EPT[BWWI] From The Baneling's Lair - an in-depth look at Star…
| Forum Index > Final Edits |
|
Mikilatov
United States3897 Posts
| ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
It was painfully obvious that it would be problematic. Let's hope they make the proper changes soon. | ||
|
ScarFace
United States1175 Posts
On July 21 2008 12:38 teamsolid wrote: I know Bullshit. You're gonna buy SC2 no matter what, and so am I.  I'm weak when it comes to StarCraft. Lol. | ||
|
sylonto
United States44 Posts
| ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
So yes, Blizzard has been surrounded by good people. Today the Korean Pro Scene is more solid than ever, so I would agree with you on those terms. The Blizzard Development team is based out of Cali man. They need to be surrounded by English speakers to make life easier around the Office space. I'm sure they're going to get a lot of Professionals playing during a Closed beta and getting feedback directly from the team coaches. | ||
|
Hyperionnn
Turkey4968 Posts
On July 21 2008 07:42 thedeadhaji wrote: Chill's section is by far the best out of us 5 btw ^.^ Agreed. I readed all the shit, here's my opinions: I think that macroing lost of stuff should be more harder IMO. Auto mining is just BLEH, they should remove it. As Chill said: The hotkeys. Oh God the hotkeys. I can't remember specifics, but a building like the "Dark Obelisk" would have a hotkey 'G'. It drove me crazy and needs to change before release. Either make the hotkeys intuitive like in StarCraft, or group them together @ QWERASDFZXCV like in Strifeshadow. It really drove me crazy all day that the hotkeys were so weird. I really laughed out of loud at that point.  - There's an idle worker button. I think this is really stupid, but it was in Warcraft 3 so Blizzard's hands are tied. Why not make a "Storm-ready Templar" button or a "Mutalisk-that-should-be-harassing" button? Come on. LOOOL. I dunno, zerg sounded a bit strong to me (Macro Macro Nydus Worm eZ) but i did not get a chance to play so i could be REAALLLY wrong. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On July 21 2008 16:39 Hyperionnn wrote: I dunno, zerg sounded a bit strong to me (Macro Macro Nydus Worm eZ) but i did not get a chance to play so i could be REAALLLY wrong. That was one of my main concerns about imbalances that cannot be nerfed easily because it's more a question of the mechanic itself than the cost of it. I don't understand why they try so hard to make all three races even more different than they are in SC. From a competitor's view every technical imbalance (e.g. lurkers vs mnm's) must be balanced out strategically (combined with the right tech at the right time, some micro skills, positional understanding and good scouting they're balanced) and vica versa. The Nydus is imbalanced technically and strategically because if it's too cheap it's too much, but if it's too expensive it won't be of good use until zerg got mass expansions. This is what I think the Blizzard team underestimates a lot. Technical imbalances vs strategical imbalances, if you want to have a balanced game in the end you must try hard and understand these things, otherwise you'll end up with 100 different strategical or technical imbalances and you cannot ever balance them out, no matter how hard you try. One more good reason to remove the mothership because its technical imbalance is too great (it's also just too big. Nobody mentioned that before but it's true... xX An even better example is the Queen. That unit is so strategically imbalanced that balancing it will be tough as hell especially because they keep removing and adding ideas. I mean how are they supposed to finish SC2 as a competitive game at any point in the future? They are like: lets put everything together and make the best out of it. EEEH. Very bad. Ask good map-makers. First they take a standard map, then they start changing a few things, add something, remove it again, remove something else, add something, done. That's how good work gets done. Not brainstorming and then mindmapping is the correct approach. Mindmapping and then a little bit of brainstorming under critical eyes is! | ||
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
Just that's fucked up about the AI | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
I think its a pretty strong message that 5 very respected members of the starcraft community all came out to very similar conclusions about what needs to be changed in SC2. I really hope blizzard reads this, and can use your opinons to make starcraft 2 the epic game that it could be. Also, Mani said that he commentated a starcraft 2 game on stage. Was there any video footage from that? | ||
|
Sors
Germany1 Post
