|
On February 26 2013 09:38 Unsane wrote:
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.
Not really. Imagine you couldn't pick races in Starcraft but instead had to do it the way the OP suggests. You play against an opponent who bans Zerg and you ban Terran. Does this make the game imbalanced? Does this mean that all your choices - Zerg, Terran, Protoss - are not unique to begin with?
Not at all! It just forces you to play TvP, TvZ, PvP or PvZ.
The same applies to units in a matchup: If your Protoss opponent bans vultures and siege tanks early on (implying a BW like Mech balance in PvT) - time to play MMMVG.
Of course you need a good balance for this to work and there should be certain "unbanable" and/or "autopicked" units. Baning Zerglings would be kind of stupid when the opponent can go two rax...
However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft.
For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...).
But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead.
|
On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:
However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft.
For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...).
But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead.
Could go Medic 
|
On February 27 2013 00:27 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:
However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft.
For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...).
But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead. Could go Medic
Or all in, no need to be able to go macro everygame. Also when your opponent bans roaches and you don't ban zealots you can fight it with baneling bust, queen spine defense while going 2base tech, or any other than the standard 3base hatch before gas, the whole point of this mod is that you don't play the same game every time.
|
On February 27 2013 00:27 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:
However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft.
For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...).
But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead. Could go Medic
OP's suggestion may seems silly: you probably are just trading redundant units, and to balance such a system to work it seems you may need many redundant units for every role (ie valkyrie, wraith and viking), and that eliminates the diversity we wanted to begin with.
However, this scheme can work exactly that way. Adding more redundancy becomes not a problem as it seems, but a balance point. In other words, this system has the potential to scale with the number of units. The more options you have for both players, the easier it is to have a balanced option.
Again, in this case the natural asymmetry of the game is a problem. Keeping a distinct style for each race is a problem. But perhaps it's not insurmountable.
|
On February 27 2013 02:06 moskonia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 00:27 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:
However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft.
For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...).
But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead. Could go Medic Or all in, no need to be able to go macro everygame. Also when your opponent bans roaches and you don't ban zealots you can fight it with baneling bust, queen spine defense while going 2base tech, or any other than the standard 3base hatch before gas, the whole point of this mod is that you don't play the same game every time.
Well, I totally agree with this. But it should not be the opponent who can dictate how you have to play by banning your units.
The whole thing would work as well (in a more enjoyable way), if you remove the ban part and just make a restriced choice system instead.
Like 4 basic units and then you choose another 5 units. It's up to you what you play and what you discard. But it's not the opponent who forces you to play 30min games all the time because he removed most forms of aggression.
|
On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 09:38 Unsane wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. Not really. Imagine you couldn't pick races in Starcraft but instead had to do it the way the OP suggests. You play against an opponent who bans Zerg and you ban Terran. Does this make the game imbalanced? Does this mean that all your choices - Zerg, Terran, Protoss - are not unique to begin with? Not at all! It just forces you to play TvP, TvZ, PvP or PvZ.
Professional video games is essentially fueled by a large bank saying "Im going to host an event with a large prize pool to attract talent and an interesting venue that's going to cost $X, but make more than X through tickets and streams". This will attract the best players, and because the skill cap is so very high we have players who are extremely 'specialized' at playing each race. Having to learn all three races because your opponent can ban your best would reduce not only the skill cap, but enjoyment of watching and playing the game.
-"O MvP is about to play, best terran player in the world! looks like he WONT be playing terran cause his opponent will ban it". What a terrible idea.
