Starcraft 2 ... and what 4X Developers could Learn from it

[Icemania]

Since Strategy gaming is now encouraged around these parts I have to say just how much I'm enjoying replaying the Starcraft 2 campaigns. After a lot of 4X gaming over the last 2 years there are a few things that really stand out when you play Starcraft again. That said, I'm no Starcraft expert, so very interested in the thoughts of others, no doubt there is plenty I've missed.

1. The balance of the units and factions is superb. In 4X gaming I tend to build a relatively small number of ship/unit types as a lot of the time there is a lack of balance and nothing else is needed. As I look back on my games with Starcraft I use the majority of unit types voluntarily because most of them have non-redundant purposes and useful specials particularly as you increase the difficulty.

2. On the campaign, Brutal difficulty is winnable but can be rough ... WITHOUT feeling like the AI is getting immersion breaking bonuses. In games against the AI outside of the campaign it clearly uses build orders that emulate the strategies of good players. Granted, there are less variables than 4X games to manage, but it's nice to play against an AI I can learn from and get hammered again from time to time!

3. The mission designs are great with plenty of variation in goals and objectives. There are a wide range of achievements so I find myself going back to maps just to play them in another way without feeling like it's a grind ... which adds replayability.

Looking forward to Legacy of the Void! I've pre-ordered without hesitation and I'm sure it's a purchase that I won't regret, even though it's probably been ready for release for a long, long time ...

One last thought, for those that don't enjoy RTS, don't forget there is a speed slider. You'll need to play faster on higher difficulties but on Normal it's a pretty slow affair IMO (on the slowest speed anyway). A good way to adjust is to play a map on Normal and then bump it up once comfortable. And you can always focus on units that require less micro.

[Mr.Kill]

The one thing they shouldn't learn though is to include units that instantly invalidate any strategies attempted by a player with low APM. Seriously, that protoss exploding sphere is OP.

[axiomsofdominion]

So yeah, no one has ever posted in the first thread I posted here about my game. But if you read the blobbing post you would learn something about why Starcraft has good AI.

Basically, the AI in Starcraft has a built in advantage over a 4x AI. Firstly, humans are limited by twitch and the AI isn't. Secondly, the game is incredibly simple. All the complexity comes from twitch which the AI ignores. Thirdly in turn based or even real time with pause 4x games the player has an infinite amount of time to plan strategies. Of course he is going to curbstomp the AI. Moreover the player can learn in between games and the AI can't. Finally, pro game play in RTS games revolves around the rush. Rushing in a 4x game defeats the whole purpose of the genre and makes like 90% of the gameplay inaccessible.

A far better genre to compare RTS to might be turn based tactical skirmishes. Or TBT games with a campaign. The AI in those things can be really good.

Further, 4x games tend to have a massively larger number of opponents and a much larger map. Makes the job of the AI way more difficult.

Also Starcraft is a game that has existed with identical rules, and mostly identical unit types for over 20 years and is far more sensitive to testing and multiplayer due to its trivially small possibility space and the extremely short relative play time.

TL;DR RTS games, especially Starcraft, and totally inappropriate comparisons to 4x games in every way.

[w@ke_]

Originally posted by Icemania:

1. The balance of the units and factions is superb. In 4X gaming I tend to build a relatively small number of ship/unit types as a lot of the time there is a lack of balance and nothing else is needed. As I look back on my games with Starcraft I use the majority of unit types voluntarily because most of them have non-redundant purposes and useful specials particularly as you increase the difficulty.

I'd take this in another direction, too. Starcraft 1 and 2 are some of the best examples of asymmetric balance I've ever seen in a strategy game. Each faction plays extraordinarily differently than the others, due to 1) very tightly-designed, thematic, diverse units, and 2) somewhat different core mechanics. Of course this is a lot easier in RTS, where you'll have maybe 2-4 factions, and much harder in your average TBS where you could have dozens plus customization.

IMO, many strategy games would be monumentally improved by this design. I know it's difficult to design, tough to balance*, and controversial. But when it's done well it brings so much to a game. To beat a dead horse, I'd put Dominions out there as another example of pulling it off fabulously.

As a little aside, this is one of my core grips about AoW III: all the races feel somewhat samey. Yes, the classes are the main point of differentiation. And yes, the later expansions improved racial diversity (to horribly misuse a term). But even so, have a look at these poll results[aow.triumph.net]. Just over 80% said they agree or strongly agree that they'd "...prefer to have more unique - even asymmetrical - races over having a more easily balanced game." Just an informal community survey, but still. That's quite the margin.

