|
The void fazing is very interesting and im curious to see what kind of other little tricks will be discovered in the future to make for more "wow" factors
|
I agree with most of the points made in the OP. However, I disagree about the force-field. Some (Artosis) claim that it is overpowered already. I happen to agree with him- it is an impassable barrier which is the bane of banelings, and has singlehandedly given the match to the Protoss player in games like Idra vs Tester on scrap station. Remember?
|
I'm sorry, but I found your article a little bit too Protoss sided.
"An obvious aspect of the Void Ray is that once charged, it’s ridiculously powerful"," my control isn’t even good, it isn’t hard to envision what a better Protoss like White-Ra would be able to do with this" and the reason it is not to powerfull is: " but the Terran can split his marines up". Really? an "skilled" player would still faze all the Marines to death and theProtoss player need way less micro clicking on the different units than the Terran to spread them.
"The Guardian Shield ability fits the criteria of a “wow” spell, however it’s damage reduction at the moment is not significant enough for it to truly make the sentry a target in battle.Suppose that Guardian Shields were tweaked to block out EMPs. This would give Protoss have a viable way to negate the EMP through good control without changing the speed of the missile"
"Your opponent is completely helpless to defend against it [ForceField], but that’s fine"
" Force Fielding well will give you an edge, but it will be a slight edge"
But on the other Hand all the non-Protoss units and abilities should be changed: "Adding cast time to the spell means that the Terran has an opportunity to react to the fungal growth – he can run and avoid it or he can try and snipe the Infestor before the spell has been cast".
" not like a Fungal Growth which paralyses your units and deals 36 damage, that's a battle changing ability. "
Or:
"Simply slowing down how fast the EMP missile travels so that it is feasible for a Protoss to dodge it"
Or:
" Simply adjusting the baneling so that it deals less damage when killed"
So what your Post is saying: "Give the Protoss even more tools and take away the annoying tools of the other races."
I dont want to attack you in any way, but even if its a "Design" Suggestion, if you only give one race and take from all the others, it can not be any good.
How about the Terran Ghost eliminating with his EMP ForceFields or Storm? A Sentrys Guardian shield should not block an EMP Missle, but rather the EMP should disable the Guardian Shield (without harming the units inside). What about a new Zerg ability like a Ultralisk ram attack or some kind of leap attack for Zerglings?
Your Designs would break the game back to the alpha stage.
I'm sorry but I can't agree with you 
P.S. another thing to mention: If Guardian Shield would Block slowed down EMPs you would need to increase the effectiveness of EMPs to compensate with that. But with better EMPs Terrans would most likely always go for Ghost and Protoss would have no other way than to go for Sentries to block them. That way you would force the PvT to be played the same, in every game :/.
Or just think about the defiler in sc1 (i know sc2 is a different game). All his spells were instant. But it was still pretty "PLAGUUUUUEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!" (aka "wow") when it hit good. The same thing applys for The infestor :/
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 25 2010 23:40 Arakash wrote:I'm sorry, but I found your article a little bit too Protoss sided. "An obvious aspect of the Void Ray is that once charged, it’s ridiculously powerful"," my control isn’t even good, it isn’t hard to envision what a better Protoss like White-Ra would be able to do with this" and the reason it is not to powerfull is: " but the Terran can split his marines up". Really? an "skilled" player would still faze all the Marines to death and theProtoss player need way less micro clicking on the different units than the Terran to spread them. "The Guardian Shield ability fits the criteria of a “wow” spell, however it’s damage reduction at the moment is not significant enough for it to truly make the sentry a target in battle.Suppose that Guardian Shields were tweaked to block out EMPs. This would give Protoss have a viable way to negate the EMP through good control without changing the speed of the missile" "Your opponent is completely helpless to defend against it [ForceField], but that’s fine" " Force Fielding well will give you an edge, but it will be a slight edge" But on the other Hand all the non-Protoss units and abilities should be changed: "Adding cast time to the spell means that the Terran has an opportunity to react to the fungal growth – he can run and avoid it or he can try and snipe the Infestor before the spell has been cast". " not like a Fungal Growth which paralyses your units and deals 36 damage, that's a battle changing ability. " Or: "Simply slowing down how fast the EMP missile travels so that it is feasible for a Protoss to dodge it" Or: " Simply adjusting the baneling so that it deals less damage when killed" So what your Post is saying: "Give the Protoss even more tools and take away the annoying tools of the other races." I dont want to attack you in any way, but even if its a "Design" Suggestion, if you only give one race and take from all the others, it can not be any good. How about the Terran Ghost eliminating with his EMP ForceFields or Storm? A Sentrys Guardian shield should not block an EMP Missle, but rather the EMP should disable the Guardian Shield (without harming the units inside). What about a new Zerg ability like a Ultralisk ram attack or some kind of leap attack for Zerglings? Your Designs would break the game back to the alpha stage. I'm sorry but I can't agree with you P.S. another thing to mention: If Guardian Shield would Block slowed down EMPs you would need to increase the effectiveness of EMPs to compensate with that. But with better EMPs Terrans would most likely always go for Ghost and Protoss would have no other way than to go for Sentries to block them. That way you would force the PvT to be played the same, in every game :/.
He didn't suggest to buff Protoss, but suggested to change some abilities to make a battle more skill based and I think this would be pretty good. EMP is a pretty damm strong skill and there is no reason the opponent shouldn't be able to do something against it (same for Fungal).
+ Show Spoiler +Or just think about the defiler in sc1 (i know sc2 is a different game). All his spells were instant. But it was still pretty "PLAGUUUUUEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!" (aka "wow") when it hit good. The same thing applys for The infestor :/
Lol, same argument for EMP not being instant, like it was in BW.
|
As Starcraft as a spectator ESport grows, these *wow* moments is what will make or break games in the eyes of the spectator. Players with near flawless macro and timing are fun to watch, but the real excitement comes from creative unit control and fresh tactics. One of the reasons TLO has such a massive fanbase is because of the excitement he brings to games.
Excellent post, I agree with you 100%.
|
Nice read (:
How about feedback tho? I think it has a pretty interesting dynamic, feedback on ghosts before you get EMP'd, or against infestors before a fungal growth/mind control on key units, or even against thors/battle cruisers. Maybe I'm wrong, I probably haven't been following SC2 as much as most people here, but it seems like a skill that has potential to make more dynamic games.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Or just think about the defiler in sc1 (i know sc2 is a different game). All his spells were instant. But it was still pretty "PLAGUUUUUEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!" (aka "wow") when it hit good. The same thing applys for The infestor :/ Lol, same argument for EMP not being instant, like it was in BW.
Yeah you are right, but the EMP is an just example of the "wow" effect with an projectile ability (on which I agree, you get wow effects with non-instant abilities too).
But the point of my Comarison was to show, that you can get a "wow" effect without the need to make it non-instant.
|
that fazing plus harras video was very interesting its cool that blizzard takes notes on this and they leave it in, the "wow" factor was the thing that made BW such a game. The players that show this wow factor have always had a lot of fans and the videos and replays are always fun to watch. Time will tell if there will be new and exciting ways to cast spells or attack that will bring this wow factor, SC2 as it is its one of the best RTS ever made but is a long way to get to the pinnacle of RTS which is BW, remember that BW is an expansion and the next 2 expansions can totally alter the way the game is played (Lurkers, DT´s, medics and corsairs anyone?), the addition of a few units can re arrange build orders, timings, and the way the units move and attack.
Plexa as always your articles are top notch and congrats on your 20K posts!!
|
The unwillingness of Terran to build turrets is a partial contribution to the power of Void Rays
Granted, since i hardly ran into turrets in PvT i can't say for certain how effective they are, but i know for certain i avoided them
A couple well placed turrets will make void ray harass much more difficult and gives times for marines to get in range if the toss insists on busting through
On the other hand, it slows down terran pushes and the like, which imo isn't a bad thing right now, since i find early game terran a bit too powerful
Its a bit like in brood war.
1 shuttle with a reaver and 2 zealots in a terran base with no turrets could easily win the game. Easily take out 2-3 tanks, a couple vultures, and destroy mining capabilities. Careful turret placing neutralized this ability. Of course, there are differences, but these are just some of my preliminary thoughts
|
your reasoning of why units shouldn't move out of storm doesn't make too much sense
|
On July 25 2010 14:41 the.bishOp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 08:58 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 08:08 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 07:44 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 05:19 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 01:53 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 01:06 Falling wrote:On July 24 2010 16:22 the.bishOp wrote:On July 24 2010 15:48 Falling wrote:On July 24 2010 11:46 the.bishOp wrote:
[quote]
Think about what you said. You cast EMP, you see the ghost cast it and then you move your units so they don't get hit. Cool.
The way it works now is that you see the ghost coming and you know he isnt up to no good so you spread your units so they don't get hit. Cool.
You have to take the exact same action but what TRIGGERS is different. Watching it there is no difference.
So what IS the difference? Who gets screwed. Its easier for the terran to hit the EMP as is. If this change was made it would get easier for the protoss to dodge. Same thing with fungal growth. No there is a substantial difference in viewing and in player skill. And it has to do with the distinctiveness of what is being seen and reaction time. The case as it is now (which works btw, it just could be better) is a mass of Terran of units move in- somewhere are the Ghosts, Protoss spreads out hopefully and an emp goes off. Great, but not awe inspiring as it is indistinct and not requiring super fast reactions like the Bisu dragoon micro video. Essentially either you have time to minimize the damage because you can seem them coming (thus all the time in the world.) Or is already in range and thus there is no dodging. It's all or nothing However, if the viewer can see the shot going off and the extreme fast reaction time, dodging the emp (or failing to). That's what creates the excitement. A greater skill level is opened up and the skill level is discernible and visually appealing to the viewer. This creates 'wow' moments and I agree that we could have more. And yes if you change instantaneous cast to a timed cast that caster's race gets screwed. By definition it's not as good, but it's also not as interesting. So you compensate in other ways- amount of damage, area of effect, drop energy requirement. The current method does favour the caster because it's unavoidable, but it's also not as interesting as it could be. Ghosts have more range then marines, they kind of "blend in" but have range 6 on EMPs. A stalker has 10 sight, more than enough to spot a ghost coming in a "normal" situation. You can SEE the AOE of the spell if it hits or not. Upon viewing you can distincly see that a player microed his units out of the way to avoid that. If the viewer can see the shot going off and THEN try to split, all we will see is the units getting off the way and the AOE effect missing. The difference is that in a cast you see the ghost stop and the units move. That little bit of micro you would have to spend EARLIER you spend spend later. The problem is that both ways work. You can still dodge by splitting your forces earlier and screwing up the ghost range but you can choose to insta-split for the "cool" effect. The insta-split is precisely the sort of 'cool' effect that is so interesting. Insane reflexes create 'wow' moments. Being prepared and moving away as you see ghosts is useful and good to see, but not the sort of micro that's being advocated (although that sort of micro will always be useful.)
But ok lets say we put some cast times on. What about storms? Just "make them more powerful". Sure thing but put on some cast times. What about feedback? It has range 9. You can make a ghost useless with one feedback. Put some kind of way to clutch-dodge it.
I also said with storms to increase dodgebility- thus maybe increase damage per second but the drop the radius a bit and increase the total damage. I don't know- but right now it takes forever to deal full damage with storm, so the player can either weather the storm or move luxuriously out. I do not advocated more power with storm with out making it dodgeble, don't forget that part- and sure, caster time could be introduced to templars- the point is creating opportunities for awesome looking micro- Blizzard can balance the new version of the abilities as they have done in the past.
And force-field? They don't require much skill to be placed. Make them break if you place them on top of a unit. Or put some cast times on it so a zerg army can close in. Or even make it so you can burrow under it so you get reward for amazing micro.
