|
On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example)
Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions.
ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format.
|
On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format.
You always are so extremely vague when you talk about that. Can you give examples of how a fun unit interaction would look like in your dream rts game.
|
Just watched Byun v Maru this morning, that TvT pretty much summed up most of SC2 problems in a nut shell.
No map control required , just worker harrass or doomdrop into base. You could basically glue the starting spots together and delete the rest of the map. As a viewer experience its pretty poor
|
On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format.
If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead."
What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation.
Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information.
|
I think one primary reason for the state of SC2 was the desire to make it a trilogy. It makes much sense to monetize a reboot of a game that has been going on strong, even until this day (BW).
But the fact that you've already solidified the inclusion of new units for each expansion, whether WOL was deemed relatively balanced or not, was a big issue. We've all witnessed the pain with trying to include new units (a lot were super gimicky and are) for the sake of new units for each expansion. There are units whose roles overlap with other units i.e. siege tank/widow mine/liberator - that's something that you don't' find in BW which is relatively balanced. A lot of the new SC2 units actually had recycled BW abilities etc... This then led to a lot of units not being used. Also, I never understood the fervor for the balance team to make Bio 'viable' in the late game. Why? Who cares? Let the game figure itself out like TvP in BW.
Another thing was the approach to balance. I remember when the Thor had this attack that stunned a unit while dealing splash damage and it was deemed too strong for the Ultralisk, then they introduced a passive ability specifically for the Ultralisk so it wouldn't stun. That implementation was almost the beginning of the end as you'd then see countless examples of units getting abilities and unit classes just because people in the community weren't patient enough to find a creative solution to unit engagements and army compositions. This evolved into the current scenario of where you have units whose sole purpose is to harass workers in the beginning of the game. I'm only comparing to BW as that's the only other RTS i've played, but I mean, I'm pretty sure BW units don't share that approach to harassing early game.
One last thing would definitely be the desire for Blizzard to cater directly to the needs of the massive beginner pool. Games such as BW are super fun to play and watch because they require a lot of skill- the pay off is big when you win because you know that it was because of the time you invested to improve your skills. Instead of letting people improve their skill set, the game was constantly being made simpler and easier to play and removed different skills needed to be good. There was a smaller pool of skills to acquire that differentiates you from your opponent, and that led to a playstyle that was primarily centered around sneaking a base snipe and not losing your maxed out army.
|
On July 28 2017 22:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. You always are so extremely vague when you talk about that. Can you give examples of how a fun unit interaction would look like in your dream rts game.
Its hard to provide a concrete picture of this. Also internal testing is very important, to see how to make it a good interraction. Lets try.
Take zealot and marines.
The charge of zealot is used manually, and only go point instead of target(targets ground). No cooldown, 1sec casttime.
Movespeed is 0.5 less than a marine.
Marine: stimpack removed, instead using an ability to walk and shoot at the same time. Turns slower when using this,can also only move in the angle from when you started. Movespeed slowed by 50% when using this.
WIth a grain of salt, something like this.
|
On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information.
Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go.
|
On July 28 2017 22:52 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. You always are so extremely vague when you talk about that. Can you give examples of how a fun unit interaction would look like in your dream rts game.
C&C has early action nailed. check out RA2 and RA3. your ability to macro in the early-mid-game is impacted in a big way by early game fights. early game action and combat in RA3 is fantastic.
|
On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go.
Oh ok.
|
On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go.
What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS.
|
On July 28 2017 23:06 saalih905 wrote:
I think one primary reason for the state of SC2 was the desire to make it a trilogy. It makes much sense to monetize a reboot of a game that has been going on strong, even until this day (BW).
But the fact that you've already solidified the inclusion of new units for each expansion, whether WOL was deemed relatively balanced or not, was a big issue. We've all witnessed the pain with trying to include new units (a lot were super gimicky and are) for the sake of new units for each expansion. There are units whose roles overlap with other units i.e. siege tank/widow mine/liberator - that's something that you don't' find in BW which is relatively balanced. A lot of the new SC2 units actually had recycled BW abilities etc... This then led to a lot of units not being used. Also, I never understood the fervor for the balance team to make Bio 'viable' in the late game. Why? Who cares? Let the game figure itself out like TvP in BW.
