In the corporate world people measure tasks and labor in terms of man hours. The same principle can be used in Starcraft 2. A single unit of measure, which I will call labor seconds, can be used to measure both time and cost of a unit or structure. Thus we can create a single unit of measurement on which to balance units. This analysis does not take into account abilities that have to be microed, such as the Nexus' Chrono Boost or the Orbital Command's Call Down Mule. A balanced game should have units that are equal without player interference and its the player's ability to control those units and structures that give them the edge during a game. Now, how to calculate labor seconds: The time it takes to build units and structures converts directly into labor seconds since it is a measurement of time. That being the case we must convert mineral and vespene production into a time. The gathering process is identical for all races. In Starcraft 2 a single harvester delivers 5 minerals. Not all mineral patches are equal distance from the main structure, however it takes 5 seconds, on average, for a harvester to walk to a mineral patch, harvest the minerals, and finally deliver them. Therefore, when we round down, gathering 1 mineral equals 1 second of labor. So, for example, a building that takes 45 seconds to build and costs 100 minerals can be said to take 145 labor seconds or LS for short. We can measure vespene gas in much the same way. In Starcraft 2 a single harvester delivers 4 vespene gas and the gathering process takes 4 seconds. Therefore gathering 1 vespene gas also equals 1 second of labor. However, we must also take into account the minerals and time spent to build the refinery/assimilator/extractor. The build time is 30 seconds added to our 75 mineral cost which gives us a total of 105 LS which we must add as a base LS for each vespene gas collected. Therefore, 1 vespene gas equals 106 LS and 2 vespene gas equals 107 LS, etc... We now have a system of measurement that we can compare all units on an equal ground. Let's take a look at the first military units each race is able to build, also known as the tier 1 units. Terran Marine: Barracks: 150 minerals + 60 build time = 210 LS Marine: 50 minerals + 20 build time = 70 LS 1 marine = 280 LS 2 marines = 350 LS 3 marines = 420 LS 4 marines = 490 LS 5 marines = 560 LS 6 marines = 630 LS Protoss Zealot: Gateway: 150 minerals + 65 build time = 215 LS Zealot: 100 minerals + 33 build time = 133 LS 1 zealot = 348 LS 2 zealots = 481 LS 3 zealots = 614 LS Zerg Zergling: Spawning Pool: 200 minerals + 65 build time = 265 LS 2 Zerglings: 50 minerals + 24 build time = 74 LS 2 zerglings = 339 LS 4 zerglings = 413 LS 6 zerglings = 487 LS 8 zerglings = 561 LS 10 zerglings = 635 LS Now to put this measurement into practice you take 2 sets of units that are of relatively equal LS and let them fight each other without player interference. Let's take 10 zerglings, which equal 635 LS, and 6 marines, equalling 630 LS, and start them a good space apart in open ground and let them run towards each other on auto attack. Since they are of relatively equal LS it should be a roughly 50/50 chance as to who will win. Since fights rarely, if ever, come out as a tie where both sides are destroyed usually it will end up where there is 1 unit left from either side that is 1 or 2 hits away from death. That would be an acceptable margin of error for equality. Since the 10 zerglings have a slightly higher LS than the marines they should come out on top slightly more often than the marines if given enough test runs. For example, if you ran the above test 1000 times then zerg would have 1 unit left, granted very close to death, on approximately 510 of the attempts where terrain would have 1unit left, also 1 or 2 hits away form death, on 490 of the attempts. That would prove that those units are completely balanced. If that's not the case then something must be done to balance then, whether it be raise their damage, lower life, increase attack speed, etc... I'm not here to say what the exact changes should be, but to prove that changes should be made. The system can also be used on higher level units and units with upgrades just making sure to add the base LS cost of the upgrade when counting the unit. Micro elements of units and buildings are not taken into effect at this time, because those are strictly as strong or as weak as the player controlling them and have very little to do with the base balance of the unit. On a side note: I don't trivialize player skills, tactics, and strategies, but before you can concentrate on that you must have a balanced base system so we know for sure that it is the player's skill that brought them to victory and not some imbalance in the game. As a player I would love to know that it was my pure skill and hard work that caused my win and not because my race/units/abilities were imbalanced. You can't math your way to victory against another player, but having a strong knowledge of foundation mathematical concepts can do nothing but help. Video games, especially RTS's, really are just math; from movement speed, attack speed, damage, build time, frame rates, armor reduction, even how fast the game will let you click and move around the screen, it's all math. I know it's not a perfect system and there is definitely room for improvement, which maybe myself or others will expand in the future. It's all for the cause of creating a better, more balanced, game where players can enjoy themselves.
