|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Well written and laid out, but so much wrong with this it's a joke:
Do you remember this shit? TvZ and ZvT had fucking completely different skill sets with zero overlap I highly doubt this is true in BW, and if it then the game is terrible. You want unique, individual races, but they don't play the same (or apparently at all even vaguely similar, with "zero overlap") between matchups?
Instead, he should design units that are more conventional but ballsier and play to the races' strengths. Make the weaknesses of each race even MORE vulnerable, but make the strengths unmatchable. So basically, each unit should be less conventional? You want them to have exaggerated strengths and weaknesses, but to be less gimmicky? You said that marauders are bad because they are all purpose, but mothership is bad because it has specific roles? By the way, I'm not saying that these aren't terrible units (they are) but your logic is contradictory.
Your suggested changes are extremely biased, basically asking for both races to revert straight back to how BW was. Moving on:New units introduced in a highly-anticipated expansion pack is supposed to provide excitement and anticipation, not confound everybody who sees the unit. Agreed.
When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them".
Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Your last point I actually agree with. Cool sounding things sound cool. Yes, Starcraft 2 could do with more of that. But that's not Dustin Browder's game design. That's a shoddy sound department.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
I read this blog and my first instinct as a SC1 veteran was to be like "yeah he's fucken right." But the reality is his blog post is ignorant and premature.
First of all, SC2 is not SC1. It took years of innovation from players to fully realize how to use Arbiters, Defilers, Dark Archons, Science Vessels, Goliaths, Wraiths etc. properly and in more and more unique ways that turned SC1 into the the amazing game that it is. For anyone to event attempt to judge the new units right now and how they will effect game play is retarded.
Take the arbiter for example. It was never used at all for years. Then after some innovation it became a powerful late game PvT unit. Then after some more innovation, it became the crux spellcaster of the matchup from mid to late game.
Sure the new units do seem a little gimmicky, but it seems like there are a lot of interesting possible applications. And remember how long it took to balance SC1 properly (and how much luck it took.) And how long it took people to figure stuff out.
For you to say "Dustin Browder you're doing it wrong" when Blizzard is willing to completely remove WoL units from the game to attempt to balance is pretty sad. You're never ever going to get a game like SC1. From the start with MBS, economy boosting effects, and armys that blob up into death balls...the whole SC1 effect was lost from the very beginning.
The only thing SC2 shares in common with SC1 is the name and the names of many units. It's a different game and shaping it into a dynamic and balanced game will take a lot of time and a lot of trial and error. Deal with it.
|
On October 27 2011 06:00 Rekrul wrote:
I read this blog and my first instinct as a SC1 veteran was to be like "yeah he's fucken right." But the reality is his blog post is ignorant and premature.
First of all, SC2 is not SC1. It took years of innovation from players to fully realize how to use Arbiters, Defilers, Dark Archons, Science Vessels, Goliaths, Wraiths etc. properly and in more and more unique ways that turned SC1 into the the amazing game that it is. For anyone to event attempt to judge the new units right now and how they will effect game play is retarded.
Take the arbiter for example. It was never used at all for years. Then after some innovation it became a powerful late game PvT unit. Then after some more innovation, it became the crux spellcaster of the matchup from mid to late game.
Sure the new units do seem a little gimmicky, but it seems like there are a lot of interesting possible applications. And remember how long it took to balance SC1 properly (and how much luck it took.) And how long it took people to figure stuff out.
For you to say "Dustin Browder you're doing it wrong" when Blizzard is willing to completely remove WoL units from the game to attempt to balance is pretty sad. You're never ever going to get a game like SC1. From the start with MBS, economy boosting effects, and armys that blob up into death balls...the whole SC1 effect was lost from the very beginning.
The only thing SC2 shares in common with SC1 is the name and the names of many units. It's a different game and shaping it into a dynamic and balanced game will take a lot of time and a lot of trial and error. Deal with it.
Sorry, but I just had to highlight that shit. I got a good laugh last night. =)
Ah, the last paragraph is pretty good too. Highlighted as well.
Hopefully more people will come to this realization and the more better off we'll be. The sooner the better.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Whoops, double post fuck up, my bad.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
I'm extremely tired okay?
|
Talking about sounds there are a few that sound absolutely amazing in-game.
