is no viable Air Army. This is my belief though so you may disagree with me. I kind of felt that from the get-go, the corrupter and brood lord should have been an evolution of the Mutalisk. No corrupter to broodlord. It just didn't make sense to me. You start off with massing up mutas if that is the point you can reach with your tech tree, then at tier 3, I would have believed the better design would have been to select an evolution for the mutalisk which is an air only attacker or a ground only attacker, thus buffing the units attack potential and hp. It might seem similar to that of brood war but the devourer never had a corruption ability which could be counted as an evolution for the dna strain. And the same goes for the broddlord, the bw unit wasn't technically a ground support as it never added to your ground army. So it wouldn't count as a reversal of evolution, which is the whole purpose of zerg.
Swarm host are kind of meh for me at this point. From a spectator's stand point, I find them to be a game breaker, either for your end or the enemies. It just seems odd to me and I really imagined the swarm host to actually be an evolution from the infestor.
And in terms of costs, then I just simply say the actual cost of making the infestor/mutalisk is deducted from the cost it takes to currently make broodlord/corrupter/swarm host. So its more of a time factor that is affected by the evolution again which is race specific to the zerg.
My two cents only so you may agree or disagree with me.
Agreed. Terran needs proper board control like in BW. Protoss needs warpgate removed with small buffs to gateway units, and Zerg needs the roach removed.
The thing is that race design is good as a concept, but there is only so far you can go with it to not make it terribly imbalanced. Too strong individual units can break the game as much as too fast or too cheap ones.
If you make the "swarmy race" too cheap and fast and easily controlled you will enable them to go everywhere in superior numbers so the "expensive and better units" of that other race will simply be overrun. We see this problem clearly when we compare SC2 to its predecessor and look at what has changed.
This isnt the only example of where Blizzard "did too much" and many of the bad apples come from the general game "improvements" of SC2 over BW and not the racial design. Unlimited unit selection, forced super clumped movement and production speed boosts coupled with a higher economy all lead to too many units on the battlefield to the point where quality of a unit doesnt matter anymore and reproduction capability becomes very very VERY important.
T needs better/more space control, mines and tanks are by far not enough Z remove infestor and BL P remove warp tech and FFs => buff or new gate way units
On January 06 2013 19:29 Rabiator wrote: The thing is that race design is good as a concept, but there is only so far you can go with it to not make it terribly imbalanced. Too strong individual units can break the game as much as too fast or too cheap ones.
If you make the "swarmy race" too cheap and fast and easily controlled you will enable them to go everywhere in superior numbers so the "expensive and better units" of that other race will simply be overrun. We see this problem clearly when we compare SC2 to its predecessor and look at what has changed.
This isnt the only example of where Blizzard "did too much" and many of the bad apples come from the general game "improvements" of SC2 over BW and not the racial design. Unlimited unit selection, forced super clumped movement and production speed boosts coupled with a higher economy all lead to too many units on the battlefield to the point where quality of a unit doesnt matter anymore and reproduction capability becomes very very VERY important.
Agreed. Though this is also a question of income/action ratio. (imagine very active units like hellions and mutas when the income would be halfed --> their value would go through the roof)
Basically some racial identities (superswarmy zerg, superdefensive Terran) is what makes it so hard to get a metagame inwhich you can actually deal blows to an opponent.
On January 06 2013 19:29 Rabiator wrote: The thing is that race design is good as a concept, but there is only so far you can go with it to not make it terribly imbalanced. Too strong individual units can break the game as much as too fast or too cheap ones.
If you make the "swarmy race" too cheap and fast and easily controlled you will enable them to go everywhere in superior numbers so the "expensive and better units" of that other race will simply be overrun. We see this problem clearly when we compare SC2 to its predecessor and look at what has changed.
This isnt the only example of where Blizzard "did too much" and many of the bad apples come from the general game "improvements" of SC2 over BW and not the racial design. Unlimited unit selection, forced super clumped movement and production speed boosts coupled with a higher economy all lead to too many units on the battlefield to the point where quality of a unit doesnt matter anymore and reproduction capability becomes very very VERY important.
Agreed. Though this is also a question of income/action ratio. (imagine very active units like hellions and mutas when the income would be halfed --> their value would go through the roof)
Basically some racial identities (superswarmy zerg, superdefensive Terran) is what makes it so hard to get a metagame inwhich you can actually deal blows to an opponent.
The problem is that with super dense massive numbers of units you cant have super high damage attacks that really one-shot many units ... stuff like the Siege Tank or Reaver in BW. The same restriction - although in reverse order - probably applies to the thing you pointed out: super mobile units in a game with few units on the battlefield. Personally I dont think the "super mobile" way of doing things look that awesome (because as a spectator you have to be able to follow the battle) AND they have a much higher requirement on the controlling skill (the APM) of the user.
With a slower game with more awkward movement system and limited unit control such as in BW the gap between people at the top and the bottom of the ladder probably isnt that big and the true skill difference also comes from the right strategic decisions of when to expand and when to attack. A BW pro could get maybe an extra 10% efficiency out of his Mutalisks or Carriers through micro, but an SC2 pro can get maybe an extra 50% more efficiency out of lack of micro from the opposing player when he rolls in his Banelings and good Forcefield and Blink control are practically REQUIRED to make Stalkers work in a straight up battle against a Zerg army in SC2. This "amount of active control required" is really important in game design and putting too much of it into the game makes it useless (=bad) for people who dont spend 3-4 hours every day practicing to become perfect or at least not to lose their skill.
Thus it is my firm belief that SC2 has TOO MUCH STUFF and that this is one of the reasons why the game sucks for casuals who just want to play to have a good time. The whole "activatable units" thing in SC2 is geared totally towards pros and the customers who should be critical of it are defending this in the belief that you cant have fun without activated abilities. SC2 is designed solely for 1v1 pro gaming and BW was awesome at 8 people FFA as well.
There are some things that are done really well and captures the feeling of the race, here are some examples:
MULE: Scrappy Terran, don't really care about the expense, but just carelessly mines the planet dry for resources. They are usually lower on bases than others, due to low map control and being very reluctant to turtling, this works well with, as soon as they get a new defensive perimeter (a new expansion,) they wanna catch up as soon as they can and this is done by the MULE.
Recall is another of such abilities, the Protoss race is very short on warriors and is in dire need to preserve everyone of them. They are also a nomad people, that live very scattered out from each other, so when a sector is in need of help, this is a great tool to summon reinforcements.
The Creep Tumor that helps expand creep, enveloping entire planets, The Zerg is a race that always look for species to munch off of. They devour everything in their path, evolving themselves, using them for hosts etc.
There are also others such as Medivacs/Banshees creating small hit squads that need to do hero missions for this inferior race to have a chance and of course the iconic Siege Tank to defend points at home and set up contains to make cost efficient trades with heavy hitting explosives. Terran units should have strengths as well as weaknesses, to make them feel like the inferior race, but it is the combination of setting up different set of strengths and abusing such mechanics that should give you wins using the Terran race.
To master the Protoss race, you should be tenacious using spell casters and finding neat ways to out-maneuver your opponents to have ridiculous cost efficiency ie. Force Field donuts, Storm Drops, Force Fieldings ramps killing off stuff in the main, warping in stuff everywhere, all these little things that are by some, considered gimmicks. When I think of Protoss, there is a huge difference between low economy Protoss and high economy Protoss. The low economy is mostly the one I mentioned above, the other is insane huge fleets and colossi army compositions, with such cost efficiency that the opponent had wished he had done something to the economy or tech of the Protoss.
Zerg is the map control race, with loads of fast units, big in numbers, in the open, it's Zergs court, but in smaller chokes, definitely not. There are many ways of playing Zerg, you can be low tier hyper aggressive, basically abusing your map control to full effect and using the information you have against the opponents, the opponent has no idea, is he mustering up units to come get me, or is something else lurking. The doubt is the biggest fear and with Mutas and constant ling run byes, how can you play other than defensive. Another way you might play it, is a turtle style. Think of a beehive, just doing your thing, gathering resources, living your colony. But then once the nest gets rattled all hell is broke lose and you will feel the full fury of the swarm. To fully master the swarm you must know how to fully exploit the strength of numbers by the use of Nydus Wurms, Overlord drops, Sacrificial units/Neural->If I trade one for one and I have more, I win; This is a much cooler way of displaying strength in numbers in comparison to units that just make more units: Infestor/Swarm Host/Broodlord. [Honestly I love the Queen/Spine Crawler/Infestor/Broodlord synergy, if skill was shown in position, instead of spawn infested terran click rate.]
On January 06 2013 21:08 ejozl wrote: There are some things that are done really well and captures the feeling of the race, here are some examples:
MULE: Scrappy Terran, don't really care about the expense, but just carelessly mines the planet dry for resources. They are usually lower on bases than others, due to low map control and being very reluctant to turtling, this works well with, as soon as they get a new defensive perimeter (a new expansion,) they wanna catch up as soon as they can and this is done by the MULE.
Recall is another of such abilities, the Protoss race is very short on warriors and is in dire need to preserve everyone of them. They are also a nomad people, that live very scattered out from each other, so when a sector is in need of help, this is a great tool to summon reinforcements.
The Creep Tumor that helps expand creep, enveloping entire planets, The Zerg is a race that always look for species to munch off of. They devour everything in their path, evolving themselves, using them for hosts etc.
