|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
In sc2 zerg towers are not the ones that make boring games, but swarm hosts. And before that Protoss turtled without towers anyways.
I'm talking of the second half of WOL where zerg routinely turtled with infestors and mass spines while making a death blob of infestor + broodlord + queen + spine+spore crawlers and just walking around spreading creep to all of your buildings. That was a big problem vs protoss, they didn't use static D nearly as much vs terran~
No idea what humans would do, but some maps where you can conduit 5-10% of the map and others where you can conduit 40% of it isn't very healthy
|
Well that is the least of GG's problems. Most maps are still pretty terrible.
As for WoL, blame that on Blizzard. That was only way Zergs could win consistently. Sc2 was a snorefest most of its life, but I want to avoid same faith for GG.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
It wasn't the only way, but it was the most solid way by a considerable margin so people would pull it out for 5 games in a best of 7. Literally. For 6+ months.
I doubt GG will ever be balanced as well as sc2 which had some definite weird periods in its lifespan up to now, but reducing the huge balance variances with maps will go a long way to reducing that.
Unless they just roll with it brood war style and make a lot of maps with different features and racial balance aspects
|
Well, in SC2 static defense really sucks if you want to commit fully as a strategy, since they are considerably easy to take down with mass armies. Armies deal terrible terrible damage in SC2 and artillery units wreck havoc on static defense, while in GG they merely tickles the walls.
I think it is fine to allow conduit building since they'll consume a huge amount of investment to lay down from base to base while epic units have fun on them. Only issue is even mass T1 units have hard time on walls which creates the early game problems.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
Well, in SC2 static defense really sucks if you want to commit fully as a strategy, since they are considerably easy to take down with mass armies.
The problem is more with "static" defense which is mobile or can teleport or move around the map and costs no supply, which a player can then make a huge blob of and move it around with his army which should be of similar strength to the opponents army, completely tipping the balance and making it impossible for him to win a fight
that's why it's a very fragile balance when you make "STATIC DEFENSE" which has legs or a teleporter attached to it
|
|
|
cool.
btw, almost the same game performance with max settings as with minimum, as long as I reduce my resolution. Thanks to whoever gave me the idea.
|
Cryo, since you seem to know about computers:
Any advice for buying a gaming laptop? Budget is $2k. It has to be a laptop because it's being paid for by somebody else.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
Sweet
On February 24 2015 10:01 HewTheTitan wrote:
Cryo, since you seem to know about computers:
Any advice for buying a gaming laptop? Budget is $2k. It has to be a laptop because it's being paid for by somebody else.
Laptops are annoying, but we have some threads in the tech support section of TL
|
I still want that balance dev diaries they talked about for more than 1 week.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
I'd rather have an imbalanced game than a slightly more balanced slideshow tbh
if it's not going to be esport level play i find it kinda hard to give a fuck unless it's completely broken or there are very annoying mechanics (such as every game being one race spamming 10% of their unit choice and never building the other 90%)
it's not going to be competition ready for a while if ever; so making the game actually fun to play (as long as it's kinda reasonably balanced) is #1 priority for me
|
Grey Goo bottomed out last night at 108 players.
are people finding it tough to find similarly skilled opponents when the player pool dips that low ?
|
that is 108 total players (SP+MP). And experience with other RTS say that only about 10% of total players play MP.
|
A lot of players are waiting for the patch. I know at least a few who put this game aside until performance is fixed.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On February 26 2015 08:56 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of players are waiting for the patch. I know at least a few who put this game aside until performance is fixed.
Yea everyone i have on skype is not playing atm waiting for performance improvements etc
|
They said a performance patch is coming in the next week or two. Here's hoping.
|
On February 26 2015 08:56 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of players are waiting for the patch. I know at least a few who put this game aside until performance is fixed.
Grey Box and Grey Goo make for an interesting case study providing a counter example to Blizzard's philosophy of only realeasing a game when it is ready.
it looks more and more like Grey Goo was released because the publisher/developer simply ran out of cash.
|
On February 26 2015 14:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 08:56 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of players are waiting for the patch. I know at least a few who put this game aside until performance is fixed. Grey Box and Grey Goo make for an interesting case study providing a counter example to Blizzard's philosophy of only realeasing a game when it is ready. it looks more and more like Grey Goo was released because the publisher/developer simply ran out of cash.
Blizzard did that case study perfectly fine themselves.
Bnet 2.0.
Diablo 3.
|
On February 26 2015 14:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 08:56 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of players are waiting for the patch. I know at least a few who put this game aside until performance is fixed. Grey Box and Grey Goo make for an interesting case study providing a counter example to Blizzard's philosophy of only realeasing a game when it is ready. it looks more and more like Grey Goo was released because the publisher/developer simply ran out of cash.
Hardly. Unlike Blizzard, Grey Box probably did not sit on a mountain of cash the size of mount everest. Very few companies can afford to spend four years developing a single video game.
|
On February 26 2015 19:24 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 14:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 26 2015 08:56 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of players are waiting for the patch. I know at least a few who put this game aside until performance is fixed. Grey Box and Grey Goo make for an interesting case study providing a counter example to Blizzard's philosophy of only realeasing a game when it is ready. it looks more and more like Grey Goo was released because the publisher/developer simply ran out of cash. Hardly. Unlike Blizzard, Grey Box probably did not sit on a mountain of cash the size of mount everest. Very few companies can afford to spend four years developing a single video game.
I would be pretty happy with a mountain of cash the size of Mount Everest myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
