EPT
OneGoal: A better SC2 [Project Hub] - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
| ||
|
kasapanos
Finland8 Posts
| ||
|
topsecret221
United States108 Posts
On December 28 2012 01:45 kasapanos wrote: Still no VOD:s or map in Europe? It kinda takes the "hype" away not being able to see anything for weeks. VODs are available at http://www.twitch.tv/topsecret221/videos We will be uploading more VODs of higher level games sometime after the holidays. | ||
|
green2000
Peru79 Posts
| ||
|
IamTheArchitect
United States46 Posts
| ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On December 28 2012 03:56 IamTheArchitect wrote: Reapers/Turrets seem waay too strong. I think HOTS went in firmly the wrong direction making reapers better; TvT is unbearable. OneGoal shouldn't follow this trend. I agree completely. | ||
|
TopRamen
United States96 Posts
On December 28 2012 03:56 IamTheArchitect wrote: Reapers/Turrets seem waay too strong. I think HOTS went in firmly the wrong direction making reapers better; TvT is unbearable. OneGoal shouldn't follow this trend. I've only played 4 OneGoal TvTs but I think you're right. The early-mid game revolves around reapers. They're a stock unit. It's cool but weird and super volatile. Rines do not effectively beat reaper/turret, Rauders are too slow to handle them, Hellions are an Okayy option but do not handle turrets very well. Bunkers cover a little bit of ground, but reapers being super mobile in the early game, specially with nitro pack speed can just runby or make a turret to tank damage while they runby. The game goes into this weird reaper opener then into mech, a widow mine or hellion/tank transition to effectively stop the reaper harass, then sky Terran. Much like a normal game of SC2 TvT but with an insane early game. I think a health nerf to the turret would be good. It is mainly used for harass and not so much for holding ground. Or maybe something like giving the reaper a max amount of turret uses. Like the reaper can only use the turret 3 times or something. On a separate note, Zerg still feels too hard to pressure/harass as Terran. Zerg players who keep up on creep spread do not have to consistently scout for drops/harass, they just see it. Creep spread is a mechanic I'm not very fond of, it requires skill to keep it up but once you have it you don't need skill to keep getting the benefits of it. You will always get the vision and speed benefits unless the other player does something about it. Maybe making creep tumors always visible so that players can more effectively deal with it would help. Or perhaps making it so that creep tumors duplicate more slowly. Or maybe making creep tumors have a timed life. EDIT: I would also like to see some FRB maps or Economy changes. | ||
|
haitike
Spain2703 Posts
On December 28 2012 08:44 TopRamen wrote: EDIT: I would also like to see some FRB maps or Economy changes. I personally like the SC2BW and Starbow economy system. I think it is much better than FRB (and You dont have to change minerals in all maps). | ||
|
ItWhoSqueeks
United States5 Posts
| ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
This would help with a bunch of differant aspects you guys are working to solve. Pro Scene>> with these changes every detail counts. Every click is increasingly valuable. Errors are more common so the chance for near perfect play is very exciting. Having people continually set the bar well make it more and more exciting. We have so much stagnation in WoL right now because there is honestly very little room in accords to the skill gap. Game design wise>> There was an awesome blog written by the original guy that developed Warcraft 1 where he talked about how we could of easily had unlimited selection as early as warcraft 1. But he smartly decided against it due to the nature of how just massing units and sending a ball of death was not exciting. Having players forced to micro tons of different groups will naturally break up death ball movement(to an extent). It will enable longer battles and trickier micro. Macro/economy wise. The one thing im ok with is auto mine. I think that is fine espically with the removal of MBS. You will still have to click individual CC's to build units so there will be plenty there. MBS is just way to damn easy to macro. Building an army should be a challenge. Not a 3 click walk in the park. This change will naturally lead to smaller armies(over time) making death balls harder to attain, and reinforcing even harder. TLDR: By raising the skill cap of your game, you will give people a higher bar to hit making it more exciting. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
If the game is designed right, then it should be to the player's advantage to split their units up, to control space, and to exercise their skill at being able to control many small groups of units. In SC2's present state, even if you added a selection cap, players who are able to do so will still deathball because it is simply the strongest thing to do. It will take more clicks, but play exactly the same. The same goes for MBS. All multiple building select does is let you build your units with less camera motion and building selection clicks. These things are boring, and forcing players to do more of it is bad gameplay. It will not change the way the game plays, as good players will be completely unaffected. | ||
