|
On April 24 2024 06:56 LunarC wrote:
The big problem with Infest as a concept is the free units are only generated when units die, so there's no risk of feeding Veterancy or Animus since if you lose the battle you wouldn't have fed a bunch of free units anyway
There's still a risk of feeding veterancy. Any fiends spawned by infest will end up feeding veterancy either in that fight or down the line, fiends are by far the weakest unit in the game.
Vanguard killing units on the other hand just means free leveling up, no drawback except feeding Animus (which isn't that strong outside of the inject charge spell). Veterancy can't feed infest, in fact the best counter to infest is an army consisting of fewer but stronger units.
In the play test, infest wasn't that impactful past 10 minutes, compared to SC2's free units that become more impactful the longer the game went. And veterancy also became more impactful with longer games.
There's still a theoretical balance to it I suppose?
For example. Infernal kill exos for free units > free units means easy food for new exos > new exos are now harder to kill > fewer die to infest > fewer free units to level up new exos etc
Whether that happens in reality I don't know, but between the 2 snowball mechanics, veterancy scales much much better.
|
Hey guys,
Let's step back for a second, if you had to frame the problem of the "Competitive game balance" on a broader scope other than how a certain unit works or function.
Let's brain storm how can a game be balanced?
Surely, we are bunch of 1vs1 nerds who plays RTS, but what's stopping us having creative way to solve the whole balance issue, is not like we have not done it before?
What has worked in the past? And where are the disconnects from dev/player?
I will give a small hint, as I don't want to say too much from myself so that a brain storm from a white paper ended up being a brain storm that started with a stupid rabbit on the paper already. Something we all know SCBW was balanced by Kaspa with map editor, and there are tons of interesting thing have done in those regards in the past.
So, go on, use your wildest imagination and deepest knowledge from past experience, either state a balance tactic was used in the past that worked, or something that was tried and didn't work. Or an novel idea that has not been tried, maybe it could be cool to try it out? And please state a reason on why it worked or why it didn't work. It's okay you cannot figure out the why, we can do it together.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, take the stage with your mic.
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On April 24 2024 17:34 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote:
Hey guys,
Let's step back for a second, if you had to frame the problem of the "Competitive game balance" on a broader scope other than how a certain unit works or function.
Let's brain storm how can a game be balanced?
Surely, we are bunch of 1vs1 nerds who plays RTS, but what's stopping us having creative way to solve the whole balance issue, is not like we have not done it before?
What has worked in the past? And where are the disconnects from dev/player?
I will give a small hint, as I don't want to say too much from myself so that a brain storm from a white paper ended up being a brain storm that started with a stupid rabbit on the paper already. Something we all know SCBW was balanced by Kaspa with map editor, and there are tons of interesting thing have done in those regards in the past.
So, go on, use your wildest imagination and deepest knowledge from past experience, either state a balance tactic was used in the past that worked, or something that was tried and didn't work. Or an novel idea that has not been tried, maybe it could be cool to try it out? And please state a reason on why it worked or why it didn't work. It's okay you cannot figure out the why, we can do it together.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, take the stage with your mic.
Do your best, let the community break your game and then fix where necessary.
There’s really no other way. Even a savant isn’t going to be able to predict what hundreds of thousands of collective man hours are going to see people do with the tools provided.
BW is a giant fluke of a game, it’s a few different decisions away from being utterly broken, but luckily those weren’t taken. Even still it does need maps to balance it in its modern form.
WC3 had a few more patches but not a huge amount and hell watching games in 2024 it’s still mostly the same maps I played as teen WombaT. It’s even had a patch or two post ‘Remaster’ and actually I quite like some of the tweaks overall.
