EPTTerran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
Why the Warhound should NOT be balanced - Page 13
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you. | ||
|
Charon1979
Austria317 Posts
On September 11 2012 14:38 Wombat_NI wrote: Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you. The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game. | ||
|
worldpeace30
United States106 Posts
On September 11 2012 14:38 Wombat_NI wrote: Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you. I see a lot of white people playing their favorite race Terran because according to you zerg having lots of a-move units doesn't change Terran being the favorite race of white people over the globe. When I go over to scstats.com and see the racial distribution per country it reinforces your points. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
On September 11 2012 14:49 Charon1979 wrote: The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game. You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this. It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
MattBarry
United States4006 Posts
On September 11 2012 14:50 worldpeace30 wrote: I see a lot of white people playing their favorite race Terran because according to you zerg having lots of a-move units doesn't change Terran being the favorite race of white people over the globe. When I go over to scstats.com and see the racial distribution per country it reinforces your points. ...wat. Koreans are the only successful Terrans though. | ||
|
Charon1979
Austria317 Posts
On September 11 2012 14:56 Wombat_NI wrote: You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this. It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters. | ||
|
MarcH
United Kingdom362 Posts
On September 11 2012 14:49 Charon1979 wrote: The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game. Actually that probably wont happen the number of games played in SC2 is dropping constantly but viewer counts for streams are staying fairly consistent and are only dropping when their are either multiple tournaments on at once or when their is a massive surge in the amount of tournaments. SC has always been about the pro scene and if you compere SC2 to a game like LoL this is fairly clear. So far SC2 has sold around 4.5million copies and has apparently been pirated 2.3 million times so your looking at a maximum player base of 6.8 million people no I personally own 2 copies of SC2 and im sure other people do aswel so that number is actually too high but even if it was accurate a large toiurnament can still get 80thousand+ viewers, Compared to LoL which is getting 200thousand or so viewers for major events but out of a player base of 35million SC2 has a much higher number of viewers to players ration than LoL. The only reason LoL can do this is that their game is F2P so anyone can download and play a few games and making an easy game that they will stick around in makes business sense so they buy Skins etc. If SC2 goes down the lol route they it will fail as people wont leave LoL to play SC2 as they have already invested a lot of time and effort into their LoL account as well as probably money, for SC to emulate that they would have to add micro-transactions to the game and make it infinatly easier to play to even having a chance to compete and going down that route will put you up against not only the biggest name in e-sports right now but also every new game that comes out trying to jump on the band wagon. For SC2 to succeed and grow it needs to carve out its own market and the SC2 pro scene is now undeniably the strongest aspect of SC2 and the strongest marketing asset at the Disposal of Blizz especially after the SC2-BW merger. Making a game that pro players can really excel at and turn into something beautiful is the best path for Blizz as SC2 is an easy game to understand and get into and if you can make it into a truly high level competitive game you can sell that to people given a good marketing stratergy. If you do that you may well sell more copies of a game and insert new players into the game but the main revenue of Blizz at this point will end up coming from tournament revenue as to run a large tournament of over 5000 dollars prize pool you need a licence from blizz which gives them something like half of the add revenue from the tournament and the more people watching the tournament the more revenue they will make. | ||
|
Cor_Malek
Poland61 Posts
Warhound needs to go, because it's an awful unit. It's just bad - and it's so regardless of any balance tinkering. It doesn't fill any new role, but more importantly - it's unbelievably ugly. It's hands down the ugliest unit in a game where 1/3 of all units were designed to look repulsive. Role of a unit can be changed via mechanics. But with warhound it's not worth it - because balance be dammed - who'd want to look at this piece of trash standing out of the Terran designs like a sore thumb? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
On September 11 2012 15:14 Charon1979 wrote: But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters. The post below me was pretty well written, but as an additional point. Why do people have to feel they're good to have fun with a game? I think BW came out when I was 9 or 10, I had no idea what the hell I was doing but still had fun with it, played BGH maps and the likes, built Carriers and other things that are cool to a youngster. Had a great time, had no idea what I was doing but the RS spark was lit in me, albeit it would only really take hold of me later in life. The issue with keeping casual players engaged isn't really applicable with folk who come with that mentality. Casual players howoever, who want to want to win games and be competitive in getting ladder promotions, but don't want to put any graft in are the ones who drift away. I'm really not sure how to keep people like that interested and active. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
