|
On October 04 2015 12:53 ( bush wrote:
I still can't understand how an unit such as the oracle is in the game.
Your op rushes an oracle, you didnt rush a turret? GG.
I mean, you should be able to micro your way out of bad situations, like a skilled CS GO player can win a round in a 3vs1 scenario. But against oracles, there's no microing against an oracle rush. You just straight up die. A meaningless win for one and a frustrating loss for the other. And that's just one out of many examples.
Blizz tried making a spellcaster harass unit for Protoss.
The players asked for it to do damage instead of slow mineral intake.
Blizz listened to the players.
The players got punished by getting what they asked for.
|
On October 04 2015 13:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 12:53 ( bush wrote:
I still can't understand how an unit such as the oracle is in the game.
Your op rushes an oracle, you didnt rush a turret? GG.
I mean, you should be able to micro your way out of bad situations, like a skilled CS GO player can win a round in a 3vs1 scenario. But against oracles, there's no microing against an oracle rush. You just straight up die. A meaningless win for one and a frustrating loss for the other. And that's just one out of many examples. Blizz tried making a spellcaster harass unit for Protoss. The players asked for it to do damage instead of slow mineral intake. Blizz listened to the players. The players got punished by getting what they asked for.
I am not quite sure if you are serious or not
|
On October 04 2015 10:40 MrBarryObama wrote:
Starcraft is not about fun. It's about being as difficult and intricate as possible so that when I say, "I play Starcraft," people think I'm smarter than them. It's certainly not about esports, because the most popular sports are simpler and enjoyed by all. Starcraft is a contest to master in lieu of enjoyment and real productivity.
wut?
I hope that's sarcasm because such commentary is beyond delusional.
|
On October 04 2015 13:27 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 13:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 04 2015 12:53 ( bush wrote:
I still can't understand how an unit such as the oracle is in the game.
Your op rushes an oracle, you didnt rush a turret? GG.
I mean, you should be able to micro your way out of bad situations, like a skilled CS GO player can win a round in a 3vs1 scenario. But against oracles, there's no microing against an oracle rush. You just straight up die. A meaningless win for one and a frustrating loss for the other. And that's just one out of many examples. Blizz tried making a spellcaster harass unit for Protoss. The players asked for it to do damage instead of slow mineral intake. Blizz listened to the players. The players got punished by getting what they asked for. I am not quite sure if you are serious or not
A little bit of both. If you recall, the Oracle's initial design was *specifically* that it didn't deal any kind damage. It was meant to be a mobile spell caster that annoyed hampered the opponent's efficiency at the cost of APM. Players asked for it to actually deal damage and not just turn off minerals. So we have the Oracle of today. ( bush was asking who would design the Oracle we have today. The answer is players--since Blizz's actual Oracle design was the opposite of what it is today.
|
On October 04 2015 15:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 13:27 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2015 13:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 04 2015 12:53 ( bush wrote:
I still can't understand how an unit such as the oracle is in the game.
Your op rushes an oracle, you didnt rush a turret? GG.
I mean, you should be able to micro your way out of bad situations, like a skilled CS GO player can win a round in a 3vs1 scenario. But against oracles, there's no microing against an oracle rush. You just straight up die. A meaningless win for one and a frustrating loss for the other. And that's just one out of many examples. Blizz tried making a spellcaster harass unit for Protoss. The players asked for it to do damage instead of slow mineral intake. Blizz listened to the players. The players got punished by getting what they asked for. I am not quite sure if you are serious or not A little bit of both. If you recall, the Oracle's initial design was *specifically* that it didn't deal any kind damage. It was meant to be a mobile spell caster that annoyed hampered the opponent's efficiency at the cost of APM. Players asked for it to actually deal damage and not just turn off minerals. So we have the Oracle of today. ( bush was asking who would design the Oracle we have today. The answer is players--since Blizz's actual Oracle design was the opposite of what it is today.
Well yeah i remember these mineral forcefields. I am just not sure if people asked for "after 5 seconds there are no workers anymore" dmg :D
|
To be honest tho, those mineral bubbles were the most embarasing piece of game design I've seen.
|
On October 04 2015 16:25 NukeD wrote:
To be honest tho, those mineral bubbles were the most embarasing piece of game design I've seen.
