The Thematic Imbalance of Starcraft

As one of the biggest star craft fans out there, I am very concerned about "Thematic Balance" in starcraft broodwar and/or starcraft 2.

What is thematic balance you might ask? Thematic balance is the balance between themes considering that three equally unique themes posses' the greatest amount of tension between each other so long as each theme is fully unique from each other and equally unique of the three.

Let me use a perfect example. Color is a natural phenomenon that represents theme.



The primary colors above represent the most basic concept of thematic balance.
Note how each color is completely, and equally unique from one another. This complete and equal uniqueness can only occur with 3 themes. This is what makes starcraft such an amazing game because it's so simple and basic, yet it is ultimately sophisticated. Starcraft is comparable to the primary colors as diablo 2 LOD is comparable to the 7 colors of the rainbow. 3 primary colors, 3 races. 7 primary colors, 7 character classes. Each race and or character represents a different theme or color.

Leonardo Davincci said "Simplicity is the Ultimate sophistication".

This makes starcraft have the potentential to not only be the greatest game ever made, but also the greatest piece of artwork ever painted.

Think about that for a moment... the potential to be the greatest piece of art work ever made. This game is more then a game, it's a cultural phenomenon and the proof is out there, just look at how the game took off in Korea.

But does this mean that we should really take this game seriously? The balance of this game, yes, but when playing the game, the whole point is to have fun, but the fun is really dictated by how balanced the theme function of each race is. It's truly a double edged sword.

To understand WHY the fun of the game is dictated by thematic balance you just have too look deeper in to our language to see how they relate going from word to word.

Fun, of or relating to the word Funny
Funny, of or relating to the word Amusement
Amusement, of or relating to the word Music.
Music, of or relating to the word Theme.

Since starcraft is potentially capable of being the ultimate piece of art work, then when considering what music is, comparable to art, so should starcraft. What I'm saying is, starcraft and music are virtually on the same level of artistic significance. That's how significant starcraft is.

The point is... themes are there to amuse us, to be a fun experience for us. That's truly the point and goal of music, to have fun, to be amusing and to entertain. That is why starcraft should be the ultimately entertaining gaming experience.

Ok, now that I got that rant out of the way, we can now discuss balance.

The only way starcraft can achieve true balance is if each of the 3 races are equally and completely unique from one another in the WAY that they function. Remember, we aren't trying to balance colors here, we are first trying to realize what 3 equally unique modes of function would be to represent those colors. We could use 3 unique attributes combined with 3 unique styles to represent 3 thematic ways of functioning. Those would be the following...

3 unique attributes:
Quality
Quantity
Ability

3 unique styles:
Reaction
Aggression
Position

The word combination between attribute and style used to represent the thematic function(color) of zerg would be:

Reactive Quantity - How can we tell that zerg is suppose to be reactive? When you examine how creeps function in starcraft 1, you see that they can be half made for half the price for the purpose of reacting to situations accordingly. Further evidence exists in starcraft 2 with "reactive" larvae". People say that zerg's strength should be in their numbers. This is only a half truth. It must be realized that the strength of zerg is not quantity, in fact, quantity will go against zerg by giving them more losses until you factor reaction. Zerg's quantity effectiveness is dictated by how reactive it is. With out a stronger reactive element, zerg are lacking. The zerg are also reactive because they have overlord and borrow almost right at the start, which allows zerg to react instead of having to aggressive.

Terran:

Positional Ability - The evidence is raw and obvious that the terran theme function revolves around position and ability. It's so obvious and clear that it is right their on the most basic level. Buildings/bunkers can be POSITIONED anywhere on the map, and SCVs have the ABILITY to repair them. It is how position and ability work together that make up terran's strength, same goes for the other races thematic function. Same holds true out in the open on the battle field. You have a much better chance of beating an army of marine and medic running acrossed the battle field stimmed with medics chasing after them, then you do running in to a group of marine and medic who have POSITION and are using their ABILITY to stimpack.

Protoss:

Agressive Quality - How to we know that protoss' natural strength is based on aggression and quality? Two reasons. Shields regenerate faster then zerg's health, which indicates that the goal of protoss is to try and go in and get even the slightest advantage by killing even just a few units. The protoss are based on quality purely because they have TWO armors to break through, and tend to excel at 1 hit knock outs. I.E. reaver, dark templar. The proof is right there, obvious and logic.

