PDA

View Full Version : Why does every unit need an ability?



SCdude
05-11-2009, 06:12 PM
I have noticed that alot of you people like to suggest new cool abilities to the units in SC2...

While i agree that some of the ideas are pretty cool, you got to realize that most (i say most, but i haven't really seen any 'good' suggestion yet..) of your ideas would screw up the gameplay entierly! Can't you just save the cool abilities for the UMS games?

My biggest fear concerning this game is that Starcraft 2 will end up like Warcraft 3 where every unit has atleast one ability or special upgrade. Compare that to the original Starcraft where only very few units had abilities at all.

People talk alot about the Micro/Macro mechanics of Starcraft 2, that there should be more Macro in it. But how much room will there be left for any macro when every unit has its own ability, it'll be just like warcraft which is all about micro.

Don't you think?

electricmole
05-11-2009, 06:32 PM
its fine with me. red alert 3 units all have abilites and yet you still need to mass multiple units and type of untis to win games.

warcraft 3 is different since their units dont die quickly and you can use the abilities again and again.

in sc2, units still dies quickly and so the abilities like blink are just actually minor benefits ofcourse unless its a nuke.

ArcherofAiur
05-11-2009, 06:33 PM
I would like to moderatly agree with you. People need to remember that SC is about concentrated coolness. There are a couple micro abilties but they are all awesome. If you start adding too many it dilutes it.

Perfecttear
05-11-2009, 06:39 PM
It's not like if we suggest abilities blizzard will actually put them in. They are just meant for other forum members to read and debate.

mr. peasant
05-11-2009, 06:43 PM
I have noticed that alot of you people like to suggest new cool abilities to the units in SC2...

While i agree that some of the ideas are pretty cool, you got to realize that most (i say most, but i haven't really seen any 'good' suggestion yet..) of your ideas would screw up the gameplay entierly! Can't you just save the cool abilities for the UMS games?

My biggest fear concerning this game is that Starcraft 2 will end up like Warcraft 3 where every unit has atleast one ability or special upgrade. Compare that to the original Starcraft where only very few units had abilities at all.

People talk alot about the Micro/Macro mechanics of Starcraft 2, that there should be more Macro in it. But how much room will there be left for any macro when every unit has its own ability, it'll be just like warcraft which is all about micro.

Don't you think?

I disagree with that statement, aside from the basic melee, ranged and air unit, all other units had a special ability, save perhaps for one other unit per race. If you include unique upgrades, then all SC1 units had one. It's part of unit differentiation.

MattII
05-11-2009, 06:43 PM
But abilities aren't the same as upgrades, and passive abilities aren't the same as active ones Marine Shields and Zergling Speed are upgrades, Raven (how I hate that name) Detection and Dark Templar Invisibility are passive abilities, and Infestor Disease and High Templar Psi Storm are active abilities, there's big diferences between them.

ArcherofAiur
05-11-2009, 06:43 PM
It's not like if we suggest abilities blizzard will actually put them in.


Ahhem

PsiWarp
05-11-2009, 06:46 PM
Ahhem

Except those were on buildings and a spellcaster :P


-Psi

mr. peasant
05-11-2009, 06:50 PM
But abilities aren't the same as upgrades, and passive abilities aren't the same as active ones Marine Shields and Zergling Speed are upgrades, Raven (how I hate that name) Detection and Dark Templar Invisibility are passive abilities, and Infestor Disease and High Templar Psi Storm are active abilities, there's big diferences between them.

Mayhaps. But the OP specifically claimed that s/he was concerned that SC2 units would all have abilities or unique upgrade and claimed that SC1 didn't. Personally, this sounds like s/he is including passive abilities and upgrades (which was specifically mentioned).

ArcherofAiur
05-11-2009, 06:51 PM
Except those were on buildings and a spellcaster :P


-Psi


What do you mean?

