Just letting you know......

If Starcraft II isn't perfectly balanced when it comes out, it should be with the patches, just like Starcraft I.

I think too many people have been worried about its balance issues,(Not necessarily here, just Starcraft fans generally),and when Beta comes out, most of those will be resolved, and if not then, the patches will fix it up. Of course we will have to wait, but I hope this helps people who have been stressing over it. I didn't make the video, the honor goes to Lucky Fool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4ijwtGCaRg

Cute.

But, I hope SC2 won't take 10 years to be perfect.

Seen it before, well back then multiplayer wasn't taken seriously anyway that's why it took them so long to balance it.

Now you know why SCII beta is not out yet.

You forget that SC1 wasn’t a runaway hit when it was released. The gaming industry wasn’t as big as it is now and blizzard was still a small game developer.

SC is NOT "perfectly" balanced. It is as balanced as a game with such diverse races and dependence on map features can be. I hate hearing people talk about "perfectly balanced SC." Its a frickin lie.

Quote:

---

SC is NOT "perfectly" balanced. It is as balanced as a game with such diverse races and dependence on map features can be. I hate hearing people talk about "perfectly balanced SC." Its a frickin lie.

---

It's a lot more convenient then saying "SC is a game as balanced as it can be with such diverse races and dependence on map."

And every single game that has diverse races is dependent on map, in fact, every game in existience relies on maps to be balanced.

I remember seeing this, but thanks for the reminder. SC2 probably wont take as long to balance due to the expectations it has, but might still take a few years. Single Player is the part they have a better chance at screwing up, but I doubt they will.

Scouts are still overpriced if you ask me.

I think StarCraft II will be a bit more balanced, since some of the game designers are pro-gamers (didn't happen last time) and there's probably lots of progamers who signed up for beta.

Of course, all those progamers could actually be a problem...

This looks suspiciously like a post that was made when that video was, you know, new. A year and a half ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

This looks suspiciously like a post that was made when that video was, you know, new. A year and a half ago.

---

Really? I'm relatively new to this site. I had no idea.

This is a good enough video I think it deserves a repost from time to time. I hope it's reposted shortly before SC2 release as well :)

Regarding the guy complaining about SC balance: It's mostly about the maps now, otherwise SC is pretty damn close to perfect in balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazy_Jonny

Scouts are still overpriced if you ask me.

---

Yep:D

Everything will be just fine!!! People in blizzard knows their jobs as we all know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

It's a lot more convenient then saying "SC is a game as balanced as it can be with such diverse races and dependence on map."

And every single game that has diverse races is dependent on map, in fact, every game in existience relies on maps to be balanced.

---

Agreed. Starcraft is the prime example of a perfectly balanced RTS. I know Demo thinks that map balance is a detrimental thing but its actually one of the best things about Starcraft. If anything some high micro units like queens could be used more often but again thats to some extent determined by the macro style metagame.

Well, hats off to the person who made that video. Not only was that battlecruiser assault the best thing ever, but it restored some of my confidence in the final balance of SCII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Agreed. Starcraft is the prime example of a perfectly balanced RTS. I know Demo thinks that map balance is a detrimental thing but its actually one of the best things about Starcraft. If anything some high micro units like queens could be used more often but again thats to some extent determined by the macro style metagame.

---

I share DSquid's opinion that map balance is detrimental, and I offer a rebuttal: CnC Generals (no, not the god-awful Zero Hour x-pak) is actually more balanced than SC is at this point in time. In Generals a player has to pretty much use every unit available to their nation in order to win properly, whereas in current SC things have devolved into 2/3 unit combos. I fail to see how 2/3 unit combos are "perfectly balanced." A prime example is scouts being overpriced. A protoss player going for scouts is wasting his money and his build order, two things you positively can't do in today's version of "build this, click MOAR and win!" known as StarCraft.

SC was at one time nearly perfectly balanced, but certainly not in its current iteration. I certainly hope that over time SC2 doesn't follow the same pattern.

Good video, though. Never saw it before. Although I disagree with some of it's conclusions. It was a part of patch 1.08 (can't remember which part) that introduced the lovely tactic known as Terran Heavy Metal which led to the 2/3 unit combinations we see today...oh well.

Xyvik, when we talk about balance we mean between races/players, not units. The fact that the scout sucks doesn't make the game imbalanced :P

Honestly I think having to use every unit to play normally would be a bad thing, having to choose a plan and tech pattern (like bio or mech) is part of what makes SC great, and I'm very happy SC is not CnC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcp181

Xyvik, when we talk about balance we mean between races/players, not units. The fact that the scout sucks doesn't make the game imbalanced :P

Honestly I think having to use every unit to play normally would be a bad thing, having to choose a plan and tech pattern (like bio or mech) is part of what makes SC great, and I'm very happy SC is not CnC.

