|
Lastly, even when they do make a mistake and some strategy becomes boring overpowered, they are rather quick to try to make changes to fix the problem. As an analogy, take Magic: The Gathering. Even though they playtest a lot in house, sometimes the either miss something or miss how powerful a strategy is. When this happens and the game stat in the big tournaments becomes so you either have to play a strategy or play against that strategy, they ban cards, and a new environment is created. So if say Warhound causes only terrans using warhounds to conquer the ladder, they will do something to either nerf warhounds (either power, cost, timing, speed, something . . .) or do something to amplify the counters other races have.
His argument here is not that the Warhound is overpowered. The whole point of this post is that, even if it is possible to balance this unit, it should not be in this game because it is not in the spirit of SC2 and not in the spirit of a competitive game to have a, so put, "a-move unit". Watching the beta streams, I see most Terrans just mass this unit, with some other factory units tossed in, and go for a 200/200 push. They a-move their army and the game is decided then. It's not the strength of the warhound that the OP is taliking about but its' lack of micro-ability, such as a unit like the marine or the infestor.
Also, pretty much nothing in your post is reasonable, logical, or backed by any evidence. There is a large part of the community that is unhappy about the design of the warhound and would like to voice their opinions on this site. It is because of constructive discussions like these, that Blizzard is able to take steps in the right direction for SC2.
|
Northern Ireland26242 Posts
On September 12 2012 09:11 shizaep wrote:Show nested quote +Lastly, even when they do make a mistake and some strategy becomes boring overpowered, they are rather quick to try to make changes to fix the problem. As an analogy, take Magic: The Gathering. Even though they playtest a lot in house, sometimes the either miss something or miss how powerful a strategy is. When this happens and the game stat in the big tournaments becomes so you either have to play a strategy or play against that strategy, they ban cards, and a new environment is created. So if say Warhound causes only terrans using warhounds to conquer the ladder, they will do something to either nerf warhounds (either power, cost, timing, speed, something . . .) or do something to amplify the counters other races have. His argument here is not that the Warhound is overpowered. The whole point of this post is that, even if it is possible to balance this unit, it should not be in this game because it is not in the spirit of SC2 and not in the spirit of a competitive game to have a, so put, "a-move unit". Watching the beta streams, I see most Terrans just mass this unit, with some other factory units tossed in, and go for a 200/200 push. They a-move their army and the game is decided then. It's not the strength of the warhound that the OP is taliking about but its' lack of micro-ability, such as a unit like the marine or the infestor. Also, pretty much nothing in your post is reasonable, logical, or backed by any evidence. There is a large part of the community that is unhappy about the design of the warhound and would like to voice their opinions on this site. It is because of constructive discussions like these, that Blizzard is able to take steps in the right direction for SC2.
Pretty much this. Indeed, why would Blizzard even BOTHER with a Beta test outside of bug testing if they didn't want a feedback? Why would they have sections for HoTS beta discussion on their forums if they didn't want it?
Aye, let's just trust in Blizzard and not contribute in giving feedback, despite that the company itself desires it.
|
I feel like everything should be balanced at the highest level and not the lowest. The game then becomes actually balanced. Kinda like how Dota is balanced.
On September 12 2012 09:22 Wombat_NI wrote:
Aye, let's just trust in Blizzard and not contribute in giving feedback, despite that the company itself desires it.
They don't want it. If you even participated in any Blizzard beta you would know they don't give a shit about feedback and lock threads about ideas once they become popular (see D3 for the most recent example).
They think they know what players want, which they don't. Blizzard is a shitty company now if you haven't realized.
|
Northern Ireland26242 Posts
On September 12 2012 09:24 Glasse wrote:I feel like everything should be balanced at the highest level and not the lowest. The game then becomes actually balanced. Kinda like how Dota is balanced. Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:22 Wombat_NI wrote:
Aye, let's just trust in Blizzard and not contribute in giving feedback, despite that the company itself desires it. They don't want it. If you even participated in any Blizzard beta you would know they don't give a shit about feedback and lock threads about ideas once they become popular (see D3 for the most recent example). They think they know what players want, which they don't. Blizzard is a shitty company now if you haven't realized.
Nah I haven't because I never make it in. Saw a post that Browder made 'conerns with Tempest and Warhound noted'. But yeah, no they don't ever want or listen to feedback
|
Awesome post. I agree entirely with the general idea of what you've said here. Blizzard's design philosophy seems to be based on this entirely false notion that you can't have complex units or units that rely on finesse without scaring off lower level or uninitiated players. Since when did accessibility and complexity become mutually exclusive?
