Hatchery as a Universal Building

Every race being unique is a part of Starcraft, without it, it would just be another clone of so many games it's not funny anymore. You don't have a good enough argument to make people agree with you, so just give up.

In my opinion, Starcraft 2 is only improving on Starcraft: Brood War, because it changes for the situation, such as the Zerg assimilating other species for new needs, and the Terran and Protoss having new units, or old units with improvements because they needed them.

 

Well, how are we defining "unique"? Obviously the races have some shared facets, such as: they all have buildings, gatherers, attackers, the units are mobile and can be subdivided into 'Air' and 'Ground', etc. There are large (and necessary) overlaps in terms of functions. In that sense, the races are all similar.

However, a closer analysis draws our attention to the little discrepancies that make the races unique. For example, the gatherers all operate differently with regards to construction: the drone must be sacrificed in exchange of a building, the scv must physically build the structure, whereas the probe conjures a rift and goes back to work immediately after. So, the factions may have shared functions, but the precise execution of these functions varies. And that, I think, is what Atlas should concentrate on: how to make the execution of shared functions multifarious so as to promote "uniqueness".

I haven't bothered to follow any of his fulminations since I reduced ad absurdum his first essay: "StarCraft is great because it reflects Nature, and Nature is the reflection of God". Atlas' philosophy regarding StarCraft is holistic, ambitious, and totally nonsensical. Honestly, he might offer insight to the game if it weren't for the fact that he insists on interpreting StarCraft through the narrow lense that is his philosophical diagram.

 

That is true. I was only stating that all the races are unique in their own way, such as how they construct buildings, how their units are 'created', for example, Terran units are 'trained', Protoss units are 'warped in' and Zerg units are 'mutated'.

It's what makes Blizzard unique, they take ages to make a game, but when it's finished, it is unique and different from many other games, and is balanced perfectly.

 

I like how you give examples to support your argument that Starcraft is not balanced.

Huh?

You really should listen to what people are saying; it makes you look like less of a jerk when you consider others' opinions.

 

on that note, RPS is definitely imbalanced. the win ratio of R-P-S is about 30-38-32. paper is clearly too powerful, it should be nerfed.

 

To all those that have criticised this argument: Atlas is right to underline the fact that popularity is not necessarily indicative of quality. It is generally agreed that StarCraft is the most balanced RTS ever --but this doesn't preclude the possibility that another game is more balanced. But empirically measuring "balance" in a computer game is not something I care to try --I'll leave that to Atlas. For my part, I'm a simple mind convinced by the fallacious evidence that is StarCraft's enduring popularity.

So, Atlas' first clause is correct. However, to further his argument he offers a puzzling anecdote:

Please explain how Blizzard can influence independent commentators working for KeSPA, OGN or MBC: none of them are affiliated or directed by Blizzard. Thus, Blizzard does not and cannot control their dialogue or views. How then is Blizzard directly orchestrating "biased coverage to prove that the game is balanced"? And are you saying that coverage is the only factor that Blizzard needs to control in order to hide the fact that StarCraft is "not balanced"? I mean, it wouldn't be possible for some intrepid souls to discover this on their own? You know, people who regularly play the game, for example?

Had Blizzard signed that exclusive broadcast deal with GomTV back in 2000 and not 2010, I might have actually found the suggestion interesting. And mark my words, it WILL be interesting to see how much control Blizzard exercises over GomTV with regards to SC2's coverage. I find it disconcerting that Blizzard signed an exclusive with a broadcaster because they wanted "a trustworthy partner who respected [their] intellectual property rights". In so doing, has GomTV signed away their right to criticise Blizzard? But this speculation is irrelevant to our present discussion.

 

Well, ASDF knows what he's talking about. But you don't seem to want to engage in conversation with him. Okay, you can talk to me: I helpfully pointed out how half-baked your first theory was. As I recall, we boiled down your idea to "StarCraft is great because it reflects Nature, and Nature is great because it is the reflection of God". So, reiterate your argument, please: the above paragraph is unintelligible.