A marauder that's rather useless against Zerg. There should be a more unique unit, like mobile missile turret (there are no ground to air only units in SC2 at all, granted there weren't any in SC1 either), or the cool/junky little artillery/rocket machine used in a broodwar cutscene. Warhounds are just like buffed ground-mode vikings, or 1.5 marauders — nothing particularly new. | ||
Falling
Canada11379 Posts
On September 11 2012 15:14 Charon1979 wrote: But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters. I agree casuals want to do cool stuff. But making warhounds and attacking with them is not doing cool stuff. Nor is making collosi doing cool stuff. Setting up a line of siege tanks and having them reign destruction down is cool stuff. A noob can do that even if they are terribly slow. But it's still fun because it destroys soooo much. (BW we'd just tell newb Terrans to just make tanks.) Getting off one powerful storm is cool stuff because it does soooo much damage. Managing to drop a reaver in the worker line and having 2 shots kill a good portion of the worker line is cool stuff. Even if they can't instantly reload it while keeping the shuttle at top speed while replenishing the scarabs. The point is even when things are difficult to do, when a casual can pull one thing off, the results are AWESOME. The results are awesome because the units top potential is hard to reach. (Don't confuse this with non-functional units. At the base level, the units work perfectly well. It's just with mastering its execution, it's true potential can be exploited.) This allows the power of the unit too be much more powerful. When things are easy, the unit is nerfed to be balanced under the assumption that the units top potential will nearly always be reached. The results are less and become more meh and creates bland gameplay. Instead of reigning destruction, tanks are alright. Instead of storms ripping through armies, it's okay. It's all balanced, but the raw power has been sanitized. Whereas, if a casual catches a glimpse of the raw power potential of units and tastes a bit of success with their first storm or reaver shot.... that's addicting. Difficulty isn't an issue when the reward is so great. But the best thing of all is even if casuals aren't into super micro, the game still works by a-moving around the map. Newbs can go a very long time without making vultures and yet have lots of fun with Tanks, marines and air. It's not 'correct play,' but it's still fun play. And many casual Protoss will never use high templar. But that's okay, the power of the high templar still waits for them and they can enjoy the game just the same. | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
| ||
|
BoZiffer
United States1841 Posts
On September 11 2012 15:54 Falling wrote: I agree casuals want to do cool stuff. But making warhounds and attacking with them is not doing cool stuff. Nor is making collosi doing cool stuff. Setting up a line of siege tanks and having them reign destruction down is cool stuff. A noob can do that even if they are terribly slow. But it's still fun because it destroys soooo much. (BW we'd just tell newb Terrans to just make tanks.) Getting off one powerful storm is cool stuff because it does soooo much damage. Managing to drop a reaver in the worker line and having 2 shots kill a good portion of the worker line is cool stuff. Even if they can't instantly reload it while keeping the shuttle at top speed while replenishing the scarabs. The point is even when things are difficult to do, when a casual can pull one thing off, the results are AWESOME. The results are awesome because the units top potential is hard to reach. (Don't confuse this with non-functional units. At the base level, the units work perfectly well. It's just with mastering its execution, it's true potential can be exploited.) This allows the power of the unit too be much more powerful. When things are easy, the unit is nerfed to be balanced under the assumption that the units top potential will nearly always be reached. The results are less and become more meh and creates bland gameplay. Instead of reigning destruction, tanks are alright. Instead of storms ripping through armies, it's okay. It's all balanced, but the raw power has been sanitized. Whereas, if a casual catches a glimpse of the raw power potential of units and tastes a bit of success with their first storm or reaver shot.... that's addicting. Difficulty isn't an issue when the reward is so great. But the best thing of all is even if casuals aren't into super micro, the game still works by a-moving around the map. Newbs can go a very long time without making vultures and yet have lots of fun with Tanks, marines and air. It's not 'correct play,' but it's still fun play. And many casual Protoss will never use high templar. But that's okay, the power of the high templar still waits for them and they can enjoy the game just the same. I kind of disagree with you on the Collosi. I've been teaching my brother how to play over the last few weeks. I had played a bit of BW (very casually, mostly noob only games in college) and he saw a bit of it back then visiting on occasion. He said he wanted to learn a bit of SC2 and I asked him to pick a race he might enjoy. He replied that he would like to play Protoss - digged on the higher tech superior race sort of thing. Showed him a couple of basic builds, went over the tech tree. You know what the things that he initially enjoyed most? Answer: Collosus, storm, and warp gate. 2 of the 3 things that hard core BW followers will report are 'broken' almost verbatim. He on the other hand, is the casual gamer, the one that we want to bring into the game, not alienate because it has become chess. Thats the point of SC2, its a blend between spectator sport and strategy. Its a fine line and difficult one to walk. Tanks are boring. Sorry, but they are. I love SC2. Watch even more than I play but if there is a TvT on...I work on my thesis. And my casual brother echoes the same. That said, Warhound is a bad unit as presently implemented. I don't like the model and I don't like various attributes about it but I think it will be fine in the end. I think we need to take step back and understand that this is long process and despite what most BW die hards will say, WoL is a pretty good game. Keeps bringing me back day after day - not a bad thing. | ||