There are a dozen different things Blizzard could do completely outside the actual game that would make their game infinitely more accessible and appealing to the uninitiated. For example, Starcraft 2 does an absolutely horrid job of giving you any sense of progression as you develop as a player. There are no statistics by which you can measure your progress, divisions within leagues make little sense and don't tell you anything, so on so forth. Hell even something like letting players take achievement points/ladder points/any other similar thing and "purchase" alternate models for units would get a million times more uninitiated players interested in the game than making the game itself specifically easier (for example, "purchasing" the alternate Dark Templar model, or "purchasing" a female Ghost model). All kinds of players, especially casual ones, love stuff like that, and as clearly evidenced by the two different Dark Templar models currently in the game you can have altered or slightly different unit models without distorting a unit's identity on the battlefield.
That having been said however, I feel like Blizzard is absolutely intent on giving Terran a unit that is "easy" to control come HOTS (specifically in the Terran versus Protoss matchup, which the Warhound is clearly aimed at). Historically, Terran has been underrepresented at the lower league levels. In comparison to Zerg or Protoss, most of their units require a relatively higher level of unit control in order to achieve the level of effectiveness around which they are generally balanced. For players lacking mechanical capacity, this becomes an issue.
Understandably, some people, myself included, do not like the idea of making Terran have an "easier to play" option just because Protoss/Zerg have one (or several), or just because lower level players struggle with the race. Unfortunately, such a move just seems to be in accordance with Blizzard's design philosophy for Starcraft 2, and hence why they will likely ultimately pursue it despite however much criticism the idea of the Warhound garners them.
|
same with all the protoss new units.
|
Below is what I feel about my race, Protoss. It is about its mechanics and how HotS will not fix core issues holding my race back from competing at a high level vs. the other races.
It is also posted on sc2 forums and reddit: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6522912667?page=1
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/zlls8/interesting_post_the_remnants_of_protoss_a_broken/
It is with a long sigh that I write this in an effort to vent out some of the feelings of what I believe to be the majority of Protoss as I have personally witnessed. Where do I begin...
I am Archon, a high level Protoss gamer on SC2 and BW player. I have played Protoss back when Protoss were the high-cost, strong race, and powerful late game army. Since WoL, Protoss has lost their strength but retained their costs. As expected, the game was new and has years to match the expectations of BW balancing. With that being said, it should be noted that the fundamental concepts were 'already in place' since BW.
Let's move on to what this is really about: HotS. Before I touch base on Protoss changes I would like to bring attention to what I believe is even more important than new units... old ones. To clarify, I am referring to the buffs of several WoL units such as the reaper, ultralisk, hydralisk, hellion, battlecruiser, raven, etc. I feel like these buffs were well thought out for the above mentioned but I see something missing. Changes to Protoss WoL units. It is as if the development team considered the WoL Protoss units....perfect? I will not go into theorycrafting ideas but lay out the details such as the above.
Moving on to the problems I believe resonate with the majority if not all Protoss players. The New Hots units. As a high level gamer, I have tried it all, that's what we do; we look for the best, train, revise, repeat, and win. The new HotS units have almost no value to the way that I believe the metagame of WoL is played. Granted, the metagame will surely change in HotS for Zerg and Terran, but without the addition of "early/midgame units," as I shall term it, Protoss is not going to change much at all. That last sentence is actually a reference to another problem I will address later.
Back to the synergy of the new HotS units to our current units. Simple. There is none. Mothership core seemed like a brilliant idea, and indeed, it was. Past tense due to the hammer nerf to the ground making this core something I will highly consider skipping until I absolutely need it. It's garbage, damage, speed, ability costs, anything and everything to the point I have to ask...what does Blizzard want us to do with this. What do they believe we will be doing with this new unit. Some people believe mass recall is going to be amazing but I remain skeptical. We were talking about synergy. With the cost at an astonishing 150 energy, we have 1 use for a long while. The worst part is Protoss is not the race who can split units in the early and midgame as efficiently as other races. There will be no need to mass recall anything because I won't ever take anything I don't want to lose. I.e. I'm not worried about recalling my 4 zealots in my early game pressure as my stalkers can run home safely. I will spare the further details but remember this core point: Protoss won't be able to do multi pronged pressure with units they are not already prepared to lose.
