Is StarCraft all MECHANICS and no STRATEGY? | Bring back 6 worker starts?

[@PiGstarcraft]

Quite a few comments have mentioned that this only effects the top 5 players in the world due to their insane mechanics and not average joes on the ladder. Whilst I didn't show examples of the effects on low level players - I did mention it briefly in this video from this point: 41:08 A lower worker count is actually WAY better for low level players because they aren't so overwhelmed by the constant need to macro that they actually get to focus more on attacking, microing, harassing and doing interesting tech builds without their macro being punished so hard for doing so. It's not that you can't be creative and make interesting things work at low level currently, but it is a bit more all or nothing where by the time you're in high plat/low diamond peoples economies are so huge so fast that there is an extreme fall off of any lower economy play. As a result a lot of lower level players feel like they're constantly drowning in the macro tasks and I think miss out on the fun of focusing more on their army. So much of my guides and B2GM teach hugely all-in/committed timing attacks to force people to actually learn how to fight in the war game!

[@derpyhooves7349]

This has been a major pet peeve of mine ever since 2013 or so. All the most "credible" casters and content creators would spill this constant cliche that the correct way to learn SC2 is to first develop perfect fundamental and to grind macroing up an army. You still see people repeat this BS to this day. It's especially hypocritical since all these years later even some championship caliber pros don't have supersolid macro and optimized builds (dark, hero, even maru), let alone the people propagating the BS themselves, who are leagues below that. Recently I've been into AoM. At first it was a bit discouraging to see everyone demanding that you autoqueue workers until you max them. To many folks including me, it's more fun to stay at low unit counts for a while. Guess what. I played around with different ecos and can confidently say as a decent sc2 player that ONLY HIGH-LEVEL PLAYERS would be able to keep up with an eco of maxed workers and 20-30 caravans, while doing everything else RTS-related. This is the same cliche as in SC2 that just takes the fun out of a game off of a false premise. AND, I even had an exchange with an AoM youtuber that made it very obvious that he doesn't actually ladder and yet he is talking about how you have to maximize your eco in this and that way. Hypocrites. So to anyone reading this, just remember that the reason we are playing is to have fun. ❤ Play loose, play cute, play smart, or just turn off your brain and enjoy the mechanical flow. It is your spare time, use it however you want.

[@しらこ-465]

You might find some pushback from people who watch your channel regularly because they're the people most invested in SC2 as it is now. However, the game has fallen off significantly in popularity and part of the reason is because it's become such a predictable game to watch. The game was more interesting when you had more skirmishes, more all-ins, more strategic pushes, and less harassment into 200/200.

[@derpyhooves7349]

@@PiGstarcraft Shit, I only watched the first half of the video and had no idea what wild direction it was gonna go in. 💀 I thought it was an advice to low-level players to just play low-eco. Yeah, 8 workers sounds absolutely awesome! I do still think even in the current SC2 low level players have a ton more room to play low-eco, because responses to aggro are just never that clean and the defending player gets their macro disrupted just as much.

[@Gitalien1]

I think I'm a good representative of the average Joe - mid-diamond terran - And I went through this 6 to 12 SCVs madness. The whole dynamic changed. No time to scout properly, certain strategies froce you to go blind and eventually adapt to what you see quickly. A' y deviation from the meta (except stupid stuff well executed that work on lower skilled players) implies a full commitment to go through. In team games you still have some options to put pressure, but in 1v1 vs sama-level player, it's small pressure into macro or all-in. That removed a bit of the game for people under M2, M1. No real time to build a stray for the current game, you have your build vs P, vs Z, vs T and you play it the best you can.

[@Floxxoror]

I played 20+ matches a week with 6, I really quickly stopped and my friends aswell. It was and is too stressful. If you play 4+ h a day, then most things go automatically, if you play way less, there is too much to think about and to do. For watching, 12 is great, but viewers do not buy the game, skins and pve heroes. Basically what GGG said like a year ago in his vid about why the next great rts will fail.

[@U2befantom]

"It is a bit more real time than strategy" This nails it.

[@ruffianeo3418]

The proverb about "he plays checkers, while the other plays chess" comes to mind. In SC2, you are forced into a checkers blitz game and deep strategies (the chess analog) never come into play or even exist. In other words - SC2 is what it is - and I wait for a long time for another RTS game, which finds another balance of favorable player skills. Yes, impatience is the virtue of the youth, but in most countries, where people can afford to play games (rather than manage their real life), populations grow older and older. The gaming market target audience is not 14 year olds anymore. In the mean time until a more brainy and less fingery game shows up, I stick with my all time favorite RTS game... chess.

[@megaslayercho]

Yup. That's why I switched to aoe4 and why I really miss old sc2(Wol and Hots). Sc2 right now feels like a moba game, wild patches every month which drasticly change the balance just for the lolz, often times making the game worse and worse(removal of infested terran from infestor and replacing it with a useless ability was absolute cancer). Sc2 right now doesnt feel like a strategy game, it feels like an execution game ,you just need to be up to date with what ever build/timing is the current OP thing right now and just brainlessly execute that shit over and over again regardless of which map you play. 12 worker start is the main thing that ruined the game for me, gone is the initial early game scouting phase ,now there are 300 cheeses that unless you get lucky to scout you automaticly loose to within the first 2-3 mins of the game. Everything is too fast ,it leaves almost no room for scouting and adapting ,there are almost no slow downs and breaking off the attack to regroup,rethink and try again ,you just slam against your oponent 2 mins into the match,spam your hearth out and who ever outspams the other guy wins ,it all just feels so repetitive.

[@yarikyaryi]

So shortly you are just slow minded and can't handle the pace. But blame the game for that, not yourself for being just worse player, OK ​@@megaslayercho

[@mi4812]

SUGGESTION FOR YOUR TOURNAMENT, PIG - Random starting amount of workers between 6 and 10. Part of the problem is if you know the number of workers at the start you create a few perfect builds, and go from there. If you have to remember 4 or 5 or 6 different groups of builds depending on which number of workers randomly comes up, it's much harder and gives the lower ranked player more of a chance. Try it and get your participants opinions! I'd love that for pro-SC2! The excitement of not knowing until the game starts, and the implications for that map, that player, that race, and seeing how the game goes from there! It'd be great!

[@phaneros]

Was just about to suggest giving mapmakers the ability to control worker starts, but this might do it as well. Because if 12 worker start had as many knock-on effects as Pig and Artosis are saying, then I'd expect the mapmakers to plan around it and changing that variable out from under them may impact their design process. Instead, I think it would be super cool if we could let a mapmaker decide to, say finish a current project for a 12 worker start, experiment with a 8 worker start, make a old-school 6 worker start, etc. People could even go a little more out there and make a brood war style map with 4 worker start, or put down starting refinery+supply structure with a 15 worker start (I saw someone suggesting starting refinery on the 6 worker start video). We can get creative with possibilities here, but at the end of the day we're all relying on mapmakers to have a vision and put in a lot of effort to make the maps, and I think giving them a little more control over that department can lead to neat outcomes, with randomness possibly being a spice added on top later.

[@martinkrauser4029]

This works well in Beyond All Reason, where the distribution of resources can vary greatly. Some maps are set in places without an atmosphere, disabling wind turbines. They are one of the three ways to generate energy in the early game and a major harass target. Not having significantly changes how games are played and builds work out, and it's entirely for the game's benefit.

[@359Aides]

"Boil down rather than watching the full video" *looks at times* - 23 minute video boiled down to a 46 minute video :D

[@enriquegarciacota3914]

That’s how they boil in Australia. Bubbles go in the opposite direction.

[@sgjuxta]

​@@enriquegarciacota3914this wins the comment section for sure 😂😂😂

[@PiGstarcraft]

Yeah that took a bit longer to break down than expected 😅

[@mikulasfesta5288]

boiling can be considered part of a cooking process

[@JordanG-t6p]

Tweaker methlab mechanics.

[@redredbluemustard]

Game designers often make changes in terms of halving and doubling, so that the impact of the change can be made maximally apparent. We’ve now experienced what the 12 worker start leads to. I’m most interested in an 8-9 worker start for the reasons you mentioned. Great video. Thanks, PiG!

[@filmorejohnson]

I agree completely!

[@nightmareTomek]

I think the a 9 worker start would just be the smallest step in the right direction. During LotV beta players have begged Blizzard to remove macro mechanics. Blizzard caved in, but only for a week, players immediately reported how much more strategic the game feels, and Blizzard immediately put them back with the explanation that pros have trained macro mechanics and that shall not be invalidated. Worker start amount only affects the start of the game. Macro mechanics affect how explosive the economy is throughout the game.

[@magicalelvishman]

"All reaction videos should be like this. This guy is summarizing, synthesizing, and adding structure to the original content; bringing in specific examples as well as tying in other commentary. This is a level of functionality and professionalism in the discourse that does credit to SC2 both as an esport and as a community of creators." Mario said as he popped his fat hairy toadstool forth from the fly of his denim overalls. "Here we go!"

[@okamiman73]

As much as I love seeing the insane micro of certain players, i do think clever players like Gumiho really dont perform as well as they should because of the points made here. Looking forward to seeing what comes of these discussions though

[@CFlandre]

As much as people complain about cheese, I think it's incredibly important for the meta. I get bored watching high-level play, but I absolutely LOVE watching dudes like Florencio on the ladder, because of the weirdness of the matches.

