A fun unit in multiplayer isn't really a good excuse for a gamebreaking behavior in single player.

An examination of what it was that made the Carrier fun might have revealed ways to get similar effects (long range, able to fire while retreating, requires paying minerals for continued use . . .) in a unit that wasn't such a weird gamebreaker. Most people just liked Carriers because it cast a field of enemy unit and Ai stupidity around it. Once players get attached to a unit, you may be stuck keeping it in the game even if it's not really good for overall playability.

Just because it worked with this one unit doesn't mean the overall game experience couldn't have been better with something different in there. But once something is introduced, status quo bias takes hold in a major way.

Edit: I'll concede that you want the AI to be stupid in some ways so that it can be exploited. The Carrier just always seemed to me too extreme.

> A fun unit in multiplayer isn't really a good excuse for a gamebreaking behavior in single player.

Actually, it is. Single player is basically a financial dead end: you play it through X times, interact with very few people, and put the game away.

If you end up breaking it in favor of gameplay where players are generating content on your behalf (each other)... the loss rapidly disappears as people stop playing the single-player because it not only sucks, it's irrelevant.

Then don't use the carrier... Long games against the computer were never fun in starcraft (or most other similar games). It becomes gamebreakingly easy to win if you survive long enough and the AI becomes utterly useless, it is clearly not something that the developers even cared to put some thought into. And that's okay, the real essence of starcraft is multiplayer.

Starcraft singleplayer always seemed sort of like Q3A singleplayer to me. Clearly not the main attraction.

It was a lot more like Quake 1 single player. Many people spent more time on the multiplayer, but many people only played the single player.

Really? That's interesting.

I've noticed that units never seem to have the good sense to target Brood Lords rather than Broodlings when they have a choice. It seemed odd, given that the AI had improved so much in other areas -- pathfinding, running from unwinnable fights, varying its opening strategies. It never occurred to me that things might be that way because it's fun!

Well things like that are no fun. However much of the popularity and skill required to play Starcraft is not in because it is such a greatly designed game. Most of the challenge come from the point that the development team has found creative solutions around its limitations and that leaves a lot of opportunities to exploit and hack its shortcomings.

Supreme Commander for instance has much better user interface and unit control mechanisms. This makes it much more of a macro game, since micro managing units is not necessary to the same degree. And indeed some people really like micro managing stuff and for the others it serves as an excuse to why they suck at the game.

Although I love Starcraft 2 I think its UI is horrible in comparison to what else is out there. However it is an essential part of the game and it gives it character.

These units are basically specifically designed to require micro-ing from the player. Both brood lords and carriers are pretty weak if attacked head on (slow/low-hitpoints)-- their entire strength is in the fact that other units will auto-attack broodlings/interceptors first (which makes some "conceptual" sense since that's what actually attacking them).

Not at all. Maybe for beginners but at the competitive level brood lords are so good due to their cost efficiency in that they create "free" units and have very good synergy with infestors which are also known for their cost efficiency.

I'm not sure what your "Not at all" is in response to. I was saying it requires micro-ing from the person going up against them (specifically, you need to blink your stalkers under the brood lords, or tell your units to target the carriers and not the interceptors, etc etc). In other words, they are not units designed to be fought against by just a-clicking in their general direction and letting the AI do the work for you.

It is in response to "their entire strength is in the fact that other units will auto-attack broodlings/interceptors first" which is true but only for the very new players.

Since you're interested, here's the video (recorded by a SC1 pro) that catalyzed the SC1 behavior being recreated in the SC2 expansion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM

So the question is, should weird, hard to detect and buggy behavior that experienced players can exploit be kept as part of the game? It's a highly subjective and, to me, non-obvious answer.

Players get very attached to timing and knowledge based tricks, especially ones that give them an advantage. Does that mean they should get them? There's a tricky balance between alienating new players and rewarding skill and dedication in old players.

Yeah, it's hard to get sympathy from me for upping micro requirements. That could be because I'm bad at it, and find it uninteresting. Those might also be related. :P

For example, take that trick with keeping a couple of void rays charged up on each other. I don't think that's something amazing everyone should aspire to. I think it's obnoxious.

That sort of thing is all right if it gives you interesting decisions to make -- and the video about the carriers argued well enough that it does. It ought to be overt, though: A pre-launch interceptors button, not hidden knowledge that invisible, unselectable interceptors stay out if you keep carriers moving.

I think "creative use of game mechanics" is a large part of what makes e-sports popular. Boxer (the Michael Jordan, or perhaps Babe Ruth, of pro-gaming) wasn't popular so much for his mediocre mechanics or even his good micro,but primarily for his creativity.

Games with matchmaking systems don't need to dumb the game down in order for players to be able to play against each other and each have a roughly even chance of winning.

I'm not a SC1 purist - I'm happy I can rally workers to minerals from a base, and I even like the automining feature at the start of games in HoTS. But removing APM sinks and removing interesting/subtle unit mechanics are two very different things.

No, because it adds an element of skill that was missing from the SC2 carrier. Here is the video that caused the quirks to be included and Nony makes a very compelling case in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rqx8s2qKXM