---

So you're perfectly fine with 2/3 unit combos? it never bothers you that certain units are never seen because they waste money and build orders? it doesn't bother you that there are maybe 3 specific build orders per race and if you deviate from them in just the slightest you're going to lose?

If that's truly the case I can't argue with you, as that's your opinion. But I believe balance, and strategy, should be more than that. Again, that's also just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

So you're perfectly fine with 2/3 unit combos? it never bothers you that certain units are never seen because they waste money and build orders? it doesn't bother you that there are maybe 3 specific build orders per race and if you deviate from them in just the slightest you're going to lose?

---

Im fine with some units not being as good against certain races, build orders or maps. Its a question of degree. If only a couple units were useful then you would have too much homogeneity in a match up. Likewise, if all units were useful then you would have too much homogeneity in matchups. You cant just blanket say all units should be equally useful in all situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Im fine with some units not being as good against certain races or on certain maps. Its a question of degree. Theres a point when there would be too little units in a match up. But you cant just blanket say all units should be equally useful in all situations.

---

I concur that not all units should be equally useful in all situations, but the number of un-used units in SC is disproportionate. Here's a list of units I haven't seen in ages in common use:

Terran: Ghost(except vs P), Nukes(i count it as a unit for this), BCs, Firebats (used, but not nearly as much as M&M), Valkyries

Protoss: any air units, with the possible exception of Corsairs with DWeb, both types of archons,

Zerg: ultralisks(games rarely last long enough to see them, and if the game does last that long there are better options), queens, infested terrans, guardians(late game) or devourers(who needs them anymore when the other races don't do mass air?),

I can't think of any more just off the top of my head, but considering how few units in total there are for SC this list makes up quite a portion. And yes, some of the units listed here are used more than others but the fact of the matter remains that they aren't used as often as they should be. You are essentially forced to follow certain paths and deviate from them as little as possible.

I personally don't like that, at all. I know there are those that do, but you cannot consider a game "perfectly balanced" if it has a slew of units that are pure suicide to use except under rare (very rare) circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

I concur that not all units should be equally useful in all situations, but the number of un-used units in SC is disproportionate. Here's a list of units I haven't seen in ages in common use:

Terran: Ghost(except vs P), Nukes(i count it as a unit for this), BCs, Firebats (used, but not nearly as much as M&M), Valkyries

Protoss: any air units, with the possible exception of Corsairs with DWeb, both types of archons,

Zerg: ultralisks(games rarely last long enough to see them, and if the game does last that long there are better options), queens, infested terrans, guardians(late game) or devourers(who needs them anymore when the other races don't do mass air?),

---

You see carriers, archons, ultralisks and gaurdians in a ton of pro games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

I concur that not all units should be equally useful in all situations, but the number of un-used units in SC is disproportionate. Here's a list of units I haven't seen in ages in common use:

Terran: Ghost(except vs P), Nukes(i count it as a unit for this), BCs, Firebats (used, but not nearly as much as M&M), Valkyries

Protoss: any air units, with the possible exception of Corsairs with DWeb, both types of archons,

Zerg: ultralisks(games rarely last long enough to see them, and if the game does last that long there are better options), queens, infested terrans, guardians(late game) or devourers(who needs them anymore when the other races don't do mass air?),

I can't think of any more just off the top of my head, but considering how few units in total there are for SC this list makes up quite a portion. And yes, some of the units listed here are used more than others but the fact of the matter remains that they aren't used as often as they should be. You are essentially forced to follow certain paths and deviate from them as little as possible.

I personally don't like that, at all. I know there are those that do, but you cannot consider a game "perfectly balanced" if it has a slew of units that are pure suicide to use except under rare (very rare) circumstances.

---

You think corsairs, ultralisks, archons, firebats, and carriers are rare?

Are we even talking about the same game? Corsairs and archons especially, honestly I think it's rare for those to not appear in practically every PvZ.

Quote:

---

Here's a list of units I haven't seen in ages in common use:

---

You haven't been watching modern high-level SC play, have you?

Ghosts aren't used, but BCs are generally the end-game to long, boring, tedious TvT games (as opposed to the nail-biting TvT games when both players go for DropShip play). Valkyries are now a standard part of Mech play vZ.

Corsairs are a fundamental part of any PvZ match. Archons are a standard line unit as well. You don't see as much Carrier play though, ever since Flash taught all the Terrans how to kill it.