[@filmorejohnson]

Absolutely

[@La0bouchere]

No cheese -> smaller viable gameplay space -> game is more shallow Listening to players is important, but anytime they recommend removing something because it's annoying, odds are that will also make the game less interesting in some way.

[@TheGreatfpmK]

Thanks for the video Pig! I will say I absolutely love the idea of lowering the starting workers count. First of all it would shake up the current builds and force the community to be creative again, but also you make the great point that lower level players will have much more fun this way and hopefully it might revive the interest in the game. Your point that even diamond players don't micro because optimally spending your resources is an easier way to win is so so true! As someone who is trying to improve, I often catch myself not even looking at the fight because I need to build more production and bases... Can't wait to see you testing this out, hopefully the pros in the council don't boycott this direction and we can at least explore it a bit. Also just an idea maybe the starting work count could be tied to a map i.e. we can have map pool where certain maps have 8 worker starts and some with 12 (or even 3 maps with 6 workers, 3 maps with 8 workers, 3 maps with 12 workers) this would mean we can experiment with this while also keeping the current "meta" which I agree with you is interesting in it's own way at the highest level. Not sure if it would make for difficult (or impossible) balancing but it's just an idea I had.

[@Skiv4a]

Thanks Pig for all of this thoughts. Happy to see show matches with 8 workers. Let's make SC2 the best strategy of all times!

[@Matt-ln7lb]

I think another thing about the mass expanding situation is how quickly bases mine out. With the reduced per base resource count in LoTV, players CANNOT stay on a lower base count as long as they could in WoL/HoTS, which means any attempt to play on a lower base count and get faster tech is much more committed on top of just being weaker off of the faster buildup from the 12 worker start, which mitigates any tech advantage by reducing the opportunity cost of any particular tech decision and makes it easier to respond. If you play 2 base tech like was the standard in HoTS/WoL except for Zerg vs Protoss, you're running out of resources and being forced to expand again before you can really make good use out of it anyway; you get maybe 1 push, and if it's held, the game is over, because you don't have the resources to fall back on, so it just makes more sense to take the fast 3rd base and go from there. Of the 3 races, Protoss likely suffers the most from this, as it's the race that is most oriented around making early tech decisions and getting value off of them to gain an advantage, and they just can't do that as effectively with a 12 worker start and bases mining out faster, as well as the race that loses the most effectiveness from splitting its army. By contrast, Zerg possibly benefits the most, due to the general flexibility of its macro and the relative ease of expanding due to having faster units that are relatively efficient in small unit counts - part of why Serral is so successful is that he can just go for all of the tech and then only make the units he actually needs; the opportunity cost behind adding a tech building is just lower. Bases went from having 1500x8 minerals in HoTS/WoL to 1800x4+900x4 in LoTV, which results in bases overall having about 1200 less minerals, and half of the time the base is operable being at half income, as well as 500 less gas, as geysers were similarly reduced from 2500 to 2250 gas On the flipside, the 12 worker start does make it easier to take a 3rd in the first place, so games are less likely to hinge around whether or not one player can even establish their 3rd, as was often the case in WoL/HoTS, where Protoss in particular could really struggle to take a 3rd base against Zerg, which is a large part of the reason behind the immortal sentry all-in meta that persisted throughout. Though I do think the addition of adepts helps with Protoss establishing the 3rd regardless by giving Protoss an early game unit that can better defend against lings, as one of the major problems back in the day was that Protoss just couldn't really fight efficiently against speedlings without mass forcefields, AoE, or an upgrade lead with chargelots (and while that's still sort of true, and it's a large part of what relegates Protoss to SG openers, Adepts are much better vs lings than zealots/stalkers when it comes to defending in the early game and are able to move out on the map with shades, which means Zerg would need to commit more than they did back in HoTS/WoL to deny the 3rd base, even if the starting worker count was reduced).

[@ryanjuguilon213]

Taking 3rd base should be a major contention. I love BW and taking 3rd base always creates tension. PvT, protoss needs to delay the Terran taking 3rd for as long as possible, TvZ terran must contest zergs 3rd gas, PvZ zerg has to delay protoss 3rd. There is a struggle for map control. TvZ early game zerg map control with lings then muta, early middle terran takes map control and attemps to kill the 3rd, vessel cements terran map control until defiler, when its 50-50

[@LetterB2]

Very, very good point to be raised! If we dropped the worker count, mineral count needs to go up. I’m a fan of 12 works and lower mineral counts, forcing players into the map. If we revert we’re encouraging turtle play and death balls again. Which LOTV worked to directly counter and we’re in a really good spot right now about stopping death balls.

[@maudiojunky]

@@ryanjuguilon213 I like the idea of mixed starts. Something that keeps Age of Empires 2 fresh compared to Starcraft is there are different economy options depending on the map. There's a lot of pretty standard starts with two boars, berries, four deer, and eight sheep available, but some maps have no berries and more hunt, shallows with fish villagers can harvest, or open water you can build a dock on for fishing ships, so there are a lot of options for build orders. Some maps start you already walled in, so you can be greedier, and some maps are so open that walling is a significant challenge, favoring aggression.

[@Ashley-wi4ng]

This actually made me understand why I got really good at Zerg out of know where in lotv. So, right.

[@Matt-ln7lb]

@@LetterB2 Eh, the whole "deathball" problem is overblown and frankly misunderstood. The problem right now is that the game is very heavily oriented towards rapid expansion, which undermines the value of other advantages. It's not like turtling on 2 bases and maxing out to a deathball was ever actually optimal in WoL/HoTS, aside from Broodlord Infestor or maybe Swarmhosts in ZvP. There was still plenty of play emphasizing harassment and multi-prong aggression. It just wasn't quite as forced. "Deathballs" are generally just a symptom of a game state where either one side has an unbeatable army, or one has a dominant mid-game that requires the opponent to tech to deal with that they tend to commit very heavily to - because that commitment wins more than it loses. The only cases where it was ever definitely been the "unbeatable army" situation was BL Infestor during WoL, mass Swarmhosts vs Protoss during early HoTS. Maybe mass Infestor when the Infested Terran had rockets as well. The current Terran vs Zerg is maybe a close second, but that late game Terran composition kind of sucks at actually attacking, and recently, some Zerg (notably Rogue), have shown that it can be beaten by using Swarmhosts and more Nyduses in the late game to more effectively pull apart and value trade with the Terran in the late game, rather than trying to bust repeatedly with hydra/lurker/bane/ultra/viper, which tends to end up inefficient. Despite Protoss "deathballs" drawing the most complaints over the years, they have never been unbeatable. The Protoss "deathball" has always been more a result of their requirement for tech units to handle basic units from T/Z, and the general weakness of their harassment relative to investment by comparison in the mid-game, which naturally lends to more defensive/"deathbally" play to enable and make use of that less mobile and more tech-focused army. Rather than being an issue of Protoss late game being "too strong", it was generally more a result of Protoss mid-game being weaker due to their basic units not scaling well, resulting in either extremely committed all ins or turtling, and their opponent committing to the mid-game and trying to end things there, very often without setting up a transition in case the Protoss manages to hold on, which is when that "deathball" push becomes unstoppable. (This is a particularly common issue in ZvP, where the spire, hive, and carapace upgrades often don't even start until a minute or two after the first carrier is spotted if the Zerg was heavily committed to something like Hydra/Bane, even if they had thousands of resources banked minutes earlier giving the opportunity to start that tech). One of the things that sets the very top players like Serral and Maru apart has generally been that they more rarely forget to set up those transitions for the late game even when attacking, so they have a fallback plan if their attack ultimately doesn't win the game.

[@eduardoserpa1682]

"There's Diamond players who don't micro" lmao I feel seen. It's the main reason I had a much better time with Stormgate lately than I ever had in SC2. SC2 eco grows so fast I miss out on my favorite parts of RTS. Stormgate has more of a ramp-up, so there's plenty of incentives for micro before we get to the big army stage, and even then there's time for micro because the battles can go on for minutes at a time. Compared to SC2, where it was mostly just macro, then A-move their bases at my level.

[@zxomegaxz5548]

For added effect I think having a 6 worker start followed by an 8 worker start on the same map would make it easier to contrast the differences.

[@alextaylor6793]

I went back through a bunch of hots games comparing the difference between 6 and 12 workers. I could say a lot of points on this topic. One is that proxy buildings inside your opponents base like cannon rush or rushing a gateway or barracks. Became very easy to hold by having 12 workers you can pull so many workers of minerals to just shutdown almost all proxy building rushes. unless they are executed perfectly. this is also much harder to hide on a predictable 2 base map where you can scout your opponents first building very easy.

[@nanthilrodriguez]

re: 6 worker starts My favorite thing to watch isn't "get to max army battles faster" My favorite thing to watch is when 3-4 units brawling their heart out can decide the fate of a game which otherwise SHOULD have gotten to big army, but through clever insights on the rushing player barely eeks out a game. That sort of thing happens all the time in Brood War. Check Mini vs Killer Season 16. 1 zealot does a lot of heavy lifting vs greedy droning. It's beautiful to watch how the clever player can tip the scales.

