|
Disclaimer :
I am about to talk about an overtalked subject: race balancing.
I think I might have a kind of new interesting idea that I'd like to discuss this with the community .
there is a great chance that day[9] formulated that better than me years ago (because we all know that he knows everything) or that I just missed it somewhere, if thats the case I apologize ...
Hello !
after watching Dustin Browder presentation about Esport game Design,
I was quite happy to find that all the good Ideas I had on that topic was either there or improved (and less happy to see why I should dismiss some of the bad ones :D).
But there is one concept of game balancing I have not heard neither Blizzard or the Community see the way I do.
If I am not mistaken there is 3 balance paramaters :
- Race Design
- Map Design
- in game trends (like popular build order/micro technics ...)
There is no control about in game trends, all we know is that it will allways be changing.
Then Blizzard use Race and Map design to adress balances problems without really being able to know, if it's due to a game trend or a design problem because there is simply no clear border.
And this is quite a trouble if you want your game to stabilise into a definitive Race Design, as I am sure this is Blizzard wish.
So how do we adress this issue ?
While we want the races to stabilize, we don't want the game trends to dictate balance (and have boring 1 race tournaments until some pro come with a new Idea that change everything)...
Here is the idea :
as nobody want to play on the same map forever, map design should be used to adress as much problems as possible.
So we need to make it easier for map designer to adress balance problems:
- we need races with different characteristics in early, mid and late game that can be used by map designer to favor one race over the other.
- we need maps elements that allow to favor a race or favor offensives/defensives strategies.
- Anything else ?
In short : POWER TO THE MAP MAKERS ! THEY SHOULD BALANCE THE GAME !! RACE DESIGN SHOULD SERVE MAP DESIGN !!
I don't think there is anything to fear in doing so, I mean right now if someone want to make an Imba map there is nothing to stoping him ...
And to back my claims I'd like you to look at Broodwar history :
the race design has not changed since like 2001, and while the game suffured some huge game trends change (ex : Bisu PvZ revolution !),
the game stayed balanced solely on counter trends and map design
What do you think ?
Some answers that interested me : + Show Spoiler +On how to implement it: + Show Spoiler +On October 06 2011 01:42 Demonace34 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 01:38 Deadeight wrote:
I think they already do that. For example, every map has a ramp that protoss can forcefield, otherwise they'd be screwed when baneling busts come.
There's only so much you can do with a map to balance it, and still make it an interesting map. Ton more stuff than that. Watchtowers, ramp angles, naturals choke, size, openness of an area, air space behind the main, gold bases, gas geysers (rich or non-rich, one or two at a base). It goes on a ton further than every map has a ramp so protoss can forcefield... True, there is a lot of way to influence balance of a map, but some simple precise tool to adress one problem without changing others matchup would'nt hurt, in fact I think they would do a lot of good  . For exemple : On X map protoss always suffer the same early rush from zergs maybe having a doodad near natural with an aura to get +1 against zerg would be helpfull to adress the problem. And if we don't want it to affect mid/late game it could deplet himself of energy. (I don't know if this precise idea is good, but i guess it's clear) I'de like to have map makers ideas on that ... On balance analysis: + Show Spoiler +On October 06 2011 03:15 MisterKatosS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 01:14 Demonace34 wrote:
If maps are everything though and the fact that most of the ladder maps will never be in pro play, doesn't that mean everytime they release their "balance report" it is actually a bad judge of actual balance?
In reality this would mean that there are two different types of balance...Ladder balance and tournament balance. We as players and spectators will never know the talks that go on behind closed doors at Blizzard, but I hope they care a ton more about pro play.
Well if you refere to this I don't think it's a good judge of actual balance but as they say themself : "there’s a lot more that goes into balance analysis". In my book, balance analysis should only be based on 1v1 pro level but still have significant samples, so I guess basing statistics on GM league only (maybe GM kor only) would be the way to go ( or tournament if they get enough games), without the ratio per map these number don't seem to be of a great help to me ...
|
More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think.
I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter.
Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game.
|
Maybe move to SC2 section?
|
|
|
On October 06 2011 00:31 FJ wrote:More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think. I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter. Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game.
You should try to make a custom map like that
Anyway my point is to simplify balancing by making it be decided by a single parameter : map design.
