|
On September 27 2015 12:03 andrewlt wrote: It feels like EA releasing a new version of Madden. The SC2 team just approached both the HotS and LotV expansion betas in a cowardly manner, clearly way too afraid of making any big changes. They just wanted to introduce new units while creating the least amount of work possible to rebalance the game.
EA charges full box price for each new edition of Madden. LotV is only $40 USD. Madden NFL now comes with a slew of tacked on microtransactions as well. So far, with Blizz you just buy the box and go.
http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-one/dlc/madden-nfl-16-ultimate-team-2200-points/123241
EA's last entry into the RTS genre was C&C4. How's that goin' ?
Comparing EA to Blizzard is silly.
|
United States1616 Posts
that raven speed buff lol. pretty sure it's only going to make ravens more elusive in end game sky death ball comps
|
If the execution of terran mule is easy then automate it because it's boring and adds unnecessary clicks to the game. I liked the no-macro booster option but since you don't get enough time to rebalance from Blizzard management then automate it.
|
The biggest problem with macro mechanics are that they artificially speed up the game and the time when you max out when there is no reason to. In Hots you could max out around 12 minutes and in Lotv around 6-7. The game could easily be slowed down by removing macro mechanics and changing hard counters like immortal vs roach. There would be so much room for harass and outplaying your opponent, you wouldn't max out in 6 minutes and the battles would last longer.
|
Of what we've tried so far, we believe the current version is the best version for Starcraft II, and we'd like to make the decision between this and potentially reverting the changes to HotS. Our team is leaning towards keeping this version right now, but we would love to hear your feedback before making the final decision.
People have given plenty of feedback about MM. I don't think honestly Blizzard needs any more feedback - it's clear they have selective hearing. I think it's pretty fruitless to keep giving opinions. Nov 10 is coming soon anyway.
|
On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D
first time i hear from it, sounds cool :o
|
The biggest problem with macro mechanics are that they artificially speed up the game and the time when you max out when there is no reason to. In Hots you could max out around 12 minutes and in Lotv around 6-7
This is easily adressed by either increasing the supply maximum or reducing supply cost of units.
If you want to minimize the snowball effect it's actually very important that the income rate/base-ratio is high. Otherwise it's gonna result in one battle --> GG.
In BW workers kept scaling so you could have very high income late game, but early and mid game were often times quite passive. With LOTV economy, the BW solution isn't possible and thus it's an absolute must that the income rate (throughout the entire game) is super high.
Reaching the supply maximum is however a seperate issue.
|
WP is the problem, If you move out on ..finishing stim or getting 2 medevacs... a single 200 Mineral WP can hold you back, even with no units in it. It has toe potential to warp in 6-8 Zealots or adepts or whatever, + what ever it is carriing already.
in 1:1 zealots/adepts kill Marines and Marauder pretty easy, not to mention what 4 adepts do to a mineral line.
So you have to go back, completely removing the chance of doing damage to a teching Toss.
|
Blizzard: "we've decided to make it faster"
Pretty much the solution to everything.
You could probably just reduce all unit movement speed a flat 10-15% and instantly improve the game.
Of the new units lurker and ravenger are fine but the rest stink. Adepts in current form will frustrate so many players that they will be nerfed in the first patch. Disrupter - why not have just added the reaver? No infestor rework. Cyclone not interesting, liberator could be ok but we know it will get nerfed too.
They went down such a good path like 2 patches ago and then it's like they were told Nov 10, panicked and just made HotS 2.0.
We never got to truly test macro mechanics with no mule, no chrono, no injects.
I hope they are willing to still make some bigger changes post release but I doubt it.
|
On September 27 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +The biggest problem with macro mechanics are that they artificially speed up the game and the time when you max out when there is no reason to. In Hots you could max out around 12 minutes and in Lotv around 6-7 This is easily adressed by either increasing the supply maximum or reducing supply cost of units. If you want to minimize the snowball effect it's actually very important that the income rate/base-ratio is high. Otherwise it's gonna result in one battle --> GG. In BW workers kept scaling so you could have very high income late game, but early and mid game were often times quite passive. With LOTV economy, the BW solution isn't possible and thus it's an absolute must that the income rate (throughout the entire game) is super high. Reaching the supply maximum is however a seperate issue.
Actually you can't reduce supply cost of units or increase the maximum supply, because a lot of the players do not have computers or internet connection that could handle the increase well enough.
I do not also agree with your conclusion that the income rate/base-ratio needs to be high. The game already has deathball vs deathball -> one battle = GG. We had less of the problem when the macro boosters were removed because people weren't able to max as easily. The game was more strategical and the individual units were more important. You are always going to lose the game if you decisively lose a big fight.
Also, the late game income would be same for Protoss & Zerg. So I can't see why there would be any effect on the remax. I guess lack of chrono would cause minor delay for the Protoss players, but nothing major. Especially if the power units had a slightly reduced build time.
|
On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D
How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery?
They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9.
