|
On February 26 2013 01:00 Archerofaiur wrote:
Now you can resort to name calling or what ever "purist" ideology you want to subscribe to. "Those other guys are just casuals/losers/tryhards/social/xboxfanboys/whatever" "This is Starcraft, if you dont like it you can leave". But I believe that if Starcraft is losing fans to other RTS's/MOBA's then we are not doing the best job we could be. And no amount of denial can cover that up.
It is not our job, nobody is paying us and we're not in charge. And some people, gasp, just want to play a game they like, not the most popular game. Who cares if LoL and Farmville are more popular than Starcraft? Would you have wanted Blizzard to make an FPS out of Starcraft in 2000 because cs was more popular? Yes, "F2P" games that are easy to pick up are probably the most succesful genre right now. But that doesn't mean that there can't be anything else anymore.
|
On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote:
static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines).
This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game.
EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air.
|
On February 26 2013 05:10 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote:
static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines). This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air.
He bans your Vikings, go Valkyrie instead.
|
I think the real problem is that we need to design a balanced game with a set of units where all of them are interesting and none of them could be banned
|
On February 26 2013 05:16 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 05:10 Unsane wrote:On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote:
static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines). This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air. He bans your Vikings, go Valkyrie instead.
How many bans are we talking? 3? wraiths vikings and valks
|
On February 26 2013 05:28 APPSCI wrote:
I think the real problem is that we need to design a balanced game with a set of units where all of them are interesting and none of them could be banned
Yea that's one point of view, the one taken by Blizzard for WoL.
But it's an open question of how you bring constant exciting content and variety while still keeping the game "fair", or "balanced". One solution is the MOBA-style ban-pick system, because you take the responsibility of balancing from the devs ot the community (if you think something is OP, just ban it).
Admittedly, this would be hard to pull of due to a number of problems mentioned by others in this thread (for example, one player bans anti air and goes mass air), further complicated by the fact that Starcraft is asymmetric, because of three-race system.
Still, it might be something worth trying, and there are lots of variations on the idea which may lead to unexpected new solutions and maybe a very fun and balanced alternative to vanilla, with tons of new units.
And once you get it going, adding new units has very little effect on the overall balance. If it's OP, people will ban it, if it's undepowered, it simply won't be picked.
|
On February 26 2013 06:14 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 05:16 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 26 2013 05:10 Unsane wrote:On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote:
static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines). This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air. He bans your Vikings, go Valkyrie instead. How many bans are we talking? 3? wraiths vikings and valks
...then you go Vessel with M&M on the ground, keeping him from getting a large air army too soon while you eventually get some BC's to clean up what Irradiate doesn't kill.
|
On February 26 2013 05:16 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 05:10 Unsane wrote:On February 24 2013 21:59 YouthSC wrote:
static defense is the bane of this idea. If there were only units, it could work. But now you can just make static defense against the unbanned units (which you could ban eg. Immortals and make a bunch of spines). This. But also, with the banning/picking you can have someone win just from that phase. Banning vikings means broodlords will kill you when they show up. Ban hellions, i cant play mech anymore. Ban spines and/or roaches and hellions will kill you by themselves. Ban banelings and infestors and i can mass marine you to death. It also reduces options and time spent in game. EDIT: just the matter of air superiority breaks this idea, if i were to ban a terran's vikings (and wraiths if any of these mods use them) then the skies are mine, he'd be forced to also ban my air or lose to mass air. He bans your Vikings, go Valkyrie instead.
So, to be honest I (and I believe many others) don't like it if an opponent can influence your strategic choices. So what if, instead of banning and picking units the system would instead force you to choose from similar units.
Example:
Choose one from each category:
Barracks support unit: Marauder, Firebat
Barracks commando unit: Ghost, Spectre
Factory light vehicle: Vulture, Hellion/Hellbat, Diamondback
Factory combat tank: Siege Tank
Factory walker: Goliath, Thor, Viking²
Starport Air Fighter: Wraith, Valkyrie, Viking²
...
