Another posting with over-the-top negative criticism.
"It's loyal customers since Brood War. Catering to casuals and dumbing down the the game is not the way to go - RTS, by definition, is not a genre for casual play."
The loyal customers still can play Brood War. A Brood War remake would cater to those. To justify high development costs, you need to cater to a larger audience.
While some parts of SC2 are arguably "dumbed down", other parts are "dumbed up". Overall, SC2 is a game which requires an incredible amount of practice to be recognized as a player. It also manages what BW never could: Attract new players in sufficient numbers to make Starcraft esports events viable in the western world.
Yes, but that is beside the point. When you pick a Quake 2, you don't expect to pick up Quake 3 and learn that you have to use jetpack instead of walking through corridors. Some of the gameplay elements have to be same or very similiar to what is already in the previous game, otherwise you are not working to establish a franchise. Even so much hated CoD doesn't change its formula, yet people still play it. Is it a good game or not is not the point.
A Brood War remake will not happen until the development of 3 announced expansions and following targets of sales are achieved. One company don't make and release 2 games of the same genre at the same time, especially if those games are meant to be long lasting - and in true RTS fashion, it is an opposite of CoD games.
Some of the most thrilling aspects of Brood War have been stripped down. There is less small things that can give you small advantages in the game like drone vs scv micro - those small things that can separate players are gone, instead, we have more significant "do it or die" moments, and more of the "one battle decides it all". We had it all the way back in WoL with the Vortex. The game is volatile. It is unfriendly to noobs with half patches, 12 worker start and dozens of active abilities for each race.
Allied Commanders and Archon mode is definately an improvement, and this is one of the things that keep the hype despite the overall feeling about the state of the multiplayer. Same with announced ladder improvements.
Of course there will be more new players. The same would happen if we had a BW HD edition as well. Over the course of last 10-15 years the percentage of computers and internet connection in households have increased - from around 20% in 1998 to around 70% in 2010, also, computer is not only used for work and you don't have to share it with 3 brothers and sisters - it is perfectly normal that we have more players/gamers then what we had years ago. Blizzard pumped some serious money on advertising and sponsorship. The game is popular but that is normal. Games and gaming is more popular then ever. Fallout 4, Witcher 3, CoD games etc. - those are popular games, but because they are either focused on single player or simply not deep enough in CoD case, they are not e-Sports, but they still attract new players. Also, the popularity of SC2 can be attributed to popularity of SCBW, you cannot deny that. SC2 is a newer game - it is only logical that it will attract more people.
D2 was definately a better game then D3 when it came out in its messy state and no PvP. I'm sure that it also sold better, but that is the same principle as the one with BW and SC2.
If you want to argue, pick something that has been pointed out by me as bad design or negligence in balance, and tell me for example, what is the benefit of having super strong harassment because of stats instead of super strong harassment because of players skill (for example 3 Hellions 1-shotting 10 workers vs 4 Vultures being able to snipe 10 Probes while dodging Dragoons and laying mines). Unless you don't want to argue about things like that, which will only mean that you wanted to whine about someone disagreeing with your view of "you so perfect LotV, hail Blizzard". Don't tell me to go back and play Brood War - I was promised a worthy successor to BW, and I didn't get it because the design team doesn't know what its doing half the time. I want to play a competitive RTS with design principles of BW, not W3 in space or some twisted Starcraft with gimmicky, almost C&C elements.
On November 07 2015 00:53 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Yes ok maybe I exagerrate a bit but you know what I mean no? It is very common to see a ball just stim attack one way or the other repetitively. If you do get caught in a bad situation it can be game ending so that prevents a lot of smaller engagements to even happen. It's something I really didn't like playing WoL. But OK.
What you are describing is micro. Making the same 2-4 actions repeatedly using dexterity to gain tactical advantage. Micro is good, and should be encouraged more.