Another thing was the approach to balance. I remember when the Thor had this attack that stunned a unit while dealing splash damage and it was deemed too strong for the Ultralisk, then they introduced a passive ability specifically for the Ultralisk so it wouldn't stun. That implementation was almost the beginning of the end as you'd then see countless examples of units getting abilities and unit classes just because people in the community weren't patient enough to find a creative solution to unit engagements and army compositions. This evolved into the current scenario of where you have units whose sole purpose is to harass workers in the beginning of the game. I'm only comparing to BW as that's the only other RTS i've played, but I mean, I'm pretty sure BW units don't share that approach to harassing early game.
One last thing would definitely be the desire for Blizzard to cater directly to the needs of the massive beginner pool. Games such as BW are super fun to play and watch because they require a lot of skill- the pay off is big when you win because you know that it was because of the time you invested to improve your skills. Instead of letting people improve their skill set, the game was constantly being made simpler and easier to play and removed different skills needed to be good. There was a smaller pool of skills to acquire that differentiates you from your opponent, and that led to a playstyle that was primarily centered around sneaking a base snipe and not losing your maxed out army.
Great post! I agree 100% and I don't think I could've worded it better.
|
On July 28 2017 23:28 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go. What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS.
The thinking in rts games are old, there are no modern thinking made in rts games.
The old "concept" is: High buildtime without any interraction with your opponent. Meaning, you build supply, units, gets your economy bigger, can take litteral several minutes this alone. No real micro involved in this period, or real tough decisions or tactics. Big emphasize of hardcounters.
Very outdated. Yes some old concepts can still be good but there are several that doesnt fit in a modern rts game.
Wont touch much about fps or fighting games, it takes to much from me but those also have old concept applied. It works better for those genres but they are still lacking alot as well.
|
On July 28 2017 21:31 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +As for the easier macro. I actually liked MBS and all that stuff. They felt like sensible evolutions of the interface. Yeah they may reduce the skill ceiling APM wise, but it's my honest opinion that if SC2's fundamentals would have been designed so that unit control mattered more then there would be other things to sink APM into I believe so to. I hear the argument that these things are bad, but then again those people usually dont imagine HOW AN RTS CAN LOOK LIKE unit control wise. Also funny thing what you read on blizzards site back in the days. Pvt, zealot rushing hard for terran to deal with so they get consussive shells. HOLY FUCK? That says alot. Also somehting else that says alot, when they showed us their pre-alpha video of immortals hardcountering siege tanks BIG TIME. Well, we had signs there already. But yeah, the pre-alpha footage had some things that looked cool as fuck. Nydus canal looked to have fun tactic involved. Since zerg is a swarmy race, this could be really good strategic and tactical wise. Also charge zealots looks... fun as well. I probably imagined i could micro those zealots. If i think about it, consussive shells vs micro able charge lots. Could probably be a bit of fun atleast. OH well.
Yeah the early immortals were a red flag too, for all the hard counters that were to come. And the early thor.
Also do you remember the early roaches? They were units that constantly regenerated HP and you had to take them out by target firing them, Blizzard scrapped that idea because they felt it created a "micro or die" situation. I still think the regeneration was a fun idea that created more micro.
I think they should have just scrapped the roaches after they removed the regen because as they are now they just make zerg less zergy.
|
On July 29 2017 00:00 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 21:31 Foxxan wrote:As for the easier macro. I actually liked MBS and all that stuff. They felt like sensible evolutions of the interface. Yeah they may reduce the skill ceiling APM wise, but it's my honest opinion that if SC2's fundamentals would have been designed so that unit control mattered more then there would be other things to sink APM into I believe so to. I hear the argument that these things are bad, but then again those people usually dont imagine HOW AN RTS CAN LOOK LIKE unit control wise. Also funny thing what you read on blizzards site back in the days. Pvt, zealot rushing hard for terran to deal with so they get consussive shells. HOLY FUCK? That says alot. Also somehting else that says alot, when they showed us their pre-alpha video of immortals hardcountering siege tanks BIG TIME. Well, we had signs there already. But yeah, the pre-alpha footage had some things that looked cool as fuck. Nydus canal looked to have fun tactic involved. Since zerg is a swarmy race, this could be really good strategic and tactical wise. Also charge zealots looks... fun as well. I probably imagined i could micro those zealots. If i think about it, consussive shells vs micro able charge lots. Could probably be a bit of fun atleast. OH well. Yeah the early immortals were a red flag too, for all the hard counters that were to come. And the early thor. Also do you remember the early roaches? They were units that constantly regenerated HP and you had to take them out by target firing them, Blizzard scrapped that idea because they felt it created a "micro or die" situation. I still think the regeneration was a fun idea that created more micro. I think they should have just scrapped the roaches after they removed the regen because as they are now they just make zerg less zergy.
