|
Northern Ireland15629 Posts
On March 21 2021 06:46 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +It’s that it’s later hugely negated by the design philosophy of ‘terrible terrible damage’. What are we talking about here? Colossus? The reason this unit sucks is because it isn't micro-friendly as it is too slow to properly move around and particularly responsive. Anyway if they wanted to increase HP a bit in order to add a bit extra duration to battles - that's reasonable. Reducing movement speed though is much more problematic. Are you also implying that Sc2 in normal game speed doesn't have a much lower skillcap? Show nested quote +Let’s say a hypothetical slower PvT where it was possible/desirable to target Collosus fire, make sure Immortals weren’t wasting shots on marines instead of marauders, and Terran players splitting bio against Collosus fire, plus the usual duels, some warp prism pickup shenanigans. If they are more practical to do in a much slower paced game then you can still do them today. The more likely reason we are not seeing target fire on Maurauders by Immortals is because its not efficient micro to target fire in a lot of cases due to having to walk in range before you can attack. Colossus target firing though is often times very practical and hence you see this very frequently. The idea that slower paced games results in certain type of micro being much more rewarded is simply wrong. It doesn't change the reward. What will happen though is that more bad players can do the same type of micro that only good players could do before. (and top players will do certain types of less important micro that they didn't prioritize beforehand). If your design philosophy is that everyone should be able to do the type of micro that only the best players in Sc1 and Sc2 today are possible to do, then yes you will succeed in obtaining that by significantly reducing the speed of the game. As I see it the only way you can somewhat mitigate the reduction in skillcap is to create several new micro-interactions that are heavily rewarded (so even the 10th highest micro-priority you do in a battle has almost the same importance as the most important type of micro). If you succeed in that the reduction in speed will only be equal to a minor reduction in skill-cap. However, that's quite difficult do design and not something I think is gonna be the case in Gates of Pyre. What's more likely is that after a couple of hundred APMS during a battle, everyone beyond that has significantly less value.
The (ideal) for me is that the crazy micro shenanigans SC2’s finest exponents can pull off in smaller engagements would be something they could vaguely come close to even trying in larger scale.
Yeah I didn’t word earlier posts well, by ‘fast’ and ‘slowing down’ I was more referring to how short big engagements are. Bad choice of words. How one does this is another matter entirely of course!
I’m arguing for that philosophy and the game’s micro scaling with larger armies (ideally) for the opposite reason, it would raise the achievable skill ceiling and give the best players more room to flex.
If I was to make a hypothetical UMS where you get a representative setup and play the same lategame engagement across different games vs top players. WC3 vs Happy say, BW against Flash and SC2 against a top pro, basically nobody on this forum is going above 0% no matter how many repeats you do, SC2 I reckon quite a few could take a set or two without having to play that many.
Being A-move friendly is fine IMO but the more stuff a human can do in an engagement to make additional gains the better to keep a high skill ceiling.
There’s a whole tonne of potential in the genre with different kinds of micro, so hopefully this game can incorporate as much of it as possible.
|
On March 21 2021 01:55 Archeon wrote:
at skill floor vs ceiling: the way they are approaching it is that you can automate a lot of stuff, but it'll be better if you do it manually. Which I think gives players more space to specialize in areas, because the area they are bad in is failing less badly. It also means that if you screw up it's not that bad and both sides can screw up a few times before the game ends, so this helps noobs and allows them to play the game without immediately dying.
.
This appears to be more related to making macro-mechanics and interface easier which I think is necessarily as well. Parts of game-design is about prioritizing what you think is important in the game.
And I think it is important to give bad players the required time focus on microing their units during a battle and rewarding them for attempting multipronged attacks even if they only have 60 APM. I think that will lead to a more enjoyable experience for most players. Everything Jakatak says about the new player experience is something I agree 100% with.
However, it is important to ensure that there is a significant difference in the the efficiency of micro between 60 vs 120, 120 cs 180, 180 cs 240 and 240 vs 300, 300 vs 360 etc. APM. If that's not the case the skill-cap is too low.
I would be genuinely interested in hearing from play-testers of this Gates of Pyre who are 4.5K MMR or higher in Sc2 as to what their thoughts is on the skillcap/skillcurve.
|
it would raise the achievable skill ceiling and give the best players more room to flex.