Not complicate anything
On October 06 2011 00:33 The Black wrote:
Maybe move to SC2 section?
yep i thought i posted this to SC2 general, oups ...
Anyway it's up to the mod to decide now
On October 06 2011 00:37 Barrin wrote:I think that most of the best mapmakers are already aware of this
Then I hope Blizzard will use the extensions to give them more ways of balancing
|
On October 06 2011 00:31 FJ wrote:More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think. I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter. Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game.
This is the absolute worst thing for an RTS. That kills off all ingenuity, greatly stagnates strategy, it makes for very boring gameplay, and greatly reduces choice.
|
Thats a good point, however...
Blizzard has absolute control over the map pool in the ladder, and they have stated that they want to have different maps for noobs, rush and macro games, therefore SC2 ladder is forever deemed to be extremely lame.
This is one of the main reasons I quit SC2, the map pool of the ladder is horrendously ridiculous, the rotation of the maps is just as bad. Stating the other reasons would be offtopic.
|
Ideally the game should be as balanced as possible before we turn to maps for being the fulcrum
of the balance scale.
|
I actually think having more terrain-revolving mechanics in each race could be useful, as map balance becomes more important. Maps can undergo a lot more "trial and error" in terms of balanced compared to balance patches.
However, it would mean the game would suck if people didn't master map design, and obviously everyone has yet to develop maps which can be played on ladder and in tourneys, which would of course be the best thing for everyone in any case.
|
The map elements are already there. Blizzard's public map system is unfortunately bad. And they won't stop rebalancing the game after two to three years beyond the third add-on. Then we can start balancing match-ups per map-changes.
|
If maps are everything though and the fact that most of the ladder maps will never be in pro play, doesn't that mean everytime they release their "balance report" it is actually a bad judge of actual balance?
In reality this would mean that there are two different types of balance...Ladder balance and tournament balance. We as players and spectators will never know the talks that go on behind closed doors at Blizzard, but I hope they care a ton more about pro play.
I do agree that maps should be the forefront of balance with changing the actual units as little as possible. The problem that I have is that the ladder maps are mostly trash and Blizzards excuse is that lower level players can't handle some of the pro maps(they also rather have variety rather than balance on the ladder). I agree, but lower level players can't handle their races at a basic level either so should we not allow them to play either?
Sorry if this just comes off as a rant, but I want pro maps on the ladder which would allow for their analysis of balance on the ladder to actually mean something in the end. Instead people have to play thousands of games on imbalanced maps like Searing Crater or Steppes of War.
|
I like your point about how trends within the game make static balance impossible to achieve anyway. The idea makes me think of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, with Blizzard as Hari Seldon and the mapmakers as the Second Foundation. (I can elaborate on the analogy if anyone wants me to.)
|
I think they already do that. For example, every map has a ramp that protoss can forcefield, otherwise they'd be screwed when baneling busts come.
There's only so much you can do with a map to balance it, and still make it an interesting map.
|
On October 06 2011 01:38 Deadeight wrote:
I think they already do that. For example, every map has a ramp that protoss can forcefield, otherwise they'd be screwed when baneling busts come.
There's only so much you can do with a map to balance it, and still make it an interesting map.
Ton more stuff than that. Watchtowers, ramp angles, naturals choke, size, openness of an area, air space behind the main, gold bases, gas geysers (rich or non-rich, one or two at a base). It goes on a ton further than every map has a ramp so protoss can forcefield...
|
On October 06 2011 00:45 R0YAL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 00:31 FJ wrote:More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think. I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter. Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game. This is the absolute worst thing for an RTS. That kills off all ingenuity, greatly stagnates strategy, it makes for very boring gameplay, and greatly reduces choice.
I personally don't think it reduces choice. With out loads of planning, we couldn't say for sure.
But they way I see it, you have just the same, if not more. Allow me to try and explain this idea haha.
In SC:2 you build a unit, and it has a set of statistics. X speed, x attack damage, X class Type, X armor etc etc. A unit gets built with pre set statistics. I think imbalance is affected the 3 things in the OP, but they are there because at the end of the day, 1 or more units have imbalanced statistics.
What I propose is, all the units are the same. Same speed, attack, armor etc. They only difference, RPS, they are 1 of 3 classes. Each gets a small bonus when attacking the unit it counters, and a small drop when being attacked by its own counter.