SC2 has had ungodly amounts of patches, and a more active approach in that sense. And a complete overhaul of the core economy in the third iteration. Some better than others but I think overall the game has improved in its life cycle. Personally I would have preferred the old eco + some of the other stuff we’ve got
So really I don’t think there is a good approach to balance other than the base principle I mentioned. It depends what game you first put out. BW can be balanced with maps, because map architecture really does matter in how the factions interact. Maps aren’t irrelevant in WC3, but far less impactful than in BW. 1 base versus 1 base isn’t exactly uncommon in that game and with the lesser import of economic expansion that lessens how important maps are. Given how unit interactions are designed, the lesser numbers and the higher time to kill across the board, you also don’t have scenarios like ‘if you don’t have a tight choke and wall it, you die’ in that game. Sim-cities are still a thing but they’re not built around map architecture generally
|
Ways to to have a balanced game can include
- So many heroes/factions that they balance themselves (dota, LoL etc)
- Impossible to master mechanics such that the game gets harder the further ahead you get and skill reigns supreme (BW)
- A good map making community (BW)
- Regular map changes and patches, no meta will be around for long enough to really become established as imba (SC2)
Although Stormgate doesn't have any of the macro or control limitations of BW, it can still do better than SC2 in terms of maps. Maps are everything. huge variety of maps can work similarly to mobas having so many heroes it's self-balancing. Ideally, you end up in a state where different maps have different metas and viable builds.
Alternatively, the lower TTK of Stormgate could prove to be better for balance, if each fight feels like it gives the winning player 10% better chance, as opposed to sc2 where fights are often game ending, then those super sharp and exploitative builds (3 rax reaper, blink allins, soul train etc) will theoretically be less impactful.
I'll also say the disadvantage of making a modern RTS is that the internet allows players to share builds and watch games instantly. People will discover the optimum and imba builds 10x faster than they did in BW or WC3.
Take the beta for example, the PartinG build became the go-to for literally every IvV ladder game and felt unstoppable. Once Kiwian and Probe showed counters, 2 rax lancer became the go-to every game. The game will also feature a global ladder, so fewer region-specific metas as well. Granted we only had 1 ladder map.
|
|
|
So having a lot of factions/heroes does self balance then ? You have pick/bans for maps as well, it's the same idea. And Dota/LoL have over 100 heroes and only 5-10 bans.
And the map making community isn't some grand decider of balance. They make various maps based on the meta, and TOs get to choose which one they select for tournaments. If anything, TOs decide who the current favoured race is.
|
On April 24 2024 17:54 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2024 17:34 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote:
Hey guys,
Let's step back for a second, if you had to frame the problem of the "Competitive game balance" on a broader scope other than how a certain unit works or function.
Let's brain storm how can a game be balanced?
Surely, we are bunch of 1vs1 nerds who plays RTS, but what's stopping us having creative way to solve the whole balance issue, is not like we have not done it before?
What has worked in the past? And where are the disconnects from dev/player?
I will give a small hint, as I don't want to say too much from myself so that a brain storm from a white paper ended up being a brain storm that started with a stupid rabbit on the paper already. Something we all know SCBW was balanced by Kaspa with map editor, and there are tons of interesting thing have done in those regards in the past.
So, go on, use your wildest imagination and deepest knowledge from past experience, either state a balance tactic was used in the past that worked, or something that was tried and didn't work. Or an novel idea that has not been tried, maybe it could be cool to try it out? And please state a reason on why it worked or why it didn't work. It's okay you cannot figure out the why, we can do it together.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, take the stage with your mic. Do your best, let the community break your game and then fix where necessary. There’s really no other way. Even a savant isn’t going to be able to predict what hundreds of thousands of collective man hours are going to see people do with the tools provided. BW is a giant fluke of a game, it’s a few different decisions away from being utterly broken, but luckily those weren’t taken. Even still it does need maps to balance it in its modern form. WC3 had a few more patches but not a huge amount and hell watching games in 2024 it’s still mostly the same maps I played as teen WombaT. It’s even had a patch or two post ‘Remaster’ and actually I quite like some of the tweaks overall. SC2 has had ungodly amounts of patches, and a more active approach in that sense. And a complete overhaul of the core economy in the third iteration. Some better than others but I think overall the game has improved in its life cycle. Personally I would have preferred the old eco + some of the other stuff we’ve got So really I don’t think there is a good approach to balance other than the base principle I mentioned. It depends what game you first put out. BW can be balanced with maps, because map architecture really does matter in how the factions interact. Maps aren’t irrelevant in WC3, but far less impactful than in BW. 1 base versus 1 base isn’t exactly uncommon in that game and with the lesser import of economic expansion that lessens how important maps are. Given how unit interactions are designed, the lesser numbers and the higher time to kill across the board, you also don’t have scenarios like ‘if you don’t have a tight choke and wall it, you die’ in that game. Sim-cities are still a thing but they’re not built around map architecture generally
You're overlooking creep camps and creep patterns in WC3, hero levels often set the engagement decisions for the players and creep camps/patterns play a huge role in that. The creeps themselves (difficulty/risk), the items they drop, and varied creep routes often lead to the best games.