There are also others such as Medivacs/Banshees creating small hit squads that need to do hero missions for this inferior race to have a chance and of course the iconic Siege Tank to defend points at home and set up contains to make cost efficient trades with heavy hitting explosives. Terran units should have strengths as well as weaknesses, to make them feel like the inferior race, but it is the combination of setting up different set of strengths and abusing such mechanics that should give you wins using the Terran race.
To master the Protoss race, you should be tenacious using spell casters and finding neat ways to out-maneuver your opponents to have ridiculous cost efficiency ie. Force Field donuts, Storm Drops, Force Fieldings ramps killing off stuff in the main, warping in stuff everywhere, all these little things that are by some, considered gimmicks. When I think of Protoss, there is a huge difference between low economy Protoss and high economy Protoss. The low economy is mostly the one I mentioned above, the other is insane huge fleets and colossi army compositions, with such cost efficiency that the opponent had wished he had done something to the economy or tech of the Protoss.
Zerg is the map control race, with loads of fast units, big in numbers, in the open, it's Zergs court, but in smaller chokes, definitely not. There are many ways of playing Zerg, you can be low tier hyper aggressive, basically abusing your map control to full effect and using the information you have against the opponents, the opponent has no idea, is he mustering up units to come get me, or is something else lurking. The doubt is the biggest fear and with Mutas and constant ling run byes, how can you play other than defensive. Another way you might play it, is a turtle style. Think of a beehive, just doing your thing, gathering resources, living your colony. But then once the nest gets rattled all hell is broke lose and you will feel the full fury of the swarm. To fully master the swarm you must know how to fully exploit the strength of numbers by the use of Nydus Wurms, Overlord drops, Sacrificial units/Neural->If I trade one for one and I have more, I win; This is a much cooler way of displaying strength in numbers in comparison to units that just make more units: Infestor/Swarm Host/Broodlord. [Honestly I love the Queen/Spine Crawler/Infestor/Broodlord synergy, if skill was shown in position, instead of spawn infested terran click rate.]
More or less all you say about stuff being "in character for the race" is true, but sadly that is the only good thing to be said about them.
The MULE gives Terrans an early boost in economy ... which they NEED to keep up with Warp Gate and Zerg extra hatcheries plus Queens finishing.
Warp Gate is a cool and stylish reinforcement tool, BUT it takes out all positional play, because the units are built inside your base and thus there is no more front to defend. The same can basically be said about Blink.
Creep tumors spread the map in creep and thus basically give Zerg who master the art of spreading them a map hack and remove the need to scout. your enemy. Terrans kinda "had to" get the Sensor tower to make up for this, but it takes out skill from the game.
The price for these fun game mechanics is too high IMO and they make the game too easy to play and too fast and chief among them are the stylish production speed boosts ... which are again in character, but totally ruin the game with too many units.
Sadly too few people try to look for the downside to "new stuff" ...
EDIT: I just watched TLO "toy" with a clearly lesser opponent (Protoss) in the ZOTAC cup by using lots of Nydus worms. This super-mobility is pretty bad when it is only available to one race. Protoss have their own breed of it, but Terrans dont and this is going too far in the "different race design" concept.
On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote: I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
They buffed the living shit out of hydras.
Yet, they need more buffs. Your argument is invalid.
On January 06 2013 19:35 Big-t wrote: T needs better/more space control, mines and tanks are by far not enough Z remove infestor and BL P remove warp tech and FFs => buff or new gate way units
Zerg needs better AA. I don't wanna play boring games that will consist on always trying to end the game before a deathball hits(Skytoss, currently the unstoppable force in HoTS). The second time Protoss gets a deathball army, remember Mothership toilet? Zerg has only had the infestor+bl, but it's not impossible to avoid which in the Protoss case, it almost is.
i agree with the OP for sure. Protoss just isnt the race i was addicted to in BW.
i dont feel like my units are worth their cost at all. and every time i lose something that costs gas like a collosus or a sentry im hating life because my disadvantage becomes HUGE since my warpgate units are so weak without their support.
On January 06 2013 23:29 Champi wrote: i agree with the OP for sure. Protoss just isnt the race i was addicted to in BW.
i dont feel like my units are worth their cost at all. and every time i lose something that costs gas like a collosus or a sentry im hating life because my disadvantage becomes HUGE since my warpgate units are so weak without their support.
taking the words out of my mouth. Hate beeing forced to get sentries, and still getting surrounded by speedlings due to the inability to get mapcontrol, thus never knowing if it is riskfree to move out.
Imho Protoss just doesn't go well with upgrades, compared to Terran or Zerg.
It's true that I'd like to see some blue post about Blizzard's racial philosophy (and see them stick to it). If DB says "Zerg is now the cost efficient race of the game and protoss is the weak but numerous race" I'm fine with it as long as they really implement it in the game.
At the moment the only sign of Blizzards racial philosophy that I can remember is their Race Overview (http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/game/guide/race-overview) where they clearly say that zerg is weak and numerous and protoss are few but powerful. And weirdly enough in HotS : - they give the swarm host and the viper to the zerg army, 2 cost effective units. - They give the oracle, a fast and weak unit, to the protoss army - But they also give a slow and strong unit, the tempest.
To summarize, they try to make zerg become the cost efficient race and they try to make protoss a bit more mobile and fragile but not too much...
I wish blizzard cool go back to the zerg and protoss roots (Imo the terran race personnality is good)
On January 06 2013 10:53 peanutsfan1995 wrote: OP has some great points. As a Zerg player, I got into the game wanting to swarm opponents, use a ton of lings, apply pressure constantly, and win with a fast, mobile army that weathered away at my opponent. Instead, I turtle up and slowly move out with a deathball.
Are there times when races are played as their original design intended? Of course! But I think that it's pretty clear that the trends are showing constant deviation from this design.
To be fair, nobody forces you to make a deathball. I mean, if you're a grandmasters I'm pretty sure Deathball is too darn effective. But I'm (Low Masters) still using a Ultra, Ling, Bling, Hydra, Infestor composition vs protoss. Ultra to break the forcefields, hydras to kill archons and immortals, blings to kill Zealots and lings to get the surround on the rest. It's not as effective as Broodlord - Infestor, true. But at least it's fun to do.
Anyway, regarding the OP, I agree completely. It just feels completely wrong to be maxed 200/200 supply just by having a few Roaches or Hydralisks. In Broodwar, people usually didn't even REACH the supply cap, or at least it was very rare, especially Zerg. Now, we have lings, blings and drones. For the rest, not a single unit is 1 supply. They're all big fat 2 or more supply units, where is the swarm feeling in that? I'd rather have the hydra and the roach as a weaker 1 supply version as what we have now.
It is appaling that OP doesn`t know that BW TvP was about protos being in a way of terran deathball, right till it get`s a carrier deathball of it`s own, and rolls the siege tanks.
BW was, in the end about getting a Sky-unit deathball.
When I played BW for the first time after playing SC2 for a while, the very first thing I noticed as a zerg was that it really felt like I was maxed at around 60-80 supply. I had workers too, by the way. Zerg really has lost their identity in that respect, although I strongly suspect that that is, at least in part, due to the pathing and limited unit selection forcing you to spread out your army. Another factor would be the fact that you really have no 1 supply units, just .5 supply units and 2 supply units.
I honestly played Terran because the siege tank was my favorite unit in BW, and I wanted to use them in SC2. Yeah, I can use them I guess. But they just dont feel like the brick wall they used to be. More like a fragile window now.
Also I tried playing Zerg because of Savior. That just wasn't fulfilling to me.
This idea of Race design vs Game design isn't new.
I agree to some points presented here that address the current problems in WoL (Brood lords + Infestors), but I disagree that each race does not have a distinct identity except Terran.
Terran as presented does have a flexibility of strong positional play as mech and strong mobility play with MMM drops/pokes etc. HoTS further promotes both positional play with widow mines and hellbats and mobility plays with very strong medivac buffs.
tl dr Terran; They're fine in both WoL and HoTS.
Zerg I think is the point of contention for many people. People simply think it should be merely mobile/weak/swarmy. That race design would only promote boring macro, make units and a move them against the opponent until the enemy is dead. But we clearly do not want zerg to be simply Big strong units late game that is nearly impossible to beat for cost/cost either (as in BL/Infestors).
The zerg is in essence: Swarms of units, not necessarily fast or cheap, but lots of them. And either hitting with 1) lots of cheap, mobile units or 2) lots of free units from slow, expensive units.
Zerglings, banelings and Roaches are really massable, even mutalisks, ultralisks for T2/T3 have one of the cheapest/lowest build times relative to their counterparts in P/T to make them swarmable. BL, Swarm Hosts, Infestors all make more units and fit into the second category.
The best way that zerg is being changed to its original race-feel is via change in infestors and hydralisks. Infestors still remain strong enough with fungal projectile, but it becomes MUCH MUCH harder to actually land good fungal growths. Most people who play HoTS beta would affirm this. The problem with infestor was that it was a unit that it was the ultimate unit, that was capable of doing everything.
Hydralisks in WoL are the epitome of not-really-zerg-unit. Very expensive for its role and has really no synergy with the swarm mentality. It feels more like a protoss unit than a zerg unit due to its reliance on support. HoTS fixes this problem with making them faster, and allow them to move on par with roaches/lings to add their power to the mobile aspect of zerg.
tl dr for zerg; Units that swarm either: cheap-fast-swarm or slow-strong swarm. Bliz is fixing Infestors that are too individually strong; and is fixing Hydras that neither fit the role of cheap-fast-swarm and slow-strong-swarm to fit the role of the former.
