The Thematic Imbalance of Starcraft

@ Atlas,

I think you should give it a go. I can help you edit. Write one up and submit it to me via PM or e-mail. jtietz[at]starcraft2forum.org

 

My comments:

I think simplicity in itself is not the end when you are balancing something. it's all about how you define something. The colour wheel has 3 primary colours and the rainbow 7 colours. It's just easier to balance something that has less parts. Less things can go wrong. Some Blizzard made examples are take SC 1 for example. 3 main parts or races there and most of us would agree they are very well balanced. But look at World of Warcraft. And at the moment it has 10 parts or playable classes. And Blizzard has found it really hard to balance those 10 parts. And have many balance issue complaints on the subject. SO it's not impossible to have 10 or 100 parts very well balanced. it's just really hard. And if the number of parts gets large it might become a harder task then humans themselves are capable of. SO Blizzard in my opinion are smart by selecting a small number of races or parts. And perfecting that. It's the old saying you can master as few or be a jack of all trades in many things. And I'm sure Blizzard want the few but perfectly done few.

And to the original posters comments on the races. They are really well said. But you have missed out one little aspect. People's individuality or take on things. Like art one people might love a piece of art and another might hate it. And the same goes for your proposed tactics. I'm sure Blizzard designed the races with a rough gameplay guideline for eace race. As in how each race is best played. But people like to experiment. And they look at the races and say how can this race or part be adapted to what I like best or how I like to play. So they take Blizzards idea of how to pay the race (as you said very well) and modify that.

So I see the 3 ideas you have as not set in concrete. I could be playing Protoss for example and be playing mostly like how a terran is classically supposed to be played but I might add in a tactic or two more thought of as Terran tactics. So your entire post to me is like a framework or a lump of clay. I get given 3 parts or races in SC2. And I can mould them into whatever I want them to be. And play them in whatever style I want to. Sure some styles would be more successful than others. But that's what I think is the best thing about SC1 when compared to other RTS games. In the other games, when you know what race/faction the enemy is, you know what their tactics will be because the race is so strongly constrained that any other tactics are total suicide. But in SC2 you are free make up your own tactics. So if you know your opponent's race you don't know if they will tech or rush or turtle or harass or something else.

My whole point is the original posters points about the races are just one way to play the 3 races. And there are many many more ways. And that's what makes SC brilliant. 3 races but a near infinite way to play the 3 races. And this is in my opinion the reason why the first SC lasted so long as a popular game.

 

hmm i agree to them, though the only thing that can a game be imbalance is in terms of the players oponent skill

 

Can't wait to see the product of a fun THC night landing on the front page. Good contribution.

I like Starcraft. I spent time with it, and not just with gameplay. But this fanatic attempt at elevating it to anything more than a consumer product is absurd. Especially considering the OP claim that SCBW is imbalanced, which is clearly not true.

Just because something is well done and utilises few elements in the best way does not make it art. For me a piece of art is there to be freely interpreted, either in line with what the author(s) thought or not. That is why art can infinitely be interpreted depending on who tries it. Because the hiatus it contains (what it does not explicitly give) is a major element in it. Now tell me, what is so endlessly interpretable about SC? The struggle for victory, perhaps, but the possibilities are anything but endless.

Without supporting your claims (about SC) and researching (about SC2)... it sounds like you had a fun dream you wanted to share.

 

Well SC utalises more elements then say a painting which we all consider is art. With a painting I only use my eyes. That's it. I look at it. I can't go and listen to the painting. If I can hear the painting then it's time to check in the mental ward. Same for a piece of music. I only listen to it. My ears enjoy it only. I can't see music.

And with many pieces of artwork, paintings, sculptures and music they are telling a story. And if you really look/listen to them you can pick up on this story. Sure some abstract art has no real story and can be interpreted into anything. But that's just one exception. Sure I can put a few splodges of paint fo a canvas. No story there. But if someone spends years painting or composing a masterpiece more often then not there is a pretty obvious story woven in there. One story, no infinite possibilities.