All upgrades are things like 10% more speed, 10% more armor etc. And you can just repeat the same upgrade by buying it again.
I think it would work, but I am not sure if I have explained it well.
|
On October 06 2011 02:05 FJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 00:45 R0YAL wrote:On October 06 2011 00:31 FJ wrote:More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think. I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter. Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game. This is the absolute worst thing for an RTS. That kills off all ingenuity, greatly stagnates strategy, it makes for very boring gameplay, and greatly reduces choice. I personally don't think it reduces choice. With out loads of planning, we couldn't say for sure. But they way I see it, you have just the same, if not more. Allow me to try and explain this idea haha. In SC:2 you build a unit, and it has a set of statistics. X speed, x attack damage, X class Type, X armor etc etc. A unit gets built with pre set statistics. I think imbalance is affected the 3 things in the OP, but they are there because at the end of the day, 1 or more units have imbalanced statistics. What I propose is, all the units are the same. Same speed, attack, armor etc. They only difference, RPS, they are 1 of 3 classes. Each gets a small bonus when attacking the unit it counters, and a small drop when being attacked by its own counter. All upgrades are things like 10% more speed, 10% more armor etc. And you can just repeat the same upgrade by buying it again. I think it would work, but I am not sure if I have explained it well.
You could easily try this using a UMS. However, even if this is a fun game concept it is not Starcraft 2 but an entirely different game altogether, making the whole point moot.
p.s. why not just play chess if you want a simple rules difficult to master game.
|
This is an incredibly dumb idea.
|
On October 06 2011 01:14 Demonace34 wrote:
If maps are everything though and the fact that most of the ladder maps will never be in pro play, doesn't that mean everytime they release their "balance report" it is actually a bad judge of actual balance?
In reality this would mean that there are two different types of balance...Ladder balance and tournament balance. We as players and spectators will never know the talks that go on behind closed doors at Blizzard, but I hope they care a ton more about pro play.
I do agree that maps should be the forefront of balance with changing the actual units as little as possible. The problem that I have is that the ladder maps are mostly trash and Blizzards excuse is that lower level players can't handle some of the pro maps(they also rather have variety rather than balance on the ladder). I agree, but lower level players can't handle their races at a basic level either so should we not allow them to play either?
Sorry if this just comes off as a rant, but I want pro maps on the ladder which would allow for their analysis of balance on the ladder to actually mean something in the end. Instead people have to play thousands of games on imbalanced maps like Searing Crater or Steppes of War.
I actually think Blizzard might have overlooked that somehow :/
Man why can't they just use good maps for ladder?
|
On October 06 2011 02:44 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 02:05 FJ wrote:On October 06 2011 00:45 R0YAL wrote:On October 06 2011 00:31 FJ wrote:More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think. I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter. Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game. This is the absolute worst thing for an RTS. That kills off all ingenuity, greatly stagnates strategy, it makes for very boring gameplay, and greatly reduces choice. I personally don't think it reduces choice. With out loads of planning, we couldn't say for sure. But they way I see it, you have just the same, if not more. Allow me to try and explain this idea haha. In SC:2 you build a unit, and it has a set of statistics. X speed, x attack damage, X class Type, X armor etc etc. A unit gets built with pre set statistics. I think imbalance is affected the 3 things in the OP, but they are there because at the end of the day, 1 or more units have imbalanced statistics. What I propose is, all the units are the same. Same speed, attack, armor etc. They only difference, RPS, they are 1 of 3 classes. Each gets a small bonus when attacking the unit it counters, and a small drop when being attacked by its own counter. All upgrades are things like 10% more speed, 10% more armor etc. And you can just repeat the same upgrade by buying it again. I think it would work, but I am not sure if I have explained it well. You could easily try this using a UMS. However, even if this is a fun game concept it is not Starcraft 2 but an entirely different game altogether, making the whole point moot. p.s. why not just play chess if you want a simple rules difficult to master game.
thats what i mean, make like a chess that has cool explosions and adds element of time.