²if the Viking is chosen as Factory Walker, it can be built from the 3rd factory production slot. If it is chosen as Starport Air Fighter it can be build from the 1st Starport production slot.
I think this is more fun and still allows developers to add units easily to the game by adding units to categories or adding new categories=production slots in production buildings. Just food for thought. 
|
@BigJ, sounds like you would enjoy SC Expanded on the arcade. I suggest taking a look, if you haven't already.
|
I don't think that it's impossible to create an economy-based RTS game with bannable/draftable units and frequent turnover and novelty to attract players, casual or otherwise.
That actually does sound like an interesting idea with potential.
What I think is impossible is applying this gameplay model directly to SC2 as it is.
But then I don't believe that is what OP really intends either. The existing unit stats, abilities, roles and tech trees would have to completely redesigned and probably expanded in order for their to be sufficient stability in the game. In this theorizing, I'm uncertain just how much of SC2's other mechanics can be transferred over well.
It's likely that a great deal of the asymmetric balancing present in SC2 would have to be discarded in favour of a shared 'core' of basic units to which 'specialty' units get added through a drafting process.
I'm imaging that there would be a standardized worker for each race; a standard T1 all-purpose grunt unit and a standardized static defence tower that would have identical functionality to each other. Not sure if the 3 different macro mechanics would be balanced.
But depending on which race you selected, there would be a pool of N other units that you could pick where each race would have a different pool of units to pick from.
The ban/draft at the start of the game would select which speciality units could be available to the players to add to their 'core' armies. Unlike heroes/champions, the selected units would just be regular units buildable from production facilities and thus still requiring economic management and expansions.
However, the specialist units have to be relatively 'well-rounded' compared to the extreme-specialization that you find in WoL/HotS units. You can't simply transplant the units designed for a specific type of gameplay (SC2 standard) and expect them to work properly in other settings.
Because of asymmetric balance in WoL, races are balanced against each other through tweaking unit roles and strengths that affect the synergy of the race's collective ability. But in this new draft system where things are fluid, you'd just be balancing individual units against other units.
The pool of selectable 'speciality units' would be far larger than the current SC2 unit roster. There would be overlap and redundancy between units that had only slight variation between them. There couldn't be 'just one' AA combat ground unit for protoss as many have noted. Banning the stalker from current WoL gameplay just wouldn't work unless it was just one of several options that could fill roughly the same roles.
|
how about you don't ruin the legacy of starcraft by implementing a limiting factor. I remember first seeing starbow and being intrigued by it because it was a mix of broodwar and SC2, now I come back and see that it's being ruined because they want to make it like other games so it might have more viewers? I don't even know, it's a custom game for SC2 highly doubt changing it for the worse will make it better.
|
Actually, I'm curious what members of the sc community think of Starbow and Onegoal, as in "if you could send your own open letter or message, what would you say?"
|
Really, it's stated in the introduction in this OP the very reason you can't add a system like this to Starcraft (be it wol, hots, bw or starbow or any other RTS with 'concentrated coolness' - which rly means that units have strict roles and counter one another, be it soft or hard counters, along with having distinct factions/races on top of that). Bottom line - it works for a DotA game, or even Total Annihilation I asume, but not Starcraft.
Introducing new units all the time would make the game impossible to balance. You will come to a point when you have to see each original unit as one role to begin with, then you'd ban/pick nerfs and buffs. So each unit that shares a role would be very similar and that leaves no creativity to creating new units - it would instead be community-steered balancing.
I really hope Starbow doesn't take this direction. Community balancing can be done indirectly rather than with a direct system like this, with good designers at the stern. I hope Starbow makes a sucessor to BW in the end (I doubt hots will, but that's another discussion).
EDIT: Good luck with One Goal btw, it might evolve into something good!
|
This really isn't that difficult. Just for example, you could have the following for terran (since they have the biggest official unit pool right now)
Core units:
Marine/marauder/ghost/Siege tank/hellion/thor/medivac/wraith/viking/raven.