*Although, Blizzard's gone on record (and I agree with them) stating that asymmetric balance can make balancing easier. All the knobs and levers you can fine-tune gives a lot of control over balancing particular factions and strategies against each other.

Originally posted by axiomsofdominion:

TL;DR RTS games, especially Starcraft, and totally inappropriate comparisons to 4x games in every way.

And yet, a well-designed RTS or its AI can still inform a discussion about 4X.

[axiomsofdominion]

Originally posted by rogue_LOVE:

Originally posted by Icemania:

1. The balance of the units and factions is superb. In 4X gaming I tend to build a relatively small number of ship/unit types as a lot of the time there is a lack of balance and nothing else is needed. As I look back on my games with Starcraft I use the majority of unit types voluntarily because most of them have non-redundant purposes and useful specials particularly as you increase the difficulty.

I'd take this in another direction, too. Starcraft 1 and 2 are some of the best examples of asymmetric balance I've ever seen in a strategy game. Each faction plays extraordinarily differently than the others, due to 1) very tightly-designed, thematic, diverse units, and 2) somewhat different core mechanics. Of course this is a lot easier in RTS, where you'll have maybe 2-4 factions, and much harder in your average TBS where you could have dozens plus customization.

IMO, many strategy games would be monumentally improved by this design. I know it's difficult to design, tough to balance*, and controversial. But when it's done well it brings so much to a game. To beat a dead horse, I'd put Dominions out there as another example of pulling it off fabulously.

As a little aside, this is one of my core grips about AoW III: all the races feel somewhat samey. Yes, the classes are the main point of differentiation. And yes, the later expansions improved racial diversity (to horribly misuse a term). But even so, have a look at these poll results[aow.triumph.net]. Just over 80% said they agree or strongly agree that they'd "...prefer to have more unique - even asymmetrical - races over having a more easily balanced game." Just an informal community survey, but still. That's quite the margin.

*Although, Blizzard's gone on record (and I agree with them) stating that asymmetric balance can make balancing easier. All the knobs and levers you can fine-tune gives a lot of control over balancing particular factions and strategies against each other.

Originally posted by axiomsofdominion:

TL;DR RTS games, especially Starcraft, and totally inappropriate comparisons to 4x games in every way.

And yet, a well-designed RTS or its AI can still inform a discussion about 4X.

Dominions has a moderate minority of factions that play highly differently. But its probably the least balanced game in the universe. Which is actually a plus for me because screw balance, in with rule of cool.

Starcraft is actually something of an exception even among RTS games, because most of them cave and just make really samey factions. Its also important to compare Starcraft in 1993 or 1997-8 to modern games because of the REASONS its so balanced.

[w@ke_]

Originally posted by axiomsofdominion:

Dominions has a moderate minority of factions that play highly differently. But its probably the least balanced game in the universe. Which is actually a plus for me because screw balance, in with rule of cool.

I wasn't clear on this, but yeah, I'm mostly talking about the cool asymmetry part. Although I'd say that national magic paths + thugs + sacreds + taking to different pretender builds and scales etc. makes for some pretty varied gameplay faction-to-faction.

Getting off the topic here, sorry. Just wanted to clarify.

[Mezmorki]

I'm increasingly skeptical about the need or desire for unit customization in 4x games and I think it's one of the Achilles heels of the genre.

SC2 can have interesting asymmetric sides and units because it designed that way intentionally with a lot of effort placed on balancing the relative competivenesa of each despite there differences. You can't really achieve this with also having unit design, because it opens the door to making all sort of exploitable min-Max unit designs that the AI simply isn't capable of dealing with. And for MP games it leads to dominant strategies emerging and being even worse than competitive RTS games.

This is also why I think Age of Wonders has interesting tactical combat and fun factions. All the units are specific designs, no customization allowed, which lets the designers get more creative in designing abilities and creating various interesting synergies between units.

[Biz]

sc2 is only balanced for a single map with slight variations on 4th/5th base locations. the first 2 or 3 bases are the same, and that decides 99% of games

it's more of an example of symmetry than asymmetry, all things considered

the units are asymmetrical, but the map + economy is the bulk of that game, and the difference between drones and probes isn't a big deal

[axiomsofdominion]

Originally posted by Mezmorki:

I'm increasingly skeptical about the need or desire for unit customization in 4x games and I think it's one of the Achilles heels of the genre.