Immortals: Anything the Immortal says or does is rock-solid. When you have enough and they all start attacking, the roar and power of those Phase Disruptors is unmatched. In monobattles I refer to them as Rape Cannons, because as soon as you hear that sonic boom they've eliminated everything in sight (en masse anyways).
Mothership Warp-in: Because Motherships aren't used all that much, people aren't always aware of the sound they make when they've arrived on the battlefield. To me it's an amazing byte, hearing the sound of millions of tons of metal being forcibly dragged through hyperspace onto the battlefield, following by the incredibly visceral announcement "JUSTICE HAS COME." It's a shame that a focus-fired Mothership dies so easily, and it's also a shame that the Independence Day attack was removed. It would have been amazing.
Dark Templar Attack: While it's a subtle sound, hearing your units getting hit with invisible psi-blades is enough to put the fear of God in you, especially if you haven't thought of detection yet.
Nydus Worm: The scream the Nydus Worm makes when it breaks through the ground is pretty awesome, and if you don't know where it is it will make you scare you're about to get hit somewhere in the backside where you don't want to. I've recently found Nydus to be more effective in forward positions and expansions - the worm stays safe and you can use it to quickly move your army around the map for hit-and-run, while the screaming always makes the opponent wonder if there isn't a worm in the back of his base.
|
5/5 completely agree, unfortunately a lot of the casual noobs think that simple is boring because its not flashing with exploding crap everywhere. Companies know this and is why we have these terrible games compared to the good old games such as cs, quake ,sc1
|
i don't see why we can't have a well-designed game with flashy exploding crap 
|
On October 27 2011 06:00 Rekrul wrote:
I read this blog and my first instinct as a SC1 veteran was to be like "yeah he's fucken right." But the reality is his blog post is ignorant and premature.
First of all, SC2 is not SC1. It took years of innovation from players to fully realize how to use Arbiters, Defilers, Dark Archons, Science Vessels, Goliaths, Wraiths etc. properly and in more and more unique ways that turned SC1 into the the amazing game that it is. For anyone to event attempt to judge the new units right now and how they will effect game play is retarded.
Take the arbiter for example. It was never used at all for years. Then after some innovation it became a powerful late game PvT unit. Then after some more innovation, it became the crux spellcaster of the matchup from mid to late game.
Sure the new units do seem a little gimmicky, but it seems like there are a lot of interesting possible applications. And remember how long it took to balance SC1 properly (and how much luck it took.) And how long it took people to figure stuff out.
For you to say "Dustin Browder you're doing it wrong" when Blizzard is willing to completely remove WoL units from the game to attempt to balance is pretty sad. You're never ever going to get a game like SC1. From the start with MBS, economy boosting effects, and armys that blob up into death balls...the whole SC1 effect was lost from the very beginning.
The only thing SC2 shares in common with SC1 is the name and the names of many units. It's a different game and shaping it into a dynamic and balanced game will take a lot of time and a lot of trial and error. Deal with it.
I think you've missed the point of the blog. Maybe because it isn't as well written as I wanted it to be. I've also written another blog post talking about what's good in SC2. But still.
I'm not arguing that Browder make SC2 like SC1. I'm just arguing that there are certain aspects of SC1 that make it an amazing game that Browder can learn from in making SC2. You notice I've also drawn parallels from completely different games like Street Fighter and Counter-Strike. That's not because I want SC2 to be more like a fighter game or a first person shooter, but because there are fundamental aspects of all these games that make them such excellent competitive games that SC2 is lacking.
SC2's design is in many ways three steps forward, one step back. A lot of the units in the game (and in HotS) feel like they were thrown in as wild curve balls to mix up the game without specific reasons. Take the Mothership for example. It started out extremely powerful with its own unique spell set. Now its abilities are extremely similar to the arbiter. I think that's a wrong approach. It would have been way more cool of they tried to balance the old mothership than to regress towards Brood War abilities. The decision to revert to Brood War-esque abilities defeats the whole purpose of trying to create a new exciting game.
