EPTLotV Beta - TL Strategy first impressions - Page 5
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On April 05 2015 19:47 Teoita wrote: But it's not just those that are later, it's every single thing. Stim, upgrades, blink, charge...it's all different. I don't think you can expect to adjust a couple of things only. It's not an issue of "zerg is imbalanced", it's an issue of "we have these numbers for a specific economic model, and they all need to be changed for any other economic model". I mean, I would think that if the barracks builds in 50 seconds instead of 65, that stim would come 15 seconds earlier? (or maybe not, I've never played terran) | ||
|
berkston
6 Posts
so any/all of these things are what i wish starcraft had ---- given equal mechanical skill between two players: -- -the winner is almost always determined by better thinking -- lucky wins are a fluke, not a common thing -there is no "meta" in competitive play, if a player were known to follow such trends they would most likely lose, making it actually impossible to ever reach highly competitive play by only emulating others/doing what is "strongest" or "the only viable option vs. such and such" or whatever -there is none of this "well he went this so i had to do this", or "well he was protoss and always goes blah blah so ive gotta go blah", but instead a dynamic, open ended game. -a less than ideal engagement does not end the game, there needs to be opportunity to use quick wit and unexpected, stuff to come back from significant deficit... i dont know like sacrificing the queen, or mel gibson spearing the horses in braveheart, that kind of stuff, to tenaciously earn the right to win. basically anything that would make it more of a showcase of strategy and skill, rather than just skill and preparation. i'm not saying i think starcraft isn't a strategy game, i just wish it seemed more like a mental battle, and less of a technical/mechanical one... it seems impossible, and i can't even imagine a game that fits all of those criteria but personally i'd do this: -more buildings/units -certain units only for certain matchups - since what's the point of them all being balanced equally with their full arsenal if there's no such thing as a zerg protoss terran 3 person professional free for all, if a unit just doesn't have a place in a matchup, or is somehow the clear single best choice to win it is removed from that matchup - no fog of war, -much slower resource collection, rest stays same speed -situational need to sacrifice/more reasons to distract/mislead/trick opponents -more significant attribute bonuses, like the light/armored bonuses, but more specific/critical, like in pokemon, certain things should be weak as crap like a grass vs fire type pokemon, similarly two rock based guys will just butt heads for a while while with little effect, and can't be hurt by electabuzz at all -less emphasis on abilities, more emphasis on attributes -more interactivity on maps, like areas you can't fly, or like that one map during campaign where the lava would come up every 5 minutes, maybe storms that weaken certain units, areas that slow, regions with magnetic interference, less sight, naturally occurring localized fog of war, more topography, higher areas out of sight/range bonus, tunnels, valleys, etc. i rant, but that's the game i wish i had. and i know you can't go too far towards the slower-pure strategy side of the game-spectrum or you'll end up with a turn based strategy, but starcraft is going even further in the opposite direction, which makes me upset. i love the game and watching the professionals because i have lots of respect for the focus/talent required to do what they do. i just wish i could see a game that could showcase more than that, where we could see the most truly creative, strategic, mechanically talented, genius players doing things that could not be predicted, where like in world championship chess players are described as "aggressive", or "defensive", or unpredictable, but never "oh he likes to go something pylon before expanding then he'll usually gas up blah and at 20 supply do this". that's not strategy, that's waiting to see who has a better engagement or if someone will get enough kills with their oracle that they're ahead enough that they will most likely win. i wish i wanted to play again to explore possibilities of the game, to invent a way of doing something that hasn't been done before, and similarly watch at every tournament how pros pull out new tricks and see games that don't always remind me of two games i saw earlier that same day. i know this is stupidly impossible to accomplish, but i felt like a good rant. and i know a lot of what i said is highly opinionated and a lot isn't necessarily accurate, but rather how the game makes me feel.... i hope that makes sense. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
| ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