|
haitike
Spain2703 Posts
But limiting the UI is a bad idea for a modern game. If you want that characterists just play broodwar, they are still lot of players playing it. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On December 29 2012 21:32 haitike wrote: Agree. You can raise the Skill Cap with "Right Unit design" that require more micro than SC2 actual ones. Or improving macro mechanics, etc. But limiting the UI is a bad idea for a modern game. If you want that characterists just play broodwar, they are still lot of players playing it. this. Some bw fanatics think BW was a fantastic game cus of MBS and bad AI. It wasn't. It was a fantastic game because of the amount of micro required. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On December 28 2012 03:56 IamTheArchitect wrote: Reapers/Turrets seem waay too strong. I think HOTS went in firmly the wrong direction making reapers better; TvT is unbearable. OneGoal shouldn't follow this trend. why not try and make reaper more like a "muta-unit". GOod at harassing but isn't terrible in a straight up fight. Turrets I think seems kind of gimmicky. | ||
|
gCgCrypto
Germany297 Posts
On December 29 2012 11:09 ItWhoSqueeks wrote: One day, we would like to test economy. At the moment, we need to focus on making sure each unit and tech path is as tight as we can make it. Currently, we are focused on making Robo stronger and more reflective of skill and Giving a rework to Terran AA that allows them to cover more space on the map. I hope in the end you come up with a really nice solution to the colosus that Blizzard will adapt (cross fingers). Right now it makes eny PvX matchup (especially PvP) hideous to watch ... Anyways, is the map up on Eu yet? Rly want to play and help out. | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On December 29 2012 15:51 ledarsi wrote: Selection cap and MBS disabling are just bad ideas. If the game is designed right, then it should be to the player's advantage to split their units up, to control space, and to exercise their skill at being able to control many small groups of units. In SC2's present state, even if you added a selection cap, players who are able to do so will still deathball because it is simply the strongest thing to do. It will take more clicks, but play exactly the same. The same goes for MBS. All multiple building select does is let you build your units with less camera motion and building selection clicks. These things are boring, and forcing players to do more of it is bad gameplay. It will not change the way the game plays, as good players will be completely unaffected. You can always use more "Right Unit Design."(which is what this mod is already doing) . The problem is that when a system makes a right unit design but leaves out the idea of backing up Right Design Units with good game play mechanics you wont see the full effect. We could add reaver, lurker, tanks in, but it doesn't do much good if I can just group them up and 1a into the army. Alot of the fantastic micro/positioning you would see would be ruined because the game does it for you. Its going to be extremely difficult to design a lot of these "Right Unit Design" units because the AI is going to make anything easy to use. When you leave out the chances of error, you decrease the chances of excitement. Suddenly everyone can do the same thing, and at the same time almost every battle plays out the exact same way. People wonder why Tournaments are losing streamers.. There's a different champion every time. All of the korean's have hit the skill cieling long ago. IMO fungal and force field could actually be potentially good spells if it were not for smart casting. Imagine having to select each sentry one at a time to nail some force fields(obvious balance changes to be made here). That would be crazy, and then casters could finally mean it and not Bullshit when they say "look at those great forcefields!" When it comes to macro, this is what ties everything together. I agree with you on improving macro mechanics, instant remaxes=terrible design. Warpgates=terrible design. But macro is the heart of any RTS. Blizz ruined this in SC2. All of the koreans have hit the same macro skill cap. And the mistake that I intialy made was thinking that "Oh, make macro easy so that they can just focus on the battle.' I was wrong. Macro is the one consistent factor you must always have to worry about in a RTS. Sometimes you even must divert your attention from a full heated battle just to make sure that you will have reinforcements. When you combine a good combat game play with a good macro game play you end in a true game of mechanics. Who can mechanically slaughter each other(with right unit design and strat) and be a Bjonwa. RTS should be fueled by mechanics, and driven by strategy. Im not trying go all BW hardcore mode here. I dont like the idea of SC2BW nor going back to BW. I want forward progression with new units, and new strategy, but I want do so in the right way in earning my victory through superior control and mechanics. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On December 30 2012 05:44 XXXSmOke wrote: You can always use more "Right Unit Design."