|
On September 12 2012 05:01 Pazuzu wrote:
the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game
Well you have to admit that a lot of the imbalances where adressed by mapmakers who put in a lot of work to even out the gameplay.
|
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote:
A lot of angry reactionaries are already calling for the warhound to be nerfed, and blizzard seems to be listening, as they have responded by nerfing its attack speed in the recent patch. I disagree with this approach on the grounds that no amount of 'balancing' will fix the incredible blot on SC:BW2 that is the warhound. Instead, it must be completely destroyed.
The warhound is an attack move unit, by which I mean that it doesn't give me any opportunity to use my fancy gm level micro to make it effective. You only have to push one button and walk into the enemy army.
Literally the only thing I can use my 300 apm for is target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds and I could do that for loads of other things already! Literally any ranged unit even marines - and I always make a million of those anyway so I don't need more stuff like that!
To understand why it's bad, let's make up a reason why it could be good, and wildly speculate at the design philosophy Blizzard seems to be approaching the game with.
Without any recourse to boring facts or research I have come to the conclusion that there are fundamentally two conflicting philosophies for game design that apply to Starcraft.
The first is that you design a game that will be fun to watch and it will inspire people to play. To say that again, but longer, this philosophy relies on the people who are watching pro level matches enjoying watching pro level matches and wanting to emulate what they see in them on their own.
For example, to draw on a game that was already perfect, in Brood War you might watch a TSL match with JF, see him absolutely demolishing people with reavers, and be inspired to go try out some shuttle/reaver micro yourself. Since reaver/shuttle micro is difficult, you may fail at first. However for the true fans, who don't get fed up when they fail and quit, with a little practice you too (I assume you're all high level gamers like me) can enjoy the fun.
The second (AKA Blizzard's) design philosophy is to create a game that everyone can easily become immediately expert at - which isn't fair because it took me 5 years to reach GM - and thus you attract new players because people who start to play are not discouraged by the difficulty.
With this approach, viewers can watch pros demolishing everything (especially the destructible landscape) with colossi, and then even if they are in bronze league, they too can build loads of colossi and use giant laser beams to obliterate everything, especially the landscape as it doesn't fight back. Hopefully the other guy won't have realised this guaranteed-win technique and won't also have an army of colossi.
Since I don't like making colossi because they are no fun (using my spare apm to walk them comically up and down cliffs just isn't amusing enough) unfortunately this 'make a colossus' build is particularly effective against me.
When a game is too easy, as it is when you realise you only need to build a colossus to win, it is fun the first couple times feeling like a big man and then completely loses its charm and gets boring when you have smashed all the noobs and are #1 na ladder. That's why you don't get people losing games on purpose so they can keep playing easy bronze guys - it's too easy and nobody likes that.
I love the narrative puzzle game Portal to death, but once you have solved all the puzzles and worked out what you are supposed to do and you know how to get through all the levels and you don't need to work out the solutions, it is so easy that it is just not fun or worth the time anymore, rather like if I made you read the same idea five times - it's just a waste of time!
In order for video games to continue being played for years instead of taking the route of pretty much every single EA title and needing to be replaced with sort of the same game a year later, they must have some inherent difficulty that is not knowledge based. Anything that's only difficult because you don't know what to do will no longer be difficult once you know what to do.
This is where execution and tactics in Starcraft come in. If the game was only strategy and no tactics (I don't need to explain the difference there) it would get boring really fast and wouldn't be a popular esport.
It's the never-ending challenge of executing a tricky task that makes playing starcraft so much fun no matter how many times you have already played it. How is it even possible to keep building scvs and marines without forgetting and also at the same time making supply depots? that is a challenge that can never be totally overcome and that's what makes the game so enjoyable. Blizzard just don't get that.
Low difficulty mechanics
Pros: Newbies get less frustrated because the game's basic mechanics are less of an obstacle.
Cons: These same newbies get bored quickly because all they have to do is build a colossus and no one likes those.
Esports is delegitimized and Pro matches are not fun to watch because any bronze newbie could execute what they see just as well as the pros (obviously this is an extreme example taken to hyperbole).
As a result, the game does not last nearly as long in popularity because the reward of mastering a difficult skill is no longer there and it's just about strategy instead of mechanics.
High difficulty mechanics
Pros: People who have started playing the game and already enjoy it get inspired to actually spend time playing the game more because they see professional players doing amazing moves that they didn't even know/think were possible.
It encourages them to continue playing the game because they still have many things they haven't mastered. Players actually enjoy the game because despite the crushing frustration, there is an inherent enjoyment in having practiced something difficult and executing it correctly.
