|
On January 16 2013 10:30 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 17:09 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
I am actually intrigued as to why you think One Goal is bad. Have you played it, did stuff feel off? This is stuff we want to know. I have played it and given it a fair chance just like Starbow and SC2:BW. The game just doesn't feel fun. Everything I love about SC2 seems to be kinda of destroyed in face of ideas that seems weird just for the sake of being weird. I could say more about it but I didn't play more then 2 games because it wasn't remotely fun. Maybe I will play a bit more a give a more detailed reason as to why I don't like it.
Ok, can you explain what " kinda of destroyed in face of ideas that seems weird just for the sake of being weird" means?
|
This level of destabilization was inevitable in OneGoal. Fact of life. If you want to make an omelet, you're going to have to break a few eggs.
In order to effect the kind of mechanic changes needed to change large features of SC2 like deathballs, you're going to have to change some pretty important units and mechanics. Then you're going to need to (or at least it would be a superior game if you did) change other aspects of the game to create a dynamic, tense, balanced game again.
It should surprise no one that the result looks quite different. Lamenting about fundamental problems is futile if you're unwilling or unprepared to accept fundamental changes to effect a solution.
|
On January 15 2013 21:30 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 17:09 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
I am actually intrigued as to why you think One Goal is bad. Have you played it, did stuff feel off? This is stuff we want to know. I personally think you're doing far, far too much at once and trying to fundamentally change a lot of things that don't really need changing... Blizzard are not going to redesign Starcraft 2 into the fantasies of a group of people that can't even fill a thread on TeamLiquid after several months. They will iterate, however, if given proper evidence to do so...
This is all absolutely right. I don't want to fall into the camp that says preserving balance is the most important thing (because in the design faze of a game it is NOT), but I also would like this collective conversation to actual be taken seriously, and within the current state it is hard to see this as a step forward, but a step side ways into the minds of a handful of people. Don't throw out the good things that are already there, just add to them. Try to fix that things you find bad about the game as well.
Edit: I guess I am not really adding anything to the conversation besides that I agree that to accurately test out new ideas they must be isolated. Throwing everything together at once will feel bad even if every single idea is great on it's own.
|
On January 16 2013 11:05 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 22:39 Evangelist wrote:
No, you're not showing how Blizzard can make SC2 better because the game isn't based on SC2 at all. It's based on some wierd pastiche of BW, a bit of DoTA (Battlecruiser aura pretty much defines "deathball") and maybe a tiny bit of SC2.
That's what happens when someone goes into a mod trying to design their own game. Starbow is a mess for the same reason.
If you really want to give interesting ideas to Blizzard then you do them in the context of the original game! Yes, by all means, try out fascinating ideas but if you change the metagame completely, you're not showing anything. You're just showing how a bunch of changes that are thrown together look when they are thrown together with no clear design ethos. The whole methodology is wrong. The argumentation is wrong - you're making the point to the wrong people. No one cares what TeamLiquid plebs think about these changes. I certainly don't and Blizzard have to wade through nine hundred pages of "FUCK U DUSTIN LOLDER" to get there.
One or two extensive changes at a time, extensively tested, will be a much more convincing argument for design change than fifty half baked ideas all thrown together.
Take the Colossus idea that has been thrown around. I personally like how the Colossus works here. Imagine how awesome that would be if we had the community testing that change in a vacuum and then submitted it, directly to Blizzard. We could actually improve a boring unit and make it interesting
Or the tank changes. Make the siege tank 2 supply and just see what happens. Without a focused aim you are not going to have the effect you want. First on testing methodology: You are right. The best ideal way for One Goal to work is via small changes with weeks of testing in between them. Unfortunately, the team, Blizzard, and the esport scene don't necessarily have that luxury. It sounds pretty extreme to say. But lets look at the damage that poor dynamics can do to the game over the course of six months. Look at the damage that Vortex, Fungal Growth, and Infested Terran all did to viewership. Dyanamics that I would argue are just as toxic still exist in HotS and Blizzard has no intention of changing them. Force Fields, No defenders advantage against Toss, reliance on deathballs, worthless units like the Hydra, Thor ect ect. The list goes on. These are things that will hold the game back unless they are adressed. And believe me, Riot will not give any quarter with regards to esports, every season they agressively revise their game, completely redesigning problematic champions and items. Guess what, they screw with the meta a fair bit and they are the most watched and played esport in the world. I can't speak for the rest of the team or community, but I want SC2 to have something resembling that clout. Simply put, I don't think SC2's current design can get it there. What separates One Goal from other mods is that we don't look to brood war units for answers. BW is a great set of dynamics to look at and learn from, as well as a basic set of guideline sfor what feels "starcraft." Currently, there are things in One Goal that probably don't belong in Starcraft, which is why they will change or we will remove them. For example, we are removing Behemoth Conduits next patch for an ability that feels more appropriate and is less deathball oriented. One Goal has been out for 2 months. Give us some time to sort our stuff out, We make mistakes like any other design team.
Yes but you're assuming that Blizzard are taking any notice of this! Esports has plenty of time - most esports do decline over time after they reach their peak and Starcraft 2 is still pulling in huge numbers of sponsors and, if I'm honest, punching way above its weight. HoTS will reignite interest as people who played the game come back to play new units. Now is the time to get interesting ideas into the game.
If you want to change the game you have to commit to a Blizzard esque method of empirical, iterative testing. Riot don't have the most watched/played esport in the world because they aggressively redesign their game every six weeks. They have it because:
A - it's free
B - it's a team game which means any "improving" player can just blame their team for their own fuckups
C - it's about as demanding to play casually as eating a turkey sandwich. Bronze league SC2 is more challenging than medium level LoL
They also get to resell everything by changing the metagame, something which they will continue to do as long as their playerbase lets them do it (which they won't for very long). Those rebalances will disappear as soon as people stop buying new things.
A lot of the problems you claim exist with the game are not problems with the game. There are maybe a handful of genuinely irritating units in the game - the Colossus, the Infestor and maybe the Corruptor. There are some units that don't have a role - the Battlecruiser is one of them. That's fine. BW had useless units too. I'd argue there are maybe three or four real systemic problems with the game but first, I'd focus on making units more interesting!
Just remember. You aren't a design team. You're a bunch of fans. You're taking shots in the dark to fix something without Blizzard taking any real notice of it. If you want to get their attention, you HAVE TO BE MORE COMMUNICATIVE. You can't just assume that someone at Blizzard will play your map and go "oh that's much better than what we have right now" because not even the players are saying that.
Make your point properly and you will get some (not all) of these changes in. Some of these changes are awesome. The Colossus for example is amazing. Having that kind of Colossus in the game would be, frankly, awesome once the numbers were tweaked. Concentrate on small design iterations without the junk about completely redesigning the game and you can genuinely improve how we play Starcraft 2. As it is, you're just making another mod that Blizzard will call a mod.
|
By the way. I'm not saying scrap what you've got already. What I am saying is take maybe one or two of your ideas (maybe even via a community poll), make a dedicated map and say "this is our focus for playtesting that we are going to submit to Blizzard". Leave it up for a week or two, get loads of people playing loads of games on it, collect the replays and submit them with coherant reasoning directly to Blizzard.
Then do it again. It will slow down the pace of your development but you have 2-3 months to really cement a new concept into the game. If for example you redesign the Infestor or the Colossus you will have improved esports immeasurely. I have an idea for consideration with regard to the Infestor, by the way.
Maybe they could make fungal into a sort of virus where you fungal a single unit and it does 40 damage over 4s. If the unit dies or the fungal growth completes then it immediately does another 40 damage to all units around it and infects the nearest unit and the process repeats. The root is removed completely.
Chain fungal would have a very different effect then. It would:
A - reward players who keep an eye on their units
B - punish deathballing
C - reward having multiple infestors without making them overpowered - they can no longer survive on their own since if they push forward they die
Landing 3-4 fungal growths would have a massive effect on a deathballed army.
Even your slow means that Infestors are still largely self sufficient. Unlike other casters, which really aren't self sufficient at all. Maybe you could try something like this.
|
On January 16 2013 22:32 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +
Maybe they could make fungal into a sort of virus where you fungal a single unit and it does 40 damage over 4s. If the unit dies or the fungal growth completes then it immediately does another 40 damage to all units around it and infects the nearest unit and the process repeats. The root is removed completely.
Chain fungal would have a very different effect then. It would:
A - reward players who keep an eye on their units
B - punish deathballing
C - reward having multiple infestors without making them overpowered - they can no longer survive on their own since if they push forward they die
Landing 3-4 fungal growths would have a massive effect on a deathballed army.
Even your slow means that Infestors are still largely self sufficient. Unlike other casters, which really aren't self sufficient at all. Maybe you could try something like this.
This is a very interesting idea, although this new ability doesn't represent fungal at all. It would be a completely new ability. I love the idea of that it would punish deathballs as this would function as a disease, meaning the more clumped a population is the more susceptible they are to that disease spreading (like in real life). It also seems very natural and Zerg like.
A middle ground between the current fungal and this fungal would definitely create something very interesting as well. Lower the initial WoL area of effect to 2/3 of the original area. Make it so any unit in contact within this unit (as well as very close proximity) would get fungalled as well every second. (Essentially, if an infestor fungaled a group of marines it would take 1 second after cast time for the fungal to effect the same area as a WoL fungal.) Each successive second the fungal would spread to more and more units (in an outward circular formation). Instead of rooting units you could reduce the speed of fungalled units by say 50%-75%.
At this point all Terran has to do to counter this would be to select all his marines and right click in any direction. The non fungalled units will move away from the fungalled units because of the difference in speed of the marines. Thoughts?
|
On January 17 2013 00:31 macncheezeplz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 22:32 Evangelist wrote:
Maybe they could make fungal into a sort of virus where you fungal a single unit and it does 40 damage over 4s. If the unit dies or the fungal growth completes then it immediately does another 40 damage to all units around it and infects the nearest unit and the process repeats. The root is removed completely.
Chain fungal would have a very different effect then. It would:
A - reward players who keep an eye on their units
B - punish deathballing
C - reward having multiple infestors without making them overpowered - they can no longer survive on their own since if they push forward they die
Landing 3-4 fungal growths would have a massive effect on a deathballed army.
Even your slow means that Infestors are still largely self sufficient. Unlike other casters, which really aren't self sufficient at all. Maybe you could try something like this. This is a very interesting idea, although this new ability doesn't represent fungal at all. It would be a completely new ability. I love the idea of that it would punish deathballs as this would function as a disease, meaning the more clumped a population is the more susceptible they are to that disease spreading (like in real life). It also seems very natural and Zerg like. A middle ground between the current fungal and this fungal would definitely create something very interesting as well. Lower the initial WoL area of effect to 2/3 of the original area. Make it so any unit in contact within this unit (as well as very close proximity) would get fungalled as well every second. (Essentially, if an infestor fungaled a group of marines it would take 1 second after cast time for the fungal to effect the same area as a WoL fungal.) Each successive second the fungal would spread to more and more units (in an outward circular formation). Instead of rooting units you could reduce the speed of fungalled units by say 50%-75%. At this point all Terran has to do to counter this would be to select all his marines and right click in any direction. The non fungalled units will move away from the fungalled units because of the difference in speed of the marines. Thoughts?
I hate it when people should suggest all these wild changes to "fix" fungal. It's like they want to keep fungal, but it has to be changed kinda to fit whatever criteria they have in their head that will somehow make fungal "balanced" and "fun" to watch. Just accept it. FUNGAL IS BROKEN. IT HAS TO BE REMOVED OR CHANGED COMPLETELY. When you have a list 5 different things that the spell can do and requirements for the spell to have just so it can be balanced, it takes away one of the core aspects of Starcraft, that ALL of these spells should be easy to learn and understand. I don't want to sit there for 5 minutes trying to read the descriptions of the spell and then another 5 waiting for the right time for the requirements should be fixed. The more requirements that a spell has, the less strategic the spell is because of the inherent limitations placed on the spell. This doesn't only apply to using the spell, but fighting against it as well. Why as a opponent should I be trying to figure out how to fulfill every single requirement so that my units aren't completely destroyed by fungal? Stuff like that is just annoying to deal with.
I'm sure a lot of people are going to say "Sure you can completely dismiss other people's ideas, but do you have one of your own you so you can contribute?" Why yes, I do. I've been saying this over and over, the easiest way to fix fungal (bar a complete redesign) is just REMOVE THE DAMAGE ASPECT OF FUNGAL. With nerfed IT, and fungal not doing damage, zerg will be forced to actually support their infestors instead of just building infestors for everything. Why does fungal even have damage in the first place if it wasn't intended to be spammed for the damage? This is why making fungal a slow doesn't completely fix fungal either because the slow would have to be low enough so that the units fungaled would be able to escape chain fungals. We're talking about as low as 30-50% slow here. Just remove the damage, it's the simplest solution. Then you could do whatever you want with every other numbers of fungal, make it longer, make it instant cast again etc. etc. because chaining fungal would just buy time for you instead of doing most of the work for you.
|
On January 16 2013 22:23 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:05 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:On January 15 2013 22:39 Evangelist wrote:
No, you're not showing how Blizzard can make SC2 better because the game isn't based on SC2 at all. It's based on some wierd pastiche of BW, a bit of DoTA (Battlecruiser aura pretty much defines "deathball") and maybe a tiny bit of SC2.
That's what happens when someone goes into a mod trying to design their own game. Starbow is a mess for the same reason.
If you really want to give interesting ideas to Blizzard then you do them in the context of the original game! Yes, by all means, try out fascinating ideas but if you change the metagame completely, you're not showing anything. You're just showing how a bunch of changes that are thrown together look when they are thrown together with no clear design ethos. The whole methodology is wrong. The argumentation is wrong - you're making the point to the wrong people. No one cares what TeamLiquid plebs think about these changes. I certainly don't and Blizzard have to wade through nine hundred pages of "FUCK U DUSTIN LOLDER" to get there.
One or two extensive changes at a time, extensively tested, will be a much more convincing argument for design change than fifty half baked ideas all thrown together.
Take the Colossus idea that has been thrown around. I personally like how the Colossus works here. Imagine how awesome that would be if we had the community testing that change in a vacuum and then submitted it, directly to Blizzard. We could actually improve a boring unit and make it interesting
Or the tank changes. Make the siege tank 2 supply and just see what happens. Without a focused aim you are not going to have the effect you want. First on testing methodology: You are right. The best ideal way for One Goal to work is via small changes with weeks of testing in between them. Unfortunately, the team, Blizzard, and the esport scene don't necessarily have that luxury. It sounds pretty extreme to say. But lets look at the damage that poor dynamics can do to the game over the course of six months. Look at the damage that Vortex, Fungal Growth, and Infested Terran all did to viewership. Dyanamics that I would argue are just as toxic still exist in HotS and Blizzard has no intention of changing them. Force Fields, No defenders advantage against Toss, reliance on deathballs, worthless units like the Hydra, Thor ect ect. The list goes on. These are things that will hold the game back unless they are adressed. And believe me, Riot will not give any quarter with regards to esports, every season they agressively revise their game, completely redesigning problematic champions and items. Guess what, they screw with the meta a fair bit and they are the most watched and played esport in the world. I can't speak for the rest of the team or community, but I want SC2 to have something resembling that clout. Simply put, I don't think SC2's current design can get it there. What separates One Goal from other mods is that we don't look to brood war units for answers. BW is a great set of dynamics to look at and learn from, as well as a basic set of guideline sfor what feels "starcraft." Currently, there are things in One Goal that probably don't belong in Starcraft, which is why they will change or we will remove them. For example, we are removing Behemoth Conduits next patch for an ability that feels more appropriate and is less deathball oriented. One Goal has been out for 2 months. Give us some time to sort our stuff out, We make mistakes like any other design team. Yes but you're assuming that Blizzard are taking any notice of this! Esports has plenty of time - most esports do decline over time after they reach their peak and Starcraft 2 is still pulling in huge numbers of sponsors and, if I'm honest, punching way above its weight. HoTS will reignite interest as people who played the game come back to play new units. Now is the time to get interesting ideas into the game. If you want to change the game you have to commit to a Blizzard esque method of empirical, iterative testing. Riot don't have the most watched/played esport in the world because they aggressively redesign their game every six weeks. They have it because: A - it's free B - it's a team game which means any "improving" player can just blame their team for their own fuckups C - it's about as demanding to play casually as eating a turkey sandwich. Bronze league SC2 is more challenging than medium level LoL They also get to resell everything by changing the metagame, something which they will continue to do as long as their playerbase lets them do it (which they won't for very long). Those rebalances will disappear as soon as people stop buying new things. A lot of the problems you claim exist with the game are not problems with the game. There are maybe a handful of genuinely irritating units in the game - the Colossus, the Infestor and maybe the Corruptor. There are some units that don't have a role - the Battlecruiser is one of them. That's fine. BW had useless units too. I'd argue there are maybe three or four real systemic problems with the game but first, I'd focus on making units more interesting! Just remember. You aren't a design team. You're a bunch of fans. You're taking shots in the dark to fix something without Blizzard taking any real notice of it. If you want to get their attention, you HAVE TO BE MORE COMMUNICATIVE. You can't just assume that someone at Blizzard will play your map and go "oh that's much better than what we have right now" because not even the players are saying that. Make your point properly and you will get some (not all) of these changes in. Some of these changes are awesome. The Colossus for example is amazing. Having that kind of Colossus in the game would be, frankly, awesome once the numbers were tweaked. Concentrate on small design iterations without the junk about completely redesigning the game and you can genuinely improve how we play Starcraft 2. As it is, you're just making another mod that Blizzard will call a mod.
Blizzard has noticed us. Dustin and David both commented on my first article. As for OneGoal, they have no reason to do so. It is a huge risk to back a community project that has no prior exposure or experience. Similarly, they have literally no reason to say anything bad about it or shut it down until it steps on their revenue. They won't take a position until they have to and not a moment before. As for making them notice. We have people who have connections to the Blizzard design team and they are on board. We just need to have the goods. You are right about us being more communicative about what we are doing and why. Design patch 2 is going to have more media surrounding it, especially before. Designwise, we are also going to use Design Patch 2 as an opportunity to scale back some of our more outlandish changes like Corruption, Immortality Protocol, and BC's Aura because they don't feel like Starcraft.
We ARE a design team, we aren't a game developer team. We are working on design, not balance, not engineering. We could not "remake" SC2 even if we wanted to. But the work we do is in of itself design. We are editors to Blizzard's authorship.
|
tl;dr for IWS above,
Blizzard already has a good formula for testing balance (despite the frequent arguments against them). Our objective, is to try and make the races "feel" like they should have in the first place.
The Core of Protoss should be powerful and strong, not wimpy like stalkers and heavily reliant on tricks like forcefields to keep them alive.
Zerg should be massing and overwhelming, extremely cost-inefficient in numbers, but so many numbers that it really doesn't matter. BroodLord Infestor kinda goes against the feeling of an endless swarm of units throughout the game, constantly sacrificing themselves for the greater good. And the infestor being the catch-all for most zerg instead of reacting to what the opponent is doing doesn't "feel" right.
Terran is the race that holds their ground. Siege tanks, in Blizzard iteration, did not do that. Overall, Terran def. had the best design. Even blizzard said that Terran was the most "complete" race.
|
Hi ppl great job you did with this game.. i think This will be proper SC2 to play in future... 
i think siege tanks need to be 3 pop ... To widow mines have more use in game because right now i dont see them in game that much.. sieage tanks simply its more p4p bather then widow mines zone control unite...
this is my old idea for Colloss replacement
Thx m8 i hope i help a little.. i have one more idea for Reavers http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Reaver_(StarCraft) and Shuttles http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Shuttle
Flying Reaver ( shuttle + Reaver) in one unite NAME : Skyver (scurge vs shutle sc bw dinamic (game play) (movement speed is problem for colloss micro.. )
Stats for this unite is : 300 min 100 gas 5pop 80 sec to build
Hp : 100 Shields : 60 or 80 hp 60 shields ..or 60hp 80 shilds (because you will split it to two shuttles instead of one and you need to snipe both of them (both reavers instead of one shuttle) but it need to be balanced out..
ATC : sarabs 100 + up +25 (like normal reaver) srabs build time 7 sec
Sight range : 8 or 9 instead of 10..
Range : 8
Movement speed : like normal shuttle + UP speed (normal shuttle UP) i think its (normal) 2.125
unite scale : 0.9 (size) or 0.8... depends on how much hp unite have and then design it..
require robotics bay to be build...
basically its mix of Reaver and Shuttle in one unite..
if you look at game play what toss ppl do with shuttle and Reaver you will see that reaver basically act like AIR unite with delayed ATC...
Atc : can be normal like Reaver but it can be delayed (on first atc) 2 or 3 game seconds (so if you haras opponent he have time to prepare) its need to be tested and balanced out..
Against terran
Counters Hard: firebat, marine, medic, missile turret, SCV, bunker
Counters Soft:siege tank, vulture
Hard Countered by: battlecruiser,wraith,golioth (new 10 range)
Soft Countered by:lockdown,stimed marines(new maby) missile turret(maby change to have 8 range) ...
whay becous low hp unite with good atc (and delay on atc) so there is space to atc with different unite...
Against protoss
Counters Hard: photon cannon, probe
Counters Soft: dark templar, stalker, zealot
Hard Countered by: carrier, void ray,corsair
Soft Countered by: psionic storm, blink stalkers
Against zerg
Counters Hard: drone, hydralisk, sunken colony
Counters Soft: lurker, ultralisk, zergling
Hard Countered by: scurge,corruptor
Soft Countered by: mutalisk,hydralisk on creep
Unite can look something like tempist in beginning.. thx for reading i hope this unit will be great and bring some graet gameplay...
|
Thanks for the suggestion Bole. We're trying to use as much of SC2's units as possible, so it's unlikely to be implimented. Thanks for taking the time though.
As for the good discussions going on, it's great to see you guys engaged in this so much. I'm working on a series of short VoDs with IWS that will address a lot of the concerns raised.
|
Do you guys think 200/200 is a problem? A lot of the stale gameplay comes for the fact that is easy to max off 3 bases and the entire strategy after that is "how fast can you reinforce?" zerg currently winning that role imo
|
Yes, economy is the biggest reason for how stale SC2 is. Changing units around will not do much to combat this. It is way too easy to max out in SC2, and it does not seem One Goal has addressed this.
|
On January 18 2013 02:41 purakushi wrote:
Yes, economy is the biggest reason for how stale SC2 is. Changing units around will not do much to combat this. It is way too easy to max out in SC2, and it does not seem One Goal has addressed this.
Baby steps. They addressed a few huge issues the game had (racial identity, hard counters, a-move units etc). They can only tackle so many problems at once.
Im honestly astounded by the idiocy I've witnessed in this thread. These guys are putting a lot of work into this project and all this negative enforcement isn't aiding the issue. How about prior to submitting a comment, put in 100 games (at least) and then come back and give constructed criticism on exactly what you disagree with and why.
That being said, keep up the good work guys! If you need someone to do some extensive testing, send me a pm. (inactive mid master toss here, diamond with other two races).
|
Thanks for the suggestion Bole. We're trying to use as much of SC2's units as possible, so it's unlikely to be implimented. Thanks for taking the time though.
As for the good discussions going on, it's great to see you guys engaged in this so much. I'm working on a series of short VoDs with IWS that will address a lot of the concerns raised.
Np m8 my point is to build new game.. this unite Skyver (shuttle + reaver) (ONE UNITE) flaying reaver instead of colloss..
Problem with colloss you cant micro it ... Way ? because of movement speed .. they are too slow ... also you cant do harassment like reaver did in SC BW....
Sc BW have reaver + shuttle and that is how Colloss idea was made ...in some video you could see Dastin Browder say that Colloss could be used as riding unite... ? Oo that is explains walk on clifs like ripers ( 2 unite in ONE )
My suggestion is made new rading unite from robo that can serve army to .. and that is (shuttle + reaver) (one unite) that can Upgrade movement speed and good dps dealer ...
Dynamic scurge ( zerg unite) vs Shuttle (Skyver) micro would be great.... like in bw...
For economy problem you could look in STARBOW mode ppl made i think that is good for this game... 200 200 is harder to reach ...
|
On January 17 2013 07:17 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 22:23 Evangelist wrote:On January 16 2013 11:05 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:On January 15 2013 22:39 Evangelist wrote:
No, you're not showing how Blizzard can make SC2 better because the game isn't based on SC2 at all. It's based on some wierd pastiche of BW, a bit of DoTA (Battlecruiser aura pretty much defines "deathball") and maybe a tiny bit of SC2.
That's what happens when someone goes into a mod trying to design their own game. Starbow is a mess for the same reason.
If you really want to give interesting ideas to Blizzard then you do them in the context of the original game! Yes, by all means, try out fascinating ideas but if you change the metagame completely, you're not showing anything. You're just showing how a bunch of changes that are thrown together look when they are thrown together with no clear design ethos. The whole methodology is wrong. The argumentation is wrong - you're making the point to the wrong people. No one cares what TeamLiquid plebs think about these changes. I certainly don't and Blizzard have to wade through nine hundred pages of "FUCK U DUSTIN LOLDER" to get there.
One or two extensive changes at a time, extensively tested, will be a much more convincing argument for design change than fifty half baked ideas all thrown together.
Take the Colossus idea that has been thrown around. I personally like how the Colossus works here. Imagine how awesome that would be if we had the community testing that change in a vacuum and then submitted it, directly to Blizzard. We could actually improve a boring unit and make it interesting
Or the tank changes. Make the siege tank 2 supply and just see what happens. Without a focused aim you are not going to have the effect you want. First on testing methodology: You are right. The best ideal way for One Goal to work is via small changes with weeks of testing in between them. Unfortunately, the team, Blizzard, and the esport scene don't necessarily have that luxury. It sounds pretty extreme to say. But lets look at the damage that poor dynamics can do to the game over the course of six months. Look at the damage that Vortex, Fungal Growth, and Infested Terran all did to viewership. Dyanamics that I would argue are just as toxic still exist in HotS and Blizzard has no intention of changing them. Force Fields, No defenders advantage against Toss, reliance on deathballs, worthless units like the Hydra, Thor ect ect. The list goes on. These are things that will hold the game back unless they are adressed. And believe me, Riot will not give any quarter with regards to esports, every season they agressively revise their game, completely redesigning problematic champions and items. Guess what, they screw with the meta a fair bit and they are the most watched and played esport in the world. I can't speak for the rest of the team or community, but I want SC2 to have something resembling that clout. Simply put, I don't think SC2's current design can get it there. What separates One Goal from other mods is that we don't look to brood war units for answers. BW is a great set of dynamics to look at and learn from, as well as a basic set of guideline sfor what feels "starcraft." Currently, there are things in One Goal that probably don't belong in Starcraft, which is why they will change or we will remove them. For example, we are removing Behemoth Conduits next patch for an ability that feels more appropriate and is less deathball oriented. One Goal has been out for 2 months. Give us some time to sort our stuff out, We make mistakes like any other design team. Yes but you're assuming that Blizzard are taking any notice of this! Esports has plenty of time - most esports do decline over time after they reach their peak and Starcraft 2 is still pulling in huge numbers of sponsors and, if I'm honest, punching way above its weight. HoTS will reignite interest as people who played the game come back to play new units. Now is the time to get interesting ideas into the game. If you want to change the game you have to commit to a Blizzard esque method of empirical, iterative testing. Riot don't have the most watched/played esport in the world because they aggressively redesign their game every six weeks. They have it because: A - it's free B - it's a team game which means any "improving" player can just blame their team for their own fuckups C - it's about as demanding to play casually as eating a turkey sandwich. Bronze league SC2 is more challenging than medium level LoL They also get to resell everything by changing the metagame, something which they will continue to do as long as their playerbase lets them do it (which they won't for very long). Those rebalances will disappear as soon as people stop buying new things. A lot of the problems you claim exist with the game are not problems with the game. There are maybe a handful of genuinely irritating units in the game - the Colossus, the Infestor and maybe the Corruptor. There are some units that don't have a role - the Battlecruiser is one of them. That's fine. BW had useless units too. I'd argue there are maybe three or four real systemic problems with the game but first, I'd focus on making units more interesting! Just remember. You aren't a design team. You're a bunch of fans. You're taking shots in the dark to fix something without Blizzard taking any real notice of it. If you want to get their attention, you HAVE TO BE MORE COMMUNICATIVE. You can't just assume that someone at Blizzard will play your map and go "oh that's much better than what we have right now" because not even the players are saying that. Make your point properly and you will get some (not all) of these changes in. Some of these changes are awesome. The Colossus for example is amazing. Having that kind of Colossus in the game would be, frankly, awesome once the numbers were tweaked. Concentrate on small design iterations without the junk about completely redesigning the game and you can genuinely improve how we play Starcraft 2. As it is, you're just making another mod that Blizzard will call a mod. Blizzard has noticed us. Dustin and David both commented on my first article. As for OneGoal, they have no reason to do so. It is a huge risk to back a community project that has no prior exposure or experience. Similarly, they have literally no reason to say anything bad about it or shut it down until it steps on their revenue. They won't take a position until they have to and not a moment before. As for making them notice. We have people who have connections to the Blizzard design team and they are on board. We just need to have the goods. You are right about us being more communicative about what we are doing and why. Design patch 2 is going to have more media surrounding it, especially before. Designwise, we are also going to use Design Patch 2 as an opportunity to scale back some of our more outlandish changes like Corruption, Immortality Protocol, and BC's Aura because they don't feel like Starcraft. We ARE a design team, we aren't a game developer team. We are working on design, not balance, not engineering. We could not "remake" SC2 even if we wanted to. But the work we do is in of itself design. We are editors to Blizzard's authorship.
This was exactly what i needed to know to be fully motivated to further play the mod.
Knowing that you have the possibilities to make them notice gives me a foolish glimmer of hope of them listening <3
Keep dem patches coming, i´ll try to help as soon as i have something constructive to say ^^
|
|
|
On January 18 2013 02:41 purakushi wrote:
Yes, economy is the biggest reason for how stale SC2 is. Changing units around will not do much to combat this. It is way too easy to max out in SC2, and it does not seem One Goal has addressed this.
I disagree. I don't think economy is the problem.
The main reason it is so easy to max out in StarCraft 2 is because of things like Reactors, Chronoboost and Larvae Inject. Not because of the economy. While Onegoal can test out things like FRB. I feel like that the economy is the not the problem but things like those listed above.
EDIT: Although. If OneGoal were to change the economy to something a little more absurd like Brood War income with StarCraft 2 pathing. Units would matter less in this sense that you could attack and it wouldn't have such a large impact on you.
FRB is definitely the way to go with economy changes for StarCraft 2. But I'm pretty sure the OneGoal team isn't going to focus on that just yet at all and probably not any time soon by the looks of it.
|
On January 18 2013 05:47 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 11:16 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:On January 16 2013 10:30 Emzeeshady wrote:On January 15 2013 17:09 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
I am actually intrigued as to why you think One Goal is bad. Have you played it, did stuff feel off? This is stuff we want to know. I have played it and given it a fair chance just like Starbow and SC2:BW. The game just doesn't feel fun. Everything I love about SC2 seems to be kinda of destroyed in face of ideas that seems weird just for the sake of being weird. I could say more about it but I didn't play more then 2 games because it wasn't remotely fun. Maybe I will play a bit more a give a more detailed reason as to why I don't like it. Ok, can you explain what " kinda of destroyed in face of ideas that seems weird just for the sake of being weird" means? sorry, I didn't realize I typed that wrong. What I meant to say that you seem to be trying to put in weird things just for the sake of changing stuff up instead of actually thinking how stuff works. The result is ... this
Ok, perhaps I am being unclear. If you are going to visit this thread and say we have ruined the game. It is considered good manners as well as being a mature community member to bring up specifics. You may be totally right! But just saying some stuff is weird is useless to us, and frankly, is unfair to us. What specifically is weird to you? What makes it feel less like Starcraft? We actually think a great deal about the context of our changes. Starcraft is a super complex game, it has a lot of moving parts that you can mess up. We have made a ton of mistakes, its inevitable. The point is that we learn from them and produce a better mod with every iteration.
|
As for the economy. Until units feel fun and reflect the skill and strengths of their respective races, there is no point in touching the economy. In the future we will look at macro mechanics and the economy. We have been spitballing ideas, but ultimately, we came to the conclusion that if we are hitting something as fundamental as the economy, we need to have some things in order first.
1. Unit relationships are solid.
2. Toxic units have been fixed or neutralized.
3. The races as a whole feel right.
After we have an understanding of this (and someone who is REALLY good at math) we will be happy to look at the economy and look into things like FRB and the like. Before that, we are going to see if tweaking macro mechanics can ease this rush to 3 base play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