Sure, it could all go horribly wrong. On the other hand, I think TheDwf's analogy with Blitz chess is a dangerous oversimplification. Chess is turn-based. Removing thinking time between moves while still requiring moves would be akin to playing SC2 on 2x or 4x or 8x speed, and that's not what's happening here. It still takes time to move armies, it still takes time to traverse the tech tree. Yes, the way bases dovetail into strategies is going to change. But I don't see that necessarily being a change for the worse when the dust settles. I can easily envisage a more rolling economy translating into more rolling battles. If securing bases is more strategically important than saturating them, giving yourself that buffer to sustain production so that the next expansion isn't instantly do-or-die - well, you're going to have to plan ahead and you're going to need an army - and the extra starting workers can help with that. Absolutely, things will need to change. Larva inject might need to be nerfed to account for the fact that bases come up quicker and provide additional supply (so fewer larvae into overlords). I could well imagine making Ravagers require an extra building or a roach warren upgrade (not lair, though; that's already overcrowded) to take the sting out of early rushes. Overall, I'm willing to wait and see what happens. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
8882
2736 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
From what I've read, some threads on TL propose alternative mining scaling mechanics that seem really desirable. I'd like Blizzard to at least think about those and not touch base lifetime. And also, wtf with the "daed game luck based" attitude in this thread? First, the OP isn't that dramatic, so stop agreeing that the game is dead because OP doesn't say that. And second, while I think TheDwf's words were certainly harmoniously put together, I hope people won't be as pessimistic as he is. His post stayed overly general and consensual, not really the type of feedback Blizzard is looking for, that much I can imagine. Edit: Ok actually let me change my mind a bit on the 12 worker thing. I think that what Blizzard intended was only to cut the downtime at the start of every game, which is an objective everyone should agree with. They probably could have opted for another solution however. Like giving more starting minerals. This would have made the starting 1 base economy less explosive, but upgrade timings have to regardless be looked at if you want to skip the boring worker building phase at the start of the game. | ||
|
Blizzkrieg
95 Posts
..or is it just something to appease the viewers of the game? I've been against the 12worker start since it's original proposal. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
On April 05 2015 22:56 Blizzkrieg wrote: Are more starting workers something the players actually asked for..? ..or is it just something to appease the viewers of the game? I've been against the 12worker start since it's original proposal. I'm pretty adamant 12 is overdoing it and will snowball in big proportions. | ||
|
Blizzkrieg
95 Posts
On April 05 2015 22:58 [PkF] Wire wrote: I'm pretty adamant 12 is overdoing it and will snowball in big proportions. I'm glad someone agrees... I did a search on the blizz forums and couldn't find a single post where someone actually said anything along the lines of "yeah I'm bored with the early game and think starting with 12 workers as opposed to 6 would fix that!" Shoot, I'd be all for trying out a 4 worker start. The bases would still mine out around the 9-10min mark. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46355 Posts
He was talking about how disruptors are very strong, but not broken-strong, because players haven't yet learned how to dodge them properly. He talked about how to easily deal with disruptors that get dropped in your mineral line. He noted that disruptors were as large as archons, so if you just keep one static defense building (turret/ spore/ spine/ cannon) in the center of your mineral line, disruptors can't run past it (they'd have to take the long way around the mineral line... around the back). And so if a warp prism drops a disruptor in your mineral line and the disruptor gets activated, you merely have to send your workers to the opposite side of your static structure for a few seconds, and you won't lose workers or much mining time at all (because the disruptor can't chase them properly). Thoughts? | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
| ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