Pro matches are more fun to watch and esports flourishes because people LOVE watching other people do things they can't do. What? You don't believe me? You mentalist! come on!! You wouldn't catch an expert magician watching another magician though, because if you can do the trick for yourself in the mirror what's the point??
Cons: Newbies get more frustrated because they cannot perform tactics they see professionals use without dedicating several hours (probably after work) practising small techniques instead of playing on ladder.
So now that I've quickly cleared up why having difficult mechanics is important, let's go back to the warhound. There is absolutely nothing difficult about this unit. It practically teleports, so you don't have to already 'be in the right place at the right time' instead you can magically appear wherever you need it.
All you do is attack move and then either go back to macro or sit there staring and watching, bored out of your mind because there is so little micro to do as mech in midgame (until you get ravens or are using siege tanks, and don't do that because it would kinda ruin my point)
Pro matches will never be inspiring to anyone, because they know they could execute exactly what the pro is doing just as well (not hard to attack move).
This is why I do not believe the warhound should be balanced. No amount of tweaking values to make it 'BLAHtistically' balanced will make it a good unit for the health of starcraft either as an esport or as a casual, fun game, because easy relaxing things like World of Warcraft and Farmville will never catch on.
The Warhound needs to be overhauled, or completely redesigned like with less legs or something so it can only hop in circles When creating new units, I would implore Blizzard to look at the design philosophies that made Brood War my favourite game. Many units were considered extremely overpowered in certain ways (dark swarm, anyone?), but in order to make this work, they would sacrifice strength in another way.
Let's look at the Reaver. I use the Reaver as my example because it's my favourite. Nothing got me more riled up than the nervous anticipation of seeing scarabs running towards their target, not knowing if they would hit or not or how much damage would be done.
At the same time, they took an immense amount of skill to use properly. Since their AoE attack was clearly ridiculously overpowered, it was balanced out by making it hopelessly immobile and by making the ammunition cost resources and take time to build.
Thus the difficulty of the reaver is as follows: You need to get a reaver, get a shuttle, get ammo. Then when you engage you have to babysit your shuttle (because if you let it die it's mum will kill you), drop the reavers, target fire, and then pick them back up in the shuttle to hide while they wait to be able to shoot again. There is literally nothing remotely like this in SC2.
You can be assured a newbie would not pick up starcraft and go for a 2 reaver shuttle drop until they had played the game for months trying to master basic macro play, but it looks beautiful in pro matches and is not so difficult to emulate at a low level (but just difficult enough). You might not have the game sense of the beautiful JF to go exactly where you need to, and you might not have his mechanics but you are toooootally still going to be able to execute a reaver drop with a reasonable level of enjoyment no matter what level of player you are because it's difficult not like the easy warhound.
This is the example and ideal I feel Blizzard should be using with every unit they design. Make a unit that is difficult to use perfectly, so that it's fun to use every time and will inspire viewers. If you make an easy-to-use unit like the Warhound, you might not discourage newbies at first but you certainly won't encourage them to continue playing, as the unit isn't actually fun to use.
You might liek colour-by-numbers when you are 3 but once you are a grown up, these types of 'EASY PEASY' activities hold no enjoyment. Adults with a lot of time to commit to niche pursuits generally prefer activities with some reasonable level of masterbatable difficulty.
So why is this game being designed for children when it is rated T for Teen? TEENAGERS LOVE DIFFICULT NON SELF GRATIFYING THINGS OMFG
Q. Even if you do not agree with the enormous rant above, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
A. Because sneaking in and killing a nexus in 5 seconds then running off is really super fun.
|
It's just as much an A move unit as all the other A move units in the game. There are still other terran units besides the warhound, just like there are other protoss units besides colossus. According to this post, SC2 is already screwed because we already have A move units, yet pros still seem to exist. So either the warhound stays or the entire game gets a full blown redesign. I'm sure everyone probably wants that but it will never happen.
|
On September 12 2012 05:06 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:01 Pazuzu wrote:
the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game Well you have to admit that a lot of the imbalances where adressed by mapmakers who put in a lot of work to even out the gameplay.
Neo Halls of Valhalla
i remember yellow had to play on that map twice vs boxer in bo 5,XD
what are some of the most imbalanced maps? just curious...
|
To people who say, well all ranged units are 1A units, well these units have since and especially in the beta been discussed to death.
The Marauder, The Roach, The Immortal, The Colossus and now the Warhound.
There is a reason for this, these units are actually pretty badly designed.