(which is what this mod is already doing) . The problem is that when a system makes a right unit design but leaves out the idea of backing up Right Design Units with good game play mechanics you wont see the full effect. We could add reaver, lurker, tanks in, but it doesn't do much good if I can just group them up and 1a into the army. Alot of the fantastic micro/positioning you would see would be ruined because the game does it for you. Its going to be extremely difficult to design a lot of these "Right Unit Design" units because the AI is going to make anything easy to use. When you leave out the chances of error, you decrease the chances of excitement. Suddenly everyone can do the same thing, and at the same time almost every battle plays out the exact same way. People wonder why Tournaments are losing streamers.. There's a different champion every time. All of the korean's have hit the skill cieling long ago. IMO fungal and force field could actually be potentially good spells if it were not for smart casting. Imagine having to select each sentry one at a time to nail some force fields(obvious balance changes to be made here). That would be crazy, and then casters could finally mean it and not Bullshit when they say "look at those great forcefields!" When it comes to macro, this is what ties everything together. I agree with you on improving macro mechanics, instant remaxes=terrible design. Warpgates=terrible design. But macro is the heart of any RTS. Blizz ruined this in SC2. All of the koreans have hit the same macro skill cap. And the mistake that I intialy made was thinking that "Oh, make macro easy so that they can just focus on the battle.' I was wrong. Macro is the one consistent factor you must always have to worry about in a RTS. Sometimes you even must divert your attention from a full heated battle just to make sure that you will have reinforcements. When you combine a good combat game play with a good macro game play you end in a true game of mechanics. Who can mechanically slaughter each other(with right unit design and strat) and be a Bjonwa. RTS should be fueled by mechanics, and driven by strategy. Im not trying go all BW hardcore mode here. I dont like the idea of SC2BW nor going back to BW. I want forward progression with new units, and new strategy, but I want do so in the right way in earning my victory through superior control and mechanics. I agree that it would change our perception of what is great and what isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the mechanics is fundementally flawed. Its still an anti micro ability. We want abilities that makes it possible for the opponent to remicro against it. Marine vs banelings kinda the only one of those micro vs micro things we see in sc2. Imagine if we had like 3-5 micro vs micro units for each race. Think about how awesome the game would be. Simply put, MBS and AI isn't the underlying reason why sc2 is badly designed. I agree that it could indeed fix the problems, but it won't fix the underlying problems and instead they will reduce the amount of multitasking we see in sc2 as players will focus more on micro and and macro instead of doing awesome stuff that is really entertaining. | ||
|
badname
Australia25 Posts
Also many thing I don't like about one goals approach are less about them being bad ideas and more about them not being realistic for blizzard to implement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Protoss 1. I would not touch warp gates mostly because I don't think they cause that much of a problem and blizzard is very unlikely to change them in any radical way. 2. As far as basic gateway units go I think the stalker is fine and that the zealot overall is pretty good and I just blame the sentry for the early design problems of the protoss. So as I currently don't like any of the sentries spells very much but I do like the look and name of guardian shield, I would keep that spell and just modify it. Force field and hallucination on the other hand I would have removed and replaced. Lets start with the change to guardian shield, I would have it the same except it would also blocks the movement of enemy's in the same way as a force field but allied units could move freely threw and under it. This has several benefits with the most important one making a force field like spell that can be countered by simply killing the sentry. Also a mobile force field that can displaces units as it moves could have some interesting consequences. With hallucination I would replaced it with what I am for now going to call "scouting orb" which will just summon a ball or energy that has a timed life, can move up and down cliffs, is pretty fast and has a sight radius of 13. Instead of force field I would give an ability that can be toggle on and off that I am going to call "reinforce" which allows the sentry to regenerate the shields of a near by building and building only at a powerful rate. These change would keep the sentry an early game Swiss army knife and would allow it to be part of the army or a base defender but not in as much of a domineering way as it is now. Note: This would decrease protoss effectiveness against a terran in particular in a negative way early on but I would also like zealot charge on the cyber core as part of this change to alleviate this problem. 