Tempest saddens me. Not only did the iconic protoss unit, the carrier, get thrown into the can, but what saddens me is that I believe they did this because they just had no idea what other unit to give Protoss so they gave us a worse carrier. What do I mean? Remove thor and give terran warhound or remove roach and give zerg swarm host; Happy birthday, you didn't gain anything but broke out even in units. In the case of the Protoss, the tempest is a major nerf for reasons such as not being able to counter mech(I think it took 1 tempest around 10 shots to kill a warhound) The DPS is an issue, the cost is an issue, the time to make is an issue, etc. Synergy of this unit to Protoss? There is none with the exception that it is just as slow as the Protoss deathball. With no abilities on the tempest, it is just an a-move unit.
Moving on...
Alas, the oracle. The oracle was MY personal favorite unit going into the pre nerfed HotS. My god what use and strategy I could reap from such a versatile unit. Taking my third base earlier and cloaking it from roaches and lings and sniping a potential overseer with a stalker, engaging in micro with cloak...finally a cloak that I get before tier 3. An arbiter, not a "you can only have 1" slow "get this unit only to abuse it with vortex because that's all this unit is for" mothership. Cloaking my pylon to prevent it being sniped to allow my pressure to actually continue. Cloaking my warp prism at the corner of my enemy base while having the oracle slightly outside of firing range... I can go on for hours. It's gone. Cloak is gone. Strategy is gone. Protoss get a cheesy press e to block mineral patches ability. Oh I can see the strategy there. But that is not what bothers me, what bothers me is the nerfed split between its first ability having detection and now giving a 3rd ability.....detection. JUST GIVE THE ORACLE 2 ABILITIES. We know you have no idea for a 3rd ability, we get it. Don't worry, we won't be making the unit anyways. It won't have the "disruption web" the corsair had to prevent static defense from engaging so once an enemy gets 1 turret up, it's over for the oracle... "Hey oracle, meet phoenix." The cost is astronomically high and forces Protoss to commit to a stargate play which is already underpowered. Remember that list of zerg and terran units I mentioned that got buffs....now is a good time to make a connection to Protoss not receiving any. The Protoss does need a harassing unit as mentioned by David Kim. The oracle is not it.
Finalizing my position is the revisiting of a core issue: the metagame. Currently, I believe a lot of Protoss do what is widely known as "timing attacks or all ins" to win a game vs a zerg or terran player. There is little strategy to these attacks by Protoss and require a relatively low skill cap to execute(good ff, good blinks..that's it) compared to the potential of other races. This is boring to execute and boring to watch but it should be remembered that Protoss is not a very strong late game(At least in regard to what it used to be.) Yes I am referencing Brood War but before I receive a "this is not Brood War" comment. Need I remind you we already have our goliath(warhound) and lurker(swarm host) back from Brood War.
As I try to remain relatively distant from posting in these forums, I would like to voice my opinion for MY race. I believe Protoss is broken; from the reliance on sentry to survive early game, to reliance of exploits of mothership and terrain and ramps(ff) and even to how the warpgate mechanic is setup, Protoss is a shell of its former glory. But still I choose to play for this race because I keep waiting for change.
The Protoss of the starcraft 2 community are outraged. As most would say, we don't want to be strong, we want to play on an even playing field. The beta is still in beta but it is obviously headed in the wrong direction for Protoss. I personally would be thrilled with the removal of oracle, mothership core, and tempest, and just get a buff on the void ray. We, as a race of the Protoss do not want to wait for LotV to fix core problems still lurking in WoL with our race(including needing to abuse "archon toilet" to stand a chance. As the Spectre would say, "I'm tired of waiting."
Archon
|
Northern Ireland26242 Posts
On September 12 2012 09:29 Vindicarian wrote:
Awesome post. I agree entirely with the general idea of what you've said here. Blizzard's design philosophy seems to be based on this entirely false notion that you can't have complex units or units that rely on finesse without scaring off lower level or uninitiated players. Since when did accessibility and complexity become mutually exclusive?
There are a dozen different things Blizzard could do completely outside the actual game that would make their game infinitely more accessible and appealing to the uninitiated. For example, Starcraft 2 does an absolutely horrid job of giving you any sense of progression as you develop as a player. There are no statistics by which you can measure your progress, divisions within leagues make little sense and don't tell you anything, so on so forth. Hell even something like letting players take achievement points/ladder points/any other similar thing and "purchase" alternate models for units would get a million times more uninitiated players interested in the game than making the game itself specifically easier (for example, "purchasing" the alternate Dark Templar model, or "purchasing" a female Ghost model). All kinds of players, especially casual ones, love stuff like that, and as clearly evidenced by the two different Dark Templar models currently in the game you can have altered or slightly different unit models without distorting a unit's identity on the battlefield.
