Disclaimer: This post is a matter of opinion backed by personal analysis of balance and how I believe the game can be revitalized.
Balance: First off, how can the game be balanced when it is already experience a root issue? Big changes throughout 2016-2020 made the game fast and boring and resulted in a 1-2 skirmishes before reaching a massive “death ball” of units that end the game. This missed the vision set by StarCraft II developers. Developers looked for fast game play, units speeding across the map, and fast macro.
The problem with balance when it pertains to current structure of the game is that you can balance units and unit composition, but it ultimately will never have an effect on the grand scheme of gameplay. Realistically let’s take a look a basic balance rules: 1) Should 2 roaches beat 10 marines? No. 2) Should 16 marines be able to end the game? No, unless the other player is extremely greedy and has chosen to take three bases before making units. (they should be punished for this).
Game Structure: What is the root cause of games being boring? Where can this be improved? Can balance make games better to watch for spectators? Will the change of game structure make it impossible for players to have fun or compete?
What is the root cause of games being boring?
Maps, maps, maps. I have watched WCS for 4 years, Broodwar for 10 years and I have come to the conclusion that maps play one of the biggest factors in making it hard for the game to succeed. We have maps where 1-2 skirmishes occur and one player (who is economically ahead) decides to all-in with their death ball to finish the game. It happens every single game and I am sure this is a primary reason for decline in spectators. Reviewing the WCS Global Finals 2016, we had maps that were so large, which allowed for mini skirmishes (multi-prong attacks) to occur. With large maps and spreading of the economy, we have a couple of probable outcomes:
- All races will be unable to turtle. Being greedy means being punished. In life it is always risk vs. reward. Those who risk expanding can either a) be more ahead or b) be absolutely punished and lose everything. Instead we have a game where people can go 3-4 bases without being touched. This applies to all races and here is how it is applicable:
i) Protoss can expand, put two adepts, some shield batteries and in the event that some one decides to go after a third base they can recall all their units or simply walk over to the base and defend the attack (because the bases are two seconds away from each other). Fix? Make maps bigger, spread out bases and leave it up to the players whether they want to take the risk.
ii) Zerg – I am a Zerg player and will try not to be bias. Zerg simply puts creep in between their bases and it makes it easy to F2 (Control All) their army and run between bases. This makes it really hard for anyone to snipe bases. Should others be able to easily snipe bases? The answer is yes and no. If someone takes the risk to go and attack a base with a large portion of their army, then absolutely they should be able to take it out. It is called the element of surprise. In the event that someone decides to all-in an expansion this grants the opposing player decisions. Do I give up that base and counter? Do I save the base? How much do I leave in my other bases? Do I have enough to stop that attack? What if they hit me at multiple locations?
iii) Terran. We all know that a lot of Terrans can turtle and this can be extremely boring to watch, let alone play against. Terrans have the ability to build walls, and make their buildings into giant weapons. With larger maps this forces Terrans to again think risk vs. reward. Is it worth having 5 bases? Can I get away with having 5 bases? Typical game play in today’s standards lead Terrans to turtling and having to mass up and all-in other races. This should not be happening. Terrans should have the ability to do multi prong attacks with drops and with large maps being in place, Protoss and Zergs are forced to make a decision: where should I move majority of my army too?
- Sneaky bases, greedy players. A lot of players find it hard to hide bases on maps especially in the late game. With armies being spread thin and multiple bases being under attack this will grant an opportunity to those looking to be greedy. Players who are harassing can hide bases in obscure locations only for the other player to realize “how the hell can this player keep producing army? They must have a hidden base somewhere”.
We are forced to watch death ball games where all the races run a giant ball into eachother and whoever is a little more economically ahead wins. We even have casters state “oh that was a great battle! Looks like A is ahead of B”. Then A makes more units, runs a deathball across the maps and blows B to bits. We should see skirmishes across the map due to maps being larger and economy being more spread. Continuous scouting will be optimized as seen in Broodwar so that bases are scouted and punished (when being greedy or sneaky).
Can balance make games better to watch for spectators?: At this point, no. Balance is great when it comes to players and races being imbalanced. But realistically no matter how balanced a game becomes if there is a root issue it will always still be boring to watch. It is like practicing a something the wrong way. You will never master that practice if you have been doing it wrong from the start.
Will the change of game structure make it impossible for players to have fun or compete?: Let’s look at Broodwar or the WCS in 2016. The answer is no. I think this will improve gameplay, macro styles, risk and rewards. Plus mechanics in StarCraft II are optimal with the amount you can put in a control group among other great implementations. Broodwar at this point is still great to watch due to some dedicated casters and some quality products, but all in all it is a game that has seen its glory and is what it is. StarCraft II is still an amazing game, but the team that was once inspired may be looking at a setting sun.
Revitalization: The end of StarCraft II is nowhere near. This game will be played for years to come. Is it the best 1v1 RTS out there? Absolutely. There is no game that can compete with this giant and with some alterations to gameplay such as a difference in map pool we will see a complete change in meta. Right now meta changes are goofy such as “let’s make speedy voidrays or batteries that super charge shields by the Nexus” or… “let’s make a cloud for Infestors called Microbial Shroud”. Now these are cool mini updates to the game, but ultimately fail at solving the grand problem.
Maps with spacing, bridges, and obstacles that aren’t just funnels or rocks will create opportunities for armies to have small battles. Mineral patches that are not two seconds away from each other will create a risk vs. reward situation where players really need to decide whether it is worth to make their 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th bases. There should be no such map that one player can run one army into the other and a caster say “that is GG”. This is of course unless someone is crazy enough to try.
Appreciate your time and attention. May StarCraft II live on.