Wait, what about the Planetary Fortress? That's a primary building with an attack. I guess, then, that the Protoss Nexus would be the "one out" because it can't attack? If so, your 2-1 "rule" actually demonstrates how similar the races are, rather than how unique. And that's the result of a "rule" that concentrates on general functions (attacking, gathering, building, etc) rather than the execution of these functions.

 

Also, crypts in WC3 can't attack. Crypts are the equivalent of barracks for Undead, producing tier 1 units and their upgrades.

I assume you were referring to a Necropolis, the main building of the Undead. For those that don't know, the Necropolis is the UD main building that produces workers. However, it also can't attack. It must be upgraded to a Halls of the Dead, and later a Black Citadel, to gain this ability.

 

Ok zealot in a tux, I want to provide the best possible example of an issue that I've had with the races where I felt like the 2 similar, or overlapping as you put it, 1 different principle was not properly implemented in to the game.

We know that the races can not all be completely unique, but we also know that they cannot all be the same. Someone on here mentioned that each race has miners and that is a similarity shared between them all. Not really. When you look at the miners closely, you see the two similar 1 different principle. The drone and the probe have equal amounts of health. They are equal to one another in power, as I have seen a drone and a probe hit each other at the same time from the first hit and then both die at the same time on the last. The scv however stands out as it has 60 health compared to the 20/20 probe and 40 drone.

What I have an issue with is how all the races have a range upgrade for the missile army units. Marine, Hydralisk, and Dragoon. The upgrade is identical in what it does for each race, and once broodwar came out, and zerg had the lurker, it begs the question... what is the point of the hydralisk range?

You see, when it comes to upgrades, the zealot and the dragoon fall under the same category of unit, "Ground Unit" So zealots and dragoons upgrade together.

When it comes to upgrades AND ability, the marine and the firebat upgrade together. The ability I'm referring too is stimpacks which once terran got the medic were almost virtually capable of always maintaining twice the firing speed AND movement speed.

With zerg, zerg have the carapace, sure... but it only covers the armor portion. But as a sort of overlapping function similar to the stimpack, I believe that the hydralisks should have an adrenal upgrade of their own, hell you could even put it at tier 3 with the zergling adrenal gland upgrade, however, because zerglings and hydralisks wouldn't be put in the same category unit, like infantry, you would upgrade either hydra adrenal, or ling adrenal depending.

And then get rid of the range upgrade for hydra, so that all 3 races wouldn't have the exact same thing.

Think about it, the counter to high templar is a queen, but you never see zerg getting a queen for every high templar because queens can not fight like an archon can, and second, although the lurker may be thought of as a counter to the high templar, storm eats up lurkers quite effectively. The zerg need a mobile effectiveness, it's pretty clear.

The terran would just use tanks/irradiate to beat hydra lurker still...

It makes a lot more sense.

It probably would be put on tier 2, as terran get stimpack on tier 1.

 

i am completely lost after reading that post.

ok... so what you're saying is:
1. all 3 races' main ground ranged unit has a range upgrade.
2. zealot and dragoon share weapon upgrades, while marines and firebats share weapon and ability upgrades... therefore, hydralisks should get a separate adrenal gland upgrade like the zergling?
3. therefore, it just makes more sense.

what? did you notice that all 3 already have differences, aside from the range upgrade? the dragoon and marine don't get a speed upgrade. the dragoon and hydra don't get a special ability, and are not first-tier units. you're trying to force your 2-different-1-same rule or whatever it is again. look, when the reality doesn't fit your theory, you change your theory, not reality.

towards the end of the post it just seemed like rambling, i keep losing track no matter how many times i re-read.

 

when did the zerg become a defensive race??, everything they have is all out offence. nough said.
i lied, also blizzard did find that zerg were losing more often in the USA, but in korea winning way more often, ergo just because you suck with zerg does not mean the zerg sucks, i like zerg they fun and can produce workers and units so fast, as long as you macro well if you don't thats your lose not the zergs

 

After reading your post, I realised that we need to go back to the basics. I actually called these “overlaps” Functions. As stated above, Functions are basic commands and unit classifications. Commands might include things such as: building, gathering, attacking, etc. While “mobile, ranged, melee, heavy, light, ground, air, etc” comprise unit classifications.