[@Frightning]

18:35 I feel like I have to talk about this here: Old school (early 2000s and older) RTS games had a much slower economic pacing than RTS games from more modern times (e.g. circa 2010 or so), and I think that what we are seeing at the highest levels in SC2 here is a byproduct of that pacing difference. When you have super fast economy in an RTS, replacing a lost army doesn't take that long, so unless your economic cost of doing a rush/cheese strat is justified in how much damage it can get done, it's not worth it. WIth a slower economic pacing, early aggression can be *much* more deadly and it makes the opening play much more varied because of the elevated risk levels (e.g. in high level SC1 we still see some 1-base all-ins and those really don't exist in apex tiers in SC2 at all, let alone pro level, where the most aggressive builds are usually at least 2-base if not 3 or delaying econ a litle for early damage). IMO, the older, slow pacing is better and makes an RTS more fun (and it also decreases the importance of mechanics to an extent). The economic pacing issue is also mirrored to an extent in combat pacing as well (how fast armies kill eachother).

[@masterlinktm]

"delaying econ a litle for early damage" It is more than just that. We don't even really see kills at all. It is almost always just "some damage." Almost never, lethal amounts.

[@Frightning]

@@masterlinktm Yea this is what I was getting at (video kinda hammered that home later in).

[@Justinb2]

I love that you are following this up with show matches and experimenting. I wish Artosis would do the same, especially when he says he wants to get rid of all the “poorly designed units”. We need to see tournaments/show matches (not necessarily with top pros) see how it works in reality. Admittedly Artosis did it recently with Stormgate and experimenting with map design, so I don’t know why he’s not doing with it SC2.

[@isaackvasager9957]

because arty is not a serious person.

[@GarikTate]

Agreed!

[@KaiserMattTygore927]

There's some really bad units that have better BW alternatives that would easily solve each problem.

[@Kasparovwannabe]

​@@isaackvasager9957 He just doesn't really care about SC2, it's not his game. If this was Brood War you can bet your bottom he'd post a 7 hour deep dive of every replay from the past 10 years.

[@nightmareTomek]

Theres no point in doing it either. Balance council won't listen to him and they will most likely never make a drastic change either. Let the SC2 streamers do the testing, let them start with 10 workers and analyze that microscopic impact it has on the game.

[@paulboker8145]

I think Artosis once said was that SC2 is a game where the faster player the majority of times beats the "more strategic" player. Also I think being faster than my opponent and out-speeding him is more of a thing than out-strategizing" him. Love Sc2.

[@nathanbennett1735]

It's a "real time" and "strategy" game, both should be important. I watch casts but I have zero incentive to play

[@briantoplessbar4685]

@@paulboker8145 this is 100 percent true in broodwar also. Non Koreans can’t even compete because of how true this is

[@OldSpaghettifactory89]

If that was true people like Florencio wouldn't be winning

[@verdibyrd]

i think this partly depends on matchup, or rather that its less true for protoss and more true for terran and zerg. if you are playing zerg especially if you are slower than the opponent then it will be hard to win without some cheese since you simply have more jobs to do with your macro and you need to take good engagements too, but protoss you can be grandmaster with 150 apm simply because the race requires less clicks to play, though clearly it is far from 'easy' since it never wins anything

[@kicknitoldskool]

@@briantoplessbar4685 As someone who can turn a 60 supply lead into a 40 supply deficit pretty easily my strategy could definitely use some work eheh heh heh... 😭

[@ezpk-]

At 17 minutes, seeing Serral make mutalisks brings a smirk to my face. Every zerg player wants to do it deep down. MASS MUTAS.

[@JayParalyzed]

I’ve been playing since beta and I still play. I think going back to a lower work account would definitely open up the early game. Also maybe even taking away Supply given by command center. Since you have to spend money on that would slow down the game and make decisions more important.

[@WengoYo]

the worker increase erased the earlygame and all the options that came with it. i know people got bored building drones but I wish we will get old SC2 back. "but at what cost" bescribes it best imho

[@graxthal]

too much free scouting in sc2. bases are porous to early reaper/oracle scouts that reveal enemy build. also, the high ground advantage is too minor, so it's hard to win with an inferior force that's well positioned

[@GrimOrdnance]

Reaper yes, not sure why they get special jumps. Oracle feels like a pretty big commitment for Stargate

[@Gladefarger]

Interesting discussion. But 6 workers was slow. So i suggest some other options if the problem is that the early game is to short or/and the economy scales to quickly. - Increase worker build time - Reduce resource collection rate. Can also be achieved by changing acceleration or movement speed. (Might ruin other interactions) - Reduce number of mineral patches from other than the first two bases (can be different for different maps) - Reduces potential economy - Reduces reward of expanding Alternatively reduce the workers but start with more minerals to not sit there waiting to make your move. But to sum up the idea. By keeping 12 workers, the economy is big enough to not wait too long before anything happens. But then slowing down how fast the economy grows instead, to prolong the early and mid-game.

[@wol_ves]

Honestly my initial reaction was thinking cutting the starting worker count would be a bad idea, but you definitely convinced me that it's an idea worth exploring in detail. I agree that 8 might be a better compromise, I really do think things were too slow with a 6 worker start, and looking back, it made for games that were too often frustrating to watch. You made such a great point about players like Harstem and Lambo. Harstem has such a great strategic mind and is super creative, but there's not enough room for strategy and tricky play to work at the highest level. I don't necessarily think this should be the dominant strategy; to your point, two mechanically gifted players brawling it out on multiple fronts makes for beautiful Starcraft and is a joy to watch. But it would be really fun if there were more opportunities for good creative strategy to win the day.

[@しらこ-465]

Great ideas, and I hope we see some fun stuff with lower worker starts. I disagree, however, that lower worker starts makes the start of the game less "boring". I'd argue the first few minutes of the game is more boring now, even if you get "interaction" earlier with a reaper killing 1 or 2 zerglings early, you still just have the same safe openings every game. You launch into the midgame and inevitable lategame sooner, but the inevitability of lategame is what makes it boring to watch game after game. 7 minutes of mild harass on both sides up until 200/200 armies is a lot less interesting than the possibility of a 6 pool ending the game in 3 minutes. I really agree with Artosis on all his points, he really nailed what makes SC2 worse to watch than BW (and I say this as someone who has played thousands of hours of SC2 and WC3 and basically no BW).

[@Sbeas19]

I did said this on Artosis' video as a reply to somebody else but I'm changing it a bit to be a standalone comment here: Currently I think watching pro players is pretty boring, I do try to watch casters videos as they come out but either I just watch one game and drop the video and stop watching or just leave it as generic background noise as it plays so the channel benefits due how stupid youtube work. Because of that, I find stuff like viewer submitted games, the Florencio files and other similar style of videos waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more interesting to watch and also entertaining. Edit: I remember right after hitting post, that one of the things back in the day that made me have an eye onto SC2 was the "when cheese fails" video series.

[@YvesQuemener]

Florencio got me back into sc2 after years. I used to think that to be plat or more you just need to memorize macro build orders and click fast. I went back into the ladder and won short games with cheese, it was a blast! It actually also made me enjoy macro games, but once in a while only.

[@natecw4164]

Only these past 2 years have I gotten to the point where I'm essentially fast forwarding through every early game and even the midgame I'm just waiting to hear the caster raise their voice and then rewinding to see what happened. Been playing essentially my whole adult life, this past year is the first time I've been worried SC2 is on the way out.

[@trongphan923]

Best SC2 games are from when the game is new or big expansion released like HOTS, LGOTV first few years. The game now is just favored people with very good mechanic and broad range of knowledges that build up over years. When it was new, mechanical skill still can be beaten with ingenuity and surprise. The mechanical skill factor became heavier over the years when nothing is new anymore thus making game much more predictable.

[@redredbluemustard]

When cheese fails was so good! Thank you for the memory

[@jamesn.5721]

LAGTV's been back with the "When Cheese Fails" series for a while.

[@JayrodTremonki]

The key to the whole thing is providing options. If Clem and Serral know when they have the biggest advantage because the multi-tasking is the most punishing at a certain game state, you should be able to counter that by making the early game murkier if you play well enough. Thats currently not the case. You cant punish Serral in the early game, and him playing that safe doesnt hurt him getting to the mid-game. There is no cost to it.

[@UnityAmongstChaos]

I pretty much agree with everything Arty said. I even started playing SC2 before Brood War. Watching Brood War now vs SC2 now is night and day difference. Brood War is FAR more interesting and varied in the games. Something needs to change for SC2 to get me to seriously watch it again. SC2 doesn't have hardly any rock, paper, scissors left in it.

[@diegobuenovillafane869]

same for me, I started watching SC2 back in the day and once I started seeing BW again I found it soooomuch fun

[@VigilantSight]

Idk. Some brood war matchups feel very mid when I play or watch. For example TvP. It feels like most matches are mass dragoons vs early vultures massing into siege tank. Eventually P dragoons get outscaled by siege tanks made in bulk. The only counterplay I see in pro matches is either dropship zealots, arbiter recall or P switching to air tech, to which marines/vulctures are simply swapped for goliaths. P air game is sooooo mid. I'm honestly sick of seeing mid-lategame mass Siege tank into goliaths for AA. Its not particularly exciting and it happens way more often than I care for. Terran walls up everything with aa turrets in base so runbys aren't efficient unless you are trading multiple air units to land a handful of zealots. The thing I see casters always focus on is the importance of early builds and I'm like yeah sure but the lategame is still garbage to me. Maybe others find that style of gameplay exciting but even with the variance in early game builds, I feel the mid/lategame segments of the match are always very similar.

[@katesperinck1401]

Don't get me wrong, Sc2 could do with more playstyle variation, but the BW answer of having blatantly broken maps and coinflip build orders is a band aid fix and a terrible solution. I like to think you can add diversity to an RTS without literally having extreme rock paper scissors design as you put it. The nice thing about Sc2 is if you have a series with Clem and Serral, you're guaranteed to get a bunch of games with both players showcasing the best of their ability. In BW there's so many examples of complete dud games and even finals like the last one with Sharp and Soulkey.