For sure, the article mentions some ideas, I'm sure that there other ideas. The focus was not on nerfing Terran abilities, but looking at which ideas had potential for awesome game moments. If Terran abilities are nerfed with the ideas, obviously Terran would also have to gain some buffs. That's not the point. The point is this particular set of abilities have the potential for great moments in play.
As I said there are a lot of subtle things that are not yet fully explored and people are proposing to change the game to add layers of skills on top of something they do not yet master. People miss a LOT of the EMPs, FG and spells already.
Absolutely, but there are some things that could be improved upon to make the viewing even more exciting. (SCBW- the difference between storm dodging with hydras and not is night and day and extremely interesting to watch.) Hopefully you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, but I feel that it's absolutely essential that this topic is understood (props to Plexa, Morrow, and Saracen on hitting the critique dead-center). What we want is micro that has trade-offs that blur the line. We want decisions that players must make in an instant, as a reactionary, that can have a visible difference in a battle or situation. Right now, the ghost's EMP shoots a lot faster than it's predecessor, the Science Vessel's. I think that's the best comparison I can give you. When I saw an EMP flying at me, sure I couldn't dodge the whole thing, but I could definitely try to move units on the outside away. And I would. Why? Because It meant those extra shields/energy that might just be enough to scrap up one more storm or something. With storms right now, I feel like colossus are just easier/more useful. I know I'm wrong on that, but when it comes down to a battle, I see colossi mowing down units while a storm just kinda causes an animation that allows the other units to clean up. Most of the time it's a kill on a unit that can't escape or a damage on a unit that simply does more by not running away. Relating back to the sc1 predecessor, the zerg player would often times want to run their hydralisk out of a storm. We simply don't see that in sc2 unless the hydralisk are on creep or something. What the OP is asking for isn't a stronger storm. He's asking for situations where choices that aren't blatantly obvious have to be made. If it means storms being stronger, than that's what he's asking for. BUT he's also asking for units that are fast enough and have enough health to dodge out and for that choice to be worth it. I agree force field doesn't take much skill and has a lot more potential than the thread lets on. While I don't agree that burrow is the answer, there is room for some change that would make force field less... influential. As Falling stated, there's still plenty of other ideas, just look at how long it took to discover muta micro. The OP listed the "nerfs" and that's what some people are reading it as. What they're skipping is the "make up for the nerf by throwing in some buffs" that make these requests reasonable. A lot of what we're looking for doesn't make a drastic difference in gameplay, but it does in viewing pleasure. Most of us will not ever get to play on the progaming scene or anything of that caliber (sorry guys ), but what we all share in common is a passion for watching amazing plays by insanely good pros. Yeah we have people missing spells left and right, but we're still in the beta where we lack that boxer-esque cloning (think medics with optical flare), nada's vultures, jaedong's mutas, bisu's goons, kal's shuttle/reaver (and movie to some extent), jangbi's storms, among a number of other players. The list goes on and on. We're here asking for more "wow" moments and micro-able tasks not because we believe that people have figured it out, but because we believe that people will figure it out and we want that skill cap to always just be out of reach. How fun is a game once someone has totally figured it out? Even after 10 years, we still see S-ranked players with occasional idle workers, which just shows that there's always room to improve. While the bonjwa days were great (I was not fortunate enough to be a fan back then), the excitement was always about how the greatest player would win the game, innovate a strategy, or bring something new to the board. But it wasn't the same as the ridiculous back and forth games that make us jump and scream and dance. Maybe it's too early to be asking for all of this. Maybe we need more time to adjust to the game. Yeah, there are plenty of things yet to be discovered. But how much more potential would be lost if we didn't bring these ideas to the table? Our goal is for the longevity of SC2, not for the impossible game that's full of mistakes. The game is not boring. It is not boring to watch and it is not boring to play. It already takes a heavy toll on your mind. You can CLEARLY see when you screwed up someone in some way or another. You can see sloppy play, you can clearly see mistakes in macro, in unit composition and a lot of mid battle micro. What you said in the end of your post nailed it: you need more time to adjust to the game. This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it. The suggestions made are an artificial mean of introducing some "cluch" and states that "balance is not the issue here". But you CANT change some core game mechanics and expect to not throw balance out of the window. Beta is over, it took many months of tweaking to achieve some form of balance. We will get dozens of patches until the game is fixed but right now it is AT LEAST playable and I dont think anyone disagrees on that. Truth is people just want to play and keep playing BW. I have seen some excelent SC2 games already, some of wich are way better than most BW I've seen. I find funny that people want to add layers on something they still don't understand. This is the last time I'm going to reply to this thread because at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves, and other people can do that. I never said it was boring. The perspectives we're taking are clearly different. You're looking from a gamer's perspective, and I can respect that. SC2 is by no means a boring game, neither in watching or playing - for now. It does take a heavy toll on your mind and replay analysis will show plenty of mistakes. But I'm going to assume that neither you or I, or 99.9% of the people here on this site are of the caliber that goes on in the Korean progaming scene. And that's where my focus is at. You're right, I do make plenty of mistakes - more than I'd like to admit. And yes we do need more time to adjust to the game. But the thing is, advocates with BW background want to reach that awesome balance that includes those "wow" moments ASAP because then we can all play the same game and get better, as opposed to waiting 5-10 years for the patches to finally come through. Think back to the beta and I'm sure you had moments when you just thought "what the heck, this part of the game is broken, it needs to be patched" or something of the sort. What we want is that part to be fixed without losing the mass long term appeal that this game could have. You're 100% correct in saying that "This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it." But SC2 is also 100% an evolution from the original, hence the 2. These suggestions aren't an artificial mean of introducing "clutch", it's very real because it isn't just for show. Whether someone is watching the game or not, doesn't change the fact that getting that perfect storm or emp or whatever off can change the game flow. The reason we say that balance is not an issue is because these are merely ideas that when introduced will need to be balanced. It isn't a copy/paste insert that Plexa has posted up here. It's some awesome theorycrafting. We're not expecting these ideas to be added, without changing the balance in some way; we're hoping that it will allow for less of the game balancing itself, and more of the players balancing each other. I don't think people just want to play and keep playing BW. If we did, we'd simply go back to playing BW - the game hasn't left. What we want is that same epic game feeling in a game that's already winning in graphics and smoothness. We're trying to add layers to something that we feel like won't have the competitive nature of BW. Even at the upper levels of laddering, I feel that there's much less that you can do to turn a game around. vAltyR puts it quite well: On July 25 2010 03:51 vAltyR wrote:On July 24 2010 05:10 Fincheronious wrote:
You should worry less about fixing a bad situation that you are already in and start thinking about how to avoid a bad situation altogether, and you will start to realize more dynamics in competitive play. Avoiding a bad situation is all well and good, but it doesn't make for exciting matches for the spectators. What you suggest seems to me to be more like a game of chess; you have to pay attention to your opponent's pieces as well as your own in order to succeed. However, chess is quite boring to watch because of the subtleties of the moves. Unless your understanding of chess is on par with the people playing it, you won't have a lot of fun watching it simply because you won't understand what's going on. Putting more emphasis on preparation for your opponent also creates a system where once you are behind, it's very hard to win unless your opponent makes a mistake. I'm not saying preparation isn't or shouldn't be important, but it should be on par with spur-of-the-moment tactics. Starcraft should be a game of hard counters on paper, soft counters in practice. This lets players emphasize on preparation by using good counters to what their opponent builds, but the opponent can still fight back, instead of getting completely obliterated. We want this depth because it gives us hope. Hope in the eternal evolution of this game and hope in individual games. And when you look at humanity, that's a lot of what we're looking for... some sort of hope to keep us going. That is the point. You want to add depth to something you haven't reached the bottom of yet. All the main criticism I have read here and from interviews with "top players" focus on the aspect that this game isn't BW. It's just not as clunky. As is EMPs and Storms CAN change battles. People compare the damage that one storm does but tend to forget that they are not isolated. You have an army to support that. Its like saying one tank can't one shot a Hydra. And I do know what you mean by Korean Pro Scene and players of that caliber. Problem is that so far what they have shown us is that they too are very very very far from completely mastering the game. Do you really think that SC2 requires any where near the amount of micro, or excitement in games? Balance is one question, but people who even like SC2 have said the game is mainly about unit composition, and due to the intelligent AI, micro doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as it does in BW. SC2 does have skills and abilities that can change battles. But, skills like EMP or Fungal Growth, when pulled off, doesn't make you go "OH MY GOD HE LANDED IT, THIS BATTLE HIS OVER". Skills like that are almost guaranteed to happen since you can't really dodge them (you can prepare to mitigate them before hand by spreading, but thats pretty much it). Battles are decided before they even happen due to positioning and composition. Brood War is a quality game, so why not try and implement parts of BW that work? Even if people haven't reached the depths of SC2 skill, whats the harm in adding tricks and stuff that would make things more exciting? Don't you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? Unit AI have different priorities in a battle. You probably noticed that as it is quite obvious. If you don't focus fire and let your whatever do their thing they can end up killing all medivacs and getting raped by the remaining ground army. If you DO manage to micro around and focus on a more dangerous target you have to worry about the position of your army and actually getting in range do fire. How many times you see a low ranged immortal dance around like idiots because there is a wall of stalkers? TOP TIER gamers doing that, mind you. How often you see "one control group syndrome"? How many times have you seen someone blink stalkers one by one to micro them out of harm? How many times have you seen a proper use and harass using reapers that are fast as hell? Players are learning to deal with a lot of things and I like to watch SC2 much more than BW games. Anyone can learn unit compositions and timings but its another story to pull off with the units you have. Why not try to implement parts of BW that work? Because its SC2, not BW. The harm of adding tricks and stuff is rebalancing everything to accomodate these changes. Sometimes veterans seem scared that because the game is a little friendlier to the "noob" that it doesn't have depth.
Anyone can learn unit composition and timing. And unfortunately, SC2 is much more centered around things like that than BW. It isn't even up for debate, IMO.
You talk about an immortal dancing around like idiots in SC2 because Stalkers are in front. So, uhhhh, lets say that all those stalkers were retarded too (lets say they are infinitely more retarded), and your zealots were also too stupid to run around the Stalkers when attacking? AI control issues were worse on so many levels in BW, and the fact that they aren't as bad in SC2 simply reduces the amount of micro you actually need to do in battles. Its just a fact. Focus firing, positioning, composition, all that stuff exists in both games. Except in one game, it requires alot more effort due to interface and unit AI. Therefore, since that aspect is made easier, the game obviously would focus more on the elements of composition and positioning.
God forbid things be done extremely early in a game's life to make it more exciting, because you might have to balance it! The game is going be going through balance changes for at LEAST the next 2 years, so it doesn't even matter. And its not like it would even take a whole lot of number changing to even balance the suggestions in the OP. "The game is SC2, not BW"? What sort of argument is that? I'm sick and tired of seeing people say that. Its a simple question you have to ask yourself: Do you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? If you do, then there is no harm at all in adopting aspects of BW that contribute to its greatness.
|
On July 26 2010 05:48 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2010 14:41 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 08:58 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 08:08 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 07:44 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 05:19 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 01:53 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 01:06 Falling wrote:On July 24 2010 16:22 the.bishOp wrote:On July 24 2010 15:48 Falling wrote:
[quote]
No there is a substantial difference in viewing and in player skill. And it has to do with the distinctiveness of what is being seen and reaction time. The case as it is now (which works btw, it just could be better) is a mass of Terran of units move in- somewhere are the Ghosts, Protoss spreads out hopefully and an emp goes off. Great, but not awe inspiring as it is indistinct and not requiring super fast reactions like the Bisu dragoon micro video. Essentially either you have time to minimize the damage because you can seem them coming (thus all the time in the world.) Or is already in range and thus there is no dodging. It's all or nothing
However, if the viewer can see the shot going off and the extreme fast reaction time, dodging the emp (or failing to). That's what creates the excitement. A greater skill level is opened up and the skill level is discernible and visually appealing to the viewer. This creates 'wow' moments and I agree that we could have more.