Why? Although unsuccessful blizzard was trying to create non-worker income harassment.
|
Underwhelming post - what a bunch of bullshit. I cant even believe Teamliquid lets it stand as it is -_-
Why not remove every threat from the game or to your economy and armies all together? The game balance needs to be balanced for the highest level and will always be balanced on the highest level if it supposed to be an eSports title. Casuals are important for the game but its not important that every casual can master the game. Thats why they are casuals. They can have fun in different aspects of the game.
As a casual in other shit , you can enjoy watching and being in awe of what the top notch progamers can do. When you see INnoVation defend its front door while also fighting of a warpprism dt warpin in the back. You cant do it - it might be frustrating for you but realisticly spoken - you cannot balance mistakes.
Casuals will always be weak in some aspects or all aspects of the game. There is no way to balance out a person not building a turret, not sliding his workers or simply not using the tools the game provides. There is no SOLUTION to being bad. Its not bad or wrong to not be good at the game, but please step away from wanting to FORCE BALANCE for your level.
Also - your suggestions are really terrible.
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
On October 04 2015 16:53 NarutO wrote:As a casual in other shit , you can enjoy watching and being in awe of what the top notch progamers can do. When you see INnoVation defend its front door while also fighting of a warpprism dt warpin in the back. You cant do it - it might be frustrating for you but realisticly spoken - you cannot balance mistakes.
Casuals will always be weak in some aspects or all aspects of the game. There is no way to balance out a person not building a turret, not sliding his workers or simply not using the tools the game provides. There is no SOLUTION to being bad. Its not bad or wrong to not be good at the game, but please step away from wanting to FORCE BALANCE for your level.
no need to balance players. Just balance the game. And design it to be fun and playable for anyone, not only for 24/7 ones. Players mostly prefer to have fun rather than being a pro.
|
On October 04 2015 18:53 i_am_Nite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 16:53 NarutO wrote:As a casual in other shit , you can enjoy watching and being in awe of what the top notch progamers can do. When you see INnoVation defend its front door while also fighting of a warpprism dt warpin in the back. You cant do it - it might be frustrating for you but realisticly spoken - you cannot balance mistakes.
Casuals will always be weak in some aspects or all aspects of the game. There is no way to balance out a person not building a turret, not sliding his workers or simply not using the tools the game provides. There is no SOLUTION to being bad. Its not bad or wrong to not be good at the game, but please step away from wanting to FORCE BALANCE for your level. no need to balance players. Just balance the game. And design it to be fun and playable for anyone, not only for 24/7 ones.
People fail to realize _balance for everyone_ means balance at the highest level. If tools for aggressor and defender are provided and you can defend with equal effort to the attacker or in some cases a little more or less effort due to either defenders advantage or maybe an allin - it is balanced.
If on a certain level the strategy is too strong its due to the lack of abilities of the opposing player. You cannot 'balance' that. Thats why balance needs to be at highest level. Fun comes from being GOOD at it. 1 versus 1 games are often times frustrating and not super fun because its competition, its hard and it needs to be like that. The fun comes from getting better, being better. Its a learning experience.
Like... a lot in life. If you play table tennis and lose all the time its no real fun either; humans dont enjoy losing, they enjoy winning. Ofcourse you can also lose a game and have fun but its true for Starcraft 2 as well. Do I have fun getting cheesed and screwed? No. But I can lose a macro game and have fun in it even though I prefer the win. If you get the impression it is imbalanced its your mindset that is holding you back , not balance. In case of the beta right now that might be true as far as balance issues go , but for HOTS you can look at the highest level and you will always be able to tell that the loss comes from your mistakes. That is not elitist opinion, that is a matter of fact. A master level player will always capable of doing more, defending more or making more use of something compared to a gold league level player and that player will always feel like something is not fair even though he simply treats it wrong.
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
look at sc1 or other cybersport games - they was FUN at 1st, and then when ppl like to play it - comes tourneys and appear pro-players. And then games just balanced around fixes what is broken.