These attribute and style words combined together to describe the thematical function of each race reveals how each race should function in an equal and fully unique fashion. With this understanding we can see where each race may or may not be lacking. It now becomes pretty clear and obvious why zerg seemed to be lacking so much in starcraft 1.

Everyone always proposed the argument that zerg have quantity and that zerg can make all their units from a single hatchery. But these things have clearly, obviously, and logically gone against zerg because zerg ends up having more losses, and also has to share their unit production with their economic production, overlord and drone, which is a greater burden then it is a blessing. The only way it could be made up for is by making zerg's resource gathering ability have a slight edge, OR, by giving zerg a greater reactive edge i.e. 3 lings per egg for 75 minerals instead of 2.
I mean, we already have 3 larvae per hatch.. why not stick with this number for function purposes 3 lings per egg. This would give zerg the reactive edge that they so rightfully deserve.

Also... Zerg share all their units at a universal production building. This indicates that "Sharing" is a theme component to the way zerg should function.

If this is true, then the element of sharing should be observable through out the entire function of a race. The proposal is a shared larvae system. So not only do hatcheries share the production of all types of units, but each hatchery shares the production of every other hatchery. You could use up all your cumulative larvae from all hatches at a single hatch. This would solve the problem of zerg lacking in proximity options as opposed to terran and protoss. A proxied hatchery would actually be a viable option and threat, instead of it being the stupidest and useless move that you could possibly make.

I'm hoping that there are others out there who can see these issues, and I'm hoping and needing your full support. Help me make this game the best it can possibly be.

Sincerely, Atlas[MeCH] U.S. East.

 

On your point about how Terran bunkers and such have the ability to be positioned anywhere on the map, I would make the case that the same could be said about Protoss defenses, and that these would be better for that because with the Terran, units would have to be moved to them as opposed to the Photon Cannon which is ready to go instantly.

 

I think what you are saying is that since the protoss don't need to have a probe moving back and forth over a pylon, constructing it, making it a vulnerable target, that it almost makes a photon cannon rush equal if not more effective then a bunker rush.

This isn't necessarily true. If a photon cannon rush fails, then this sets the protoss much further behind.

But perhaps the shield battery was meant to be able to recharge building shields. So if a protoss was doing a photon rush, they would throw down a shield battery first, and then a photon cannon, so that the shields of that photon cannon could be recharged while it is building. Which, you could then see the similarity of the bunker rush with repair as a photon cannon rush with recharge, however, they would still be different.

If this were the case, then I would agree with you. But this just begs the further question.. if terran and protoss have this proxy element, then where is zergs?

 

because if you notice, a shield battery gets done in about half the time of a photon cannon.

It only makes logical sense that if a shield battery was next to a photon cannon, that it would recharge it.

If an scv is auto-repair

then a battery would be auto recharge...

So lets say you are doing a photon rush, and you have 300 minerals by the time your pylon gets done... do you make 2 cannon? or do you make a shield battery, then a cannon? it would surely be more effective to get the shield battery down right away followed by cannon right after, so that if the cannon was taking hits in the middle of it's production, the shield battery would regenerate it...

I think that this would make it equally as a viable option as a bunker rush.

 

This contradicts your previous post where you grasped the essence of Starcraft well - that the three races are unique. They are unique not just graphically but also gameplay wise. Terran can proxy most easily, followed by Protoss, then Zerg (with next to nothing, although creep vomit + crawler is still viable and might actually be better than the Protoss solution). Regardless, the three races don't need equivalent mechanics at all. I think this is best exemplified by the IK system: Protoss have a massive slow unit, Terran tiny fast ones, while Zerg none at all.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you describe it in your first post. SC2 is actually aiming to make the races be more mobile and static as well, depending on the player's choices. Terran isn't as positional anymore, for example, because they have repears and salvageable bunkers, as well as medivacs, making an infantry push easier to support. Protoss aren't necessarily aggressive as they have the mothership and chrono boost, which are clearly base-oriented. Zerg can actually dictate instead of just react - roaches clearly demand their appropriate counters otherwise the Zerg would just mow everything down.