Ultralisks are end-game Zerg tech; so you don't see them in 20 minute matches, but they are something that Zerg will bring to the table. Guardians are utter crap; going for them is instant death. Devourers by contrast are a necessary weapon against any Protoss player who goes mass Corsairs late-game. It's an edge-case, but I wouldn't want to be a Zerg without that option available.

SC1 has quite a few absolutely worthless units in it. Ghosts, Scouts, Queens, Guardians, etc. And that should be avoided where possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

You see carriers, archons, ultralisks and gaurdians in a ton of pro games.

---

more so nowadays, yes, but still not all that often, and certainly less often in the sub-pro games. Pros use them because they've spent their lives mastering the uses of the not-so-easy units, but they rarely show their faces in games with players not up to the pro level.

Even though the pro level is extremely important it is not the only factor to consider.

I understand you prefer the game this way, and I understand there are many that do, and I have no problem with that. I just wish there was more variety, and balancedly so.

EDIT: and no Nicol, I haven't watched recent matches because I pretty much gave up on SC1 once I saw this trend developing. I know it has improved, but not as much as it could have. As you mentioned there are still worthless units and I believe no unit in an RTS should be worthless or used so rarely as to be considered such.

Xyvik, the niche roles of these units is what gives Starcraft variety. It's what makes each different matchup unique and exciting.

Also, the fact that a newb doesn't use the unit shouldn't mean it's not useful. Learning to use every unit to it's maximum potential is one of the things that gives this game it's incredible depth. Niche roles are important, and Starcraft would be a lot worse off if every unit was immediately noob-accessible.

Besides, you don't have to be a "pro" to use any of those units, any decent player can use them.

And honestly I always thought guardians, carriers, BCs, and ultralisks were a newby's favorite :P (they were for me when I first started playing)

The only units I would say are underused are scouts and queens (and infested terran by extension of the queen).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcp181

The only units I would say are underused are scouts and queens (and infested terran by extension of the queen).

---

And hereby I say that any time a unit is underused, SC loses its depth. There's a difference here.

SC has potential depth. The only problem is that it is rarely used. Again, I have no problem with niche units. They have their place. But when that niche doesn't show up except in 1 out of every 25 matches, the unit should either be removed or balanced to help it fill a new niche.

Maybe I just still have too many horrific memories of the Great Dominance of Heavy Metal. Those were the days when you only saw Hydras + Lings, Tanks + Gols, and Goons + Zs. I'm glad to hear it's gotten better since then, but until Scouts and Queens are actually viable units I won't consider the game perfectly balanced.

If you want to criticize the game because you don't like that there are 2-3 underused units, that's fine. However, I would recommend a different word besides "balance," as that typically denotes the more obvious meaning that you aren't talking about at all here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcp181

If you want to criticize the game because you don't like that there are 2-3 underused units, that's fine. However, I would recommend a different word besides "balance," as that typically denotes the more obvious meaning that you aren't talking about at all here.

---

When a unit is unusable, that unit itself is imbalanced for whatever reason it cannot be used properly. "Imbalance" does not always mean a unit is too powerful; it can also very much mean when a unit is too weak or, as in this case, unusable. When there is one imbalance, the game itself cannot be perfectly balanced. In that respect Generals is more perfectly balanced than SC because every unit in Generals is usable, and actually, you know, shows up in just about every game without imbalances.

Once again I have no problem if people like games that have units that are unusable, it's just not my thing. But don't go around claiming it's perfectly balanced, and THE most perfectly balanced, when it isn't. Or I'll pounce like a tiger! :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

When a unit is unusable, that unit itself is imbalanced for whatever reason it cannot be used properly. "Imbalance" does not always mean a unit is too powerful; it can also very much mean when a unit is too weak or, as in this case, unusable. When there is one imbalance, the game itself cannot be perfectly balanced. In that respect Generals is more perfectly balanced than SC because every unit in Generals is usable, and actually, you know, shows up in just about every game without imbalances.

Once again I have no problem if people like games that have units that are unusable, it's just not my thing. But don't go around claiming it's perfectly balanced, and THE most perfectly balanced, when it isn't. Or I'll pounce like a tiger! :cool:

---

You can define balance however you want. I'm just making a suggestion :P

All I'm saying is most everyone else has a very different idea of what it means for a game to be "imbalanced."(You will never see someone say "OMG SCOUT! IMBA!").

If you had used a better term, like depth, we could have avoided these last two pages of pointless discussion. The original topic of the argument was about racial and map balances, and you went completely off-topic when you started defining balance as unit depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcp181

All I'm saying is most everyone else has a very different idea of what it means for a game to be "imbalanced."(You will never see someone say "OMG SCOUT! IMBA!").