So to respond to the above post. There is nothing endless about Starcraft. I agree with you. But I would argue all art is the same. Nothing endless about it too. All these people want to tell a story. Some paint their story, some compose a piece of music about it, some make a movie about it and yet others make an interactive videogame about it.

But the interesting part is why the creater of each art piece chose the subject matter for their story. And how each part of their work/masterpiece fits into their story. The catch is for most masterpieces the creators of them are all dead and we can't ask them any questions about it if we don't understand. So the scholars just debate what the creators might have been thinking when they created their masterpieces. And they will debate this till the end of time. Well untile time travel comes so we can walk back in time and ask the creators directly.

But the creaters of the starcraft games are still alive. So we can ask why they made their story. And how each of their parts fits into the story as a whole. There is less debate cause the creators themselves can set the record straight.

Starcraft, the games utalise many elements, our sight to see the game, our ears to hear the sounds of the game, our complex thought processes of our brains to think up better ways to play the game and more. And this is a lot more then your usual piece of art that only uses one sence. Usually sight or hearing.

For me art can take up many different forms. Photography and film making which once were never considered art now are. And I think videogame making is a new creative outlet for some people. And I'm sure some of the games will be considered masterpieces of art one day. And by the way people talk about the first Starcraft I'm sure it is already considered a masterpiece by many people.

 

I'm reminded of a similar trichotomic theme that occurs in rpg games:

strength, agility, intelligence.

By blending these three prime qualities together in differing proportions, you get a prototypical unit class, that may to a greater or lesser extent reflect the qualities of the parent race, which favours a particular play style.

 

Well lets consider some things here.

Philosophy
Art
Math (number)
Nature
Pattern

The ultimate question is, is there one set philosophy to music? Some might say no, but I say yes. That the philosophy of music is merely the arrangement of pattern. Patterns have to involve number. Patterns can be observed in nature, and if I think that when you compare nature to art, as far as what your idea of art is, nature blows it out of the water at being artistic. Why? because the beauty of it is on a higher level then any painting.

But then you might say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder... truly, there isn't anything in nature that a person can't find what they believe to be ultimate beauty in.

A person cannot say that nature isn't beautiful and that's the way I see it. I mean you can say that, but I mean seriously... get real...

 

Jasmine you forgot about charisma or spirit. A quality like that is always there in a RPG.

I think it's more like the Legend of Zelda triforce. 3 parts. Wisdom, Power and Courage.
Protoss = Wisdom
Zerg = Power
Terrans = Courage.

This even flows into the lore. Protoss are the wise old race who wants balance in the universe. Zerg are power crazed aliens who want power by infesting and killing the rest of the universe. And the humans (Jimmy Raynor being a good example) are a courageous race who have little going for them but seem to use their wits and cunning to salvage enough technologies together and form a plan to win.

But the Jasmine's above post way of putting it is a nice way also. In your arguement you could say all the races have a spirit quality of sorts.

***************
And to the above poster, yes you can find some things ugly. Each person feels differenty about things. Personally I find God made most animal life really pretty to look at. All bar humans. I think all humans are not good looking. We are a ugly race as whole. But that's just my opinion. And we are all intitled to have our own opinion.

 

heh, yeah you see that one in DOTA

 

Just because there are more parts doesn't make it more difficult to balance... it all depends on how much you want to put in to those individual parts, and how many parts you have that determines how difficult it is to balance.

The more character classes you have, the less you are going to be able to put in to a character.

Just look at DOTA on warcraft 3. There are 92 choosable heroes that you might say are unique from each other... However, there are only 3-4 abilities to chose from. You start to realize that the more character classes you have to chose from, the more you sacrifice how deep the character can get, while still maintaining uniqueness, and maintaining that each character is a fresh and different experience.

So balancing the 10 character classes is only difficult depending on how unique each class is from each other, and how in depth each character is.

In order for an enjoyable game, you don't want the game to become bland, and boring, and that's what could happen.

In my opinion, I think blizzard is holding the magic numbers for the most exciting games possible, particularly with starcraft and diablo.