Or the Marauder. Why does Terran need a unit like this? All it does is allow Terran to have unprecedented mobile firepower on top of the siege tank which provides unprecedented immobile artillery firepower. I'm not saying Blizzard should replace it with the Firebat, but they could have made a much more exciting unit. An example off the top of my head would be if the marauder was removed and the reaper gains the marauder's attack. A low hit point harasser good vs armored units. That way it could be used for scouting, sniping buildings, doesn't overlap with the Hellion's worker killing role, works well away from the main army (in lieu with Browder's attempts to pull supply away from the main "ball" army), and isn't just a good all-round unit to have. And it's nothing like Brood War.
On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote:Well written and laid out, but so much wrong with this it's a joke: Show nested quote +Do you remember this shit? TvZ and ZvT had fucking completely different skill sets with zero overlap I highly doubt this is true in BW, and if it then the game is terrible. You want unique, individual races, but they don't play the same (or apparently at all even vaguely similar, with "zero overlap") between matchups?
The zero overlap was an exaggeration. What do you mean by "if it is then the game is terrible"? How much Brood War have you even played to be able to judge the veracity of this statement?
I was a Protoss player overall in Brood War. I could also more or less comfortably play TvP, TvZ, TvT, and ZvP. But I stayed the fuck away from ZvT because lurker ling vs M&M was extremely different to control than the other way around. In fact, a lot of match ups required certain different approaches to attacking armies. TvP and PvT had very different play styles in setting up siege lines versus breaking siege lines. Despite all this, the game was very balanced and excellent. Maybe if you played BW you'd understand. In contrast, PvT and TvP in SC2 involves a lot of bioballs versus deathballs. Balls.
|
I don't understand people. But what I get is that a lot of them love sc2 as it is now. They love playing it (they don't need to fight the terrible pathing of BW and there are not so dumb units as dragoon) and they enjoy watching it. So there must be something making for blob movements and fights, easy smartcasting and clumsiness of some units (mutalisks). Whatever it is, I fail to see it. Is it the speed of the game? Is the graphics so important?
Dustin Browder must be proud of himself. Sc2 has still the air of a great new game and on top of it, it has its (huge) competitive scene. I see no reason why he should bother with us, why he should change something that worked for him.
I agree with a lot of points that OP wrote:
Sounds in BW are amazing. Sc2 sounds could be much better.
I would apreciate simpler units with more complicated relationships (not just this counters that).
I feel like the races sharp differences are gone (too many units of all types). I like tumours but I don't like the idea of larvae injections. They make zergs less zergish.
But as Rekrul said, we cannot foresee what strategies and tactics will be developed in future. A lot of units will probably find their use in more interesting way. But the basic things that bother us will remain.
Blobs and smartcasting.
I deal with it. I don't play sc2 anymore, I don't fight the terrible pathing (we must split things nowadays) and don't follow sc2 tourneys any more.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On October 27 2011 17:17 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote:Well written and laid out, but so much wrong with this it's a joke: Do you remember this shit? TvZ and ZvT had fucking completely different skill sets with zero overlap I highly doubt this is true in BW, and if it then the game is terrible. You want unique, individual races, but they don't play the same (or apparently at all even vaguely similar, with "zero overlap") between matchups? The zero overlap was an exaggeration. What do you mean by "if it is then the game is terrible"? How much Brood War have you even played to be able to judge the veracity of this statement?
I don't think Brood War is terrible, I think it's awesome, I was saying that if there was zero overlap (which you admitted there wasn't) then it would be terrible.
As I said before, I agree with some of what you said. Starcraft 2 could do with some cooler sounding units. But most people seem to be blindly agreeing saying SC2 < BW, without at all reading what you are trying to say, and even in the cases that you are saying SC2 < BW, you were wrong multiple times, as I (think at least) showed in my last long post. I'd be interested to see what your responses to my points are.
|
On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote:... Show nested quote + When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them". Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible?
Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me.
The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On October 28 2011 00:46 Amanebak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote:... When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them". Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible? Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers.
Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason.
Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid.
|
On October 28 2011 00:50 MCDayC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 00:46 Amanebak wrote:On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote:... When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them". Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible? Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers. Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason. Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid.
