|
On November 03 2015 10:25 Hider wrote:
Lol seriously I just read that I was the only one so far who have responded to his actual suggestion. I guess most people here are just on the blind circlejerk with the logic:
"OP wrote a lot and seems smart + LOTV sucks = OP is awesome".
The main issue with OP's suggestion is that he consistently wants to promote more micro that everyone during the LOTV beta realized they don't like (clicks for the sake of clicks) whereas he ignores the importance of movement based micro. Just goes to show the lack of critical skills of the average commentator on this thread.
There is no point in discussing actual suggestions as long as these suggestions don't come from blizzard or someone who could make blizzard listen.
I know you like to propose actual suggestions yourself a lot, but tbh it's pointless. General design ideas are more interesting to discuss.
edit:
On November 03 2015 10:30 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2015 10:25 Hider wrote:
Lol seriously I just read that I was the only one so far who have responded to his actual suggestion. I guess most people here are just on the blind circlejerk with the logic:
"OP wrote a lot and seems smart + LOTV sucks = OP is awesome".
The main issue with OP's suggestion is that he consistently wants to promote more micro that everyone during the LOTV beta realized they don't like (clicks for the sake of clicks) whereas he ignores the importance of movement based micro. Just goes to show the lack of critical skills of the average commentator on this thread. Or rather the actual suggestions he makes are secondary to the point. The main point is to examine the game to find its faults, and examine why that is the case. The OP doesn't even need to make any suggestions - though it can't hurt. When you delve deep enough into why certain elements are bad for the game, it becomes easier to target those elements with a focused design change. His suggestions would be a first draft if anything. But please, continue to smugly put down an entire population for no obvious reason.
Exactly this
|
I don't understand these posts. Do you guys really think that Blizzard is going to do a full 180 and change every mechanic of SC2? Game design takes time and experience. It's not as simple as you think. The forcefield changes you proposed would require a complete re-write of how the Protoss race works.
This is just pointless gish gallopping, there is such a variety of points you bring up that it's not even worth it to try and debate, and so instead the only people who respond are people writing "Yea I agree 10/10 post".
|
On November 03 2015 10:25 Hider wrote:
Lol seriously I just read that I was the only one so far who have responded to his actual suggestion. I guess most people here are just on the blind circlejerk with the logic:
"OP wrote a lot and seems smart + LOTV sucks = OP is awesome".
The main issue with OP's suggestion is that he consistently wants to promote more micro that everyone during the LOTV beta realized they don't like (clicks for the sake of clicks) whereas he ignores the importance of movement based micro. Just goes to show the lack of critical skills of the average commentator on this thread.
I agree with you. Everyone loves to be a backseat game designer. Why can't Starcraft 2 just xyz? Where xyz is some completely unneeded change which would completely redesign the game only wanted by armchair game designers. Half the praise for OP is followed by "Didn't read the whole thing but you sound right, 10/10 OP thanks for saving SC2".
|
On November 03 2015 13:19 wandroid wrote:
I don't understand these posts. Do you guys really think that Blizzard is going to do a full 180 and change every mechanic of SC2? Game design takes time and experience. It's not as simple as you think. The forcefield changes you proposed would require a complete re-write of how the Protoss race works.
This is just pointless gish gallopping, there is such a variety of points you bring up that it's not even worth it to try and debate, and so instead the only people who respond are people writing "Yea I agree 10/10 post".
You picked a fine reason to start posting here.
We know Blizzard isn't going to turn the ship around. They never were. They probably had everything set to go this way with the launch of Wings of Liberty, you can tell from how they justify even their most questionable design decisions that those decisions were made beforehand, and nothing was going to change.
What I am not going to do, is stop voicing my opinion and just wave all this through. It will be the way it will be, I won't change that, but my opinion will be known. My right to express my feelings about this game are not going to be stymied by someone who posts to say just how much they don't get it. If you'd like to contribute something to the real discussion at hand, you're free to do so, but you haven't done yet.
|
Man, you should make a MOD of it, like StarBow, if it is good enough people will play it (well, the lack of ingame ladder sux anyway but maybe in the future we can get it for the Arcade)
TBH I lost faith on Blizz, and while I am not playing SC2 right now (StarBow anyways) because I am playing other thing (GW2 HoT <3 ), I think this is the time for modders to improve the game, and there is no way Blizz can change huge things from now on.
|
Make a mod of this otherwise it's all theory. In the history of SC2 we've seen plenty of people claim their version of SC2 is better but once it's tested reality doesn't always matchup. StarBow may be the only real successful mod to come from people claiming to make a better game than SC2 but you have plenty that sucked.