Protoss, race-wise in SC2, are the race that emphasizes on synergy. I really disagree with that each units should be super-strong and super-expensive. After the fall of Aiur and death of the matriarch, the protoss have become quite fallen from their glory days of the mightiest warriors.
Protoss units still can hold one's own in a fair fight, but against the numbers of the Zerg swarm and trickeries of the Terrans, they must stand united. So I believe that current WoL Protoss represents this very well in the infamous "death ball" complex, the protoss desire to purify the enemy in one unbeatable mixture of units.
But Blizzard is adding a new dimension to the race to emphasize not only the Khalai (the strong direct combat- represented by the good old Dragoon, zealots, immortal, collosi, etc.) but the Nerazim (the stealthy strikers- represented mainly by Stalkers, Pheonix, DTs in WoL). And of these only Blink Stalkers were viable Nerazim tactics in WoL.
The early mothership core allows more Nerazim type of assault early on with basic gateway units when the enemy is still massing up the armies by permitting retreat with recall when Khalai would normally not. The addition of Oracle's sneaky assault on helpless workers, cheaper dark shrine, high range Tempest, and Void rays that are more tactical in activating its abilities, and enhanced pheonix range are all signs of emphasis on the sneaky hit/run tactics that Protoss were not as good in WoL.
And Nerazim tactics are not simply restricted to itself either. In great numbers, the Tempest/Void rays/Oracles become a Khalai styled force of direct confrontation. The saved gateway units from core recall adds to the robotics units to make a synergetic force. The protoss retains synergetic in conjunction to its stealthy roots in HoTS.
tl dr protoss; Protoss is either Khalai-deathball or Nerazim-stealth. WoL lacked Nerazim styled plays, but in HoTS both types of plays are encouraged by mobile air units + mothership core recall for early aggression that isn't all-in.
On January 07 2013 01:11 naastyOne wrote: It is appaling that OP doesn`t know that BW TvP was about protos being in a way of terran deathball, right till it get`s a carrier deathball of it`s own, and rolls the siege tanks.
BW was, in the end about getting a Sky-unit deathball.
It is appaling that, with brood war nation wars starting about two hours from now, we still get comments about "BW was [insert random bs here about what the poster wants brood war to have been]" I mean seriously ? You honestly belive Protoss players just wait till they get carriers and then proceed to roll terran ?
You do know that not all terran players just do a 200/200 +2 +1 timing right ? You do know that terrans have this unit called a dropship, and also another one called a vulture which can be pretty useful for harassment and map control ? You do know that some maps like fightning spirit actually allow you to play some kind of split map scenario in TvP and win ? You do know that there is this concept of macro in this game, which works pretty well for the protoss once he gets 4+ bases up ? You do know about this unit called the arbiter which, used in combination with large amounts of dragoon/zeal can actually fight a terran army somewhat evenly ? Oh but we can do more original stuff too. You do know that protoss also has this unit called the corsair, which has a spell called Disruption web ? And that corsair dragoon is actually a legit way to play PvT ? I could go on and on and on...
Seriously people, i usually keep things to myself but could you at least stop spreading misinformation, and actually watch some brood war instead of posting your distorted view of the game ? So we don't have "BW was [...] about getting a sky unit deathball " ?
Zerg was the "Fear me, I have tons of units"-race. Now it is the "Fear me, I have a high tech!"-species. Terran always meant for me "F*ck this, I'm taking my SCVs and eat you alive". Now it has changed to "F*ck you, I'll outmacro you". Protoss always made their enemies think "Omg, he is taking another expo". Now they are like "Omg, he is not taking his expo, he is allining me for sure!!!"
And also, you can call me a "casual" fool trying to ruin this game, but seriously, what do you think is more viewer-appealing? Aggressive players beating the sh*t out of each other since minute 5 of the game or passive SimCity into endgame? A good RTS is like sex, the less you are touching each other, the less fun you are having, lol.
yes yes yes. I have felt similarly for a very long time. The interesting game-play comes from the clash of styles and differing unit strengths and costs. Please give us back strong protoss, crafty terran, and fast cheap zerg.
Hello, I am a "veteran" BW player. For some reason I have never posted very much on these boards but I have come back to read it many times because this is a very high quality community we have here and I will always love it.
I recognize in what OP wrote the very reasons why I disconnected from the whole SC2 gaming scene very fast in the first month. Talking with fellow old school BW players many of us agreed with those same points in one way or the other and feel it's one of the reasons why we prefer BW to SC2.
I don't think, coming from Blizzard, we will ever see change in the right direction on these points. Day9 asked the question of race design to Dustin Browder in an interview with Blizz design team about a year after SC2 came out, the question was : "What are you trying to do in terms of playstyle for each race and how does it affect the game's development ?", something close to that. Dustin said, and it was shameful I think and I felt that Day9 too was disappointed in that answer since he didn't make any kind of comments : "We're not trying to do anything in terms of playstyle for the races, from the start we decided that the game's design would be centered on individual units that would each feel very special, unique and fun to play with, then we fix and tweak things depending on how those hero-feeling units work together" (again, smtg close to that, I haven't found the video back).
Well, that's what SC2 is, that's how they wanted to sell it to the players. SC2 is designed so that the newcomers, who typically like to look at individual units and feel their "terrible terrible damage" power in specific actions within battles, would be easily attracted to the game thanks to this design. Global scale strategy and race design, which really matters so much more to allow a strategy game to be really interesting, as fun to play and watch as possible, are more difficult to understand for someone who never played RTS online or "seriously". SC2 is of the era of game-products.
The damage done to the game because of this design, and because of the new pathing (smarter units that don't bug is good, no collision and autosurround kills a lot of micro and positionning) is tremendous. Terrible, terrible damage, so to speak : As you said and this is the most unbearable aspect of the game to me and probably most BW players, the deathball vs deathball character of the game kills most of the positionnal and movement strategy that was critical in BW and made it fun. No more little bunch of units capable of defending a choke point against twice as many units, no more dispatching your forces smartly accross important points on the map depending on what your opponent is trying to do and what you are trying to do to him. Little harrassing, and little micro. A very large part of the game now is just trying to get to that deathball composition faster than your opponent. Planning expansions depending on spatial defence possibilities and map control has become a lot simpler.
I don't think SC2 is a bad game, but it certainly never will live up to my expectations as a BW player for those reasons.
Personnally I think as RTS and Starcraft fans we should realize that Blizzard is no longer working for us, rather for maximizing their own profit, which does conflict with the interests of their consumers in many cases (just like all other big industries). For me, SC2 was only worth playing for about 2 months (1 when it came out, then 1 more a year after that which let me get to Master league easily thanks to past BW experience, I'm about rank B on ICCup). In the future, I would like it if the Starcraft/RTS community either came back to a better game like BW, developped its own or just picked it's focus ignoring advertisement and tournament run with money from the very corporation that produce the games. We could make our own tournaments with cash prizes and our own games. We could communicate to people who don't know so much about RTS why this or that game is really awesome rather than SC2. If we keep following Blizzard/big corporations/money, we will never be playing a really great game together again. In the meantime, I think those who feel like me keep playing BW.
I often say, every single game of BW I play feels more interesting and more fun than the best game of SC2 I have ever played. That's pretty much accurate for me.
PS : On the point of the Z feeling terrible compared to BW I really agree with that, I think that is the worst race design flaw in SC2 for the very reasons you stated. I also personnally strongly dislike the Queen "inject larvae" mechanic and its consequence on the Z macro. Now you get so many larvaes Z rather play with few bases full of drones than lots of bases with a few, this really kills their "spread and defend with mobility" theme which, added with huge numbers and a lot of tension in choice you made for each larva, made them such an interesting and different race.
As for P in SC2, I also agree with many of your remarks even if I liked the idea of Warpgate originally. It's certainly true that it is not well implemented into the game since P units still suck at doing anything on their own with the way the game is designed (too weak, no micro, little defensive advantage on chokepoints, too many crippling perks to some units attacks like marauders...). I also really dislike the way robo tech relates with citadel tech in SC2, colossus have a role too similar to high templars and DTs are too expansive to get. Archons are in a really awkward position and can always be replaced with something else (eg colossus). All units need to support each other into a deathball too... basic units really suck by themselves. The zealot "charge" ability destroys a lot of micro and positionning.
It is true that T feels slightly better because at least they can do many different things with all the valid tech paths, although their global style still feels weaker than BW because of tanks being weak / not enough positional advantage, etc. The marauder slowing shot destroys a lot of micro and positionning...
I think it is worth to watch and feel the racial identity in BW through VODs and compare how different it is from SC2. If you don't want to watch VODs and do rather watch a stream, then please take a look at this event:
By watching these games you will see what are the racial identities in BW and how it is so different from P, T and especially Z in SC2. The event will probably be restreamed by snipealot2 (with player FP view) and snipealot (korean cast).
One thing that scares me is: what if they decided to change the racial identity in SC2 from BW? I think someone at some point will use that as an excuse for the lack of racial identity of some units...
As I come from BW I certainly wouldn't like a change of racial identity, but I don't see why someone that has never played BW would care about how P, Z and T were supposed to feel in BW, Blizzard has to be coeherent though...