[@UnityAmongstChaos]

@@katesperinck14011. Having map variation isn't a band aid fix and can work great for RTS games. 2. I never said "extreme rock paper scissors". Having builds actually counter each other, and having an early game not etched in stone will benefit SC2. 3. If you think that SC2 is the only game where top players are close in skill level you don't watch enough eSports. Plenty of dud games exist in every game especially SC2. My guy, Serral is the definition of this currently due to the state of SC2.....

[@katesperinck1401]

@@UnityAmongstChaos You watch BW so I take it you know this isn't just about map variation. They often have tournament maps that are quite drastically broken or favoured for one race over the other particularly depending on spawn locations, this is what Artosis is advocating. This isn't good map design. Extreme rock paper scissors is what BW has. Build order advantages are healthy, but the amount of build order losses are super high in that game and it's very coinflippy at the highest level. Again I think an RTS can have a varied early game without using BW as a guide. 3. You're being a bit ignorant for the sake of argument, I didn't say dud games can't happen in Sc2, I'm just saying less so than BW. Did you actually watch the last finals, there wasn't a single back and forth game that was actually entertaining.

[@alextaylor6793]

ill just add that i voted for the 12 worker start because i wanted to play the late game more often on ladder. I didnt know how much it would change the game over such a long time. My rank increase a ton when it changed to 12 workers because it rewarded playing consistent macro so much. never knowing what build you might get hit with when playing on ladder used to make the start of the game feel way more fun and nerve racking. if you didnt scout right and you get proxy or 6 pool you would have to play so well to get out of it etc. much more fun imo

[@auripigment2713]

In AOE2, there are different number of starting workers for different maps. Maybe this could work in sc2. Or maybe at the start of the game, the number of workers is randomized between 6 and 12. This would add a lot of variance while getting the best of both worlds potentially.

[@Wwillswords]

Though you would want to mirror that of course as me starting with 12 and you with 10 would feel unfair.

[@Kytrion]

That sounds horrible

[@SpicyMayoVegas]

More action earlier. We needs that. Keep the 12 worker.

[@GangstaRaccoon]

One easy thing they could do is have diffrent amount of workers on diffrent maps that you start with and they can even have it being rng how many workers you start with on these maps

[@LankyAssMofka]

I think that'd be cool they have balanced maps with like 8_10 macro maps with 12, agro maps with 6 maybe?

[@VDHmain]

I think the same "stagnant meta" issue happens to any game that's this old. We see the same in WoW which is a vastly different game. It's been out for long enough, the experienced players are so good they figure out any change to the meta immediately when there's a new patch/expansion and the gameplay stays extremely optimized with very little variation. Maybe they need to add mutators to SC2 pro matches to add variance and shake up the playstyles?

[@atifarshad7624]

Exactly. People have figured out the optimal opening and strats at this point. Even if we were at 6 workers today, this aspect would've applied.

[@Appletank8]

I'm not sure, while BW has it's share of wacky maps, there's still a lot of "standard" maps, and meta builds do slowly rotate every 6 months or so

[@michaelbird9148]

@@Appletank8 Yeah, between map and meta rotations, BW has been quite dynamic. In many ways it's the counter-point to developers constantly adjusting balance to directly impact metas.

[@whydidimakethis111]

@@Appletank8 Fighting Spirit...

[@Appletank8]

@@whydidimakethis111 Fighting Spirit has been agreed to be very outdated, no?

[@rahawala]

I know it’s been talked about forever but you’re so right about this challenge of how to make the first few mins more interesting for the player and the viewer. I feel like even at 6 workers it was a problem. I’m not sure what the solution is-in some other strategy games they use a drafting mechanism but in RTS it definitely feels like there needs to be a higher cost and incentive to scout, which will increase the variance in a way that the top pros won’t like but will make the game “better”.

[@thefance4708]

I think what you actually want is to double the build-time of workers. This accomplishes 4 things: A) flattens the exponential scaling of the economy, which reduces the incentive for greed. B) necessarily diverts more resources toward units/production/tech; C) queues workers for longer durations, which grants a bigger window to micro harassment-units (e.g. reapers). D) avoids the early game-states associated with 6 worker starts, which are either boring or all-in. Comparatively, cutting the starting workers from e.g. 12 to 8 might increase the downside-risk of greed, but it doesn't reduce the upside-risk of greed.

[@levismegenbir]

That's a cool idea. Maybe not double, but increase the overall time to build. Love that concept.

[@ixxrossorxxi6291]

Doubling the build time will make harassment against workers WAYYYY to OP. Zero comeback after losing a few workers.

[@Wwillswords]

​​@ixxrossorxxi6291 unless your terran with a pair of command centers. Then your mules can help you keep pace or be ahead. Edit: This isn't a terran complaint just a mules may need some adjustment if this happens.

[@thefriendlybandit6562]

Worker build time that scales up with worker count.

[@Wwillswords]

​@@thefriendlybandit6562how would that work with zerg? They can temporarily remove a worker to build a building then cancel. Would the time decrease if you lost a worker that you had que up before you lost it as terran or is the number of workers at time of queuing up the worker?

[@usr45129]

You hit the nail on the head in my opinion. We as a community tend to focus a lot on tweaking numbers here and there, but mostly, aside from some bs, the units are fine really. The maps influence strategy (and winrates...) much more than a slight increase of attack speed

[@Nutellafuerst]

I'm among the people who have been screaming this stuff from the rooftops for years. I've never enjoyed LotV nearly as much as I did enjoy Wings and HotS. I'd be downright euphoric about this change.

[@zo2o]

I watch chess sometimes. Wait 27 minutes to see a single move. In 27 minutes a bo3 used to be over in SC2. A 6 worker start is in no way boring, it is most exciting to witness. First of all, you can easily keep up with the pace. Then you may notice the tricky adjustments in build orders, like skipping a worker to get an earlier unit out or on the contrary, get on your toes when somebody does the extractor trick. While you are watching a quick paced game nowadays you're just turning your head from left to right blazing fast like a maniac. In the past you could see the strategy and the tactics unfolding and branching out. Because there were branches. I totally agree that the 12 worker start killed a great deal of the game.

[@martinkrauser4029]

no, it's pretty boring. Same as AoE 2 early game. It does not feel that very much is lost when games starts in Feudal Age for the Red Bull cups. Much of it is boilerplate that's needlessly slow. I bet we could get more variety without resorting to fully halving the current starting economy.

[@entropystings]

I love how I don't play the game at all, don't use Twitter at all, and can keep up with all the happenings in SC2 thanks to this beautiful pig right here. You are a treasure.

[@LounoirRecords]

strategy only comes into play once you can "real time" well enough if you can get the idea. it's only an rts once you're really high up there in skill level if not, it's a management game more than anything

[@TheSuperappelflap]

The problems start when the realtime aspect is so difficult there are only a few dozen people in the world who can get up high enough to get to the strategy. SC2 should have more possibilities for automation, just let people on the ladder right click the worker icon and their main building produces workers automatically when there is money until you turn it off.

[@ecos889]

@@TheSuperappelflap I have always been in the side of autoquing units as an example

[@tohothewriter8002]

The root problem you fail to reconize is that at the highest skill level of the ladder, the builds are all samey. There's very little room for variation or deviation from what is widely agreed upon as the most optimal way of playing, which results in the same handful of people being, and staying, at the top without any remotely close contender in sight. 2k+ MMR between number 1 and number 2 is a huuuuuge gap that gives my argument quite a lot of validity.

[@benismann]

the problem is - you can never "real time" enough. even if you theoretically somehow micro every combat unit all the time you still CAN also micro workers to squeeze just a bit more mining out of them

[@benismann]

@@ecos889 the only reason you need autoqueue is coz queued units cost resources.... for some reason.

[@diegobuenovillafane869]

Cant wait to see the 8 workers games demostrations! Thanks!!

[@zxomegaxz5548]

Pig did a really good job of explaining it. Economy is king in LotV. It also explains why Blizzard had an obsession with increasing unit moment speed. Since every second that goes by your mutas/banshees quickly become impotent. This probably also applies to research times and their price decreases. I wonder how this will effect the reduced worker count start.

[@benismann]

While i think 6 workers would be boring af, 10 or 8 would be an interesting change, and i can agree that early game is super fast and basically doesnt exist

[@maxsta4088]

Pig i love you. I think you are the smartest community figure now and phrase problems so well.

[@JJV7243]

Nice analysis. One other (more minor) change would be to reduce the supplies provided by a nexus/command center/hatchery. Perhaps they only give 5 supply! This would make the opportunity cost of expanding higher.

[@balazsfenyes3880]

Well Artosis never had a strategy in SCI, Turtling on 2 bases while enemy has 8 is not a strategy.

[@filmorejohnson]

I WANT 9 WORKER START. MORE ONE BASE BUILD OPTIONS. (and still faster start than 6 workers)

[@kingsgambit7098]

I'm more of a chess player than a SC2 player, but I would advise on the side of caution. Don't confuse early cheese/gambles with strategy. A strategy is a long-term goal. It sounds like y'all are opting for gimmicks for the sake of entertainment purposes, to be honest. If you really want a more strategic game, then you should focus more on structure. Cheap units like marines, zerglings, and zealots are going to be the solution to a form of structure within army compositions. Use this to gain a positional advantage on the map. Being that the game is designed from an imbalance, I couldn't tell you if the current state of the game is balanced enough for this to be viable, but it would be a shame to see years of effort thrown away for a misguided sense of variety.