So FUN > Balance at any level. And currently there are no fun in sc2 but lots of frustration. There are no pros (koreans too) who dont missplays every game for many times.
No need for game to be hard to compete - you must chellenge other players rather than the game. Game must be just a tool to play with others. And as any other tool - it must be handy and with no frills (macro mechs is).
|
On October 04 2015 19:21 i_am_Nite wrote:
look at sc1 or other cybersport games - they was FUN at 1st, and then when ppl like to play it - comes tourneys and appear pro-players. And then games just balanced around fixes what is broken.
So FUN > Balance at any level. And currently there are no fun in sc2 but lots of frustration. There are no pros (koreans too) who dont missplays every game for many times.
Broodwar was WAY harder compared to Starcraft 2. It was simply MORE BALANCED. Thats why it was more fun. I played broodwar for 10 years and was professional in it. It was really frustrating to lose, but you always KNEW why you lost. It felt different from Starcraft 2 - DUE TO BALANCE.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 04 2015 11:00 i_am_Nite wrote:
sc2 is not about how good players are, but who of them less missplays. It's not fun for an advanced viewer and most of players who get it. But some players think they are awesome no matter at what level they play.
Also sc2 is hard to understand for new players and noobie viewers - macro is'n simple enough with macro-mechs and limit-cost-effectivness. And fights and micro isn't simple too - it's full of "who do it first" and "scisors-paper-rock" moves. Not fun too.
dota, lol, cs is hard enough at pro level, but players enjoy it because this hardness is complex of simple things. They can learn them, dust them, understand them and combine them into something larger. Sc2 just full of already hard mechanics which can't be separated into smaller ones: split, mass casts, macro-mechs, etc. You need to dust them before u get understanding of matchup or all game yourself.
LoL is actually the game where i see the most people by far complaining about the game being relatively easy and winning teams "throwing" games. It's mostly just the dunning-kruger effect
Broodwar was WAY harder compared to Starcraft 2. It was simply MORE BALANCED
BW was less balanced than sc2 in many ways and that balance came through map adjustment and no patches changing any unit or stat for a decade of high level play. Should we have been playing WOL all of this time with nothing but map changes in order to simulate this? I don't think so.
|
Russian Federation66 Posts
On October 04 2015 19:23 NarutO wrote:
Broodwar was WAY harder compared to Starcraft 2. It was simply MORE BALANCED. Thats why it was more fun. I played broodwar for 10 years and was professional in it. It was really frustrating to lose, but you always KNEW why you lost. It felt different from Starcraft 2 - DUE TO BALANCE.
maybe it requires more apm, but it was easer to play. It was about how many u CAN DO while sc2 is how many U MISS. Bw was hard by it's UI and it's complex macroing (coz of ui), while sc2 comes with much friendly UI and pathing but the temp of the game, hard counters, game-ending harass, extreme economic with fast 200/200, few-second battles - it's full of out of control things.
|
On October 04 2015 19:45 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 11:00 i_am_Nite wrote:
sc2 is not about how good players are, but who of them less missplays. It's not fun for an advanced viewer and most of players who get it. But some players think they are awesome no matter at what level they play.
Also sc2 is hard to understand for new players and noobie viewers - macro is'n simple enough with macro-mechs and limit-cost-effectivness. And fights and micro isn't simple too - it's full of "who do it first" and "scisors-paper-rock" moves. Not fun too.
dota, lol, cs is hard enough at pro level, but players enjoy it because this hardness is complex of simple things. They can learn them, dust them, understand them and combine them into something larger. Sc2 just full of already hard mechanics which can't be separated into smaller ones: split, mass casts, macro-mechs, etc. You need to dust them before u get understanding of matchup or all game yourself. LoL is actually the game where i see the most people by far complaining about the game being relatively easy and winning teams "throwing" games. It's mostly just the dunning-kruger effect Show nested quote +Broodwar was WAY harder compared to Starcraft 2. It was simply MORE BALANCED BW was less balanced than sc2 in many ways and that balance came through map adjustment and no patches changing any unit or stat for a decade of high level play. Should we have been playing WOL all of this time with nothing but map changes in order to simulate this? I don't think so.