Oh yeah, the reg on roaches looked like an interesting idea as well. I remember that.
They kinda are somehwat to similar to marauder/stalker as well. But yeah. I believe they said afterwards that they scrapped it because when you amove, the rng kicks in to heavy.
Same scenario could mean you win big or lose big deponding weather the a.i targeted the same roach or not.
But yeah blizzard had some interesting concepts which they either scrapped or left in lackluster.
|
On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information.
I couldn't agree more with this. Much of the strategic diversity in BW comes from the early game and some of the most exciting moments can come from early game rushes. Only starting with four workers is part of the very soul of BW.
|
On July 29 2017 00:11 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. I couldn't agree more with this. Much of the strategic diversity in BW comes from the early game and some of the most exciting moments can come from early game rushes. Only starting with four workers is part of the very soul of BW.
LOL in WCII you just started with one worker and no command center even
|
On July 29 2017 00:13 Ancestral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 00:11 KungKras wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:On July 28 2017 22:36 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 22:26 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
it could have been much better at least and avoid so many pitfalls, it's true that its rly rly hard to do better than bw but I believe it can be done, I think when I look at zvz and also the state of early zvt today I see imperfections there (z hard to take 3rd rely strongly on 1 repetitive build thats sorta volatile and costs a lot, but I'm curious see how it develops on new maps like the new ASL maps some have 2 bases with gas near main, 1 nat 1 behind for example) Less buildup time. "action" start earlier, iam talking about relevant action. Better unit interractions. ALOT of stuff can improve from broodwar its just that this whole rts concept is old, and designers dont understand the format. If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead." What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation. Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. I couldn't agree more with this. Much of the strategic diversity in BW comes from the early game and some of the most exciting moments can come from early game rushes. Only starting with four workers is part of the very soul of BW. LOL in WCII you just started with one worker and no command center even
I edited my response if interested. In case you missed as well.
|
AlphaAeffchen actually put some effort into writing a quality post and it really should be read by anyone who want to know what some people seem to like in SC2. However, with many of those points I cannot agree with.
On July 28 2017 21:43 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
Hardcore BW fans argue that there should be limited unit and building selection in SC 2. If Blizzard would have done this in 2010 our playerbase would be even smaller! And no its not fun to control 6 different unit groups. Even hardcore players have to understand that this mechanic is not up to date anymore and you will push people away with it. You have to Group 1-3 Units in SC 2 Lotv anyway to play efficient. And i dont understand why people argue that unlimited building selection is bad for the game. I really like macro but its stupid to click on everey buiding to build your units! I hated it in BW and i will hate it in BW remastered (i know that this is necessary for balance but its not fun to get over this mechanic). We are in the year 2017 and not longer in the 90s!
Unit selection limit, beeing a little pain in the ass when you play, is one of the key factors that limits the power of the doomstacks. And as such, it makes the game more spectacular. Bad pathing, unit selection limit and big disproportion in speed limits are what makes the doomstacks less powerfull. It also is balancing factor for mutalisk stacks.
Many People say that the unit design is bad in SC 2
I disagree here partially. You cant just make a game which is BW 2.0. Than we dont need SC 2. There have to be new things. Broodwar has many Units which are not used often. In SC 2 every unit can be usefull.
Bad Units Units in BW are:
(...)
Queen= Very very niche unit
Niche unit, yes. Limited use. Still, not completely useless. It is one of the effective counters for havy tank late mech.
Wraith: Some use in TvT in other matches very cheesy and a niche unit.
Not at all. Everybody who watched BW regulary knows what a competent terrans can do with this unit. In TvT they are very important. Guys like Leta and Fantasy also used that regulary against Zergs with big success and its role as guardian killer is difficult to overestimate. Even in it's niche in TvP has some less important role too. It was one of the key unit in Fantasy's tactic against Stork in the Bachus 2010/2011 final, when it was used to shut down Stork's reaver tactic.