Personally i pretty much like The Colossus, since it's way of dealing splash damage is in a line and that's at least sort of special. It can walk up cliffs, can be targeted by anti air units, it has long range and requires a bunch of units to kept alive.
It also has nice synergy with other Protoss units, so to be honest, i like the Colossus.
The one i hate the most is the Immortal, since it overlaps with the Stalker, it's a counter unit and in my opinion it's just so boring..
I think the Marauder and the Roach has potential, since Marauders have a building smashing theme and the Roach has a burrowing theme.
The Warhound however is just like the Immortal, it not only overlaps with Marauder AND Thor, but it's also a counter unit and it's just boring.
|
On September 12 2012 05:42 SolidMoose wrote:
It's just as much an A move unit as all the other A move units in the game. There are still other terran units besides the warhound, just like there are other protoss units besides colossus. According to this post, SC2 is already screwed because we already have A move units, yet pros still seem to exist. So either the warhound stays or the entire game gets a full blown redesign. I'm sure everyone probably wants that but it will never happen.
Yes, but if you want to win you're going to choose the best strategy. When one strategy becomes completely dominant (mass warhound, for example), play stagnates, players become frustrated, and the game dies.
|
On September 12 2012 00:17 Nimic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 23:19 how2TL wrote:
If there was no proscene at all, I would bet my dick that more people would play BW than SC2. What a ludicrous thing to say. SC2 is far more popular in the west than BW ever was, and not mainly because of the pro scene.
What is so hard to understand about 'different' times?
15 years ago people didn't have the technology or the accesibility to technology as today. Gaming wasn't nearly as excepted as it is today. So many factors to include. And BW was quite popular in the west, the tournaments organized back in 2000+ also had 1000's of people coming to play and watch bw games.
|
The trouble with the internet is it's hard to tell a troll from a bad argument. I sure hope this thread was a troll, because the basic argument is so bad.
The guts of the argument seems to be:
1) warhound is a ranged unit
2) ranged units cannot be micro'd
3) without micro, the game has no replay value
4) therefore, warhounds are killing esports
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote:
The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines).
Firstly, warhounds are irrelevent entirely to the argument. They're just a hot topic, which you mention to increase the number of people viewing/responding.
Secondly, the assertion that ranged units cannot be micro'd is so easily refuted it's ridiculous. Target fire and running away when wounded literally the only form of micro possible for ranged units? I guess you've never seen anyone stutterstep, or spread their units (e.g. spreading marines against banelings), or set up a concave or a flank, or any of dozens of other examples I could list.
For the simplest of examples, take something that happens early in most games of PvT - protoss sends a scouting probe into the terran's opponent's base. If you're the terran, and you have a single marine, if you a-move, or target fire, or just let the marine start shooting without doing anything, that worker will get past and get into your base (or out of your base, if they got there before the marine finished). However, even this early in the game, you can use micro! With good control, you can kill that pesky worker every time, without letting it past.
Now about small numbers of stalker vs marines?. Both are ranged units, and you claim that it's not possible to do any micro to make them effective. I, and everyone else, say bullshit. A-move your stalkers into my marines and you will lose more than I will. If I micro my marines, and move command to run in close to your stalkers, I'll do even more damage. If you utilise micro and kite, and you can pick off marines without taking any damage. Holy shit, micro makes units more effective! Even ranged units!
You claim that without needing "fancy" micro to make units effective, that anyone can copy a strategy from a pro and be just as good as them, but that's simply not true. Every single unit becomes more effective when micro'd. There is no way a pro could be competetive with, say, a flat 60APM, but that's more than you need to macro and a-move.
There is a point buried in your post, underneath all the bullshit. It's a point I disagree with, but it's a valid point. You want units to be less effective, even completely ineffective when not micro'd. Maybe you want all units to not shoot at all unless you select them and push a key, once for each attack. You could even make it pick a random key each time! Wouldn't that make the game so much better? If you don't concentrate on a unit, it's not effective, exactly what you wanted! Yes, that's a ridiculous and extreme example, but if you want reasoned arguments you'll have to show some yourself.
|
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote:
Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
Well, this is easy to explain:
1. Blizzard wants terran to use mech more.
a. Bio is vulnerable Colossi/storm, mech isn't as bad.
b. Tanks are too important in tvt, so give an auto-cast ability that makes mech much easier to use (and kills toss along the way).
c. Mech has always been good vs zerg in the right hands, doesn't change much there, so zerg won't qq too much.
