|
On April 12 2010 14:16 aimaimaim wrote:Balancing is hard, and when it comes to balancing, look at the latest released RTS by blizzard .. thats right its WC3:TFT, the reason why i am losing faith in blizzard to balance the game .. specially without feedbacks from über-gosu progamers If they remove that feature where the units can pass other units by pushing it. it would also be better to remove the auto-formation feature, the game-play is so restricted because of this. too many clustered units being easily pwnd by AoE + Show Spoiler +(storms are being nerf'd so bad its unfair) dumben/remove auto-surround from the game (decreasing SCV hp isn't the solution, they have 60hp in BW for a reason) add the high ground advantage. make marco harder .. + Show Spoiler + .. remove the SMARTCAST .. Jangbi is only human yet he made it possible .. and for the finale + Show Spoiler +not enough playguu, mines debak, and reba per second
bring LURKER back!!
Balance comparision with WC3 is dumb, cos WC3's heroes make the game sooo much harder to balance.
|
The removal of lurkers, mines, and reavers 
|
On April 13 2010 04:10 Goshawk. wrote:
Balance comparision with WC3 is dumb, cos WC3's heroes make the game sooo much harder to balance.
after playing wc3 competitively for 4 years i learned that there's always a way to win with any of the 4 races, considering the many aspects to wc3 i think blizzard did a decent job balancing it early, they just stopped putting any work into the game for the last few years and orcs, specifically the blademaster, got out of control. it stayed fun for a while though, because it was a lot different than any other RTS, and even though it wasnt perfectly balanced, there was a lot of depth. micro in big fights was HUGE, and there was ALWAYS a lot more you could do to win, and that high skill treshhold is what kept wc3 viable as an esport.
starcraft 2 just isnt that different, which atm makes it kinda boring to watch, and will make it not last too long as an esport. sc:bw had a high skill threshold and a lot of depth in the details, which sc2 lacks currently.
sc2 needs more depth and a higher skill threshold. Right now you dont notice a big difference between the best players and the amateurs who play a lot. Sure the best players have the macro down and are faster and more experienced, but i think they will plateau soon and be caught up to unless some changes are made.
|
Gotta go with the highground.. Highly disturbing!
|
Voted "Other". To specify:
Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. The SC2 devs promised new multiplayer units with each expansion, but I'm not sure the design space is there for more units to fit in seamlessly with the rest of the unit roster. SC2's unit roster is already at least comparable in breadth to that of Brood Wars, but adding a new unit to each race for each expansion pack (2 new units for every race) sounds like in some cases they'll just have to compromise on game quality to deliver the new units promises.
I'd much rather have a situation in which new units are NOT introduced unless a race has a pretty serious hole to plug which said new unit could fill in nicely; instead, just give us the single-player experience of the Zerg and Protoss (I would seriously buy the expansions just for that), added tools for the map editor for more options for UMS maps, and maybe give us some microtransaction credit for Battle.net? My bigger concern, however, is that Blizzard doesn't introduce new units in the expansions just to force players to buy them, if those new units ended up being a net detriment to the game.
|
On April 12 2010 09:10 im a roc wrote:
I think that the lack of a high ground advantage is a game-breaking flaw. I don't, however, think that a miss chance firing uphill is the answer either. Miss chance makes the game too random and it'll just end up being like WC3. Randomness is great in a single player RPG, but in a controlled and hopefully balanced game like Starcraft in which all numbers are set you need to have damage reduction in order to keep the game consistent and interesting.
Agreed to you with first sentence until you started the second one.
It's not so very very bad random as it sounds (see: "Missing the Point" Article here)
Why I chose other:
I think the overall balance between defense and offense makes it a too aggressive game that does now allow enough variation as you can see it in BW. Thats the huge bad thing to me that will be a gigantic flaw with time.
High Ground Advantage is just a part of it.
It would require very different maps also.
|
On April 12 2010 14:14 Polar_Nada wrote:
strategic positioning should be crucial in an rts. not just choke points
Yes. I voted "Other" for this reason. I don't think high ground advantage matters since SC1 had good maps like Tau Cross and Neo Medusa where high ground advantage wasn't much of a factor at all.
|
I chose other, as my main concern is the "Being revealed" once your last Nex/CC/Hatch dies. This ruins potentially intense games (elim races)
Other than that, I think they need to re-implement high ground advantage (it's a part of SC, it HAS to be there...)