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On April 25 2024 02:27 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2024 17:54 WombaT wrote:On April 24 2024 17:34 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote:
Hey guys,
Let's step back for a second, if you had to frame the problem of the "Competitive game balance" on a broader scope other than how a certain unit works or function.
Let's brain storm how can a game be balanced?
Surely, we are bunch of 1vs1 nerds who plays RTS, but what's stopping us having creative way to solve the whole balance issue, is not like we have not done it before?
What has worked in the past? And where are the disconnects from dev/player?
I will give a small hint, as I don't want to say too much from myself so that a brain storm from a white paper ended up being a brain storm that started with a stupid rabbit on the paper already. Something we all know SCBW was balanced by Kaspa with map editor, and there are tons of interesting thing have done in those regards in the past.
So, go on, use your wildest imagination and deepest knowledge from past experience, either state a balance tactic was used in the past that worked, or something that was tried and didn't work. Or an novel idea that has not been tried, maybe it could be cool to try it out? And please state a reason on why it worked or why it didn't work. It's okay you cannot figure out the why, we can do it together.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, take the stage with your mic. Do your best, let the community break your game and then fix where necessary. There’s really no other way. Even a savant isn’t going to be able to predict what hundreds of thousands of collective man hours are going to see people do with the tools provided. BW is a giant fluke of a game, it’s a few different decisions away from being utterly broken, but luckily those weren’t taken. Even still it does need maps to balance it in its modern form. WC3 had a few more patches but not a huge amount and hell watching games in 2024 it’s still mostly the same maps I played as teen WombaT. It’s even had a patch or two post ‘Remaster’ and actually I quite like some of the tweaks overall. SC2 has had ungodly amounts of patches, and a more active approach in that sense. And a complete overhaul of the core economy in the third iteration. Some better than others but I think overall the game has improved in its life cycle. Personally I would have preferred the old eco + some of the other stuff we’ve got So really I don’t think there is a good approach to balance other than the base principle I mentioned. It depends what game you first put out. BW can be balanced with maps, because map architecture really does matter in how the factions interact. Maps aren’t irrelevant in WC3, but far less impactful than in BW. 1 base versus 1 base isn’t exactly uncommon in that game and with the lesser import of economic expansion that lessens how important maps are. Given how unit interactions are designed, the lesser numbers and the higher time to kill across the board, you also don’t have scenarios like ‘if you don’t have a tight choke and wall it, you die’ in that game. Sim-cities are still a thing but they’re not built around map architecture generally You're overlooking creep camps and creep patterns in WC3, hero levels often set the engagement decisions for the players and creep camps/patterns play a huge role in that. The creeps themselves (difficulty/risk), the items they drop, and varied creep routes often lead to the best games.
Aye this is true, also some interesting innovations like Aow creeping, or militia fast expos and viability differing depending on maps as well.
Truth be told I would have liked to see more RTS games experiment a bit and go the WC3 kinda route. It feels shortly after WC3 there were a few games that lifted a bit from it, albeit not as good and then things kinda reverted.