What I will give you is that you will see different types of micro as players will be doing less important types of micro that isn't prioritized high enough today.
That said, I suggest you reconsider the idea it raises the skill-ceilings. If less important micro tricks is what differentiates players that is by definition equal to a lower skill-cap.
That said it's a fine belief if that's what you prefer (a lot of game-design is subjective preferences afterall). However, I think a high game-speed creates a "guarantee" of a high enough skill-cap always existing in every single battle whereas a lower game-speed requires that you have many different micro-interactions are properly rewarded.
That's much harder from a design perspective to obtain - in that regard Gates of Pyre devs are playing game-design on hard-mode.
|
Northern Ireland15629 Posts
On March 21 2021 07:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +it would raise the achievable skill ceiling and give the best players more room to flex. What I will give you is that you will see different types of micro as players will be doing less important types of micro that isn't prioritized high enough today. That said, I suggest you reconsider the idea it raises the skill-ceilings. If less important micro tricks is what differentiates players that is by definition equal to a lower skill-cap. That said it's a fine belief if that's what you prefer (a lot of game-design is subjective preferences afterall). However, I think a high game-speed creates a "guarantee" of a high enough skill-cap always existing in every single battle whereas a lower game-speed requires that you have many different micro-interactions are properly rewarded. That's much harder from a design perspective to obtain - in that regard Gates of Pyre devs are playing game-design on hard-mode.
Brood War isn’t particularly slower than SC2 in terms of the pace of the game, but battles are considerably elongated given how the game operates in other areas. Likewise WC3 units are plenty responsive and fluid to control, but a much higher HP to damage ratio stretches engagements out a lot.
SC2’s issue isn’t the speed of the game or the fluidity of control (it’s the best I’ve played in that regard), it’s how it deals with scaling.
I’d be interested to see what others think, purely talking about micro and not the rest of the game’s mechanics. When it comes to the intensity of early 4 gate wars, or weird and wonky low eco situations I’m microing my ass off and enjoying the challenge, when I’ve had a solid game all-round and hit that 200/200 engagement and just roll it and it’s over in 10-15 seconds it’s a very ‘meh’ feeling to me.
If that engagement was a minute long duel to the death with more I could realistically do and more my opponent could do in countering and jousting that would be pretty tasty
Taken to extremis if someone made an RTS where the average max v max engagement lasted a second doesn’t really matter if you’re a scrub like me or Maru, you don’t physically have the time to let your skills shine
|
I dont the like art and looks in general but will keep an eye on this. Outside of attracting new players to the genre, I would like to see what would make me play this as an alternative to SC2 and BW. I myself have a hard time imagining how would you innovate RTS genre in a meaningful way without turning it into something else like moba.
|
On March 21 2021 08:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2021 07:54 Hider wrote:it would raise the achievable skill ceiling and give the best players more room to flex. What I will give you is that you will see different types of micro as players will be doing less important types of micro that isn't prioritized high enough today. That said, I suggest you reconsider the idea it raises the skill-ceilings. If less important micro tricks is what differentiates players that is by definition equal to a lower skill-cap. That said it's a fine belief if that's what you prefer (a lot of game-design is subjective preferences afterall). However, I think a high game-speed creates a "guarantee" of a high enough skill-cap always existing in every single battle whereas a lower game-speed requires that you have many different micro-interactions are properly rewarded. That's much harder from a design perspective to obtain - in that regard Gates of Pyre devs are playing game-design on hard-mode. SC2’s issue isn’t the speed of the game or the fluidity of control (it’s the best I’ve played in that regard), it’s how it deals with scaling. I’d be interested to see what others think, purely talking about micro and not the rest of the game’s mechanics. When it comes to the intensity of early 4 gate wars, or weird and wonky low eco situations I’m microing my ass off and enjoying the challenge, when I’ve had a solid game all-round and hit that 200/200 engagement and just roll it and it’s over in 10-15 seconds it’s a very ‘meh’ feeling to me.
This is more to do with the specific unit-design. E.g. Immortals, Colossus, Archons and Zealots are simply not micro-friendly units. You do not have the same issue at all with terran. For terran the micro-skillcap increases significantly with army size.