|
TranceKuja
United States154 Posts
On September 11 2012 10:47 bubblegumbo wrote: Attack move units that do extra damage to specific armor types needs to fuck off in SC2, it's an utter disgrace that a game made in this day and age can't live up to the originality of the units from Broodwars more than 10 years ago. WoL has this problem and now they want us Terran players to continue this trend. At least with Thors they are slow, expensive and take a while to build as a way to prevent the player from just abusing it. There were several BW units that did different damage to different unit sizes. It's more or less the same type of thing. | ||
|
MoonCricket
222 Posts
The main problem with Terran right now is that Battle Hellions and Warhounds do not address Terran weaknesses, Battle Hellions nerf Zerglings and Warhounds nerf Protoss, if Blizzard just removed both the Battle Hellion and the Warhound and designed the Widow Mine to be Terran's answer to Zealots then it'd feel like Blizzard actually knew what the fuck they were doing with the race for a change. I mean, why do you need to add 3 units in HOTS to balance Factories vs Protoss when Broodwar managed to do it with just Siege Tanks, Vultures and Spider Mines and Goliaths? Thors are a strict upgrade vs Protoss compared to Goliath's already, the game does not need the /faceroll keyboard unit that is the Warhound and to a lesser extent the Battle Hellion at all. I mean how the fuck do you just go and decide to buff the most heavily played unit in TvZ as an "answer" to Zealots and think it wont completely be imbalanced vs. Zerglings? How the fuck do you add a horribly overpowered and undercosted Mech that /facerolls Protoss, wipes out Terran mineral lines and 2 shots Zerglings and think it wont be completely imbalanced? I mean, the Raven Buff and the Battle Cruiser buff already put Terran late game vs Zerg late game into an incredibly good place, all they need to do is give Terran another Reactor Factory unit to deal with Zealots and it's probably fine. Ghosts deal with Immortals already and kick ass vs Protoss in general, god forbid Terran Mech have to use their Barracks for something other than building a Reactor for a Factory at any point in the game ... | ||
|
Swap
Sweden144 Posts
And I think you can think like this about more units in HoTS now. Tempest for example. | ||
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Denmark697 Posts
On September 11 2012 16:41 BoZiffer wrote: I kind of disagree with you on the Collosi. I've been teaching my brother how to play over the last few weeks. I had played a bit of BW (very casually, mostly noob only games in college) and he saw a bit of it back then visiting on occasion. He said he wanted to learn a bit of SC2 and I asked him to pick a race he might enjoy. He replied that he would like to play Protoss - digged on the higher tech superior race sort of thing. Showed him a couple of basic builds, went over the tech tree. You know what the things that he initially enjoyed most? Answer: Collosus, storm, and warp gate. 2 of the 3 things that hard core BW followers will report are 'broken' almost verbatim. He on the other hand, is the casual gamer, the one that we want to bring into the game, not alienate because it has become chess. Thats the point of SC2, its a blend between spectator sport and strategy. Its a fine line and difficult one to walk. Tanks are boring. Sorry, but they are. I love SC2. Watch even more than I play but if there is a TvT on...I work on my thesis. And my casual brother echoes the same. That said, Warhound is a bad unit as presently implemented. I don't like the model and I don't like various attributes about it but I think it will be fine in the end. I think we need to take step back and understand that this is long process and despite what most BW die hards will say, WoL is a pretty good game. Keeps bringing me back day after day - not a bad thing. Sorry, but the reason he likes Colossus is not because they are fun to use, but because they look cool. There is no real fun in mastering the Colossus. To unlock its full potential the answer is "make more Colossi", not "micro till your fingers bleed". In the end this will become boring, because the only improvement you can make is making more units, not using them better. If the Colossus looked the same, but had a really slow attack that is dogeable, but a lot more powerful it would be 10X as fun to use. There I just fixed the issues with the number one a-move unit in the game with a simple micro mechanic. Bronce league players will still use them because microing against them is not in they opponents capabilities, however as skill levels rise on both sides, micro to prevent or secure Colossus hits would make the game more exiting. This is what we mean when we talk about units with high skill caps. Units that work fine when both sides can't micro, but become infinitely more interesting as players learn how to micro with or against them. Oh and tanks may visually be a bit more bland. But even first time players to BW quickly saw the awesomeness of 10+ tanks blasting any attacks agaist them to smithereens. Tanks are great because they feel awesome to use. | ||
|
haitike
Spain2722 Posts
On September 11 2012 16:52 TranceKuja wrote: There were several BW units that did different damage to different unit sizes. It's more or less the same type of thing. Yes, It is not so different as many people thinks. Dragoon: 10 vs light, 15 vs medium, 20 vs heavy Stalker: 10 vs light, 14 vs heavy | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
| ||