The thread was about RTS game design in general?? still though, jut a thought of a cool game.
|
On October 06 2011 02:56 FJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 02:44 Tor wrote:On October 06 2011 02:05 FJ wrote:On October 06 2011 00:45 R0YAL wrote:On October 06 2011 00:31 FJ wrote:More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think. I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter. Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game. This is the absolute worst thing for an RTS. That kills off all ingenuity, greatly stagnates strategy, it makes for very boring gameplay, and greatly reduces choice. I personally don't think it reduces choice. With out loads of planning, we couldn't say for sure. But they way I see it, you have just the same, if not more. Allow me to try and explain this idea haha. In SC:2 you build a unit, and it has a set of statistics. X speed, x attack damage, X class Type, X armor etc etc. A unit gets built with pre set statistics. I think imbalance is affected the 3 things in the OP, but they are there because at the end of the day, 1 or more units have imbalanced statistics. What I propose is, all the units are the same. Same speed, attack, armor etc. They only difference, RPS, they are 1 of 3 classes. Each gets a small bonus when attacking the unit it counters, and a small drop when being attacked by its own counter. All upgrades are things like 10% more speed, 10% more armor etc. And you can just repeat the same upgrade by buying it again. I think it would work, but I am not sure if I have explained it well. You could easily try this using a UMS. However, even if this is a fun game concept it is not Starcraft 2 but an entirely different game altogether, making the whole point moot. p.s. why not just play chess if you want a simple rules difficult to master game. thats what i mean, make like a chess that has cool explosions and adds element of time. The thread was about RTS game design in general?? still though, jut a thought of a cool game.
If want a game where every race is the same, then just play Warcraft 2 (it sucks tbh), where both races where practically the same, with just different skins, except for one spellcaster on each team where the ogres had bloodlust and the paladins had healing. It's pretty boring tbh, when you compare it to at game like bw or sc2.
It qould be the same a saying fighting games should have just one character, so that ever match would bed the same, but who would play that, honestly?
|
On October 06 2011 02:05 FJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 00:45 R0YAL wrote:On October 06 2011 00:31 FJ wrote:More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think. I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter. Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game. This is the absolute worst thing for an RTS. That kills off all ingenuity, greatly stagnates strategy, it makes for very boring gameplay, and greatly reduces choice. I personally don't think it reduces choice. With out loads of planning, we couldn't say for sure. But they way I see it, you have just the same, if not more. Allow me to try and explain this idea haha. In SC:2 you build a unit, and it has a set of statistics. X speed, x attack damage, X class Type, X armor etc etc. A unit gets built with pre set statistics. I think imbalance is affected the 3 things in the OP, but they are there because at the end of the day, 1 or more units have imbalanced statistics. What I propose is, all the units are the same. Same speed, attack, armor etc. They only difference, RPS, they are 1 of 3 classes. Each gets a small bonus when attacking the unit it counters, and a small drop when being attacked by its own counter. All upgrades are things like 10% more speed, 10% more armor etc. And you can just repeat the same upgrade by buying it again. I think it would work, but I am not sure if I have explained it well.
You've explained it perfectly well. You're just asking for a game that has 1 race though. It's like playing command and conquer, but only with the Soviet side.
it makes for incredibly stagnant play. "Oh, i lost because i built rock. I should build scissors next time."
i personally feel the best way to make a good game is to have a lot of soft counters. Not hard counters.
Yes, marines counter the mutas, but with proper stacking &c, mutas would tear marines apart in bw. Having so few options just limits everything and makes things unexciting and boring.
Having multiple possibilities (is he opening marine tank? Banshees? FEing? reactor helion? blue flame helion? reaper? who knows!) adds a lot more to gameplay than an incredibly rudimentary version of an RTS (You can build rock. paper. or scissors).
|
On October 06 2011 01:14 Demonace34 wrote:
If maps are everything though and the fact that most of the ladder maps will never be in pro play, doesn't that mean everytime they release their "balance report" it is actually a bad judge of actual balance?
In reality this would mean that there are two different types of balance...Ladder balance and tournament balance. We as players and spectators will never know the talks that go on behind closed doors at Blizzard, but I hope they care a ton more about pro play.
Well if you refere to this I don't think it's a good judge of actual balance but as they say themself : "there’s a lot more that goes into balance analysis".
In my book, balance analysis should only be based on 1v1 pro level but still have significant samples, so I guess basing statistics on GM league only (maybe GM kor only) would be the way to go ( or tournament if they get enough games), without the ratio per map these number don't seem to be of a great help to me ...