 

Building rushing isn't as direct with Zerg but it's still there, and it's dependant upon how much creep you have on the map. Building a single Creep Tumor requires only 25 energy from the Queen, and once constructed can produce it's own tumors without the Queen's supervsion; one can literally cover the map in creep in a matter of minutes. One could consider the Creep alone as a big advantage on smaller maps, as with enough APM The Zerg player may just be able to block off their opponent's expansions, but the more noticeable advantage is that all Zerg ground units (save Drones) receive a 30% increase to their movement speed. Kinda reminds you what "rush" means, eh?

The Spine/Spore Crawlers, being able to uproot themselves and deploy at a new location, also receive the movement speed increase, but according to most of our Beta testers Spine Crawlers are damn near useless with the current damage they do. There's also the option of Nydus Worm rushing, as the Nydus network becomes available around Tier 2 and Nydus Worms can be built anywhere as long as the player can see the area they intend to build at.

 

You say it's not as clear cut as I'm describing it, but when I say "proxy element" this does not clear cut anything.

The beauty of starcraft is that everything is familiar yet it is different. Seperate but equal. Things will inevitably have a similar vibe from them but should be a fresh depending on how you experience it for each race.

When you say clear cut, perhaps you are saying that zerg do have somewhat of a proxy option, and that it isn't an absolute lost cause.

I would think you are wrong, however....

My proposal would be that zerg had a proxy element, but that it would have a more offensive feel then a defensive one as opposed to the protoss or zerg, but that it would be familiar in its effectiveness, perhaps equally as effective as a bunker rush, or a photon cannon rush if done right...

So, I actually do think it is as a clear cut of a misfortune for zerg as it is....

 

Using the primary colors as an example...

Just because you are experiencing the color green, doesn't mean you are experiencing green exclusively...

There is some reminiscence of red and blue in the green itself.

 

I'm sorry what?
Are you comparing SC2 to art?
wha?

 

@AtlasMeCH: Please use the "Edit" button in lieu of double posting.

 

[ot] @Kaaraa: Please use the report post function or send a VM/PM, instead of posting OT [/ot]

But they already do. As I said, spew creep and build/plant crawler or tumour. This Zerg proxy is similar to the Protoss with the actual offensive building needing an area prerequisite, but it's even more effective because of the aforementioned speed boost to units.

 

Having a speed boost to units over some small patch of ice (offensive creep) is pretty lame and doesn't make sense...

Does the creep eat away at opponents buildings?

Besides, all this is not the same... overlords are very slow, compared to a probe that glides in for a proxy attack effectively, makes pylon, and starts warping offense in....

You see, zerg are unique because they posses a universal production, but they half assed it and made it only apply to unit types, rather then a shared larvae system.

The bottom line is that zerg are not following through on their theme of reaction and shared production.

 

Let me give you a scenario....

Two players are fighting, one is zerg and the other is either protoss or terran.... the t or p goes offense,
Zerg should be able to react late enough that they can get off a few more drones to keep up in economic production, and react strong enough that they are capable of pushing the opponent back to his base so that zerg can make.. more drones, to keep up in economic production.

But this doesn't work... zerg can't react late or strong enough to get the economic production by pushing the opponent back to his base.

In order for zerg to stay alive, they have to continually make offense, and therefore, the economy never gets made. It is proof that zerg is horribly balanced thematically in sc1 for sure.

 

No, the bottom line is that you don't follow up on SC2, I'm sorry. Spew creep is done by the overseer, which is fast. Creep tumour not only extends creep, but also spawns additional tumours, continuously growing the - in our case - offensive creep. You can cover a significant area within a couple of minutes, and that speed boost on such a large area is anything but negligible. And it does make sense as Zerg units can move on this organic land more easily. And yes, creep damages buildings. However, you'll find that Zerg will sooner destroy or infest a building than surround it with creep, so that attribute is just a nice little detail. What is important is that creep denies other races the possibility to build there.

As for your scenario, I can see where you're coming from with the hatchery being shared by workers and offensive units, but you're forgetting the queen (again, do you follow SC2?). Currently there is no cap on them (?) so if you have an arbitrary number of hatcheries relatively close then you can have about 2 queens patrol those hatcheries, continuously casting forgot-its-name extra larvae. That is a huge advantage and practically abolishes the burden of having to share larvae with workers and forces.