And yes if you change instantaneous cast to a timed cast that caster's race gets screwed. By definition it's not as good, but it's also not as interesting. So you compensate in other ways- amount of damage, area of effect, drop energy requirement. The current method does favour the caster because it's unavoidable, but it's also not as interesting as it could be.
Ghosts have more range then marines, they kind of "blend in" but have range 6 on EMPs. A stalker has 10 sight, more than enough to spot a ghost coming in a "normal" situation. You can SEE the AOE of the spell if it hits or not. Upon viewing you can distincly see that a player microed his units out of the way to avoid that. If the viewer can see the shot going off and THEN try to split, all we will see is the units getting off the way and the AOE effect missing. The difference is that in a cast you see the ghost stop and the units move. That little bit of micro you would have to spend EARLIER you spend spend later. The problem is that both ways work. You can still dodge by splitting your forces earlier and screwing up the ghost range but you can choose to insta-split for the "cool" effect. The insta-split is precisely the sort of 'cool' effect that is so interesting. Insane reflexes create 'wow' moments. Being prepared and moving away as you see ghosts is useful and good to see, but not the sort of micro that's being advocated (although that sort of micro will always be useful.)
But ok lets say we put some cast times on. What about storms? Just "make them more powerful". Sure thing but put on some cast times. What about feedback? It has range 9. You can make a ghost useless with one feedback. Put some kind of way to clutch-dodge it.
I also said with storms to increase dodgebility- thus maybe increase damage per second but the drop the radius a bit and increase the total damage. I don't know- but right now it takes forever to deal full damage with storm, so the player can either weather the storm or move luxuriously out. I do not advocated more power with storm with out making it dodgeble, don't forget that part- and sure, caster time could be introduced to templars- the point is creating opportunities for awesome looking micro- Blizzard can balance the new version of the abilities as they have done in the past.
And force-field? They don't require much skill to be placed. Make them break if you place them on top of a unit. Or put some cast times on it so a zerg army can close in. Or even make it so you can burrow under it so you get reward for amazing micro.
For sure, the article mentions some ideas, I'm sure that there other ideas. The focus was not on nerfing Terran abilities, but looking at which ideas had potential for awesome game moments. If Terran abilities are nerfed with the ideas, obviously Terran would also have to gain some buffs. That's not the point. The point is this particular set of abilities have the potential for great moments in play.
As I said there are a lot of subtle things that are not yet fully explored and people are proposing to change the game to add layers of skills on top of something they do not yet master. People miss a LOT of the EMPs, FG and spells already.
Absolutely, but there are some things that could be improved upon to make the viewing even more exciting. (SCBW- the difference between storm dodging with hydras and not is night and day and extremely interesting to watch.) Hopefully you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, but I feel that it's absolutely essential that this topic is understood (props to Plexa, Morrow, and Saracen on hitting the critique dead-center). What we want is micro that has trade-offs that blur the line. We want decisions that players must make in an instant, as a reactionary, that can have a visible difference in a battle or situation. Right now, the ghost's EMP shoots a lot faster than it's predecessor, the Science Vessel's. I think that's the best comparison I can give you. When I saw an EMP flying at me, sure I couldn't dodge the whole thing, but I could definitely try to move units on the outside away. And I would. Why? Because It meant those extra shields/energy that might just be enough to scrap up one more storm or something. With storms right now, I feel like colossus are just easier/more useful. I know I'm wrong on that, but when it comes down to a battle, I see colossi mowing down units while a storm just kinda causes an animation that allows the other units to clean up. Most of the time it's a kill on a unit that can't escape or a damage on a unit that simply does more by not running away. Relating back to the sc1 predecessor, the zerg player would often times want to run their hydralisk out of a storm. We simply don't see that in sc2 unless the hydralisk are on creep or something. What the OP is asking for isn't a stronger storm. He's asking for situations where choices that aren't blatantly obvious have to be made. If it means storms being stronger, than that's what he's asking for. BUT he's also asking for units that are fast enough and have enough health to dodge out and for that choice to be worth it. I agree force field doesn't take much skill and has a lot more potential than the thread lets on. While I don't agree that burrow is the answer, there is room for some change that would make force field less... influential. As Falling stated, there's still plenty of other ideas, just look at how long it took to discover muta micro. The OP listed the "nerfs" and that's what some people are reading it as. What they're skipping is the "make up for the nerf by throwing in some buffs" that make these requests reasonable. A lot of what we're looking for doesn't make a drastic difference in gameplay, but it does in viewing pleasure. Most of us will not ever get to play on the progaming scene or anything of that caliber (sorry guys ), but what we all share in common is a passion for watching amazing plays by insanely good pros. Yeah we have people missing spells left and right, but we're still in the beta where we lack that boxer-esque cloning (think medics with optical flare), nada's vultures, jaedong's mutas, bisu's goons, kal's shuttle/reaver (and movie to some extent), jangbi's storms, among a number of other players. The list goes on and on. We're here asking for more "wow" moments and micro-able tasks not because we believe that people have figured it out, but because we believe that people will figure it out and we want that skill cap to always just be out of reach. How fun is a game once someone has totally figured it out? Even after 10 years, we still see S-ranked players with occasional idle workers, which just shows that there's always room to improve. While the bonjwa days were great (I was not fortunate enough to be a fan back then), the excitement was always about how the greatest player would win the game, innovate a strategy, or bring something new to the board. But it wasn't the same as the ridiculous back and forth games that make us jump and scream and dance. Maybe it's too early to be asking for all of this. Maybe we need more time to adjust to the game. Yeah, there are plenty of things yet to be discovered. But how much more potential would be lost if we didn't bring these ideas to the table? Our goal is for the longevity of SC2, not for the impossible game that's full of mistakes. The game is not boring. It is not boring to watch and it is not boring to play. It already takes a heavy toll on your mind. You can CLEARLY see when you screwed up someone in some way or another. You can see sloppy play, you can clearly see mistakes in macro, in unit composition and a lot of mid battle micro. What you said in the end of your post nailed it: you need more time to adjust to the game. This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it. The suggestions made are an artificial mean of introducing some "cluch" and states that "balance is not the issue here". But you CANT change some core game mechanics and expect to not throw balance out of the window. Beta is over, it took many months of tweaking to achieve some form of balance. We will get dozens of patches until the game is fixed but right now it is AT LEAST playable and I dont think anyone disagrees on that. Truth is people just want to play and keep playing BW. I have seen some excelent SC2 games already, some of wich are way better than most BW I've seen. I find funny that people want to add layers on something they still don't understand. This is the last time I'm going to reply to this thread because at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves, and other people can do that. I never said it was boring. The perspectives we're taking are clearly different. You're looking from a gamer's perspective, and I can respect that. SC2 is by no means a boring game, neither in watching or playing - for now. It does take a heavy toll on your mind and replay analysis will show plenty of mistakes. But I'm going to assume that neither you or I, or 99.9% of the people here on this site are of the caliber that goes on in the Korean progaming scene. And that's where my focus is at. You're right, I do make plenty of mistakes - more than I'd like to admit. And yes we do need more time to adjust to the game. But the thing is, advocates with BW background want to reach that awesome balance that includes those "wow" moments ASAP because then we can all play the same game and get better, as opposed to waiting 5-10 years for the patches to finally come through. Think back to the beta and I'm sure you had moments when you just thought "what the heck, this part of the game is broken, it needs to be patched" or something of the sort. What we want is that part to be fixed without losing the mass long term appeal that this game could have. You're 100% correct in saying that "This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it." But SC2 is also 100% an evolution from the original, hence the 2. These suggestions aren't an artificial mean of introducing "clutch", it's very real because it isn't just for show. Whether someone is watching the game or not, doesn't change the fact that getting that perfect storm or emp or whatever off can change the game flow. The reason we say that balance is not an issue is because these are merely ideas that when introduced will need to be balanced. It isn't a copy/paste insert that Plexa has posted up here. It's some awesome theorycrafting. We're not expecting these ideas to be added, without changing the balance in some way; we're hoping that it will allow for less of the game balancing itself, and more of the players balancing each other. I don't think people just want to play and keep playing BW. If we did, we'd simply go back to playing BW - the game hasn't left. What we want is that same epic game feeling in a game that's already winning in graphics and smoothness. We're trying to add layers to something that we feel like won't have the competitive nature of BW. Even at the upper levels of laddering, I feel that there's much less that you can do to turn a game around. vAltyR puts it quite well: On July 25 2010 03:51 vAltyR wrote:On July 24 2010 05:10 Fincheronious wrote:
You should worry less about fixing a bad situation that you are already in and start thinking about how to avoid a bad situation altogether, and you will start to realize more dynamics in competitive play. Avoiding a bad situation is all well and good, but it doesn't make for exciting matches for the spectators. What you suggest seems to me to be more like a game of chess; you have to pay attention to your opponent's pieces as well as your own in order to succeed. However, chess is quite boring to watch because of the subtleties of the moves. Unless your understanding of chess is on par with the people playing it, you won't have a lot of fun watching it simply because you won't understand what's going on. Putting more emphasis on preparation for your opponent also creates a system where once you are behind, it's very hard to win unless your opponent makes a mistake. I'm not saying preparation isn't or shouldn't be important, but it should be on par with spur-of-the-moment tactics. Starcraft should be a game of hard counters on paper, soft counters in practice. This lets players emphasize on preparation by using good counters to what their opponent builds, but the opponent can still fight back, instead of getting completely obliterated. We want this depth because it gives us hope. Hope in the eternal evolution of this game and hope in individual games. And when you look at humanity, that's a lot of what we're looking for... some sort of hope to keep us going. That is the point. You want to add depth to something you haven't reached the bottom of yet. All the main criticism I have read here and from interviews with "top players" focus on the aspect that this game isn't BW. It's just not as clunky. As is EMPs and Storms CAN change battles. People compare the damage that one storm does but tend to forget that they are not isolated. You have an army to support that. Its like saying one tank can't one shot a Hydra. And I do know what you mean by Korean Pro Scene and players of that caliber. Problem is that so far what they have shown us is that they too are very very very far from completely mastering the game. Do you really think that SC2 requires any where near the amount of micro, or excitement in games? Balance is one question, but people who even like SC2 have said the game is mainly about unit composition, and due to the intelligent AI, micro doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as it does in BW. SC2 does have skills and abilities that can change battles. But, skills like EMP or Fungal Growth, when pulled off, doesn't make you go "OH MY GOD HE LANDED IT, THIS BATTLE HIS OVER". Skills like that are almost guaranteed to happen since you can't really dodge them (you can prepare to mitigate them before hand by spreading, but thats pretty much it). Battles are decided before they even happen due to positioning and composition. Brood War is a quality game, so why not try and implement parts of BW that work? Even if people haven't reached the depths of SC2 skill, whats the harm in adding tricks and stuff that would make things more exciting? Don't you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? Unit AI have different priorities in a battle. You probably noticed that as it is quite obvious. If you don't focus fire and let your whatever do their thing they can end up killing all medivacs and getting raped by the remaining ground army. If you DO manage to micro around and focus on a more dangerous target you have to worry about the position of your army and actually getting in range do fire. How many times you see a low ranged immortal dance around like idiots because there is a wall of stalkers? TOP TIER gamers doing that, mind you. How often you see "one control group syndrome"? How many times have you seen someone blink stalkers one by one to micro them out of harm? How many times have you seen a proper use and harass using reapers that are fast as hell? Players are learning to deal with a lot of things and I like to watch SC2 much more than BW games. Anyone can learn unit compositions and timings but its another story to pull off with the units you have. Why not try to implement parts of BW that work? Because its SC2, not BW. The harm of adding tricks and stuff is rebalancing everything to accomodate these changes. Sometimes veterans seem scared that because the game is a little friendlier to the "noob" that it doesn't have depth. Anyone can learn unit composition and timing. And unfortunately, SC2 is much more centered around things like that than BW. It isn't even up for debate, IMO. You talk about an immortal dancing around like idiots in SC2 because Stalkers are in front. So, uhhhh, lets say that all those stalkers were retarded too (lets say they are infinitely more retarded), and your zealots were also too stupid to run around the Stalkers when attacking? AI control issues were worse on so many levels in BW, and the fact that they aren't as bad in SC2 simply reduces the amount of micro you actually need to do in battles. Its just a fact. Focus firing, positioning, composition, all that stuff exists in both games. Except in one game, it requires alot more effort due to interface and unit AI. Therefore, since that aspect is made easier, the game obviously would focus more on the elements of composition and positioning. God forbid things be done extremely early in a game's life to make it more exciting, because you might have to balance it! The game is going be going through balance changes for at LEAST the next 2 years, so it doesn't even matter. And its not like it would even take a whole lot of number changing to even balance the suggestions in the OP. "The game is SC2, not BW"? What sort of argument is that? I'm sick and tired of seeing people say that. Its a simple question you have to ask yourself: Do you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? If you do, then there is no harm at all in adopting aspects of BW that contribute to its greatness.
