Characteristics of a fun/awesome game. 1) A very action- and multitaskpacked game... (which implies that there is also action early in the game). 2) A game where different types of strategies for each race are viable (players can opt between offensive and defensive strategies) 3) A dynamic matchup where both races have viable options to pressure/attack/harass the opponent. It shouldn't just be a one-way thing.
Yeah. I agree. I can add these as well:
4) Back-and-forth excitement. it must be possible for players who are behind to get back into the game. 5) The importance of many small victories. One big battle should rarely be enough to decide the game.
There is of course a lot more to say. Both small and big things. And a lot of ways to incorporate this into the game.
So how do we create such a matchup:
(Hiders suggest a lot of stuff over a couple of posts)
Yes, Harassment should be cost efficent and doable for all three races preferably at all stages in the game. I can agree on the Lurker, Baneling, Vessel balance and gameplay changes. The next patch adds a bit different context. Zerg economy might need a small buff yes, for a couple of reasons. (Both balance and gameplay.) Increase inject spawn rate from 50 to 60% might be a first step. (Only a matter of 1-2 seconds.)
I agree to some degree with your "clock" parable. In smaller terms it is important, especially if it can go back and forth over a game, but I think it is a problem when it becomes too dominant in entire match-ups.
I just wanted to highlight the importance of not thinking about unit-changes/designs isolated. Instead, we need to change the approach to a more top-down approach.
1) What kind of game dynamic to we want for each matchup. 2) Which type of units can accomplish that. 3) Discuss/analyze specific unit designs proposals.
Not sure if you aimed this at me, or to everyone generally. Of course it is important. O_o
I do not make a change in the game WITHOUT considering how it will affect: the gameplay the dynamics the races the potential usage, the interactions the theme even the feeling of the game. a lot of other stuff.
Design should NOT be isolated. ("Wow what a cool spell idea I have! Lets just add it!") Design is suppose to lay the foundation for a good gameplay.
So far Starbow has quite a good gameplay. And the coming design changes in the next patch will aim to improve this further. (But the entire game will of course not be perfect all of a sudden.)
Again this was a long post, but I think an understanding of this subject is extremely important if we want to develop an awesome game. We can't just cross fingers and hope that everything will turn out awesome.
Absolutely. There is a lot more to understand. But do you really get the impression that I just cross my fingers and hope that everyting will turn out good? : - /
You often bring valid perspectives into the game Hider. But it is often hard to get a grasp of your points due to your many huge monster posts. Please try to be more accurate with your writing. (Applies to me too ^^.)
I think you wish for something that is both good and doable.
One way to achieve this is to make larva spawn faster (and then queens will make them spawn even faster) and then rebalance all zerg units. The great question is: Will Kabel try this? This is a HUGE amount of work that may pan out to very little if we are unlucky (there are factors that we cannot know of yet.) And as always, when you change the dynamic of one match-up it will affect the other.
I agree though. One race should always have the incentive to put pressure on the other one by default. In TvP, terran must pressure the protoss, or he will "take the map", In PvZ the roles are reversed (or should be). In TvZ terran must "stop" zerg from becoming too big or he has no chance. The dynamic part of it all is when a player switches roles and tries to be aggressive with a defensive race. (How Jaedong used to surprise his opponents).
In the other hand, I feel it is currently so in Starbow. Maybe not enough though (like you say. It's not all wrong, but it might be more clearly defined).
You often bring valid perspectives into the game Hider. But it is often hard to get a grasp of your points due to your many huge monster posts. Please try to be more accurate with your writing. (Applies to me too ^^.)
Well I think that it almost always will require more of the reader when you try to bring a more scientific approach into game design. I think the only real way I could have made it significantly easier to grasp would have been to write an even longer post or splitting it up into smaller parts. However, that would probably not be an efficient way to maintain the interest of the reader.
Yes, Harassment should be cost efficent and doable for all three races preferably at all stages in the game. I can agree on the Lurker, Baneling, Vessel balance and gameplay changes. The next patch adds a bit different context. Zerg economy might need a small buff yes, for a couple of reasons. (Both balance and gameplay.) Increase inject spawn rate from 50 to 60% might be a first step. (Only a matter of 1-2 seconds.)
Actually, my point was a bit more nuanced. I see two different approaches to promote action in a matchup. Either they can be combined or just one of them can be adopted.
Approach 1: Overbuff harass units so that harassing is almost always cost effective (the current version of the banshee is probably the only real example of a unit which fits into this approach).
Approach 2: Give at least one player A) the proper incentive and B) the tools to efficiently harass/army trade
The key takeaway from the latter approach is that the tools needed for the one player doesn't neccesarily imply that he can trade cost effectively. For instance if the player has a significantly better eco then he is still likely to take a slightly cost ineffective trade (you can see my most recent post for a more indepht discussion of the various tools).
Approach 2 is IMO a much more simple and easy-to-balance approach than relying on approach 1, thus I recommend that we focus on implementing that approach better into Starbow.