But there is no difference between Silver and Grand Master player performing stutter step with MM ball. Marauders ability slows down units without any input from the player. You can't dodge it, or escape it. Once you decide to retreat or regroup, all the units affected by Concussive Shells are going to be destroyed. No matter how much better you are then your opponent, you lose more in the engagement. Maybe your force was split in two, maybe it was on the move and you want to get into better position. In any case, you will lose some units because you cannot save them from the automatic slowing effect. This creates the situation when you want to be absolute sure you can engage the Bio ball and win the fight - which does not encourage fighting, quite the opposite.
I think this is what ProMeTheus is saying.
Yes, and to respond to Thieving Magpie I expect much more in micro than "making the same 2-4 actions repeatedly using dexterity to gain tactical advantage". It is true that most of the micro in SC2 is like that (I remember Ret saying "there is no micro in SC2" when SC2 came out), there is a bit of room for better things but it is not like this in BW. You have many ways to engage and play out battles. Many ways to position units, move some of them some place, feint threaten hide or retreat. You have more choice, so that it is more tactical decisions and not just dexterous.
On November 10 2015 04:51 ProMeTheus112 wrote: [...] The reason why Blizzard is not capable of doing intelligent design today like you said and I agree with you, is, I think, not because they have never been, it is because it is simply not the same company as before. Almost everybody is gone, and now they work with much bigger teams on a much more industrial model that target financial goals with little risk. Creativity and smart design is very complicated to organize in such a situation, and brings a greater sense of financial risk. They have likely hired people such as Dustin Browder for his ability to appeal to masses rather than to make a great RTS, that is exactly what the later C&Cs are. Big nukes and powerful-looking units.
You have no idea what you are talking about, it's embarassing.
On November 07 2015 03:57 BronzeKnee wrote:The problem is, Blizzard controlling the game is almost always universally bad because they destroy the beauty of the game. And unfortunately that is because Blizzard fails to understand how to design a beautiful game. Broodwar wasn't balanced by intelligent design, it became balanced unintentionally with things like Muta-stacking were discovered. But Blizzard couldn't control Broodwar for fear of ruining it with bad game design choices. And we know they would have ruined BW now, because we've seen what they've done with Starcraft 2.
I don't agree with the part were you say bw "became balanced unintentionally with things like Muta-stacking were discovered". Before Muta-stacking was discovered, Brood War was already a great game and it was great because of its intelligent design. Sure the developpers never expect players would play so fast and micro the way they did, but if you look at the numbers and general mechanics in the game they are very accurately laid out and give lots of possibilities. There are a lot of numbers and mechanics in the game which were never changed after release, most of them. The design of BW is very intelligent and I really think it is the primary reason why it shined so bright and is so fun to play. Muta Stacking, in my opinion, though it changed match ups quite a bit, is not really a good thing in BW. It provokes ZvT to almost always go muta harrass at start, and allows mutas to snipe templars or probes very easily unless P has enough corsairs, for instance. It is too hard to counter Mutas with something else than corsairs in PvZ because of this, even though the game was designed intelligently with goons being a good all rounder to use against them, and archon very strong, but he can't catch up with any mutas because they are in a ball (if he does, mega damage ; similarly with storms it is risky to try it because mutaball can dodge it quite easily but if not, mega damage). In my opinion, this bug is not good for the game, but it is not possible or intelligent to try and forbid it. I think the game would be better without it, and the most creative days of BW date from before this bug entered the arena. Something that pins the early game down strongly in ZvT means that there are less diversity for the midgame as well. And ZvZ is the one true problem match up in the game, where muta battles are very central... I guess a lot probably won't agree with me about that. But anyway the game was definitely great and well balanced before muta stacking came into use.
The reason why Blizzard is not capable of doing intelligent design today like you said and I agree with you, is, I think, not because they have never been, it is because it is simply not the same company as before. Almost everybody is gone, and now they work with much bigger teams on a much more industrial model that target financial goals with little risk. Creativity and smart design is very complicated to organize in such a situation, and brings a greater sense of financial risk. They have likely hired people such as Dustin Browder for his ability to appeal to masses rather than to make a great RTS, that is exactly what the later C&Cs are. Big nukes and powerful-looking units.