I don't think you understood what I said in the immortals example. What I meant is that in that particular case the AI, advanced as it is, doesn't matter or influence because you STILL need to properly micro the units in their correct position.
Yes I want SC2 to be as good as it can be, but I do not think adpoting aspects of BW would make it so. It worked in that game but SC2 isn't BW. That argument again. Why is that?
SC2 is clearly faster. Things seem to be a lot more fragile. The "one big huge battle" in a game are played with a LOT more units firing at the same time. SC2 units look a lot smaller on screen (resolution and FOV are increased) so you don't micro in "waves" but in balls. Those proposed changes would slow down caster play making it so that focusing on spells would make it so high risk that you would not bother with that at all.
|
very interesting article. i feel if blizzard implements at least some of these suggestions in upcoming patches, it would signficiantly increase the longetitvity of sc2's popularity.
|
On July 26 2010 06:32 the.bishOp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 05:48 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 14:41 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 08:58 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 08:08 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 07:44 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 05:19 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 01:53 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 01:06 Falling wrote:On July 24 2010 16:22 the.bishOp wrote:
[quote]
Ghosts have more range then marines, they kind of "blend in" but have range 6 on EMPs. A stalker has 10 sight, more than enough to spot a ghost coming in a "normal" situation. You can SEE the AOE of the spell if it hits or not. Upon viewing you can distincly see that a player microed his units out of the way to avoid that.
If the viewer can see the shot going off and THEN try to split, all we will see is the units getting off the way and the AOE effect missing.
The difference is that in a cast you see the ghost stop and the units move. That little bit of micro you would have to spend EARLIER you spend spend later. The problem is that both ways work. You can still dodge by splitting your forces earlier and screwing up the ghost range but you can choose to insta-split for the "cool" effect.
The insta-split is precisely the sort of 'cool' effect that is so interesting. Insane reflexes create 'wow' moments. Being prepared and moving away as you see ghosts is useful and good to see, but not the sort of micro that's being advocated (although that sort of micro will always be useful.)
But ok lets say we put some cast times on. What about storms? Just "make them more powerful". Sure thing but put on some cast times. What about feedback? It has range 9. You can make a ghost useless with one feedback. Put some kind of way to clutch-dodge it.
I also said with storms to increase dodgebility- thus maybe increase damage per second but the drop the radius a bit and increase the total damage. I don't know- but right now it takes forever to deal full damage with storm, so the player can either weather the storm or move luxuriously out. I do not advocated more power with storm with out making it dodgeble, don't forget that part- and sure, caster time could be introduced to templars- the point is creating opportunities for awesome looking micro- Blizzard can balance the new version of the abilities as they have done in the past.
And force-field? They don't require much skill to be placed. Make them break if you place them on top of a unit. Or put some cast times on it so a zerg army can close in. Or even make it so you can burrow under it so you get reward for amazing micro.
For sure, the article mentions some ideas, I'm sure that there other ideas. The focus was not on nerfing Terran abilities, but looking at which ideas had potential for awesome game moments. If Terran abilities are nerfed with the ideas, obviously Terran would also have to gain some buffs. That's not the point. The point is this particular set of abilities have the potential for great moments in play.
As I said there are a lot of subtle things that are not yet fully explored and people are proposing to change the game to add layers of skills on top of something they do not yet master. People miss a LOT of the EMPs, FG and spells already.
Absolutely, but there are some things that could be improved upon to make the viewing even more exciting. (SCBW- the difference between storm dodging with hydras and not is night and day and extremely interesting to watch.) Hopefully you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, but I feel that it's absolutely essential that this topic is understood (props to Plexa, Morrow, and Saracen on hitting the critique dead-center). What we want is micro that has trade-offs that blur the line. We want decisions that players must make in an instant, as a reactionary, that can have a visible difference in a battle or situation. Right now, the ghost's EMP shoots a lot faster than it's predecessor, the Science Vessel's. I think that's the best comparison I can give you. When I saw an EMP flying at me, sure I couldn't dodge the whole thing, but I could definitely try to move units on the outside away. And I would. Why? Because It meant those extra shields/energy that might just be enough to scrap up one more storm or something. With storms right now, I feel like colossus are just easier/more useful. I know I'm wrong on that, but when it comes down to a battle, I see colossi mowing down units while a storm just kinda causes an animation that allows the other units to clean up. Most of the time it's a kill on a unit that can't escape or a damage on a unit that simply does more by not running away. Relating back to the sc1 predecessor, the zerg player would often times want to run their hydralisk out of a storm. We simply don't see that in sc2 unless the hydralisk are on creep or something. What the OP is asking for isn't a stronger storm. He's asking for situations where choices that aren't blatantly obvious have to be made. If it means storms being stronger, than that's what he's asking for. BUT he's also asking for units that are fast enough and have enough health to dodge out and for that choice to be worth it. I agree force field doesn't take much skill and has a lot more potential than the thread lets on. While I don't agree that burrow is the answer, there is room for some change that would make force field less... influential. As Falling stated, there's still plenty of other ideas, just look at how long it took to discover muta micro. The OP listed the "nerfs" and that's what some people are reading it as. What they're skipping is the "make up for the nerf by throwing in some buffs" that make these requests reasonable. A lot of what we're looking for doesn't make a drastic difference in gameplay, but it does in viewing pleasure. Most of us will not ever get to play on the progaming scene or anything of that caliber (sorry guys ), but what we all share in common is a passion for watching amazing plays by insanely good pros. Yeah we have people missing spells left and right, but we're still in the beta where we lack that boxer-esque cloning (think medics with optical flare), nada's vultures, jaedong's mutas, bisu's goons, kal's shuttle/reaver (and movie to some extent), jangbi's storms, among a number of other players. The list goes on and on. We're here asking for more "wow" moments and micro-able tasks not because we believe that people have figured it out, but because we believe that people will figure it out and we want that skill cap to always just be out of reach. How fun is a game once someone has totally figured it out? Even after 10 years, we still see S-ranked players with occasional idle workers, which just shows that there's always room to improve. While the bonjwa days were great (I was not fortunate enough to be a fan back then), the excitement was always about how the greatest player would win the game, innovate a strategy, or bring something new to the board. But it wasn't the same as the ridiculous back and forth games that make us jump and scream and dance. Maybe it's too early to be asking for all of this. Maybe we need more time to adjust to the game. Yeah, there are plenty of things yet to be discovered. But how much more potential would be lost if we didn't bring these ideas to the table? Our goal is for the longevity of SC2, not for the impossible game that's full of mistakes. The game is not boring. It is not boring to watch and it is not boring to play. It already takes a heavy toll on your mind. You can CLEARLY see when you screwed up someone in some way or another. You can see sloppy play, you can clearly see mistakes in macro, in unit composition and a lot of mid battle micro. What you said in the end of your post nailed it: you need more time to adjust to the game. This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it. The suggestions made are an artificial mean of introducing some "cluch" and states that "balance is not the issue here". But you CANT change some core game mechanics and expect to not throw balance out of the window. Beta is over, it took many months of tweaking to achieve some form of balance. We will get dozens of patches until the game is fixed but right now it is AT LEAST playable and I dont think anyone disagrees on that. Truth is people just want to play and keep playing BW. I have seen some excelent SC2 games already, some of wich are way better than most BW I've seen. I find funny that people want to add layers on something they still don't understand. This is the last time I'm going to reply to this thread because at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves, and other people can do that. I never said it was boring. The perspectives we're taking are clearly different. You're looking from a gamer's perspective, and I can respect that. SC2 is by no means a boring game, neither in watching or playing - for now. It does take a heavy toll on your mind and replay analysis will show plenty of mistakes. But I'm going to assume that neither you or I, or 99.9% of the people here on this site are of the caliber that goes on in the Korean progaming scene. And that's where my focus is at. You're right, I do make plenty of mistakes - more than I'd like to admit. And yes we do need more time to adjust to the game. But the thing is, advocates with BW background want to reach that awesome balance that includes those "wow" moments ASAP because then we can all play the same game and get better, as opposed to waiting 5-10 years for the patches to finally come through. Think back to the beta and I'm sure you had moments when you just thought "what the heck, this part of the game is broken, it needs to be patched" or something of the sort. What we want is that part to be fixed without losing the mass long term appeal that this game could have. You're 100% correct in saying that "This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it." But SC2 is also 100% an evolution from the original, hence the 2. These suggestions aren't an artificial mean of introducing "clutch", it's very real because it isn't just for show. Whether someone is watching the game or not, doesn't change the fact that getting that perfect storm or emp or whatever off can change the game flow. The reason we say that balance is not an issue is because these are merely ideas that when introduced will need to be balanced. It isn't a copy/paste insert that Plexa has posted up here. It's some awesome theorycrafting. We're not expecting these ideas to be added, without changing the balance in some way; we're hoping that it will allow for less of the game balancing itself, and more of the players balancing each other. I don't think people just want to play and keep playing BW. If we did, we'd simply go back to playing BW - the game hasn't left. What we want is that same epic game feeling in a game that's already winning in graphics and smoothness. We're trying to add layers to something that we feel like won't have the competitive nature of BW. Even at the upper levels of laddering, I feel that there's much less that you can do to turn a game around. vAltyR puts it quite well: On July 25 2010 03:51 vAltyR wrote:On July 24 2010 05:10 Fincheronious wrote:
You should worry less about fixing a bad situation that you are already in and start thinking about how to avoid a bad situation altogether, and you will start to realize more dynamics in competitive play. Avoiding a bad situation is all well and good, but it doesn't make for exciting matches for the spectators. What you suggest seems to me to be more like a game of chess; you have to pay attention to your opponent's pieces as well as your own in order to succeed. However, chess is quite boring to watch because of the subtleties of the moves. Unless your understanding of chess is on par with the people playing it, you won't have a lot of fun watching it simply because you won't understand what's going on. Putting more emphasis on preparation for your opponent also creates a system where once you are behind, it's very hard to win unless your opponent makes a mistake. I'm not saying preparation isn't or shouldn't be important, but it should be on par with spur-of-the-moment tactics. Starcraft should be a game of hard counters on paper, soft counters in practice. This lets players emphasize on preparation by using good counters to what their opponent builds, but the opponent can still fight back, instead of getting completely obliterated. We want this depth because it gives us hope. Hope in the eternal evolution of this game and hope in individual games. And when you look at humanity, that's a lot of what we're looking for... some sort of hope to keep us going. That is the point. You want to add depth to something you haven't reached the bottom of yet. All the main criticism I have read here and from interviews with "top players" focus on the aspect that this game isn't BW. It's just not as clunky. As is EMPs and Storms CAN change battles. People compare the damage that one storm does but tend to forget that they are not isolated. You have an army to support that. Its like saying one tank can't one shot a Hydra. And I do know what you mean by Korean Pro Scene and players of that caliber. Problem is that so far what they have shown us is that they too are very very very far from completely mastering the game. Do you really think that SC2 requires any where near the amount of