And the game has barely any micro (except for units designed for micro, like reaper...) The game relies solely on unit composition and macro that it makes games less fun to watch.
|
How can anyone vote MBS+automine as a problem!? Those two features allow players to concentrate more on micro and tactics, thus making the game more fun to watch and play.
And as far as "not enough macro" is concerned: Really!?
With the extremely fast mining and production times sc2 has, it becomes really hard to spend all your money when having 1-2 expansions while fighting. And the new macro mechanics demand an awful lot later in the game: chrono boosting from 3-4 nexus, larva inject with several queens, warping units right after cooldown is finished, calling mule. All of those would be nearly impossible without mbs and automine...
The problems I have with sc2 is the lack of high ground advantage and the not yet perfect unit balance.
As far as unit control is concerned, I believe that people will learn how to properly micro after they get used to sc2, which might last a while though.
|
I don't like the unit variety in the game. It feels more like generic RTS games than a sequel to Starcraft.
|
The unit clumping in relation to spell casting IMO, things clump so much that EMP and psi storm seem very difficult/not fun to watch at all. In sc1 is was pretty epic when there are good storms, plagues, or EMPs went off, but now they just seem to destroy everything, every time.
|
should be able to hit units on high ground with miss percentage just like the sc2 pro mod presented.. this would be the only thing i really want that hasnt already happened.
|
I think the biggest issue is being able to select a crap-load of units. I like that we can select more than 12, but making it limitless seems to be a problem I think because people will most likely just ball their crap together and send it hurling towards their enemies like a baseball. But maybe I'm wrong, everything else doesn't really bother me as I can see those being okay, or fixed during the beta stages.
|
On April 12 2010 21:44 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 09:10 im a roc wrote:
I think that the lack of a high ground advantage is a game-breaking flaw. I don't, however, think that a miss chance firing uphill is the answer either. Miss chance makes the game too random and it'll just end up being like WC3. Randomness is great in a single player RPG, but in a controlled and hopefully balanced game like Starcraft in which all numbers are set you need to have damage reduction in order to keep the game consistent and interesting. I think you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. BW had the miss chance and it's widely considered the most balanced RTS ever made. What does that do to your comment now? Yea...it makes it wrong. There was a huge thread made on why damage reduction wasn't a great idea.
I realize that BW had a miss chance percentage, and I am not arguing the balance of the original game. I realize that going into this much further will result in a huge amount of people posting the link to the "Missing the Point" article and telling me that I am, in fact, "Missing the Point", but I have read it through on multiple occasions already, so it won't do you much good. I know that it was a successful mechanic in BW and most progammers support the miss chance over damage reduction. I don't just want to turn this into a flame war and pull this thread completely off topic, so I won't say any more, but I do still think that a damage reduction would be the best mechanic to work with. I just wanted to assure everyone that I'm not completely stupid. (Again, I realize that this post will convince more people that I am actually stupid, however.)
|
SC2 simply isn't a great spectator sport .. its like fighting with army A vs army B in 3D ..
because of the new features of the game ..
bring the old feature back and this game will become a great spectator sport ..
|
I hate banshees...they are too good
|
On April 12 2010 11:37 ShadowDrgn wrote:
No defender advantage, which encompasses no higher ground advantage, weak buildings, weak static defense, and no mobile area denial (besides sentries). Things like mine fields and lurkers on ramps were a big part of how BW played, and the lack of these things is driving many SC2 games into single game-deciding fights where the bigger army invariably wins, assuming equal micro.
banshees for me. I have nightmares about those. Wraiths were there before, but if they got there before you had hydras somehow they wouldn't destroy your hatchery in seconds flat. Now, 3 banshees destroy a spore walker and queen and tear down the hatch while the hydras are hatching. An early(ish) unit that ignores terrain (flying units) shouldn't be able to destroy a base so easily. I mean mutas were always a pita for non zerg I guess, but they wouldn't destroy a whole base like that
|
definitly the no high ground advantage... they should stick to the broodwar style of handling it...
|
Yeah, that "no higher ground advantage" ...
I mean, I sort of agree that in SC BW it was a bit too much, I sometimes had 1 enemy dragoon killing 3 of my dragoons (one was damaged already), but not to have any at all is simply ... rude. 15% IMHO chance of missing should be correct. 20% or more is just silly and anything under 15% means way too much "luck" involved.
|
no high ground advantage...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