Totally agree, great post and very insightful! I've been thinking along these lines for a while but didn't really know how to explain it, this post does that for me so thanks :D
I feel exactly this way. Zerg should feel fast and swarmlike, so I just play that way regardless of the effectiveness. I'm starting to love overlord drops, and I can't wait til the HotS ultra buff :D
@game design/deathball: The general fact that everything has to do terrible terrible damage is imo hurting the game severely, because it makes harassment totally broken and as a result creates the necessity to create broken defensive mechanisms, which leads to no harassment at all. we have seen it happen hundreds of times, there was a time when terran was dropping everybody to death, until players learned to defend with few investment and afterwards it rarely happened again. Same for mutas and reaper. Blizz either needs to create a unit that is hard to stop but doesnt force the harassed player to push immediately, or rework the way their static defense vs harass mechanic works for this game to have more action and less all-ins.
@racial identity: thought about it a lot, but imho it musnt limit the gameplay. I e.g. hate toss-gameplay for being so immobile that harass is never an option (and it never made sense storywise). i really like the race in terms of design optically and storywise, but their gameplay is incredibly boring.
although you could probably create the game the way that zerg as a swarm race can have generally tons of low supply units, toss is supposed to have just high supply units and terran is supposed to make sth happen with trickery, repair and position and just force that concept throughout all tech-tiers while giving every race units for every purpose. that would probably solve both problems, it would just be pretty hard to balance while maintaining the distinctiveness of the races.
I whole heartedly agree with your assessment. The Protoss have gone from ManToss ti GimmickyToss. I can see why, with the protoss being highly intelligent and the stereotype of Geniuses is Sheldon (From BBT), but now I'm left without a Race whose strengths covers my weaknesses. With HotS the transition to GimmickyToss is getting clearer.
The Immortal is the only "manly" unit left, but is not very versatile as the dragoon was deconstructed into two units, the stalker and the immortal. The stalker got the versatility, the immortal the strength.
On January 07 2013 01:02 algue wrote: It's true that I'd like to see some blue post about Blizzard's racial philosophy (and see them stick to it). If DB says "Zerg is now the cost efficient race of the game and protoss is the weak but numerous race" I'm fine with it as long as they really implement it in the game.
At the moment the only sign of Blizzards racial philosophy that I can remember is their Race Overview (http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/game/guide/race-overview) where they clearly say that zerg is weak and numerous and protoss are few but powerful. And weirdly enough in HotS : - they give the swarm host and the viper to the zerg army, 2 cost effective units. - They give the oracle, a fast and weak unit, to the protoss army - But they also give a slow and strong unit, the tempest.
To summarize, they try to make zerg become the cost efficient race and they try to make protoss a bit more mobile and fragile but not too much...
I wish blizzard cool go back to the zerg and protoss roots (Imo the terran race personnality is good)
The way I heard it Zerg was way, way cost efficient in broodwar. So much so that they could comfortably sit below 70 supply down from their opponents and still consider that a fair fight. The problems occurring now is less about racial identities and the attributes of units, and more about the basic economy of starcraft 2.
This is the truth of starcraft 2. The economy is limited to 3 base vs 3 base, and the supply of units are severly hampering any useful attempts of splitting armies, because you only have one army of 120 supply to split with. Usually it comes down to sending cheaper units to die while trying your darnedest at keeping the more expensive ones dying at a cost effective rate regardless of race because you simply dont have the economy as any race to try anything else.
Marauders and Roaches are the two units that destroyed the race design in Starcraft 2. It's like if they really wanted to show us that SC2 is not a BW clone (yet it should have been)
My analogy back in 1998-1999 to explain Starcraft's races were: Think Alien vs Predators vs Marines.
Now it's all upside down, a stimmed marauder can almost kill 2 stalkers.
On January 06 2013 19:29 Rabiator wrote: The thing is that race design is good as a concept, but there is only so far you can go with it to not make it terribly imbalanced. Too strong individual units can break the game as much as too fast or too cheap ones.
If you make the "swarmy race" too cheap and fast and easily controlled you will enable them to go everywhere in superior numbers so the "expensive and better units" of that other race will simply be overrun. We see this problem clearly when we compare SC2 to its predecessor and look at what has changed.
This isnt the only example of where Blizzard "did too much" and many of the bad apples come from the general game "improvements" of SC2 over BW and not the racial design. Unlimited unit selection, forced super clumped movement and production speed boosts coupled with a higher economy all lead to too many units on the battlefield to the point where quality of a unit doesnt matter anymore and reproduction capability becomes very very VERY important.
Agreed. Though this is also a question of income/action ratio. (imagine very active units like hellions and mutas when the income would be halfed --> their value would go through the roof)
Basically some racial identities (superswarmy zerg, superdefensive Terran) is what makes it so hard to get a metagame inwhich you can actually deal blows to an opponent.
The problem is that with super dense massive numbers of units you cant have super high damage attacks that really one-shot many units ... stuff like the Siege Tank or Reaver in BW. The same restriction - although in reverse order - probably applies to the thing you pointed out: super mobile units in a game with few units on the battlefield. Personally I dont think the "super mobile" way of doing things look that awesome (because as a spectator you have to be able to follow the battle) AND they have a much higher requirement on the controlling skill (the APM) of the user.
With a slower game with more awkward movement system and limited unit control such as in BW the gap between people at the top and the bottom of the ladder probably isnt that big and the true skill difference also comes from the right strategic decisions of when to expand and when to attack. A BW pro could get maybe an extra 10% efficiency out of his Mutalisks or Carriers through micro, but an SC2 pro can get maybe an extra 50% more efficiency out of lack of micro from the opposing player when he rolls in his Banelings and good Forcefield and Blink control are practically REQUIRED to make Stalkers work in a straight up battle against a Zerg army in SC2. This "amount of active control required" is really important in game design and putting too much of it into the game makes it useless (=bad) for people who dont spend 3-4 hours every day practicing to become perfect or at least not to lose their skill.
Thus it is my firm belief that SC2 has TOO MUCH STUFF and that this is one of the reasons why the game sucks for casuals who just want to play to have a good time. The whole "activatable units" thing in SC2 is geared totally towards pros and the customers who should be critical of it are defending this in the belief that you cant have fun without activated abilities. SC2 is designed solely for 1v1 pro gaming and BW was awesome at 8 people FFA as well.
Not exactly that important to the discussion, but I couldn't just let you get away with saying in BW carriers or mutalisks effectiveness is improved by maybe 10% by proper micro. Have you never seen BW micro? When was the last time you saw 10 mutalisks kill 30 marines and end the game in SC2? Did you not see Tyler's thread on carrier micro and why SC2 doesn't allow carriers to be microed in any meaningful way? Basically the opposite of everything you said about BW vs SC2 micro is true.
On January 06 2013 10:53 peanutsfan1995 wrote: OP has some great points. As a Zerg player, I got into the game wanting to swarm opponents, use a ton of lings, apply pressure constantly, and win with a fast, mobile army that weathered away at my opponent. Instead, I turtle up and slowly move out with a deathball.
Are there times when races are played as their original design intended? Of course! But I think that it's pretty clear that the trends are showing constant deviation from this design.
To be fair, nobody forces you to make a deathball. I mean, if you're a grandmasters I'm pretty sure Deathball is too darn effective. But I'm (Low Masters) still using a Ultra, Ling, Bling, Hydra, Infestor composition vs protoss. Ultra to break the forcefields, hydras to kill archons and immortals, blings to kill Zealots and lings to get the surround on the rest. It's not as effective as Broodlord - Infestor, true. But at least it's fun to do.
Anyway, regarding the OP, I agree completely. It just feels completely wrong to be maxed 200/200 supply just by having a few Roaches or Hydralisks. In Broodwar, people usually didn't even REACH the supply cap, or at least it was very rare, especially Zerg. Now, we have lings, blings and drones. For the rest, not a single unit is 1 supply. They're all big fat 2 or more supply units, where is the swarm feeling in that? I'd rather have the hydra and the roach as a weaker 1 supply version as what we have now.
Its still a deathball. Just a deathball consisting of lots of smaller deathballs.
I think its frightening that so many people can talk about deathballs and still have no idea what a deathball is.
On January 07 2013 14:20 Patate wrote: Marauders and Roaches are the two units that destroyed the race design in Starcraft 2. It's like if they really wanted to show us that SC2 is not a BW clone (yet it should have been)
My analogy back in 1998-1999 to explain Starcraft's races were: Think Alien vs Predators vs Marines.
Now it's all upside down, a stimmed marauder can almost kill 2 stalkers.
Well stalkers could be a lot stronger if warp gates didn't exist. I don't know why they don't just make warp-in require like 150 energy with a cool down that pauses regular production. Would severely hamper all in warp gate attacks and limit death ball infinite reinforce that prevents Zerg and Terran from inefficiently wearing toss down like they should if race design was being followed. Mix that with making bases max out mining efficiency at 18 or so workers and now Zerg or Terran can afford to trade cost inefficiently as long as they are a base or two up.
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.
Huh? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Maybe my reasoning wasn't clear.
Zerg has generally been billed as the race that makes a lot of low cost, low supply units that win through sheer numbers (quantity over quality), but aren't very cost effective, particularly in small numbers. Both zerglings and mutalisks fit this pretty well, that is why I said they still feel "zergy." Ultras were the biggest exception to this rule in BW, and it is fine to have a few units that break this rule in limited amounts.