micro, or excitement in games? Balance is one question, but people who even like SC2 have said the game is mainly about unit composition, and due to the intelligent AI, micro doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as it does in BW. SC2 does have skills and abilities that can change battles. But, skills like EMP or Fungal Growth, when pulled off, doesn't make you go "OH MY GOD HE LANDED IT, THIS BATTLE HIS OVER". Skills like that are almost guaranteed to happen since you can't really dodge them (you can prepare to mitigate them before hand by spreading, but thats pretty much it). Battles are decided before they even happen due to positioning and composition. Brood War is a quality game, so why not try and implement parts of BW that work? Even if people haven't reached the depths of SC2 skill, whats the harm in adding tricks and stuff that would make things more exciting? Don't you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? Unit AI have different priorities in a battle. You probably noticed that as it is quite obvious. If you don't focus fire and let your whatever do their thing they can end up killing all medivacs and getting raped by the remaining ground army. If you DO manage to micro around and focus on a more dangerous target you have to worry about the position of your army and actually getting in range do fire. How many times you see a low ranged immortal dance around like idiots because there is a wall of stalkers? TOP TIER gamers doing that, mind you. How often you see "one control group syndrome"? How many times have you seen someone blink stalkers one by one to micro them out of harm? How many times have you seen a proper use and harass using reapers that are fast as hell? Players are learning to deal with a lot of things and I like to watch SC2 much more than BW games. Anyone can learn unit compositions and timings but its another story to pull off with the units you have. Why not try to implement parts of BW that work? Because its SC2, not BW. The harm of adding tricks and stuff is rebalancing everything to accomodate these changes. Sometimes veterans seem scared that because the game is a little friendlier to the "noob" that it doesn't have depth. Anyone can learn unit composition and timing. And unfortunately, SC2 is much more centered around things like that than BW. It isn't even up for debate, IMO. You talk about an immortal dancing around like idiots in SC2 because Stalkers are in front. So, uhhhh, lets say that all those stalkers were retarded too (lets say they are infinitely more retarded), and your zealots were also too stupid to run around the Stalkers when attacking? AI control issues were worse on so many levels in BW, and the fact that they aren't as bad in SC2 simply reduces the amount of micro you actually need to do in battles. Its just a fact. Focus firing, positioning, composition, all that stuff exists in both games. Except in one game, it requires alot more effort due to interface and unit AI. Therefore, since that aspect is made easier, the game obviously would focus more on the elements of composition and positioning. God forbid things be done extremely early in a game's life to make it more exciting, because you might have to balance it! The game is going be going through balance changes for at LEAST the next 2 years, so it doesn't even matter. And its not like it would even take a whole lot of number changing to even balance the suggestions in the OP. "The game is SC2, not BW"? What sort of argument is that? I'm sick and tired of seeing people say that. Its a simple question you have to ask yourself: Do you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? If you do, then there is no harm at all in adopting aspects of BW that contribute to its greatness. I don't think you understood what I said in the immortals example. What I meant is that in that particular case the AI, advanced as it is, doesn't matter or influence because you STILL need to properly micro the units in their correct position. Yes I want SC2 to be as good as it can be, but I do not think adpoting aspects of BW would make it so. It worked in that game but SC2 isn't BW. That argument again. Why is that? SC2 is clearly faster. Things seem to be a lot more fragile. The "one big huge battle" in a game are played with a LOT more units firing at the same time. SC2 units look a lot smaller on screen (resolution and FOV are increased) so you don't micro in "waves" but in balls. Those proposed changes would slow down caster play making it so that focusing on spells would make it so high risk that you would not bother with that at all.
Personally, things don't seem more fragile to me. In BW, you had spider mines and Siege tanks killing 100 supply worth of Dragoons in a matter of seconds. You had control groups of hydras exploding from a single storm, or Reaver scarab. People used lings more. Bio TvZ was a battle of two glass armies dueling with each other. Now you have stuff like Roaches, Mauraders, and Immortals, who specialize in not getting killed.
Anyway, I still think you are looking at the proposed changes in a vacuum. Lets say there is more cast time added, to for example, Fungal Growth. Yes, that would make Fungal Growth in its current form, with its current numbers, into a very high risk spell with rewards that don't equal the risk. If the effects of the spell were buffed, then it would balance that out. This game will be undergoing balance changes for at least the next 2 years, so the fact that things are going to be rebalanced and fixed is a given. If the game is going to be made more exciting, and into a game that will truly surpass BW, the things talked about in the OP should be addressed early in the life of the game, so Blizzard has more time to get everything balanced.
|
I think SC2 just needs some time do find the higher skilled aspect, or "wow" moments of the game. Right now there are some.... But i don't feel the Blizzard should try to force wow moments into the game. Once players standardize some build orders, and play is more redifined SC2 will have alot more room for wow moments.
|
On July 26 2010 09:21 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 06:32 the.bishOp wrote:On July 26 2010 05:48 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 14:41 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 08:58 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 08:08 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 07:44 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 05:19 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 01:53 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 01:06 Falling wrote:
[quote] The insta-split is precisely the sort of 'cool' effect that is so interesting. Insane reflexes create 'wow' moments. Being prepared and moving away as you see ghosts is useful and good to see, but not the sort of micro that's being advocated (although that sort of micro will always be useful.)
[quote]
I also said with storms to increase dodgebility- thus maybe increase damage per second but the drop the radius a bit and increase the total damage. I don't know- but right now it takes forever to deal full damage with storm, so the player can either weather the storm or move luxuriously out. I do not advocated more power with storm with out making it dodgeble, don't forget that part- and sure, caster time could be introduced to templars- the point is creating opportunities for awesome looking micro- Blizzard can balance the new version of the abilities as they have done in the past.
[quote]
For sure, the article mentions some ideas, I'm sure that there other ideas. The focus was not on nerfing Terran abilities, but looking at which ideas had potential for awesome game moments. If Terran abilities are nerfed with the ideas, obviously Terran would also have to gain some buffs. That's not the point. The point is this particular set of abilities have the potential for great moments in play.
[quote]
Absolutely, but there are some things that could be improved upon to make the viewing even more exciting. (SCBW- the difference between storm dodging with hydras and not is night and day and extremely interesting to watch.)
Hopefully you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, but I feel that it's absolutely essential that this topic is understood (props to Plexa, Morrow, and Saracen on hitting the critique dead-center). What we want is micro that has trade-offs that blur the line. We want decisions that players must make in an instant, as a reactionary, that can have a visible difference in a battle or situation. Right now, the ghost's EMP shoots a lot faster than it's predecessor, the Science Vessel's. I think that's the best comparison I can give you. When I saw an EMP flying at me, sure I couldn't dodge the whole thing, but I could definitely try to move units on the outside away. And I would. Why? Because It meant those extra shields/energy that might just be enough to scrap up one more storm or something. With storms right now, I feel like colossus are just easier/more useful. I know I'm wrong on that, but when it comes down to a battle, I see colossi mowing down units while a storm just kinda causes an animation that allows the other units to clean up. Most of the time it's a kill on a unit that can't escape or a damage on a unit that simply does more by not running away. Relating back to the sc1 predecessor, the zerg player would often times want to run their hydralisk out of a storm. We simply don't see that in sc2 unless the hydralisk are on creep or something. What the OP is asking for isn't a stronger storm. He's asking for situations where choices that aren't blatantly obvious have to be made. If it means storms being stronger, than that's what he's asking for. BUT he's also asking for units that are fast enough and have enough health to dodge out and for that choice to be worth it. I agree force field doesn't take much skill and has a lot more potential than the thread lets on. While I don't agree that burrow is the answer, there is room for some change that would make force field less... influential. As Falling stated, there's still plenty of other ideas, just look at how long it took to discover muta micro. The OP listed the "nerfs" and that's what some people are reading it as. What they're skipping is the "make up for the nerf by throwing in some buffs" that make these requests reasonable. A lot of what we're looking for doesn't make a drastic difference in gameplay, but it does in viewing pleasure. Most of us will not ever get to play on the progaming scene or anything of that caliber (sorry guys ), but what we all share in common is a passion for watching amazing plays by insanely good pros. Yeah we have people missing spells left and right, but we're still in the beta where we lack that boxer-esque cloning (think medics with optical flare), nada's vultures, jaedong's mutas, bisu's goons, kal's shuttle/reaver (and movie to some extent), jangbi's storms, among a number of other players. The list goes on and on. We're here asking for more "wow" moments and micro-able tasks not because we believe that people have figured it out, but because we believe that people will figure it out and we want that skill cap to always just be out of reach. How fun is a game once someone has totally figured it out? Even after 10 years, we still see S-ranked players with occasional idle workers, which just shows that there's always room to improve. While the bonjwa days were great (I was not fortunate enough to be a fan back then), the excitement was always about how the greatest player would win the game, innovate a strategy, or bring something new to the board. But it wasn't the same as the ridiculous back and forth games that make us jump and scream and dance. Maybe it's too early to be asking for all of this. Maybe we need more time to adjust to the game. Yeah, there are plenty of things yet to be discovered. But how much more potential would be lost if we didn't bring these ideas to the table? Our goal is for the longevity of SC2, not for the impossible game that's full of mistakes. The game is not boring. It is not boring to watch and it is not boring to play. It already takes a heavy toll on your mind. You can CLEARLY see when you screwed up someone in some way or another. You can see sloppy play, you can clearly see mistakes in macro, in unit composition and a lot of mid battle micro. What you said in the end of your post nailed it: you need more time to adjust to the game. This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it. The suggestions made are an artificial mean of introducing some "cluch" and states that "balance is not the issue here". But you CANT change some core game mechanics and expect to not throw balance out of the window. Beta is over, it took many months of tweaking to achieve some form of balance. We will get dozens of patches until the game is fixed but right now it is AT LEAST playable and I dont think anyone disagrees on that. Truth is people just want to play and keep playing BW. I have seen some excelent SC2 games already, some of wich are way better than most BW I've seen. I find funny that people want to add layers on something they still don't understand. This is the last time I'm going to reply to this thread because at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves, and other people can do that. I never said it was boring. The perspectives we're taking are clearly different. You're looking from a gamer's perspective, and I can respect that. SC2 is by no means a boring game, neither in watching or playing - for now. It does take a heavy toll on your mind and replay analysis will show plenty of mistakes. But I'm going to assume that neither you or I, or 99.9% of the people here on this site are of the caliber that goes on in the Korean progaming scene. And that's where my focus is at. You're right, I do make plenty of mistakes - more than I'd like to admit. And yes we do need more time to adjust to the game. But the thing is, advocates with BW background want to reach that awesome balance that includes those "wow" moments ASAP because then we can all play the same game and get better, as opposed to waiting 5-10 years for the patches to finally come through. Think back to the beta and I'm sure you had moments when you just thought "what the heck, this part of the game is broken, it needs to be patched" or something of the sort. What we want is that part to be fixed without losing the mass long term appeal that this game could have. You're 100% correct in saying that "This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it." But SC2 is also 100% an evolution from the original, hence the 2. These suggestions aren't an artificial mean of introducing "clutch", it's very real because it isn't just for show. Whether someone is watching the game or not, doesn't change the fact that getting that perfect storm or emp or whatever off can change the game flow. The reason we say that balance is not an issue is because these are merely ideas that when introduced will need to be balanced. It isn't a copy/paste insert that Plexa has posted up here. It's some awesome theorycrafting. We're not expecting these ideas to be added, without changing the balance in some way; we're hoping that it will allow for less of the game balancing itself, and more of the players balancing each other. I don't think people just want to play and keep playing BW. If we did, we'd simply go back to playing BW - the game hasn't left. What we want is that same epic game feeling in a game that's already winning in graphics and smoothness. We're trying to add layers to something that we feel like won't have the competitive nature of BW. Even at the upper levels of laddering, I feel that there's much less that you can do to turn a game around. vAltyR puts it quite well: On July 25 2010 03:51 vAltyR wrote:On July 24 2010 05:10 Fincheronious wrote:
You should worry less about fixing a bad situation that you are already in and start thinking about how to avoid a bad situation altogether, and you will start to realize more dynamics in competitive play. Avoiding a bad situation is all well and good, but it doesn't make for exciting matches for the spectators. What you suggest seems to me to be more like a game of chess; you have to pay attention to your opponent's pieces as well as your own in order to succeed. However, chess is quite boring to watch because of the subtleties of the moves. Unless your understanding of chess is on par with the people playing it, you won't have a lot of fun watching it simply because you won't understand what's going on. Putting more emphasis on preparation for your opponent also creates a system where once you are behind, it's very hard to win unless your opponent makes a mistake. I'm not saying preparation isn't or shouldn't be important, but it should be on par with spur-of-the-moment tactics. Starcraft should be a game of hard counters on paper, soft counters in practice. This lets players emphasize on preparation by using good counters to what their opponent builds, but the opponent can still fight back, instead of getting completely obliterated. We want this depth because it gives us hope. Hope in the eternal evolution of this game and hope in individual games. And when you look at humanity, that's a lot of what we're looking for... some sort of hope to keep us going. That is the point. You want to add depth to something you haven't reached the bottom of yet. All the main criticism I have read here and from interviews with "top players" focus on the aspect that this game isn't BW. It's just not as clunky. As is EMPs and Storms CAN change battles. People compare the damage that one storm does but tend to forget that they are not isolated. You have an army to support that. Its like saying one tank can't one shot a Hydra. And I do know what you mean by Korean Pro Scene and players of that caliber. Problem is that so far what they have shown us is that they too are very very very far from completely mastering the game. Do you really think that SC2 requires any where near the amount of micro, or excitement in games? Balance is one question, but people who even like SC2 have said the game is mainly about unit composition, and due to the intelligent AI, micro doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as it does in BW. SC2 does have skills and abilities that can change battles. But, skills like EMP or Fungal Growth, when pulled off, doesn't make you go "OH MY GOD HE LANDED IT, THIS BATTLE HIS OVER". Skills like that are almost guaranteed to happen since you can't really dodge them (you can prepare to mitigate them before hand by spreading, but thats pretty much it). Battles are decided before they even happen due to positioning and composition. Brood War is a quality game, so why not try and implement parts of BW that work? Even if people haven't reached the depths of SC2 skill, whats the harm in adding tricks and stuff that would make things more exciting? Don't you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? Unit AI have different priorities in a battle. You probably noticed that as it is quite obvious. If you don't focus fire and let your whatever do their thing they can end up killing all medivacs and getting raped by the remaining ground army. If you DO manage to micro around and focus on a more dangerous target you have to worry about the position of your army and actually getting in range do fire. How many times you see a low ranged immortal dance around like idiots because there is a wall of stalkers? TOP TIER gamers doing that, mind you. How often you see "one control group syndrome"? How many times have you seen someone blink stalkers one by one to micro them out of harm? How many times have you seen a proper use and harass using reapers that are fast as hell? Players are learning to deal with a lot of things and I like to watch SC2 much more than BW games. Anyone can learn unit compositions and timings but its another story to pull off with the units you have. Why not try to implement parts of BW that work? Because its SC2, not BW. The harm of adding tricks and stuff is rebalancing everything to accomodate these changes. Sometimes veterans seem scared that because the game is a little friendlier to the "noob" that it doesn't have depth. Anyone can learn unit composition and timing. And unfortunately, SC2 is much more centered around things like that than BW. It isn't even up for debate, IMO. You talk about an immortal dancing around like idiots in SC2 because Stalkers are in front. So, uhhhh, lets say that all those stalkers were retarded too (lets say they are infinitely more retarded), and your zealots were also too stupid to run around the Stalkers when attacking? AI control issues were worse on so many levels in BW, and the fact that they aren't as bad in SC2 simply reduces the amount of micro you actually need to do in battles. Its just a fact. Focus firing, positioning, composition, all that stuff exists in both games. Except in one game, it requires alot more effort due to interface and unit AI. Therefore, since that aspect is made easier, the game obviously would focus more on the elements of composition and positioning. God forbid things be done extremely early in a game's life to make it more exciting, because you might have to balance it! The game is going be going through balance changes for at LEAST the next 2 years, so it doesn't even matter. And its not like it would even take a whole lot of number changing to even balance the suggestions in the OP. "The game is SC2, not BW"? What sort of argument is that? I'm sick and tired of seeing people say that. Its a simple question you have to ask yourself: Do you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? If you do, then there is no harm at all in adopting aspects of BW that contribute to its greatness. I don't think you understood what I said in the immortals example. What I meant is that in that particular case the AI, advanced as it is, doesn't matter or influence because you STILL need to properly micro the units in their correct position. Yes I want SC2 to be as good as it can be, but I do not think adpoting aspects of BW would make it so. It worked in that game but SC2 isn't BW. That argument again. Why is that? SC2 is clearly faster. Things seem to be a lot more fragile. The "one big huge battle" in a game are played with a LOT more units firing at the same time. SC2 units look a lot smaller on screen (resolution and FOV are increased) so you don't micro in "waves" but in balls. Those proposed changes would slow down caster play making it so that focusing on spells would make it so high risk that you would not bother with that at all. Personally, things don't seem more fragile to me. In BW, you had spider mines and Siege tanks killing 100 supply worth of Dragoons in a matter of seconds. You had control groups of hydras exploding from a single storm, or Reaver scarab. People used lings more. Bio TvZ was a battle of two glass armies dueling with each other. Now you have stuff like Roaches, Mauraders, and Immortals, who specialize in not getting killed. Anyway, I still think you are looking at the proposed changes in a vacuum. Lets say there is more cast time added, to for example, Fungal Growth. Yes, that would make Fungal Growth in its current form, with its current numbers, into a very high risk spell with rewards that don't equal the risk. If the effects of the spell were buffed, then it would balance that out. This game will be undergoing balance changes for at least the next 2 years, so the fact that things are going to be rebalanced and fixed is a given. If the game is going to be made more exciting, and into a game that will truly surpass BW, the things talked about in the OP should be addressed early in the life of the game, so Blizzard has more time to get everything balanced.
Tweaking numbers on the spell, like range/duration/damage/radius would not decrease its risk but only increase its reward. A build without casters (that are already heavily favored anyway) would have yet more stability. You would have to tweak numbers on ALL units to "slow down" the pace.
Things happen quicker in SC2 because you see a lot more units engaging at THE SAME time. AOE damage is "smarter" too, when units AI control the "overkill" aspects of tanks.
I am not looking at the changes in a vaccuum. That is in fact kind of what the article proposes. Changes disregarding balance issues. It's like if Blizzard patches and changes how AOE damage on tanks and similar units work.
|
On July 26 2010 11:18 the.bishOp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 09:21 Sentenal wrote:On July 26 2010 06:32 the.bishOp wrote:On July 26 2010 05:48 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 14:41 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 08:58 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 08:08 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 07:44 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 05:19 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 01:53 humanimal wrote:[quote] Hopefully you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, but I feel that it's absolutely essential that this topic is understood (props to Plexa, Morrow, and Saracen on hitting the critique dead-center). What we want is micro that has trade-offs that blur the line. We want decisions that players must make in an instant, as a reactionary, that can have a visible difference in a battle or situation. Right now, the ghost's EMP shoots a lot faster than it's predecessor, the Science Vessel's. I think that's the best comparison I can give you. When I saw an EMP flying at me, sure I couldn't dodge the whole thing, but I could definitely try to move units on the outside away. And I would. Why? Because It meant those extra shields/energy that might just be enough to scrap up one more storm or something. With storms right now, I feel like colossus are just easier/more useful. I know I'm wrong on that, but when it comes down to a battle, I see colossi mowing down units while a storm just kinda causes an animation that allows the other units to clean up. Most of the time it's a kill on a unit that can't escape or a damage on a unit that simply does more by not running away. Relating back to the sc1 predecessor, the zerg player would often times want to run their hydralisk out of a storm. We simply don't see that in sc2 unless the hydralisk are on creep or something. What the OP is asking for isn't a stronger storm. He's asking for situations where choices that aren't blatantly obvious have to be made. If it means storms being stronger, than that's what he's asking for. BUT he's also asking for units that are fast enough and have enough health to dodge out and for that choice to be worth it. I agree force field doesn't take much skill and has a lot more potential than the thread lets on. While I don't agree that burrow is the answer, there is room for some change that would make force field less... influential. As Falling stated, there's still plenty of other ideas, just look at how long it took to discover muta micro. The OP listed the "nerfs" and that's what some people are reading it as. What they're skipping is the "make up for the nerf by throwing in some buffs" that make these requests reasonable. A lot of what we're looking for doesn't make a drastic difference in gameplay, but it does in viewing pleasure. Most of us will not ever get to play on the progaming scene or anything of that caliber (sorry guys ), but what we all share in common is a passion for watching amazing plays by insanely good pros. Yeah we have people missing spells left and right, but we're still in the beta where we lack that boxer-esque cloning (think medics with optical flare), nada's vultures, jaedong's mutas, bisu's goons, kal's shuttle/reaver (and movie to some extent), jangbi's storms, among a number of other players. The list goes on and on. We're here asking for more "wow" moments and micro-able tasks not because we believe that people have figured it out, but because we believe that people will figure it out and we want that skill cap to always just be out of reach. How fun is a game once someone has totally figured it out? Even after 10 years, we still see S-ranked players with occasional idle workers, which just shows that there's always room to improve. While the bonjwa days were great (I was not fortunate enough to be a fan back then), the excitement was always about how the greatest player would win the game, innovate a strategy, or bring something new to the board. But it wasn't the same as the ridiculous back and forth games that make us jump and scream and dance. Maybe it's too early to be asking for all of this. Maybe we need more time to adjust to the game. Yeah, there are plenty of things yet to be discovered. But how much more potential would be lost if we didn't bring these ideas to the table? Our goal is for the longevity of SC2, not for the impossible game that's full of mistakes. The game is not boring. It is not boring to watch and it is not boring to play. It already takes a heavy toll on your