DemolitionSquid
05-11-2009, 06:52 PM
Not all units need active abilities, and many don't have any. Abilities provide micro options. They can make simple units more effective in the hands of skilled players. Having abilities is just as important as not having abilities. The Hydralisk had no abilities and yet its a very common unit to see, because the lack of abilities let it be stronger all around. The High Templar is also seen very often because while its a weak unit, its abilities can be used in powerful ways.

MattII
05-11-2009, 07:00 PM
Mayhaps. But the OP specifically claimed that s/he was concerned that SC2 units would all have abilities or unique upgrade and claimed that SC1 didn't. Personally, this sounds like s/he is including passive abilities and upgrades (which was specifically mentioned).

That's exactly what I'm complaining about, he hasn't the sense to see that the Zergling's speed upgrade is more-or-less essential as a way of keeping it viable, and thus far different from an active ability.

ExT
05-11-2009, 07:56 PM
The whole point in close to every unit having abilities and upgrades is to bring individuality to the game, each race and each unit. Blizzard, and us players, want the game to have all kinds of outcomes and uses to create exciting games. Just let everyone boast about their "great idea" they've thought of. Highly doubt Blizzard is going to place them all in game, let alone any.

ArcherofAiur
05-11-2009, 08:54 PM
The whole point in close to every unit having abilities and upgrades is to bring individuality to the game, each race and each unit. Blizzard, and us players, want the game to have all kinds of outcomes and uses to create exciting games. Just let everyone boast about their "great idea" they've thought of. Highly doubt Blizzard is going to place them all in game, let alone any.


Oh so by every unit having a ability they are individualistic.

How non-conformist.

GRUNT
05-11-2009, 09:10 PM
Even without abilities, units in StarCraft tend to have fairly high lethality to begin with, which inherently creates micro.

Take Hydras, for instance. Massing Hydras when your opponent has High Templar isn't the best idea, but let's say you're doing a timing push when your opponent doesn't have a whole lot of storm out on the field and Hydras are still viable. Even if you have only Hydras, you're doing a lot of micro because you always need to keep them moving in order to survive nasty storms. Even when not dodging storms, you'll be microing them against Zealots.

That said, because macro has been reduced in SC2, in order to keep the game's competitive feel, Blizzard has stated on several occassions that they are leaning more towards micro now (which is why there seems to be even more abilities for units in SC2).

ArcherofAiur
05-11-2009, 09:19 PM
That said, because macro has been reduced in SC2, in order to keep the game's competitive feel, Blizzard has stated on several occassions that they are leaning more towards micro now (which is why there seems to be even more abilities for units in SC2).



"With StarCraft 2, "we're really going back to our roots," says Pardo. By this he means the sequel will be more StarCraft, more focused on fast-paced gameplay and lesser amounts of micromanagement, rather than an evolution of the WarCraft 3 formula."
Source:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html

Blazur
05-11-2009, 09:30 PM
I like multiple abilities...it adds variety and depth to the game. Hell, I'd argue for more units too! The more the merrier.

GRUNT
05-11-2009, 10:00 PM
"With StarCraft 2, "we're really going back to our roots," says Pardo. By this he means the sequel will be more StarCraft, more focused on fast-paced gameplay and lesser amounts of micromanagement, rather than an evolution of the WarCraft 3 formula."
Source:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html

They mean less micromanagement compared to War3 :P.

Nicol Bolas
05-11-2009, 10:04 PM
I like multiple abilities...it adds variety and depth to the game. Hell, I'd argue for more units too! The more the merrier.

Neither of these are good ideas.

StarCraft achieved its greatness by having relatively simple elements that when combined create complexity. The very definition of "greater than the sum of its parts."

The game has (approximately) as many units as it needs and no more. There are only so many functions and roles that units can have. Eventually you get overlap, and in a game that will be played at a high level of skill, overlap means that some units won't be used. Units that aren't used are dead space, wasting development time making them, trying to balance them, and so forth.

