EPT"In Brood War, based on fastest speed, the biggest dps is Archon's 35 and Reaver's 39. For other races, Firebat's is 34 and Ultralisk's is 31. These units are either high-tier units that consume a large amount of resources, or units that have disadvantages in survivability, maneuverability, counter penalty. However, The game speed officially used in StarCraft II is 'Faster' that 1.4x speed, if substitute this to the DPS calculation of units, Thor's Ground DPS is over 68, Ultralisk's is over 57.38 and including splash damage 33% in it is 76.37. And Oracle and Liberator have a staggering dps of 24(vs Light +16.3) and 65.8 respectively even though they are low-tier ground-attack aircraft. If it is a like Command and Conquer's game methods that fastest gathering resources and fastest training units and fastest building structures, these over firepowers shouldn't be matter, but StarCraft is the game in which units have relatively low life, high attack damage, and are easy to kill, and the production war factories have a slow tempo and low efficiency. I have calculating DPS with SC2's Faster 1.4x speed, and reduced the DPS of most units so that they have the combat duration of appropriate tempo close to the Brood War."
What wrecked SC2? - Page 35
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Jae Zedong
407 Posts
"In Brood War, based on fastest speed, the biggest dps is Archon's 35 and Reaver's 39. For other races, Firebat's is 34 and Ultralisk's is 31. These units are either high-tier units that consume a large amount of resources, or units that have disadvantages in survivability, maneuverability, counter penalty. However, The game speed officially used in StarCraft II is 'Faster' that 1.4x speed, if substitute this to the DPS calculation of units, Thor's Ground DPS is over 68, Ultralisk's is over 57.38 and including splash damage 33% in it is 76.37. And Oracle and Liberator have a staggering dps of 24(vs Light +16.3) and 65.8 respectively even though they are low-tier ground-attack aircraft. If it is a like Command and Conquer's game methods that fastest gathering resources and fastest training units and fastest building structures, these over firepowers shouldn't be matter, but StarCraft is the game in which units have relatively low life, high attack damage, and are easy to kill, and the production war factories have a slow tempo and low efficiency. I have calculating DPS with SC2's Faster 1.4x speed, and reduced the DPS of most units so that they have the combat duration of appropriate tempo close to the Brood War." | ||
|
hitthat
Poland2267 Posts
On August 12 2017 13:43 Heyjoray wrote: God damn i cant wait for reality to kick you guys in the face. Its gonna be great User was warned for this post Dont worry, 90% people here only believe and want see healthy BW scene in Korea, and it can't be worse than in 2013 anyway. You will not get your sweet time, buddy. | ||
|
lestye
United States4178 Posts
On August 12 2017 14:44 404AlphaSquad wrote: Ah yes. I remember newcomers not understanding how great bnet 1 was and believing that blizzard had a "plan" regarding social features on bnet when in fact they were clueless. The entire sc2 community should thank the "old guard" because without them your battlenet 2 would still have no chat channels. Remember when there were no chat channels? Remember when you could only pm people? Remember when you could only pm people when they are in your friendslist? Remember when the only way to add a friend was via Email adress that is linked to your battle net account? Remember when you had to use an outside bnet2 chat program to give that E-mail adress to somebody? Remember when the only way to invite someone in a lobby was if they were in your friendslist? Remember how every added "friend" was able to see your full name? Remember when there was no Dnd mode when chat finally got implemented? (I guess every youtuber/streamer remembers) Anyone arguing that Blizzard had a concrete "plan" when it comes to the social features of sc2/bnet2 or that they had a good reason to ditch the old system is delusional. The classic system is working better to this date. Half those things are incredibly disingenuous and overexaggerated. On August 14 2017 20:25 Jae Zedong wrote: In the SC2 section, YatagarasSC2 made an interesting adjusted comparison between the DPS of units in BW and SC2. We all knew SC2 units have a glass cannon problem, but this is the first attempt I've seen to quantify it by comparing it to BW: "In Brood War, based on fastest speed, the biggest dps is Archon's 35 and Reaver's 39. For other races, Firebat's is 34 and Ultralisk's is 31. These units are either high-tier units that consume a large amount of resources, or units that have disadvantages in survivability, maneuverability, counter penalty. However, The game speed officially used in StarCraft II is 'Faster' that 1.4x speed, if substitute this to the DPS calculation of units, Thor's Ground DPS is over 68, Ultralisk's is over 57.38 and including splash damage 33% in it is 76.37. And Oracle and Liberator have a staggering dps of 24(vs Light +16.3) and 65.8 respectively even though they are low-tier ground-attack aircraft. If it is a like Command and Conquer's game methods that fastest gathering resources and fastest training units and fastest building structures, these over firepowers shouldn't be matter, but StarCraft is the game in which units have relatively low life, high attack damage, and are easy to kill, and the production war factories have a slow tempo and low efficiency. I have calculating DPS with SC2's Faster 1.4x speed, and reduced the DPS of most units so that they have the combat duration of appropriate tempo close to the Brood War." +Damage modifiers hard counter design will do that to a game. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