I agree to some degree with your "clock" parable. In smaller terms it is important, especially if it can go back and forth over a game, but I think it is a problem when it becomes too dominant in entire match-ups.
What happens if A) Neither player has a clock running against them and B) Neither play can harass/army trade cost effectively My answer to the above question is that you will see a stalemale-type of game (assuming players play optimally).
Too some extent you correct in arguing that the clock doesn't have to be very strong (even if we apply Approach 2); It just needs to be strong enough to outweight the disadvantage of taking a potential cost ineffective trade. Actually we can put up a simple calculation showing how a rational players determines what to do based upon the cost ineffectiveness of a trade and his incentive.
Value of a trade for Player X= Strenght of incentive (or clock running against player X) - Cost ineffectiveness of the trade.
If value of trade > 0 = Efficient trade. If value of trade is below 0 = Inefficient trade.
I think that if we relate the above formula to Starbow, then one would come to the conclusion that we actually need to create a very strong "clock effect", due to defenders advantage. If the effect of defenders advantage was slightly reduced by changing the probability of missing an attack when fighting downhill to 30% from 50% for instance, then the "clock effect" wouldn't have to be so strong in order for a trade to be efficient.
What happens if A) Neither player has a clock running against them and B) Neither play can harass/army trade cost effectively My answer to the above question is that you will see a stalemale-type of game (assuming players play optimally).
Yes. Players will do what is best to do in order to win the game. So the right incentives must be enhanced even more, so the game becomes more exciting and fun to play/watch. As usual.
I never said I disagreed with you on this. I just said that the same "clock", which you call it, should not be too dominant in entire match-ups. At least not to the degree where games in that match-up become played in the same way, game after game. (Which you did not propose either.)
Well I think that it almost always will require more of the reader when you try to bring a more scientific approach into game design.
Not sure what you mean with the "scientific approach to game design" that you claim to bring.
My assumption: The design of the game should be based on rationality and facts, where the facts are based on proper research and understanding of the gameplay and player mechanisms, which contributes the most to create an entertaining game, according to a set number of criteria.
What is the current "approach" to game design then? - Non-scientific? - Arbitrary? - Based on feelings?
What happens if A) Neither player has a clock running against them and B) Neither play can harass/army trade cost effectively My answer to the above question is that you will see a stalemale-type of game (assuming players play optimally).
Yes. Players will do what is best to do in order to win the game. So the right incentives must be enhanced even more, so the game becomes more exciting and fun to play/watch. As usual.
I never said I disagreed with you on this. I just said that the same "clock", which you call it, should not be too dominant in entire match-ups. At least not to the degree where games in that match-up become played in the same way, game after game. (Which you did not propose either.)
Well I think that it almost always will require more of the reader when you try to bring a more scientific approach into game design.
Not sure what you mean with the "scientific approach to game design" that you claim to bring.
My assumption: The design of the game should be based on rationality and facts, where the facts are based on proper research and understanding of the gameplay and player mechanisms, which contributes the most to create an entertaining game, according to a set number of criteria.
What is the current "approach" to game design then? - Non-scientific? - Arbitrary? - Based on feelings?
-_-
The reason why I call this a a more scientific approach is that I analyze the various factors which determine the decision making of player x, and how various other variables interacts with each other. Normally I think players look at this in a much more isolated POV. For instance, the below kind of argument is something I often see in discussions forums; Zerg needs a buff. Let's buff unit X.
In this Starbow thread the discussion usually has a somewhat higher level (but still not "scientific"), and this kind of argument is more typical (it is especially something which I could say as well so I am no "saint" in that regard)
Terran needs a buff vs zerg, and as I like multitasking, I suggest that that we reduce the cost of dropships
The latter type of argument has a higher standard than the former type of argument as it combines reflections upon design and balance into one suggestion. However, it is still a very simplistic approach as the argument ignores the below factors; - How it will impact the "clock"-dynamic against various zerg unit composiitons. - How it will impact the "value of trade" calculation - Whether it will create a dynamic game (for instance a too strong dropship buff could result in zergs never being able to leave their base which would be undynamic).
So my point is that we need to look at even more factors than what we previously have done. Typically, when we suggest changes to a unit we look at it primariy from a "unit-design"-POV. However, I believe we should change our priorities and focus more on it from a "matchup-POV" . Instead of starting with the units first (bottom up approach), we should start by analyzing the matchup dynamic (top down approach). For instance let's start by figuring out how we want zerg to work vs terran. Which type of playstyles should be viable and how should the terran player respond? Should we adopt approach 1 or approach 2?
The reason why I call it a more scietnfiic approach is that it forces the gamedesigner- and testers/suggesters to asses "all" of the relevant factors rather than just half of them. I see my post just as an initial contribution to the more scientific approach, and there are probably factors I have have forgot/not thought of, but which are also relevant in an assesment.
I think of scientific as something which involes research, and as I believe that analyzing how these factors impacts game deisions and how they interact with each other hasn't really been discussed/talked out beforehand, I actually consider this to be "research".