As for your very last statement, Korean progaming proves otherwise.

 

Seems like blizzard is making everything much more complicated then it needs to be, and this just leaves so much more possibility for error.

I'm looking forward to seeing sc broodwar in the map editor... and being able to play a better version of broodwar.

 

Atlas,

This is some deep stuff. Would you be interested in writing this up as an article that we can publish on the site?

 

AtlasMeCH, firstly: welcome to the forums. You are going to be an asset, of that I have no doubt, given the effort that you put into your posts. I have a very similar philosophy as you: post little, but post well. I have written the following in reply to one of your claims, namely this:

Since starcraft is potentially capable of being the ultimate piece of art work, then when considering what music is, comparable to art, so should starcraft. What I'm saying is, starcraft and music are virtually on the same level of artistic significance. That's how significant starcraft is.

While I may be a StarCraft fanatic, I cannot agree that StarCraft qualifies as Art. Now, for simplicity’s sake let’s largely avoid that contentious thorn that so many philosophers and scholars have put to each other (“What Is Art?”), and agree that, on the simplest level, art must be ‘entertaining’ in some way, and that this entertainment is coupled with an emotional response. Truly great music, which you alluded to as an example of artistic achievement, makes us listen to it over and over again, and appeals to us emotionally. How well does StarCraft hold up to this little definition? Speaking objectively, StarCraft, if the number of players is any indicator, IS a fun game. Subjectively, we can all agree that the game is a blast.

The second condition of Art (emotional response) is a little bit of a poser: how does StarCraft draw in players emotionally? Arguably, singleplayer establishes an emotional link between the player and the characters. That I would accept. However, this argument is irrelevant: the singleplayer characters, as characters and not mere units, are absent in multiplayer –and multiplayer is what we are referring to since we are speaking of the Artistic merits of the ‘competitive’ game; singleplayer is not truly competitive.

Now, a more complex counter-argument would acknowledge that an emotional engagement cannot be established, at least in multiplayer, by means of the campaign’s characters. Players, says this counter-argument, become attached to not a particular character, but a RACE. Once again, there are problems with this argument, as well: firstly, this argument assumes that players WILL view their chosen race as more than a tool to achieve their ends. Secondly, given that the race is a tool (although it may be perceived as more, as stated before), how strong can the emotional connection really be? I like my chisels, and I would be upset should something happen to them, but this sort of intimacy is, at best, really nothing more than a vague sense of fondness. Does fondness for an object, then, constitute Art? Furthermore, how does the 'fun' portion of this 'tool' translate into 'emotional connection'? It doesn't, unless you embrace the fallacy that all entertaining things necessarily draw us in on an emotional level. Let's approach this from another angle: how many of you choose your race for emotional rather than strategic reasons? The emotional appeal that the races may have, then, even if it is present, is most likely negligible.

Now, it seems that Music, thus far, corresponds to the 'definiton' of Art far more easily than StarCraft. But there is also a third element to Art, one that we have not yet considered, and your failure to mention it is an interesting preterition: must Art have a moral dimension? My answer would be yes, because otherwise ‘Art’ becomes absolutely indefinable, and something that is indefinable is of little value. And we can both agree, I think, that Art is of no mean value. By a moral dimension, I am not naively suggesting that Art makes us better people: Art may be capable of achieving that in some people, but to peremptorily state that it WILL make us better individuals is demonstrably false. After all, the Nazis at Burchenau read Goethe, and listened to Chopin and Beethoven –but were they anything more than cultured butchers? So, by ‘moral dimension’ I mean that good Art (and Art to qualify as Art must do this, in my opinion) will somehow challenge us on an emotional or spiritual level. How does StarCraft achieve this? I do not think it can. It is, fundamentally, a multiplayer game --a marvellously complex one as we all know, but a game nonetheless. The only computer games, I think, that may possess a true moral dimension, one that makes the player actually pause and THINK not about some facet of the game but about Life, are the two Bioshock titles. And the Bioshock series is at its best when its a singleplayer narrative.

You have been arguing, like many others before you, that StarCraft qualifies as Art chiefly because it is remarkably complex (according to your model, which I will address in another post). But chess is entertaining, and its game mechanics are no less intricate than StarCraft’s. Does chess qualify as Art? If it does, you have a problem on your hands: all things that are entertaining and complex qualify as Art, such as Sudoku. It is important, I think, to discriminate between 'games' and 'art': as a multiplayer game, StarCraft fails to truly engage us emotionally. And the multiplayer games humanity has produced until now, as I have suggested, do not possess a moral dimension.