It actually wouldn't surprise me if the design/balance team started with exact BW values for every unit in the game, then made adjustments based on how they behaved in the new engine. Unit responsiveness is much better in SC2 which increases the pace of the game. They probably increased damage to compensate (or in the cases where units like Zerglings could use the new engine to swarm more effectively, reduced it). Then, once the pace was established in WoL, all the new units in the expansions were balanced around the same expected effectiveness. That's what I would do if I were in their shoes. It's logical. | ||
|
MilkDud
Canada73 Posts
| ||
|
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10170 Posts
On August 15 2017 03:52 Excalibur_Z wrote: Functionally, there is no difference between a unit that does 35 (+35 Armored) and a unit that does 70 damage (-50% to Small). Therefore, I don't believe damage modifiers or "hard counters" are the root problem. There are tons of hard counters in BW. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the design/balance team started with exact BW values for every unit in the game, then made adjustments based on how they behaved in the new engine. Unit responsiveness is much better in SC2 which increases the pace of the game. They probably increased damage to compensate (or in the cases where units like Zerglings could use the new engine to swarm more effectively, reduced it). Then, once the pace was established in WoL, all the new units in the expansions were balanced around the same expected effectiveness. That's what I would do if I were in their shoes. It's logical. They said that they first remade BW in the new engine and worked from there, if I recall correctly. Makes me wonder how they got so far away from it. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16750 Posts
Pardo, Browder, and Kim all had bigger fish to fry within the company and left their responsibilities with the RTS team. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
lestye
United States4178 Posts
On August 15 2017 03:52 Excalibur_Z wrote: Functionally, there is no difference between a unit that does 35 (+35 Armored) and a unit that does 70 damage (-50% to Small). Therefore, I don't believe damage modifiers or "hard counters" are the root problem. There are tons of hard counters in BW. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the design/balance team started with exact BW values for every unit in the game, then made adjustments based on how they behaved in the new engine. Unit responsiveness is much better in SC2 which increases the pace of the game. They probably increased damage to compensate (or in the cases where units like Zerglings could use the new engine to swarm more effectively, reduced it). Then, once the pace was established in WoL, all the new units in the expansions were balanced around the same expected effectiveness. That's what I would do if I were in their shoes. It's logical. You'd do far less damage with the former vs shields than the latter example. Units hard countered eachother based on their design and their interaction, not because they did bonus damage vs whatever. | ||
|
KungKras
Sweden484 Posts
Also I agree 100% about the deathballs. They killed watching the game for me. | ||
Waxangel
United States33426 Posts
Could be amusing to play a "dumb" mod of SC2 with 12 unit select and bad AI (dunno how you'd implement that :D) and see how it feels. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 15 2017 10:12 Waxangel wrote: Don't under-estimate the affect of all the units getting to the battle at the same time and being able to concentrate their firepower. Small skirmishes in SC2 tend to have the same pacing as in BW; I think the UI/AI improvements have more to do with big SC2 fights feeling "fast" than raw numbers. Could be amusing to play a "dumb" mod of SC2 with 12 unit select and bad AI (dunno how you'd implement that :D) and see how it feels. Starbow had (has?) different pathing similar to bw one. Didn't have 12 units per hotkey though. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
