What happened to the innovation?

SC2 from what I've gathered so far from watching the high level games, it feels like StarCraft, but it's different (not better, not worse.) This is a great result in my opinion.

As for when the final product ships, it's going to be much more polished and a whole world of new content will become available. Single player, more b.net features, being able to play more than just melee battles, the map editor and heaps more we probably don't know yet.

A lot of people no doubt have been nervous about how StarCraft 2 will end up, but for me personally I think they're advancing in the right direction.

As for the terrain point in the OP, it was only in the last couple of years where pro-maps that featured destructible objects (power generators) and different sized ramps. That being said they have introduced some cool new ideas with the Xel'Naga watch towers and certain areas being hidden, i.e. bushes and steam exhausts. There may even be more to come as the game is not yet finished, but even if Blizzard have no more ideas themselves, no doubt fans will come up with some pretty cool ideas with the extremely powerful map editor and if they're great they'll no doubt be reproduced.

Starcraft 2 has plenty of innovation, it's just that all of it is going into the singleplayer, map editor, and Bnet rather than the multiplayer game itself.

I don't know why so many people have a problem with it. If anything, keeping innovation into everything else was the best move Blizzard could have done. People who claim to be casuals keep whining over SC2 not having innovation, but then again, how often do casuals play the multiplayer portion of Blizzard RTSs anyway? Out of all the casuals that exist, I can almost 100% guarantee that most of them spent most of their gaming time in the single player and custom games rather than the multiplayer.

The biggest example of this is Warcraft 3. WC3 was very innovative, but that didn't stop casuals from abandoning it almost entirely just to play DotA. Custom is always preferable to skirmish if you're a casual, and I don't really see that changing in SC2 considering that the map editor is going to be a lot more powerful.

So I don't really see this so-called "lack of innovation" that's supposedly going to hurt SC2. If you're a casual, then there's plenty of innovation in the form of single player and custom games, and if you're a hardcore, then you don't have to worry about the core game changing too much in the multiplayer skirmish. Although I'm sure reviewers are going to bitch about it anyway, I still expect all of them to be playing SC2 for years to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattII

This isn't something that happened suddenly. The Tempest was a cry-out to the Carrier, and the return of the Carrier demonstrated either an unwillingness to experiment, or a desire to follow the path of least resistance.

---

Or maybe because the unit wasn't working out. We didn't really seen any real game played with this unit. It didn't last so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

Or maybe because the unit wasn't working out. We didn't really seen any real game played with this unit. It didn't last so long.

---

As per Browder:
"The Tempest didn't feel right and that there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit."

So all we know is they claim that somehow they felt there was something wrong with the Tempest, but would never give specifics, and that they in fact brought back the stupid broken Carrier because of nostalgia.

Intellectual bankruptcy wins again!

Stopped reading here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamshank

I'm sure Blizz's single player maps will inspire a lot of incredible community maps and raise the bar

---

This! My god the potential that will be unleashed on the consumer with the Galaxy Editor will be immense! Sure the game itself may lack innovation in multiplayer, but as others have said in this thread, the innovation will come in other fields than ladder play, which is being designed to be competitive and balanced. The UMS maps we'll see should add a whole new depth of gameplay.

I wonder how much different the final product will be from the original WoL release. I just hope to God they add new units and don't just bring the Lurker back in HotS.

Demo why are you ignoring the part about "The Tempest didn't feel right"?
Of course they don't gave specifics! When did they give specifics about unit removals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

simply asking for a few new units and abilities.

---

New Macro Units! New Macro Buildings! New Macro Abilities! Improving the fundamental infrastructure of the game!
This was stuff more ambitious than Blizzard has ever done before. Stuff other developers didnt even have the balls to do. You missed the biggest innovation in the RTS genre just cause it wasnt a cool new fighting unit.

Quote:

---

There’s barely any place left for “reinventing the wheel” with a RTS

---

Speaking of intellectual bankruptcy, there it is in its most raw, naked form. The unfailing belief that there's nothing new, that it's all been done, so we shouldn't bother to try.

Quote:

---

SC2 aims for a balance of Macro and Micro. Can i say that no RTS since the original starcraft has achieved this?

---

Considering the emphasis on macro in SC1, I'd say that not even the original StarCraft achieved this.