mind. You can CLEARLY see when you screwed up someone in some way or another. You can see sloppy play, you can clearly see mistakes in macro, in unit composition and a lot of mid battle micro. What you said in the end of your post nailed it: you need more time to adjust to the game. This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it. The suggestions made are an artificial mean of introducing some "cluch" and states that "balance is not the issue here". But you CANT change some core game mechanics and expect to not throw balance out of the window. Beta is over, it took many months of tweaking to achieve some form of balance. We will get dozens of patches until the game is fixed but right now it is AT LEAST playable and I dont think anyone disagrees on that. Truth is people just want to play and keep playing BW. I have seen some excelent SC2 games already, some of wich are way better than most BW I've seen. I find funny that people want to add layers on something they still don't understand. This is the last time I'm going to reply to this thread because at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves, and other people can do that. I never said it was boring. The perspectives we're taking are clearly different. You're looking from a gamer's perspective, and I can respect that. SC2 is by no means a boring game, neither in watching or playing - for now. It does take a heavy toll on your mind and replay analysis will show plenty of mistakes. But I'm going to assume that neither you or I, or 99.9% of the people here on this site are of the caliber that goes on in the Korean progaming scene. And that's where my focus is at. You're right, I do make plenty of mistakes - more than I'd like to admit. And yes we do need more time to adjust to the game. But the thing is, advocates with BW background want to reach that awesome balance that includes those "wow" moments ASAP because then we can all play the same game and get better, as opposed to waiting 5-10 years for the patches to finally come through. Think back to the beta and I'm sure you had moments when you just thought "what the heck, this part of the game is broken, it needs to be patched" or something of the sort. What we want is that part to be fixed without losing the mass long term appeal that this game could have. You're 100% correct in saying that "This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it." But SC2 is also 100% an evolution from the original, hence the 2. These suggestions aren't an artificial mean of introducing "clutch", it's very real because it isn't just for show. Whether someone is watching the game or not, doesn't change the fact that getting that perfect storm or emp or whatever off can change the game flow. The reason we say that balance is not an issue is because these are merely ideas that when introduced will need to be balanced. It isn't a copy/paste insert that Plexa has posted up here. It's some awesome theorycrafting. We're not expecting these ideas to be added, without changing the balance in some way; we're hoping that it will allow for less of the game balancing itself, and more of the players balancing each other. I don't think people just want to play and keep playing BW. If we did, we'd simply go back to playing BW - the game hasn't left. What we want is that same epic game feeling in a game that's already winning in graphics and smoothness. We're trying to add layers to something that we feel like won't have the competitive nature of BW. Even at the upper levels of laddering, I feel that there's much less that you can do to turn a game around. vAltyR puts it quite well: On July 25 2010 03:51 vAltyR wrote:On July 24 2010 05:10 Fincheronious wrote:
You should worry less about fixing a bad situation that you are already in and start thinking about how to avoid a bad situation altogether, and you will start to realize more dynamics in competitive play. Avoiding a bad situation is all well and good, but it doesn't make for exciting matches for the spectators. What you suggest seems to me to be more like a game of chess; you have to pay attention to your opponent's pieces as well as your own in order to succeed. However, chess is quite boring to watch because of the subtleties of the moves. Unless your understanding of chess is on par with the people playing it, you won't have a lot of fun watching it simply because you won't understand what's going on. Putting more emphasis on preparation for your opponent also creates a system where once you are behind, it's very hard to win unless your opponent makes a mistake. I'm not saying preparation isn't or shouldn't be important, but it should be on par with spur-of-the-moment tactics. Starcraft should be a game of hard counters on paper, soft counters in practice. This lets players emphasize on preparation by using good counters to what their opponent builds, but the opponent can still fight back, instead of getting completely obliterated. We want this depth because it gives us hope. Hope in the eternal evolution of this game and hope in individual games. And when you look at humanity, that's a lot of what we're looking for... some sort of hope to keep us going. That is the point. You want to add depth to something you haven't reached the bottom of yet. All the main criticism I have read here and from interviews with "top players" focus on the aspect that this game isn't BW. It's just not as clunky. As is EMPs and Storms CAN change battles. People compare the damage that one storm does but tend to forget that they are not isolated. You have an army to support that. Its like saying one tank can't one shot a Hydra. And I do know what you mean by Korean Pro Scene and players of that caliber. Problem is that so far what they have shown us is that they too are very very very far from completely mastering the game. Do you really think that SC2 requires any where near the amount of micro, or excitement in games? Balance is one question, but people who even like SC2 have said the game is mainly about unit composition, and due to the intelligent AI, micro doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as it does in BW. SC2 does have skills and abilities that can change battles. But, skills like EMP or Fungal Growth, when pulled off, doesn't make you go "OH MY GOD HE LANDED IT, THIS BATTLE HIS OVER". Skills like that are almost guaranteed to happen since you can't really dodge them (you can prepare to mitigate them before hand by spreading, but thats pretty much it). Battles are decided before they even happen due to positioning and composition. Brood War is a quality game, so why not try and implement parts of BW that work? Even if people haven't reached the depths of SC2 skill, whats the harm in adding tricks and stuff that would make things more exciting? Don't you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? Unit AI have different priorities in a battle. You probably noticed that as it is quite obvious. If you don't focus fire and let your whatever do their thing they can end up killing all medivacs and getting raped by the remaining ground army. If you DO manage to micro around and focus on a more dangerous target you have to worry about the position of your army and actually getting in range do fire. How many times you see a low ranged immortal dance around like idiots because there is a wall of stalkers? TOP TIER gamers doing that, mind you. How often you see "one control group syndrome"? How many times have you seen someone blink stalkers one by one to micro them out of harm? How many times have you seen a proper use and harass using reapers that are fast as hell? Players are learning to deal with a lot of things and I like to watch SC2 much more than BW games. Anyone can learn unit compositions and timings but its another story to pull off with the units you have. Why not try to implement parts of BW that work? Because its SC2, not BW. The harm of adding tricks and stuff is rebalancing everything to accomodate these changes. Sometimes veterans seem scared that because the game is a little friendlier to the "noob" that it doesn't have depth. Anyone can learn unit composition and timing. And unfortunately, SC2 is much more centered around things like that than BW. It isn't even up for debate, IMO. You talk about an immortal dancing around like idiots in SC2 because Stalkers are in front. So, uhhhh, lets say that all those stalkers were retarded too (lets say they are infinitely more retarded), and your zealots were also too stupid to run around the Stalkers when attacking? AI control issues were worse on so many levels in BW, and the fact that they aren't as bad in SC2 simply reduces the amount of micro you actually need to do in battles. Its just a fact. Focus firing, positioning, composition, all that stuff exists in both games. Except in one game, it requires alot more effort due to interface and unit AI. Therefore, since that aspect is made easier, the game obviously would focus more on the elements of composition and positioning. God forbid things be done extremely early in a game's life to make it more exciting, because you might have to balance it! The game is going be going through balance changes for at LEAST the next 2 years, so it doesn't even matter. And its not like it would even take a whole lot of number changing to even balance the suggestions in the OP. "The game is SC2, not BW"? What sort of argument is that? I'm sick and tired of seeing people say that. Its a simple question you have to ask yourself: Do you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? If you do, then there is no harm at all in adopting aspects of BW that contribute to its greatness. I don't think you understood what I said in the immortals example. What I meant is that in that particular case the AI, advanced as it is, doesn't matter or influence because you STILL need to properly micro the units in their correct position. Yes I want SC2 to be as good as it can be, but I do not think adpoting aspects of BW would make it so. It worked in that game but SC2 isn't BW. That argument again. Why is that? SC2 is clearly faster. Things seem to be a lot more fragile. The "one big huge battle" in a game are played with a LOT more units firing at the same time. SC2 units look a lot smaller on screen (resolution and FOV are increased) so you don't micro in "waves" but in balls. Those proposed changes would slow down caster play making it so that focusing on spells would make it so high risk that you would not bother with that at all. Personally, things don't seem more fragile to me. In BW, you had spider mines and Siege tanks killing 100 supply worth of Dragoons in a matter of seconds. You had control groups of hydras exploding from a single storm, or Reaver scarab. People used lings more. Bio TvZ was a battle of two glass armies dueling with each other. Now you have stuff like Roaches, Mauraders, and Immortals, who specialize in not getting killed. Anyway, I still think you are looking at the proposed changes in a vacuum. Lets say there is more cast time added, to for example, Fungal Growth. Yes, that would make Fungal Growth in its current form, with its current numbers, into a very high risk spell with rewards that don't equal the risk. If the effects of the spell were buffed, then it would balance that out. This game will be undergoing balance changes for at least the next 2 years, so the fact that things are going to be rebalanced and fixed is a given. If the game is going to be made more exciting, and into a game that will truly surpass BW, the things talked about in the OP should be addressed early in the life of the game, so Blizzard has more time to get everything balanced. Tweaking numbers on the spell, like range/duration/damage/radius would not decrease its risk but only increase its reward. A build without casters (that are already heavily favored anyway) would have yet more stability. You would have to tweak numbers on ALL units to "slow down" the pace. Things happen quicker in SC2 because you see a lot more units engaging at THE SAME time. AOE damage is "smarter" too, when units AI control the "overkill" aspects of tanks. I am not looking at the changes in a vaccuum. That is in fact kind of what the article proposes. Changes disregarding balance issues. It's like if Blizzard patches and changes how AOE damage on tanks and similar units work.
Okay I said I wouldn't post anymore but this last post just annoys the heck out of me. Either you're trolling really hard or you're replying before you're reading (most likely the latter). The majority of your responses dodge the issue, and the rest is just a response to 1 idea. You're not reading what we or the OP are saying.
First off, tweaking numbers could definitely increase risk (imagine making a cast range shorter). You would have to run in close to use it, subjecting that caster to more danger. That's just one example, so don't come back saying OH BUT YOU DIDN'T IMAGINE THIS OR THIS OR THIS. And no you don't have to tweak numbers on all units to slow down the pace. We're going for a changed game interaction, not a slower choppier game.
Yeah, things are happening quicker in sc2 because a lot more units are engaging at the same time. That's because now you can just 1a units into a battle instead of 1a2a3a etc. etc. I see games where not many hotkeys are being used; mostly about 4-6 out of the 10. In BW, we couldn't have enough hotkeys. Here we have more than enough but the fact that most hotkeys are similar (E for probe, pylon, weapons upgrade, sentry, etc.) allows us to not want to spread our hands out as much for optimal playing speed. Granted that's a personal opinion but I feel like other people share that idea in that nobody I've seen uses all 10 hotkeys. You're right on the ranged AI being smarter too, especially with overkill. But that's unrelated as far as I can tell.
And while you might not be looking at changes in a vacuum (I would argue that you were at the start at least), you're STILL not looking at them the way Plexa meant them to be read. He never proposed them to be looked at in a vacuum, specifically saying that this was a theorycrafting of DESIGN not BALANCE. That means that he's not even touching the number crunching that's a debate of vacuum or no vacuum. Which is why changes disregarding balance issues is not really an issue here.
|
Congrats on 20k Plexa. Great read; well written.
Thank you.
|
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but burrow ability on zerg units could be a way to dodge psi-storm and maybe other ae abilities talked about, adding to that wow factor.