P/B units: Medic/firebat/razorback/widow mine/goliath/vulture/battle hellion (original, non biological)/ banshee/battle cruiser/science vessel/dropship
Thus it is impossible to P/B abuseively, because terran has a solid core answer to any general threat. I'd imagine with this amount of unnits you would ban 2 and pick 3 (banpickpickbanpick), ending up with roughly the amount of units you have in HoTS.
For those of you who are not experienced with P/B systems, picking abusive comps is *really* hard because counterplay is easy. You inevitably get compromise compositions that force their user to innovate
|
On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote:
Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units.
The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone.
Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though.
Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map.
|
On February 26 2013 08:03 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote:
Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units.
The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone.
Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though. Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map.
Disagree, there might appear to be more interest in units but thats only because its less frequent, atleast amongst those who frequent the Melee map making portion of this forum, much excitement comes with new maps and new map pools. We know how much the map itself can effect the game and I do not think its a coincidence that starbow, sc2 BW, and Onegoal all manipulate the maps and economics in the same way.
EDIT: i feel its only a matter of time before blizz realizes what it is each of these mods are doing and they make the appropriate changes(economics, army size, map spacing and size, area control, etc), it would probably require an expansion to change that portion of the game if blizz was the one to initiate that. If some premier league (it would probably have to be GSL, specifically) changed to something like LRB blizz would instantly follow suit though. It would be foolish to expect economic changes for swarm with its release so close.
|
On February 26 2013 08:11 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 08:03 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote:
Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units.
The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone.
Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though. Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map. Disagree, there might appear to be more interest in units but thats only because its less frequent, atleast amongst those who frequent the Melee map making portion of this forum, much excitement comes with new maps and new map pools. We know how much the map itself can effect the game and I do not think its a coincidence that starbow, sc2 BW, and Onegoal all manipulate the maps and economics in the same way. EDIT: i feel its only a matter of time before blizz realizes what it is each of these mods are doing and they make the appropriate changes(economics, army size, map spacing and size, area control, etc), it would probably require an expansion to change that portion of the game if blizz was the one to initiate that. If some premier league (it would probably have to be GSL, specifically) changed to something like LRB blizz would instantly follow suit though. It would be foolish to expect economic changes for swarm with its release so close.
Be honest, how excited were you when you saw the Swarm Host? More or less than when the most recent MLG map was unvealed? Do you really feel that was only because new units are less frequent than new maps?
|
On February 26 2013 08:33 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 08:11 Unsane wrote:On February 26 2013 08:03 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote:
Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units.
The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone.
Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though. Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map. Disagree, there might appear to be more interest in units but thats only because its less frequent, atleast amongst those who frequent the Melee map making portion of this forum, much excitement comes with new maps and new map pools. We know how much the map itself can effect the game and I do not think its a coincidence that starbow, sc2 BW, and Onegoal all manipulate the maps and economics in the same way. EDIT: i feel its only a matter of time before blizz realizes what it is each of these mods are doing and they make the appropriate changes(economics, army size, map spacing and size, area control, etc), it would probably require an expansion to change that portion of the game if blizz was the one to initiate that. If some premier league (it would probably have to be GSL, specifically) changed to something like LRB blizz would instantly follow suit though. It would be foolish to expect economic changes for swarm with its release so close. Be honest, how excited were you when you saw the Swarm Host? More or less than when the most recent MLG map was unvealed? Do you really feel that was only because new units are less frequent than new maps?
In particular i was crushed when i saw the swarm host, cool its another siege unit but its not the lurker. The lurker didnt just look cooler, sound cooler, make hydras more relevant, etc. It performed a very specific function that the swarm host does not.