Quote:

---

Experimenting for experimenting sake is counterproductive. The tempest was scrapped because it was so similar to the carrier that it was pointless to ditch such an iconic unit for one that had a less suitable role (end game unit that only attacks ground, but is located in the air)

---

Yeah, we can't have a Tier 3 unit that attacks only ground. Like those Guardians. And Brood Lords. Wait, what was your point again?

Oh, and FYI: The Tempest could attack both air and ground. The gimmick with the Tempest was that its shields only worked on ground attackers, so it was vulnerable to air attacks. It could fight back, but it didn't have nearly as much health (something like the inverse of the Carrier: 300 shields, 150 Hp).

Quote:

---

I still think it'd be awesome if this game had subfaction style tech branches. It's present in many other games, and can be moderately balanced given that the branching happens after a certain point in the game, either hitting a certain tier or tech point.

---

This is probably the most effective way for Blizzard to go if they want to add new units to SC2 in expansions. But balancing the game this way is hell; you're basically creating sub-races that must be balanced against both one another and others. It would turn 3 races into 6 races.

Plus, if the balance isn't right, then what you will have is a reduction back to 3 races once the correct path is determined.

Quote:

---

If your looking for a mechanics change, then it wouldn't be called SCII

---

WarCraft 3 was a major mechanics change for the WarCraft series. So it's not like Blizzard hasn't tried before.

Quote:

---

New Macro Units! New Macro Buildings! New Macro Abilities! Improving the fundamental infrastructure of the game!

---

Except that it doesn't improve anything. In several cases, it's just as bad as having to put workers on minerals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

As per Browder:
"The Tempest didn't feel right and that there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit."

---

Yet they kept the Tempest's model. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutiny

Yet they kept the Tempest's model. :|

---

Which is good. I have no problems with it. Whats wrong with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Except that it doesn't improve anything. In several cases, it's just as bad as having to put workers on minerals.

---

No your wrong. There is no way your going to convince people that using the current macro mechanics is as bad as manual mining. Just look on the forums at the number of people who love using the macro mechanics. Even on the BNet forums which are typically newer, casual and more micro oriented players!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

Demo why are you ignoring the part about "The Tempest didn't feel right"?
Of course they don't give specifics! When did they give specifics about unit removals?

---

I'm not ignoring it, I'm literally pointing out that Blizzard didn't scrap the Tempest because it was broken, or unfun, or didn't fit its niche, or that there was in fact anything wrong with it gameplay or mechanics-wise. Browder is straight up confirming it was removed because it "didn't FEEL right" and the Carrier was put back in for nostalgia. Its all connected man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

... just cause it wasn't a cool new fighting unit.

---

This is why you need to shut up. Please.

Fact is, do you know why any new people will start playing SC? Do you know what's going to be put on the box showcasing the game to kids in the local gamestop?

Here's a hint: it's not "Macro." Its Thors, Motherships, and Roaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

I still think it'd be awesome if this game had subfaction style tech branches.

---

I'm a fan of how Ensemble Studios accomplished this in Age of Mythology; have 3 distinct races that have sub-factions that add unique bonuses, techs, strategic abilities, and a few specialty units. Adds depth without playing hell with balance. Of course, AoM was often unbalanced, but for other reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Fact is, do you know why any new people will start playing SC? Do you know what's going to be put on the box showcasing the game to kids in the local gamestop?

Here's a hint: it's not "Macro." Its Thors, Motherships, and Roaches.

---

And do you know why they will still be playing it competitively 12 years later?

Heres a hint, its not the shiny Mothership...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

And do you know why they will still be playing it 12 years later?

---

The map editor.

Could SC2 survive without fun units? No.
Could SC2 survive without the 3 macro mechanics? Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Could SC2 survive without fun units? No.
Could SC2 survive without the 3 macro mechanics? Absolutely.

---

LOL lets go ask a decade of other RTS games that have chosen flashy units over core game mechanics....

Quote:

---

There is no way your going to convince people that using the current macro mechanics is as bad as manual mining.

---

Of course they are. It's new. It's different. Even though mechanically it's the exact same thing (do X every Y seconds) it feels different to them.

Once the newness wears off, they'll see it for what it is: something that is best automated.