That having been said however, I feel like Blizzard is absolutely intent on giving Terran a unit that is "easy" to control come HOTS (specifically in the Terran versus Protoss matchup, which the Warhound is clearly aimed at). Historically, Terran has been underrepresented at the lower league levels. In comparison to Zerg or Protoss, most of their units require a relatively higher level of unit control in order to achieve the level of effectiveness around which they are generally balanced. For players lacking mechanical capacity, this becomes an issue.
Understandably, some people, myself included, do not like the idea of making Terran have an "easier to play" option just because Protoss/Zerg have one (or several), or just because lower level players struggle with the race. Unfortunately, such a move just seems to be in accordance with Blizzard's design philosophy for Starcraft 2, and hence why they will likely ultimately pursue it despite however much criticism the idea of the Warhound garners them.
Those are actually some good ideas right there. I remember earning points for completing the campaign, or warping in 10 units simultaneously or whatever and really thought this concept was underexplored. The 'cool' icons tend to be for tons of ladder victories, which put off the casual due to the inherent grind, plus it encourages portrait farming.
That kind of purely aesthetic customisation is pretty cool, having your own favoured unit models and the like. It's not quite getting to LoL with the microtransactions allowing you to buy hats, but it would give something else outside gameplay itself to appeal to folk.
|
On September 12 2012 09:01 -orb- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 07:04 Aragnis wrote:On September 12 2012 06:56 IntoTheWow wrote:
The problem with the warhound is not that it's ranged. The problem isn't ranged units themselves either (else he would be complaining about the marine, the reaver, the mutalisk, the lurker; which you see he clearly doesn't). From the original post (emphasis mine):
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).
Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant? You are not comprehending my sentence structure properly, or perhaps I did not word it distinctly enough for it to be obvious. As I understand your argument, you seem to be interpreting that paragraph as me having said that any ranged unit including marines is an attack move unit. This is not the case. I was saying the warhound is an attack move unit. Then in a separate sentence, I say that the only way you can micro them is the most basic form of ranged unit micro -- the target fire and hurt-unit-save. In that same sentence I then mention that this can already be said to be true for any possible ranged unit design. The point was that other units already have this simple micro; it exists everywhere. What sets some of the other, less offensive examples out is that they have more interesting micro ON TOP of focus firing/pullback, such as blinking, marine splitting, roach burrowing, etc. Hope this clears up the misunderstanding.
Yeah, I was looking at what you wrote, not what you meant. So when you said
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).
I thought you meant that any possible ranged unit design (including marines) could only have those simple forms of micro. Since that's what you said. The logic then went:
- The warhound is an attack move unit.
- By that, you mean "has no fancy micro".
- The only micro possible with a warhound is focusfire and pullback.
- Therefore, focusfire and pullback are not fancy.
- The only possible micro with any possible ranged unit design is focusfire and pullback.
- Therefore, all ranged units are attack move units.
I now understand your argument to be
- Warhounds have no fancy micro.
- You can only do basic ranged unit stuff with them: focusfire, pullback
- You can do basic ranged unit stuff with any ranged unit (kinda by definition)
- I don't know why I mentioned other ranged units at all, since that doesn't form part of my argument. But it sure made things less clear. I even managed to word things to say the opposite of what I meant - I equated warhounds to all other ranged units, when really I mean there are ranged units I like, but I hate warhounds. Why can't you just telepathically understand what I meant instead of reading my words?
- Therefore, warhounds have no fancy micro. And are boring. And are killing esports.
It's a bit of a stretch from "this unit is boring" to killing esports, but you managed to make it. Thanks for the clarification.
|
Great post Orb - 100% agree.
SC2 is still a great game, but man, I honestly think they really don't understand which aspects makes the game good. Without that knowledge, them adding terrible units is just not surprising at all. I mean, some of the new HOTS units are very interesting without a doubt (and props to them for that), however them making good units feels too much like 50/50 odds, and thats not good enough for an esports-centric game like SC.
|
basically it's the same with all units, but if you think so you are called an elitist jerk rofl.
|
On September 12 2012 08:13 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 08:08 Cloak wrote:On September 12 2012 07:44 LavaLava wrote:
I still haven't seen he fact addressed that if Stalkers had 220 HP and 20 DPS they would seem just as A-movey as the Warhound. That means it really is a balance issue. If Warhounds were weaker people would be making fewer of them, kiting, using missiles manually, etc. They're just overpowered, not badly designed. This is a good point. While theoretically balance is irrelevant to unit dynamics, the drive to consider optimal play is only strong when there's a reason to work for it. Right now they're cost-effective in all situations, no there's little drive to kite or position properly. The base dynamics will be unchanged, but the consequences of those dynamics won't manifest until balance is at least reasonable. there are units like that in the terran arsenal already. it still adds nothing to the game.