Incidentally, that person was me. And you failed to take into account the model I provided. As stated above, the races share many Functions. Do all races gather minerals? Yes, so they all have gatherers. Must the races wipe each other? Yes, so they have units that can move and attack. There are many more examples of Functions, but I trust that you understand. If you deny this, then you would also say that a car and a helicopter have nothing in common, which is patently untrue: their basic FUNCTION is that of a transport. However, the above sentence suggests that you’re saying: “A car and a helicopter are not at all the same because one has wheels and is on the ground, but the other has a propeller and flies.” You’re right to emphasise the discrepancies between the two, but not at the expense of denying that they share a common Function: transportation. Yes, at first glance a Zergling and a Carrier have little to do with each other, but bear in mind that they both fulfill the Function of an attack unit.

I think we can both agree that all RTSs are designed with Functions in mind simply because units are not supposed to fill all roles; otherwise, there would be no need for a variety of units. There are very basic Functions that the races MUST share in order to promote the use of a variety of units, and to insure coherent gameplay. I pointed out that the uniqueness of the races is the result of the execution of each Function. Here’s an example:

Function: building (the construction of buildings)

A breakdown of the execution of the “building” function:
TERRAN SCV: required to build the structure
ZERG Drone: morphs into a building
PROTOSS Probe: necessary to open the rift, but can immediately return to gathering.

Now, if I understand The Atlas Ratio’s application (your 2--1 rule), you would say that with regards to this Function the Zerg are the “one out”. Why? Because their harvester must be sacrificed, whereas the probe and the SCV survive the building procedure. But then again, we might also state that the Protoss are the ones out, because their gatherer opens a rift and returns to work, while the drone and SCV cannot. But the Terrans are also the ones out because they alone can repair their buildings.

However, I'm not suggesting that The Atlas Ratio is a rubbish method: I think that you haven't taken into account Functions when making your observations: you seem more concerned with game mechanics. Consider this:

Building and Repairing Function Analysis

Sacrificed for the building?
Probe and SCV: no
Drone: yes

Available for work during
construction of the building?
Drone and SCV: no
Probe: yes

Construction progress lost
when unit moves away from
the building in progress?
Probe and SCV: no
Drone: yes

Accelerate repair process of
damaged buildings?
Drone and Probe: no
SCV: yes

The Atlas Ratio is a method that can be used to explicate the races' individuality and "uniqueness" despite the fact that they share many Functions. But is the Atlas Ratio actually of real significance? And furthermore can The Atlas Ratio tell us anything about gameplay mechanics? You seem to think so. I, well, I'm not so sure... I'll answer that in my next post.

 

I like how you had the long elaborate post there, but you seemed to ignore the very powerful point being made.

The zergling has the adrenal gland upgrade, but with firebats, zerglings are almost completely useless against terran infantry regardless. This clearly calls for an adrenal upgrade for the hydralisk.

2nd, speed zealot counter hydras with out storm. This calls for an adrenal upgrade to push the zealots back home, in which case the protoss player would have storm ready at home, using speed zealot and storm to counter the hydralisk.

It's pretty obvious.

People might complain that the adrenal upgrade would over power the hydra, but the point is to remove the range from the hydra since they have lurker anyways. The hydra would be similar to the infantry in a sense by having the attack speed and this would properly implement the 2-1 ratio rule. And the point is to not have all 3 races have the same range upgrade ability. It must follow the 2-1 principle to achieve uniqueness.

So the hydra would lose some effectiveness with out range, but gain it back and then some with the adrenal.'


Using the 2 similar one different ratio, one could identify areas where the races are pretty much exactly the same, and then think about how it was suppose to be structured according to the rule, just as I'm doing now.


I have one last thing to add...

Ever noticed how it was always completely pointless to micro out medics because they had 60 life and a medic healing it made it more of a tank then anything? With the adrenal, at least microing out medics with hydra would be viable. Obviously having medics with stim packs AND range makes the marine medic combo over power even adrenal hydralisks... but again, at least there would be a method of play that p remotes interesting and agressive battles.

 

How is a lurker a replacement for the range upgrade of hydras...? They don't serve the same function AT ALL.