Again, the idea behind banning was to give chance to remove something that players find broken in a variable pool of over 100? heroes with 4 abilities, multiple base stats and scaling stats and another 100 items for 6 inventory slots? With 5 heroes per team? One person originally was trying to balance and create this...mess...all by himself at the same time and was doing a spectacular job. The ban option was just a "o woops that'll be fixed next patch" option that no one didn't like because bans were only in certain modes.
|
On February 27 2013 03:56 Unsane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:On February 26 2013 09:38 Unsane wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. Not really. Imagine you couldn't pick races in Starcraft but instead had to do it the way the OP suggests. You play against an opponent who bans Zerg and you ban Terran. Does this make the game imbalanced? Does this mean that all your choices - Zerg, Terran, Protoss - are not unique to begin with? Not at all! It just forces you to play TvP, TvZ, PvP or PvZ. Professional video games is essentially fueled by a large bank saying "Im going to host an event with a large prize pool to attract talent and an interesting venue that's going to cost $X, but make more than X through tickets and streams". This will attract the best players, and because the skill cap is so very high we have players who are extremely 'specialized' at playing each race. Having to learn all three races because your opponent can ban your best would reduce not only the skill cap, but enjoyment of watching and playing the game. -"O MvP is about to play, best terran player in the world! looks like he WONT be playing terran cause his opponent will ban it". What a terrible idea. Again, the idea behind banning was to give chance to remove something that players find broken in a variable pool of over 100? heroes with 4 abilities, multiple base stats and scaling stats and another 100 items for 6 inventory slots? With 5 heroes per team? One person originally was trying to balance and create this...mess...all by himself at the same time and was doing a spectacular job. The ban option was just a "o woops that'll be fixed next patch" option that no one didn't like because bans were only in certain modes.
One: It was meant as an example of why this does not necessarily lead to imbalances. An Example. And not whether it makes for a better game.
Two: In said game, Mvp would have never been a "Terran player" to begin with. Noone would know. Noone would care.
Three: The level of gameplay in Starcraft2 right now is higher than it ever was. Still "suboptimal" play in 2011 didn't prevent people from watching. Indeed, many people even prefer watching sloppy games these days.
Four: I don't care what "the idea behind" something was in some context. If it could work in another context - try it!
|
On February 27 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 02:06 moskonia wrote:On February 27 2013 00:27 Archerofaiur wrote:On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:
However, one thing I agree on: This kind of balance is surely going to be incredible hard to achieve with starcraft.
For one, starcraft features 3races and the "unbanable/autopicked" units differ greatly in the two non-mirror matchups (imagine PvZ when your opponent can ban roaches but you can't ban zealots - 7gate+1 every game...).
But even more, the units are not designed to work in such a system. Yeah, stalkers can work in that system. Roaches can work in that system. But medivacs? Imagine your Protoss opponent bans medivacs after you picked marauders and ghosts... Suddenly your bio-strategy falls completly apart, but you have already wasted too many picks to play a proper mech composition instead. Could go Medic Or all in, no need to be able to go macro everygame. Also when your opponent bans roaches and you don't ban zealots you can fight it with baneling bust, queen spine defense while going 2base tech, or any other than the standard 3base hatch before gas, the whole point of this mod is that you don't play the same game every time. Well, I totally agree with this. But it should not be the opponent who can dictate how you have to play by banning your units. The whole thing would work as well (in a more enjoyable way), if you remove the ban part and just make a restriced choice system instead. Like 4 basic units and then you choose another 5 units. It's up to you what you play and what you discard. But it's not the opponent who forces you to play 30min games all the time because he removed most forms of aggression.
Hmm, I think it would be cool to have many similar options for each tier that is based on style and maybe a timing push you want to do, but these choices are revealed to the opponent so you can't choose an imba composition for a timing without the opponent knowing about the possibility of it. I am not sure about this idea since it will make it pretty hard to learn all the options, but as long as they are not too different from each other I think it should be alright.
For example: give the Stalker these options:
-normal blink
-blink with higher range but longer cooldown
-blink with shorter range but smaller cooldown
-more damage (with the upgrade researched) but blink is worse in a way
-research for much more damage but no blink
This gives the player a way to customize their unit while not breaking the early game or making it too difficult for the players since the stalker is about the same in every situation, only there are small differences, also in this specific situation the stalker will be the same as normal until it gets the upgrade, also a bonus.