Brood War: 13 years (1999-2012, revival pending) Starcraft 2: 7+ years (2010-2017) Dota 2: 6+ years (2011-2017) League of Legends: 5+ years (2012-2017) Calling SC2 "wrecked" kind of glosses over it being one of the most popular, successful, and long-lasting eSports of all time. 2018's season will be it's 8th year of major big-money tournament events just for it (as opposed to, say, Smash Melee, which always had to share a stage), Will there be a WCS in 2024 so that it beats BW's initial run? Probably not. But it's got at least one more year left in what's been a pretty good run, and it's only "wrecked" in comparison to BW. I know that BW fans hate SC2 for killing KeSPA BW a year or two before LoL would've, but BW is ascendant and SC2 is in decline, so we can be a bit more clinical now. As for why it declined, besides just time? A lot of people in this thread are saying "because it sucked compared to BW", but if you thought SC2 sucked, you didn't become a fan in the first place. So why the decline? I can think of a few reasons (insofar as they affect the foreign scene; no idea about Korea): 1. How many games got into slow stalematey mine-the-whole map games at the end of HotS that would go on for 40 minutes plus. It was the standard for months, and everyone got sick of it because those kind of games are only fun when they happen rarely. Legacy of the Void fixed a lot of problems, and Blizzard changed their approach to be more open with the community and use community maps and all the things the SC2 scene wanted, but the damage was done at that point, a large chunk of the fanbase had fallen off the wagon. Had Blizzard patched Swarm Hosts earlier, SC2 would be in a much better place today. 2. A loss of all the personalities. In early SC2, a lot of the best players acted in ways that made them stand out more, like MC or Idra (or Naniwa, who adopted Idra's position as Top Heel). They were replaced by KeSPA robots who were actively trying to be as bland as possible, so it was hard to root for any particular Korean unless they were the Best Korean, a title that changed hands every few months. Scarlett was the only player with a sense for flair. This also applies to playstyle. In early SC2, different players had very different ways of approaching the game. In later years, there was more of a Right Way, and innovation was less relevant. This meant SC2 was increasingly two generic Koreans having generic games, with real exciting and different games being relegated to a few players like Gumiho and SoS and that one time Scarlett switched to Protoss mid-series (god bless them). 3. The WCS system, which killed a lot of the big weekend tournaments that SC2 relied on more than anyone understood at the time. There were basically no open tournaments in the West after a while, so new foreigners couldn't get in as easily. 4. Life, who was arguably the best Zerg player in SC2, decided to copy builds from some great BW Zergs, like "run a matchfixing scandal and get arrested". Life, unlike Saviour, was a current top star at the time, so it was like if the BW matchfixing scandal was led by Jaedong. 5. Competition. League of Legends, Overwatch, Dota, Brood War....hell, you literally can't turn SC2 on without seeing Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone in the launcher, both of which are also pretty popular. There was even that one GSL for World of Tanks where Artosis made a herculean effort to try and convince us he liked the game before giving up and just shitting on it. The eSports fan had more choice than ever before. . | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
| ||
|
PharaphobiaSC
Czech Republic457 Posts
On August 15 2017 15:14 saddaromma wrote: No, SC2 is wrecked because it can't even gather 50k viewership. What a creative and knowledgeble answer, u really used a lot of brain cells to write this =)) User was warned for this post | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
On August 15 2017 10:19 The_Red_Viper wrote: Starbow had (has?) different pathing similar to bw one. Didn't have 12 units per hotkey though. Still has. Even more like BW after last patch. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On August 15 2017 03:56 MilkDud wrote: Sc2 was wrecked? I thought it did incredibly well, in a day where PC games usually don't last more than a few months. nope, haven't you heard, the dictionary definition of "wrecked" is officially "has less twitch views than dota". ergo 99.9% of all pc games are dead on arrival, and therefore are horrible games and complete failures | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
'Wrecked' might be a harsh term, but its close enough for me. | ||
|
KungKras
Sweden484 Posts
On August 15 2017 19:55 saddaromma wrote: Well, 99.9% games didn't have investment and time dedicated to make A-tier competitive esports game. And, SC2 had a huge fanbase already when it was released. With so many resources it was destined to succeed, however, it didn't. 'Wrecked' might be a harsh term, but its close enough for me. Exactly. It had almost infinite goodwill because of BW and got off to a huge start because of the brand recognition. I think it was the best selling PC game ever when it released. With such an amazing start, a game with the same longevity potential as BW wouldn't have declined as fast as SC2 did. IMO it has to be the game itself that is to blame. It didn't fail commercially otr critically, but it did not live up to the hype and expectations either. The expectation was for it do have a timeless design that gave it as much longevity as Brood War. At least that was my expectation. Which is why it failed in my eyes. | ||
| ||