 

The Atlas Ratio, as I demonstrated above, can be used to explicate how the races share common Functions (such as building, attacking, gathering, etc) yet still retain an identity --in other words, The Atlas Ratio is a method that mathematically expresses why the races are “unique”. This first contention I have no objection to, although I did identify a problem with its application: it’s not enough to state that the “Zerg are the one out with regards to the building Function” because there are many sub-Functions that must be taken into consideration (see above if you don’t remember this).

However, your use of this 2—1 ratio is bolder than simply interpreting what makes each race “unique”: you think it can help us identify what you perceive to be shortcomings in the gameplay. To this effect you say:

Now, that’s more of a method than anything you’ve presented so far. Good. But there’s a problem with this method: StarCraft is primarily a game of Functions, not a game designed according to your 2—1 ratio; The Atlas Ratio, as stated above, explains uniqueness. It does not explain the need for a variety of units. I demonstrated that the reason StarCraft has many units is because each unit is designed to fulfill a Function or a sub-function. If this were not so, then we would build, attack, etc with the same unit, say, an SCV. So, Functions explains why StarCraft has a variety of units, while The Atlas Ratio explains why a probe, drone, and an SCV are “unique” despite fulfilling the same Functions (gathering and building). You can see, then, that The Atlas Ratio expounds on Functions, and that without them it’s a meaningless 2—1 ratio.

Let’s analyse one of the Thematic Redundancies you identified:
1) The dragoon, marine, and hydralisk all have a range upgrade.

So, this “range upgrade” is the execution of its main-Function: “Attack upgrades”. And you’re right to underline the fact that this upgrade is detrimental to the races’ uniqueness as it offers no variation to the “attack upgrades” Function. So far, so good.

But while addressing Thematic Redundancies would result in greater uniqueness, it would not necessarily make for a more balanced game. In fact, you would have to rebalance the gameplay in order to accommodate the new thematic material. The Atlas Ratio can identify Thematic Redundancies (such as the Ranged Attack Upgrade), but the removal and replacement of Redundancies would have to be compensated for, which is something that falls well outside of The Atlas Ratio’s immediate application. The Atlas Ratio, therefore, can help us identify and eliminate Redundancies, and this would improve the races' uniqueness. But using The Atlas Ratio to balance the game is simply not possible, as The Ratio is intended to diversify the Functions, not to balance the gameplay.

For me, what makes it obvious that Blizzard did not balance the races with The Atlas Ratio is the fact that Blizzard considers StarCraft to be a fairly balanced game: had they designed StarCraft using the The Atlas Ratio, the races would be even more unique. Surely, if the game designers had this 2--1 ratio in mind, they failed to fully implement it: there are far too many Constants in StarCraft’s gameplay. According to your application of The Atlas Ratio, fundamental things such as the Mineral Mining Constant (+8 for all races) and the Armour and Attack Upgrades are Thematic Redundancies. I’m not saying that you’re wrong with regards to these Thematic Redundancies, but if the developers failed to implement a ratio that they were conscientiously employing, then they would not consider StarCraft a balanced game.

 

i notice that the most lengthy forums are the ones where everybody bashes on someones stupidity.

 

Ok, here is my response.

You talk about functions a lot, and I'm not sure if I'm fully understanding why you are criticizing me on it.

I'll give another example of what I see as a flaw in the game.

The terran and the protoss, usually most especially the terran as they don't necessarily HAVE to make bunkers, always have warrior units ready to attack, what I'm refering to is what I call pawn units, or just the most basic warriors, zealots, and marines. Because the terran and the protoss always have these basic warriors slowly building up through out the game, this should raise a big question on how zerg's defense should function.

Now terran, even though they are less required to build a bunker since they have scanner and stimpacks for micro, are capable of not only repairing that bunker, but sending out 2-3 and 4 scvs to 1 bunker to stack the health recovery. This is a very powerful thing.

It begs the question... since zerg don't have the extra lings always building up, then wasn't zerg suppose to be more capable of doing something "SIMILAR" to what terran is capable of doing with their defense? Hell, the zerg even has to protect MULTIPLE bases, and the goal is minimal defense remember.... protecting multiple basis with only one sunk is how it is done... but does it work? Of course not.