Like blocking minerals with a single zealot giving him the opportunity to not beeing able to be surrounded by drones and also still messing up the economy? I'm kinda sad that it seems like players want SC1.5, old mechanics in a new dress. One will need to adapt to the new mechanics instead of simply overthrowing them, i mean if mbs+automining is too easy and should be removed, then why shouldnt they also remove move-attack order? The only difference is that one of the both was present in SC1. I for one am extremely happy about the changes, making up for a new competetive scene, which needs to evolve again like the SC1 scene, and not simply taking over most strategies. | ||
|
Emptyness
Bulgaria1016 Posts
 . I really hope Blizzard will read this - I can wait more (even more than more) and I know every SC fan can do this, but what I want is to be able to enjoy SC2 at his 10th anniversary as I can enjoy Broodwar now   . | ||
|
sylonto
United States44 Posts
On July 21 2008 17:48 ForAdun wrote: That was one of my main concerns about imbalances that cannot be nerfed easily because it's more a question of the mechanic itself than the cost of it. I don't understand why they try so hard to make all three races even more different than they are in SC. From a competitor's view every technical imbalance (e.g. lurkers vs mnm's) must be balanced out strategically (combined with the right tech at the right time, some micro skills, positional understanding and good scouting they're balanced) and vica versa. The Nydus is imbalanced technically and strategically because if it's too cheap it's too much, but if it's too expensive it won't be of good use until zerg got mass expansions. This is what I think the Blizzard team underestimates a lot. Technical imbalances vs strategical imbalances, if you want to have a balanced game in the end you must try hard and understand these things, otherwise you'll end up with 100 different strategical or technical imbalances and you cannot ever balance them out, no matter how hard you try. One more good reason to remove the mothership because its technical imbalance is too great (it's also just too big. Nobody mentioned that before but it's true... xX An even better example is the Queen. That unit is so strategically imbalanced that balancing it will be tough as hell especially because they keep removing and adding ideas. I mean how are they supposed to finish SC2 as a competitive game at any point in the future? They are like: lets put everything together and make the best out of it. EEEH. Very bad. Ask good map-makers. First they take a standard map, then they start changing a few things, add something, remove it again, remove something else, add something, done. That's how good work gets done. Not brainstorming and then mindmapping is the correct approach. Mindmapping and then a little bit of brainstorming under critical eyes is! So very true. How do you balance the queen? It's either a must have in every situation or a very bad unit. SC isn't a game that should have limitations on making units. Even if the queen is somewhat balanced you'll still be making it all the time, this is just something they added to satisfy those who wanted sc2 to have heroes. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On July 21 2008 13:24 Tinithor wrote: Oh btw, how does doing things for the player make it more micro intensive. People just won't zealot probe harrass any more since its a waste of time. You're only looking at it from one side of the story. While it's easier for one player, it's also made more difficult for the other player to avoid being surrounded. The harasser has to be even more careful, focused and precise to make sure he doesn't get surrounded, which can make harassment and battles like zealot vs zealot or zerglings vs zealot much more intense than just a-attack or simple positioning, when you add the ability to surround into the repertoire of micro techniques. Trust me, this can be very spectator friendly if it works out well. So you need like perfect reaction time in order to avoid a surround BEFORE it happens while the other player will actively seek out chances to surround your units. Maybe effective zealot harass will require training and be something only the progamers will be able to pull off effectively just like muta harass in SC1, which adds to the skill depth of the game. Also, how exactly is this "auto-surrounding" AI anyways? Isn't that a bit of a misnomer and wouldn't a more accurate term be "better pathing"? With proper pathing, melee units that are ordered to attack should naturally move in to surround in order to get their attacks in. It was basically a faulty pathing AI in SC that caused melee units to clump up, rather than any automatic "overriding" of player's manual actions on SC2's engine. I'd like to see a video clip demonstrating this so-called auto-surrounding. | ||
|
SlickR12345
Macedonia408 Posts