Also we know that many RTS gamers shun sc2 in favour of C&C, Total War, TA style games...because in these games mechanics are less of a factor and rightly or wrongly grand strategy plays a greater role in them. Strategy in them is fun. You can do many things and not instantly lose. Try playing a logical "as you like it" game in sc2 and you'll get rolled by the optimal strategy that you scouted and lost to, or cheese that you did not scout in time. LotV does not need a time bomb to force people to expand or lose. Neither does it need forcefield destroyers (although sentries should be dearer and more powerful to compensate), insta burrowed roaches at 5 minutes into the game, long ranged missile tanks that kite with ease, teleporting BCs etc. It needs to emphasise economic control, giving players a wide variety of 2 base builds, 3 base builds, slowly progressing to a 6 or 7 base endgame just like in BW. Multitasking and micro are cool to watch but it is okay as they are because artificially inflating the APM floor is the worst, most uncreative, least fun way of bringing players into the game. Instead they should consider weakening AOE and/or spreading out units more, and provide solid space control units to all sides. Perhaps 1 more spellcaster per side that provides unique buffs and specialised abilities without being hard counters. Capital ships should be game enders. Perhaps even including 1-2 limited tech tree and research choices just like in the campaign would allow players to make meaningful decisions and stamp their style on the game. In short: more strategic options in units upgrades, more thinking, more spatial control, more time in the middlegame, more economy management, less mechanics, less gimmicks, less counters, less dancing around avoiding engagements, no free units. | ||
|
plotspot
800 Posts
Basically turn rock-paper-scissor into an RTS game and making sure that first of all players have enough time to think, play and counterplay. The best player to do so will win, deservedly. So I wholeheartedly agree with TheDWF's aspect about time. Not giving a player enough time to turn paper into a rock in order to beat scissor will be deadly to the game. 100%. The 2nd aspect is to make the rock-paper-scissor interaction more flexible, which means for example that rock will not always beat scissor, all depending on certain variables. That's what Starcraft actually does, the variables here being numbers, positions, micro. Any decision Blizzard makes (like adding new units or changing the economy) must not destroy the possibility of counterplay by either cutting on time or flexibilty. | ||
|
Dekalinder
Italy169 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
2003 Posts
TBH, I believe HotS will feel slow and awkward after a few games of LotV. I am pretty sure I will not miss the first minutes of current games, where I generally just spam 123456 to warm up and every caster try to kill time and hype "oh... that zerg goes hatch-pool and the other pool-hatch for...lets wait and see..." With the right tweaks, I think the game will improve a lot. There were not that much skill involved in the super-earlygame anyway imo. | ||
|
DoD_SymphoniC
14 Posts
Also, the article is excellent and I look forward to a more in-depth look at the new economic models. | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9447 Posts
On April 05 2015 08:05 Whitewing wrote: In brood war, Flash was considered average to slow on APM, he was nowhere near the fastest player around, but he was the best, specifically because APM wasn't nearly as important as you think it is. And nobody wants ESPORTS to be exactly like sports, if you want that, just go outside and play soccer (football to non-Americans) I think what your doing here is a bit deceiving. In this context, APM clearly refers to mechanics. Mechanics are withtout a doubt superimportant in BW, and Idra was quoted as saying that Flash had the best mechanics in BW as his mouse predicision and effective APM was amazing. For instance, if July hadn't done his muta-micro tricks (which Blizzard never intended) the game wouldn't be what it is. And if Blizzard actually had studied how moving shot worked in BW, we could have had it in Sc2 without it being a coincidence. Look, you can through intelligent design create great micro interaction. But its not that easy, and the Sc2 development team has historically not been able to do that. Why not? Because they basically only tweak one variable.... Damage. Its like they have one programmer who creates a unit and then he tells David Kim to balance it. David Kim then plays it a bit and adjust damage up or down if its UP or OP. Okay, that's very rough, but you gotta wonder how on earth they are so relucant to tweak variables such as damagepoint, range and movement speed on so many units. There is so much micro potential to be unlocked in the game if Blizzard just decided to look at more than the damage variable. On the other hand, I think TheDwf's analogy with Blitz chess is a dangerous oversimplification. Chess is turn-based. Removing thinking time between moves while still requiring moves would be akin to playing SC2 on 2x or 4x or 8x speed, and that's not what's happening here. It still takes time to move armies, it still takes time to traverse the tech tree. I agree here. Reading his comment felt like the Emperors new Clothes. Long ramblings about the economy and how Blizzard doesn't understand anything while trying to sound intellectual and give analogies, but in the end there really wasn't much substance. Without a doubt the game could use more periods and action and an an economy is one potential tool (if you do right). | ||
| ||