Make this a mod, publish it and we'll see which is better and which the fans want to play, a theory is only a theory until it's tested.
|
Did anyone else notice tonight that Blizzard announced they are buying Candy Crush? Basically it really shows where their priorities are IMO. Internally, I think they honestly don't really care about LotV and just want to get the project over with.
They could really invest the resources into making StarCraft great if they wanted to, but instead they're going after the mobile gaming market--which may be a good business decision, to be fair. The Blizzcon 2015 SC2 prize pool is like ~$250k, and they're spending billions of dollars for Candy Crush.
|
first, thank you for taking the time for such a complete and well thought out post.
unfortunately at this point in time (production) it only makes me want to not play LOTV...
|
There is no point in discussing actual suggestions as long as these suggestions don't come from blizzard or someone who could make blizzard listen.
I know you like to propose actual suggestions yourself a lot, but tbh it's pointless. General design ideas are more interesting to discuss.
In that regard, OP's 10K words are also pointless because nothing of it is gonna happen, but you can still have a discussion. My little vent had nothing to do with discussion suggestions or not. Instead, my point is the ridiculous circlejerk where people hate X and then they see Y that is the opposite of X, and love every single thing about Y.
Since noone actually seemed to comment on the specifics, it semes that I am the only one who actuall critically read what he wrote.
But ofc I overall agree with his philsophy that LOTV could have been so much more. But rewarding more clicks for the sake of clicks is not turning LOTV into a better game.
StarBow may be the only real successful mod to come from people claiming to make a better game than SC2 but you have plenty that sucked.
All the "great" stuff came from BW from BW numbers, design and balance. In terms of new innovative stuff, what is "succesful" about Starbow?
Mods don't work; partly because the arcade is bad, but also because the designers of the mod aren't competent + cannot work full time on it.
|
A good amount of these changes can be done in the SC2 Editor.
If it's something you want and think would improve the game, then make it. Show us, don't just tell us.
|
Warpgate is a fucking upgrade, why SHOULDN't it be better than Gateway?
|
On November 03 2015 23:10 DinosaurPoop wrote:
Warpgate is a fucking upgrade, why SHOULDN't it be better than Gateway?
I think for example if you have the option of not researching warpgate @start of game and still use gateways effectively, and if once warpgate is researched you get the warpin ability but the cooldown on warpgate is the same as the unit build time in normal gateway (or even, more!), we could get a more interesting game with choices about that at start. Sometimes you would not research warpgate right away in order to save some money for another tech.. (increase warpgate research cost to 100/100 or 50/125 or something, so sometimes you'd go citadel or robo first or some upgrade..). If you manage to get a balance where there is still an incentive to actually keep some gateways because they produce faster or something else, you could have Protoss games where the player chooses not to transform some gateways into Warpgates. And sometimes switch gateways between Warpgates and not Warpgates back. It could be bring more choices for deeper strategic games. Maybe, for example, the warpgate can't warp-in all of the gateway units (no templars or DTs, for instance). But of course then the amount of things to rebalance then is accross the whole game, would definitely reduce the DPS of almost everything (mostly attack speed) so things are more durable and more microable. (zealot definitely remove charge and probably give legs upgrade again). I would really like that sort of things.
I liked the Warpgate/warpprism idea on paper quite a bit, but not really its implementation in practice, it lacks choice and gateway units are really meh on their own in SC2 so you can't do that many different stuff on the map with it.
