On September 24 2013 22:38 Scarecrow wrote:
Considering the amount of clarification you've had to do with basically everybody who's responded to this thread I'd say your ideas weren't well thought out or communicated in the OP. I'm not going to read more slabs of your opinion as you disagree and clarify/shift your position as you reply to every individual poster.
I admit I was a bit hyperbolic in my writing by using the phrase "massive changes," but it still doesn't change my main point in any way (several people in this thread were able to understand that point). In case you forgot (or never read), the point is about the passive/hands-off approach that Blizzard takes to game design/balance vs. Riot's aggressive approach. I never said otherwise, I never changed my point. The only thing I "backpedaled" on was the fact that I wasn't transparent about how I define "massive changes."
Regardless, I'm not here to talk about the presentation of my ideas. I'm here to talk about my ideas.
At this point you're just arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me. You don't have to like me, but please don't waste my time. You haven't addressed the vast majority of comments I've directed at you (BW being a bad example of game design because it was incredibly broken, the fact that your examples of amazing matches would still be amazing if certain units were made relevant, the fact that you CAN compare the two games, among others). Probably because you aren't reading the majority of what I write. More on that later.
For whatever reason, I'm still doing the due diligence of reading everything you say and responding to everything you say. I'd appreciate it if you did the same.
Or, you know.. go away.
If you actually looked at the list of proposed changes Blizzard's considering for the next patch you'd see some major changes being looked at (like a tank buff + mine nerf + dt speed + roach burrow speed) any of which will likely have a large impact on compositions and the way the game is played.
Yet another thing I already acknowledged, heh. [I'll give you a hint: it's in the OP]
Basically what you seem to be pushing for is already happening and the people in charge have way more experience at knowing what will/won't work for SC2 than you do.
You're right, the Blizzard devs probably DO know more than me about designing SC2. But if your argument is that they are perfect in every way and have never made a single mistake and no issues currently exist with the game or their overall strategy with how they want the game to operate, then.. I don't know what to say. Things CAN be made more exciting, more challenging, better. But Blizzard is afraid to take a chance. We can continue to settle for "pretty good," or we can strive for excellence. You know where I stand.
On September 24 2013 23:08 woreyour wrote:
After reading the pathing tread of theiving magpie, I think the only way to make SC2 exciting again is to give all units micro effectiveness. This means that any unit that you micro maximizes it's effectiveness when microed than not. On his tread (TM)He gave an example about the vultures being able to effectively deal "more" damage when microed compared to units left to attack mode. Same for dragoons more effective being babysitted than leave them being retarded wandering around.
This is like in DOTA, where animation cancelling can really make a difference. I really think if blizzard starts to implement these micro effectiveness change, everything will be exciting. Players can now have identities from the units they mastered micro with. Talk about the jaedong mutas? jangbi storms? maybe goody tanks? marines of MKP to that extent players will have unique styles.
I really think they can learn from the beautiful mistake (BW) they made from broodwar which made it exciting.
This is exactly what I was talking about in my first response to Scarecrow about BW. Like you said, BW was a beautiful mistake. SC2 is without a doubt the better game as far as programming and design goes (not talking about graphics here), but BW has surprisingly more depth because of the sheer amount of flaws in the programming that needed to be accounted for by the players.
I feel like the SC2 community has become complacent with the idea that SC2 is just doomed to always be the less dynamic game even though there are still developers working on the game that CAN make it more dynamic and exciting without completely rewriting it from scratch.
It's not like we have to blow up the SC2 programming and break it in a way that makes it BW-esque to give the players more reason to micro. There are far too many cases where microing your units is offset by the amount of DPS you lost by moving rather than attacking.
Someone proposed that units should have their firing rates lowered (and perhaps leave the damage per shot as it is -- battles would last longer if units took less overall damage, could make deathball battles a little more interesting) which would allow stutter-stepping and repositioning to occur with less negative impact to damage output. This would probably require some rebalancing of unit armor and upgrades, but I'm sure it could be ironed out fairly easily.
-------
Edit: I should probably clarify that my point actually has a LOT of facets to it, which may be the source of confusion for someone like Scarecrow. Just a couple examples of things I think aggressive patching could have positive effects on. I could go on, but I think these are the big ones:
Overall gameplay
More viable strategies, resurgence of old units/abilities, more room for creativity. People (including Qwyn in this very thread) criticize pros for "not experimenting enough." You know why they generally don't pull out new, wild strategies in big tournaments? THEY WANT TO WIN. I promise you that they experiment a lot on ladder, where winning/losing isn't quite as important. Terrans are going to stick to Bio/Mine comps against Zerg because it works.
Overall viewing experience
Similar to the above point, more viable strategies make the game more interesting and less predictable. Even though I actually think TvZ has some pretty exciting micro battles between Bio/Mine and Ling/Bane/Muta comps, it's a little frustrating when you KNOW it's going to happen in nearly every TvZ.
"Passion"
I don't think we would see as many progamers give up and retire if the game continued to change and evolve (beyond just regular metagame shifts). On the flipside, I suppose a more volatile game could push some progamers away. I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Skill distribution
As unfair as it may seem, I think this might actually be a way to "nerf Koreans." As I kinda outlined before, I feel like Koreans find their few go-to strategies and hammer them out until they can execute them to near-perfection. We usually regard foreigners as being more creative and "cerebral" players. Who knows, maybe someone like QXC would become the greatest player alive if SC2 consistently made the changes it should be making.
I understand this is a touchy subject because it could potentially harm some players' careers, but the ability to adapt to patches is one of the most important assets of a progamer's career anyway. If you were only good at using Infestors and you can no longer compete after an Infestor nerf, maybe you weren't cut out to be a progamer after all.
|
EPT