On October 06 2011 01:42 Demonace34 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 01:38 Deadeight wrote:
I think they already do that. For example, every map has a ramp that protoss can forcefield, otherwise they'd be screwed when baneling busts come.
There's only so much you can do with a map to balance it, and still make it an interesting map. Ton more stuff than that. Watchtowers, ramp angles, naturals choke, size, openness of an area, air space behind the main, gold bases, gas geysers (rich or non-rich, one or two at a base). It goes on a ton further than every map has a ramp so protoss can forcefield...
True, there is a lot of way to influence balance of a map, but some simple precise tool to adress one problem without changing others matchup would'nt hurt, in fact I think they would do a lot of good .
For exemple : On X map protoss always suffer the same early rush from zergs maybe having a doodad near natural with an aura to get +1 against zerg would be helpfull to adress the problem. And if we don't want it to affect mid/late game it could deplet himself of energy.
(I don't know if this precise idea is good, but i guess it's clear)
I'de like to have map makers ideas on that ...
|
To the OP, what happens when an aspect of Race Design becomes so powerful that Map Design cannot fix it? You are at best advocating for Blizzard to use map design to battle playstyle trends. Blizzard already uses map design as a way to balance the races, however individual unit designs can have inherent problems that lead to stagnant and/or unfair gameplay. This has to be addressed somehow and while map balance can be taken into consideration especially when balancing units like siege tanks or mutalisks, map balance is not always an option nor is it always the best option. It would be foolish to think maps are the end all be all of game balance and this is what you seem to suggest.
It is true that race designers should consider map design when creating new units or balancing current units, but it is hardly evident that they actually ignore map design. Consider how heavily blizzard pushes mobility it SC2 ex: medivacs, reapers, collosus, mutalisks, hellions
Now let's consider what it would take to literally build a game from the ground up based entirely on what map design has to offer (as your statement "POWER TO THE MAP MAKERS ! THEY SHOULD BALANCE THE GAME !! RACE DESIGN SHOULD SERVE MAP DESIGN." seems to imply.) You might start thinking, oh how do I make cliffs relevant? Perhaps I create units that circumvent cliffs, but jumping up them (reapers, blink stalkers) or flying over them (mutalisks) or maybe providing units with attacks that go over them! (collosus, siege tanks) How do I make open areas relevant? Perhaps by creating units that require more surface area for their damage to be maximized! (zerglings, roaches) Or that work best when spread out! (siege tanks?)
Now Blizzard probably didn't design all their units based off what works with maps, but thats most likely because as a design philosophy it's all trial and error anyways! You might say marauders are poorly designed to take advantage or be hindered by maps, but does that naturally imply that they are poorly designed units? Would it be good to push all units to extremes so that map designers clearly know how to build around them, or is it better to have subtler workings like concave management? And how do we know that a marauder is a badly designed unit just because it works reasonably well in most map situations? Maybe a unit like this is needed even in a game that was built from the ground up with map designers in mind. How would you be able to know without trial and error. Game design is not some precise machine where you put exactly the right piece in exactly the right place to make exactly what you want to happen, it is an organic process of trial and error in order to discover what is best to entertain.
|
Damn, I hoped for a thread about game design in general, and it turns out to be about SC2. 
|
On October 06 2011 03:35 Tor wrote:
To the OP, what happens when an aspect of Race Design becomes so powerful that Map Design cannot fix it? You are at best advocating for Blizzard to use map design to battle playstyle trends. Blizzard already uses map design as a way to balance the races, however individual unit designs can have inherent problems that lead to stagnant and/or unfair gameplay. This has to be addressed somehow and while map balance can be taken into consideration especially when balancing units like siege tanks or mutalisks, map balance is not always an option nor is it always the best option. It would be foolish to think maps are the end all be all of game balance and this is what you seem to suggest.
Of course if you can't do anything with the maps, you fall back on race design ...
But unless I am mistaken, I think Blizzard put much more focus on races than maps and that why I want to talk about it
On October 06 2011 03:35 Tor wrote:
It is true that race designers should consider map design when creating new units or balancing current units, but it is hardly evident that they actually ignore map design. Consider how heavily blizzard pushes mobility it SC2 ex: medivacs, reapers, collosus, mutalisks, hellions
Now let's consider what it would take to literally build a game from the ground up based entirely on what map design has to offer (as your statement "POWER TO THE MAP MAKERS ! THEY SHOULD BALANCE THE GAME !! RACE DESIGN SHOULD SERVE MAP DESIGN." seems to imply.) You might start thinking, oh how do I make cliffs relevant? Perhaps I create units that circumvent cliffs, but jumping up them (reapers, blink stalkers) or flying over them (mutalisks) or maybe providing units with attacks that go over them! (collosus, siege tanks) How do I make open areas relevant? Perhaps by creating units that require more surface area for their damage to be maximized! (zerglings, roaches) Or that work best when spread out! (siege tanks?)