---

"Just because something is popular does not make it right, and just because it is right does not make it popular."

I honestly don't care what the ignorant masses consider "imbalanced" because to them the term has turned into referring to something too strong. That is a narrow-minded and completely inaccurate way of viewing balance, which involves all aspects of game, from units to maps to macro, from something too strong to something too weak to something too expensive to something too cheap to something too slow to something too fast...

You get the idea. In future, however, to avoid confusion I will use the term "imbalanced unit depth." Better? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xyvik

"Just because something is popular does not make it right, and just because it is right does not make it popular."

I honestly don't care what the ignorant masses consider "imbalanced" because to them the term has turned into referring to something too strong. That is a narrow-minded and completely inaccurate way of viewing balance, which involves all aspects of game, from units to maps to macro, from something too strong to something too weak to something too expensive to something too cheap to something too slow to something too fast...

---

You can be stubborn all you want. I'm just telling you you're off-topic in regards to what this thread was about (Which we have now ruined). LOL :P

Sorry, this isn't a popularity contest or a matter of rebelling against the "ignorant masses." This is a matter of interpretation and communication.

If you go around saying "Ghosts, queens, and scouts make Starcraft imbalanced." Everyone is going to think you're trolling because they're interpreting your message differently than you intend. That's a failure of communication on your part.

/edit

forget it, no point

I hate to play mod but next time can you put in a useful title

I made a post like this on blizzforums originally,
i dont if anybody remembers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcp181

Starcraft would be a lot worse off if every unit was immediately noob-accessible.

---

I am very, VERY skeptical of this suggestion. StarCraft 2 so far has far less "niche" units than StarCraft 1 did. Even AtA units tend to have some non-AtA way to be useful. So far, between the three Terran BRs, we've seen EVERY GROUND UNIT they have to offer. And each of them brought something special and unique to the table.

You really think SC2 would be better off if the Marauder appeared in as few games as the Firebat, the Ghost was, again, useless, and the Hellion was as counter-intuitive as the Vulture -- used as a spellcaster more often than an attacker?

The Hellion is a prime example of SC2's improvements over SC1. It's still a fragile unit with high damage and low survivability. But send it out against an enemy melee force... well, it'll die, but it'll also do the thing it's good at, which is maximizing AoE damage by being surrounded. Now, there's PLENTY of areas for a pro to take advantage of... but the beginner isn't so punished for not knowing the ins-and-outs that the unit is rendered unusable. Perfect example of Blizzard's "easy to learn, hard to master" philosophy.

You really want to say that's a bad thing?

Yess, when StarCraft 2 is released it'll be damn near perfect as far as compared to StarCraft at the same state ... at least until the expansions come out and balancing gets a lot harder.

-- On a side note, I completely agree with pure.Wasted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pure.Wasted

I am very, VERY skeptical of this suggestion. StarCraft 2 so far has far less "niche" units than StarCraft 1 did. Even AtA units tend to have some non-AtA way to be useful. So far, between the three Terran BRs, we've seen EVERY GROUND UNIT they have to offer. And each of them brought something special and unique to the table.

You really think SC2 would be better off if the Marauder appeared in as few games as the Firebat, the Ghost was, again, useless, and the Hellion was as counter-intuitive as the Vulture -- used as a spellcaster more often than an attacker?

The Hellion is a prime example of SC2's improvements over SC1. It's still a fragile unit with high damage and low survivability. But send it out against an enemy melee force... well, it'll die, but it'll also do the thing it's good at, which is maximizing AoE damage by being surrounded. Now, there's PLENTY of areas for a pro to take advantage of... but the beginner isn't so punished for not knowing the ins-and-outs that the unit is rendered unusable. Perfect example of Blizzard's "easy to learn, hard to master" philosophy.

You really want to say that's a bad thing?

---

I'm not going to talk about Starcraft 2 right now, because obviously anything we discuss in regards to that is going to be complete speculation.

Otherwise, yes. I completely think it would be bad if everything was immediately noob-accessible. Like you said, the game should be easy to learn, but hard to master. Part of the mastery involves learning to use some of those units to their full potential.

Using units like reavers, transports, defilers, DTs, and vultures to their maximum potential is part of what makes this game exciting. This game would be pretty stale if everyone could DT harass like bisu or had flawless defiler usage.

Nowhere did I say they're unusable for newbies, but they are probably going to opt to avoid them for obvious reasons. If some guy sucks at controlling reaver+shuttle, he's probably going to have more success just massing goons or maybe getting some HTs for storm.

