This guy's RTS theory videos (different 'BrownBear' than on TL) are very good, so I'm posting them as a blog to increase their exposure, compensating for the effort he's put into producing them.
I think his comparison of SC2's macro simplifications to Age3 are valid for SC2 vs. BW = if everything is simplified, macro and unit command cease to be skills, so to widen the skill gap, devs had to artificially speed up the game and make all the weapons way too volatile.
I started getting into BW after SC2 was announced in 2007, thinking I'd be so keen for SC2. In fact, I prefer BW, because it's much less volatile and twitchy. Yo shit doesn't evaporate.
FOR CASUAL PLAY I support combining BW res-expander with unlimited-selection, thinking: 'being able to see 2/3 of the map in one go + Show Spoiler [like this] +
should also be able to control the whole number of units visible from that viewpoint'. Feels like a badass battlefield commander, rather than a limited sergeant on the ground.
But BrownBear's argument is starting to persuade me, that those mechanical optimizations are the exact root of the problem with SC2
On May 09 2017 23:10 bITt.mAN wrote: In fact, I prefer BW, because it's much less volatile and twitchy. Yo shit doesn't evaporate.
I find that sentiment quite interesting -- I'm going to zero in on the word volatile. As I recall, a major complaint during WoL and HotS when comparing the games to Broodwar was that the units didn't have the same "scare-factor" that felt rewarding to control (e.g. scarabs, storms, mines, tanks, etc). That higher damage output made fights extremely volatile if you didn't control your army properly, ending up in a good chunk of your army evaporating in mere moments. In short, I don't understand why you said that.
On May 09 2017 23:10 bITt.mAN wrote: In fact, I prefer BW, because it's much less volatile and twitchy. Yo shit doesn't evaporate.
I find that sentiment quite interesting -- I'm going to zero in on the word volatile. As I recall, a major complaint during WoL and HotS when comparing the games to Broodwar was that the units didn't have the same "scare-factor" that felt rewarding to control (e.g. scarabs, storms, mines, tanks, etc). That higher damage output made fights extremely volatile if you didn't control your army properly, ending up in a good chunk of your army evaporating in mere moments. In short, I don't understand why you said that.
I always felt at times SC2 stuff died a lot slower, but at times it was that way in BW aswell, but then you get those moments where tanks evaporate an entire army in 2-3 volleys and you're like wow. or pre-nerf colossus that could melt entire armies in seconds was always a fun one
That aside, what do you guys think of BrownBear's videos, do you think (his argument) is correct: ↓mechanical difficulty → ↓ways to differentiate skill → ↑game-speed and DPS to make it 'hard' again
What's interesting about the argument, is I always appreciated the '↓mechanical difficulty', but thought the ↑DPS was the problem, without realizing there might be a connection between the two.
On May 10 2017 08:17 bITt.mAN wrote: That aside, what do you guys think of BrownBear's videos, do you think (his argument) is correct: ↓mechanical difficulty → ↓ways to differentiate skill → ↑game-speed and DPS to make it 'hard' again
What's interesting about the argument, is I always appreciated the '↓mechanical difficulty', but thought the ↑DPS was the problem, without realizing there might be a connection between the two.
Well obviously Warcraft 3 has MBS, has autocast, though not unlimited selection - it does not matter as you almost never have that many units in W3. W3 is still a great game, with a high skill ceiling.
It is not about that some units are overpowered... In BW storm is clearly OP or carriers are OP, arbiters are OP, defilers are OP, lurkers are OP(especially with defilers), tanks are OP, vultures are OP, science vessels are OP... But it is that OP units are hard to control, you need other units to support your OP units are hard to get to etc...
It's not about constant nerfing and buffing until you get all units to your boring average. You can't rely on noobs complaining imbalance... even pro voices are too many times too whiny... BW hasn't been balance patched over 17 years, still the game-play/meta changed several times through rise of skill and map changes(which affect balance as well just less dramatically)
You need to design your game/races/units and give players creative options to play as they will... If you design your game with gameplay in mind players will actually do something else as you have intended. Playing out of scope is not always a bad thing = BW hold lurkers, muta stacking, workers drills, mineral walks, manner pylon.. But other times a thing to be discouraged = BW stacked offensive workers, burrow-stacked zerg units...
Balance is not ultimate purpose... Rather divesity of play should be; though harder to keep balance track of, the ultimate balance boils down to plain boring tic-tac-toe with 33% win rate chance. Give players options, creativity, space to breathe...
My opinion is that the problem with SC2 is that the features are underutilized. If players had a system of using screen keys F2-F8 and played properly around multiple bases AND attacking multiple fronts you could change a lot of match-ups. A screen keys player would be very successful, but I think there is other stuff you could do also. SC2 is a bit of a mystery. It feels like the game was designed around AI-tournaments and a legitimate AI-assist module would have made the game a lot more interesting.
Personally I think that most long-time RTS players would be more interested in developing AI assist for players, pure AI, or player assisted AI (referencing replay resumes). There's no doubt the technology for this exists but a proper interface was never introduced. It seems like the next level of RTS competition but probably didn't mesh with what's best for the genre.
First off, I think this videos were really good. I especially like the second one, gives a very nice intro to new players when it comes to the power of macro management. Also his examples of his game compared to the one of... whoever... was well chosen.
On May 10 2017 08:17 bITt.mAN wrote: That aside, what do you guys think of BrownBear's videos, do you think (his argument) is correct: ↓mechanical difficulty → ↓ways to differentiate skill → ↑game-speed and DPS to make it 'hard' again
What's interesting about the argument, is I always appreciated the '↓mechanical difficulty', but thought the ↑DPS was the problem, without realizing there might be a connection between the two.
I don't think his argument can be extrapolated like this. He even shows that AoE II was different and thus your point feels out of context. He also mentioned the completely different approach to maps and their influence on other aspects (e.g. scouting and strategy), went further and made it to the core of his first edition. The interactions of several characteristics felt very thought through. Consequently the argument is more like a depended variable and its interplay with various other things shouldn't be neglected. I'm also quite sure the author goes a long way to demonstrate that he doesn't want to speak in absolutes or means his clips as objective reality.
Personally, during the WoL Beta I didn't feel as if the MBS would make the game so much easier to handle, that automatically the only differentiating aspects were "terrible, terrible damage", even though this was what was seemingly the most obviously "wrong" (from a BW die hard's perspective) thing about the new game. I more like shared his description about the "poke here and there" statements, which just didn't feel as nice as an unfolding game of BW. And this is not connected to anything skill related, as there were other things missing as well (starting with high ground advantage, ending with matters of taste like the actual grafical design of units).
EPT
![[image loading]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c6/05/c3/c605c3d6402dc3a21390d4f4914618bb.gif)