Imagine this though:
1. The Colossus/Immortal received faster movement speed + 0 damage point (which means it can move instantly after attacking like a maurauder) and less HP to compensate
2. Strong AOE abilities could be used by the opponents on those units to incentivize the protoss player to micro his units to mitigate the effect of the AOE.
That way you generate some type of micro and there are different types of abilities you can create in order to reward different type of micro from the opponent (it doesn't have to just be damage).
The essential part here is that units react and move fast though. When that's the case you can add skillbased counters that reward players for movement-based micro and punishes them for blindly a-moving in a blob.
Also note that if you incentivize multitask-based gameplay you will always have small skirmishes around the map. Thus, you don't need to specifically design the game to have very slow production-pace or a low max supply limit to generate that type of gameplay.
One of the ways you reward multitask-based gameplay is to have units fast enough to retreat. You know which units are not fast enough to retreat? Immortals/Colossus.
|
Northern Ireland15629 Posts
On March 26 2021 18:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2021 08:40 WombaT wrote:On March 21 2021 07:54 Hider wrote:it would raise the achievable skill ceiling and give the best players more room to flex. What I will give you is that you will see different types of micro as players will be doing less important types of micro that isn't prioritized high enough today. That said, I suggest you reconsider the idea it raises the skill-ceilings. If less important micro tricks is what differentiates players that is by definition equal to a lower skill-cap. That said it's a fine belief if that's what you prefer (a lot of game-design is subjective preferences afterall). However, I think a high game-speed creates a "guarantee" of a high enough skill-cap always existing in every single battle whereas a lower game-speed requires that you have many different micro-interactions are properly rewarded. That's much harder from a design perspective to obtain - in that regard Gates of Pyre devs are playing game-design on hard-mode. SC2’s issue isn’t the speed of the game or the fluidity of control (it’s the best I’ve played in that regard), it’s how it deals with scaling. I’d be interested to see what others think, purely talking about micro and not the rest of the game’s mechanics. When it comes to the intensity of early 4 gate wars, or weird and wonky low eco situations I’m microing my ass off and enjoying the challenge, when I’ve had a solid game all-round and hit that 200/200 engagement and just roll it and it’s over in 10-15 seconds it’s a very ‘meh’ feeling to me. This is more to do with the specific unit-design. E.g. Immortals, Colossus, Archons and Zealots are simply not micro-friendly units. You do not have the same issue at all with terran. For terran the micro-skillcap increases significantly with army size. Imagine this though: 1. The Colossus/Immortal received faster movement speed + 0 damage point (which means it can move instantly after attacking like a maurauder) and less HP to compensate 2. Strong AOE abilities could be used by the opponents on those units to incentivize the protoss player to micro his units to mitigate the effect of the AOE. That way you generate some type of micro and there are different types of abilities you can create in order to reward different type of micro from the opponent (it doesn't have to just be damage). The essential part here is that units react and move fast though. When that's the case you can add skillbased counters that reward players for movement-based micro and punishes them for blindly a-moving in a blob. Also note that if you incentivize multitask-based gameplay you will always have small skirmishes around the map. Thus, you don't need to specifically design the game to have very slow production-pace or a low max supply limit to generate that type of gameplay. One of the ways you reward multitask-based gameplay is to have units fast enough to retreat. You know which units are not fast enough to retreat? Immortals/Colossus.
I’d prefer units in general, especially the Collosus to move slower, although if they turn quicker and have a quicker damage point they’d be more fun to use. On the polar opposite of that extreme you could have a more powerful Collosus that had to be manually oriented with its cone of fire and be quite lumbering, kind of like how you use gun emplacements in RTT games.
Not singling the much maligned Collosus out here, far too much stuff in the game moves at basically the same speed, makes deathballs almost inevitable. You’d create some potential avenues for exploitation as an A-moved blob would naturally spread out more, but a diligent player could reposition to plug gaps, just adds
Some of the tweaks to Immortals and siege tanks in this regard are nice, easy to forget now but try playing the WoL campaign and they’re far nicer to use.
I’m not bashing SC2 here, still love the game but hey we’re spitballing general RTS things for future titles!