I don't really like the myth to be perpetuated that BW was this wonderful designed game. It had a lot of issues that people are willing to look over because the other portions of it were good enough. This is true for all designs--as in the goal is not to design everything right, but to have enough good stuff that the bad stuff doesn't seem bad.
For example: Bio play in TvP and TvT. Essentially non-existent in BW because mech play was OP. But since mech was fun to watch--no one minded that they were a bit OP compared to bio. Muta play is OP in BW ZvZ, and really dictates a lot of how that plays out. But there was +15 to bio buff to compensate for it like they did in SC2. Why? Because players were not given the option from the get go--they did not (as a population group) feel that it was ever correct to attempt to fix BW. In SC2, the developers gives the player base so much sway and that sway has been the cause of all the issues in SC2.
Naracs_Duc, I completely agree with you about Bio play being essentially non-existent in TvP and TvT in BW being a shame and that if there were a little more room for it that would probably be better (remember the early days in early 2000s we were seeing sometimes, quite rarely, marines play from pros in the midgame in TvP, even rarely in TvT I have seen a marine army^^ or tricky marine rushes with bunkers on that map). I think it is alright if some matchups priviledge a set of units/tech style to an extent but if room can be given to most things at least in a range of situations/possibilities it is better. Diversity is very good in a strategy game. I also agree with Muta being too strong and the problem it brings in ZvZ and to an extent in ZvT. I have written about this before : it is true that BW's balance is not perfect. But even though it is not perfect, it is still great, and mech play in particular in many ways is very solid, interesting and brings a lot different things happening. I really love PvT! It is a great example of a match up where T plays with just 2 then 3-4 units, and yet has a high complexity and never happens the same because the design and mechanics allow for a lot of room in different plays. You also don't just build mech in the same way, you can go about it in a lot of different ways (one important reason is because defender advantage is very real especially with mech, so you have more choice in what to build). I don't know what you mean about +15 to bio buff, no such thing in BW? Marines have always been 40hp 6 damage 50minerals, firebats or medics have also never changed as far as I remember. I think in SC2, mech is generally not satisfying, the positional game has been lost altogether bringing a lot less tactics, tanks are not good, hellions are a poor unit compared to vultures for the reason that Nazara said, Thor is pretty much about can you have enough when they are cost effective... People would want mech to be better because it fails to be as interesting, and also I think because bio play is quite annoying and too straightforward. It damages too fast, is too mobile, very very ball-y, microed in a repetitive way, and dies way too fast to some AoEs, bringing more volatile straightforward play. On top of that Marauders discourage possibilities of engaging, and moving within battles. Generally ball-y armies in SC2 mean AoEs are very strong and it is a core of AoEs being such an important tool to win battles and the game being so volatile. Because of bio is so ball-y, I think people would like to play more mech. And, it is probably hard to make tanks strong in this situation because a high-range strong little AoE attack would wreck hard. The pathing must be changed for the game to be better, but then everything has to be changed as well. That is my opinion.
On November 10 2015 04:51 ProMeTheus112 wrote: [...] The reason why Blizzard is not capable of doing intelligent design today like you said and I agree with you, is, I think, not because they have never been, it is because it is simply not the same company as before. Almost everybody is gone, and now they work with much bigger teams on a much more industrial model that target financial goals with little risk. Creativity and smart design is very complicated to organize in such a situation, and brings a greater sense of financial risk. They have likely hired people such as Dustin Browder for his ability to appeal to masses rather than to make a great RTS, that is exactly what the later C&Cs are. Big nukes and powerful-looking units.
You have no idea what you are talking about, it's embarassing.
Ok so according to this site, 50 people who worked on BW also worked on SC2. I didn't know this thx for the info. But I think my point about the large team and financial/industrial model is a very important cause. Even if I am wrong about something doesn't mean I have no idea what I am talking about, I did witness at some point around after WoW coming out people left blizzard, who said they had worked on Starcraft, funding ArenaNet and others. Of course not everyone is going to stay but I don't know the details exactly of who stayed and what role they have had on both games. Interestingly there are 38 left for HoTs as opposed to 50 for WoL. Don't know how many for LoTV ? And the way that blizz worked on games has changed a lot, the size of the company is completely different too, at some point I remember reading articles saying they hired a lot of people and headcount was so much higher, that was after WoW came out too I think.