|
On July 26 2010 11:18 the.bishOp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 09:21 Sentenal wrote:On July 26 2010 06:32 the.bishOp wrote:On July 26 2010 05:48 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 14:41 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 08:58 Sentenal wrote:On July 25 2010 08:08 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 07:44 humanimal wrote:On July 25 2010 05:19 the.bishOp wrote:On July 25 2010 01:53 humanimal wrote:[quote] Hopefully you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, but I feel that it's absolutely essential that this topic is understood (props to Plexa, Morrow, and Saracen on hitting the critique dead-center). What we want is micro that has trade-offs that blur the line. We want decisions that players must make in an instant, as a reactionary, that can have a visible difference in a battle or situation. Right now, the ghost's EMP shoots a lot faster than it's predecessor, the Science Vessel's. I think that's the best comparison I can give you. When I saw an EMP flying at me, sure I couldn't dodge the whole thing, but I could definitely try to move units on the outside away. And I would. Why? Because It meant those extra shields/energy that might just be enough to scrap up one more storm or something. With storms right now, I feel like colossus are just easier/more useful. I know I'm wrong on that, but when it comes down to a battle, I see colossi mowing down units while a storm just kinda causes an animation that allows the other units to clean up. Most of the time it's a kill on a unit that can't escape or a damage on a unit that simply does more by not running away. Relating back to the sc1 predecessor, the zerg player would often times want to run their hydralisk out of a storm. We simply don't see that in sc2 unless the hydralisk are on creep or something. What the OP is asking for isn't a stronger storm. He's asking for situations where choices that aren't blatantly obvious have to be made. If it means storms being stronger, than that's what he's asking for. BUT he's also asking for units that are fast enough and have enough health to dodge out and for that choice to be worth it. I agree force field doesn't take much skill and has a lot more potential than the thread lets on. While I don't agree that burrow is the answer, there is room for some change that would make force field less... influential. As Falling stated, there's still plenty of other ideas, just look at how long it took to discover muta micro. The OP listed the "nerfs" and that's what some people are reading it as. What they're skipping is the "make up for the nerf by throwing in some buffs" that make these requests reasonable. A lot of what we're looking for doesn't make a drastic difference in gameplay, but it does in viewing pleasure. Most of us will not ever get to play on the progaming scene or anything of that caliber (sorry guys ), but what we all share in common is a passion for watching amazing plays by insanely good pros. Yeah we have people missing spells left and right, but we're still in the beta where we lack that boxer-esque cloning (think medics with optical flare), nada's vultures, jaedong's mutas, bisu's goons, kal's shuttle/reaver (and movie to some extent), jangbi's storms, among a number of other players. The list goes on and on. We're here asking for more "wow" moments and micro-able tasks not because we believe that people have figured it out, but because we believe that people will figure it out and we want that skill cap to always just be out of reach. How fun is a game once someone has totally figured it out? Even after 10 years, we still see S-ranked players with occasional idle workers, which just shows that there's always room to improve. While the bonjwa days were great (I was not fortunate enough to be a fan back then), the excitement was always about how the greatest player would win the game, innovate a strategy, or bring something new to the board. But it wasn't the same as the ridiculous back and forth games that make us jump and scream and dance. Maybe it's too early to be asking for all of this. Maybe we need more time to adjust to the game. Yeah, there are plenty of things yet to be discovered. But how much more potential would be lost if we didn't bring these ideas to the table? Our goal is for the longevity of SC2, not for the impossible game that's full of mistakes. The game is not boring. It is not boring to watch and it is not boring to play. It already takes a heavy toll on your mind. You can CLEARLY see when you screwed up someone in some way or another. You can see sloppy play, you can clearly see mistakes in macro, in unit composition and a lot of mid battle micro. What you said in the end of your post nailed it: you need more time to adjust to the game. This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it. The suggestions made are an artificial mean of introducing some "cluch" and states that "balance is not the issue here". But you CANT change some core game mechanics and expect to not throw balance out of the window. Beta is over, it took many months of tweaking to achieve some form of balance. We will get dozens of patches until the game is fixed but right now it is AT LEAST playable and I dont think anyone disagrees on that. Truth is people just want to play and keep playing BW. I have seen some excelent SC2 games already, some of wich are way better than most BW I've seen. I find funny that people want to add layers on something they still don't understand. This is the last time I'm going to reply to this thread because at this point I feel like we're just repeating ourselves, and other people can do that. I never said it was boring. The perspectives we're taking are clearly different. You're looking from a gamer's perspective, and I can respect that. SC2 is by no means a boring game, neither in watching or playing - for now. It does take a heavy toll on your mind and replay analysis will show plenty of mistakes. But I'm going to assume that neither you or I, or 99.9% of the people here on this site are of the caliber that goes on in the Korean progaming scene. And that's where my focus is at. You're right, I do make plenty of mistakes - more than I'd like to admit. And yes we do need more time to adjust to the game. But the thing is, advocates with BW background want to reach that awesome balance that includes those "wow" moments ASAP because then we can all play the same game and get better, as opposed to waiting 5-10 years for the patches to finally come through. Think back to the beta and I'm sure you had moments when you just thought "what the heck, this part of the game is broken, it needs to be patched" or something of the sort. What we want is that part to be fixed without losing the mass long term appeal that this game could have. You're 100% correct in saying that "This isn't BW, it will never be and you can't try to force it." But SC2 is also 100% an evolution from the original, hence the 2. These suggestions aren't an artificial mean of introducing "clutch", it's very real because it isn't just for show. Whether someone is watching the game or not, doesn't change the fact that getting that perfect storm or emp or whatever off can change the game flow. The reason we say that balance is not an issue is because these are merely ideas that when introduced will need to be balanced. It isn't a copy/paste insert that Plexa has posted up here. It's some awesome theorycrafting. We're not expecting these ideas to be added, without changing the balance in some way; we're hoping that it will allow for less of the game balancing itself, and more of the players balancing each other. I don't think people just want to play and keep playing BW. If we did, we'd simply go back to playing BW - the game hasn't left. What we want is that same epic game feeling in a game that's already winning in graphics and smoothness. We're trying to add layers to something that we feel like won't have the competitive nature of BW. Even at the upper levels of laddering, I feel that there's much less that you can do to turn a game around. vAltyR puts it quite well: On July 25 2010 03:51 vAltyR wrote:On July 24 2010 05:10 Fincheronious wrote:
You should worry less about fixing a bad situation that you are already in and start thinking about how to avoid a bad situation altogether, and you will start to realize more dynamics in competitive play. Avoiding a bad situation is all well and good, but it doesn't make for exciting matches for the spectators. What you suggest seems to me to be more like a game of chess; you have to pay attention to your opponent's pieces as well as your own in order to succeed. However, chess is quite boring to watch because of the subtleties of the moves. Unless your understanding of chess is on par with the people playing it, you won't have a lot of fun watching it simply because you won't understand what's going on. Putting more emphasis on preparation for your opponent also creates a system where once you are behind, it's very hard to win unless your opponent makes a mistake. I'm not saying preparation isn't or shouldn't be important, but it should be on par with spur-of-the-moment tactics. Starcraft should be a game of hard counters on paper, soft counters in practice. This lets players emphasize on preparation by using good counters to what their opponent builds, but the opponent can still fight back, instead of getting completely obliterated. We want this depth because it gives us hope. Hope in the eternal evolution of this game and hope in individual games. And when you look at humanity, that's a lot of what we're looking for... some sort of hope to keep us going. That is the point. You want to add depth to something you haven't reached the bottom of yet. All the main criticism I have read here and from interviews with "top players" focus on the aspect that this game isn't BW. It's just not as clunky. As is EMPs and Storms CAN change battles. People compare the damage that one storm does but tend to forget that they are not isolated. You have an army to support that. Its like saying one tank can't one shot a Hydra. And I do know what you mean by Korean Pro Scene and players of that caliber. Problem is that so far what they have shown us is that they too are very very very far from completely mastering the game. Do you really think that SC2 requires any where near the amount of micro, or excitement in games? Balance is one question, but people who even like SC2 have said the game is mainly about unit composition, and due to the intelligent AI, micro doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as it does in BW. SC2 does have skills and abilities that can change battles. But, skills like EMP or Fungal Growth, when pulled off, doesn't make you go "OH MY GOD HE LANDED IT, THIS BATTLE HIS OVER". Skills like that are almost guaranteed to happen since you can't really dodge them (you can prepare to mitigate them before hand by spreading, but thats pretty much it). Battles are decided before they even happen due to positioning and composition. Brood War is a quality game, so why not try and implement parts of BW that work? Even if people haven't reached the depths of SC2 skill, whats the harm in adding tricks and stuff that would make things more exciting? Don't you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? Unit AI have different priorities in a battle. You probably noticed that as it is quite obvious. If you don't focus fire and let your whatever do their thing they can end up killing all medivacs and getting raped by the remaining ground army. If you DO manage to micro around and focus on a more dangerous target you have to worry about the position of your army and actually getting in range do fire. How many times you see a low ranged immortal dance around like idiots because there is a wall of stalkers? TOP TIER gamers doing that, mind you. How often you see "one control group syndrome"? How many times have you seen someone blink stalkers one by one to micro them out of harm? How many times have you seen a proper use and harass using reapers that are fast as hell? Players are learning to deal with a lot of things and I like to watch SC2 much more than BW games. Anyone can learn unit compositions and timings but its another story to pull off with the units you have. Why not try to implement parts of BW that work? Because its SC2, not BW. The harm of adding tricks and stuff is rebalancing everything to accomodate these changes. Sometimes veterans seem scared that because the game is a little friendlier to the "noob" that it doesn't have depth. Anyone can learn unit composition and timing. And unfortunately, SC2 is much more centered around things like that than BW. It isn't even up for debate, IMO. You talk about an immortal dancing around like idiots in SC2 because Stalkers are in front. So, uhhhh, lets say that all those stalkers were retarded too (lets say they are infinitely more retarded), and your zealots were also too stupid to run around the Stalkers when attacking? AI control issues were worse on so many levels in BW, and the fact that they aren't as bad in SC2 simply reduces the amount of micro you actually need to do in battles. Its just a fact. Focus firing, positioning, composition, all that stuff exists in both games. Except in one game, it requires alot more effort due to interface and unit AI. Therefore, since that aspect is made easier, the game obviously would focus more on the elements of composition and positioning. God forbid things be done extremely early in a game's life to make it more exciting, because you might have to balance it! The game is going be going through balance changes for at LEAST the next 2 years, so it doesn't even matter. And its not like it would even take a whole lot of number changing to even balance the suggestions in the OP. "The game is SC2, not BW"? What sort of argument is that? I'm sick and tired of seeing people say that. Its a simple question you have to ask yourself: Do you want SC2 to be as good as it possibly can be? If you do, then there is no harm at all in adopting aspects of BW that contribute to its greatness. I don't think you understood what I said in the immortals example. What I meant is that in that particular case the AI, advanced as it is, doesn't matter or influence because you STILL need to properly micro the units in their correct position. Yes I want SC2 to be as good as it can be, but I do not think adpoting aspects of BW would make it so. It worked in that game but SC2 isn't BW. That argument again. Why is that? SC2 is clearly faster. Things seem to be a lot more fragile. The "one big huge battle" in a game are played with a LOT more units firing at the same time. SC2 units look a lot smaller on screen (resolution and FOV are increased) so you don't micro in "waves" but in balls. Those proposed changes would slow down caster play making it so that focusing on spells would make it so high risk that you would not bother with that at all. Personally, things don't seem more fragile to me. In BW, you had spider mines and Siege tanks killing 100 supply worth of Dragoons in a matter of seconds. You had control groups of hydras exploding from a single storm, or Reaver scarab. People used lings more. Bio TvZ was a battle of two glass armies dueling with each other. Now you have stuff like Roaches, Mauraders, and Immortals, who specialize in not getting killed. Anyway, I still think you are looking at the proposed changes in a vacuum. Lets say there is more cast time added, to for example, Fungal Growth. Yes, that would make Fungal Growth in its current form, with its current numbers, into a very high risk spell with rewards that don't equal the risk. If the effects of the spell were buffed, then it would balance that out. This game will be undergoing balance changes for at least the next 2 years, so the fact that things are going to be rebalanced and fixed is a given. If the game is going to be made more exciting, and into a game that will truly surpass BW, the things talked about in the OP should be addressed early in the life of the game, so Blizzard has more time to get everything balanced. Tweaking numbers on the spell, like range/duration/damage/radius would not decrease its risk but only increase its reward. A build without casters (that are already heavily favored anyway) would have yet more stability. You would have to tweak numbers on ALL units to "slow down" the pace. Things happen quicker in SC2 because you see a lot more units engaging at THE SAME time. AOE damage is "smarter" too, when units AI control the "overkill" aspects of tanks. I am not looking at the changes in a vaccuum. That is in fact kind of what the article proposes. Changes disregarding balance issues. It's like if Blizzard patches and changes how AOE damage on tanks and similar units work.
Who the hell is arguing for the game to be slowed down? How is that even relevant to anything here?
And yes, you are looking at it in a vacuum. Op says "make these changes to make the game more exciting". And then people like you come in and say "wahh imbalance, protoss bias, bufffin Protoss!!!" Even though it has been stated numerous times that the article isn't about balance. IF the article is just talking about design (which it is), there is no reason to bring balance into the equation. Are you incapable of discussing things like design without bringing in irrelevant topics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