Or perhaps WC3 just completely nailed it too damn well!
|
On April 24 2024 17:34 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote:
Hey guys,
Let's step back for a second, if you had to frame the problem of the "Competitive game balance" on a broader scope other than how a certain unit works or function.
Let's brain storm how can a game be balanced?
Surely, we are bunch of 1vs1 nerds who plays RTS, but what's stopping us having creative way to solve the whole balance issue, is not like we have not done it before?
What has worked in the past? And where are the disconnects from dev/player?
I will give a small hint, as I don't want to say too much from myself so that a brain storm from a white paper ended up being a brain storm that started with a stupid rabbit on the paper already. Something we all know SCBW was balanced by Kaspa with map editor, and there are tons of interesting thing have done in those regards in the past.
So, go on, use your wildest imagination and deepest knowledge from past experience, either state a balance tactic was used in the past that worked, or something that was tried and didn't work. Or an novel idea that has not been tried, maybe it could be cool to try it out? And please state a reason on why it worked or why it didn't work. It's okay you cannot figure out the why, we can do it together.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, take the stage with your mic.
I care more about fun than I care about balance! Balance is obviously a huge factor in the longevity of an RTS as a 1v1 esport, but I don't know how much of the overall game that is. Most of the RTS I've enjoyed are far from balanced (Mammoth tanks and their variants are -fucked- in Red Alert, WC3 you can casually beat campaign missions with one hero, etcetc. Easier to name imba RTS than balanced ones).
So my answer for how to solve balance (right now) is to make the game fun as a higher priority than making the game balanced.
|
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at this time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
|
On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at the time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
I think you are contradicting yourself there? I'm pretty sure they created stuff like Banelings because they thought it was fun or cool instead of considering if these things could ever be balanced. I agree with you that at this point they shouldn't worry about balancing too much but they should definitely consider the "balanceability" in the unit design (and gameplay design in general).
|
On April 25 2024 07:54 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at the time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
I think you are contradicting yourself there? I'm pretty sure they created stuff like Banelings because they thought it was fun or cool instead of considering if these things could ever be balanced. I agree with you that at this point they shouldn't worry about balancing too much but they should definitely consider the "balanceability" in the unit design (and gameplay design in general).
It kinda gets lost in the wash of where design and balance overlap, as well as in the overall picture. Banelings, as far as I can tell, were at least in part a design response to terran MMM, as Zerg had no way of dealing with critical masses of bio outside of banes. It's also true that banelings are a fun design at least on one side of that equation, but I do think they were a design-response unit, similar to adepts or widow mines, and not purely a fun design.
With Ravagers as splash, banes are arguably redundant and could be removed, but I'm extremely removed from SC2 meta rn so I have very low confidence in that statement.
To your point, though, SC2 has no shortage of examples of designs that cannot be balanced, such as Warp Gates, Mothership cores, and the entire Protoss race (dont @ me bro). I think to Lunar's point, these are referred to as 'turds' and should just not be included outside of PvE noncompetitive experiences.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm 90% kidding - Protoss has a bunch of design flaws that historically kinda fuck it over, and that's not Protoss' fault.
|
On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at this time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
Well you'll be glad to know the devs have said that balance isn't something they're looking at until EA gets going, and that they're just trying to figure out what's fun and engaging.
The only reason the betas came out fairly balanced is because Monk was looking at balance on his own accord as he felt the community would enjoy the tests a lot more, and even then he said that balance occupied only a tiny fraction of his time.
It's actually very impressive the beta was as balanced as it was considering there was only 1 patch
|
On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at this time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
Hard disagree. Banelings and baneling counterplay is incredible fun to watch and play. They were a bit omnipresent at times especially vs Protoss, that is true.
|
On April 26 2024 16:53 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at this time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
Hard disagree. Banelings and baneling counterplay is incredible fun to watch and play. They were a bit omnipresent at times especially vs Protoss, that is true.