The problem is that in SC2, most zerg units break this rule now. Roaches not are cost ineffective (although they are sort of supply ineffective). Roaches are strikingly similar to a protoss unit (zealot) in stats. 2 roaches will wreck an equal or close to equal cost of protoss units (stalker) if little to no micro is involved. Queens have absolutely amazing stats for their cost. Infestors and broodlords can be more cost efficient than any other unit/unit combination in the game. That isn't zerg (to me, or the original idea). I remember an old DB interview where he was asked about this, about why zerg didn't feel "zergy" or "swarmy" anymore, and he said they felt that simply remaking units really fast felt "swarmy" enough. I don't feel that way.
Compare the SC2 hydralisk to the BW hydralisk. The hydralisk in BW cost 75 minerals and 25 gas and 1 supply. The hydra in BW wasn't particularly great against anything, but it was ok against most things (sort of like the stalker in sc2). It was good because you could get a lot of them (they were cheap and low supply) and you won through numbers. The hydralisk in sc2 costs 100 minerals, 50 gas and 2 supply. It also has incredibly high dps. It makes up for this by being very fragile. It is an expensive, high damage, high risk (glass cannon) type unit, that actually does better when not massed. It is a hard-counter style unit that crushes some things and is crushed by others. How is that "swarmy?" How is that "zergy?" To me, it isn't. That is just the most concrete example I can give, but there is more than that (scourge come to mind).
I'm not trying to make this a BW > SC2 thing. I genuinely don't feel that way. But zerg isn't zerg right now. They don't win through sheer numbers passed the early game, and that is a problem. So I'd like to ask you, right now, what is the race identity for zerg? It makes stuff fast? What kind of stuff? Can't protoss make stuff just as fast? I honestly don't know what makes zerg "quantity over quality" anymore, and if it isn't that anymore, what is it? And is what it is now really a fair idea?
Edit: I realized several people have said similar things. I don't think the race identity for zerg is very clear right now, and that is what we are struggling with.
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...
Actually tanks are stronger in sc2 than in bw, unsieged tanks do more dps and siege tanks do just as much dmg to zealots / rines / lings as in bw, then add the smart ai (e.g tanks no longer "overkill" by wasting volleys) And Id say tanks are much stronger in sc2 than in bw.
I like the swarmy feeling of zerg, I like how BL gives a zerg that feeling. however I dont like how incredibly cost inefficient everything except for infestor / bl are.
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...
Actually tanks are stronger in sc2 than in bw, unsieged tanks do more dps and siege tanks do just as much dmg to zealots / rines / lings as in bw, then add the smart ai (e.g tanks no longer "overkill" by wasting volleys) And Id say tanks are much stronger in sc2 than in bw.
I like the swarmy feeling of zerg, I like how BL gives a zerg that feeling. however I dont like how incredibly cost inefficient everything except for infestor / bl are.
Being good against marines/lings/zealots is a bare minimum requirement. Those are not expensive units relative to the tank and in siege mode tanks should decimate them. They fall off dramatically.
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...
Actually tanks are stronger in sc2 than in bw, unsieged tanks do more dps and siege tanks do just as much dmg to zealots / rines / lings as in bw, then add the smart ai (e.g tanks no longer "overkill" by wasting volleys) And Id say tanks are much stronger in sc2 than in bw.
I like the swarmy feeling of zerg, I like how BL gives a zerg that feeling. however I dont like how incredibly cost inefficient everything except for infestor / bl are.
Being good against marines/lings/zealots is a bare minimum requirement. Those are not expensive units relative to the tank and in siege mode tanks should decimate them. They fall off dramatically.
I think he has a point vs most Terran and Zerg units. That being said, Tanks don't do full damage to shields anymore which is huge, the "only" 50 damage to stalkers/Immortals/Colossi (70 vs dragoons/reavers) and only 35damage vs archons (instead of 70) is also quite an issue. 3supply tanks instead of 2 doesn't help either, but that is not so much a question of costefficiency vs Protoss, which is the real problem tanks have.
And to mention it: "only" 50damage vs Ultralisk (and Thor) matters as well, mostly in TvZ lategame, when massed ultras can do quite well against tanks outside of chokes.
I disagree with the OP, that races lost identity in thay had in BW. For example, in BW, in TvP, terran for all inteds and purposes was an expensive, powerfull unit, slow deathball style. Just look at it.
Terran: Siege tank, 150min/100gas, goliath 100/50 vulture 75/0, science vessle 100/225 Protos: Zelot 100/0, dragoon 125/50, arbiter 100/350. Terran turtles and pushes with a huge ball of units.
Then, Look at Z, where the major unit was lurker 125/125, which is as expencive as Siege tank, and in many ways similar to it in gameplay. then zerg army had muta as it`s core midgame unit, which was 100/100, and for late game guardian, which was 150/200, devourer 250/150, and ultralisk 200/200, neither of which is fragile, expendable unit.
Hell the early TvZ had ZERG having more expencive and powerfull units, Hydra and Lurker, vs marine medic firebat.
And, the early game ZvP was a match of Hydra vs zelot which cost about same.
Fact is, nor BW, nor SC2 did follow exact guidelines of the races.
The SC2 races are actually way more distinct and unique than SC:BW, in fact races gained a lot of identity.
Protos: they are reliant on technological superiority. Warpgate, force field, Blink, cronoboosting upgrades, and mobility that their superior tech provides.
Zerg: the Swarm. They can literally swarm you with huge numbers of roaches, they have wawes of expendable broodlings infested terrans and locusts, and they are extreemly flexible due to easy tech switch and almost instant remax in different tech tree, if resourses allow. In fact, Infestor -Broodlord is the swarmiest swarm one imagine.
Terran are the flexible ones, so they have mule&Scan&supply depot drop, allowing them better economy when on fewer bases, the ability to scout without having to go out in field, the flexibility of reactors/tech labs, powerfull support of medivacs, ghosts, and in late game Ravens, the PDD&Seaker missle owns soo much.
BW had race identities way less distinct. Terran and Protos were pretty dam similar, powerfull, survivable barracks(due to medics)/gateway mobile units(zelot legs/stim), slow but powefull siege options(siege tank/river), dragoon/goliath, a stealth infantry, dropship, a AA-Splash air unit, a flying caster, a anti-capital ship air unit and a capital ship.
On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote: I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
On January 07 2013 18:32 naastyOne wrote: I disagree with the OP, that races lost identity in thay had in BW. For example, in BW, in TvP, terran for all inteds and purposes was an expensive, powerfull unit, slow deathball style. Just look at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LzRUZmBXO8
Terran: Siege tank, 150min/100gas, goliath 100/50 vulture 75/0, science vessle 100/225 Protos: Zelot 100/0, dragoon 125/50, arbiter 100/350. Terran turtles and pushes with a huge ball of units.
Then, Look at Z, where the major unit was lurker 125/125, which is as expencive as Siege tank, and in many ways similar to it in gameplay. then zerg army had muta as it`s core midgame unit, which was 100/100, and for late game guardian, which was 150/200, devourer 250/150, and ultralisk 200/200, neither of which is fragile, expendable unit.
Hell the early TvZ had ZERG having more expencive and powerfull units, Hydra and Lurker, vs marine medic firebat.
And, the early game ZvP was a match of Hydra vs zelot which cost about same.
Fact is, nor BW, nor SC2 did follow exact guidelines of the races.
The SC2 races are actually way more distinct and unique than SC:BW, in fact races gained a lot of identity.
Protos: they are reliant on technological superiority. Warpgate, force field, Blink, cronoboosting upgrades, and mobility that their superior tech provides.
Zerg: the Swarm. They can literally swarm you with huge numbers of roaches, they have wawes of expendable broodlings infested terrans and locusts, and they are extreemly flexible due to easy tech switch and almost instant remax in different tech tree, if resourses allow. In fact, Infestor -Broodlord is the swarmiest swarm one imagine.
Terran are the flexible ones, so they have mule&Scan&supply depot drop, allowing them better economy when on fewer bases, the ability to scout without having to go out in field, the flexibility of reactors/tech labs, powerfull support of medivacs, ghosts, and in late game Ravens, the PDD&Seaker missle owns soo much.
BW had race identities way less distinct. Terran and Protos were pretty dam similar, powerfull, survivable barracks(due to medics)/gateway mobile units(zelot legs/stim), slow but powefull siege options(siege tank/river), dragoon/goliath, a stealth infantry, dropship, a AA-Splash air unit, a flying caster, a anti-capital ship air unit and a capital ship.
what???? SC2 races more unique? roach\marauders\stalker, basically the same units.
you also compare reaver to siege, yeah they are exatcly the same...i don't think you have played BW seriously
On January 06 2013 10:53 peanutsfan1995 wrote: OP has some great points. As a Zerg player, I got into the game wanting to swarm opponents, use a ton of lings, apply pressure constantly, and win with a fast, mobile army that weathered away at my opponent. Instead, I turtle up and slowly move out with a deathball.
Are there times when races are played as their original design intended? Of course! But I think that it's pretty clear that the trends are showing constant deviation from this design.
To be fair, nobody forces you to make a deathball. I mean, if you're a grandmasters I'm pretty sure Deathball is too darn effective. But I'm (Low Masters) still using a Ultra, Ling, Bling, Hydra, Infestor composition vs protoss. Ultra to break the forcefields, hydras to kill archons and immortals, blings to kill Zealots and lings to get the surround on the rest. It's not as effective as Broodlord - Infestor, true. But at least it's fun to do.