Quote:

---

I'm literally pointing out that Blizzard didn't scrap the Tempest because it was broken, or unfun, or didn't fit its niche, or that there was in fact anything wrong with it gameplay or mechanics-wise.

---

That's what "it didn't feel right" meant. They gave a similarly nebulous reply for the removal of the Soul Hunter: it wasn't working out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Once the newness wears off, they'll see it for what it is: something that is best automated.

---

Get back to me in 12 years :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

That's what "it didn't feel right" meant. They gave a similarly nebulous reply for the removal of the Soul Hunter: it wasn't working out.

---

I had no idea "FEEL" and "WORKING" were now synonyms. Silly dictionary :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

LOL lets go ask a decade of other RTS games that have chosen flashy units over core game mechanics....

---

I said nothing about removing core gameplay mechanics. Base building, UI, macro would all still be there. If we removed Chrono Boost, MULES, and Spawn Larva it wouldn't have an impact on the quality of the game. They are extras, and they are broken, and I would not miss them, nor would 99% of the players. What I would miss is the Colossus, or the Nydus Network, or the Raven, because they fill important roles needed for the game to be balanced and function.

The macro mechanics do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Speaking of intellectual bankruptcy, there it is in its most raw, naked form. The unfailing belief that there's nothing new, that it's all been done, so we shouldn't bother to try.

---

Prove me wrong? Go on, find me more than 5 possible and realistic ways (your ideas or anyone else ideas) we could drastically alter the RTS experience while still having a fun game that would generate a lot of profits in today's world. You're gonna have a hard time. Now evaluate the possibility of actually making a sequel to Starcraft 1(and so limiting yourself to the unclear boundaries imposed by making a successor) while using one or more than one of the ideas you presented. In fact, all of you saying that there are barely any innovations in Starcraft 2 should try.

Criticizing and complaining are easy, innovating is not. As far as the entertainment business goes, I believe that innovation by altering the crust that surrounds the core of the experience is the only smart and possible way to go in respect to the goal desired by the action of creating a product. This goal is obviously to make something fun that will (and not would) sell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I said nothing about removing core gameplay mechanics. Base building, UI, macro would all still be there. If we removed Chrono Boost, MULES, and Spawn Larva it wouldn't have an impact on the quality of the game.

---

Yes it would for reasons stated three years ago when we first realized that macro mechanics were nessisary. Weren't you there?

Quote:

---

They are extras, and they are broken, and I would not miss them, nor would 99% of the players.

---

BS statistic is BS.

Quote:

---

What I would miss is the Colossus, or the Nydus Network, or the Raven, because they fill important roles needed for the game to be balanced and function.

---

Spawn larva fills far more of an important role than say the colossus.

Sorry to hear that you don't like SC2. Oh well there are other RTS games out there suited to your needs, try out C&C tiberium wars or Napoleon total war.

You should just forget Starcraft 2 even exists, but if you can't you can still find comfort in the single player campaign.

SC2 is just whats supposed to be, sequel to SC1 and nothing more and nothing less.

I personally don't judge a game for its gimmicks and "bonus crap", but for how deep and varied its strategies are. Currently I'm very positive about SC2 and most of the people seem to share my opinion. I think that when beta finishes it will be enough polished, balanced and fine-tuned that the strategic depth is going to be huge.

Again, why would I want some stupid gimmick or "new feature" that does not add depth to the play? - I would just rather have something that works great and adds depth to my gameplay.

You say that there will be UMS maps recreating Sc:BW in SC2 as though that were enough.
I think that ultimately, despite what Blizzard says (of course they aren't going to say they threw in a 3d engine and redid the same game), SC:BW needed an update. New UI, more spectator friendly, more "attractive" (understand: shiny), to get complete newbies interested etc...
The BW community is strong, but not nearly strong enough, and SC:BW was unproductive to Blizzard anyways.
Making a completely different game and taking the risk of dividing the community yet again doesn't seem to be a good idea. I think blizzard chose a safe route by adding enough changes to make the game play differently, while keeping the core structure (that so many people grew up loving).

I disagree with you when you say that SC2 isn't innovative enough though. At a first glance, SC2 seems to be BETTER than SC:BW to me. I can't comment on depth though, since only time will tell, but I've been loving the options every race has so far, and the "hard counter" system is decent in most cases.
I've got some concerns, but NONE of them are in regard to stuff that looks too much like SC:BW.