Glad you made the effort to check the link. Here is the important nugget of info : the lead designer on SC:BW (Rob Pardo), was Design Director on SC2:WoL. What that means is that the guy who actually made the game that some worship so much, in fact validated everything about the design of the game they so despise saying non-sense like : "why didn't they hire good designers for SC2 ?". Ultimately it's the same people making the calls.
But you are right I went a little rough on you On to your point : yeah Blizzard teams probably do have different constraints now than then. However saying because of that they are not capable of doing "intelligent design" is incredibly arrogant and dismissive of the real reason those people do games : out of passion.
On November 11 2015 00:42 Kerm wrote: Glad you made the effort to check the link. Here is the important nugget of info : the lead designer on SC:BW (Rob Pardo), was Design Director on SC2:WoL. What that means is that the guy who actually made the game that some worship so much, in fact validated everything about the design of the game they so despise saying non-sense like : "why didn't they hire good designers for SC2 ?". Ultimately it's the same people making the calls.
But you are right I went a little rough on you On to your point : yeah Blizzard teams probably do have different constraints now than then. However saying because of that they are not capable of doing "intelligent design" is incredibly arrogant and dismissive of the real reason those people do games : out of passion.
Yeah ok you are right the wording "not capable of doing intelligent design" is a bit arrogant/dismissive I'll try to watch it lol :p generally when I say blizzard I mean the company as a corporate entity and not the people who work in it. Because I don't think they get nearly as much room to express themselves anymore for what I have read, though I am not in the company. But I have read short interviews about that on Daeity's blog for example, there was an anonymous artist explaining his job was to draw specific buttons that he was told to draw.
it was good man, but it got closed down after he said he received threats He usually backed his info with good references and accurately predicted some things. He had a few insider sources (apparently). Blizzard never commented on it but threads that linked to it on the forums were deleted, which points that at least some of what he wrote was probably true.
On November 07 2015 03:57 BronzeKnee wrote:The problem is, Blizzard controlling the game is almost always universally bad because they destroy the beauty of the game. And unfortunately that is because Blizzard fails to understand how to design a beautiful game. Broodwar wasn't balanced by intelligent design, it became balanced unintentionally with things like Muta-stacking were discovered. But Blizzard couldn't control Broodwar for fear of ruining it with bad game design choices. And we know they would have ruined BW now, because we've seen what they've done with Starcraft 2.
I don't agree with the part were you say bw "became balanced unintentionally with things like Muta-stacking were discovered". Before Muta-stacking was discovered, Brood War was already a great game and it was great because of its intelligent design. Sure the developpers never expect players would play so fast and micro the way they did, but if you look at the numbers and general mechanics in the game they are very accurately laid out and give lots of possibilities. There are a lot of numbers and mechanics in the game which were never changed after release, most of them. The design of BW is very intelligent and I really think it is the primary reason why it shined so bright and is so fun to play. Muta Stacking, in my opinion, though it changed match ups quite a bit, is not really a good thing in BW. It provokes ZvT to almost always go muta harrass at start, and allows mutas to snipe templars or probes very easily unless P has enough corsairs, for instance. It is too hard to counter Mutas with something else than corsairs in PvZ because of this, even though the game was designed intelligently with goons being a good all rounder to use against them, and archon very strong, but he can't catch up with any mutas because they are in a ball (if he does, mega damage ; similarly with storms it is risky to try it because mutaball can dodge it quite easily but if not, mega damage). In my opinion, this bug is not good for the game, but it is not possible or intelligent to try and forbid it. I think the game would be better without it, and the most creative days of BW date from before this bug entered the arena. Something that pins the early game down strongly in ZvT means that there are less diversity for the midgame as well. And ZvZ is the one true problem match up in the game, where muta battles are very central... I guess a lot probably won't agree with me about that. But anyway the game was definitely great and well balanced before muta stacking came into use.