Anyway, regarding the OP, I agree completely. It just feels completely wrong to be maxed 200/200 supply just by having a few Roaches or Hydralisks. In Broodwar, people usually didn't even REACH the supply cap, or at least it was very rare, especially Zerg. Now, we have lings, blings and drones. For the rest, not a single unit is 1 supply. They're all big fat 2 or more supply units, where is the swarm feeling in that? I'd rather have the hydra and the roach as a weaker 1 supply version as what we have now.
Its still a deathball. Just a deathball consisting of lots of smaller deathballs.
I think its frightening that so many people can talk about deathballs and still have no idea what a deathball is.
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..
On January 06 2013 06:52 tili wrote: I love this philosophy/approach!
I think Blords ARE necessary to put pressure for zerg, but making them a supplement rather than THE end game should be where design is heading in hots.
Edit: swarm hosts do this as well, but honestly, I wish they gave us another FAST unit, rather than another slow/seige unit... obviously the muta buff is swank.
They buffed the living shit out of hydras.
Hydras still 2 supply. Don't like that at all.
I agree, there is no reason at all for hydras to be 2 supply. The limiting factor is their cost anyway. Ever fought with a maxed hydra army against another maxed, standard army? They get completely obliterated because they are so supply inefficient.
I don't think it's the case that adding a unit or two here and there which (in some or even most conditions) doesn't fit the mold for the race will ultimately result in homogenized races. The stalker, for instance, while it is weaker in a straight up fight against a marauder - it's stronger than a number of marines, it has advantages against basically every air unit, and it's extremely mobile. Just saying it loses a straight up fight to one unit type doesn't make it less valuable overall. And sure, BL/infestor is made up of a small number of high tech/expensive units - which doesn't fit the mold for zerg - but they then produce a large number of units which are more or less free (provided you can protect the units spawning them), which do fit the zerg mold.
All the same, I like your argument. It's well articulated, and while I don't agree with the conclusion, you've made a convincing case. In a time where everyone and their mother has "views on game bal.. I mean design", I like that you've made a real argument here.
On January 07 2013 18:32 naastyOne wrote: I disagree with the OP, that races lost identity in thay had in BW. For example, in BW, in TvP, terran for all inteds and purposes was an expensive, powerfull unit, slow deathball style. Just look at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LzRUZmBXO8
Terran: Siege tank, 150min/100gas, goliath 100/50 vulture 75/0, science vessle 100/225 Protos: Zelot 100/0, dragoon 125/50, arbiter 100/350. Terran turtles and pushes with a huge ball of units.
Then, Look at Z, where the major unit was lurker 125/125, which is as expencive as Siege tank, and in many ways similar to it in gameplay. then zerg army had muta as it`s core midgame unit, which was 100/100, and for late game guardian, which was 150/200, devourer 250/150, and ultralisk 200/200, neither of which is fragile, expendable unit.
Hell the early TvZ had ZERG having more expencive and powerfull units, Hydra and Lurker, vs marine medic firebat.
And, the early game ZvP was a match of Hydra vs zelot which cost about same.
Fact is, nor BW, nor SC2 did follow exact guidelines of the races.
The SC2 races are actually way more distinct and unique than SC:BW, in fact races gained a lot of identity.
Protos: they are reliant on technological superiority. Warpgate, force field, Blink, cronoboosting upgrades, and mobility that their superior tech provides.
Zerg: the Swarm. They can literally swarm you with huge numbers of roaches, they have wawes of expendable broodlings infested terrans and locusts, and they are extreemly flexible due to easy tech switch and almost instant remax in different tech tree, if resourses allow. In fact, Infestor -Broodlord is the swarmiest swarm one imagine.
Terran are the flexible ones, so they have mule&Scan&supply depot drop, allowing them better economy when on fewer bases, the ability to scout without having to go out in field, the flexibility of reactors/tech labs, powerfull support of medivacs, ghosts, and in late game Ravens, the PDD&Seaker missle owns soo much.
BW had race identities way less distinct. Terran and Protos were pretty dam similar, powerfull, survivable barracks(due to medics)/gateway mobile units(zelot legs/stim), slow but powefull siege options(siege tank/river), dragoon/goliath, a stealth infantry, dropship, a AA-Splash air unit, a flying caster, a anti-capital ship air unit and a capital ship.
well toss cant really use the mobility of their superior tech, because all of their units are more or less slow. what's building their army core are two incredibly fragile units (stalker, sentry) and a disposable unit that is just supposed to eat as many shots as possible. colossi and hts fit the manly criteria, but for mobility through technology you are just looking at the wrong race. toss has become a race that depends on their high tech-support units, because their basic units are weak on their own, similar to what you describe terran should be like. on the other hand bio has pretty much become what toss was in bw, having strong core units and increasing their mobility and support through tech. bio is more manly and heroic than every gateway unit, and more mobile by the way, the core criteria of what toss is supposed to be now.
mass-zergling is the swarmiest composition i can imagine. yes, inf/blord can create tons of disposable units, but seriously none of these are scary or ferocious in any way, half of them are even using an automatic rifle, how "un-zergy" is that? Zerg is supposed to be the unstoppable, all devouring swarm and none of their new units is anywhere close to scary. And inf/blord is terribly immobile which is strange for a composition of genetically optimizing predators.
I chose Zerg because I wanted to overwhelm my opponent with sheer numbers. The thought of spreading creep and having hundreds and hundreds of army pieces is something that I really wanted when I bought the game (having never played the original before mind you).
I wouldn't say I'm let down, but it isn't exactly what I got. Sure zergling+baneling+mutalisk is a strong strategy and can give you that overwhelming feeling when you trap a group of marines and explode them with green ooze, it's short lived and isn't as overwhelming as I originally envisioned. Sure there are ways to spawn in a ton of fake supply (Broodlings from Broodlords and Infested Terrans from Infestors), they don't have the same feeling.
I don't think that swarm hosts really fill this hole either, as they are still just temporary units.
On January 07 2013 18:32 naastyOne wrote: The SC2 races are actually way more distinct and unique than SC:BW, in fact races gained a lot of identity.
AHAHAhaha Man in brood war even WORKERS have their differences : SCVs are super beefy, PROBES have range 2 and you can Micro DRONES like any other unit ( fast attack animation, insta damage, and they handle well ). Also probes mine slightly faster ( which i belive is due to acceleration speed, not sure tho so don't quote me on that ).
And the game is still fairly balanced even with those racial differences. Of course they also had their own racial features like how scvs can be repaired, drones heal and probes have shield.
Because of that you get to see really cool things like, putting two zealots on a ramp to block it ( yes you can block a ramp using only two zealots ) and put a probe right behind each zealot, and thanks to their range of two they would be able to attack behind the two zealots shielding them, and the extra dps of the probe gives you more damage output than if you didn't have said probes but had a +1 attack on the zealots. That means your zeals can basically two shot probes. This is a cool trick made possible by the fact that BW races are actually way more distinct and unique than their SC2 counterpart.
The flexibility of the terran race is one of the greatest things about this game. Against a zerg you would usually open bio ( 9min timing with MnM + tank + vessel or 5 rax +1 ) and often transition into mech in the mid game, usually after your bio helped you secure a good position on the map. This isn't because players just like to play bio, this is mostly because opening with bio is generally a more eifficient way to play. Which AGAIN doesn't mean you that you CAN'T open with mech ... Against protoss however, the eifficiency of bio is abymal once past the midgame, that is why you generally don't make more than 4 marines in a TvP unless you're planning on doing some crazy aggression earlygame or an allin midgame. That is why you go for mech.
Zerg is usually behind terran in supply when the terran plays bio ( by around 10 - 15 supply ). But against protoss the zerg player tends to be the one relying on cheap units ( hydras ).
Now let me break down a standard TvZ for you : terran makes barracks while zerg makes hatch ( Technically you could say T has the initiative but can't really do much of anything ) ; then terran gets a CC while the zerg finishes his spawning pool ( at this point the zerg can just produce more lings than the terran can make marines and T is on the defensive, as zergs sometimes produce a bunch of lings and try to do a bit of damage, T usually blocks his ramp with two SCVs and marines behind it when this happens ) . Then terran gets his academy, which means firebat / medics are available and +1 range / stim becomes researchable ( Thus giving back terran the ability to do something if the zerg went for 3 hatch muta, what happens here is usually terran moves out with a control group of units comprising many marines and one or two medics + one firebat. He then gets outside the zerg's natural with this small army, thus forcing the zerg to stay in his base, and also forcing him to make 3 sunkens. That gives terran map control back, as zerg is now on the defensive. ). Zerg then gets his tech up ( usually mutas, or, if you're Pike, usually lurkers ) and terran is forced back ( Stimming marines and right clicking on ONE muta to try and snipe them, making turrets in his base, usually 2 by 2, around barracks, around mineral line in natural etc etc. ). Then terran gets his vessels and tanks, and his bio army is larger, he can irradiate + stim against mutas or irradiate + tank against lurkers ( At this point the terran has the initiative back and can retake the map, while the zerg usually has his lurker tech barely finishing up and 2 or 3 lurkers at his third base which is usually another main instead of the closest third, so that he can benefit from the small ramp and defend his base with only 2 - 3 lurkers instead of needing a whole army ). Then the zerg gets his hive tech up ( defilers ) and we reach somewhat of a stalemate where the zerg army is slightly better ( againts terran bio tank vessel ) mainly thanks to dark swarm, but the difference is not big enough for zerg to just steamroll the terran, and they can actually fight somewhat evenly while terran switches to mech ( siege tank splash damage and vulture mines do damage under swarm and allow the terran to retain some map control while still having the mobility of the vultures to harass )
TL;DR
You make it sound black and white and purposefully omit things which are obvious to anyone who's atually watched some brood war. Most people who actually know those things probably think they are good ( yes it is a big assumption but seeing how most people seem like they want SC2 to be more like brood war, it is not unreasonnable ). I think the kind back and forth i mentionned in the spoilers, where each player gains and loose the initiative ( and the opportunities that come with it at different timings ) is very beneficial to the game, gives the players opportunities to gain small edges through good control ( good muta micro doing more damage than average / good defense against mutas or being more / less aggressive early on with the MnM etc etc ... ) as opposed to SC2's lack of action early game and general turtle play in most machups. Especially seeing how people seemed to like and miss old, action-packed SC2 TvZ ( before Blizzard gives zerg the ability to fend off almost any early game attack by simply making more queendralysks ) of a couple of patches ago. ( There was a handful of polls asking people about their favorite matchups to play / watch and SC2 TvZ was ahead of all the other SC2 matchups, possibly even ahead of the brood war ones, which wouldn't surprise me as i don't belive all the voters actually play / watch brood war )
I picked Zerg originally because of the way I wanted to play the game, with the quick swarmy style and being all over the map and whatnot.