Now Blizzard probably didn't design all their units based off what works with maps, but thats most likely because as a design philosophy it's all trial and error anyways! You might say marauders are poorly designed to take advantage or be hindered by maps, but does that naturally imply that they are poorly designed units? Would it be good to push all units to extremes so that map designers clearly know how to build around them, or is it better to have subtler workings like concave management? And how do we know that a marauder is a badly designed unit just because it works reasonably well in most map situations? Maybe a unit like this is needed even in a game that was built from the ground up with map designers in mind. How would you be able to know without trial and error. Game design is not some precise machine where you put exactly the right piece in exactly the right place to make exactly what you want to happen, it is an organic process of trial and error in order to discover what is best to entertain.
I don't think Blizzard ignored map design at all, but I think they should put more focus on it when they design a race : less "unit A counter unit B" more "unit A is good in situation X" (I think thats one of the avantage of broodwar over SC2).
I have no problem against general purpose unit like marauders in your exemple, I just want the map makers to have enough ways to balance precisely and easily.
Of course trial and error is an absolute necessity who can claim to forsee everything ?
And I have nothing against race patch either, I just think Blizzard waste there time solving little problems thrue race patching while everyone complain about the poor ladder map pool.
I think that if blizzard give themself the tools to balance efficiently thrue map design and make it their main priority, they will have a much easier time balancing the game.
|
|
|
On October 06 2011 02:05 FJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 00:45 R0YAL wrote:On October 06 2011 00:31 FJ wrote:More is less...Don't add more things to balance others out, just remove I think. I think a really good RTS game would be rock paper scissors. You literally get 3 units, that's it. Each move at the same rate, same size, same firing rate etc. You just upgrade them throughout the game, attack/def/armor/speed etc, throughout the game. The difference between each ont is of course, with it being RPS, they get bonuses against the one they counter. Just make like 50 different skins for people to chose, and lots of custom design, only visual though . I think that would be a pretty cool RTS game. This is the absolute worst thing for an RTS. That kills off all ingenuity, greatly stagnates strategy, it makes for very boring gameplay, and greatly reduces choice. I personally don't think it reduces choice. With out loads of planning, we couldn't say for sure. But they way I see it, you have just the same, if not more. Allow me to try and explain this idea haha. In SC:2 you build a unit, and it has a set of statistics. X speed, x attack damage, X class Type, X armor etc etc. A unit gets built with pre set statistics. I think imbalance is affected the 3 things in the OP, but they are there because at the end of the day, 1 or more units have imbalanced statistics.What I propose is, all the units are the same. Same speed, attack, armor etc. They only difference, RPS, they are 1 of 3 classes. Each gets a small bonus when attacking the unit it counters, and a small drop when being attacked by its own counter. All upgrades are things like 10% more speed, 10% more armor etc. And you can just repeat the same upgrade by buying it again. I think it would work, but I am not sure if I have explained it well.
One of the things that makes bw the perfect rts is that every unit was imbalanced which in turn created balance.
On October 06 2011 06:03 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 00:56 R0YAL wrote:
Ideally the game should be as balanced as possible before we turn to maps for being the fulcrum
of the balance scale.
I actually agree with you, but I also think that they go hand in hand... you shouldn't really consider one without considering the other.
Ah yeah they definitely go hand in hand. But it would be much better to work on perfecting the game design before turning to maps to be the only factor of balance. It's all temporary anyways until LoV comes out zzz
|
This is more or less how broodwar has stayed balanced...
|
Dustin Browder presentation about Esport game Design (you know the one with "why X hate me" i can't find it anyone has a link ?)
I believe this is the presentation you're talking about: Game Design of Starcraft
|
On October 06 2011 07:28 Eppa! wrote:
This is more or less how broodwar has stayed balanced...
... on just a few maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