BUT - I was intrigued with the dark templar in BW, and of course the lurker (even before i realized how crucial it is). I was intrigued with the oracle at first but not anymore. I was intrigued with the MSC at first, but not anymore. I preferred the Spider mine to the widow mine but i am overall pleased with it. I dreaded the war hound, i am actually happy i got a beta invite the day after it was removed. I am disappointed in the hellbat, hurray a meat shield but its too shooty and not enough meaty, its still a relatively bad meat shield. In recent history (WoW and the Death Knight, I actually played one of these monstrosities upon WOTLK launch and quit because of what i had become) blizzard has not been good at adding new things into something that needs to remain balanced. But honestly i am much more excited by map changes being embraced that lead the game towards the sort of game I would prefer.
|
On February 26 2013 08:52 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 08:33 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 26 2013 08:11 Unsane wrote:On February 26 2013 08:03 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 26 2013 04:51 FeyFey wrote:
Basically the OP says constant updates keep people stick to a game. MMOs show this perfectly and also Dota like games. One reason why I lost interest in Dota pretty fast was there is just one map. And there is where RTS games mix up their gameplay, new maps not new units.
The approach is that people can Master their Units to perfection and have them thrown onto new maps. Opposed to new Heroes/Items on the Map where you know every stone.
Of course Starcraft2 failed a bit in that region, but thats also due to the players wanting to stay comfortable on the maps they know.
But for rts games its the maps not the units that change. Dota changed this up and it became popular good for them. No reason everyone has to follow this path though. Good points. However I would point out that people tend to be more excited about new units than new maps. Therefore, a new unit ever couple weeks is more likely to help Starcraft mods retain new players than a new map. Disagree, there might appear to be more interest in units but thats only because its less frequent, atleast amongst those who frequent the Melee map making portion of this forum, much excitement comes with new maps and new map pools. We know how much the map itself can effect the game and I do not think its a coincidence that starbow, sc2 BW, and Onegoal all manipulate the maps and economics in the same way. EDIT: i feel its only a matter of time before blizz realizes what it is each of these mods are doing and they make the appropriate changes(economics, army size, map spacing and size, area control, etc), it would probably require an expansion to change that portion of the game if blizz was the one to initiate that. If some premier league (it would probably have to be GSL, specifically) changed to something like LRB blizz would instantly follow suit though. It would be foolish to expect economic changes for swarm with its release so close. Be honest, how excited were you when you saw the Swarm Host? More or less than when the most recent MLG map was unvealed? Do you really feel that was only because new units are less frequent than new maps? In particular i was crushed when i saw the swarm host, cool its another siege unit but its not the lurker. The lurker didnt just look cooler, sound cooler, make hydras more relevant, etc. It performed a very specific function that the swarm host does not. BUT - I was intrigued with the dark templar in BW, and of course the lurker (even before i realized how crucial it is). I was intrigued with the oracle at first but not anymore. I was intrigued with the MSC at first, but not anymore. I preferred the Spider mine to the widow mine but i am overall pleased with it. I dreaded the war hound, i am actually happy i got a beta invite the day after it was removed. I am disappointed in the hellbat, hurray a meat shield but its too shooty and not enough meaty, its still a relatively bad meat shield. In recent history (WoW and the Death Knight, I actually played one of these monstrosities upon WOTLK launch and quit before of what i had become) blizzard has not been good at adding new things into something that needs to remain balanced. But honestly i am much more excited by map changes being embraced that lead the game towards the sort of game I would prefer.
Wouldnt it be great if you could just take those units you like into battle with you 
|
In a game perfectly balanced with interesting game play, sure. In a game with a large pool of players for match matching and an ever increasing skill cap. In a game where a pro scene exists to 'idolize'. Sure. But having the option to pick and ban does not aid this, you either make units so unique you can't ban most if not all of them or you homogenize them to the point of un-uniqueness and Blizzard decided in development to go with uniqueness. Honestly the ban portion of DotA is a work around for having imbalances that take time to patch properly, it stuck because no one really disagrees with that idea. I hope one Dota-day that every pro game has nearly unique picks and bans, no tier list, every hero is just as potentially potent as the next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