A good, quality game is built with parts that work well together. A clock doesn't get better because you throw more gears into it. Sometimes (most of the time) more is simply more, not better. And its usually worse.

Good game design is as much about what you remove as what you keep.

Whanhee
05-11-2009, 10:37 PM
Just putting a quick list out of units without active abilities:

Terran:
goliath
valkyrie

Zerg (i consider burrow to be an ability and evolution as not):
mutalisk
scourge
guardian
ultralisk

Protoss (i don't consider merge to be an ability):
zealot
dragoon
dark templar
archon
scout
observer

Interestingly, protoss (which I always envisioned as the magic spell casting race) has the most units without active abilities. But if we take a look at terran, the vast majority of units have an ability and the valkyrie doesn't count because only Fantasy uses them :P

Giving a single ability to a unit vastly increases its tactical value. Terran infantry would be nothing without stim packs and zerg burrow forces opponents to always be on the lookout for ambushes and stopped lurkers. Though with protoss a large part of its micro is pure unit control, giving the other races abilities definitely did not detract from their gameplay.

Nicol Bolas
05-11-2009, 10:56 PM
Terran infantry would be nothing without stim packs and zerg burrow forces opponents to always be on the lookout for ambushes and stopped lurkers.

If that were true, then every Zerg player would research Burrow; that is very much not in evidence. You don't even have to research Burrow to make Lurkers burrow (since they're useless without burrowing).

It is part of the nature of Terran units that virtually all of them have one active ability that enhances their capabilities. Similarly, it is in the nature of Zerg units to have no active abilities outside of dedicated spellcasters (burrow is a shared, global upgrade). The Zerg have plenty of micro using just passive abilities and basic unit micro (positioning, target firing), with the addition of Lurker micro.

Part of the reason for this difference comes from the way each side produces units. For the Terrans, they basically have to invest in a single production building heavily. They may be able to pull a support unit from one other building, but that's about it. Tech switching for the Terrans is really hard. So each building needs to cover most roles by itself. That means that units need to pull multiple duties. Marines need to be able to hurt things more than they do; Vultures need to be anti-light and provide territory control. And so on.

For the Zerg, tech switching is trivial. Production facilities are 100% generic. So if the Zerg needs something that provides a new role, it's much easier for them to just throw down a new tech building and then build a unit that covers that role. Zerg units are either generalists in some specific domain, or specialists meant to aid a force composed of one or more of the generalists. It's why every Zerg game sees Zerglings, Hydras, and/or Mutalisks; those are the generalists. Few other Zerg units are effective without these generalists being around.

If you're wondering, the Protoss are in the middle. Because their primary non-support units come from the Gateway, they don't generally have the tech-switching problems the Terrans do. At the same time, their tech tree branches into 3 prongs. The other two production buildings are where most of the units with active abilities come from (Corsairs, Reavers, etc). SC2 gives the Protoss a few more active abilities than SC1, but that's mainly just the Stalker.

0neder
05-11-2009, 11:28 PM
Amen to this thread. Just because we have a fresh start with these forums doesn't mean people need to spam threads about their convoluted ways to make the game overly complex. I think some of them just want a head start on post counts, maybe it helps their ego to know they have lots of posts on a game forum?

Grrblt
05-12-2009, 01:04 AM
Every unit "has to" have an ability because there's only so much difference you can accomplish by changing HPs, damage and armor.


Just putting a quick list out of units without active abilities:

Terran:
goliath
valkyrie

Zerg (i consider burrow to be an ability and evolution as not):
mutalisk
scourge
guardian
ultralisk

Protoss (i don't consider merge to be an ability):
zealot
dragoon
dark templar
archon
scout
observer
Cloak and detection are abilities though, so remove DT and observer.

RainbowToeSocks
05-12-2009, 01:06 AM
Every unit "has to" have an ability because there's only so much difference you can accomplish by changing HPs, damage and armor.