3. I don't like the colossus and would want it replaced but it does allow for basic level of micro and positioning, so for now I would just leave it and wait for legacy of the void before changing or replacing it. 4. the immortal right now is pretty meat headed but not all unit need to be special and I am fine with it. 5. I don't think DT have any major problems but I wouldn't mind seeing it with a blink like ability. 6. I really do like one goal's voidray. But excluding the void ray I think blizzard's take on protoss air is fine with the only issue being the tempest is not very good for quickly killing building, oracles are not good vs building and of course phoenix can't lift building so if voidrays no longer have the building destroyer role I think it could be interesting to give carriers an upgrade that gives them bonus damage vs buildings. 7. Right now I like the mothership core but blizzard made the mother ship useless with the change to vortex. Although with that said I think the mothership only being a joke unit for BMing or low level play is fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zerg 1. As far as I am concerned there is no real problem with hatchery tech or the limited AA for zerg at the point. It is a bit too bad that zerg doesn't have a 1 supply unit but for me it doesn't seem that big of a deal and really not worth flipping the game upside down for zerg just to fix it. 2. I really don't care what happens to the god forsaken infestor as long as its not WoL all over again. 3. I really do not like your swarm host that does splash damage. Lower supply and morphing from roaches is in line with what I would want but instead of being a damage focused unit that works bad in low number but almost too good in large numbers I would want the damage of the locus significantly reduced in exchange for more health and either larger unit radius or more locus. The idea would be to allow locus to be good at absorbing damage to help promote smaller number and support based play. Were as the lack of damage means they would be a burden if massed. 4. I like blizzards muta but it is too dominating in ZvZ and one of the only way to keep it at bay is in having an over powered infestors. But the hydra is vastly underpowered and I am sure a buff to hydras + smart play would allow somthing other than muta vs muta with out the need for super infestors. 5. blizzard hive tech may need some tweaks but overall I think its pretty fine. 6. The only thing left to discuss for zerg is the corruptor. Many people complain about it only being useful vs air but in my opinion its fine because being air to air only can cause an interesting dynamic if your opponent forces you to make alot of them, also at the end of the day they can morph into broodlords so its not a dead end of a unit. The real issues here is how uninteresting the corruption spell is. I would change it to a one use per corruptor spell that disables the use of any ability besides basic attacking, mining or moving for 30 seconds. With out the increased damage from corruption the corruptor would be less effective in direct combat so increasing the base amour from 2 to 3 would be something I would at least look at. The overall effect is to give the corruptor a minor utilty spell/role that despite being quite powerful is very limited. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Terran 1. Marines and marauders seem fine to me for the most part and although concussive is a bit errr it not that bad and probably not worth the hassle of replacing, plus I suggested zealot charge at cyber core. 2. I really found one goal's reaper problematic but in many way no less problematic then blizzard's current one. You could ague what the reaper should be able to do and how it can be impoved/buffed till the cows come home but I feel its more important to discuss what it shouldn't be able to do. In the end I would do the following reapers -remove the ability to jump up cliffs and return it as part of the speed upgrade. remove the factory requirement of the speed upgrade and change its cost to 100/100 140 seconds up from 50/50 100 seconds. (consideration: allowing reapers still be able to jump down cliffs with out the upgrade could be ok) reasoning: Very early reapers will be able to harass and contain some early game units as well as harass expansions but hitting the main would be hard as you would need to go through the front door. As a result the need for very specific anti reaper openings are reduced. -return the reapers attack vs buildings as an upgrade that requires an armoury reasoning: The attack vs buildings was useful in later stages of the game if you happened to have reapers. Odds are they still won't be used later on but why not make it at least more viable. 3. The ghost was clearly over nerfed and people have been saying 45( or 50 )-20 vs massive for snipe but I don't like this as even un-nerfed snipe was just a badly designed one dimensional spam fest of a spell. In the end I don't quite know what I want here but bringing snipe back to what it was is still not good in my opinion. 