Ugh not this again. Were you inspired by AtlasMech by any chance? This theory, as well as the one I linked, is flawed on account of its own supposed foundation. If you calculate everything when accounting for LS, why not calculate the pylon for the Protoss, without which there would be no gateway or anything after it? And why not count the Nexus to be fair with the Zerg, seeing as how they need a hatchery to produce creep to be able to build. Slap the overlord there as well because 1 supply is enough for so many units. Your example is flawed too because positioning is almost the decisive factor in Starcraft. If you have the marines close together then they'll more likely win against the zerglings, while further apart they can be expected to lose. The same goes for the zerglings, it is essential to specify how far they are from each other - are they led in one by one (because of a choke) or the whole lot together? I'm not even going to go into terrain properties and ask why you chose an open area which clearly favours one team over the other... I see the idea behind disregarding player control over units but how exactly would you evaluate units that are near useless without player control? Sieged tank comes to my mind along with all the units that are active ability-based (warp prism, high templar, nighthawk, overlord, overseer, etc.). Lastly, I do not see the point in trying to simplify Starcraft to raw numbers where the bigger wins. Starcraft is about balanced gameplay, I think we can agree on that. Hence, it is gameplay that needs to be balanced, not some hypothetical unrealistic scenario where players can't micro, etc. I'm saying you can calculate whatever you want related to something, but it is pointless and an utter waste of time if what you study never ever happens. The balance of Starcraft 2 can only be achieved through extensive testing via playtime, not on paper with conjured up numbers. That is why the beta phase is so important and includes thousands(?) of people.
I think play-testing is very important for this as strategy counts for a lot. I honestly think the game will need to be re-balanced periodically as people learn new strategies than make Protoss a stronger race or whatever - just because more people are learning how to play them effectively! Play-testing - actually in game history and results and the strategies people are employing are all important - there's no way to get it right just on a whiteboard. Eric
I have to agree here. I think SC 2 is a little about the numbers game. But also a lot about player skill and how they play their game. It's a balance fo the two. And the best players will have mastered both of these things. After a lot of practice I'm sure.
It's an interesting proposal, but I agree with the other comments that micro control of units can have a big effect. Think of it like this: Consider a blind combat simulation as you propose, and "balance" the units with that. But then consider the effects of micro. Good micro of unit A may give a 10 "point" advantage to that player. But good micro of unit B may give a 20 point advantage. So in any real game using A vs B, you'll get complaints that B is overpowered. Your ideas about the game's economy are more realistic though. Well done for thinking this all through, but the game has a greater mathematical depth than your current model does
aaaand that's where the FAIL kicks in. all spellcasters = worth 0LS in this system. unit speed doesn't matter- the units only run towards each other. no kiting or even retreating. a small, fast unit vs a large, slow unit, in this system, is the same as a small, slow unit vs a large, fast unit. terrain and range barely matter- ranged units have no bonus other than they get the first shot off, and in 0.5 seconds they are both just standing there shooting at each other. if you want to play a game of numbers where you just send wave after wave of units mindlessly walking towards each other and shooting until only one is left standing, you can play Supreme Commander. This is StarCraft.