Are you saying that you would like change just for the sake of change? Or do you think that stuff that stayed the same would be better of differently (I mean specific examples)?

The goal isn't to make something new, it's to make something great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickR

Sorry to hear that you don't like SC2. Oh well there are other RTS games out there suited to your needs, try out C&C tiberium wars or Napoleon total war.

You should just forget Starcraft 2 even exists, but if you can't you can still find comfort in the single player campaign.

SC2 is just whats supposed to be, sequel to SC1 and nothing more and nothing less.

I personally don't judge a game for its gimmicks and "bonus crap", but for how deep and varied its strategies are. Currently I'm very positive about SC2 and most of the people seem to share my opinion. I think that when beta finishes it will be enough polished, balanced and fine-tuned that the strategic depth is going to be huge.

Again, why would I want some stupid gimmick or "new feature" that does not add depth to the play? - I would just rather have something that works great and adds depth to my gameplay.

---

For fuck's sake SlickR, why can't you leave and just STAY gone? God dammit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Yes it would for reasons stated three years ago when we first realized that macro mechanics were necessary. Weren't you there?

---

The macro mechanics were NOT necessary. You only thought they were because things like better UI, MBS and auto-mine were included and you thought macro was going to suffer based on no concrete data whatsoever. And now, surprise, you and TL's bitching has created a monster. Good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

BS statistic is BS.

---

Creative license. Better than intellectual bankruptcy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Spawn larva fills far more of an important role than say the colossus.

---

No, it really doesn't. Not in any balancing/gameplay sense.

@ Hammy

SC2 is definitely better than SC1. For its better b.net, better competitive system/leagues, better campaign structure, better editor. For its raising the UI bar to the level expected of an RTS in 2010.

But not for its creativity.

New doesn't always mean better. But it can certainly help.

It would be nice for every race to have their "new thing," the innovative new feature that makes the whole race feel new again, like the Protoss Warp-In mechanic. I was hoping the Zerg would be the most full of these kinds of features, but they really feel empty.

I was hoping the Nydus Worm would be a neat embodiment of this, but now it just sorta feels like a modification of Warp-In, but maybe that's just me.

I'd say Protoss, as a whole, feel the most new and fun, and I just wish the other races went that direction, particularly the Zerg.

Quote:

---

Go on, find me more than 5 possible and realistic ways (your ideas or anyone else ideas) we could drastically alter the RTS experience while still having a fun game that would generate a lot of profits in today's world.

---

Give me a SC2-style RTS engine, a team of 10, and 3 years to experiment, and I will.

Simply believing that something is impossible is the easiest and surest way to fail.

Quote:

---

Now evaluate the possibility of actually making a sequel to Starcraft 1(and so limiting yourself to the unclear boundaries imposed by making a successor)

---

Again, WC3. Not limited by the "unclear boundaries imposed by making a successor." It seems to have worked out OK.

Quote:

---

I believe that innovation by altering the crust that surrounds the core of the experience is the only smart and possible way to go in respect to the goal desired by the action of creating a product. This goal is obviously to make something fun that will (and not would) sell.

---

Your rhetoric sounds dangerously like that of Activision-Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick.

Quote:

---

Spawn larva fills far more of an important role than say the colossus.

---

It'd fill the exact same role if it were auto-cast. And it would require zero APM or attention. And it would be exactly as effective in gameplay as it is now.

The only difference is that it would require zero APM and attention. Hence the term, "APM sink."

Quote:

---

Give me a SC2-style RTS engine, a team of 10, and 3 years to experiment, and I will.

---

Pretty bold statement there. And what exactly would you do to innovate a profitable RTS?

I guess you'd have to ask him after 3 years ;d

Quote:

---

Pretty bold statement there. And what exactly would you do to innovate a profitable RTS?

---

I'm pretty sure I could find something with 62,000+ man hours behind me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickR

Sorry to hear that you don't like SC2. Oh well there are other RTS games out there suited to your needs, try out C&C tiberium wars or Napoleon total war.

You should just forget Starcraft 2 even exists, but if you can't you can still find comfort in the single player campaign.