Diablo has 7 character classes, or 7 dimensions one might say... Considering this, take a good read of this article.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Contemplating-a-7-Dimension-Theory-of-Everything&id=3072495

Good points are...

"Forces of Nature: 1. Applied Force, 2. Gravitational Force, 3. Normal Force, 4. Frictional Force, 5. Air Resistance Force, 6. Tension Force, 7. Spring Force"

"Electromagnetic Energies: 1. Gamma rays, 2. X-rays, 3. Ultraviolet (UV) rays, 4. Visible light rays, 5. Infrared radiation, 6. Micro-waves, 7. Radio waves."

"Visible Light Spectrum: 1. Red, 2. Orange, 3. Yellow, 4. Green, 5. Blue, 6. Indigo, 7. Violet"

"Western Music Notes: 1. c, 2. d, 3. e, 4. f, 5. g, 6. a, 7. b"

"Vibrations: 1. Do, 2. Re, 3. Mi, 4. Fa, 5. Sol, 6. La, 7. Ti "

I think I can make my point best using this single URL alone.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/254271/universe_evolution_favored_3_and_7_dimensions/index.html

"universal evolution favored 3 and 7 dimensions"

One might consider the 3 dimensions to be length, width, and height. Then there is the 4th dimension which is Time which could merely be the result of the tension balance between length width and height. The 3 primary colors could represent length width and height, and then the 4th dimension, time, would be the white light in the middle. We are quite sure that if we were to be moving at the speed of light, we would transcend time. It just suggests that light and time are virtually one and the same. This explains the controversial 4th dimension.

Diablo and Starcraft should have great potential to be ultimate pieces of art work, because I believe that God uses the dimensions of 3 and 7 to create the most beautiful patterns.

Can you not see my point here?

 

"Two theoretical researchers from the University of Washington and Harvard University think they might have found the answer. They believe the way our universe started and then diluted as it expanded – what they call the relaxation principle – favored formation of three- and seven-dimensional realities. The one we happen to experience has three dimensions.

"That's what comes out when you do the math," said Andreas Karch, a University of Washington assistant professor of physics and lead author of a new paper that details the theory."

 

I'm saying, in order for starcraft to be the most dynamic experience possible, you would want each race to be purely unique from each other in function. The goal being a tension between the races like the tension between the primary colors, to result the ultimate dynamic experience.

Starcraft can only truly be balanced if it has dynamic balance.

 

I never advanced the notion that Nature is NOT lovely. I only sought to demonstrate that your notion of Art (Art is a reflection of Nature) is 1) inadequate and 2) demonstrably false. That's also why I asked you this question: "My house reflects Nature. Why is my house not Art?" How does your idea of Nature as Art blow my ideas on Art "out of the water"? Your contention that "the beauty of [Nature] is on a higher level then any painting" is unfounded. You seem to fall just a ittle short of saying that anything that reflects Nature IS Nature. Furthermore, Nature is not considered Art since it was not made by humans; you're new here, so you don't know that religion is one of the topics that is HEAVILY discouraged on this forum. So, let's abandon the idea of an 'artistic god'.

What remains, then? 1) Nature by itself is NOT Art. 2) Simply because an object reflects Nature does not de facto make it Art.

 

See, here is where we conflict with each other and there is really nothing more to talk about. Either you think it does, or it doesn't. In my opinion, it is quite obvious what the answer is and you are just making it more difficult for yourself.

 

I don't think there's anything to gain from labeling the game as art, and then arguing about the minds of gods, numbers appearing in nature, and then quoting physicists talking about dimensions. That's really not pertinent to the discussion.

The purpose of this thread, (I'm gathering) is to talk about assessing and refining the features of each race in terms of Reactive Quantity, Positional Ability, and Aggressive Quality.

 

Er... come again?

Stark contrast with

I might look like someone who comes in here for the sole purpose of nitpicking. I wouldn't read the whole thread just to do that. I'm here to point out that what you're saying, Atlas, is either an uncontrollable torrent of nonsense or you have trouble expressing yourself. Or you've exposed yourself to too much SC. Either way, you're going around in circles with your double- and triple posting sprees, and your comment of "Diablo and Starcraft should have great potential to be ultimate pieces of art work, because I believe that God uses the dimensions of 3 and 7 to create the most beautiful patterns." hints at your religious zeal which might explain your posts, but of which I want none.