However now, I feel like I'm forced into playing the Infestor-Broodlord style (I hate the infestor always no matter what I'm using it with - Fungal Growth is not fun to use imo) eventually in every matchup, and this is the exact opposite of what I would like to be doing. As a result I find myself using strategies that are mostly out of date and less powerful than current Zerg strategies, which is frustrating but gets me by
On January 07 2013 18:32 naastyOne wrote: I disagree with the OP, that races lost identity in thay had in BW. For example, in BW, in TvP, terran for all inteds and purposes was an expensive, powerfull unit, slow deathball style. Just look at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LzRUZmBXO8
Terran: Siege tank, 150min/100gas, goliath 100/50 vulture 75/0, science vessle 100/225 Protos: Zelot 100/0, dragoon 125/50, arbiter 100/350. Terran turtles and pushes with a huge ball of units.
Then, Look at Z, where the major unit was lurker 125/125, which is as expencive as Siege tank, and in many ways similar to it in gameplay. then zerg army had muta as it`s core midgame unit, which was 100/100, and for late game guardian, which was 150/200, devourer 250/150, and ultralisk 200/200, neither of which is fragile, expendable unit.
Hell the early TvZ had ZERG having more expencive and powerfull units, Hydra and Lurker, vs marine medic firebat.
And, the early game ZvP was a match of Hydra vs zelot which cost about same.
Fact is, nor BW, nor SC2 did follow exact guidelines of the races.
The SC2 races are actually way more distinct and unique than SC:BW, in fact races gained a lot of identity.
Protos: they are reliant on technological superiority. Warpgate, force field, Blink, cronoboosting upgrades, and mobility that their superior tech provides.
Zerg: the Swarm. They can literally swarm you with huge numbers of roaches, they have wawes of expendable broodlings infested terrans and locusts, and they are extreemly flexible due to easy tech switch and almost instant remax in different tech tree, if resourses allow. In fact, Infestor -Broodlord is the swarmiest swarm one imagine.
Terran are the flexible ones, so they have mule&Scan&supply depot drop, allowing them better economy when on fewer bases, the ability to scout without having to go out in field, the flexibility of reactors/tech labs, powerfull support of medivacs, ghosts, and in late game Ravens, the PDD&Seaker missle owns soo much.
BW had race identities way less distinct. Terran and Protos were pretty dam similar, powerfull, survivable barracks(due to medics)/gateway mobile units(zelot legs/stim), slow but powefull siege options(siege tank/river), dragoon/goliath, a stealth infantry, dropship, a AA-Splash air unit, a flying caster, a anti-capital ship air unit and a capital ship.
what???? SC2 races more unique? roach\marauders\stalker, basically the same units.
you also compare reaver to siege, yeah they are exatcly the same...i don't think you have played BW seriously
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.
On January 07 2013 18:32 naastyOne wrote: I disagree with the OP, that races lost identity in thay had in BW. For example, in BW, in TvP, terran for all inteds and purposes was an expensive, powerfull unit, slow deathball style. Just look at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LzRUZmBXO8
Terran: Siege tank, 150min/100gas, goliath 100/50 vulture 75/0, science vessle 100/225 Protos: Zelot 100/0, dragoon 125/50, arbiter 100/350. Terran turtles and pushes with a huge ball of units.
Then, Look at Z, where the major unit was lurker 125/125, which is as expencive as Siege tank, and in many ways similar to it in gameplay. then zerg army had muta as it`s core midgame unit, which was 100/100, and for late game guardian, which was 150/200, devourer 250/150, and ultralisk 200/200, neither of which is fragile, expendable unit.
Hell the early TvZ had ZERG having more expencive and powerfull units, Hydra and Lurker, vs marine medic firebat.
And, the early game ZvP was a match of Hydra vs zelot which cost about same.
Fact is, nor BW, nor SC2 did follow exact guidelines of the races.
The SC2 races are actually way more distinct and unique than SC:BW, in fact races gained a lot of identity.
Protos: they are reliant on technological superiority. Warpgate, force field, Blink, cronoboosting upgrades, and mobility that their superior tech provides.
Zerg: the Swarm. They can literally swarm you with huge numbers of roaches, they have wawes of expendable broodlings infested terrans and locusts, and they are extreemly flexible due to easy tech switch and almost instant remax in different tech tree, if resourses allow. In fact, Infestor -Broodlord is the swarmiest swarm one imagine.
Terran are the flexible ones, so they have mule&Scan&supply depot drop, allowing them better economy when on fewer bases, the ability to scout without having to go out in field, the flexibility of reactors/tech labs, powerfull support of medivacs, ghosts, and in late game Ravens, the PDD&Seaker missle owns soo much.
BW had race identities way less distinct. Terran and Protos were pretty dam similar, powerfull, survivable barracks(due to medics)/gateway mobile units(zelot legs/stim), slow but powefull siege options(siege tank/river), dragoon/goliath, a stealth infantry, dropship, a AA-Splash air unit, a flying caster, a anti-capital ship air unit and a capital ship.
well toss cant really use the mobility of their superior tech, because all of their units are more or less slow. what's building their army core are two incredibly fragile units (stalker, sentry) and a disposable unit that is just supposed to eat as many shots as possible. colossi and hts fit the manly criteria, but for mobility through technology you are just looking at the wrong race. toss has become a race that depends on their high tech-support units, because their basic units are weak on their own, similar to what you describe terran should be like. on the other hand bio has pretty much become what toss was in bw, having strong core units and increasing their mobility and support through tech. bio is more manly and heroic than every gateway unit, and more mobile by the way, the core criteria of what toss is supposed to be now.
mass-zergling is the swarmiest composition i can imagine. yes, inf/blord can create tons of disposable units, but seriously none of these are scary or ferocious in any way, half of them are even using an automatic rifle, how "un-zergy" is that? Zerg is supposed to be the unstoppable, all devouring swarm and none of their new units is anywhere close to scary. And inf/blord is terribly immobile which is strange for a composition of genetically optimizing predators.
Let`s face it, compared to siege tank leapfroging and infestor-broodlord, Protos army is more mobile and reinforces faster.
Oh, you mean infested terran and broodlings are not scary in numbers? Lol and untrue.
On January 07 2013 18:32 naastyOne wrote: The SC2 races are actually way more distinct and unique than SC:BW, in fact races gained a lot of identity.
AHAHAhaha Man in brood war even WORKERS have their differences : SCVs are super beefy, PROBES have range 2 and you can Micro DRONES like any other unit ( fast attack animation, insta damage, and they handle well ). Also probes mine slightly faster ( which i belive is due to acceleration speed, not sure tho so don't quote me on that ).
And the game is still fairly balanced even with those racial differences. Of course they also had their own racial features like how scvs can be repaired, drones heal and probes have shield.
Because of that you get to see really cool things like, putting two zealots on a ramp to block it ( yes you can block a ramp using only two zealots ) and put a probe right behind each zealot, and thanks to their range of two they would be able to attack behind the two zealots shielding them, and the extra dps of the probe gives you more damage output than if you didn't have said probes but had a +1 attack on the zealots. That means your zeals can basically two shot probes. This is a cool trick made possible by the fact that BW races are actually way more distinct and unique than their SC2 counterpart.
Oh, really that is such a huge difference. Obvoiusly reingorcement and macro mechanics are nothing in comparison.