SC2 is just whats supposed to be, sequel to SC1 and nothing more and nothing less.

I personally don't judge a game for its gimmicks and "bonus crap", but for how deep and varied its strategies are. Currently I'm very positive about SC2 and most of the people seem to share my opinion. I think that when beta finishes it will be enough polished, balanced and fine-tuned that the strategic depth is going to be huge.

Again, why would I want some stupid gimmick or "new feature" that does not add depth to the play? - I would just rather have something that works great and adds depth to my gameplay.

---

(Growling) "Yyyyoouuuuuuuuu...."

SlickR, please tell me you have a beta key, and please tell me you have a stream that I can watch.....and please let me watch that stream as you play Archer....I need a good laugh.

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure I could find something with 62,000+ man hours behind me.

---

Really? When you put it like that it seems like a really big number. What are you going to make, dawn of war 3? Can you guarantee it's going to be profitable?

I'd make an AvP RTS. It'd have to be kinda DoW2 style.

Quote:

---

Can you guarantee it's going to be profitable?

---

If you slap it in a box labeled "StarCraft II", it's guaranteed to be profitable, regardless of the objective quality. Unless you are talking about an established franchise, nothing is guaranteed to be profitable.

Thanks for the post. I agree, for the most part. The multiplayer as it is in the beta right now is just the same old thing warmed over mostly. I guess they had to do this for the e-sports focus, but if that is all they wanted to do they could have simply freshened up the old game; SC 1.5.

And truth to tell, wish they had because I like the graphics of SC 1 better. Sorry, but I do. Cleaner, easier unit identification. Just plain more cool.

New units cause me to yawn when they do not enrage me. Roaches? Here we have the Mighty Zerg revealed as nothing more than ordinary insect vermin! Nevermind calling in the marines. "God, Mom, get the flit!" How am I supposed to have any respect for an alien race that depends on mere roaches for melee warfare?

The music makes me think I have a shopping cart in hand rather than a mouse. I do not feel a sense of alien mystery while listening to it. And the sound effects do not seem improvements. Farting zerg? I mean, really!

Will I buy SC2? Probably. But it depends on how well they did with the campaign. Maybe that is where Mike Morhaime's greatest RTS of all time is hiding. If so, map making and modding should be a lot of fun.

It is true that Mike Morhaime promised the greatest RTS ever. So perhaps we have not yet seen the true power and glory. At least I hope not! Just offhand, based on what we see at present in the beta, I can think of several RTS that are better.

Quote:

---

Here we have the Mighty Zerg revealed as nothing more than ordinary insect vermin!

---

... Isn't that what they've always been? Queens, in both games, come from the insect world. Same goes for Hives. Metamorphosis from larva to some other creature is also insectoid. The fundamental concept of the Zerg is very insect like.

And it's called the Roach because it's tough to kill.

Quote:

---

It is true that Mike Morhaime promised the greatest RTS ever.

---

Who is Mike Morhaime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Who is Mike Morhaime?

---

Blizzard's CEO.

Its funny how this discussion explodes after, what, 3 years of knowing exactly what we were getting? A highly competitive RTS that doesn't innovate but perfects and expands an already great formula, and offers exciting possibilities in single player and the map editor?

Leave the innovation for a new franchise. I'll leave it at that.

Ugh this crap again. Innovation for innovations sake is bad. I don't understand how you could possibly dispute that, unless the intended purpose of the game is not for its players to have fun. (so lolartgames and techdemos would be excluded I guess).

Now that we have that established, lets look at what made SC1s MECHANICAL gameplay fun. At the core, it was a very simplistic RTS, designed in an almost arcadic manner (remember, this was the year games like TA came out).

What it achieved is something that has yet to been reachieved since its conception. A RTS which incorporates micromanagement and macro management elements together in a way where both our important, and inseparable from each other, its metagames depth compounded by distinctive, relatively balanced races that each had units design to both dis-correlate and to parallel the other races, in a entirely cohesive manner, where each component interacts with the whole to form depth through complex system.

SC2 strives to maintain these core philosophies. I sure hope you guys understand ideas don't linearly increase in quality in relation to how many people get payed to think of them. So, the SC2 design team (probably around ~05) was tasked with designing a game that recreates those principals, in practical, scalable manner.