Now it looks like I may be the one communicating poorly :( When I said "noob-accessible," I didn't mean newbies can't find uses in those units. I just meant that new players may not be able to use the unit efficiently enough to make it worth their while.

When I first started playing SC loooonnnnggg ago, I thought vultures were terrible because I didn't know to micro them and I was too lazy to use mines correctly :p Then when I saw a good player using them I was like "hooolllyyy shit." That's an effect I hope is preserved for SC2 :)

It'll be interesting to see how different the SC2:WoL incarnation is to the final product with LoV installed. A couple extra units can do a lot to a game like SC and I'm sure Blizzard are already sketching out potential future units for the expansions. Slurps!

Quote:

---

Using units like reavers, transports, defilers, DTs, and vultures to their maximum potential is part of what makes this game exciting. This game would be pretty stale if everyone could DT harass like bisu or had flawless defiler usage.

---

I must have missed a part of the conversation. Pure.Wasted said that Hellions are intuitively useful, yet also have depth for the skilled user. But you have somehow twisted this into units that every can use like a skilled player.

Where is the connection between what pure.Wasted said and what you're arguing against? Because it seems from my eyes that you're arguing against a strawman that you erected, one that nobody is trying to defend.

Most important of all, there's the issue of useless units. A useless unit is not "useful in skilled hands." Ghosts are not useful in SC1. Even when Boxer uses them to win, they're gimmicks rather than an actual strategy. A gimmick unit that will only ever be used in one in every 5000 matches or so is simply taking up space in the game.

Saying that units should be as usable as possible is not antithetical to having units with significant skill depth. Indeed, these are independent concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I must have missed a part of the conversation. Pure.Wasted said that Hellions are intuitively useful, yet also have depth for the skilled user. But you have somehow twisted this into units that every can use like a skilled player.

Where is the connection between what pure.Wasted said and what you're arguing against? Because it seems from my eyes that you're arguing against a strawman that you erected, one that nobody is trying to defend.

Most important of all, there's the issue of useless units. A useless unit is not "useful in skilled hands." Ghosts are not useful in SC1. Even when Boxer uses them to win, they're gimmicks rather than an actual strategy. A gimmick unit that will only ever be used in one in every 5000 matches or so is simply taking up space in the game.

Saying that units should be as usable as possible is not antithetical to having units with significant skill depth. Indeed, these are independent concepts.

---

I think you definitely missed a part of the conversation. I'm pretty sure I'm not even arguing against him, I was just clarifying my point on what I intended with the word "noob-accessible."

Basically, as best as I can tell, he's saying units should be easy to use, and I'm saying using some units to their maximum potential should be hard. Those two don't have to be mutually exclusive. (Just re-read your post and realized this is almost identical to what you said in your last sentence :rolleyes:)

I probably should have put that clarification closer to the top of my earlier post =/

I'm not even sure where you're getting the ghost part from, pretty sure I haven't mentioned ghosts since I was talking with Xyvik, and during that convo I agreed they were one of the units that could definitely be classified as underused (as opposed to something he claimed was underused, like an archon).

Edit: Looks like I didn't mention ghosts there, but that's definitely a concession I wouldn't mind making.

I swore I wouldn't return to this thread but I must at least defend my line of reasoning.

I never once said that units should be easy to use, nor do I ever imply such a thing. I absolutely love units that require skill to use effectively.

There is, however, a very massive difference between a unit that requires skill to use effectively and a unit that cannot be used at all.

A vulture requires skill to use effectively. A scout cannot be used because it is far too expensive and far too ineffectual to do anything; money used on a scout would be far better spent on about a dozen other units. That last part is an imbalance.

To use Generals as my example again: the Inferno Cannons of China require skill to use against units as opposed to buildings. They have a very specific range, both maximum and minimum, and their fire damage can damage your own units as well. It takes time and practice to use them effectively, but you'll still find people using it just about every match. Not everybody uses it effectively, but you will see a very large difference between the people skilled in Inferno Cannons and those who aren't. I happen to be skilled in their use and they come in quite handy against units. Those who aren't skilled with them use them for base assaults.

The point is that you're going to find Inferno Cannons in a large number of matches, but they will be used quite differently and more effectively by those who actually are skilled with them.

You never see the Scout in SC1. Why? It has nothing to do with it requiring more skill. The scout is basically a skill-less unit. You never see the scout because it is too overpriced for its effectiveness and there are units cheaper that do much better. No amount of practice and skill will disguise the fact that the scout is unusable.

There is a large difference here that I was trying to point out.