Yeah. I agree. I can add these as well:
4) Back-and-forth excitement. it must be possible for players who are behind to get back into the game. 5) The importance of many small victories. One big battle should rarely be enough to decide the game.
Yeh these are good points, though I would argue that they very much overlap with each other. A game is much more likely to be back-and-forth if one battle doesn't determine the outcome. One interesting thing I have noticed after having observed pro Sc2 games for roughly 3 years is that the game has actually become much more "small-victory"-oriented over time. My theory is that players have learned to control their units in a much more consistent manner, which means that they don't just die to one storm/EMP anymore.
On the other hand, I think the game shouldn't just be "small victory-oriented" for pro players, but also for casual players. To accomplish the latter a defenders advantage is needed, but the exact strenght of that advantage should be determined upon how it increases the cost ineffectiveness of the attacking player which impacts the "value of trade"-calculation.
So I think the job as a gamedesigner is very very complicated as one need to asses so many variables which interacts with each other.
This patch will NOT make the game perfect all of a sudden. But it will aim to complete the basic design of the races. All the changes are aimed to contribute to a more dynamic and interesting gameplay. (According to my criteria at least.)
Further patches will surely be needed where focus lies on balance and other smaller modifications, so the gameplay and game dynamics becomes even better.
This patch will just be a step towards that direction ^^
On June 07 2013 20:45 saddaromma wrote: just a tip: I'd recommend lowering tech (or price) for AoE spells in order to discourage massing low-tier units.
Imo, thats one of the most overlooked design problems in SC2.
That's not even close to one of the big design problems with SC2. Massing low-tier units should be perfectly viable with the right support. Upgrades like Adrenal Glands and Zealot Speed exist specifically to allow basic units to scale well into the late-game. We also have much more prevalent and powerful AoE already - buffed Siege Tanks, Reavers, Lurkers, Plague, AoE Feedback, Spider Mines, etc. etc.
On June 07 2013 20:45 saddaromma wrote: just a tip: I'd recommend lowering tech (or price) for AoE spells in order to discourage massing low-tier units.
Imo, thats one of the most overlooked design problems in SC2.
That's not even close to one of the big design problems with SC2. Massing low-tier units should be perfectly viable with the right support. Upgrades like Adrenal Glands and Zealot Speed exist specifically to allow basic units to scale well into the late-game. We also have much more prevalent and powerful AoE already - buffed Siege Tanks, Reavers, Lurkers, Plague, AoE Feedback, Spider Mines, etc. etc.
I agree with you completely while I generally lurk, I feel that BW had a awesome balance between a few high tech units and a bit of buffer , massed low tech units, a sizable amount of mid tier units , however I feel that lower tiered units needed a bigger role outside of the early game.
Playing HotS, I really miss photon cannons having 100/100 shields/life, taking 50 seconds to complete, workers attacking with effectively 1.25 cooldown and zerglings with 0.45 (all BW stats, some put into SC2 numbers though).
Instead there are 150/150 Monster Cannons which complete in 40 seconds (meaning they gain 87.5% more life per second when building in SC2), workers with 1.5 seconds cooldowns and zerglings with 0.696 second cooldowns.
Yes, I'm bad at dealing with cannon rushes and don't want to torture myself by spending a lot time practising against them; that would be like dedicating a lot of your free time to becoming better at not grimacing during electroshock torture to the testicles. Not worth it for me, personally. I remember how cool it seemed when Nal_rA would pull them off sometimes in professional games, back when they weren't so strong. ... Hey, I think I'll check out the latest Starbow! •°*”˜˜”*°•.¸☆ ★ ☆¸.•°*”˜˜”*°•.¸☆ ^_^"
EDIT: Wow, what? Photon Cannons basically ARE SC2 cannons? T_T 6 range though, I see. :S Guardians firing every 3 instead of 1.6875. o_O There are some general 15-20% attack speed nerfs but that one is a 77.7% increase in attack delay! They're not Brood Lords, right? They don't fire broodlings, because you wanted to avoid that, yes?
EDIT: Wow, what? Photon Cannons basically ARE SC2 cannons? T_T 6 range though, I see. :S Guardians firing every 3 instead of 1.6875. o_O There are some general 15-20% attack speed nerfs but that one is a 77.7% increase in attack delay! They're not Brood Lords, right? They don't fire broodlings, because you wanted to avoid that, yes?
Playing HotS, I really miss photon cannons having 100/100 shields/life, taking 50 seconds to complete, workers attacking with effectively 1.25 cooldown and zerglings with 0.45 (all BW stats, some put into SC2 numbers though).
Instead there are 150/150 Monster Cannons which complete in 40 seconds (meaning they gain 87.5% more life per second when building in SC2), workers with 1.5 seconds cooldowns and zerglings with 0.696 second cooldowns.
I dont think bw 50 seconds are sc2 50 seconds (more like ~42) if i remember well. But yeah, its probably harder to defend cannon rush in sc2 than in bw. In starbow its probably somewhere in middle.
Starbow wikis values are correct? I was not aware mutas bounce was buffed so much.
EPT