My unpopular opinion, having zero idea of the chronology of development is that a ton of the game’s flaws are due to Terran design decisions.
Asymmetric design is what made Starcraft the series it is, methinks giving one race tons of unforgiving but insanely microable glass cannons kind of hamstrings you in giving the other races reliable ways to deal with them that are equally as fun and challenging.
|
I’d prefer units in general, especially the Collosus to move slower, although if they turn quicker and have a quicker damage point they’d be more fun to use. On the polar opposite of that extreme you could have a more powerful Collosus that had to be manually oriented with its cone of fire and be quite lumbering, kind of like how you use gun emplacements in RTT games.
From having spent hundreds of hours in the unit-tester experimenting with different tweaks of unit-tests these are my findings:
A) Either you make units fast and responsive (the movement speed that is between speed-hydras and stimmed bio) or
B) You have units that are strong in a zone control, e.g. siege tanks, lurkers, liberators.
Sc2's biggest mistake imo was to have units that are in between these 2 for "lore"-purposes. E.g. a Thor is so big so for lore-puposes it should move slowly, turn and attack and slowly.
Inbetween units end up becoming unmicroable and being impossible to do split up as they are not cost effective when not in a ball.
Protoss especially got several of these inbetween units which is the biggest reason for why it has a lower skillcap than terran/protoss. Protoss also suffers a bit from not having any real zone-control units (although too some extent HT and Disruptors function that way) but that's a different topic.
far too much stuff in the game moves at basically the same speed, makes deathballs almost inevitable.
It's completely the other way around. It's exactly the fact that we have certain units that are somewhat slower and can't escape from the opponent that causes deathballs.
The only type of units that can be significantly faster than other units are units like hellions that are very cost-ineffective against every other unit that it is faster than. However, when 20 roaches beats 3 colossus in a straight up fight in the middle of the map you have a design problem.
When mobility is more similar you can move around more freely. Note ofc that the mobility doesn't need to just come through movement speed. E.g. muta/bling has higher movement speed than bio but this is offset somewhat by speed-medivacs and the general cost-efficiency of marine/medivacs.
Also be careful about just saying "deathball" = bad. Deathball is not per se bad, big battles can be fun, it's about the micro-interactions within each. Colossus and Immortals are both unmicroable deathball unitsbut you can have other unit design that thrive together with other units and generally are fun and skillful to use. So we should make a careful distinction here.
The reason you tend see the correlation between deathball and a-move is due to the the fact that low-movement speed causes both deathballyness + disincentives micro. But there isn't always a causation here.
I think a lot of your opinions come from playing protoss here and making some correlation/causation errors which you would easily be able to dismiss if you observed how terran and zerg functioned.
|
Northern Ireland15629 Posts
There’s nothing more intimidating to go into than a properly sieged up position against Flash probably in all of competitive gaming, although that’s more a wall of death than a ball of death, and the siege tank is rightly regarded as one of the GOAT units in RTS, not just for a spine chilling sound effect occurring through the fog of war, but all the cool counter measures available plus the clear drawbacks of having to deploy and redeploy.
So yeah you’re right a ball of death isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I suppose my own personal utilisation of the term is a comp you can saunter about with in one clump, and in a-moving so much of the damage is output so quickly that there’s little room to do much.
The nadir of PvP Collosus wars being a good example.
You make a good point with the ‘in between’ units, kind of articulated my feelings on many Protoss units. Marine/tank is a composition of pretty extreme contrast, or muta/ling/bling is pretty much min/maxing durability for speed and manoeuvrability.
Protoss rolled the ‘tanky’ card, which compares pretty favourably with the other two races early doors but falls off a lot and necessitates power units and ‘balling. Their most beloved/despised all-ins are all about unit retention and wearing the opponent down over damage output and killing things quickly (thinking blink all-ins, or soul train immortal/prism shenanigans). Which I don’t mind as a bit of contrast, but it does illustrate this aspect of Protoss.
I’m biased rather as a person locked into playing Protoss after I fell in love with the mouthless scamps in BW but on a rather masochistic way given I dislike how they play in SC2, but have played about 40% as much as T.
I think you’re pretty on the money as pertains SC2, I’m more spitballing on what I think works/isn’t ideal that other RTS games could learn from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