Besides, what the hell even "cheesy unit" means?
Now pls tell me which unit in SC 2 has no use at all. There are niche units like Ghosts but you can use them.
All of the units you talked about are usable too. The problem with devourers and scouts is that island maps, where their usefullness drasticaly increases, are never played in tournaments.
The problems of SC 2 are:
The Story is mediocre
Its as mediocre as 90% of movies with Steven Seagal. It basicly means it's serious insult to anyone who likes a good story. Or in other words - it's complete shit overall.
On July 28 2017 21:43 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
The art design of Zerg in SC 2 is really good they feel really dark!
Funny, I had completely different feeling. After seeing Zerg unit design in SC2 my first though was "Did WoW concept artists really infested MY GAME?"
|
On July 28 2017 23:30 Yaqoob wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 23:06 saalih905 wrote:
I think one primary reason for the state of SC2 was the desire to make it a trilogy. It makes much sense to monetize a reboot of a game that has been going on strong, even until this day (BW).
But the fact that you've already solidified the inclusion of new units for each expansion, whether WOL was deemed relatively balanced or not, was a big issue. We've all witnessed the pain with trying to include new units (a lot were super gimicky and are) for the sake of new units for each expansion. There are units whose roles overlap with other units i.e. siege tank/widow mine/liberator - that's something that you don't' find in BW which is relatively balanced. A lot of the new SC2 units actually had recycled BW abilities etc... This then led to a lot of units not being used. Also, I never understood the fervor for the balance team to make Bio 'viable' in the late game. Why? Who cares? Let the game figure itself out like TvP in BW.
Another thing was the approach to balance. I remember when the Thor had this attack that stunned a unit while dealing splash damage and it was deemed too strong for the Ultralisk, then they introduced a passive ability specifically for the Ultralisk so it wouldn't stun. That implementation was almost the beginning of the end as you'd then see countless examples of units getting abilities and unit classes just because people in the community weren't patient enough to find a creative solution to unit engagements and army compositions. This evolved into the current scenario of where you have units whose sole purpose is to harass workers in the beginning of the game. I'm only comparing to BW as that's the only other RTS i've played, but I mean, I'm pretty sure BW units don't share that approach to harassing early game.
One last thing would definitely be the desire for Blizzard to cater directly to the needs of the massive beginner pool. Games such as BW are super fun to play and watch because they require a lot of skill- the pay off is big when you win because you know that it was because of the time you invested to improve your skills. Instead of letting people improve their skill set, the game was constantly being made simpler and easier to play and removed different skills needed to be good. There was a smaller pool of skills to acquire that differentiates you from your opponent, and that led to a playstyle that was primarily centered around sneaking a base snipe and not losing your maxed out army. Great post! I agree 100% and I don't think I could've worded it better.
Except for the last paragraph which was pretty horrible and doesn't account for the downturn in Sc2. Biggest e-sport over the last 5 years is a game that very much does an amazing job of being a good game for casuals, with enough capacity/depth for a pro scene. Not sure if you guys have noticed but extreme/top end mechanics based games are not exactly seeing much love in recent years. BW is the last of its kind (at least in mainstream gaming), Quake has been relegated to a low tier FPS in terms of popularity. Fighting Games struggle to keep playerbases (although the genre has had a good year). I actually don't care personally if a game is seriously mechanically demanding or not, but rather concern myself with things such as if I enjoy the game.
|
the problem was poorly designed units that had no micro such as the colossus, immortal, and so on, or worse units that were anti micro such as force fields or fungal. then there was the problem of clumping. pvt became turtle up and macro into one deathball engage that decided the match. made it boring to watch. with the queen range patch zerg deathball of gglord and winfestor made it 1000x worse, it official killed the viewership of WOL, from which the game NEVER recovered. ryung said it best when he cried "imba imba imba" when he lost to sniper in GSL. the better player lost, as evidenced by bads such as roro and sniper who faded into obscurity once winfestor were nerfed.
people who bravely pointed it out were either banned or ridiculed. the results speak for themselves.
no spectators = dead game
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