People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone.
|
On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone.
then people would have to admit blizzard does a fantastic job.
|
On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone.
Well i am not sure if Artillery will be able to produce a good product on the technical side of things, but i have more faith in the design choices because i think Day9 knows what he is doing (moreso than blizzard's design team)
Maybe the end product will still suck because the people working on atlas aren't as capable, that is the most likely scenario tbh, but i just hope that won't be the case because LOTV is incredibly disappointing to me.
And no, why should i lower my expecations for a rts game? It's really simple, if i don't like the product i won't play (and maybe watch) it, idc if it is from blizzard, valve, riot or anyone else.
|
but i have more faith in the design choices because i think Day9 knows what he is doing (moreso than blizzard's design team)
What makes you say that?
And no, why should i lower my expecations for a rts game? It's really simple, if i don't like the product i won't play (and maybe watch) it, idc if it is from blizzard, valve, riot or anyone else.
You already lowered them, just not for Blizzard. Otherwise you wouldn't say the things you just said. You have 0 reason to believe Atlas will be good since they gave you nothing but talking.
Maybe Atlas will turn out to be great and the best RTS ever, but right now it's just a company that was trying to ride off of a hypewave around HTML5 and failed to deliver so far.
|
On September 27 2015 01:58 xtorn wrote:
meanwhile, ive (re)discovered the insane fun of dota 2
Until you realise how annoying it is to rely on team mates to play good as well. SC2 always wins out but dota is fun too.
|
On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone.
Day9 has shown much more understanding of SC2 and gamedesign than David Kim. Maybe DK has depth that he cannot/must not/doesn't not want to show. But his commentaries on SC2 are not very satisfying to me.
And I give Artillery the benefit of the doubt because of that one blog in which they wrote about solving core problems of RTS designs and testing all sorts of shit (they gave the example of a unit respawn mechanic). Meanwhile the other developer studios just sit there and advertise each of their rushed, no-funding, 2-week beta RTS games with "look how classic of an RTS game this is. You will feel like playing a 1995 game in 2015. Also, this is for the casual players, we don't want to go big. Look how sluggish this unit moves, it's perfect. You can't do shit with it. Now it's all about the strategy!!!!!"
|
On September 27 2015 21:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone. Day9 has shown much more understanding of SC2 and gamedesign than David Kim. Maybe DK has depth that he cannot/must not/doesn't not want to show.
What!? You think all those mechanics, tactics and scenarios analysed by Day9 are there by accident? "Oh hey turns out SC2 has incredible depth, and I was just making up units with my dice set."
No, sorry, this is just wrong. SC2 was designed by a very talented team and the only reason Day9 could've made such an incredibly good series (credit where credit is due) is that they are great game designers. Not all David Kim obviously, but all of the team. Including Dustin "Destructible Rock" Browder and all the jokes.
The reason we still are watching and playing this game is that these guys are really darn good.
But his commentaries on SC2 are not very satisfying to me.
Communication is sadly something Blizzard isn't very good at, but just because they don't talk about everything doesn't mean that they don't do it. If Game Designers would talk about everything they do, people would go apeshit since there are just SO many things people have to consider.
Also it's always tough if to develop an already established game that is set to release really really soon. Also Game Devlopment is not always just about what makes the best games for a big company. It's also about "What costs less money?" depending on the circumstances.
And I give Artillery the benefit of the doubt because of that one blog in which they wrote about solving core problems of RTS designs and testing all sorts of shit (they gave the example of a unit respawn mechanic). Meanwhile the other developer studios just sit there and advertise each of their rushed, no-funding, 2-week beta RTS games with "look how classic of an RTS game this is. You will feel like playing a 1995 game in 2015. Also, this is for the casual players, we don't want to go big. Look how sluggish this unit moves, it's perfect. You can't do shit with it. Now it's all about the strategy!!!!!"
See this is exactly what I mean. Because Blizzard is so bad at communication, better communication makes you lower your standards.
Artillery made a blog post you agree with and then you're all about him, even though they did nothing more than the companies you complained about.
Be realistic. When it comes down to facts, Artillery has nothing more to offer than all the rest. They even have yet to show any real gameplay in public.
|
The "big changes in LOTV" are starting to look like warpin got changed, a mineral patch was nerfed and a couple units were added. That being said, archon mode rocks so even with how conservative the changes were I still love the game.
|
On September 27 2015 21:57 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2015 21:48 Big J wrote:On September 27 2015 21:18 KeksX wrote:On September 26 2015 22:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On September 26 2015 22:12 weikor wrote:
Meh...
kinda glad it releases soon as its pretty obvious they won't do any more major changes. Im looking forward to completing the campaign and watching a few major.