Imbalances on both sides made the balance as well as you pointed out the maps. So overall Broodwar was the more balanced game.
|
On October 04 2015 20:08 i_am_Nite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 19:23 NarutO wrote:
Broodwar was WAY harder compared to Starcraft 2. It was simply MORE BALANCED. Thats why it was more fun. I played broodwar for 10 years and was professional in it. It was really frustrating to lose, but you always KNEW why you lost. It felt different from Starcraft 2 - DUE TO BALANCE. maybe it requires more apm, but it was easer to play. It was about how many u CAN DO while sc2 is how many U MISS. Bw was hard by it's UI and it's complex macroing (coz of ui), while sc2 comes with much friendly UI and pathing but the temp of the game, hard counters, game-ending harass, extreme economic with fast 200/200, few-second battles - it's full of out of control things.
Broodwar was a shit ton harder to play. All of the named stuff for Starcraft 2 makes it easier to play. You could have perfect macro and multitasking in broodwar was well, but you needed to do a lot more for it. If I want to spend 1000 minerals in Sc2 - I select my buildings with 1 key and build - in broodwar I select every building individually and build the unit.
I agree that hard counters and the faster pace of the game make for situations that are very unforgiving - those are not fun but they wont be changed without completely reworking the game.
|
On October 04 2015 20:08 i_am_Nite wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 19:23 NarutO wrote:
Broodwar was WAY harder compared to Starcraft 2. It was simply MORE BALANCED. Thats why it was more fun. I played broodwar for 10 years and was professional in it. It was really frustrating to lose, but you always KNEW why you lost. It felt different from Starcraft 2 - DUE TO BALANCE. maybe it requires more apm, but it was easer to play. It was about how many u CAN DO while sc2 is how many U MISS. Bw was hard by it's UI and it's complex macroing (coz of ui), while sc2 comes with much friendly UI and pathing but the temp of the game, hard counters, game-ending harass, extreme economic with fast 200/200, few-second battles - it's full of out of control things.
Which, precisely, doesn't make SC2 harder to play, but simply untameable/volatile
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 04 2015 20:13 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 19:45 Cyro wrote:On October 04 2015 11:00 i_am_Nite wrote:
sc2 is not about how good players are, but who of them less missplays. It's not fun for an advanced viewer and most of players who get it. But some players think they are awesome no matter at what level they play.
Also sc2 is hard to understand for new players and noobie viewers - macro is'n simple enough with macro-mechs and limit-cost-effectivness. And fights and micro isn't simple too - it's full of "who do it first" and "scisors-paper-rock" moves. Not fun too.
dota, lol, cs is hard enough at pro level, but players enjoy it because this hardness is complex of simple things. They can learn them, dust them, understand them and combine them into something larger. Sc2 just full of already hard mechanics which can't be separated into smaller ones: split, mass casts, macro-mechs, etc. You need to dust them before u get understanding of matchup or all game yourself. LoL is actually the game where i see the most people by far complaining about the game being relatively easy and winning teams "throwing" games. It's mostly just the dunning-kruger effect Broodwar was WAY harder compared to Starcraft 2. It was simply MORE BALANCED BW was less balanced than sc2 in many ways and that balance came through map adjustment and no patches changing any unit or stat for a decade of high level play. Should we have been playing WOL all of this time with nothing but map changes in order to simulate this? I don't think so. Imbalances on both sides made the balance as well as you pointed out the maps. So overall Broodwar was the more balanced game.
Not in every way and again as said, because it wasn't patched for a decade. If you want a game that isn't patched for a decade, Starcraft 2 can't recreate that feeling until probably 2022-ish~
|
I like your intro OP and much of your post,
totally agree with you on the larva thing, hellion firebat thing, and generally about your suggestion for simplifying units by removing an ability. They made too many "hero" units in SC2 which have potential to deal massive damage if you let it just.. reach the require situation & range. They tend to break the game unless you hard counter them. This simplifies the game instead of making it more complex. Simplifying units makes the game more complex, and if they are well designed, with fine tuning on their movement and all characteristics, they then assume a more complex role, they will adapt to situations because they are not tailored to just "fire their laser" in that situation where they break the game. And situations last a while and can be resolved many different ways with different things. That's what starcraft really is.