You don't have to create a whole new game with a shit load of new units, you simply need to take this game and give options (although creating a new game where each unit has an upgrade would be good since this way you can limit the changes to be after an upgrade is researched). Personally I would really like this simple mode, instead of a whole new game which should be hard to learn since everything is new, I already know this game but I wish some things were different based on my style - exactly this game!
|
On February 27 2013 04:29 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 03:56 Unsane wrote:On February 26 2013 22:21 Big J wrote:On February 26 2013 09:38 Unsane wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. Not really. Imagine you couldn't pick races in Starcraft but instead had to do it the way the OP suggests. You play against an opponent who bans Zerg and you ban Terran. Does this make the game imbalanced? Does this mean that all your choices - Zerg, Terran, Protoss - are not unique to begin with? Not at all! It just forces you to play TvP, TvZ, PvP or PvZ. Professional video games is essentially fueled by a large bank saying "Im going to host an event with a large prize pool to attract talent and an interesting venue that's going to cost $X, but make more than X through tickets and streams". This will attract the best players, and because the skill cap is so very high we have players who are extremely 'specialized' at playing each race. Having to learn all three races because your opponent can ban your best would reduce not only the skill cap, but enjoyment of watching and playing the game. -"O MvP is about to play, best terran player in the world! looks like he WONT be playing terran cause his opponent will ban it". What a terrible idea. Again, the idea behind banning was to give chance to remove something that players find broken in a variable pool of over 100? heroes with 4 abilities, multiple base stats and scaling stats and another 100 items for 6 inventory slots? With 5 heroes per team? One person originally was trying to balance and create this...mess...all by himself at the same time and was doing a spectacular job. The ban option was just a "o woops that'll be fixed next patch" option that no one didn't like because bans were only in certain modes. One: It was meant as an example of why this does not necessarily lead to imbalances. An Example. And not whether it makes for a better game. Two: In said game, Mvp would have never been a "Terran player" to begin with. Noone would know. Noone would care. Three: The level of gameplay in Starcraft2 right now is higher than it ever was. Still "suboptimal" play in 2011 didn't prevent people from watching. Indeed, many people even prefer watching sloppy games these days. Four: I don't care what "the idea behind" something was in some context. If it could work in another context - try it!
Ok, well Im not only addressing you when I say what a terrible idea this is. I already said it, I'll say it again. Blizzard wants their units to be unique. They don't just perform certain tasks, they perform certain roles and the way the match ups work is based on these roles. Blizzard put specific emphasis on trying to spread out the roles so each unit is fielded almost every game. I don't feel like finding Dustin Browder's big presentation of how to make an e-sport, not a video or computer game. Remember SC2 is attempting to be an e-sport.
|
On February 27 2013 05:08 Unsane wrote:
Blizzard put specific emphasis on trying to spread out the roles so each unit is fielded almost every game.
Yes that is the goal. The question is how successful it is at achieving that goal. And I think that is up for debate.
|
Every unit could find use each game in all match ups and I would say most units are built every game, except for perhaps one tier 2 or tier 3 unit, per side, each game. Blizzard has done a very good job of it. Even the gimmicky Reaper and Void Ray are having this issue addressed in HOTS.
|
On February 27 2013 10:19 Unsane wrote:
Every unit could find use each game in all match ups and I would say most units are built every game, except for perhaps one tier 2 or tier 3 unit, per side, each game. Blizzard has done a very good job of it. Even the gimmicky Reaper and Void Ray are having this issue addressed in HOTS.
Yeah, blizzard has surely done a good job. The question which arises: How much more possibilities for unique designs are there, when we haven't hit the border yet?
Even more: how different do units really have to be? Couldn't the lurker work out better in certain playstyles than the baneling? Wouldn't those unique playstyles justify giving people the option to choose lurkers instead of banelings, before the game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