Cloak and detection are abilities though, so remove DT and observer.

It's perma cloak.. a trait of sorts
shouldnt count them
they dont have abilities

Zabimaru
05-12-2009, 01:20 AM
If that were true, then every Zerg player would research Burrow;

They’ve begun to do that a lot more often now. It seems usually against a Protoss player because of reavers- just burrow your drones quick and their attack is wasted. I’ve also seen some great early zergling surprise attacks with burrow. Just throwing it out there.

Nicol Bolas
05-12-2009, 01:54 AM
Cloak and detection are abilities though, so remove DT and observer.

He said active abilities, which was what the discussion was talking about. Passive abilities do not directly affect micro, since you don't have to explicitly do anything to benefit (necessarily).


They’ve begun to do that a lot more often now.

Yes, in PvZ. And even there, it's far from ubiquitous. My point still stands: Zerg units don't rely on active abilities to function. They either have passive ones (Lurkers attacking while burrowed, Acid Spores from Devourers, Zergling speed, etc) or none at all.

By contrast, I defy you to try using M&M without stim. Or using Vultures without mines. Or God forbig, using Siege Tanks without Siege Mode. You can do it, but you're getting far less from that unit than you could. Even when using Vultures to harass workers, being able to drop a few mines slows down the enemy response, which can be vital in picking off more workers.

The Terrans as a race rely on active abilities; they require more micro than other races. The benefit being that they can really kill stuff off if you use their abilities well enough.

mr. peasant
05-12-2009, 04:54 AM
Here's the thing though... people are using abilities as a gauge of the degree of micromanagement that's going to be needed. However, that isn't necessarily true. I'm pretty sure people would consider Stim Packs (an active ability) is considerably less micromanagement than something like, Dragoon dancing (not an ability at all). The fact is there's nothing inherently different between unique abilities and standard commands, at least as far as micromanagement is concerned.

RamiZ
05-12-2009, 06:14 AM
Amen to this thread. Just because we have a fresh start with these forums doesn't mean people need to spam threads about their convoluted ways to make the game overly complex. I think some of them just want a head start on post counts, maybe it helps their ego to know they have lots of posts on a game forum?

Said the guy that posted Off-topic comment :D :D :D

Kimera757
05-12-2009, 08:04 AM
"With StarCraft 2, "we're really going back to our roots," says Pardo. By this he means the sequel will be more StarCraft, more focused on fast-paced gameplay and lesser amounts of micromanagement, rather than an evolution of the WarCraft 3 formula."
Source:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html

I take your quote and raise you this:


"With MBS (Multiple Building Selection) and automine in the game, what macro-specific features are going to be added to make sure that the player always has as much to do on the macro side as he does micro? Will a player still be able to favor macro or micro according to his own style?" - FrozenArbiter (www.teamliquid.net)

It is our goal to allow players to micro more vs. macro more. This is something that was great about the original StarCraft and it is something we want to maintain while we add new mechanics as well as interface features. We are still evaluating such features as automine as well as MBS. We don't have an answer for this at the moment, but we are working on it. -- emphasis added.

The IGN quote came from May 19th 2007. This is from Q&A Batch 16, at the very least a few months later.

TheEconomist
05-12-2009, 09:46 AM
Not all units need active abilities, and many don't have any. Abilities provide micro options. They can make simple units more effective in the hands of skilled players. Having abilities is just as important as not having abilities. The Hydralisk had no abilities and yet its a very common unit to see, because the lack of abilities let it be stronger all around. The High Templar is also seen very often because while its a weak unit, its abilities can be used in powerful ways.

QFT

I'd quote Nicol Bolas' #19 and #21 too but that would be spamming :D


Oh so by every unit having a ability they are individualistic. How non-conformist.

I LOL'd

I do agree though. Every unit having an ability isn't keeping them unique at all and could actually hamper their effectiveness.

See DemolitionSquid's above quote.