 

Response to zealot

As I was trying to say, I believe starcraft has the potential to be the greatest artwork ever. Why? because of its intimacy with philosophy, and philosophy's intimacy with nature.

I'm saying that the DESIGN of starcraft structurally, when it comes to achieving balance, it is more then likely going to require a little bit of abstract thought.

I believe if you want the best balance possible for starcraft, then each race should function as unique as possible, but equally unique, so as to create a tension between the races, and that this tension should be equal from one match up to the next.

Back to philosophy... philosophy does seem to be heavily intimate with the number 3.

Scroll down to "In Philosophy" and look at the long list of "Philosophical distinctions" in the chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_(number)

I guess my argument is that since starcraft is so representative or related to philosophy, and nature, i.e. color, that the possibilities for creating such a game are almost endless... and because the possibilities are basically endless in music, that is how I would compare them.

I guess the biggest question is, is nature a painting by the ultimate artist, God?

It would be cool, but I don't think I could write it up well enough that it progressively makes sense... my mind tends to jump around.


Believe it or not, I actually got banned from the blizzard forums for trolling, because I'm just that much of an upset fan, and feel like blizzard is doing things that are pissing me off.

I've just put in a lot of work and the first post is me putting it all together to express it better. Perhaps there might be some worth while things in their worth considering. Just trying to do my part.

Btw, I'm really not taking a perspective of starcraft 2 yet, I don't think I ever will until I can play the game. I am not sure how much this stuff I'm talking about has already been considered and implemented in sc2.

It seems that there could be plenty of time here for the game to evolves with the 2nd and 3rd released expansions...

Please read the rules before posting. Don't double post!

 

I'm no game designer, so I can't truly speak on behalf of anyone in that field, but your inspiration to make the game the best it can be, is in all likely hood shared by at least several if not all developers behind Starcraft 2.

Putting something down on paper, or in this case text, to show how you feel it should be, is all well and good, but when it comes to making the game...I'm sure it's a whole new ordeal in it's own.

Sure there will always be other routes to take to reach a similar destination, such as making StarCraft 2 enjoyable; Just because they take one you feel is not, put in, can I say formula/pattern that you perceive them to be placing each race, doesn't mean the game will be less then what it can be in the end.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is, you seem to come across as though you feel something desperately needs to be changed, or there will be a lasting flaw in the game(correct me if I'm way off)...as well note the care you have for the game is shared by many here - I just hope you don't believe the game will be just 'another' RTS out there if the game developers make it in a way you disagree with.

Again, that's in reference to the direction of how they make it a fun game, where as I feel multiple paths can lead to the same result...a fun game to last many years.

 

I guess my argument is that since starcraft is so representative or related to philosophy, and nature, i.e. color, that the possibilities for creating such a game are almost endless... and because the possibilities are basically endless in music, that is how I would compare them.

OK, yes, I understand that, but what you’re saying now is equally problematic: If StarCraft is intimate with Philosophy, and Philosophy is intimate with Nature, then if I follow your reasoning, StarCraft could be great Art because it is, by way of Philosophy, intimate with Nature –in other words, Art is the reflection of Nature: that’s your inferential.

However, this is not a satisfactory definition of Art: what do you make of Pablo Picasso, Juan Gris, and other artists whose work have little to do with ‘how things are’ (Nature) ? Their works do not reflect Nature, yet they produced great Art, like Guernica. What do you make of Literature, which is constructed using Language, given that Language does not reflect Nature, it interprets it? It would seem that Art does not necessarily have to reflect Nature, then. Simply because StarCraft reflects ‘Nature’ does not mean it is Art. A building is constructed using the principles of Nature (physics and such), is it not? Notre-Dame cathedral is a work of Art. However, (believe me!) my house is not. If all buildings reflect Nature, why are all buildings de facto not considered as Art?

I am, nevertheless, intrigued by your model for StarCraft: it is a very original interpretation, although it requires some clarifications on certain points. If you require any sort of assistance, I would gladly help you organise your thoughts.