[@stzu07rel]

it really seems to be like the people making maps and balancing the game are either themselves suffering from a skill-issue, or are prone to listening to whiners who have a skill issue. There is strategy in StarCraft, but there is also a high level of mechanical skill. Its a function of it being a REAL TIME strategy game, not just a strategy game. I love chess because it is a strategy game...I even feel like the current emphasis on speed and bullet chess as the gold standard is sort of the same vein of silly as it feels like you are trying to morph chess into an RTS. thanks for listening to me rant

[@kingsgambit7098]

@stzu07rel I can rant about chess all day. It has been around for more than 600 years. With 32 pieces and 64 squares, we have only solved up to a 7 pieces table base. Many ppl have spent their entire lives trying to solve it. I think that RTS games have the potential to be the more modern chess, but not in my lifetime. Video games are heavily based on imbalances, which in comparison to chess is like playing a predetermined position. To give a clear example, it would be more relatable to an endgame with a bishop vs knight where the side who wins is often determined by king activity. I would like to see positional control over key points on the map have more of an impact. I think that this alone would justify the lack of economic growth for a limited amount of time of course.

[@firestarter000001]

this sounds really interesting to me.

[@KaiserMattTygore927]

SC2's core gameplay backhands most position based gameplay strategies. which is why to me it's always been inferior to BW.

[@stzu07rel]

@@KaiserMattTygore927 justify this statement because I fundamentally don’t believe it

[@Laezar1]

As someone who used to play SC2 more casually but now almost exclusively watch (occasionally) I have to say the mechanical strain of the game really makes it difficult to see it as a strategy game. How am I supposed to strategize when stopping for a second to think about what I'm doing is hurting me more than the right strategy would help me? And having a good strategy but losing to someone having just better micro or macro is very discouraging too. I have to say the increase in worker count and the new LoV units really are what made me stop. The extra worker make the early game way too fast, the game barely started and I'm already strained, if you're a pro player the idea is probably the opposite, that the early game was boring before and now it's just right. But when you're more casual it's overwhelming. And the new units are all very micro heavy or punish mismicro extremely hard. Like, there is no way I'll use disruptors, effectively, but if I mismicro I might lose my entire army to two disruptors. Same idea with lurkers. Mind you SC2 was already kinda like that from the start with storm and just the high damage low health of units, but I feel like legacy of the void compounded that, hell even swarm host was made into an intensive micro unit as opposed to a slower paced strategic siege unit. The mechanical strain of the game is just too high when you're lower than master rank.

[@Laezar1]

I'd like to add I actually end up playing direct strike in the arcade for that reason, it removes a lot of the strenuous tasks and the micro pressure (while leaving enough micro for skill expression) and it focuses almost exclusively on unit composition and decision making. I don't think it's that good for a lot of reasons but it ends up being much more of a strategy game than SC2 which is a bit of a shame.

[@nykaragua_]

Because SC2 isn't really a "strategy" game and I think the hang-up people have on that is part of the problem. Being good at SC2 isn't about forming strategies unless you're a pro level player who can optimize builds and create new metas, SC2 is about getting and reading intel of what your opponent is doing and responding to it while under pressure of playing the game mechanically. Macro and micro play a role obviously but a lot of getting good is being able to understand where the game is going based on smaller and smaller bits of info at more and more precise times. You aren't SUPPOSED to spend time thinking about strategy, you're supposed to look at a specific structure building at a certain time or a certain number of units being out and react without thinking about it. It's about mental reflexes as much as physical ones.

[@Laezar1]

@@nykaragua_ I mean on that we agree, it's just kind of a shame that it's like that since it's a big representant of the RTS genre. I guess there should be a subgenre like "RTT" real time tactical game, where it's similar mechanics to an RTS but so much focus on moment to moment execution and split second decisions that strategy ends up barely playing a role. (and then you could have endless arguments about wether a game is in this new arbitrary category or not =p)

[@rockcycle824]

Same. I mean, I know it's a skill issue, but it does stop casual play. Opening builds go straight to 3 bases, and personally I do not have the mechanics to manage 3 bases, a tech tree, a scout, and an army from the very beginning of the game while also thinking strategy. The best choice with limited speed is always to throw strategy out the window and just macro because more units beats less units... which leads to a somewhat flat or frustrating game (flat when you win by brute force, frustrating when you get brute forced over and lose).

[@Laezar1]

​@@rockcycle824 Yes exactly thank you

[@democritus90]

Such a great video, really thought-provoking! I'm all for trying it to mix things up!

[@phaneros]

I find this discussion interesting and a little funny because I've seen this before. Back in the early days of the pandemic, my youtube wormhole was discovering BeastyQt's challenge runs (ghost/liberator/hellion to GM was being posted at the time, so would have been late 2020/early 2021). His whacky strats on ladder were one of the main things reigniting my love for the game after I'd stopped playing in early hots and only came back for co-op (and was beginning to slide off of that). But I distinctly remember him talking about lower worker count starts numerous times (I think he was largely pro, but he may have changed opinion at some point?) at a time when I felt no one else was talking about it. Interestingly, he also brought up the idea of a Hearthstone-style Tavern Brawl, where you can scramble up a simple aspect of the game for a week for a lower-stakes alternate ladder. His most common example was swapping hellions out for vultures for terrans for a week. So this discussion is nostalgic, but also makes me a feel a little jaded as these ideas have been around and discussed but not enacted for over 4 years now. Beasty has since moved on to AoE4, and my interaction with sc2 has largely shifted to the campaign modding community. I'm one of the people working on the Archipelago randomizer, and keep up with other modders and GGG showcases to see what new stuff is cooking in that space. There have been so many alternate faction overhauls of campaigns at this point that they're starting to blend together, though the real standouts like real-scale or synergy's race-swaps still stand above the rest. Working on a randomizer has also helped bring forward the silliness aspect, and I think that's one of the key things that sc2 needs more of in general. All this to say, ladder has come off as very stale to me for years at this point, and I'm glad people are discussing how units/starting setups affect that. I'd like to see a direction where some of these gameplay setups are actually a bit more variable in melee -- it would be cool to allow mapmakers to decide that their map starts with 6 or 8 or 12 workers, or even 15 with a pre-placed depot/pylon/overlord if that's what they want to do. We've had speedboosters/slowers for a while now, but you mentioned healing fountains. I'd want to go further -- the campaign has a few extendable bridges in places that I think would be cool to see in melee, possibly with a control point letting players control when it extends. I fondly remember Beasty doing an FFA tournament where, to discourage camping, they used a special map with a king-of-the-hill point system, where players had to periodically fight to be the only unit standing on a point in the middle to get a resource boost and a point, with first to 3 points instantly winning. The engine is incredibly powerful and there's a lot of talent behind mapmaking and modding that can utilize it, and I think the melee community is really cutting themselves off from that because of old conservative ideas of what must be held constant for a map to count as a melee/ladder map. There's also an element of speed. I think we've all accepted that Blizzard has left us and is not really coming back. BW survived this by virtue of balancing through maps, but sc2 has just been too slow; many map designs are conservative, and as you say, those that push the envelope stay in the pool too long and get stale themselves. I think there should be some avenue that either allows the map pool to grow with less input from blizzard, or allows melee players to adjust their own gamemode dynamically, say with players choosing or randomly getting a number for their starting workers or supply provided per primary structure. As a casual melee player at best, and a 2v2 player when I actually play melee, note that the 2v2 map pool situation is much worse than the 1v1 situation, with some of those maps sitting in the pool for many years now; it would be nice to address that, or to get variations on the maps. Could also incorporate beta testing of maps into the ladder somehow, with an option to include maps under beta test in the map pool and an option to provide feedback (I remember WoL doing something similar with arcade maps waaay back in the day). Whew, didn't realize I'd post such an essay. I love this game, I just often find melee players are in their own bubble and don't seem to realize how much game they're blocking themselves from playing. Can't wait for someone to add Steppes of War to a lotv map pool.

[@astroemi]

The showmatches idea is genius. If it looks promising I think as a community we should make an effort to fund a tournament (even if a small one) so that pro players are incentivized to try their best and we can really see it in action.

[@Rowrin]

I feel like we got rid of 4 player maps in heart of the swarm / before the 12 worker start. I mean we technically had "4 player" maps, but spawn positions were always fixed in that you were always spawning cross positions and the like. There were even some asymmetrical 4 player maps where one set of cross-positions had different mains/naturals and rush distances. Those were pretty cool because not only did it add some RNG to the game, but each map like it was almost like having 2 different maps.