|
On October 04 2015 20:15 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 20:08 i_am_Nite wrote:On October 04 2015 19:23 NarutO wrote:
Broodwar was WAY harder compared to Starcraft 2. It was simply MORE BALANCED. Thats why it was more fun. I played broodwar for 10 years and was professional in it. It was really frustrating to lose, but you always KNEW why you lost. It felt different from Starcraft 2 - DUE TO BALANCE. maybe it requires more apm, but it was easer to play. It was about how many u CAN DO while sc2 is how many U MISS. Bw was hard by it's UI and it's complex macroing (coz of ui), while sc2 comes with much friendly UI and pathing but the temp of the game, hard counters, game-ending harass, extreme economic with fast 200/200, few-second battles - it's full of out of control things. Broodwar was a shit ton harder to play. All of the named stuff for Starcraft 2 makes it easier to play. You could have perfect macro and multitasking in broodwar was well, but you needed to do a lot more for it. If I want to spend 1000 minerals in Sc2 - I select my buildings with 1 key and build - in broodwar I select every building individually and build the unit. I agree that hard counters and the faster pace of the game make for situations that are very unforgiving - those are not fun but they wont be changed without completely reworking the game.
Yeah brood war being easier to play than SC2, that's just funny. Not quite, it is way harder and more complex. SC2's main point of difficulty is knowledge of hard timing attacks & counters. In Bw there is more creativity, harder and more complex micro and macro. You have to keep thinking a lot more while you play, instead of follow the usual plan up to the last detail including how many of which unit at which second. It is not like that, it always depends on what happens in this particular match you are playing, you must change details, and of course that is harder and more fun, it's not just fixed knowledge execution. It is faster paced because there is generally more things going on on the map at a time or on a larger area and battles last longer so your attention is constantly demanded kind of everywhere, that's the main reason why you need more APM. I'm drawing this a bit hard against SC2, I know SC2 has some of those characteristics Starcraft has it is not zero but it is much less than is usually said I think, and they happen a lot more rarely in games whereas it is all the time in Starcraft. When I played SC2 I stopped when I realized every single game of it I played was less good than every single game I play in Starcraft. (I was in Master league, I'm about a B in Starcraft).
Tbh I think in Brood War if we would add building selection & production in groups like Starcraft 2 and also automine, it would save some time and make it just a bit more practical while not making the game much easier. I don't have any problem at all with group building select & prod in Starcraft 2, or automine, and I would say neither with being able to group all army in 1 group. Cause like OP said I really agree with that, its not about how many clicks but having a lot of clicks which are also decisions. If I hit 5Z6Z7Z8Z to produce 4 zealots I have made the same decision than if I hit 5ZZZZ so the latter system is better. It does not bring any limitation. Useless key hits go away. They should patch this into bw. The rest of the game is very hard anyway so we would just those extra little seconds on other things, and it would allow macroing out of more than 4-5 gates in mid game from a distance better and keep managing other things better... it won't make us suddenly be perfect. If anything being allowed time to think as well is definitely a good thing lawl. We have to remember they patched the rally point for buildings being doable with just right click instead of R + left click like 10 years after the game came out. This was a good change, it is a useless key hit. For pretty much the same reason I vouch for automine completely. Also I think the reason why 1A works too well in Starcraft 2 is because of the weak positional/movement game. If you implement 1A in Starcraft "noobs" will stop having headaches trying to move their army, and better players will still want to select smaller groups for positioning and for being able to select individual units in the UI at the bottom (so they would want to keep a 12~16 max group so as to have big enough squares to see & click fast at the bottom).
I don't believe Starcraft 2 has any chance of recovering of all the design faults it had from the start, and also I don't believe that Blizzard will ever be able to make great games again, they are a machine that responds to producers/shareholders now and all the skills are long gone, so it can't be a Starcraft 3. So, I think to play and improve Brood War... or some other game, or a Starcraft 3 if a skilled team is allowed to take the "rights" ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