The reason why Blizzard is not capable of doing intelligent design today like you said and I agree with you, is, I think, not because they have never been, it is because it is simply not the same company as before. Almost everybody is gone, and now they work with much bigger teams on a much more industrial model that target financial goals with little risk. Creativity and smart design is very complicated to organize in such a situation, and brings a greater sense of financial risk. They have likely hired people such as Dustin Browder for his ability to appeal to masses rather than to make a great RTS, that is exactly what the later C&Cs are. Big nukes and powerful-looking units.
I don't really like the myth to be perpetuated that BW was this wonderful designed game. It had a lot of issues that people are willing to look over because the other portions of it were good enough. This is true for all designs--as in the goal is not to design everything right, but to have enough good stuff that the bad stuff doesn't seem bad.
For example: Bio play in TvP and TvT. Essentially non-existent in BW because mech play was OP. But since mech was fun to watch--no one minded that they were a bit OP compared to bio. Muta play is OP in BW ZvZ, and really dictates a lot of how that plays out. But there was +15 to bio buff to compensate for it like they did in SC2. Why? Because players were not given the option from the get go--they did not (as a population group) feel that it was ever correct to attempt to fix BW. In SC2, the developers gives the player base so much sway and that sway has been the cause of all the issues in SC2.
Naracs_Duc, I completely agree with you about Bio play being essentially non-existent in TvP and TvT in BW being a shame and that if there were a little more room for it that would probably be better (remember the early days in early 2000s we were seeing sometimes, quite rarely, marines play from pros in the midgame in TvP, even rarely in TvT I have seen a marine army^^ or tricky marine rushes with bunkers on that map). I think it is alright if some matchups priviledge a set of units/tech style to an extent but if room can be given to most things at least in a range of situations/possibilities it is better. Diversity is very good in a strategy game. I also agree with Muta being too strong and the problem it brings in ZvZ and to an extent in ZvT. I have written about this before : it is true that BW's balance is not perfect. But even though it is not perfect, it is still great, and mech play in particular in many ways is very solid, interesting and brings a lot different things happening. I really love PvT! It is a great example of a match up where T plays with just 2 then 3-4 units, and yet has a high complexity and never happens the same because the design and mechanics allow for a lot of room in different plays. You also don't just build mech in the same way, you can go about it in a lot of different ways (one important reason is because defender advantage is very real especially with mech, so you have more choice in what to build). I don't know what you mean about +15 to bio buff, no such thing in BW? Marines have always been 40hp 6 damage 50minerals, firebats or medics have also never changed as far as I remember. I think in SC2, mech is generally not satisfying, the positional game has been lost altogether bringing a lot less tactics, tanks are not good, hellions are a poor unit compared to vultures for the reason that Nazara said, Thor is pretty much about can you have enough when they are cost effective... People would want mech to be better because it fails to be as interesting, and also I think because bio play is quite annoying and too straightforward. It damages too fast, is too mobile, very very ball-y, microed in a repetitive way, and dies way too fast to some AoEs, bringing more volatile straightforward play. On top of that Marauders discourage possibilities of engaging, and moving within battles. Generally ball-y armies in SC2 mean AoEs are very strong and it is a core of AoEs being such an important tool to win battles and the game being so volatile. Because of bio is so ball-y, I think people would like to play more mech. And, it is probably hard to make tanks strong in this situation because a high-range strong little AoE attack would wreck hard. The pathing must be changed for the game to be better, but then everything has to be changed as well. That is my opinion.
The +15 was a mistype on my phone.
In BW, Muta ruled ZvZ and players just learnt to deal with it. In SC2, muta ruled ZvZ and players whined until +15 to biological was given to spore crawlers.
It was a reference to how, because the player base is given so much say, that dynamics are not allowed to evolve since players feel like the moment things are hard they can always fall back on Blizz.