[@wraithryder]

8 workers is a good idea, i thought war3 was too slow but it has balance of micro vs macro. making early tech a bit cheaper, expacs much more expensive as well makes earky dedicated choices require much more dedicated responses with more dynamicism

[@framinthor]

I think the case of "at the top everything is predictable" is pretty true for any game that has MMR. The most fun I have in many games is where the average players are at, because that's where some whacky stuff happen. Let's take league for example, once you reach Diamond, many of the games are decided at champ select, and the closer you get to masters, the closer it gets to 100% decision at champ select, this ofc doesn't necessarily apply to pro competitions, I am talking mostly about solo-que In WoW, it's usually the same compositions in the top rating, unless there is some cheese comps for that specific season In Starcraft it's also pretty true, watching people at the GM level predicting opponent builds with minimal scouting but just based on timings of buildings getting constructed or an attack pattern. I don't think there is anything you can do about these designs, that's the nature of pacing and order of construction in these games, the reason the average player's level is the most fun many people would have is because it is unpredictable, they are at the level where the order of things have not been solved for them yet, but even here we have a problem... Problem in this case is that even average players due to YT guides and things alike are coming into the game with a battle plan, they might not know multiple build orders, but to read at least Masters, all you need to do is master 1 or 2 build orders, or be proficient at a specific cheese like cannon rush. This is a problem with any game that has a) been around for long enough. and b) doesn't have consistent changes to its order of things (i.e construction costs, damage outputs, damage type, construction speed)

[@Testbug000]

StarCraft 1.

[@EvilMrMahler69]

exactly. You could double the map size and unit cap and create more units and buildings for a 'deeper game' but then it will take away from the pacing. Basically just make it into a different game, which could be fun but not more 'competitive'. It would not help people with less skill beat people with higher skill using strategy... the answer is YES, competitive games are competitive meaning execution based.

[@RodelIturalde]

No, this isn't true. CS is a counterexample.

[@iwakuralain3064]

That's such cope

[@framinthor]

@@iwakuralain3064 please elaborate which part is the cope. Is it the "there's no solution to this" or is it that "the most fun and randomness is to be had at the average player skill level"?

[@TefGG]

I think what we need is this: - greed > safe - safe > aggressive - agressive > greed Now we have: - greed > safe - greed > aggressive 6-8 worker start would make aggressive builds more attractive.

[@formes2388]

There is more to it, in my opinion - and the core of the problem, basically since Wings of Liberty has basically encircled Warp Gates. Warp gates is a tech that makes protoss in that early game, potentially not care how big the map is. And for A LONG TIME the protoss build of choice (when void rays weren't OP as all hell) was 4 gate... all game, every game. Sometimes it was a 4/5 sentry open into something as to perma force field the ramp but, it basically comes down to: You can't make zealots/stalkers any better because... warp gate, and you can't really nerf sentry because... gate way units suck. This forces very specific map AND early unit balance paradigm. So: What would happen if we were to swap Charge and Warp Gates. 1. We can actually make Zealots and Stalkers a bit stronger, we can trim up force field to make it a little weaker. 2. We can buff the HP or Attack of Lings a bit so that the Zealot + Ling paradigm remains. What that will do, is make Zealots clean up early game marines alright - making marine pushes need to be controlled well, or they die. If a protoss is too greedy and lings show up: You get eaten alive, but if you are on point - you have enough defence where the zerg can't really do anything but punish a greedy base grab. However, it also means terran have to do a little more work to hold early zerg aggression as the zealots will either do more damage, or die slower: Not by much, but by enough. All of this should open up a mix of smaller AND larger maps: Without early warp gate, until the mid game at least - protoss can't just be on your door step with a proxied pylon feeding in 50000 units over, and over again which basically halts your attempts to pressure them, and the protoss can do some strange things like start long distance mining by SLIGHTLY delaying a warp in, that they can build up to basically be in your face while slowly expanding: Instead, terran/zerg have time to grab that expansion, grab the tech that can allow them to clean up, and scout out what is going on with fair reliability. Suddenly - 4+ gate becomes an agressive pressure, or mid game all in type play with warp prisms that is perfectly scoutable. So: What is the fall out in ZvT/TvZ? 1. Zerglings have an easier time cleaning up marine/tank pushes with a bit of roach support. 2. We can play a bit with defensive building strenght a bit (ex. Bunkers/spines) to make them a little better over all without them being OP (except cannons because by god are cannons already good enough) 3. We can actually change up the sentry a bit to be far more dramatically a support unit rather then a battle field cleaver: Slightly smaller force field for instance - meaning two are needed to block a standard ramp vs. lings/banes rather then just one for instance. 4. we can slow down certain aspects of tech showing up - making it a little easier to scout. 5. We get to have a larger range of maps and still remain balanced (both smaller AND larger in terms of rush distance).

[@LittleRainGames]

This is only the case at the top level. At plat and diamond aggressive wins 80% of the time, and every time Ive had a rematch where they agree not to rush Ive won, and they have no idea how to play.

[@LittleRainGames]

​​@@formes2388 Everyone complains about warp gate but its really not as big of a problem people think. Warp gate can only spawn as many units as someone has gateways. Nydus worms can move whole armies anywhere on the map. Terran only has BCs which can teleport, but with enough they are harder to defend against than warp gate. Warp gate is also unidirectional, where nydus and teleport are bidirectional. Warp gate is not the issue. Oh and terran can also lift their buildings after a proxy and bring them home, albiet they move pretty slowly.

[@eyvindjr]

​​​@@LittleRainGames Warp gate is the issue because it forces gateway units to be weak. Otherwise it would break the game for T/Z, and even PvP would suffer

[@tomrob123]

This has been my observation as well. I got into sc2 both as a player and viewer in late 2022. I started to watch the big tournaments live on twitch and then looked up older tournament videos on youtube from 2016-2020. Most of them were gsl but ive also immediately had the impression that games were much more wild back then. Even at lower levels ppl usually just macro up on two then three bases nowadays.

[@firestarter000001]

I really appraciate the deep diving, the research on the topic, i am really interested in seeing this, and maybe changing my mind.

[@Amoeby]

This is why I love the wc3 upkeep system. You see, in wc3 your max supply is 100. However, if you have 51-80 then you get 30% gold income penalty and if you're at 81-100 then it's a 60% penalty. This makes the person with an expo usually go over 50 faster with lower tech compared to one base player. However, because of your supply being over 50, you get only 1.4 increased income.

[@TheNewThesis]

I agree with you. I think we should do 8 or 9 worker starts

[@SliPsHoTiFc]

I have a lot of respect for you; the talk you do about this stuff is excellent

[@natecw4164]

It's frustrating because the worker increase really did a lot to kill off one base all-ins and that's just not fixable. Aside from 15/15/15, I'm struggling to think of a single build where you don't have to *immediately* build a depot/pylon/overlord. Every. Single. Build. Even if you do a 2 base all-in, if you don't expand again behind it or build workers, you're so far behind that 15 worker kills may well leave you even.

[@DurandalLM]

YES! 6-8 worker starts + quick map rotation + larger map pool with a handful of more edgy map mechanics would be SO exciting!

[@Caccac40]

Never thought of the impact of the 12 workers on the tech! Just thought it was increasing the speed of everything without realizing properly the relative lag of tech!

[@WaterCrane]

The one little thing you have to remember to also change if you reduce the worker count from 12 to 8... the amount of supply given by a Command Center, Nexus and Hatchery. For example, something like 11 supply (for a Hatchery, this would be 3 supply due to the Overlord).

[@keircook9099]

Making perfect comps harder to get to will make those games more exciting when they do happen, for players and viewers. Agree 100%

[@sebastianriesending8940]

In the earlier days of StarCraft II (SC2), expansions typically had larger mineral fields compared to later iterations of the game. This design allowed players to recover from losing an expansion, as their remaining bases would still have plenty of resources to mine. It encouraged a more dynamic, back-and-forth style of play, where a single lost base wasn't necessarily catastrophic. The change has been debated in the community, with some players fondly recalling the "comeback potential" of the older design. It certainly contributed to a different meta and style of play. *They should bring back the Archon Toilet for Protoss.

[@seamurda100]

It would be nice if the game was a little bit slower. APM is why I dont play ladder.

[@hughjanus87]

tbh it would be really cool to see alternating worker starts, like one or two season(s) it's 6 and the next it's 12 and so on, if it gets stale after a year or two maybe go 4 and 8 or just go for a single worker value for a year, but i don't understand why people are so afraid to mix it up, you can just change it back, wouldn't it just be changing a single integer in the code every once in a while? i think the idea of starcraft being the same game at the core with the same units, buildings and whatnot, but seasonally changing the way you have to play it in really big ways that make you need to figure out new strategies would be incredibly cool, it's like a new challenge that makes you rethink your old approach while keeping a lot of the mechanical skills you have from playing the game for a long time still there and very valuable

[@matthewpelletier6900]

Probably my favourite example of the underdog outthibking the favourite was a game Pig cast on this channel about a year ago. Future vs Dark TvZ where Future does a really cool Banshee timing and completely overwhelms Dark. It's a shame we don't see more games like that.

[@JayBProjects]

Hmmm interesting point... The more i think about it the more i like the idea of increasing the cost if investing in expansion. Just curious on thoughts of doubling cost of hatch/nexus/command... How would this impact early game play. More 1 base all ins? Definatley hard to focus soley on economy if your army takes an 800 buck hit.... Maybe increase hatch to 700 min.

[@Rowrin]

Going up to 12 worker start also necessitated the removing of certain upgrades like siege mode for tanks. With 12 workers and no free siege upgrade, certain zerg timings just run over terran because of the super charged economy.

[@Benjamin-uz7zh]

A potential solution that I think would be worth exploring is increasing the cost of bases, force expanding to be a greater commitment that can leave you open against 'crazy all ins'. Maybe even increasing the cost of workers to 60 minerals, if we are testing different starts, perhaps changing the scaling of economy would result in less standardised responses.