Yea, I loathe the unit. It could be the linchpin to making mech entirely different with some new mind blowing mechanic. Instead we get the Terran Roach.
|
Saw post was like ok may be than saw orb and said nope not worth it nerd them!
|
In theory, I agree with everything orb and others (including myself) have said about game design.
And yet, at least once a week, I go play a game of BW on BGH or Primeval Isles or something where all I'm doing is playing FFA vs 7 comps and carrier rushing. I know I'll win - like, it's almost impossible to lose, especially on the island maps - but it's still satisfying.
Not as satisfying as playing against a real person, or even as cool as watching Stork do impossible things with reavers, but the cheap thrill is there, and it's very real.
On the one hand, I hate the thought that all Blizzard is looking for is a game that runs on cheap thrills. On the other hand, is there a better product out there (not counting Brood War, since the Powers That Be seem determined to supplant it) that both matches even the easy-come vibe-ness of SC2 and counts as some sort of strategy game?
|
good read, rly enjoyed it.
Never played HotS but I can relate to what you wrote some bit.
Your post reminded me a bit of the post that said that HotS Terran Mech play isnt actually mech(because you play Warhounds like a bio-ball).
Also I had to think of the Colossus, lots of Protoss players were annoyed at how boring it is and that the race in general(but specifically the Colossus) has very few micro-opportunities.
|
It's also a lot less frustrating to lose to beautiful reaver micro than to a-moving collosi. As Zerg, I rarely lose against protoss thinking 'damn that guy played well.' It's always, 'damn I played too greedy (or not greedy enough) and could not counter his collosi gateway a-move.'
It's not that the game is imbalanced, it's just not very fun to play that way over long periods of time. It's the same damn mindset after every game, where small strategic decisions decide who wins the big battle and the game. I think it's the worst in PvZ because there is so little micro involved (don't tell me blink forward into Broodlord, Vortex, or Fungal counts as micro...) that the game has no longevity for the players and the viewers. At least PvT has some ghost v templar action and a lot of terran micro in general.
|
Going by this way of thinking Blizzard needs to redo almost all the units. Roaches, Maruaders, Colossus, Warhounds, It would make the game much better. I just don't see it happening Really good post though I love reavers too I miss them greatly!
|
Also fuck hero units. No unit should be so good that you can only make one. If you want units that are not useful in mass but good as support, design them that way...
|
Yeah, i am hoping for a unit that will end this deadball vs deadball thing. May be it will come with the last expandsion.
|
On September 12 2012 11:16 Steel wrote:
Also fuck hero units. No unit should be so good that you can only make one. If you want units that are not useful in mass but good as support, design them that way...
I'd like to say I tend to agree with this sentiment. If you compare the Arbiter to the Mothership, the arbiter is better in basically every way (speed, acceleration, cost, build time, food usage, and upgrade-able energy), and yet you could build as many as your supply would allow you. While this seems backwards to me (if you can only build one of something shouldn't it be more powerful than an exact counterpart that you can build effectively infinite of?), almost more appalling to me is the idea of a hero unit in Starcraft. It's something that never existed in Starcraft or Starcraft: Brood War because that just doesn't fit with the style of the game of building big armies to kill your opponent with. It has always struck me as utterly bizarre that Blizzard decided the best possible course of action was to put in a clunkier, gimmickier (not a real word?), and less attractive (intellectually -- archon toilet: really?) arbiter that you can only build one of. I feel like it would have been superior to either just give us the original (as it was one of the most badass units in the protoss race, probably only second to the dark archon imo) or at least come up with some creative and fun new abilities if you want to make it into a new unit. As it stands right now, recall is obviously the same, and there are obvious similarities between vortex and stasis. Against brood lords, for example, I feel they would accomplish pretty much the same thing (although they wouldn't stack the units for an archon toilet), as they would stop the brood lords from attacking and spawning broodlings and allow you to get under them, which is usually the hardest part.
A little off topic but it's another important topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