Happy reading too much into things and pattern hunting :yes:

 

Thank you! Someone else has understood that Atlas' approach (StarCraft is great because it reflects Nature, and the reflection of Nature is Art) doesn't actually explain why StarCraft is a great game.

Actually, it's very pertinent to his argument, because that's how he buttresses and rationalises his method. Those of you who failed to understand how important Atlas' "StarCraft is/could be Art" argument is to his Method did not actually understand what he was saying. And that's why I criticised his approach to Art. But we've reached an impasse: I refuse to recognise God as the Supreme Artist, while he does: God, in Atlas' view, is the Author of Nature. StarCraft, in his view, is/could be great because it reflects Nature. In other words, StarCraft is great because of God. This theory is another exemplar of the God fallacy.

I question the application of Atlas' method. To state that the 3 races must be 'unique' puts you on shaky ground: what do we mean by 'unique' ? All 3 races must gather resources (of course, otherwise there's little contention), all 3 races have buildings, all 3 have a variety of units at their disposal, units that have various strengths and weaknesses. They are, then, not really 'unique', since they are 3 variants of a single template. To emphatically state that that the races are unique because they emphasise different qualities is, at best, highly contentious: Are the Zerg the only ones that are reactive? No. Nor should they be, as it would greatly mitigate the game's strategic possibilities. I think that Atlas' Method is best used to criticise StarCraft, not to praise it. Whether The Atlas Method can actually be used to refine the game has yet to be determined. The Atlas Method, as I understand it, is very much philosophical conjecture.

I would like to insert a brief addendum: While I have been highly critical of The Atlas Method, I also think it is the most complex interpretation that has ever been put to StarCraft's gameplay. But as my posts have made clear, I strongly disagree with Atlas' underlying rationale about God, Philosophy, and Nature. And as it stands, his Method rests on very contentious arguments. The general approach may be interesting, but it requires some serious amendments.

 

I can see your point. But I can't say I agree wuth it too much.
I do agree that how complex each part also matters as well as the number of parts ot relation to how hard something is to balance. But I don't agree what 3 and 7 are magic numbers ordaned by God as you say. Sure your examples are good. But most of them are mean made and derived. And that does not explain how there are 11 dimensions in the universe.

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Eleven-Dimensions-of-Space/Time---Part-I&id=131380

That's that's just one random article on the subject. And there are more if you look with google. And of the 11 dimensionsa we so far have defined the first 4. Length, width height and time. (X, Y, Z and T). And the other 7 we have yet to define. But one day we will be able too. This does not fit with your 3 and 7 are golden theory. But I will admit it's more then a pure co-incidence 3 and 7 pop up a lot.

To Jasmine:

it's just how some discussions go. They flow from point to point. Cause they are interesting. So what if one minute it's art and the next minute it's God. It's all interesting chat.
And this thread was about more then just just refining the features of each race. The original poster put the tri-colour picture in there and taked aboyt art for a reason. They are all valid points. SOme choose to talk about the 2nd half of the OP's article of specific examples of the 3 races. And some chose to talk about the 1st half about the game as art.

Either way it's just a fun discussion .

 

Read the 2nd paragraph of my last post (it's right above yours). I talk about how Atlas' arguments about Art are intrinsically linked to his Method. For Atlas, Art and God are inseparable --a notion that I cannot agree with. Is StarCraft great because of God? If you replied No, then you do not agree with Atlas' underlying rationale. Atlas and my debate was not one that meandered listlessly through various topics: it has been highly focused on the nature of Art.

 

Well, you didn't know that I believe God to be nature... my point was that nature and art are inseparable, and that nature is the combination of math and art to make... for lack of a better term "Natural Art" and or to me, what God is.

I'm sorry that I didn't clarify my understanding of God as being the merging point of art and number.