It seems that macro is still a big problem though and I agree that auto-mine should be removed, idle worker notification should be removed, AI should not overwrite player command and this is with BOLD as its extremely important for a player to have full control, i don't fucking want the AI playing the game for me! If I want a simulation game I can play Majesty, for SC2 I want to be in full control. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
Blizzard really need to find ways to make this game accessable to a wider audience without dumbing the entire game down. It will only end up like warcraft 3.. people will get bored of it so fast. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 21 2008 17:26 IzzyCraft wrote: Maybe we shouldn't bitch about attack move out of rally points give high level players the ability to fuck people over by sending units to fuck up the rally forcing people to do more lol but still that surround ai is too sexxy for sc It's just hugely annoying -- Like imagine this scenario: I am 2 gate rushing a zerg, rallying my gateways to his natural, microing my zealot/probe force frantically. I am winning the fight, lings fall, drones die, sunkens morph with 1 hp and get sliced up. All I need now are fresh zealots. ..WHERE THE FUCK ARE MY ZEALOTS? OH, they are chasing a drone... .. on the other side of the map.. How.. how did they get there? Do you see how this would suck? | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Let's get this out of the way now. Last time I played SC2 I was pro MBS. I loved the fact that I could actually do the things that I was thinking about and felt relatively freed from the limitations of my 110 apm hands. I am the type of gamer that MBS was designed for. I'm going to have to go back on my word though. Much like what Chill and Rage have said, the macro is too simple. When I played zerg, my hatcheries had two rally points. One for drones to automine (which I could set directly to the minerals for each separate hatchery) and one for all other units (which I could group together). Thus, my drones automatically filled dutifully to their respective patches, while a single hotkey allowed all my hatcheries to be rallied to wherever I needed my units. No need to go home and manage my economy, no need to manage drones unless I wanted to build something. That's not MBS. That's something else entirely. From what Rage said, MBS is essentially useless in SC2 because you can't make a lot of units at once anyway. It's only faster to set rallies (I think?), and the Zerg system of setting rallies makes it a little easier, sure. What I've always been at a loss at is why these particular interface enhancements are so devastating to the game, so damaging, when the interface enhancements between War2 and SC were not. Players adjusted to being able to hotkey their buildings, casting multiple spells at the same time by selecting multiple units, and found other ways to differentiate. Is easier rallying really going to influence the game in any meaningful way? Won't it possibly have other effects? So for example, the fact that rallied units attack instead of move - I mean, how important is that really? And take a 2gate PvZ rusher - right now he can rally his gates to the Zerg base and be assured that the zeals will go there on a move command - now he has to pay attention and make sure his zealots don't chase after a drone or ling or something. Accordingly, I'm not going to come to Chill's conclusion that "It makes rallying too strong." Whether or not this is a good or bad change, I feel it is too soon to tell - let's not jump to conclusions. In summary: I think that the interface enhancements in this game seem minor, intuitive, and something that the professional scene can easily adapt to. I'm super looking forward to this - I think Blizzard is going to make a SC2 that is going to be a ton of fun. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
If it's togglable it becomes an impossible task to come back from a positional disadvantage (not to mention that it would be way too easy to finish a game having the advantage, you shouldn't be able to lean back watching the rest of the game as if you were a spectator). If it's not togglable it would be pretty disturbing to find all your units doing everything except what you want them to as FA pictured very well. This is no option of course. It's a lose-lose scenario. edit: @ GrandInquisitor I don't mean to be offensive but what you said there: "You guys are so negative and pessimistic about everything." is just wrong. We are criticizing only certain points. You make it sound like we're biased as whatsoever and have never ever thought deeper about these things. Come on... that's a bad way to go into a debate, is it? | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
| ||