Well then. I haven't seen older vods, nor I have any recollection of playstyles of 1998 era.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On October 28 2011 01:02 Amanebak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 00:50 MCDayC wrote:On October 28 2011 00:46 Amanebak wrote:On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote:... When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them". Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible? Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers. Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason. Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid. Well then. I haven't seen older vods, nor I have any recollection of playstyles of 1998 era.
And thats fine. Whether or not these units were understood early on is moot point. What happened in this thread (and many other threads) is that many characteristics of BW have been praised, while the same characteristics of SC2 have been criticised. I made some examples of this in my first post, how he wants contradictory things from unit design. In this case, people want SC2 to have more complexity, while agreeing with the OP's point that new units roles should be immediately obvious, rather than have subtlety.
|
On October 28 2011 01:14 MCDayC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 01:02 Amanebak wrote:On October 28 2011 00:50 MCDayC wrote:On October 28 2011 00:46 Amanebak wrote:On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote:... When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them". Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible? Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers. Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason. Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid. Well then. I haven't seen older vods, nor I have any recollection of playstyles of 1998 era. And thats fine. Whether or not these units were understood early on is moot point. What happened in this thread (and many other threads) is that many characteristics of BW have been praised, while the same characteristics of SC2 have been criticised. I made some examples of this in my first post, how he wants contradictory things from unit design. In this case, people want SC2 to have more complexity, while agreeing with the OP's point that new units roles should be immediately obvious, rather than have subtlety.
This isn't contradictory. It's perfectly possible to have simple and obvious units that interact with each other in complex ways. That's the basic design principle behind most of the best competitive games ever made. Chess is one big example. Maybe you should read the OP more closely and think it over a bit, as well as some of the other replies I've made in this thread.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On October 28 2011 01:32 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 01:14 MCDayC wrote:On October 28 2011 01:02 Amanebak wrote:On October 28 2011 00:50 MCDayC wrote:On October 28 2011 00:46 Amanebak wrote:On October 27 2011 06:00 MCDayC wrote:... When Brood War was coming out and I saw the Lurker, or the Corsair, or the Medic, there were some extremely obvious potential uses for these units. They seemed simple, powerful, exciting, like units that make you go "oh! well of course these units should be in the game! I can see tons of things you can do with all of them". Bullshit. The corsair's main purpose was discovered in 2007. 9 years after the game came out. And there's no way that people instantly saw the lurkers (amazing) capabilities. A unit that cannot move while attacking, and can only attack while burrowed, which makes it invisible? Let me just answer this although it is not adressed to me. The corsair's main purpose was discovered as soon as the BW expansion was released. Proof? Watch any old video from 2001. The same with lurkers. Brood War came out in 1998. He was talking about the new units having immediately obvious roles, and the public understanding them easily. I would say that that did not happen in BW, which is not a bad thing, but suddenly becomes a negative when applied to SC2 units for some reason. Except for the warhound. That shit just looks stupid. Well then. I haven't seen older vods, nor I have any recollection of playstyles of 1998 era. And thats fine. Whether or not these units were understood early on is moot point. What happened in this thread (and many other threads) is that many characteristics of BW have been praised, while the same characteristics of SC2 have been criticised. I made some examples of this in my first post, how he wants contradictory things from unit design. In this case, people want SC2 to have more complexity, while agreeing with the OP's point that new units roles should be immediately obvious, rather than have subtlety. This isn't contradictory. It's perfectly possible to have simple and obvious units that interact with each other in complex ways. That's the basic design principle behind most of the best competitive games ever made. Chess is one big example. Maybe you should read the OP more closely and think it over a bit, as well as some of the other replies I've made in this thread.
Your right, I phrased that wrong. This whole thing started from him claiming that Brood War units were instantly understandable, whereas HotS are not. Not only would I flat out disagree with that (I maintain that a Replicator or a Shredder is as easy (or easier) to understand as a Dark Archon or a Lurker) but it seems to be a criticisms that is only used against HotS and was not even mentioned as a factor for BW.
|
This is a really great thread. I really agree with the siege tank buff, marine nerf idea.
|
I remember fondly in BW, AT EVERY pro-map release people would comment, WITHOUT FAIL how tanks would be fucking imbalanced on each map. 
Now, no one gives a fuck about the tank
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