Well, why didn't they create a innovative solution to everything? Well, simple really. Because many perceived similarities are actually quite integral to the way Starcraft functions. Lets start with abilities. SC2 did not drastically raise the bar for ability effects as much as some here would like it. What they are forgetting is that SC1 was popularized by its different approach on abilities then say, Warcraft 2. Abilities were rare, costy things that had to be prepared, and conserved, as well as each being conceptually unique (quite different from spells in WC3) and intrinsic towards basic, universal, and easily identified functions (aoe damage, single target snipe, reveal, immobilize, etc etc. In that regard, the SC2 design team had limited space to work with. The certainly push the boundaries of this, with units like the viking.

Moving onto units, we can observe that many people want "more" new units, or even worse, races. Once again, this is also illogical. We've already established what a core value of SC1 was, balanced, cohesive and paralleled racial dynamics. Creating a new race would be retarded, because the merits of SC1 prevent another race. Cohesion and parallelism means that each race serves an iconic function within the whole of the game. The only way one could fit another race and maintain cohesive and structured racial dynamics would be to alter existing races so much that the play styles would be entirely unrecognizable. Do you want terran playing like night elf? If you do, please, gtfo. Terran needs to play like terran, regardless of the unit changes.

This extends to units naturally. If certain unit designs created the foundation of the racial dynamic, then when replacing them, one needs to observe the overall impact. A cheap ranged basic unit is a integral part of the Terran racial dynamic, in relations to itself AND to the other two races. So, even if one were to replace a marine, one would need another cheap, ranged, basic unit. Why remove such an iconic unit for an utterly identical one? All unit replacements should better the racial dynamic. So queens got scrapped because nobody used them, or vultures got scrapped because they led to what blizzard perceived to be boring tank duels.

Finally, the concluding point is the lack of new mechanics. Well, we've established that the balance between micro and macro need to be maintained, because the balance is what made SC SC. At the same time, we need to take account playability, so extreme mechanical complexity cannot exist or the game simply is no longer fun, nor competitive. (In other words, we can't just keep on tacking in shit without taking stuff out) Within that framework, that severely limits the range of options you can commit to from gameplay design. For instance, trench warfare would either detriment micro, encourage macro, and strategy, which may be cool, but the result would no longer be SC. (and the units would need to be completely reworked). A cover system would operate conversely, causing the game to be too micro centric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcomplex

What it achieved is something that has yet to been reachieved since its conception. A RTS which incorporates micromanagement and macro management elements together in a way where both our important, and inseparable from each other, its metagames depth compounded by distinctive, relatively balanced races that each had units design to both dis-correlate and to parallel the other races, in a entirely cohesive manner, where each component interacts with the whole to form depth through complex system.

---

QFT
Name one other RTS that has innovated as much in terms of macro/micro management and balanced depth as well as SC2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The macro mechanics were NOT necessary. You only thought they were because things like better UI, MBS and auto-mine were included and you thought macro was going to suffer based on no concrete data whatsoever. And now, surprise, you and TL's bitching has created a monster. Good job.

---

And we are very glad to see that the developers and most of the people playing the game agreed with us. And that they appreciate how this revolutionizes RTS games in a way not seen in years. We will suffer a few naysayers like you :p

Also, in regards to WC3 thinking outside of the box, WC3 copied its hero mechanics from like 20 games including the popular spellforce, but thats not the point.

The point is that WC2 is a micro game with very little macro mechanics. The core of the gameplay of WC2 was very unilateral, make units in accordance to a set build and micro them. Macro existed, but it was far less stressed.

WC3 was very easy to change because their is no balance (between gameplay elements) that needs to be maintained. All that needs to be achieved is the same overarching focus towards micro. You couldn't really make a WC3 with "too little" macro unless you just removed mining and base building, and the key to maintaining micro was simply not adding any more macro in. lol.

In regards to racial additions, Human and Orc were near identical in WC2. WC2 was about making units and out-microing your opponent. WC3 decided to partially abandon that, and go with SC's racial dynamics (not completely), and thus, could do what ever the fuck they wanted, because they got to start on a clean slate. They could design the races from ground up to support two more.

Unless you want blizzard to redefine the roles of your races in SC2, completely and utterly, a 4th race isn't particularly viable.