[@emberck]

While I agree with you for For the most part, I think of another option: why not implement two things: - Much (MUCH) slow production of eco (by, for example, duplicating the time required to build a worker) and cap the max number of workers one can have (this could be done asymmetrically, less for T (due to mules hence also tackling a bit the insane late game omnivision of T) more for Z (due to more fragile units that need more eco to be sustained) ?? - This could accomplish more or less the same but throughout the whole game, making a true decision to go for tech or eco. While not slowing down too much the first couple of minutes

[@shanem7573]

I would love to see a 10 map, map pool, with the maps picked randomly and no veto/pick garbage. You wont be able to master 10 maps and will have to be ready to play on any map vs any race. Also no more main/natural base starting locations with ramps or reaper cliffs etc. Just draw a line across the map and you start randomly at a base on your half of the map. And that includes side by side spawns if both players spawn close to each other. This would kind of look like 8 player maps but not with 8 mains just base locations. So scout or die!!. The fog of war means less if both players start in a fixed place on the map and there is only one viable path to the opponent etc. This leads into more wide open maps and less forced routes. Make it more common for armies to just walk passed each other or not be seen on the map if they are not forced to walk down a trench to the opponents base.

[@user-pr6jx5hz9m]

Tweaking starting workers is an obvious thing to experiment but i wonder if theres other possible approaches too. 1. Slow down workers mining (somehow). This will make economies develop slower and maybe end up with more workers (like 3 per far patch and 2 per close patch). 2. Speed up workers. This could make 1 worker per patch fairly efficient and decent for timing attacks but 2 workers per patch (or 2 workers per far patch) preferable for maximising economy. This could be combined with a lower starting worker count to reduce the single player minutes.

[@Agedos1]

As a variety gamer and fan of all kinds of STRATEGY games, I’ve always felt that the strategic aspect of Starcraft is overshadowed by its real-time execution. For me, the two biggest issues are the lack of map variety and the overwhelming importance of economy. Especially the maps, because they all feel too similar, differing mostly in size and a few unique features. At this point, you might as well have just one map. To truly incentivize strategic play, there needs to be a greater variety of maps. The more diverse the maps, the more opportunities for varied strategies. I also believe not every map needs to be perfectly balanced for all matchups. Introducing faction-specific advantages and unique starting conditions. Like different natural expansion setups, that lead to more dynamic and creative gameplay.

[@megaslayercho]

41:34 "The joy of star craft is controlling units. You do not have an engine this smooth ,this microable ,the most responsive RTS in the world ,to not micro units ,that is rediculous. " Bravo sir ,bravo ,perfectly said ,I just couldnt agree more *applause*. I grew up on 90s golden era RTS,games like SC1 ,aoe2 ,empire earth 1 ,C&C tiberium wars&red alert. Over the years as a kid I was exited to see how the RTS game engines would evolve ,all those old games were great ,but all of their engines felt clunky ,unresponsive and slow compared to sc2. When I first played the sc2 beta back in 2009/10 I was like "this is it ,the perfect RTS engine ,an engine 100% consistent with 100% perfect unit pathing and absolute joy to micro units on". The sc2 engine,THAT was evolution of gaming. And even than,WoL actually was pretty bland intitially as a strategy game aswell(compared to bw anyway) ,but the game was just so crisp and microable. I would say peak sc2 was late sc2 hots ,when the game was properly explored and where the 6 worker meta was enstablished ,the game I think was both better understood by pro players and less random,but at the same time far more strategicly varied. I strongly disliked sc2 lotv changes to not only starting worker count ,but also to mineral counts per base ,it really made the game feel like real time spam ,the importance of scouting ,adapting ,interacting with the enemy and adjusting was far reduced and the reward was shifted towards focusing on playing a racing game ,where as long as your mechanics are on top and your highscore is higher than the other guy,you just win,no need to try to play a strategy game and tilt the oponent, just have more stuff and A move across. Ofcourse I am hyperbolising aswell,sc2 lotv is still amazing game ,it still takes some strategy at any level and I still enjoy playing it. I just wish Wol/Hots ladder could co exist with lotv ,so I can have best of both worlds ,be able to que up for a quick match of lotv when I am very low on time and be able to que up for hots/wol ,when I am in the mood the play an actuall strategy game and got atleast 20 mins to spare. Sc2 might be the RTS game with the best engine for micro,but lately I find myself more drawn to age of empires 4 and brood war over sc2 ,exactly because I actually want a mix of strategy and mechanics.Also because sc2 just feels so repetitive,I can log in and play 2-3 games ,but hardly have any desire to play after that, because I know I have to do the same exact build over and over again if I want to play at a certain rank and it just starts to feel more and more like a boring chore ,rather than a game which you can be creative and explore new stuff.Brood war havent had a balance patch in 20 years and yet I feel like that game is genuinly more encouraging to creative thinking and exploring different builds than sc2 is.

[@joellb2918]

The best time of watching SC2 was when Totalbiscuit was making his tournaments with random changes to units, maps, etc. It required the players to actually develop a strategy in real time. Currently, the only time we see strategy is when both players operational plan and tactical execution goes wrong and they need to improvise; those are usually the ''game of the year" thumbnails from content creators. Otherwise it is strictly mecanical execution of a build order like a Standard Operation Procedure, like its litteraly doctrine, enemy is disposed as x, potential course of action Y, execute Z; coupled with excellent tactical execution (the micro). Map pool needs to be alot broader, more diverse and alot less standard so that second counting timings are less relevant. Micro effectiveness need to be reduced, units effectiveness straight up multiplies simply based on the micro. Strategic play are not counted in seconds...You can't get good strategic gameplay if micro can overcome any strategic layout. In the current state I would be curious how much different the games would be if you replaced the pro players macro by an actual bot and just see them micro. Like, would it be that different ?

[@ДімаБогданов-ъ8ш]

Another way to pull over some power from rapid expansion strategies is to increase base build time. With expansion taking longer it is more of a comitment to take quick 3rd, as you spend money on a building and payoff would be delate giving more window of opportunities for agressive players, who spend same money on units. It is also more consistent then workers, as some races can build workers quicker then others.

[@phib4107]

One thing you didn't touch on that I think is actually pretty deeply impactful is that the standard speed of the game is on 'faster'. In games like League of Legends, you have control over only one character... and even that character moves slower than many/most SC2 units... where you have control over dozens. So, it moves so fast that microing has a super high skill floor in certain circumstances, armies can get wiped instantly, and moving back and forth between micro and macro is too risky (which touches on what PiG said about even Diamond level players not microing early units). I think it's another one of those grandfathered decisions that makes learning the game really hard. I've only played about two years, and it felt so fast paced. For people who have played 10+ years, I think it makes a LOT more sense, but it really feels quite stifling when you're still facing all there is to learn and master when the unit base movement and firing is so fast.

[@maudiojunky]

The lack of scrappiness in Starcraft is definitely what keeps me from coming back more often than I do. Age of Empires 2 stays fresh each match because you have procedural map gen, so neither player knows in advance where to scout or defend. The archer meta is strong, but you have more options with weird civs for timing attacks and cheese. Maps are also generally more open, making walling a commitment. Arabia is the most popular competitive map, and it's very open, making games pretty tense and exciting.

[@balazshajdu4612]

Interesting takes, in general I think that these are very valid points and great solution ideas from a gameplay point of view! From a player point of view however as you say low- mid level players ( mostly new player base, learning the game) are getting socialised on how to get good fast - well all you fantastic people's B2GM series, most of them emphasising macro ( rightfully given the current meta of the game) And new players, newer generation is not famous for patience, why would they they have everything at their fingertips ready. So hard to say how would this player base take slowing down the starting pace... I agree double edge sword - as it would enhance develpoing enjoyable micro, but would they have the patience to build up in 4-5 mins what was used to be 2 mins. I am a veteran and low level player, but would welcome adding more strategy elements. But to raise the question this needs huge support and awareness raising .) Fantastic video, well explained and demonstrated, Thank you! still loving the content!

[@stephcint13]

I fully agree about this. Early game is not boring, it is the trunk of the decision making tree. I am not sure that rotating maps is the best way to go, as good maps are difficult to create, and we already have many good, interesting and well balanced maps -> just use them more!

[@gam1ngfr3ak]

I don't have a huge stake in this - I think balancing is a tough act. What I will say is that I think "strategy" encompasses a lot of different things that I think might be in full consideration here. Serral is a great player. Creator comes up with a "strategy" to beat Serral. And implements the opening of it quite well. But is Serral's response purely "mechanical"? Isn't "playing to a neutral state so that they can adapt to whatever happens" a "Strategy" implemented here by Serral? And doesn't the effectiveness of his implementation of that strategy count as actual strategy and tactical decision making, rather than just pure "mechanics"? Doesn't responding correctly in the moment of an attack have "strategy" as a prerequisite? If Serral's "mechanics" are good but he doesn't know how to use them isn't that a lack of "strategy"? Doesn't someone have to understand the game well *first* in order to effectively implement their "mechanics"? Maybe I'm just taking a broader view to "strategy vs mechanics" than what is appropriate to apply to Starcraft. I'd use First Person Shooters as a comparison - "mechanics" are your hand-eye coordination and response time, your accuracy with your shot. "Strategy" is which weapons/perks/loadout you select, where you position your character, how you respond to changes in the map and enemy forces. While Serral's "mechanics" are surely being tested when he is under attack, it is ultimately his "strategy" and understanding of effective gameplay at large which allows him to make use of those mechanics in the first place. The greatest FPS player is still going to struggle if they are constantly out-positioned and out-flanked. The greatest blink-micro Stalker player or Reaper player in Starcraft is still going to struggle against a tight build order and proper scouting. Everyone who makes content on this particular RTS talks a lot about "effective APM vs perceived APM" and that's what I'm trying to get at here - it doesn't matter how fast Serral can move or how quick he is to respond if his response isn't correct in the first place, or if his larger scale plan isn't executed well enough. You need both strategy and mechanics to truly be the greatest and I think some people are under-valuing how much an understanding of strategy plays into the mechanical expression.