On January 08 2013 05:45 Marti wrote: Now let me break down a standard TvZ for you : terran makes barracks while zerg makes hatch ( Technically you could say T has the initiative but can't really do much of anything ) ; then terran gets a CC while the zerg finishes his spawning pool ( at this point the zerg can just produce more lings than the terran can make marines and T is on the defensive, as zergs sometimes produce a bunch of lings and try to do a bit of damage, T usually blocks his ramp with two SCVs and marines behind it when this happens ) . Then terran gets his academy, which means firebat / medics are available and +1 range / stim becomes researchable ( Thus giving back terran the ability to do something if the zerg went for 3 hatch muta, what happens here is usually terran moves out with a control group of units comprising many marines and one or two medics + one firebat. He then gets outside the zerg's natural with this small army, thus forcing the zerg to stay in his base, and also forcing him to make 3 sunkens. That gives terran map control back, as zerg is now on the defensive. ). Zerg then gets his tech up ( usually mutas, or, if you're Pike, usually lurkers ) and terran is forced back ( Stimming marines and right clicking on ONE muta to try and snipe them, making turrets in his base, usually 2 by 2, around barracks, around mineral line in natural etc etc. ). Then terran gets his vessels and tanks, and his bio army is larger, he can irradiate + stim against mutas or irradiate + tank against lurkers ( At this point the terran has the initiative back and can retake the map, while the zerg usually has his lurker tech barely finishing up and 2 or 3 lurkers at his third base which is usually another main instead of the closest third, so that he can benefit from the small ramp and defend his base with only 2 - 3 lurkers instead of needing a whole army ). Then the zerg gets his hive tech up ( defilers ) and we reach somewhat of a stalemate where the zerg army is slightly better ( againts terran bio tank vessel ) mainly thanks to dark swarm, but the difference is not big enough for zerg to just steamroll the terran, and they can actually fight somewhat evenly while terran switches to mech ( siege tank splash damage and vulture mines do damage under swarm and allow the terran to retain some map control while still having the mobility of the vultures to harass TL;DR
You make it sound black and white and purposefully omit things which are obvious to anyone who's atually watched some brood war. Most people who actually know those things probably think they are good ( yes it is a big assumption but seeing how most people seem like they want SC2 to be more like brood war, it is not unreasonnable ). I think the kind back and forth i mentionned in the spoilers, where each player gains and loose the initiative ( and the opportunities that come with it at different timings ) is very beneficial to the game, gives the players opportunities to gain small edges through good control ( good muta micro doing more damage than average / good defense against mutas or being more / less aggressive early on with the MnM etc etc ... ) as opposed to SC2's lack of action early game and general turtle play in most machups. Especially seeing how people seemed to like and miss old, action-packed SC2 TvZ ( before Blizzard gives zerg the ability to fend off almost any early game attack by simply making more queendralysks ) of a couple of patches ago. ( There was a handful of polls asking people about their favorite matchups to play / watch and SC2 TvZ was ahead of all the other SC2 matchups, possibly even ahead of the brood war ones, which wouldn't surprise me as i don't belive all the voters actually play / watch brood war )
So, you whote a wall of text, but didn`t manage to even make a point, which was about BW races not complying with the "cheap swarmy"/"flexible"/"expencive&strong" design anyhow, and often having it switched numerous times withing matchup.
Now ofcourse i could lecture you on the SC2 TvZ both with mech and bio, TvP of MMMVG, and PvZ with skytoss, roach 12min max, Roach-Hydra, and ofcourse zerling->infestor ->broodlord/ultralisk into mothership-carrier but it is still more playstyles than BW.
Though I agree with your post, I don't really know what blizzard could do to fix this (other than a total rehaul of zerg and toss).
When I first played sc2 I wanted zerg to be this swarm race that required lots of ling run bys and early aggression. Ironically zerg is the WORST race for any early aggression and if you stay on T2 units past the 14 min mark against toss, you get steamrolled by collosi/stalker deathballs.
The queens only emphasised the problems by allowing zergs to safely turtle up against pretty much anything.
In order to fix this i would implement the following changes:
Zerg Make zerglings weaker but allow for 3 to be made per larve (at the cost of 1 supply) Make bainlings cost 50 gas but no minerals (so there is more for swarm) Reduce queen range Make spine crawlers weaker Would change fungle to a spell possibly called "infect" that would act similar to irradiate in BW. Cast it on 1 opponent unit and it would weaken that unit (lowering it's health and speed) and units in close proximity would begin to experience the same effects. Would increase maximum unit supply to 250 for zerg only Remove Broodlords
By increasing the number of zerglings you get for 1 supply to 3, you would create larger more intimidating armies for the zerg. The bainling change would mean that the zerg would have to invest more heavily in bainlings, but still have minerals to create more swarm units. The slight buff to zerglings would remove the need for queens to have extra range and the spinecrawler nerf would still allow them to defend against early helion aggression while minimizing the effectiveness of spine fields in lategame ZvP. The fungle change is to allow the zerg units to better swarm over the opponent without removing the opponents ability to micro.
The most important change however would be the supply cap increase. This would allow the zergs to mass incredibly large armies, but they would also have access to 1 less tier 3 unit (by removing the broodlord).
Protoss
I'm not an expert on toss, and I am not going to pretend that I know how to balance them around the above zerg changes.
However I would say that warp gate could be removed, but stalkers given a stronger shield and maybe higher attack. I would also change how the collosi works, and make their beams slower but more powerful so that you can micro out of them (not my idea, there is a post about it somewhere)
I hope you like these ideas and I'm sure there are alot of issues I havn't considered... but hopefully the core concepts are good.
I chose Terran to want to mech and be like the human race when i first started sc2. Loved tanks at release but not as much now but I love the utility and strength of tanks with good positioning.
I tried all the races while I was learning the game; Prolly played Toss the second longest for like 6-8 months cause I thought Khaydarin amulet was op...but I didn't enjoy it as much so moved back to Terran <3
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.
On January 06 2013 10:53 peanutsfan1995 wrote: OP has some great points. As a Zerg player, I got into the game wanting to swarm opponents, use a ton of lings, apply pressure constantly, and win with a fast, mobile army that weathered away at my opponent. Instead, I turtle up and slowly move out with a deathball.
Are there times when races are played as their original design intended? Of course! But I think that it's pretty clear that the trends are showing constant deviation from this design.
To be fair, nobody forces you to make a deathball. I mean, if you're a grandmasters I'm pretty sure Deathball is too darn effective. But I'm (Low Masters) still using a Ultra, Ling, Bling, Hydra, Infestor composition vs protoss. Ultra to break the forcefields, hydras to kill archons and immortals, blings to kill Zealots and lings to get the surround on the rest. It's not as effective as Broodlord - Infestor, true. But at least it's fun to do.
Anyway, regarding the OP, I agree completely. It just feels completely wrong to be maxed 200/200 supply just by having a few Roaches or Hydralisks. In Broodwar, people usually didn't even REACH the supply cap, or at least it was very rare, especially Zerg. Now, we have lings, blings and drones. For the rest, not a single unit is 1 supply. They're all big fat 2 or more supply units, where is the swarm feeling in that? I'd rather have the hydra and the roach as a weaker 1 supply version as what we have now.
Its still a deathball. Just a deathball consisting of lots of smaller deathballs.
I think its frightening that so many people can talk about deathballs and still have no idea what a deathball is.
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.
On January 07 2013 18:32 naastyOne wrote: I disagree with the OP, that races lost identity in thay had in BW. For example, in BW, in TvP, terran for all inteds and purposes was an expensive, powerfull unit, slow deathball style. Just look at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LzRUZmBXO8
Terran: Siege tank, 150min/100gas, goliath 100/50 vulture 75/0, science vessle 100/225 Protos: Zelot 100/0, dragoon 125/50, arbiter 100/350. Terran turtles and pushes with a huge ball of units.
Then, Look at Z, where the major unit was lurker 125/125, which is as expencive as Siege tank, and in many ways similar to it in gameplay. then zerg army had muta as it`s core midgame unit, which was 100/100, and for late game guardian, which was 150/200, devourer 250/150, and ultralisk 200/200, neither of which is fragile, expendable unit.
Hell the early TvZ had ZERG having more expencive and powerfull units, Hydra and Lurker, vs marine medic firebat.
And, the early game ZvP was a match of Hydra vs zelot which cost about same.
Fact is, nor BW, nor SC2 did follow exact guidelines of the races.
The SC2 races are actually way more distinct and unique than SC:BW, in fact races gained a lot of identity.
Protos: they are reliant on technological superiority. Warpgate, force field, Blink, cronoboosting upgrades, and mobility that their superior tech provides.
Zerg: the Swarm. They can literally swarm you with huge numbers of roaches, they have wawes of expendable broodlings infested terrans and locusts, and they are extreemly flexible due to easy tech switch and almost instant remax in different tech tree, if resourses allow. In fact, Infestor -Broodlord is the swarmiest swarm one imagine.
Terran are the flexible ones, so they have mule&Scan&supply depot drop, allowing them better economy when on fewer bases, the ability to scout without having to go out in field, the flexibility of reactors/tech labs, powerfull support of medivacs, ghosts, and in late game Ravens, the PDD&Seaker missle owns soo much.
BW had race identities way less distinct. Terran and Protos were pretty dam similar, powerfull, survivable barracks(due to medics)/gateway mobile units(zelot legs/stim), slow but powefull siege options(siege tank/river), dragoon/goliath, a stealth infantry, dropship, a AA-Splash air unit, a flying caster, a anti-capital ship air unit and a capital ship.
what???? SC2 races more unique? roach\marauders\stalker, basically the same units.
you also compare reaver to siege, yeah they are exatcly the same...i don't think you have played BW seriously
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
I agree that the races look and feel way different compared to Broodwar.
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
Something of note is that one of SC2's biggest core problems is one of exaggeration - terrible, terrible damage, very fast economies, unit design as MOBA heroes instead of just cogs in a machine that move and make stuff blow up and so on. Someone else already hit it earlier in this thread or another one, but style is born from nuance. It is not born from the kind of extreme absolutes SC2 has - whole races being strong at different points in time, certain units annihilating others routinely.
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.
I could make my own write up on this but I'll keep this reply short. Race design has gone to the way side in my opinion because of 2 major factors. Two major factors that with time and proper changes in the expansion may be 'lessened' but I doubt a non factor.
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.