EPTDustin Browder Interview April 2011 - Page 22
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
maybenexttime
Poland5649 Posts
| ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
the attack priority AI is pretty unfair especially if you think about in sc2 x unit are hard counter to specific armor type of x unit. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4348 Posts
On May 02 2011 19:05 maybenexttime wrote: I don't think smart-cast is good for gameplay. It's either smart-cast and mediocre spells or no smart-cast and dramatic spells. I prefer the latter. It's not like a modern RTS needs it either - no CNC game to date had it afaik. I would also prefer no smart cast but it's all academic now. MBS i can live with , same with unlimited unit selection , but the spells in SC2 are just bland bland bland. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
Back when Browder worked on C&C Generals, a lot of C&C fans were complaining that Generals was taking too many cues from Starcraft and other traditional RTS games. Lots of C&C fans were mad at the traditional bottom-bar UI, more traditional base-building, and more traditional unit production. Many did not consider Generals to be a true C&C game, especially since the side-bar UI and con-yard system were replaced with more traditional systems very similar to Starcraft-esque games. Nevertheless, I had tons of fun with Generals and its plethora of user-made mods. Anyways, carry on with your SC2 vs BW discussion. | ||
|
IntoTheEmo
Singapore1169 Posts
On May 02 2011 19:39 eviltomahawk wrote: I find it ironic that some people complain about SC2's design taking too many cues from C&C. Back when Browder worked on C&C Generals, a lot of C&C fans were complaining that Generals was taking too many cues from Starcraft and other traditional RTS games. Lots of C&C fans were mad at the traditional bottom-bar UI, more traditional base-building, and more traditional unit production. Many did not consider Generals to be a true C&C game, especially since the side-bar UI and con-yard system were replaced with more traditional systems very similar to Starcraft-esque games. Nevertheless, I had tons of fun with Generals and its plethora of user-made mods. Anyways, carry on with your SC2 vs BW discussion. Exactly, C&C fans didn't like SC in their game either, why should it be different from us? How successful was Generals? Cause it makes sense that they would copy from the best RTS out there, but it doesn't make sense that SC2 should take from RA2 rather than it's predecessor which was tried and proven. Don't see what your point is, some people don't like Generals to be like SC, some people don't like SC2 to feel like C&C. In any case, I can't help but point out the similarities in the two games I mentioned. Kind of sick of playing SC2 when my friends tell me to, only to have multiple Protoss blind Warp Gates after I scout them, barely hold it, and then have more stuff warp in just as we're killing the pylon - balance issues aside, that's not really fun to play against so often. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On May 02 2011 09:51 aimaimaim wrote: The community is the only one who knows what it want. The community should be the one doing the balancing, not Blizzard nor the clueless Browder. i agree. most competitive games have rules that are "community"-led. for example, the banning of Akuma in SSF2T, smash's rules that you have to study for a day, MLG's weird mods for Halo 3 etc. etc. i think BW is a special case in which all balancing was done through maps toward a favored gametype (1v1, natural expansions, choke points / ramps between the main and natural and the natural and the outside, etc.), with a few rules implemented by KeSPA (allied mines, for example). a balance patch should only be implemented if it makes the game more fun. if strategy A is so imbalanced and people are no longer playing, then it's a problem. if strategy A is so good but people are still playing and still winning against it, then it's not a problem. i would much rather see people trying new map types in SC2 instead of trying to jimmy in what worked in BW. even the ramps aren't the same size so it just seems awkward. | ||
Selith
United States238 Posts
On May 03 2011 07:16 kainzero wrote: i agree. most competitive games have rules that are "community"-led. for example, the banning of Akuma in SSF2T, smash's rules that you have to study for a day, MLG's weird mods for Halo 3 etc. etc. Truth to be said, if SC2 "community" were to be the ones doing the balancing for SC2, it'd probably be far more horrific than one can imagine. | ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:15 Selith wrote: Truth to be said, if SC2 "community" were to be the ones doing the balancing for SC2, it'd probably be far more horrific than one can imagine. I wouldn't think so. If you mean those 'gosus' there at the SC2 Strategy forum, then Yes. But If the balancing act would be done by map-makers and be tested by the top players of the game, surely there will be good that would come out of it. That's the magic, I think, that exists in the past, and still in the present, and will still be for years to come on BW. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:15 Selith wrote: Truth to be said, if SC2 "community" were to be the ones doing the balancing for SC2, it'd probably be far more horrific than one can imagine. what usually happens in these situations is: -a tournament, or many tournaments, are set up. -enforceable rules/settings are in effect -the tournament and rules are set up well enough so that people want to participate [whether it be for prestige (top players are playing, we want to be top players), money ($10k prize), etc.] -rules are popular and are implemented in more tournaments, and then it becomes "standard" what needs to happen for the change to be effective is that it needs to be dominant, otherwise you risk splitting and imploding the community OR nothing really happens. that's how allied mines and scv drills got banned. KeSPA didn't like them, forcing pro players to play without them. want to be a pro player, you can't play with them either, and it's the trickle down effect. that's also how KeSPA maps came about too. i think the same happened in tekken, korea plays with 120% life. --- let's say NASL changed all the variables, rebalanced the game, took out units and abilities and put in different ones. and the prize is still whatever prize it is. i bet people would play it just for the prize and if any of the settings were highly effective and exciting, other leagues would implement it too. and to be honest, i'd rather have something like that and have the sort of emergent gameplay balancing coming from the community (similar to how it sprouted from BW) instead of trusting Blizzard / Browder to do the work for us, seeing as how they've already shown through the release of SC2 that they have no idea what they were really doing. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
Like, if there was a map that was split into two large "islands" with 4-bases each (so not really an "island map"), that would change gameplay significantly, because players could be more greedy, and a 200/200 ground unit blob wouldn't be able to walk from one players base to the others. That would fix a lot of the problems people are complaining about. Would it lead to yet more problems? Obviously, but we'll never learn if we don't try. | ||
| ||