The game is build on anti boom mechanics. they have completely misdiagnosed the issue of sc2 and blaming it on ttk, now the whole game is just incredibly dull to watch.
|
|
|
On April 26 2024 17:41 KingzTig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2024 16:53 Harris1st wrote:On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at this time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
Hard disagree. Banelings and baneling counterplay is incredible fun to watch and play. They were a bit omnipresent at times especially vs Protoss, that is true. The game is build on anti boom mechanics. they have completely misdiagnosed the issue of sc2 and blaming it on ttk, now the whole game is just incredibly dull to watch. I find games being decided by one disruptor or widow mine shot incredibly dull to watch. Do you also find Brood War dull to watch because units don't blow up as fast and battles are longer? To each their own I guess. I find battles where players do back and forth actions and things other than pre-battle positioning mattering more fun to watch. Not to mention whether it is more fun to watch is a distant secondary concern to whether it is more fun to play and I definitely find it more fun to play.
|
On April 26 2024 17:41 KingzTig wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2024 16:53 Harris1st wrote:On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at this time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
Hard disagree. Banelings and baneling counterplay is incredible fun to watch and play. They were a bit omnipresent at times especially vs Protoss, that is true. The game is build on anti boom mechanics. they have completely misdiagnosed the issue of sc2 and blaming it on ttk, now the whole game is just incredibly dull to watch.
I don't disagree completely, but you may be looking at SC2 through rose-coloured glasses.
You remember the insane close TvZ games from Dream or Taeja where last minute splits had you on the edge of your seat, but forget the thousands upon thousands of ZvP games that were ended because of a baneling run-by blowing up a worker line. Peak SC2 is a spectacle, but less than peak SC2 sucks to watch and sucks even more to play.
In an ideal world, you can have fun splitting against banelings, and watch highlight clips from pros, but also not lose the game outright if you don't. The idea Stormgate is going for is that with higher TTK, you can still have flashy micro, but each instance will likely swing the game +/- 10%, and not 100%.
Think of it like "10 battles where the outcome of each swings the game by a small amount" vs SC2's "1 game ending battle after 10 minutes of build up". Not saying Stormgate has pulled that off yet, but that's clearly the idea behind it.
Take a game like counter strike, which has probably more highlight clips than any other esport. Everyone loves seeing pros hit ridiculous shots, and everyone feels great when they hit their shots themselves. But you don't lose the game completely if you miss or aren't looking, it takes 15 rounds to win for a reason.
|
On April 26 2024 22:31 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2024 17:41 KingzTig wrote:On April 26 2024 16:53 Harris1st wrote:On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at this time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
Hard disagree. Banelings and baneling counterplay is incredible fun to watch and play. They were a bit omnipresent at times especially vs Protoss, that is true. The game is build on anti boom mechanics. they have completely misdiagnosed the issue of sc2 and blaming it on ttk, now the whole game is just incredibly dull to watch. I don't disagree completely, but you may be looking at SC2 through rose-coloured glasses. You remember the insane close TvZ games from Dream or Taeja where last minute splits had you on the edge of your seat, but forget the thousands upon thousands of ZvP games that were ended because of a baneling run-by blowing up a worker line. Peak SC2 is a spectacle, but less than peak SC2 sucks to watch and sucks even more to play. In an ideal world, you can have fun splitting against banelings, and watch highlight clips from pros, but also not lose the game outright if you don't. The idea Stormgate is going for is that with higher TTK, you can still have flashy micro, but each instance will likely swing the game +/- 10%, and not 100%. Think of it like "10 battles where the outcome of each swings the game by a small amount" vs SC2's "1 game ending battle after 10 minutes of build up". Not saying Stormgate has pulled that off yet, but that's clearly the idea behind it. Take a game like counter strike, which has probably more highlight clips than any other esport. Everyone loves seeing pros hit ridiculous shots, and everyone feels great when they hit their shots themselves. But you don't lose the game completely if you miss or aren't looking, it takes 15 rounds to win for a reason.
My feeling of ttk is that while it can be increased a bit from Sc2, it is still essential that landing a good skillshot or doing a good micro trick feels rewading/good. E.g. dropping storms on marines to see them die feels great.