About Chronoboost, I actually also liked the idea on paper, and again not so much its implementation which I found messy. Am I right it is still on Nexus costing 25 energy and giving +50% speed ? I would like it better if you get only one chronoboost per nexus which stays where it is, you just switch it around when you want (no energy cost), and for the effect I would maybe reduce it a little, like +33%. Maybe even make Chronoboost be cast only on pylons, and affect everything that the pylon powers, by a smaller amount like +20% or less. Definitely remove spawn larva so Zerg must plan numbers and position of hatcheries again and make those larva matter more off of more bases, less workers more bases.. I would change so many things. I think Stalker I would give blink a much longer cooldown and strengthen the stalker stats. Could be a stronger attack but longer attack cooldown. The Immortal idea I kinda like but with a less specialized role. Colo I would either remove it or give it an non-AoE, single target strong laser attack, perhaps a overtime attack resembling the laser beam of sentry but with more DPS (remove void ray). ForceField either removed or with a larger energy cost (double), it is way too dominant and imposes itself to situations for too long.
The creep spreading for Z, also like this idea on paper, again I don't like the implementation. I don't like that it costs energy off queens and the little tumors are very quickly killed. The energy cost makes it too easy to spam tumors, and they are killed so quick. I don't like that creep increases speed of Z units on it. I like that it is used for moving sunkens around, and I would add regeneration of life for Z units multiplied by 2 or 3 on creep (something that matters a lot out of battle and perhaps still significant in battle too) but not speed increase, and make units like hydras 1 supply 75/25 cost different stats and faster with probably a speed upgrade. And for spreading creep, something like a building that is burrowed but takes longer to kill, with a small mineral cost like 25, built by queen maybe. I would keep the queen in the game I think and that would be perhaps the one unit that can't walk fast off creep and used for defence and keep the life infuse ability probably. Would change a lot of things, everything in fact, and give Starbow's pathing to SC2 definitely (that's a crucial point).
For Terran some change done to MULE to counterbalance, maybe remove it or allow only 1 mule at a time per command center... I would definitely remove the marauder concussive shell ability which totally breaks the engagements cause you must not get in range of it unless you know you won't want to retreat, I really dislike that. Tbh I would change a lot of things on T bio, medivac make his army way too mobile the movement and positional game on map is too much reflex and don't get caught. Tank strong again. No widow mines, but perhaps spider mines sure. A mine that it doesn't matter if you lose some, not costly, and not so strong and not hitting more than once per mine. So T lays mines on larger areas again. Or something different. Don't like hellions mechanically, the way they are microed no... lots of things I don't like but I liked the idea of having reactor/tech lab being switchable between fact starport and barracks, that's what I liked on paper but then ended up disliking cause of the units.
|
On November 03 2015 23:10 DinosaurPoop wrote:
Warpgate is a fucking upgrade, why SHOULDN't it be better than Gateway?
It is better in the fact that it warp anywhere. I agree with OP on this one. What if the gateway production was faster than warpgates but warpgate allows you to warp in anywhere at an increased cost.
|
On November 04 2015 00:02 Martinni wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2015 23:10 DinosaurPoop wrote:
Warpgate is a fucking upgrade, why SHOULDN't it be better than Gateway? It is better in the fact that it warp anywhere. I agree with OP on this one. What if the gateway production was faster than warpgates but warpgate allows you to warp in anywhere at an increased cost.
Yes :D
maybe we should actually start thinking of making a mod :D
I think we can make something good lol :D
and the nice thing is, we could reduce art-work a lot which is HEAVILY time consuming, cause there is a lot of decent art in the game already. Change some things, maybe some voices and animations but we could really focus mostly on a whole large rebalance/redesign while still keeping some of the basic essence of the new ideas of SC2.
On the topic of animations, one thing I would DEFINITELY change is the Terran building when they are flying, don't let them change direction fast like this it is atrociously stupid looking!! Just let them keep their orientation like in starcraft, they can be same speed or a bit slower so switching around does mean losing a bit of effective time for that building.
|
On November 03 2015 19:59 Gowerly wrote:
A good amount of these changes can be done in the SC2 Editor.
If it's something you want and think would improve the game, then make it. Show us, don't just tell us.
