|
On September 21 2012 04:33 R3demption wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 03:36 Lunker wrote:On September 21 2012 02:24 Kinaesthetic wrote:
I agree with most of what he said in his video, but that elitist crap he spews at around 6 - 7:30 almost nearly ruins his argument. All players need to be taken into account. All players as in every ladder level. I want to pull off stuff that's challenging for me. I've only reached gold league briefly, but I still like units that reward skill and attention. Just because a low level player can't do e.g. awesome marine splits doesn't mean they aren't taken into account. The problem with things that are easy to do is that they tend to make differences in skill less relevant than things that are hard to do. Marines are an example of a unit that's easy to use but can reward differences in skill, because you can do difficult stuff that greatly increases their effectiveness. I can do simple splits but they aren't nearly as effective as MarineKing's. The Reaver on it's own doesn't really feel difficult to use, but it's effectiveness keeps increasing as you get better at using it with the shuttle. I went back to 6:30 in the video. Blizz shouldn't completely ignore casuals, but there definitely shouldn't be an a-move unit that crushes tank lines by itself because that negates the effort put in by the tank player with a no effort action. Bad players should not be able to perform anywhere near the level of a good player. Simple as that. Its tough love, but if you really want to pull of a sick tactic then work on it. Dumbing down the game for lower level player to feel better will hurt everyone. Its not elitist its the truth. /signed a lowly diamond player
I agree completely. Making things too easy removes fun, and if I can't pull something off in my own games it's cool to watch. If theres something a pro can do that most players can't, removing that thing won't improve the game for lower level player since they weren't doing it anyway.
|
I agree 100%, it is so sad about the bad design of sc2, and that people like day9 keep saying it's good.
Casual players do not go "Oh look at that great game the pros played, I want to do that." They don't care about timing pushes or building placement. So the lower level design should just be about whoever macros the best and gets their army in the right place. All that other stuff is what should be design at a high level, and Blizzard can't do that in their meetings, only pros can, on the playing field, and more options for protoss and zerg at every stage of the game, scouting too, will only make the game better, instead of having to sacrifice things that make for a better game just so you can survive that stupid early game all-in.
|
I agree with this video and urge Blizzard to listen to it. As a matter of fact just hire this guy.
|
hey this is good. ill definitely buy Hots if they put these in. idc if its imba. they can fix that. but reavers, unit unclump. goliath. lurkers. sounds awesome!
|
On September 21 2012 01:19 mage36 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 01:00 baba1 wrote:On September 21 2012 00:07 Jermstuddog wrote:
1) The Marine.
I have hated this unit since day 1, and I have offered a simple solution to it's broken numbers for at least a year now. -5hp. That's it. Filter brings up the mechanic of unit spread during movement and I think this moreso adds to the power of the marine rather than takes away from it. Marines having the highest DPS per cost in the game isn't as much of an issue as their extreme cost-effectiveness is. The cost-effectiveness comes from their tankiness, not their damage output.
Bio was non-existant in BW TvP not because Tanks and Vultures were awesome, but because Marines simply died too damn fast. They did great damage, but 1 small mistake and the whole game was over. This is why mech was the standard in that MU and the late-game standard for every MU.
Marines doing great damage is fine. Marines having 55 hp, being able to tank Zealots, Banelings, