|
On April 01 2013 00:35 StandAloneComplex wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 00:13 Hider wrote:
On March 31 2013 23:48 Nyvis wrote:Show nested quote +Back to Base is a key gamplay component of the game . Its a very good one , because it raises the skillcap.
The key ability which separates a good from a bad player are:
-Decision Making/calculating army strength
-apm
so if people getting better with apm they need some things to do outside of managing the army and attacking.
To make the game more dimensional and scalable , of course should they go back to base and have something 2 do their which they can benefit from ,if they have the apm requiert.
So don't change Back to Base . Its very necessary. Hey please make sure that you read all of my posts carefully. I already explained why I think back-to-base is a bad way of promoting mechanically skills and how we instead should go about raising the skill cap.
People are allowed to disagree with you and think things are more or less important than you think they are.
I don't want an army fight game, that's not the point of starcraft.
People can read you and not agree instantly with you views.
There is a difference between disagreeing and not understanding/having read my arguments. Also there is a difference betwen me writing "Why I think its a bad idea (which I did), and me writing "why that is a bad idea". I think it was pretty obivious that I expressed an opinion in the above post.
I have read and understood your post. I have just a different opinion than you. Its a matter of different taste. Me and many other players like some simcity in this game to make it more dimensional. We like to go back to our bases from time to time to upgrade them. And we like to have some gameplaymechanics which representate this part of the gameplay. Sorry for that , but different people have different tastes.
Well you finding it entertaing is indeed an argument (I can accept that as that is a question of personal preferences). But let me ask you this; Doesn't it have any priority for you what makes the game entertaining as a spectator?
I mean if Onegoal's goal is to convince Blizzard that they should make changes to the game, how can Onegoal ever accomplish that if the games aren't entertaining to watch?
|
On April 01 2013 00:50 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 00:35 StandAloneComplex wrote:On April 01 2013 00:13 Hider wrote:
On March 31 2013 23:48 Nyvis wrote:Show nested quote +Back to Base is a key gamplay component of the game . Its a very good one , because it raises the skillcap.
The key ability which separates a good from a bad player are:
-Decision Making/calculating army strength
-apm
so if people getting better with apm they need some things to do outside of managing the army and attacking.
To make the game more dimensional and scalable , of course should they go back to base and have something 2 do their which they can benefit from ,if they have the apm requiert.
So don't change Back to Base . Its very necessary. Hey please make sure that you read all of my posts carefully. I already explained why I think back-to-base is a bad way of promoting mechanically skills and how we instead should go about raising the skill cap.
People are allowed to disagree with you and think things are more or less important than you think they are.
I don't want an army fight game, that's not the point of starcraft.
People can read you and not agree instantly with you views.
There is a difference between disagreeing and not understanding/having read my arguments. Also there is a difference betwen me writing "Why I think its a bad idea (which I did), and me writing "why that is a bad idea". I think it was pretty obivious that I expressed an opinion in the above post.
I have read and understood your post. I have just a different opinion than you. Its a matter of different taste. Me and many other players like some simcity in this game to make it more dimensional. We like to go back to our bases from time to time to upgrade them. And we like to have some gameplaymechanics which representate this part of the gameplay. Sorry for that , but different people have different tastes. Well you finding it entertaing is indeed an argument (I can accept that as that is a question of personal preferences). But let me ask you this; Doesn't it have any priority for you what makes the game entertaining as a spectator? I mean if Onegoal's goal is to convince Blizzard that they should make changes to the game, how can Onegoal ever accomplish that if the games aren't entertaining to watch?
Having a game that is fun and engaging to play is a noble goal. The problem is that micro players dont want to micro (and vs versa). They just dont find going back to base and managing army and economy as fun as commanding units.
|
On April 01 2013 01:10 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 00:50 Hider wrote:On April 01 2013 00:35 StandAloneComplex wrote:On April 01 2013 00:13 Hider wrote:
On March 31 2013 23:48 Nyvis wrote:Show nested quote +Back to Base is a key gamplay component of the game . Its a very good one , because it raises the skillcap.
The key ability which separates a good from a bad player are:
-Decision Making/calculating army strength
-apm
so if people getting better with apm they need some things to do outside of managing the army and attacking.
To make the game more dimensional and scalable , of course should they go back to base and have something 2 do their which they can benefit from ,if they have the apm requiert.
So don't change Back to Base . Its very necessary. Hey please make sure that you read all of my posts carefully. I already explained why I think back-to-base is a bad way of promoting mechanically skills and how we instead should go about raising the skill cap.
People are allowed to disagree with you and think things are more or less important than you think they are.
I don't want an army fight game, that's not the point of starcraft.
People can read you and not agree instantly with you views.
There is a difference between disagreeing and not understanding/having read my arguments. Also there is a difference betwen me writing "Why I think its a bad idea (which I did), and me writing "why that is a bad idea". I think it was pretty obivious that I expressed an opinion in the above post.
I have read and understood your post. I have just a different opinion than you. Its a matter of different taste. Me and many other players like some simcity in this game to make it more dimensional. We like to go back to our bases from time to time to upgrade them. And we like to have some gameplaymechanics which representate this part of the gameplay. Sorry for that , but different people have different tastes. Well you finding it entertaing is indeed an argument (I can accept that as that is a question of personal preferences). But let me ask you this; Doesn't it have any priority for you what makes the game entertaining as a spectator? I mean if Onegoal's goal is to convince Blizzard that they should make changes to the game, how can Onegoal ever accomplish that if the games aren't entertaining to watch? Having a game that is fun and engaging to play is a noble goal. The problem is that micro players dont want to micro (and vs versa). They just dont find going back to base and managing army and economy as fun as commanding units.
As I understand the design philosphy of the onegoal crew (given videos by foxymayhem) back-to-base can never be a goal in it self.
So I think every suggestion should be within the boundaries of the design philosphies of the crew, and while it can be part of a cool decisionoriented mechanic (as chrono boost) its shouldn't really be a goal in it self. That's basically why I think it should be removed from the list of factors that creates good macro-mechanics (as it conflicts with the whole visually appealing thing).
Anyway I have no further words to say in this matter.
|
|
|
On April 01 2013 06:48 Archerofaiur wrote:
Im on now.
Same. Feel free to message me. I'm in the OneGoal NA channel.
|
I love the boldness in your approach, but what I don't understand is why Zerg's macro mechanic simply got a nerf without any corresponding changes to the other races. A simple elegant change to balance the system would be to make Spawn Larva create 3 larva instead of 4, give Terran players and option to create Tech Reactors later on in the game, and the exact changes that you already implemented to the Warp Gate mechanic.
Throwing an arbitrary 50 gas requirement to the Queen without buffing any of its versatility is just silly. Adding an armored attribute more than nullifies the 5 measly HP you gave it because it dies quicker to Marauders, Immortals, Warhounds, Roaches, etc. What warrants this 50 gas cost? For an extra 50 gas, at least give the Queen another skill, or something. You just threw off the first 5-6 minutes of the game for a Zerg for no real reason.
I apologize if this comes out bluntly, but you obviously do not understand Zerg macro if you think Assault Larva being unable to be turned into anything but army units won't severely cripple Zerg macro. You essentially a) put a hard cap on Drone production per base, b) segmented the Zerg macro similar to that of Terran and placed an unnecessary premium on larva that come out of the Hatchery since only Hatchery larva can be turned into Drones/Overlords, c) gave Queens even more of a bullseye because Zergs are now even MORE dependent on Queens for their army since Hatchery larva now become too valuable to be used on anything but Drones/Overlords with a 3-larva hard cap.
Also, why haven't Medivacs been changed? A simple 25 energy requirement for Boosters is all that's needed to make Boosters a logical buff that's not risk-free.
Why were Widow Mines changed back? Your previous changes to the Widow Mine were spot on.
If anything, I think giving Widow Mines two modes (one being GtG with 4/5 range and splash and the other being GtA with 6-8 range with higher single target damage but no splash) is a more dynamic change than simply keeping it as is.
I really love your work, but your changes to the Queen and Spawn Larva mechanic are just...no. That doesn't do anything but cause more problems.
|
On April 01 2013 11:58 TonberryBleu wrote:
Also, why haven't Medivacs been changed? A simple 25 energy requirement for Boosters is all that's needed to make Boosters a logical buff that's not risk-free.
frankly i'll be blown away if blizzard don't eventually implement this themselves.
|
There's always something to be said for macro hatches. An early macro hatchery will not only push your drone count much higher, but continues to provide larva long after you've gotten the drones that you need.
We understand zerg macro. The thing is that we disagree with how it operates right now. We don't like the dynamic of waiting until 3 bases and effectively maxing out on drones prior to really engaging (only exception I can recall is the game between Life and Flash at the last MLG finals), and we disagree with how monotonous the ability is to perform. This provides choice, at least in the early game. And, with a 50 gas cost, replacing these queens should not be too incredulous. Zerg players now need to experiment with openings before claiming that these changes irreparably destroy the race.
|
You still haven't given a valid reason as to why Queens should cost 50 gas.
As I explained before, this ability doesnt offer any more diversity than Spawn Larva does. With the way you guys set it up, Assault larva will only be used for army units and hatchery larva will only be used for drones. At least with spawn larva, you could build either or. The previous cap for larva was 19, now its 3. Two queens spawning larva on two hatcheries offers way more freedom than this gimped version that you're offering. All you've done is add a more limiting menial task for zerg players to do, where instead of pressing v and clicking on the minimap, now I have to press v, move the screen to my base, click on a tile, and not only that, but I have 2 less larva and these larva cant be made into drones. How does that diversify or "add choice" to anything? Instead of "use spawn larva or die" its now "spawn assault hatcheries or die." You didn't give queens any more spells. You just slapped on an extra 50 gas, made it more vulnerable with an armored tag, and nerfed spawn larva. You're just using rhetoric with no substance.
And seriously, macro hatches that early in the game? Any macro hatches that are built before getting your natural is the sign of an all-in. Macro hatches just for drones? They're not orbital commands. Drones aren't energy-only and cost no supply like MULEs do. Hatcheries cant be lifted off whenever you need to expand. You've got to be kidding me if you think that's a legitimate suggestion.
|
On April 01 2013 13:19 topsecret221 wrote:
There's always something to be said for macro hatches. An early macro hatchery will not only push your drone count much higher, but continues to provide larva long after you've gotten the drones that you need.
We understand zerg macro. The thing is that we disagree with how it operates right now. We don't like the dynamic of waiting until 3 bases and effectively maxing out on drones prior to really engaging (only exception I can recall is the game between Life and Flash at the last MLG finals), and we disagree with how monotonous the ability is to perform. This provides choice, at least in the early game. And, with a 50 gas cost, replacing these queens should not be too incredulous. Zerg players now need to experiment with openings before claiming that these changes irreparably destroy the race.
If there is one thing zerg has not , than its much gas to waste.Baelings,swarmhosts, and mutalisks cost so much gas that the zerg player is borderline broke on gas nearly the whole time of the game. Its even worst, without getting a minimal amount of 3/4 bases with fully saturated gasgysirs zerg cant afford to keep up certain play styles at all (muta-baeling for example)
So no, zerg has no room for any further queen related - gas costs at all. I don't intend to be rude, but i wonder sometimes if any of the OneGoal developer likes to play zerg. Non zerg player would make queen cost gas or nerf the zerg boost mechanic without nerfing the boost mechanic of the other 2 races, that's just way too one sided.
Its not that we can afford to make a decision, if to build queens or other units, we have/love to build queens
to get proper creep spread and some kind of mobile anti air in the beginning. As said before, production of queen
is already being limited, cause of there can only be produced one queen out of one hatch at the time. And I would really not recommend you to change creep spread mechanic at all.
Decision making is sure a good thing, but there are some points which relate to very general gameplay mechanics,
which are not negotiable without losing the identity of the race completely.The queen is the root of creep spread, zerg macro and early base defense. Its vital for the zerg identity to let the queen be in its natural form.Not everything blizzard did with zerg macro is bad.Creep Spread and spawning additional larva are good things , they make the zerg gameplay more rich and versatile, without being 2 comlex for the beginners.
If you want to change one thing, than add aditional gameplay for people, which are getting better, to the larva mechanic. But dont nerf it on its own, its such a rewarding mechanic for newbies.
This game is good because races are so different, not because they play all the same.
You really sawing the branch you are sitting on.
Their are many other zerg units you can force decision making, but not the queen.
There is also absolute no need for nerfing the queen , you will never hear a terran or protoss
player say: "Man those queens are really op ,blizzard should really nerf them hard"
Only terrans which build only reaper said some things like that.
So don't cripple zerg gameplay.Don't do it man.
|
I take back what I said earlier about this patch being well thought out. The more I read the notes over, the more it seems the developers of this mod are protoss favored. Seriously? Multiple mothership cores with a stronger nexus cannon (you do realize 40 damage 1-shots lings and blings, right?) and fortify (hardened shields AND detection? makes scan look like a piece of crap). Pulsar disruption is ridiculously broken.
|
On April 01 2013 15:18 TonberryBleu wrote:
I take back what I said earlier about this patch being well thought out. The more I read the notes over, the more it seems the developers of this mod are protoss favored. Seriously? Multiple mothership cores with a stronger nexus cannon (you do realize 40 damage 1-shots lings and blings, right?) and fortify (hardened shields AND detection? makes scan look like a piece of crap). Pulsar disruption is ridiculously broken.
If you happen to balance whine, then I think you might need to read OP as it makes a clear disctinction between design and balance. Of course onegoal isn't balanced, but your theory misses the larger point.
|
On April 01 2013 16:19 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 15:18 TonberryBleu wrote:
I take back what I said earlier about this patch being well thought out. The more I read the notes over, the more it seems the developers of this mod are protoss favored. Seriously? Multiple mothership cores with a stronger nexus cannon (you do realize 40 damage 1-shots lings and blings, right?) and fortify (hardened shields AND detection? makes scan look like a piece of crap). Pulsar disruption is ridiculously broken. If you happen to balance whine, then I think you might need to read OP as it makes a clear disctinction between design and balance. Of course onegoal isn't balanced, but your theory misses the larger point.
I read the entire thing. When it comes to creating a mod, there are obviously situations where making things slightly overpowered is excusable, such as when implementing a new unit. However, there are other situations where it's blatantly obvious that upgrading an existing unit that is already useful (see Medivac Boosters in HotS) to a point where it's obviously broken is NOT excusable.
Like Infestors being able to use spells while Burrowed, or the Mothership Core getting such a massive boost in utility without any drawbacks.
The Mothership Core is already a well-rounded unit that has vastly changed the metagame in HotS because of its offensive and defensive capabilities. Making the Nexus Cannon do 40 damage per shot over 30 seconds (which is clearly better than 20 damage over 60 seconds), removing the hard cap of 1, and introducing Fortify so clearly put the Mothership Core over the edge it takes a blind man not to see the imbalance in this. Fortify + Nexus Cannon anyone? It's one thing to make Protoss less vulnerable to silly things like WIdow Mine drops, it's another to make them completely invincible to harass.
Like honestly. Compare the changes to the Mothership Core to the changes you've made to the Queen. Obviously I'm not looking for perfect balance, but if you think this is anywhere close to sniffing balance, then I don't know what to say.
|
On April 01 2013 15:18 TonberryBleu wrote:
I take back what I said earlier about this patch being well thought out. The more I read the notes over, the more it seems the developers of this mod are protoss favored. Seriously? Multiple mothership cores with a stronger nexus cannon (you do realize 40 damage 1-shots lings and blings, right?) and fortify (hardened shields AND detection? makes scan look like a piece of crap). Pulsar disruption is ridiculously broken.
Protoss is probably too strong, which is why we are testing this patch out before putting it live.
-Something that is missing from the patch notes is that we reduced the range of Photon Overcharge as well as the duration, meaning that you can decisively ward off attacks for 30 seconds, meaning that continued pressure is stronger against protoss. Even with multiple Cores (2 is the most you could expect to see in that situation.) 200 gas at that stage is pricey. We have found that Zerg and Terran alike have plenty of ways of either bypassing or baiting that energy with no losses.
-I personally would take Scan over Fortify any day given that Hardened Shield is really only relevant vs Banelings, Tanks, Marauders, and Immortals. Detection is localized on Fortified buildings. Meaning that if I want something resembling Scan, I have to build pylons and have a fragile 100 gas caster by it.
-Right now Zerg doesn't feel right and we are working on it. None of these changes are final.
|
Balance is secondary to establishing healthy gameplay dynamics during the design process. Protoss currently needs Force Field (along with warp in) to defend pushes and win engagements. While it is balanced; it is unhealthy gameplay because it is binary (good force fields win, bad forcefields fail) and only one player has a say in the outcome of that fight, unlike say Bio vs Storm. We have removed Force Field, and made Warp Gate slower than standard gateway production, two mechanics that are core to the WoL/HotS Protoss army. We want to make sure gateway armies can stand up on their own two feet, rather than relying on tricks and power units to win. To enable Protoss to do this requires a LOT of changes, and whenever you change something, you risk messing things up.
It happens. We used to have 6 armor Marauders with the old Medivac healing. It was awful, it was broken, we went "oops." We had Reapers that could lay down Raven auto turrets with 200 HP for a while, it was also broken. We had a Corruptor that could kill ground units and get Broodlings equal to double the unit's supply. We had Immortals that could shoot up and could solo most compositions in the game. We make mistakes, sometimes big ones. It happens in any design process. Look at Blizzard's Warhound, frankly, that unit's implementation was just as bad as our miscreations, if not worse.
I mean, how much OneGoal have you played or watched? How many late nights have you spent with professional players asking for their take on unit relationships and numbers? How many man hours have you spent looking over this mod before dismissing/accusing us as race-biased?
|
On April 02 2013 01:44 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
Balance is secondary to establishing healthy gameplay dynamics during the design process. Protoss currently needs Force Field (along with warp in) to defend pushes and win engagements. While it is balanced; it is unhealthy gameplay because it is binary (good force fields win, bad forcefields fail) and only one player has a say in the outcome of that fight, unlike say Bio vs Storm. We have removed Force Field, and made Warp Gate slower than standard gateway production, two mechanics that are core to the WoL/HotS Protoss army. We want to make sure gateway armies can stand up on their own two feet, rather than relying on tricks and power units to win. To enable Protoss to do this requires a LOT of changes, and whenever you change something, you risk messing things up.
It happens. We used to have 6 armor Marauders with the old Medivac healing. It was awful, it was broken, we went "oops." We had Reapers that could lay down Raven auto turrets with 200 HP for a while, it was also broken. We had a Corruptor that could kill ground units and get Broodlings equal to double the unit's supply. We had Immortals that could shoot up and could solo most compositions in the game. We make mistakes, sometimes big ones. It happens in any design process. Look at Blizzard's Warhound, frankly, that unit's implementation was just as bad as our miscreations, if not worse.
I mean, how much OneGoal have you played or watched? How many late nights have you spent with professional players asking for their take on unit relationships and numbers? How many man hours have you spent looking over this mod before dismissing/accusing us as race-biased?
Fair enough. Thing is though, if your claim to be that hard-working with professionals is true, how do obvious gaffes like 6-armor Marauders come into play? I understand maybe a +2 armor upgrade, but 6 armor? 200 HP turrets that early in the game? C'mon, I would assume that your development team would be smart enough to realize that would be broken before it even hits the unit tester. There's a reason why Blizzard received so much flak for the Warhound--simply because it was so broken it boggled people's minds how it wasn't internally tested or tweaked before hitting the playing field.
I happen to have played a lot of OneGoal in WoL, and it sparked a love for Terran mech that I never knew I had. Diamondbacks were absolutely thrilling to play with, and they never felt overpowered or underpowered, but rather, properly representative of a player's skill because of the two modes.
That is exactly why when I see drastic changes like you made to the Zerg Queen, I'm as appalled as I am right now. Shouldn't you have learned from your past mistakes? You've had success with your previous changes, so these changes I see in Patch 3.0 are like one step forward, two steps back in my eyes. I want to see this mod do well, so when I see people come in here and say "you should test it before you claim imbalance" for things that don't need testing to verify it's unfairness, it's disheartening.
|
Juggernaut Plating was a +2 armor upgrade (Like the Ultralisk). It meant that Marauders could have 6 total armor, which proved to be toxic. It was an attempt to move them away from Conc Shell, it failed.
I don't know what your experience with the creative process is. But let me tell you, its REALLY hard, especially when its working within a complex system like a game. SC2 is one of the most complex systems in the modern gaming market, moding it in a way that fits all of the criteria for a successful esport is very very hard once you get into it. We have delayed Patch 3 time and again because our ideas simply couldn't fix the issues with SC2's economy in a way that was better. Mistakes WILL happen and they will happen OFTEN. Look at Blizzard's Warhound and Oracle at the start of the beta. They did have internal testing, and a LOT of it to boot. Their game has been out for years and they have the benefit of tools and staff we can only dream of. But they still make mistakes, sometimes they make really really big ones. It happens. The important point is that those mistakes are recognized, corrected, and if they can be, learned from. Anything else is an unreasonable expectation. If you want to really get somewhere in the creative process, you HAVE to take risks. Some pan out, others are embarrassing. But you don't get crap if you focus on small balance tweaks over a long period of time. That's like correcting punctuation on your college thesis when your missing half of your arguments. It's awkward now, it will get better.
The new Queen has some things we really like and some things that aren't working. It is really bad when a race defends a push and then gets SUPER ahead because their macro mechanic allows them to push out a ton of workers. It produces stail Assault Colonies aren't perfect, but they do two very important things.
1: They present an initial choice for the Zerg player. (Do I want 2 tumors to kickstart map control and throw down a macro hatch and play defensively? or do I want to lay down an Assault Colony and get free combat larva so I can put on light pressure so I can expand?) Additionally, Assault Colonies have positional decision making, and present a real objective to defend and attack throughout the game. That is good gameplay in isolation, the trick is making it work in the context of the larger game, which is, as I have said, is hard.
2. They allow Zerg to increase their production without having a snowball dynamic. In HotS or WoL, if you defend a push as Z, you get super far ahead, and unless you are Life, early aggression isn't optimal because you are better off making drones to keep up with the opponent's economy. That is bad for an esport because it is sustained by a viewerbase as much as it is by a player base, and viewers want to see spectacle. Aggression should be rewarded, and currently Spawn Larva simply doesn't reward aggression until you have optimal drone saturation. We want to change that.
|
Additionally, Assault Colonies have positional decision making, and present a real objective to defend and attack throughout the game. That is good gameplay in isolation, the trick is making it work in the context of the larger game, which is, as I have said, is hard. '
I don't understand this (?). I mean sure you can put assault collonies on the middle of the map if you have great creep spread, but given that your removing "when to drone"-decisionmaking, will this decisionmaking truly compensate for this? I just feel like there isn't that much depht in where to place them. Maybe I am wrong though, can you give me a few examples?
Secondly, you seem to (indirectly) agree with me that most decisions are early game related. Any plan to add more midgamedecisions into how to use the queen?
if you defend a push as Z, you get super far ahead, and unless you are Life, early aggression isn't optimal because you are better off making drones to keep up with the opponent's economy.
I don't really agree with this.
Why does zerg get more ahead than terran/protoss's if they hold a timing attack? E.g. If a protoss fails with a 6gate in Sc2 against terran he is dead almost always.
While it is true that is more costly for the zerg player to do timing attacks (as they have to skip drones) the "risk" is also less as they have the choice of retreating after a battle. To be completely fair, I think the risk/reward of timing attacks in WOL/HOTS is pretty fine for all of the races. But what you probably are referring to is that zerg prefers to drone up in the early game/early midgame rather than be more offensive.
However, I do not believe that the fundemental problem here is the larva mechanic (more precise; the decision between droning/getting an army). Rather, I believe the problem is related to how zergs can't do any guaranteed damage. For instance as a terran player I can open up hellions against zerg players and do damage almost always at a relatively low risk (as I always can escape with the hellions).
Zergs on the other hand can't really do any nonallinish pressure oriented builds (as they will face a wall off with cannons/bunkers).
But IMO the solution to that specific problem isn't to redesign the macro mechanics completely. Instead, I think zergs needs to be given a 1 harass-tool. Something that doesn't get stopped by a wall off, but at the same time the risk/reward must be relatively low in order to not make this too strong as an allin and not too big of a commitment from the zerg player.
Furthermore with assault collonies I think you probably can end up in situation all zerg players will have a difficult time succesding with timing attacks. Besides the early game creep decision, zergs will have spent roughly the same amount of ressources into their armies every single game. So the only decision making zergs have is which units to get. But the counter to both roaches, hydras and speedlings is a walloff with cannons/bunkers and 1 turret (?).
So no matter what the zerg player does, the opponent can do the same strategy over and over and be completely fine. In WOL/HOTS if you overcommit to defensive structures (if you expect an allin), but the zerg player chooses to play ecooriented instead, you get quite a bit behind. However, the zerg player can't really choose between econ and army (at least not to the same degree) so there is no real punishment for playing "safe".
So unless the proper responses to whether the zerg goes hydras/roaches/lings are completely different (in a similarly way to how a zerg player needs to respond differently to a terran player going for a macro vs allin build or whether he goes for hellions vs maurauders), then all games will turn out extremely simiarly, and assault collonies will be counterproductive as it will lead to less early game action (as zerg timing attacks will never work).
EDIT:
By removing the droning vs army decision from the zerg player you also give the opponent less incentive to do early game harass oriented play. Because there is no advantage in forcing the zerg player to spend his larva on army supply rather than drones, protoss players likely won't go for mothercore + zealot/stalker harass early game. Also I expect that terrans will likely skip hellions and go for quick 3rd CC with 1-2 bunkers and quick siege tanks (so they are safe vs hydra attacks/baneling busts).
|
On April 02 2013 03:00 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Additionally, Assault Colonies have positional decision making, and present a real objective to defend and attack throughout the game. That is good gameplay in isolation, the trick is making it work in the context of the larger game, which is, as I have said, is hard. ' I don't understand this (?). I mean sure you can put assault collonies on the middle of the map if you have great creep spread, but given that your removing "when to drone"-decisionmaking, will this decisionmaking truly compensate for this? I just feel like there isn't that much depht in where to place them. Maybe I am wrong though, can you give me a few examples? Secondly, you seem to (indirectly) agree with me that most decisions are early game related. Any plan to add more midgamedecisions into how to use the queen? Show nested quote +if you defend a push as Z, you get super far ahead, and unless you are Life, early aggression isn't optimal because you are better off making drones to keep up with the opponent's economy. I don't really agree with this. Why does zerg get more ahead than terran/protoss's if they hold a timing attack? E.g. If a protoss fails with a 6gate in Sc2 against terran he is dead almost always. While it is true that is more costly for the zerg player to do timing attacks (as they have to skip drones) the "risk" is also less as they have the choice of retreating after a battle. To be completely fair, I think the risk/reward of timing attacks in WOL/HOTS is pretty fine for all of the races. But what you probably are referring to is that zerg prefers to drone up in the early game/early midgame rather than be more offensive. However, I do not believe that the fundemental problem here is the larva mechanic (more precise; the decision between droning/getting an army). Rather, I believe the problem is related to how zergs can't do any guaranteed damage. For instance as a terran player I can open up hellions against zerg players and do damage almost always at a relatively low risk (as I always can escape with the hellions). Zergs on the other hand can't really do any nonallinish pressure oriented builds (as they will face a wall off with cannons/bunkers). But IMO the solution to that specific problem isn't to redesign the macro mechanics completely. Instead, I think zergs needs to be given a 1 harass-tool. Something that doesn't get stopped by a wall off, but at the same time the risk/reward must be relatively low in order to not make this too strong as an allin and not too big of a commitment from the zerg player. Furthermore with assault collonies I think you probably can end up in situation all zerg players will have a difficult time succesding with timing attacks. Besides the early game creep decision, zergs will have spent roughly the same amount of ressources into their armies every single game. So the only decision making zergs have is which units to get. But the counter to both roaches, hydras and speedlings is a walloff with cannons/bunkers and 1 turret (?). So no matter what the zerg player does, the opponent can do the same strategy over and over and be completely fine. In WOL/HOTS if you overcommit to defensive structures (if you expect an allin), but the zerg player chooses to play ecooriented instead, you get quite a bit behind. However, the zerg player can't really choose between econ and army (at least not to the same degree) so there is no real punishment for playing "safe". So unless the proper responses to whether the zerg goes hydras/roaches/lings are completely different (in a similarly way to how a zerg player needs to respond differently to a terran player going for a macro vs allin build or whether he goes for hellions vs maurauders), then all games will turn out extremely simiarly, and assault collonies will be counterproductive as it will lead to less early game action (as zerg timing attacks will never work).
+1
Pretty much this. The macro mechanic isn't what needs to be fixed, it's the harass tools and general short range of Zerg units. Zerg needs a low risk/low reward harass option that isn't stopped by a simple wall-in. I understand maybe in the late game, where the cap can be changed from 19 to 15, or make Spawn Larva spawn 3 instead of 4, but this approach your dev team is making is the wrong approach. It causes more problems than before.
|
On April 02 2013 03:00 Hider wrote:
EDIT:
By removing the droning vs army decision from the zerg player you also give the opponent less incentive to do early game harass oriented play. As there is now no advantage in forcing the zerg player to not play too greedy by using larva on his army, protoss players likely won't go for mothercore + zealot/stalker harass early game. Also I expect that terrans will likely skip hellions and go for quick 3rd CC with 1-2 bunkers and quick siege tanks (so they are safe vs hydra attacks/baneling busts).
Ya man, dont do it !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