SC2 can have interesting asymmetric sides and units because it designed that way intentionally with a lot of effort placed on balancing the relative competivenesa of each despite there differences. You can't really achieve this with also having unit design, because it opens the door to making all sort of exploitable min-Max unit designs that the AI simply isn't capable of dealing with. And for MP games it leads to dominant strategies emerging and being even worse than competitive RTS games.

This is also why I think Age of Wonders has interesting tactical combat and fun factions. All the units are specific designs, no customization allowed, which lets the designers get more creative in designing abilities and creating various interesting synergies between units.

SC2 is all about competitive twitch. The way you get better involves twitch and nothing else. There is no value in traits like having a good memory, being able to do complex, or even simple, math in your head, etc. If you suck at Twitch you are boned because good twitch people can look up build orders and crap but you can't get twitch skills free from the internet. It also has other limitations as well. Certain map types are extremely beneficial for different races. In competitive games they only use specific types of maps because of this. With 20 years of balance work and extremely limiting controls on how you play the game, essentially house rules, SC2 multiplayer is very balanced, for people who are very good at twitch.

[axiomsofdominion]

Originally posted by Biz:

sc2 is only balanced for a single map with slight variations on 4th/5th base locations. the first 2 or 3 bases are the same, and that decides 99% of games

it's more of an example of symmetry than asymmetry, all things considered

the units are asymmetrical, but the map + economy is the bulk of that game, and the difference between drones and probes isn't a big deal

No one is ever willing to admit all the things competitive RTS games restrict or get rid of outright to get their famous balance. It drives me insane. In order to balance race asymmetry every other aspect of the game has to be super limited and tightly controlled.

[FireStorm20]

Originally posted by axiomsofdominion:

So yeah, no one has ever posted in the first thread I posted here about my game. But if you read the blobbing post you would learn something about why Starcraft has good AI.

Basically, the AI in Starcraft has a built in advantage over a 4x AI. Firstly, humans are limited by twitch and the AI isn't. Secondly, the game is incredibly simple. All the complexity comes from twitch which the AI ignores. Thirdly in turn based or even real time with pause 4x games the player has an infinite amount of time to plan strategies. Of course he is going to curbstomp the AI. Moreover the player can learn in between games and the AI can't. Finally, pro game play in RTS games revolves around the rush. Rushing in a 4x game defeats the whole purpose of the genre and makes like 90% of the gameplay inaccessible.

A far better genre to compare RTS to might be turn based tactical skirmishes. Or TBT games with a campaign. The AI in those things can be really good.

Further, 4x games tend to have a massively larger number of opponents and a much larger map. Makes the job of the AI way more difficult.

Also Starcraft is a game that has existed with identical rules, and mostly identical unit types for over 20 years and is far more sensitive to testing and multiplayer due to its trivially small possibility space and the extremely short relative play time.

TL;DR RTS games, especially Starcraft, and totally inappropriate comparisons to 4x games in every way.

Disagree.
About rushing: I have watched a number of pro gamers on youtube, and those mathces , while nearly never reaching end game units like carrers or battlecruisers, nearly alwys go up to middle tier like colossus, and they usually take 30 minutes time.

I also know how it works from personal experience. While along way from pro, i climed till golden leage in SC2 and palyed a fair bit. And i was a pretty defensive player. Ofc i did some early rides, but mostly my strategy was alwys to develop while defending.

Rushing is same as a strategy in well designed 4x and in rts: or you catch you enemy trying to expand/develop to rapidly and you can destroy him, or he withstands your rush, meanwhile building better units, and will have an edge after the rush.

There was a time i played a fair bit of Endless Space MP , and rushing was very popular. Again, i was the player that liked to defend/evolve.

I think saying 4x and rts cant be compared in terms of AI so categoricly is wrong. Both games revolve around building units, developing to build better units, aquiring resources.Ofc there are differences but i woundt go as far as say you cant compare both.

[of Anwyl]

Originally posted by FireStorm20:

Originally posted by axiomsofdominion:

So yeah, no one has ever posted in the first thread I posted here about my game. But if you read the blobbing post you would learn something about why Starcraft has good AI.

Basically, the AI in Starcraft has a built in advantage over a 4x AI. Firstly, humans are limited by twitch and the AI isn't. Secondly, the game is incredibly simple. All the complexity comes from twitch which the AI ignores. Thirdly in turn based or even real time with pause 4x games the player has an infinite amount of time to plan strategies. Of course he is going to curbstomp the AI. Moreover the player can learn in between games and the AI can't. Finally, pro game play in RTS games revolves around the rush. Rushing in a 4x game defeats the whole purpose of the genre and makes like 90% of the gameplay inaccessible.