4. Blizzard's thor seems great right now and as far as tanks go i want the following. -Maelstrom Rounds upgrade added Cost 150/150 110 seconds Researched from: factory tech lab (requires armory) Crucio Shock Cannon deals +20 damage to primary target. Splash damage remains the same. reasoning: Due to the many but weak nature of most zerg and terran ground units the lack of change to splash damage would mean there would be little meaningful impact on these match ups. The main exception would be the ultralisk but it has been buffed in HotS which in turn should help balance this out. The real change is vs the fewer but stronger protoss units which would be easier to go tank against. 5. The widow mine has all sort of problem in terms of being to good/too bad and what I want done is slightly complicated. So the widow mine -Delay from when mine is triggered to when the pay load hits increased by X amount of time. reasoning: It is unreasonable for fast units to always have slow detectors lagging behind them just because of the threat that they could move over a mine field at any time. For example even if you always paired a flock of mutalisks with an overseer the overseer is much slower then the mutalisks even if it has the speed upgrade, meaning just the threat that widow mines can exist will slows down the mutalisk flock to only move at the speed of an overseer, therefore negating the point of the mutalisk's high speed. Alternatively you could rolls the dice and hope the terran didn't make mines or placed them poorly but why bother when it is safer to just make a slow ass death ball that can easily have detection keep up with it. In conclusion making the delay between trigger and hit being much slower allows your more speedy units to safely move around assuming you have the awareness and micro skills needed to pull back out of range or focus fire the second you trigger the mine. -alternative way to solve this issue is to make the mine somewhat visible when borrowed like some sort of subtle mound of earth . A detector should still be needed to actually attack the mine tho. reasoning: This clearly works by letting you just avoid the mine and judge if it good to attack or not. It also promotes more micro and more offensive use on the mine player's side. -range reduced to 4 build time reduced to 25 down form 40 supply reduced to 1 down from 2 reasoning: The reduction of range plus one of the above nerfs would make the widow mine much easier to avoid and clean out but with half the supply and reduced build time you can have lots more to balance this out. - Unstable Payload cooldown reduced to 25 down from 40 drilling claws removed but their effect now comes as default. reasoning: This would promote lots more micro and aggressive play rather than place and forget. 6. The raven in my opinion has always been better than most people seem to give it credit for but the current HoTS seeker missile is in most ways weaker then what it was before. If seeker missile must stay single target I would say change the cost from 125 energy to 75 then reduced the damage from 300 to 200 then add a 30 second cooldown to prevent using it twice in quick succession. 7.I am fine for the most part with most of the other terran air unit although I wouldn't mind the medvacs strong heal changed to a twin heal. The only other thing is BCs could maybe have some thing to make them more interesting. The only thing I could think of off the top of my head is some sort of warp drive ability that allows a BCs to teleport to a targeted allied command center or targeted allied BCs. I imagine it would cost some where from 50-100 energy and would allow BCs to defend more stretched out bases despite their slowness and you could also leave one or two BCs at key points for quick warp backs further improving mobility. | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On December 30 2012 07:54 Hider wrote: I agree that it would change our perception of what is great and what isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the mechanics is fundementally flawed. Its still an anti micro ability. We want abilities that makes it possible for the opponent to remicro against it. Marine vs banelings kinda the only one of those micro vs micro things we see in sc2. Imagine if we had like 3-5 micro vs micro units for each race. Think about how awesome the game would be. Simply put, MBS and AI isn't the underlying reason why sc2 is badly designed. I agree that it could indeed fix the problems, but it won't fix the underlying problems and instead they will reduce the amount of multitasking we see in sc2 as players will focus more on micro and and macro instead of doing awesome stuff that is really entertaining. Im glad you brought up bane ling vs marine micro its a perfect example of whats wrong with smart ai and unlimited selection. As a T player I definitely remember the good days of Marine vs Bling micro. When the muta ling bling first started I remember having immense trouble dealing with it as did other T players. That is when splitting first saw its true power in sc2. The problem was that once the Pros and casuals got used to splitting there marines, the MU started heavily favoring Terran. Most of 2010 and 2011=very high TvZ win rates. The problem was that unlimited selection made marine micro to easy for the bane lings to be cost effective enough. While