Its just sad. I hope some great RTS from another company will release in the next years. I really like the genre
I still have hope for Atlas, even though i don't know much about it, but Day9 > Blizzard :D How many successful games has Day9 in his portfolio? And Artillery? They still have yet to prove that they are worth anything. The only thing they have shown so far is a HTML5 tech demo and a lot of talking by Day9. People have incredibly high standards for Blizzard, but their disappointment (due to high standards) results in almost 0 standards for everyone else trying to do RTS. How about lowering the overall standards and then just applying those to everyone. Day9 has shown much more understanding of SC2 and gamedesign than David Kim. Maybe DK has depth that he cannot/must not/doesn't not want to show. What!? You think all those mechanics, tactics and scenarios analysed by Day9 are there by accident? "Oh hey turns out SC2 has incredible depth, and I was just making up units with my dice set." No, sorry, this is just wrong. SC2 was designed by a very talented team and the only reason Day9 could've made such an incredibly good series (credit where credit is due) is that they are great game designers. Not all David Kim obviously, but all of the team. Including Dustin "Destructible Rock" Browder and all the jokes. The reason we still are watching and playing this game is that these guys are really darn good.
No I don't think that. But it would be incredible easy to improve the game at this point with 5years of knowledge. Ignorant opinions on stuff like damage point and plainly boring units designs... dat corruptor comment, wtf? That's all they can come up with? Give me an hour and I can come up with tons of more exciting abilities than peeing on buildings.
Shrugging of problems like mule-hammers or 200supply remaxes with "we hope it won't happen in LotV" and branding bad gameplay as "exciting and unique". + Show Spoiler +Did you see the WCS S1 finals video in which he talked about how he loved the mirror matchups, because they are so unique? Lol yeah, PvP and ZvZ are probably the most hated matchups by lightyears. If Starcraft only consisted of those two matchups, noone would play the game. That's how bad the gamedesign is in parts of the game. You have a 33% chance that the game is plain crap.
I really like this game, and I think Dustin Browder despite his obstinacy in certain questions was an amazing game designer for WoL. But HotS and LotV have not made any real progress. One could easily take the final state of WoL, make a hugeass balance patch like DotA does and get a game better than HotS and LotV combined, without any of the new units. + Show Spoiler +Probably in parts because of the amount of new units... A wise game designer once said that they want to make a game with a minimum amount of units. And they won't release 2more units per expansion. Maybe they will even remove some units. Dustin Browder. But they have basically abandoned that road completely at this point.
Communication is sadly something Blizzard isn't very good at, but just because they don't talk about everything doesn't mean that they don't do it. If Game Designers would talk about everything they do, people would go apeshit since there are just SO many things people have to consider. Also it's always tough if to develop an already established game that is set to release really really soon. Also Game Devlopment is not always just about what makes the best games for a big company. It's also about "What costs less money?" depending on the circumstances.
I can only judge them by what they communicate. And that's in parts horseshit. If they don't want to get judged like that they should try to make an effort. Again, pointing back to the most recent horseshit I already highlighted above, the corruptor ability, if their communication literally says the best recycle for the Corruptor, a unit that was identified in 2011 to be boring by Dustin Browder, then my opinion about those guys falls pretty fast.
On September 27 2015 21:57 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +And I give Artillery the benefit of the doubt because of that one blog in which they wrote about solving core problems of RTS designs and testing all sorts of shit (they gave the example of a unit respawn mechanic). Meanwhile the other developer studios just sit there and advertise each of their rushed, no-funding, 2-week beta RTS games with "look how classic of an RTS game this is. You will feel like playing a 1995 game in 2015. Also, this is for the casual players, we don't want to go big. Look how sluggish this unit moves, it's perfect. You can't do shit with it. Now it's all about the strategy!!!!!" See this is exactly what I mean. Because Blizzard is so bad at communication, better communication makes you lower your standards. Artillery made a blog post you agree with and then you're all about him, even though they did nothing more than the companies you complained about. Be realistic. When it comes down to facts, Artillery has nothing more to offer than all the rest. They even have yet to show any real gameplay in public.
I always trust in blizzard to make a good game. They did. But they probably are putting rocks in their own way at this point with SC2, trying to not change the game while trying to change the game. Their vague talks about "the next RTS game" they plan to make have sounded much more inspired than their plans for SC2. It sounds like they have ideas, but they can't or don't want to implement them in SC2.
Oh and btw Day9 has made a name for himself on Youtube and as a gaming-personality. Whether this makes him a great gamedesigner I don't know, but I also don't know if we can say that David Kim is a good game designer for what SC2 is. The awesome parts of it seem to date back before he was the big man in charge.
|
On September 26 2015 08:29 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 08:12 -NegativeZero- wrote:On September 26 2015 06:59 [PkF] Wire wrote:On September 26 2015 06:57 Espartaquen wrote:
Economy please, economy, why are you so stubborn David, why? Why? Why? no more time. Give up on that, they're not changing the eco. I think sadly they think their warpgate change is great too. the only real problem is specifically with the warp prism warp-in being too strong. and isn't that problem huge ?
it's easy to adjust the warp prism warp-in independently of the actual warpgate. aside from that, the warpgate mechanic is significantly better than it used to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