A far better genre to compare RTS to might be turn based tactical skirmishes. Or TBT games with a campaign. The AI in those things can be really good.

Further, 4x games tend to have a massively larger number of opponents and a much larger map. Makes the job of the AI way more difficult.

Also Starcraft is a game that has existed with identical rules, and mostly identical unit types for over 20 years and is far more sensitive to testing and multiplayer due to its trivially small possibility space and the extremely short relative play time.

TL;DR RTS games, especially Starcraft, and totally inappropriate comparisons to 4x games in every way.

Disagree.
About rushing: I have watched a number of pro gamers on youtube, and those mathces , while nearly never reaching end game units like carrers or battlecruisers, nearly alwys go up to middle tier like colossus, and they usually take 30 minutes time.

I also know how it works from personal experience. While along way from pro, i climed till golden leage in SC2 and palyed a fair bit. And i was a pretty defensive player. Ofc i did some early rides, but mostly my strategy was alwys to develop while defending.

Rushing is same as a strategy in well designed 4x and in rts: or you catch you enemy trying to expand/develop to rapidly and you can destroy him, or he withstands your rush, meanwhile building better units, and will have an edge after the rush.

There was a time i played a fair bit of Endless Space MP , and rushing was very popular. Again, i was the player that liked to defend/evolve.

I think saying 4x and rts cant be compared in terms of AI so categoricly is wrong. Both games revolve around building units, developing to build better units, aquiring resources.Ofc there are differences but i woundt go as far as say you cant compare both.

The AIs in both can be comparable, but really only roughly considering the large number of systems a 4x AI has to deal with compared to the relatively tiny number of systems an AI from a game like starcraft has to deal with.

[axiomsofdominion]

I am going to write a blog post about this instead of posting a reply here and I'm going to post a new thread. Be warned, this is not your toddler's wall of text. You'll probably need some chocolate or soda to get through it.

Due to the stupid ass way my job scheduled me this weekend this post may not be up until late on Monday.

[of Anwyl]

Originally posted by axiomsofdominion:

I am going to write a blog post about this instead of posting a reply here and I'm going to post a new thread. Be warned, this is not your toddler's wall of text. You'll probably need some chocolate or soda to get through it.

Due to the stupid ass way my job scheduled me this weekend this post may not be up until late on Monday.

Sounds very interesting, I look forward to reading it. :D

[Nasarog]

Originally posted by Mezmorki:

I'm increasingly skeptical about the need or desire for unit customization in 4x games and I think it's one of the Achilles heels of the genre.

SC2 can have interesting asymmetric sides and units because it designed that way intentionally with a lot of effort placed on balancing the relative competivenesa of each despite there differences. You can't really achieve this with also having unit design, because it opens the door to making all sort of exploitable min-Max unit designs that the AI simply isn't capable of dealing with. And for MP games it leads to dominant strategies emerging and being even worse than competitive RTS games.

This is also why I think Age of Wonders has interesting tactical combat and fun factions. All the units are specific designs, no customization allowed, which lets the designers get more creative in designing abilities and creating various interesting synergies between units.

Heroes get customized a lot and their customizations affect their stacks.

[axiomsofdominion]

Just for clarity any grumpiness or frustration that I don't manage to filter out of the post is not directed at any particular person and instead at strategy gaming as a whole and the way it continues to drop the ball in seriously attempting to improve both the games themselves and the discussions surrounding them.

RTS games and 4x games have similar themes and settings and both include "economy" and "combat" among other things but mathematically they are worlds apart. Its the mathematical model that counts in game design. Now, its almost impossible for humans to converse on the mathematical level, so our use of abstraction is necessary.

But just like the abstraction of CK2 is too simplistic and thus doesn't allow you to simulate Game of Thrones or the War of the Roses such that what you do and what actually happened have no resemblance, the level at which we discuss game design is simply too high level to function as anything more than a stimulus for our social impulses.

My final blog post will attempt, and probably fail because I'm not gonna spend 2 years making it perfect, to highlight a level of abstraction that is still comprehensible, even to laymen, but at the same time has actual explanatory power to help us design better games.

My mission will be the same as that of science communicators. To make an arcane and esoteric field of study accessible without becoming useless pop science garbage for click bait websites to write ridiculous headlines about.

Maybe I'll email Neil DeGrasse Tyson for some tips ;P