ArcherofAiur
05-12-2009, 02:32 PM
I take your quote and raise you this:

-- emphasis added.

The IGN quote came from May 19th 2007. This is from Q&A Batch 16, at the very least a few months later.

Touche Salesman

Whanhee
05-12-2009, 05:50 PM
Here's the thing though... people are using abilities as a gauge of the degree of micromanagement that's going to be needed. However, that isn't necessarily true. I'm pretty sure people would consider Stim Packs (an active ability) is considerably less micromanagement than something like, Dragoon dancing (not an ability at all). The fact is there's nothing inherently different between unique abilities and standard commands, at least as far as micromanagement is concerned.

That is the truth. Spells don't necessarily raise the micromanagement required. Adding too many spells will probably increase the clutter of the game and make it too complex to play at a higher level. But you can't deny that even the least used abilities and the rarest upgrades often see use to great effect.

Hallucination has uses for mass recall drops and ghosts... boxer like them :P Certainly though, I really appreciate blizzard exploring passive abilities for even basic units. It really helps them stay useful through the game. Though they need to be very careful to not specialize units too much.

I forgot where but I heard something about the designers specifically making the game so that you need to have a mix of every unit to win. That's when things get too specialized and it becomes rock paper scissors. The new ghost ability to RAPE anything with light armour and banelings doing ridiculous damage to light/heavy armour (it changes every week >_>) are just examples of what makes a game real time RPS.

Pandonetho
05-12-2009, 05:52 PM
While I agree, that stim example was pretty bad.

Because using stim enhances micro, and after stimming the degree of skill required to micro your marines depending on the situation far outweighs the skill needed for goon dancing.

mr. peasant
05-12-2009, 06:08 PM
While I agree, that stim example was pretty bad.

Because using stim enhances micro, and after stimming the degree of skill required to micro your marines depending on the situation far outweighs the skill needed for goon dancing.

But it's not the act of clicking the 'Stim Pack' button, which was what I was talking about. The micromanagement needed is in the handling of the Marines using the generic commands, no?

Pandonetho
05-12-2009, 06:46 PM
Stimpacks add to micro. 90% of the things done with marines are done with stim. Of course clicking the button itself isn't micro, but neither is clicking on psionic storm or plague.

Norfindel
05-12-2009, 09:07 PM
Stimpacks add to micro. 90% of the things done with marines are done with stim. Of course clicking the button itself isn't micro, but neither is clicking on psionic storm or plague.
He just said that Dragoon dancing needs lots of micro, while some spells don't are as micro-intensive in comparison, so more spells don't necessarily means more micro.
Anyways, people will be able to do more things at a time in SC2 than in SC. If they like to cast more abilities, that won't detract from the esence of the game, specially for the Protoss, who are supposed to be spell-heavy.
Warcraft III is a different game, centered on micro, which discouraged macro with mechanics like Upkeep and heavy Supply cost per unit. It's a different beast.

Pandonetho
05-12-2009, 09:08 PM
He just said that Dragoon dancing needs lots of micro, while some spells don't are as micro-intensive in comparison, so more spells don't necessarily means more micro

I know what he's saying and I agree. I just said the stimpack example is bad. Are you suggesting that stimpacks don't add to the micro of the game?

mr. peasant
05-12-2009, 09:19 PM
I know what he's saying and I agree. I just said the stimpack example is bad. Are you suggesting that stimpacks don't add to the micro of the game?

It certainly has but the micromanagement involved is less to do with it being an active ability and more to do with the unit's stats. I mean, would you agree that the degree of micromanagement to fully utilize the Marines would be comparable even if Stim was not a temporary buff but a permanent upgrade?

Pandonetho
05-12-2009, 09:27 PM
I mean, would you agree that the degree of micromanagement to fully utilize the Marines would be comparable even if Stim was not a temporary buff but a permanent upgrade?

Yes, yes I would.