Back to the main topic--the thing I missed about BW was that it didn't matter that things were bad (like bio play being only good in TvZ), so long as enough things were good you never cared. I feel that the player base wanting all units to be good in all matchups in the same timings and in the same map designs is hurting the game.
On November 11 2015 02:31 Naracs_Duc wrote: Back to the main topic--the thing I missed about BW was that it didn't matter that things were bad (like bio play being only good in TvZ), so long as enough things were good you never cared. I feel that the player base wanting all units to be good in all matchups in the same timings and in the same map designs is hurting the game.
Maybe. It's an interesting point. Personally, I think that if you have most units good in all matchups, with some exceptions, but each with different ranges of timings, roles, or maps is great. For example, never seeing firebats try to kill zealots I think is too bad Or more room to play with scouts, Battlecruisers, or devourers. BCs they were used even by pros in TvZ at the time but then some Z started to just wait and then mass scourge them I think and then no more BCs? But at that time they played on island maps as well which turned out imba over time. eheh
On November 11 2015 02:31 Naracs_Duc wrote: Back to the main topic--the thing I missed about BW was that it didn't matter that things were bad (like bio play being only good in TvZ), so long as enough things were good you never cared. I feel that the player base wanting all units to be good in all matchups in the same timings and in the same map designs is hurting the game.
Maybe. It's an interesting point. Personally, I think that if you have most units good in all matchups, with some exceptions, but each with different ranges of timings, roles, or maps is great. For example, never seeing firebats try to kill zealots I think is too bad Or more room to play with scouts, Battlecruisers, or devourers. BCs they were used even by pros in TvZ at the time but then some Z started to just wait and then mass scourge them I think and then no more BCs? But at that time they played on island maps as well which turned out imba over time. eheh
Dire Straits was one of my favorite vs comps map in vanilla SC... #neverforget #2rax-float-rush
On November 11 2015 02:31 Naracs_Duc wrote: The +15 was a mistype on my phone.
In BW, Muta ruled ZvZ and players just learnt to deal with it. In SC2, muta ruled ZvZ and players whined until +15 to biological was given to spore crawlers.
It was a reference to how, because the player base is given so much say, that dynamics are not allowed to evolve since players feel like the moment things are hard they can always fall back on Blizz.
Back to the main topic--the thing I missed about BW was that it didn't matter that things were bad (like bio play being only good in TvZ), so long as enough things were good you never cared. I feel that the player base wanting all units to be good in all matchups in the same timings and in the same map designs is hurting the game.
Agreed. While I like that blizzard acknowledges and is willing to at least explore balance issues brought up by the community, and generally it has made the game better, I'd hope they continue to do so very slowly/carefully; if only to prevent players from having the mentality that something will be patched if they complain about it. Even if something really is "imbalanced" in the game, you'll have a better sense of what to change/what is imbalanced if players genuinely try to solve the game on their own. That said, I do enjoy ground armies a lot more, so the ZvZ change turned out to be a good one for me
On November 14 2015 03:07 StarscreamG1 wrote: Why don't add the healing shield ability on Sentries and remove the heroic mothershion core once and for all?
On November 14 2015 03:07 StarscreamG1 wrote: Why don't add the healing shield ability on Sentries and remove the heroic mothershion core once and for all?
I think a world where adepts can have their shields healed on the go is probably not one we want to live in
On November 14 2015 03:07 StarscreamG1 wrote: Why don't add the healing shield ability on Sentries and remove the heroic mothershion core once and for all?
I think a world where adepts can have their shields healed on the go is probably not one we want to live in
When I think of Zealots--what I think is that they should be even more tanky.
I'm really annoyed by all this whining about balance. The game just came out, Blizzard is more responsive than ever, and the game is constantly being tweaked. So where is the problem?
I have always said this: UNLESS you are a top-level Korean pro-gamer, you have so many weaknesses in your own game (concerning both micro and macro) which working on would have a much greater impact on your results than any perceived or actual imbalance.
EPT