[@martinkrauser4029]

When a game has a dominant strategy, it ceases to be strategic. When the greatest blink-micro Stalker player can play the dominant strategy and have little concern for scouting or tight build order, which is what the criticism is, then that criticism is fair.

[@dr_dmg]

Why not organize a tournament with a 6-worker start as an experiment (could use custom moded maps for the tournament), and see how it goes? If it leads to more interesting matches and the viewers and players respond positively there can be more discussion around it

[@johanvanrensburg1447]

Completely onboard with lowering. Used to play a fair bit more than I do now, and despite me liking the 12 worker start - the novelty of it wore of quick for an average joe like me... The pressure back in HOTS of having to hold a tempo terran off so I could comfortably get my third base up was anxiety inducing and fun AF.

[@user-mt4ny2zw7t]

This problem could be resolved if the battles weren't so deterministic or if their was an APM cap or maybe something that adds in something random each game. There is this boardgame Azul that is quite simple but has an amazing amount of replayability because the opening there is a lot of randomness and the players are supposed to make sense of the game on the fly. If there was some feature that added randomness rather than people playing the "same game or strategy over and over" I think a lot of life could be bred into the game. Like small balance variations each game that could be introduced at random or even just a balance variation every month or season. Starcraft I think has kind of went the same direction as chess as it has become overanalyzed to the point that the discovery of new and unique strategies has gotten lost. It doesn't feel like real-time strategy as much as "can you click and do a bunch of things to execute this well known plan".

[@urielstavras4968]

For Top level competition? Use AI to create randomized maps for each Tournament. (with the appropiate criteria, of course). Just like that they are playing RTS again instead of chess. For balance, remove every instance of gameplay with no cost-trade off. Example : Now Medivac needs energy to Afterburn. Ghost break cloak when using abilities (Except nuke ). Put a cooldown on orbital command sweep and deploying mules stops the energy regeneration of the associated CC for the duration. etc etc etc.

[@martinkrauser4029]

44:01 That's the hardest part of playing Starcraft 2: conceding that Artosis has made something of a good point.

[@1.11-y1z]

We're taking something in real sense a genre can be many rooms in physical size. The distinction from a Gary Grigsby and something like Z. That's strategy. Starcraft, since it is a unique space, took to catering specific mechanics. Strategy is basically map meta. Also meta-meta like cheese and tilting.

[@svedz]

As a WoL/HotS high masters player who revisits lotw a few weeks every second year or so, I absolutely agree with the game being too streamlined nowadays. I loved being able to outsmart and use creative builds to win games and would definitely be more active if they fixed it. I don't want to go back to the high volatility days of early WoL, but perhaps strike a balance between the current state and that.

[@AlexandruSD]

Well, in my country we have a saying: even an idiot can come up with a good idea. I've been playing since WoL came out and the jump to LotV and 12 workers was quite brutal in terms of game speed (fortunately, it also severely nerfed Artosis's window to ramble about everything else but the game). There's even a precedent of sorts in another sport. I also play table tennis, which is famous for its speed. It used to be played with a 38 mm ball, but as the racket rubber got better and better it became almost impossible to follow the play. So in 2000 they switched to a bigger, slower 40 mm ball. It worked out very well, since it rewarded tactical play over sheer reflexes. If the pros are OK with such a change, I would enjoy more build variety and a slower start. So if you're willing to test 6-8 workers in a mini-tournament, that would be great!

[@howlingwolf5213]

I feel like something you could consider experimenting with is not having the same worker start. Maybe some races benefit from a 12 worker start more than others. So give some races 10 or 11 workers while the ones who need 12 more stay at 12. Or something along those lines. Could also experiment with things like increasing base supply of Zerg but remove their starting Overload so they can't just scout for free immediately and have to build the first Overload to scout allowing people to have more surprise builds in the early game.Or make it so Terran's Mules are dropped from a Planetary Fortress instead of from Orbital Commands so they are forced to decide if they want a defensive macro building or map hacks instead of getting the best of both worlds from just an Orbital Command. There's so many ways of experimenting and balancing other than changing numbers on a unit that are so minimal it's not even felt.

[@moored1979]

My suggestion as a first try, 10 worker start and CC/Hatch/Nexus = 12 Supply. And on maps, i think new map pool every 6 months would be sufficient and increase the amount of maps available.

[@MrJgjhgjhgjg]

I think that rather than reduce the number of workers we should somehow increase the rate that gas is mined at, perhaps just in the early game. Maybe by having reduced build times on gas extractor or increasing the number of gas that gets mined with each worker trip

[@stzu07rel]

More than anything else suggested I’d be open to exploring changing the starting worker counts. If you are going to force a reset on people learning builds it should apply to everyone

[@nathanialblock8480]

One thing I think might help a ton is not playing 1v1s. 2v2s or 3v3s would add a lot of strategic depth and add more opportunities for mistakes to happen and harassment to be more impactful

[@Kaiasky]

The first aspect is that I think, to some extent, a focus on mechanics is simply a sign of mastery. Just like in Chess or Go, the overall strategy is more-or-less known, and now it comes down to fine details. I'm not sure it makes sense to say Clem has bad strategy--I think it may just be that everybody in the top 30 fundamentally has the right grand strategy. The other aspect here is that strategy is impossible to keep secret. If I discover the Omega TvT build order and beat Clem with it, Clem can learn it within a day. I can't learn to beat Clem's micro, so that's a stable and consistent advantage, the kind of thing you can use to win tournaments, not just matches. One solution is 'randomized starts', like Chess960, which would be the "more frequent map changes" or random worker count starts. But from a casual perspective... It's hard to play Chess960 and it'd be hard to learn timings for different worker counts, etc. I think a lot about Go vs Starcraft, because they're both strategy games of claiming territory and positioning that share a lot of the same 'basic concepts'. Obviously, one's hidden-information real-time and one's turn-based perfect-information, but a lot of the core ideas are similar: if you don't claim territory, you'll lose the game, and if you claim too much territory you overexpose yourself and die. If your opponent plays super greedy, you're forced to punish that, or try and play even more greedily. If your opponent plays recklessly, simply weathering their attack might be enough to win. They're also high-risk, where one wrong evaluation in a fight might lose you the game. (Sidenote to any aging starcraft fans whose hands don't micro like they used to: Go is the game for you. I don't care if you've never been good at chess, you need to give Go a shot.) I think the way that Go makes its strategic decisions interesting is because they're really hard to copy. Like... the decision of when a basetrade benefits you vs benefits the opponent would be a good example of "strategic thinking that isn't just build order responses" where even pros struggle to choose the right thing. If I were SC2 balancer, I might try: - increasing the cost of scouting so the choice of how much info was "enough info" was important. - play with locking players into certain tech; e.g. if only one of templar archives/dark shrine could be active at once and it cost 30s and 100/100 to swap between them, then showing DT has some real costs, but a timely swap could surprise an opponent who wasn't prepared. - reducing harass but promoting flanking. In general, the *strategic* solution to harass isn't too deep, but it's a massive part of people's focus. In general, at least in low-dia (NA tho) as Z/P it seems better to throw two "APM sinks" at your opponent and then crush their idle army while they're dealing with drops. Where, from a spectator perspective, probably what you want is engagements with larger armies in the map. - More strategic spells/abilities, less micro spells. Force field should be the template "ideal" spell for SC2. It doesn't get kills but the potential for creativity is unlimited.. It don't take a lot of APM, but using it smartly in a snap moment is crucial. Snipe, by contrast, is almost pure micro. Last thought: I think part of the challenge is that it's not about "having strategy", it's about "viewers *feeling* like they've seen strategy. Which is *really* different. Does winning a rock-paper-scissors game feel like 'excellent strategy'? If PiG says "woahhh check out this strategy, this is crazy", it kinda does. Part of the weakness of the "shoutcast" (and part of what makes me love Harstem a lot) is that it's commentary, not analysis. That's naturally going to fall more into 'real-time' and less into 'strategy'. Some of the best SC2 content lately was your analysis of Harstem's maphacker games, where you're like "look, we need to theorycraft, we need to return to fundamental theory. How can we best use this advantage?" I think the "strategic" SC2 cast can exist, but it maybe isn't realtime, it's something like a football commentary where you're like. *pause* *john madden voice* "alright, you're Clem. Now, you've got a mobile zerg army, and your furthest two bases are *here* and *here*. You've got 2/2 finishing in 40 seconds, now isn't the time to attack, but if you're able to hold onto both bases, the game is as good as over. So what does Clem decide to do?"

[@OMGitsProvidence]

I miss the diversity of viable openings. I miss how strong early comps had to go with fewer units and how defenders advantage factors because ability to reinforce is sparse with less resources. I miss all the ways how early shenanigans were about gaining small advantages and holding them into the mid game, and how the slower eco made each races power spikes, agression and comeback mechanics more prevalent. games where maybe a zerg harrassed and successfully delayed the natural expand where you see a terran with a little brute squad doing multi pronged drops with a dream just to slow down the zerg a bit. great stuff really