the MU was exciting(largely due to muta harass thats something that will always be a good mechanic) Terran was pretty much favored every time. Unlimited selection allowed the T player to run every single marine backwards in one click, smart fire allowed the tanks to pick off banelings, and then a few quick splits and the Z was finished off. This is why Blizz buffed fungal, because the saw the problem of Split marine=GG. If we did not have unlimited selection imagine the power of muta ling bling. It would be very hard for even a pro to get every marine groups split nicely. This would be a sick MU. Because the potential of the micro is still there, but the ease of it is gone. Now even the best players have a difficulty splitting every time. Suddenly the game is exciting because nobody knows how a battle is going to play out. Can you split marines 12 at a time and focus the bane lings with the tanks while continuously switching back to base to macro each barracks? Can the Zerg control his army perfectly so that all of his units enter the battle correctly and the blings hit there targets? More importantly can the Z replenish by having to individually click each hatchery just to rebuild? Can he keep macro up while doing this? We need more of this. New exciting units are needed, but if there is no overall skill set required behind the core of the game your going to end up with less exciting games and worst of all very predictable games. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On December 31 2012 06:13 XXXSmOke wrote: Im glad you brought up bane ling vs marine micro its a perfect example of whats wrong with smart ai and unlimited selection. As a T player I definitely remember the good days of Marine vs Bling micro. When the muta ling bling first started I remember having immense trouble dealing with it as did other T players. That is when splitting first saw its true power in sc2. The problem was that once the Pros and casuals got used to splitting there marines, the MU started heavily favoring Terran. Most of 2010 and 2011=very high TvZ win rates. The problem was that unlimited selection made marine micro to easy for the bane lings to be cost effective enough. While the MU was exciting(largely due to muta harass thats something that will always be a good mechanic) Terran was pretty much favored every time. Unlimited selection allowed the T player to run every single marine backwards in one click, smart fire allowed the tanks to pick off banelings, and then a few quick splits and the Z was finished off. This is why Blizz buffed fungal, because the saw the problem of Split marine=GG. If we did not have unlimited selection imagine the power of muta ling bling. It would be very hard for even a pro to get every marine groups split nicely. This would be a sick MU. Because the potential of the micro is still there, but the ease of it is gone. Now even the best players have a difficulty splitting every time. Suddenly the game is exciting because nobody knows how a battle is going to play out. Can you split marines 12 at a time and focus the bane lings with the tanks while continuously switching back to base to macro each barracks? Can the Zerg control his army perfectly so that all of his units enter the battle correctly and the blings hit there targets? More importantly can the Z replenish by having to individually click each hatchery just to rebuild? Can he keep macro up while doing this? We need more of this. New exciting units are needed, but if there is no overall skill set required behind the core of the game your going to end up with less exciting games and worst of all very predictable games. But muta bling allowed the zerg t take map control and gain an eco lead while teching to something else. Muta bling vs marine/tank is also easily balanceable by fixing the economy (making 3 bases less efficient) as this forces the terran to spread him self out more to defend more locations at once. In a 200 food fight with great positioning tnak/marine > muta/bling, and that's how it is supposed to be. That army is supposed to beat muta/bling in a straight up fight. Just like terran mech in bw was supposed to beat toss ground army in a straihgt up fight. Muta/bling vs marine/tank is great from a design POV. From a balance POV (at least in wol at high level of play) its slightly terran favored (not as much as you make it out to be though), but that can easily be balaanced. Since this topic shouldn't discuss WOL balance, and instead it should revolve around design philosphiles I will end this dicsussion here. You keep referring to the fact that you want to make stuff harder. I disgaree with that logic. Making marines more difficult to control isn't what we want. We want to make all units more difficult to control instead. We want the game to be easy to learn, difficult to master (if you disagree with this we can end the dicussion here as we have different motives). Unlimited selection will just make it hard to learn hard to master. Regarding fungal, blizzard buffed it due to ZVP (remember collosus/void rays). Tvz was considered very balanced at the time. (though I agree that over time it would have been terran favored if there had been no change - but back in spring 2011 tvz was close to 50 vs 50). | ||
| ||