So how to achieve it? well marauders are pretty good vs toss, but they are bio, and they have a lot of hp so they are decent vs tanks (and banes)...so make a mech marauder that is even better vs toss and will help vs other mech as well, since mech in tvt is so dependent on tanks....Warhound is born
|
The title is a little misleading, makes it hard to figure out what your point is as one reads.
|
In BW there is only one unit that doesn't need micro : the ultralisk, because it is used in a late game situation where zerg can swarm the opponent with ultra/ling. Even the zerling/zealot need high amount of micro to be effective, there are units that need insane micro like Shuttle/Reaver/HighTemplar/Corsair/Carrier - Tank/Vulture/Vessel - Lurker/Scourge/Muta/Defiler.
Those things make battles and harasses extremely exciting to watch, but in the other hand the very same units make battles between players of different levels completely one-sided. The newbies just cannot win no matter what they do, so they keep watching the game as an esport but stop playing the game completely. In the end, the E-sport aspect of the game will develop, but the game itself becomes less popular for the casuals, and obviously the casuals are Blizz's priority, not the true gamers.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On September 12 2012 05:59 Aragnis wrote:
The guts of the argument seems to be:
1) warhound is a ranged unit
2) ranged units cannot be micro'd
3) without micro, the game has no replay value
4) therefore, warhounds are killing esports
No.
Read again.
|
is awesome32274 Posts
On September 12 2012 05:43 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:06 Hryul wrote:On September 12 2012 05:01 Pazuzu wrote:
the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game Well you have to admit that a lot of the imbalances where adressed by mapmakers who put in a lot of work to even out the gameplay. Neo Halls of Valhallai remember yellow had to play on that map twice vs boxer in bo 5,XD what are some of the most imbalanced maps? just curious...
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/148_Geometry
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/DMZ
|
last time i checked there are tons and tons of people that just watch some sc2... doesn't that kinda instagib your argument?
Btw: Strangest 1on1 map for me will allways be Plasma... ffs Plasma...
|
On September 12 2012 05:52 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:42 SolidMoose wrote:
It's just as much an A move unit as all the other A move units in the game. There are still other terran units besides the warhound, just like there are other protoss units besides colossus. According to this post, SC2 is already screwed because we already have A move units, yet pros still seem to exist. So either the warhound stays or the entire game gets a full blown redesign. I'm sure everyone probably wants that but it will never happen. Yes, but if you want to win you're going to choose the best strategy. When one strategy becomes completely dominant (mass warhound, for example), play stagnates, players become frustrated, and the game dies.
Until the warhound is finalized no strategy can be labeled as dominant. Protoss went stalker colossus for over a year before realizing how good mass zealots are. Now mass zealot is the dominant strategy for PvT in WoL. So I guess the matchup has become stagnated, and Terrans definitely have become frustrated. But the game doesn't seem dead.
My point is the things people are complaining about are already in the game.
|
Excellent post by OP, nice analysis, very perceptive, I totally agree on all points.
|
On September 12 2012 05:59 Aragnis wrote:
The trouble with the internet is it's hard to tell a troll from a bad argument. I sure hope this thread was a troll, because the basic argument is so bad.
I'm afraid that "the troll" is getting spotlined and "the bad argument" is agreed upon by 90% people who commented on this thread lool. In this case I can confirm that it's hard to tell whether you're a troll or your argument is bad :D.
|
You may enjoy color-by-numbers as a 3-year-old because it's not overwhelming and you get some guidance. Once you reach any reasonable age, however, these types of "easy-mode" activities hold no enjoyment. Adults generally prefer activities with some reasonable level of inherent masterable difficulty.
Wow, this is a great post! I couldn't agree more! The reason I play this game is because it is hard and there is always something to improve on. I really hope that blizzard reads your post.
|
On September 10 2012 17:01 Murlox wrote:
I don't see Blizzard simply removing a unit they made the model / animation / sounds for. Not going to happen.
What I do see occuring is some out-of-the-blue nerf. Say Warhounds with bonus versus psionic units*? Hmmm? Now that would be an interesting change, would it not.
...
Edit : *or even bonus versus destructible rocks... Well, yeah, I'm still bitter about the ghosts.
Lurker was in WoL beta, didn't make it to the game.
|
On September 12 2012 05:06 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:01 Pazuzu wrote:
the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game Well you have to admit that a lot of the imbalances where adressed by mapmakers who put in a lot of work to even out the gameplay.
This actually is very true. It was all about the maps. If the map wasn't very carefully designed it lead to huge imbalances. However, this is pretty much the problem in all games. Due to the maps, the matchup win% tends to be similiar.
HOW they reach the 50% winrate is what's different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