It's not a bad idea, but it is possible to both show and tell. A post like this is a great way to compile all your ideas and give yourself direction, it's a good outline of what you will be trying to do. Modding SC2 is a huge undertaking, if I were to tackle such a thing I wouldn't want to be without direction, that's asking for failure.
|
On November 03 2015 18:22 Hider wrote:
In that regard, OP's 10K words are also pointless because nothing of it is gonna happen, but you can still have a discussion. This is very wrong. Discussing general concepts is awesome, very interesting and hardly pointless. You take away so much when comparing BW/SC2/Starbow/WC3 about general concepts of strategy and game design. It doesn't matter at all if Blizzard correct their mistakes. On the other side talking about particular suggestions like whether bunker build times should be +-5 second could be pointless because Blizzard won't change it, but more importantly it won't give you any other understanding of the game.
|
On November 04 2015 01:36 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2015 18:22 Hider wrote:
In that regard, OP's 10K words are also pointless because nothing of it is gonna happen, but you can still have a discussion. This is very wrong. Discussing general concepts is awesome, very interesting and hardly pointless. You take away so much when comparing BW/SC2/Starbow/WC3 about general concepts of strategy and game design. It doesn't matter at all if Blizzard correct their mistakes. On the other side talking about particular suggestions like whether bunker build times should be +-5 second could be pointless because Blizzard won't change it, but more importantly it won't give you any other understanding of the game.
I never suggested any +5 BT suggestions. I analyzed the flaws in his suggestions and a made a few counterproposals (on a general level)..
This was just the RedViper making a weird response that didn't make any type of sense given what I responded to and now you are continuing the discussion based on absolutely nothing.
Please read the posts to understand the context before you claim other people are wrong.
|
I agree with mostly all of your thoughts...
Sc2 could be so much more but, without trying to sound pessimistic or anything, it's current metagame is brutally boring.
People just try to max out on the strongest composition, any race in any matchup. It's all about getting the strongest 200/200 deathball and winning one decisive fight, even as zerg. There are some small expections where you make harassing units (phoenixes, muta) to allow you to get an economic advantage. I feel like those are great, but defending now is getting easier and easier. 3-4 turret in the main with a few widowmine, a bunker behind a depot wall and mine at the third... You have to be far ahead to invest into breaking those defenses.
I'm not complaining, I still enjoy playing and I'll always do, but the game has grown in a direction that I do not support.
One of the issue is that splitting your army is nearly impossible. I was thinking about that the other day. The reason every map has such a pocket third base is that it's impossible to defend high ground position with minimal units like it is in Brood War.
On Fighting Spirit, let's say, as Terran, when you take the third, you wall off the 2 ramps, you put 2-3 turrets with the same amount of tanks, a few mines, a bunker, and that expo is safe for a long time. The protoss has to recall on it or stasis the tanks to get through.
In star2, if you split your units to defend a key location, the full force of your enemy will just stomp your small force. There is no effective trading here. 3 tanks in bw can defend a location and trade efficiently, until being taken out, even against a 200/200 army, because it's not moving in a fucking ball, so the time they reach the tanks, the force has taken considerable damage.
Just food for thought on this Tuesday morning.
Cheers m8s
|
For that starbow and other mods exists!
|
On November 04 2015 01:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 01:36 Tuczniak wrote:On November 03 2015 18:22 Hider wrote:
In that regard, OP's 10K words are also pointless because nothing of it is gonna happen, but you can still have a discussion. This is very wrong. Discussing general concepts is awesome, very interesting and hardly pointless. You take away so much when comparing BW/SC2/Starbow/WC3 about general concepts of strategy and game design. It doesn't matter at all if Blizzard correct their mistakes. On the other side talking about particular suggestions like whether bunker build times should be +-5 second could be pointless because Blizzard won't change it, but more importantly it won't give you any other understanding of the game. I never suggested any +5 BT suggestions. I analyzed the flaws in his suggestions and a made a few counterproposals (on a general level).. This was just the RedViper making a weird response that didn't make any type of sense given what I responded to and now you are continuing the discussion based on absolutely nothing. Please read the posts to understand the context before you claim other people are wrong.
What about Viper's response makes no sense? You came into the thread and wasted no time stirring the shit and blowing smoke up your own arse, and he explained why your post isn't needed. So did I. This is a discussion about general design and where Blizzard failed in those areas of design, to further our understanding of the game in a substantial way. Arguing about specific solutions to a problem is a bridge this discussion doesn't intend to cross - because to truly solve a problem you must first identify the exact parameters of the problem. It's all about analyzing the design of the game and what makes it feel like it's becoming less fun to play. You can strip away all of the suggested changes in the OP and it still stands as a strong analysis of SC2's weak points, as a piece of design. You're barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