But lets say that terran expanded like zerg.... the terran could actually fair off much better because the bunker can be repaired, and again, not just one scv, but stacking as many scv as they want. The bunker is the cheapest defense structure.

So imagine this... imagine of zerg had some ability where they could bring off all their workers and have them function in some way with the sunken colony where each drone on the sunken colony raised its damage, or attack speed, or some of both, for a cost of minerals like repair does for the bunker with terran.

It would be similar to the terrans ability with bunker, but it would be different because it would enhance offensive ability rather then tanking ability like the terran.

You say that the 2-1 ratio could be used to make the races more unique.

I don't know if i can fully agree that it would make the races even more unique, however, I do think that you will come to find it true that the more unique the races are, the more it requires a balanced tension between each race.

A structure where 3 functions are totally unique from each other would automatically mean an equal balance of tension. Like green red and blue, the functions in a 3 themed structure, if completely unique automatically are then equal in balance, and have the ultimate tension amongst them, hence a great force known as light.

Take a look at the following image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quark_structure_proton.svg

Interesting to note how the proton is composed of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark.

 

Because The Atlas Ratio is concerned with Functions, not game balance. The Ratio can help identify what I termed Thematic Redundancies. Thematic Redundancies are Functions that have little or no variety across the three races. One Thematic Redundancy that we discussed was the fact that the dragoon, hydralisk, and marine ALL have a range upgrade. The range upgrade is used by all 3 races, so it’s a Thematic Redundancy. Thematic Redundancies make the races more similar, and are deleterious to a race’s uniqueness.

However, The Ratio cannot help us balance the game; it can help us identify these Redundancies, but not “fix” them, and certainly not balance them.

Referring to the “range upgrade Redundancy”, we would analyse it as follows:

Function: Attack Upgrade (all of the races have various attack upgrades)
Execution of the Function: range increase
Races targeted: All (we know, then, that this upgrade doesn't respect The Ratio, therefore it's a Redundancy)

That’s the redundancy: all the races have this upgrade, and that doesn’t promote uniqueness. And that’s all The Atlas Ratio can do: it tells us WHAT we have to “fix”, but not “HOW”.

Let’s continue with our example: the Ratio tells us that the range upgrade is a Redundancy that we should address. But how should we address it? The Ratio doesn’t say: after all, it’s just a Ratio to identify Redundancies. For example, how do we know which race ought to be “fixed”? All of the races share the Redundancy, so theoretically we could choose any of the three. Let’s say we decide to remove the hydralisk’s range upgrade in exchange for an attack speed upgrade. That would be more unique than a range upgrade.

So, say we remove the hydralisk’s range upgrade in favour of an attack speed upgrade. Can The Ratio tell us whether this change is THEMATICALLY balanced? Yes: The Ratio tells us that this respects the 2—1 ratio: the marine and dragoon would have a range increase, while the hydralisk would have an attack speed upgrade. However, can The Atlas Ratio tell us whether this is balanced from a GAMEPLAY point of view? No. That would require testing to determine whether this upgrade was useful, how strong the upgrade should be, whether it made the unit more complete, etc.

 

Wrong. Have you ever seen a TvP game? When will you realise that you cannot discuss something that you know nothing about? I repeat: you do not know what Starcraft is or how it works, so stop saying it's faulty because it does not comply with your theory which is based on nothing but your imagination and no facts at all.

Tell me, have you presented your ideas at other sites? What were their reactions if so, and if not, try posting this in as many places as possible and create the statistics for the feedback you get.

 

@Kuvasz

Actually, there is a sort of 2--1 ratio to be found in the game, and I DO believe it can help us identify aspects of the gameplay that are redundant across the three races. The real problem is that Atlas doesn't understand that while his proposed changes may respect the Thematic balance suggested by The Ratio, that doesn't de facto make for more balanced gameplay. Would it make the races more unique? Yes. However, each change would then require that we rebalance the units against each other, which is the second thing he doesn't quite grasp.

Also, he seems to genuinely believe that Blizzard made StarCraft with this Ratio in mind, which simply cannot be: there are so many Redundancies that Blizzard, if they HAD made the game according to The Ratio, would not consider the gameplay to be fairly well balanced.