The core issue with ttk in sc2 has imo never been the ttk itself, but rather how much one small misclick changes the game win probability. If instead, losing a skirmish due to looking away for a second only changed the game win probability a few percentages due to a high defenders advantage, I think people would generally feel better with it.
|
On April 27 2024 03:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2024 22:31 Fango wrote:On April 26 2024 17:41 KingzTig wrote:On April 26 2024 16:53 Harris1st wrote:On April 25 2024 06:40 LunarC wrote:
I disagree that balance should be a topic of discussion at this time.
At the current stage a developer's priority should be to create systems that produce an interesting (ideally fun) experience and are able to support further additions as well as room for player discovery. If you don't, you create things like Banelings where no matter how you tweak the numbers the experience is still not enjoyable.
Balance is like polish. If you've designed a turd, you're just polishing a turd.
Hard disagree. Banelings and baneling counterplay is incredible fun to watch and play. They were a bit omnipresent at times especially vs Protoss, that is true. The game is build on anti boom mechanics. they have completely misdiagnosed the issue of sc2 and blaming it on ttk, now the whole game is just incredibly dull to watch. I don't disagree completely, but you may be looking at SC2 through rose-coloured glasses. You remember the insane close TvZ games from Dream or Taeja where last minute splits had you on the edge of your seat, but forget the thousands upon thousands of ZvP games that were ended because of a baneling run-by blowing up a worker line. Peak SC2 is a spectacle, but less than peak SC2 sucks to watch and sucks even more to play. In an ideal world, you can have fun splitting against banelings, and watch highlight clips from pros, but also not lose the game outright if you don't. The idea Stormgate is going for is that with higher TTK, you can still have flashy micro, but each instance will likely swing the game +/- 10%, and not 100%. Think of it like "10 battles where the outcome of each swings the game by a small amount" vs SC2's "1 game ending battle after 10 minutes of build up". Not saying Stormgate has pulled that off yet, but that's clearly the idea behind it. Take a game like counter strike, which has probably more highlight clips than any other esport. Everyone loves seeing pros hit ridiculous shots, and everyone feels great when they hit their shots themselves. But you don't lose the game completely if you miss or aren't looking, it takes 15 rounds to win for a reason. My feeling of ttk is that while it can be increased a bit from Sc2, it is still essential that landing a good skillshot or doing a good micro trick feels rewading/good. E.g. dropping storms on marines to see them die feels great. The core issue with ttk in sc2 has imo never been the ttk itself, but rather how much one small misclick changes the game win probability. If instead, losing a skirmish due to looking away for a second only changed the game win probability a few percentages due to a high defenders advantage, I think people would generally feel better with it.
Exactly.
Storm is the perfect example why it has always been a misdiagnosis.
You need positioning and extra skill demand for pulling good storm off.
The counter play is either prespread/vision and counter spell casters units like ghost.
Remember we used to have ht wrap prism storm drops?
Low Ttk is why marine drops against zerg so fun, you can shutter step into good position and snipe off banelings before getting out.
In sc2, the game is mostly determined by one or two big fights. These spells are what pushes the fight to swing heavily, but it isn't low ttk, it's the snowball from losing a fight.
A zerg can lose huge 200/200 army and trade relatively poorly but able to defend the follow up push because it has a high unit production rate.
Terran can lose a fight in late game and pull back to their PFs etc.
If you can reduce the snowball effect like the examples I given above, it wouldn't have been a major issue at all.
The game is all about tempo, and some play style especially thrive on it like bio mine. I think most players just don't understand when they lose the army and with it all the tempo, then blaming their loss on XYZ units.
Of course some units are frustrating, like mines being so powerful and cheap to produce, but which competitive game doesn't have something like this?
Dota is filled with overpowered heroes and items, that's where the fun is, when you actually start performing.
The biggest problem is SG increasing TTK and replace it with nothing. AOE has a longer ttk but it's never very dull with their resources system have them spread across the map naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
