SHOULD blizzard impliment veterancy for terrans?

This could be an option that players have to agree before a game.

 

Should Blizzard Implement Veterancy for Terrans?​

[img width=97 height=71]http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/65/others/veticon.jpg[/img]​

On the Starcraft II website, we find that "Terrans have had difficulty finding pilots who can master both [Viking] combat modes. Typically Viking pilots are killed quickly in their first fight as they struggle to handle this complex machine. If they are talented enough to survive, they will last for hundreds of battles, becoming the ultimate Terran aces."

Drawing upon this Blizzard lore, Meloku asked us two questions. Could Starcraft implement a Terran-specific veterancy into Starcraft II? And, more importantly, should they?

Two main viewpoints emerged shortly to hotly debate this suggested mechanic.

The Yes Camp

Proponents of Terran veterancy argued that this mechanic would match the Terran race perfectly and serve to further differentiate them from the Protoss and Zerg. Lore, for example, makes sense - a battle hardened warrior knows where to aim and what to do to survive - justifying improved armor or attack for a certain amount of kills.

More arguments for the system followed along the lines of BnechbReaker’s: "As long as... the impact of veterancy and the difficulty of obtaining veteran units in normal game play [are both] properly controlled than there isn't much of a problem (balance-wise)." Other members also agreed. This point relied on the fact that game mechanics cannot themselves be imbalanced, only the numbers and implementations of said mechanics. If the numbers evened out and the other races were given other new mechanics, balance could be retained. The amount of kills per rank could be scaled for instance; a Marine would have to kill less than a Battlecruiser to get promoted.

The 'yes camp' also intoned that ranking a unit for the Terrans would be somewhat difficult to attain in game. As a result, veteran units would be few and far between, and have little effect on the outcome of the game. Yes, a player with more ranked units could slightly shift the battle in their favor, but isn't that indicative of the better player?

In the end, zeratul11 sums up the 'yes camp's' position best: "I don't see it affecting the game play that much as it is only optional (lucky stuff) and just a simple bonus. The important thing is it adds... more playing style for the Terrans and the military feel." A military ‘feel’ was deemed a perfect association with the Viking lore on the Starcraft II website.

The No Camp

Opponents of Terran veterancy argued two main points: that the mechanic would be imbalanced and/or simply lacked the Starcraft ‘feel.’

The 'not Starcraft' argument was forwarded by members who did not want to see a resemblance in Starcraft II to the Command and Conquer series. These people did not want veterancy simply because they didn't like the mechanic. Starcraft is a game where little value is placed on individual units they said, and as a result veterancy would not belong.

However, since the 'Starcraft feel' is highly debatable in of itself, most opponents of the veterancy mechanic argued along the lines of balance. Veterancy for Terrans alone is a huge advantage over the other races, as the mechanic is not as simple as the other new mechanics Blizzard has been introducing.

These members also said that the current method of 'veterancy' that Starcraft already has is flawless – the upgrade system. Good players will research the upgrades faster and as a result have better units. Giving the veterancy mechanic to Terrans only would throw this system completely out of whack. As ninerman13 said, "the only foreseeable way to really balance a Terran veterancy would be to remove the upgrades at the same time, leaving upgrades [only] for Protoss and Zerg." Most Starcraft players would strongly be against removing the upgrade system for one of the races.

The feelings of other parts of the 'no camp' agreed with Joneagle_X, who said that "Starcraft is supposed to be about a number of different talents, not just handling a particular unit well. This will punish the player who might play macro really well but isn't so great with keeping a number of units alive to become more powerful." In other words, a good Starcraft player is supposed to be excellent at all aspects of the game, but with a Terran veterancy system, Terran players who are especially good at micro will gain a pretty significant advantage.

When all was said and done, the 'no-camp' was mostly concerned with how this mechanic would totally change Terran strategies for the worse. They didn't like the whole idea behind veterancy, and felt that if it was in Starcraft II an unfair advantage could be given to the Terran race.

The Yesno Camp and the Forum's Opinion

A few members of the forums wanted to see some sort of compromise. Veterancy is cool, they said, as long as it does not affect game play. This ‘yesno camp’ wouldn’t mind if Terran veterancy is in the game as purely an aesthetic mechanic. According to them, it would be neat to see a more advanced looking unit or rank stars to indicate a promoted unit – but they did not want the unit to actually become more powerful.

After a few months of polling, the forums appear to have reached a decision on where they stand as far as Terran veterancy is concerned. 62.2% of members believe that Terran-only veterancy should have no place in Starcraft II, while only 37.7% wish to see the mechanic present in the game.