Just letting you know......

[rcp181]

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.

[Nicol Bolas]

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.

[Xyvik]

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.

[rcp181]

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).

[Xyvik]

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.

[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.

[Xyvik]

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!

[rcp181]

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!

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.

[Xyvik]

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?

[rcp181]

"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.