|
|
|
On December 31 2012 06:50 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 06:13 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 30 2012 07:54 Hider wrote:On December 30 2012 05:44 XXXSmOke wrote: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. 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. 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).
You and I want the same thing but in different ways that's why we keep butting heads. I just do not believe it is going to be possible to create these "hard to use units" without looking at the basics of whats ruining everything.
You say you want to make every unit harder to use, well I have the perfect solution. Remove unlimited selection. Making armies actually hard to control well naturally make the units harder to control. Struggling to make every unit cost effective will make the battles better and since you cant control your whole army in one click, suddenly every unit becomes much much harder to use just like you want. We will get more tension in battles, greater chance for mind blowing micro,
After that is done, then I want to use your ideas. Lets try and make units be more dynamic and hard to use. Make force field killable so that a Zerg can focus fire the forcefields down, Make fungal a non-rooting spell, Make immortals shields an activated abilty that lasts a few seconds with a cool down, The collsi idea they put in this mod is great, Make the stalker beefier, the maruader idea is great here to.
I want what you want, but more. Because just making the unit changes will not save this game. It will still just be a game of BO wins and predicatable outgames and people will get burned out because the game is to easy to learn and to easy to master
Once again, when you take the chances of error, you take away the overall excitement of good play.
|
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.
agreed! come on!
|
On December 31 2012 09:36 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 06:50 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 06:13 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 30 2012 07:54 Hider wrote:On December 30 2012 05:44 XXXSmOke wrote: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. 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. 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). You and I want the same thing but in different ways that's why we keep butting heads. I just do not believe it is going to be possible to create these "hard to use units" without looking at the basics of whats ruining everything. You say you want to make every unit harder to use, well I have the perfect solution. Remove unlimited selection. Making armies actually hard to control well naturally make the units harder to control. Struggling to make every unit cost effective will make the battles better and since you cant control your whole army in one click, suddenly every unit becomes much much harder to use just like you want. We will get more tension in battles, greater chance for mind blowing micro, After that is done, then I want to use your ideas. Lets try and make units be more dynamic and hard to use. Make force field killable so that a Zerg can focus fire the forcefields down, Make fungal a non-rooting spell, Make immortals shields an activated abilty that lasts a few seconds with a cool down, The collsi idea they put in this mod is great, Make the stalker beefier, the maruader idea is great here to. I want what you want, but more. Because just making the unit changes will not save this game. It will still just be a game of BO wins and predicatable outgames and people will get burned out because the game is to easy to learn and to easy to master Once again, when you take the chances of error, you take away the overall excitement of good play.
What I want is game full of action. A game where we can clearly see the differnece between the 50th best player in the world and the best player in the world. I want small skrimishes to happen all the time and micro should be rewarded.
But I also a want a game that isn't frustrating to play for non-top players. A strong playerbase is very important for the game to be popular as a spectator-sport, and I believe that stuff such as MBS and limitied unit selection will make the game more frustrating and too difficult for non-top players to play.
I agree that if there was no other way to fix fungal/forcefields or increase the skillcap then limited unit selection could be an option, but there is; The collosus should be difficult to master as well, fungal should slow --> less minerals on each base (+ no mules) will make players spreading their bases out which will increase multitasking and thus make for more interesting games. There is really no need for making the game more frustrating to play for newcommers. It is really an unessarcary change.
Also remember that we still can see chain fungals even if you have to click each infestors manually. The ability is still broken and is still unforgiving to play against (even though it now is slightly more difficutl to master than previously).
You argue that we can do both things (removing smart cast + unlimited selection) + redeisigning units, but why should we do both things if we can get the desired outcome by just doing one thing. Why is that you don't think we can get intense and microfocused battles by just redesigning units?
|
Btw, someone explain to me how I can upload it to EU. Haven't uploaded anything previously.
|
Anyway, here are some of my thought on the terrans units that could use a redesign.
1) Ghosts. The problem with snipe is that the opponent can't really remicro against it. Those it has to be somewhat slightly underpowered against ultras/broodlords, while pretty decent against ht's/infestors, but the thing is that EMP is supposed to be good against that. I wonder if you could redesign it so that the opponent has the possiblity of remicro'ing against it. FOr example, why isn't EMP draining energy/shield over time in a certain area (like storm). What about snipe. Wouldn't it be possible to make it a projectile instead. So if the opponent reacts really quickly he can avoid the snipe. Looking for some creativity here.
2) Thor - Seems kinda boring? Why do you want a siege breaker unit?
3) Raven. The repair thing seems kinda boring. I always try to take the spectator POV when analyzing the design of units, and this ability just seems slightly pointless.
4) Reaper. Why not make this unit a viable unit in mid/late game. Give the turret back to the raven but reduce the energy cost of the turret, the size of the turret and the life of the turret and hopefully we can see more turret harass which will make ravens more viable as an harass unit. Eventually increase the movement speed of the raven or the turret casting range of the unit. Regarding the reaper, I would suggest to reduce its damage against light but buff its damage against armored slightly to make it slightly better in fights (though it will still be primarily a harass unit).
The reaper is insanely fun to play around with, and I don't get why Blizzard nor the creators of this mod don't want this unit to be a mid/late game harass unit.
5) BC; Dislike the Wc3 ability. It's not terribad, its just a bit boring. Again, I can't imagine any spectators or casters going insane when this ability is in play. I want units that are easy to learn and difficult to master. THis abillity just seems easy to learn easy to master. I am sure you can come up with ablities which have syngergy with mech and are interesting.
|
nice onegoal is on day9.tv website :D
|
On December 31 2012 09:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 09:36 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 31 2012 06:50 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 06:13 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 30 2012 07:54 Hider wrote:On December 30 2012 05:44 XXXSmOke wrote: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. 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. 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). You and I want the same thing but in different ways that's why we keep butting heads. I just do not believe it is going to be possible to create these "hard to use units" without looking at the basics of whats ruining everything. You say you want to make every unit harder to use, well I have the perfect solution. Remove unlimited selection. Making armies actually hard to control well naturally make the units harder to control. Struggling to make every unit cost effective will make the battles better and since you cant control your whole army in one click, suddenly every unit becomes much much harder to use just like you want. We will get more tension in battles, greater chance for mind blowing micro, After that is done, then I want to use your ideas. Lets try and make units be more dynamic and hard to use. Make force field killable so that a Zerg can focus fire the forcefields down, Make fungal a non-rooting spell, Make immortals shields an activated abilty that lasts a few seconds with a cool down, The collsi idea they put in this mod is great, Make the stalker beefier, the maruader idea is great here to. I want what you want, but more. Because just making the unit changes will not save this game. It will still just be a game of BO wins and predicatable outgames and people will get burned out because the game is to easy to learn and to easy to master Once again, when you take the chances of error, you take away the overall excitement of good play. What I want is game full of action. A game where we can clearly see the differnece between the 50th best player in the world and the best player in the world. I want small skrimishes to happen all the time and micro should be rewarded. But I also a want a game that isn't frustrating to play for non-top players. A strong playerbase is very important for the game to be popular as a spectator-sport, and I believe that stuff such as MBS and limitied unit selection will make the game more frustrating and too difficult for non-top players to play. I agree that if there was no other way to fix fungal/forcefields or increase the skillcap then limited unit selection could be an option, but there is; The collosus should be difficult to master as well, fungal should slow --> less minerals on each base (+ no mules) will make players spreading their bases out which will increase multitasking and thus make for more interesting games. There is really no need for making the game more frustrating to play for newcommers. It is really an unessarcary change. Also remember that we still can see chain fungals even if you have to click each infestors manually. The ability is still broken and is still unforgiving to play against (even though it now is slightly more difficutl to master than previously). You argue that we can do both things (removing smart cast + unlimited selection) + redeisigning units, but why should we do both things if we can get the desired outcome by just doing one thing. Why is that you don't think we can get intense and microfocused battles by just redesigning units?
You make some good points and now I clearly see the difference so I respect that,
I dont think that unlimited selection would drive away casuals like it does in BW because now we have a much better Match Making system. If both players have the same challenge then it wont be as frustrating. Whats more frustrating is the current system where a player with significantly lower EPM and control can still beat me by just turtling into a deathball and hitting 1a. SO if anything, I actually see the SC2 system as being worse for casuals. How many times have you had the above happen to you? Ive seen you post alot and im pretty sure you are a Terran player. This is the result of strategy being more important than mechanics which leads to frustrating losses.
If we do unlimited selection, I am also calling for no smart casting so if a Z player can select 1 infestor at a time and then hit 4 differant fungals and keep the whole army chain fungalled than that is some ridiclous speed. Also dont forget that I am totally with you on your unit changes ideas, I just want my ideas added as well  No root fungal = YES PLEASE.
Thats why I think we should do both. Because both of these would lead to an amazing game where mechanics are the core of the game, but the strategy still plays a decent sized role. Just changing the units around may lead to some better skirmishes and battles, but it wont fuel the overall skill ceiling that this game desperately needs.
|
Only 1 person in the chat channel........ Been in game lobby for 8 min and cant find a game Fuck you blizz custom game.
|
If you do decide to limit unit selection you might wanna do it by supply (like filling up a dropship) so you could select e.g 48 lings or 24 marines or 12 zealots, just to make it a bit fairer.
|
On December 31 2012 15:28 Zrana wrote:
If you do decide to limit unit selection you might wanna do it by supply (like filling up a dropship) so you could select e.g 48 lings or 24 marines or 12 zealots, just to make it a bit fairer.
Though limited unit selection isn't currently on our agenda, that is a very interesting idea!
|
Wouldn't that be pretty confusing? Not only that, but that kind of unit selection is extremely inconsistent and I don't think there would be an appropriate place for that in a fast paced real-time strategy game like StarCraft.
I think having an absolute value would probably be the best for something like limited unit selection. But I personally don't want to see limited unit selection because Blizzard will never take something like that into consideration.
I don't remember who said this but it was someone said it in this thread. I also believe that unit design can kill the death ball instead of being limited to having a selection of X amount of units. The SC2BW mod from MavercK shows that pathing can also kill the death ball.
But from what I know and what I've seen. The OneGoal mod is making changes that Blizzard could possibly see as reasonable ideas for changes to the game. Unlike the Starbow mod (which was great by the way) which basically changes the game completely. OneGoal makes StarCraft 2 even better than it already is by making small changes that I personally can see Blizzard doing.
I think OneGoal is aimed to test things Blizzard is unable and unwilling to change and/or test. Which is why it has its subtitle: Community PTR.
This took forever to write by the way. Typing this on an iPad is no good. Couldn't exactly get all my thoughts down on this post. Hopefully it wasn't too long to read.
|
On December 31 2012 15:28 Zrana wrote:
If you do decide to limit unit selection you might wanna do it by supply (like filling up a dropship) so you could select e.g 48 lings or 24 marines or 12 zealots, just to make it a bit fairer.
Terrible idea. If you box a mixed group of units, you would have NO IDEA what will be selected.
|
Im not gonna lie i agree completely with the limited selection with units people have become too dependant on these 1a armys like i see a bronze-gold leaguer have all his army on 1a and see a master player do the same thing unlike BW where you could tell immediately the micro of a bad and good player.
|
On December 31 2012 13:55 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 09:53 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 09:36 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 31 2012 06:50 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 06:13 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 30 2012 07:54 Hider wrote:On December 30 2012 05:44 XXXSmOke wrote: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. 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. 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). You and I want the same thing but in different ways that's why we keep butting heads. I just do not believe it is going to be possible to create these "hard to use units" without looking at the basics of whats ruining everything. You say you want to make every unit harder to use, well I have the perfect solution. Remove unlimited selection. Making armies actually hard to control well naturally make the units harder to control. Struggling to make every unit cost effective will make the battles better and since you cant control your whole army in one click, suddenly every unit becomes much much harder to use just like you want. We will get more tension in battles, greater chance for mind blowing micro, After that is done, then I want to use your ideas. Lets try and make units be more dynamic and hard to use. Make force field killable so that a Zerg can focus fire the forcefields down, Make fungal a non-rooting spell, Make immortals shields an activated abilty that lasts a few seconds with a cool down, The collsi idea they put in this mod is great, Make the stalker beefier, the maruader idea is great here to. I want what you want, but more. Because just making the unit changes will not save this game. It will still just be a game of BO wins and predicatable outgames and people will get burned out because the game is to easy to learn and to easy to master Once again, when you take the chances of error, you take away the overall excitement of good play. What I want is game full of action. A game where we can clearly see the differnece between the 50th best player in the world and the best player in the world. I want small skrimishes to happen all the time and micro should be rewarded. But I also a want a game that isn't frustrating to play for non-top players. A strong playerbase is very important for the game to be popular as a spectator-sport, and I believe that stuff such as MBS and limitied unit selection will make the game more frustrating and too difficult for non-top players to play. I agree that if there was no other way to fix fungal/forcefields or increase the skillcap then limited unit selection could be an option, but there is; The collosus should be difficult to master as well, fungal should slow --> less minerals on each base (+ no mules) will make players spreading their bases out which will increase multitasking and thus make for more interesting games. There is really no need for making the game more frustrating to play for newcommers. It is really an unessarcary change. Also remember that we still can see chain fungals even if you have to click each infestors manually. The ability is still broken and is still unforgiving to play against (even though it now is slightly more difficutl to master than previously). You argue that we can do both things (removing smart cast + unlimited selection) + redeisigning units, but why should we do both things if we can get the desired outcome by just doing one thing. Why is that you don't think we can get intense and microfocused battles by just redesigning units? You make some good points and now I clearly see the difference so I respect that, I dont think that unlimited selection would drive away casuals like it does in BW because now we have a much better Match Making system. If both players have the same challenge then it wont be as frustrating. Whats more frustrating is the current system where a player with significantly lower EPM and control can still beat me by just turtling into a deathball and hitting 1a. SO if anything, I actually see the SC2 system as being worse for casuals. How many times have you had the above happen to you? Ive seen you post alot and im pretty sure you are a Terran player. This is the result of strategy being more important than mechanics which leads to frustrating losses. If we do unlimited selection, I am also calling for no smart casting so if a Z player can select 1 infestor at a time and then hit 4 differant fungals and keep the whole army chain fungalled than that is some ridiclous speed. Also dont forget that I am totally with you on your unit changes ideas, I just want my ideas added as well No root fungal = YES PLEASE. Thats why I think we should do both. Because both of these would lead to an amazing game where mechanics are the core of the game, but the strategy still plays a decent sized role. Just changing the units around may lead to some better skirmishes and battles, but it wont fuel the overall skill ceiling that this game desperately needs.
How do you know? I mentioned marines vs banelings as a previous example of where players just can't attack-move, and thus it is exciting to watch as spectators. I want every sc2 unit to be inefficient when you a-move, but you can be very cost efficient if you outmicro the opponent. (to clarify a bit: not all units should be as microable, e.g. zealots, however, nonmicroable units should have a role as multitaskbased harass unit in the mid/late game).
I am willing to admit this, though; Assuming the hypothetical scenario where I am hired as game designer and had the choice of redesigning all the units I wanted to. If the game then still turned out to be somewhat mediocore as a spectator-sport (and difficult to see the difference between a top 50 player and the best in the world), then I would definitely consider removing smartcast and unlimited unit selection.
The reason, though, why I think newcommers will dislike this, is that I relate to my own early experience with Sc2. Even though I quicly got into diamond leage (late beta, and early release), I honestly still had a lot of trouble controlling just 2 unit groups. (yeh I was bad by then, so was everybody else). I can only imagine the difficulties and frustration that comes up with frustrating multiple control groups for players that are learning the game, and I fear many will quit and switch to LOL, back to WOW, etc.
Btw, in a previous post you mentioned that immortals should be able to activate hardened shield. I think that is a poorly designed ability as 1) It is easy to use. 2) The opponent can't remicro against it.
Rather, I always think of what role a specific unit should serve when I try to come up with solutions to unit design; If the immortal should be a unit that is great against mech, then it should be able to do one of two things: 1) Abuse the immobility (examples; medivacs, blink stalkers etc.), 2) Have some "insane" micro ability in a battle (such as marines vs banelings).
The current proposed immortal has neither of those which makes it slightly boring, and thus it reduces the skill cap. Honestly I am not entirely convinced that the huge switch of gateway/robo units was necessary. Wol seels to worked fine in that regards with the exception of the large reliance of forcefields early game. I wonder whether the creators of the Onegoal have considered just redesigning the sentry and leaving the sentry at the gateway and the immortal at the robo. Would like to hear their reasoning for why the felt this was necessary.
Anyway, with the current onegoal blink stalkers should have clear role as harassing light units (primarily workers). Now what about giving hte immortal a late game upgrade that make it capable of getting from A to B extremely quickly or increase the syngergy with the warp prism.
The main problem I think with the current Onegoal mod is that the developers tend to focus too much on given each unit a usefullness (the BC as the main example of this), rather than think about whether this creates exciting games/distingiches good players from great players.
|
On December 31 2012 19:23 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 13:55 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 31 2012 09:53 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 09:36 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 31 2012 06:50 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 06:13 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 30 2012 07:54 Hider wrote:On December 30 2012 05:44 XXXSmOke wrote: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. 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. 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). You and I want the same thing but in different ways that's why we keep butting heads. I just do not believe it is going to be possible to create these "hard to use units" without looking at the basics of whats ruining everything. You say you want to make every unit harder to use, well I have the perfect solution. Remove unlimited selection. Making armies actually hard to control well naturally make the units harder to control. Struggling to make every unit cost effective will make the battles better and since you cant control your whole army in one click, suddenly every unit becomes much much harder to use just like you want. We will get more tension in battles, greater chance for mind blowing micro, After that is done, then I want to use your ideas. Lets try and make units be more dynamic and hard to use. Make force field killable so that a Zerg can focus fire the forcefields down, Make fungal a non-rooting spell, Make immortals shields an activated abilty that lasts a few seconds with a cool down, The collsi idea they put in this mod is great, Make the stalker beefier, the maruader idea is great here to. I want what you want, but more. Because just making the unit changes will not save this game. It will still just be a game of BO wins and predicatable outgames and people will get burned out because the game is to easy to learn and to easy to master Once again, when you take the chances of error, you take away the overall excitement of good play. What I want is game full of action. A game where we can clearly see the differnece between the 50th best player in the world and the best player in the world. I want small skrimishes to happen all the time and micro should be rewarded. But I also a want a game that isn't frustrating to play for non-top players. A strong playerbase is very important for the game to be popular as a spectator-sport, and I believe that stuff such as MBS and limitied unit selection will make the game more frustrating and too difficult for non-top players to play. I agree that if there was no other way to fix fungal/forcefields or increase the skillcap then limited unit selection could be an option, but there is; The collosus should be difficult to master as well, fungal should slow --> less minerals on each base (+ no mules) will make players spreading their bases out which will increase multitasking and thus make for more interesting games. There is really no need for making the game more frustrating to play for newcommers. It is really an unessarcary change. Also remember that we still can see chain fungals even if you have to click each infestors manually. The ability is still broken and is still unforgiving to play against (even though it now is slightly more difficutl to master than previously). You argue that we can do both things (removing smart cast + unlimited selection) + redeisigning units, but why should we do both things if we can get the desired outcome by just doing one thing. Why is that you don't think we can get intense and microfocused battles by just redesigning units? You make some good points and now I clearly see the difference so I respect that, I dont think that unlimited selection would drive away casuals like it does in BW because now we have a much better Match Making system. If both players have the same challenge then it wont be as frustrating. Whats more frustrating is the current system where a player with significantly lower EPM and control can still beat me by just turtling into a deathball and hitting 1a. SO if anything, I actually see the SC2 system as being worse for casuals. How many times have you had the above happen to you? Ive seen you post alot and im pretty sure you are a Terran player. This is the result of strategy being more important than mechanics which leads to frustrating losses. If we do unlimited selection, I am also calling for no smart casting so if a Z player can select 1 infestor at a time and then hit 4 differant fungals and keep the whole army chain fungalled than that is some ridiclous speed. Also dont forget that I am totally with you on your unit changes ideas, I just want my ideas added as well No root fungal = YES PLEASE. Thats why I think we should do both. Because both of these would lead to an amazing game where mechanics are the core of the game, but the strategy still plays a decent sized role. Just changing the units around may lead to some better skirmishes and battles, but it wont fuel the overall skill ceiling that this game desperately needs. How do you know? I mentioned marines vs banelings as a previous example of where players just can't attack-move, and thus it is exciting to watch as spectators. I want every sc2 unit to be inefficient when you a-move, but you can be very cost efficient if you outmicro the opponent. (to clarify a bit: not all units should be as microable, e.g. zealots, however, nonmicroable units should have a role as multitaskbased harass unit in the mid/late game). I am willing to admit this, though; Assuming the hypothetical scenario where I am hired as game designer and had the choice of redesigning all the units I wanted to. If the game then still turned out to be somewhat mediocore as a spectator-sport (and difficult to see the difference between a top 50 player and the best in the world), then I would definitely consider removing smartcast and unlimited unit selection. The reason, though, why I think newcommers will dislike this, is that I relate to my own early experience with Sc2. Even though I quicly got into diamond leage (late beta, and early release), I honestly still had a lot of trouble controlling just 2 unit groups. (yeh I was bad by then, so was everybody else). I can only imagine the difficulties and frustration that comes up with frustrating multiple control groups for players that are learning the game, and I fear many will quit and switch to LOL, back to WOW, etc.
but also imagine the amazingly rewarding feeling after many games of trying to control multiple hot keys where you execute it well the feeling is so great. When i started playing sc2 i got into it because "i thought" it was a really hard game and had micro and macro which i wasn't familiar with which really intrigued me the thought that i can control my army better than someone else and win because of that (obv having god macro is a factor as well). Also sc2 is getting so dry nowadays hardly ever see good micro from toss and zerg. A moving isn't so easy when you need to control multiple hot keys
|
On December 31 2012 19:37 Young Terran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 19:23 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 13:55 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 31 2012 09:53 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 09:36 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 31 2012 06:50 Hider wrote:On December 31 2012 06:13 XXXSmOke wrote:On December 30 2012 07:54 Hider wrote:On December 30 2012 05:44 XXXSmOke wrote: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. 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. 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). You and I want the same thing but in different ways that's why we keep butting heads. I just do not believe it is going to be possible to create these "hard to use units" without looking at the basics of whats ruining everything. You say you want to make every unit harder to use, well I have the perfect solution. Remove unlimited selection. Making armies actually hard to control well naturally make the units harder to control. Struggling to make every unit cost effective will make the battles better and since you cant control your whole army in one click, suddenly every unit becomes much much harder to use just like you want. We will get more tension in battles, greater chance for mind blowing micro, After that is done, then I want to use your ideas. Lets try and make units be more dynamic and hard to use. Make force field killable so that a Zerg can focus fire the forcefields down, Make fungal a non-rooting spell, Make immortals shields an activated abilty that lasts a few seconds with a cool down, The collsi idea they put in this mod is great, Make the stalker beefier, the maruader idea is great here to. I want what you want, but more. Because just making the unit changes will not save this game. It will still just be a game of BO wins and predicatable outgames and people will get burned out because the game is to easy to learn and to easy to master Once again, when you take the chances of error, you take away the overall excitement of good play. What I want is game full of action. A game where we can clearly see the differnece between the 50th best player in the world and the best player in the world. I want small skrimishes to happen all the time and micro should be rewarded. But I also a want a game that isn't frustrating to play for non-top players. A strong playerbase is very important for the game to be popular as a spectator-sport, and I believe that stuff such as MBS and limitied unit selection will make the game more frustrating and too difficult for non-top players to play. I agree that if there was no other way to fix fungal/forcefields or increase the skillcap then limited unit selection could be an option, but there is; The collosus should be difficult to master as well, fungal should slow --> less minerals on each base (+ no mules) will make players spreading their bases out which will increase multitasking and thus make for more interesting games. There is really no need for making the game more frustrating to play for newcommers. It is really an unessarcary change. Also remember that we still can see chain fungals even if you have to click each infestors manually. The ability is still broken and is still unforgiving to play against (even though it now is slightly more difficutl to master than previously). You argue that we can do both things (removing smart cast + unlimited selection) + redeisigning units, but why should we do both things if we can get the desired outcome by just doing one thing. Why is that you don't think we can get intense and microfocused battles by just redesigning units? You make some good points and now I clearly see the difference so I respect that, I dont think that unlimited selection would drive away casuals like it does in BW because now we have a much better Match Making system. If both players have the same challenge then it wont be as frustrating. Whats more frustrating is the current system where a player with significantly lower EPM and control can still beat me by just turtling into a deathball and hitting 1a. SO if anything, I actually see the SC2 system as being worse for casuals. How many times have you had the above happen to you? Ive seen you post alot and im pretty sure you are a Terran player. This is the result of strategy being more important than mechanics which leads to frustrating losses. If we do unlimited selection, I am also calling for no smart casting so if a Z player can select 1 infestor at a time and then hit 4 differant fungals and keep the whole army chain fungalled than that is some ridiclous speed. Also dont forget that I am totally with you on your unit changes ideas, I just want my ideas added as well No root fungal = YES PLEASE. Thats why I think we should do both. Because both of these would lead to an amazing game where mechanics are the core of the game, but the strategy still plays a decent sized role. Just changing the units around may lead to some better skirmishes and battles, but it wont fuel the overall skill ceiling that this game desperately needs. How do you know? I mentioned marines vs banelings as a previous example of where players just can't attack-move, and thus it is exciting to watch as spectators. I want every sc2 unit to be inefficient when you a-move, but you can be very cost efficient if you outmicro the opponent. (to clarify a bit: not all units should be as microable, e.g. zealots, however, nonmicroable units should have a role as multitaskbased harass unit in the mid/late game). I am willing to admit this, though; Assuming the hypothetical scenario where I am hired as game designer and had the choice of redesigning all the units I wanted to. If the game then still turned out to be somewhat mediocore as a spectator-sport (and difficult to see the difference between a top 50 player and the best in the world), then I would definitely consider removing smartcast and unlimited unit selection. The reason, though, why I think newcommers will dislike this, is that I relate to my own early experience with Sc2. Even though I quicly got into diamond leage (late beta, and early release), I honestly still had a lot of trouble controlling just 2 unit groups. (yeh I was bad by then, so was everybody else). I can only imagine the difficulties and frustration that comes up with frustrating multiple control groups for players that are learning the game, and I fear many will quit and switch to LOL, back to WOW, etc. but also imagine the amazingly rewarding feeling after many games of trying to control multiple hot keys where you execute it well the feeling is so great. When i started playing sc2 i got into it because "i thought" it was a really hard game and had micro and macro which i wasn't familiar with which really intrigued me the thought that i can control my army better than someone else and win because of that (obv having god macro is a factor as well). Also sc2 is getting so dry nowadays hardly ever see good micro from toss and zerg. A moving isn't so easy when you need to control multiple hot keys
I still get an amazing feeling when I drop 3 locations at once. Everything you mentioned doesn't contradct my design philosophy. We want a-moving to be inefficient (though easy for newcommers), in higher leagues and instead we should heavily reward fantastic micro from just good micro, and specators should be capable of identifiyng when amazing micro happens. With the current HOTS and too some extent the current onegoal mod, spectators won't be able to do that.
|
also why can i not find this anywhere on EU server?
|
On December 31 2012 23:29 Young Terran wrote:
also why can i not find this anywhere on EU server?
Because it isn't uploaded onto the EU server.
|
On January 01 2013 02:27 MNdakota wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 23:29 Young Terran wrote:
also why can i not find this anywhere on EU server? Because it isn't uploaded onto the EU server.
why not? i was looking forward to playing this :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
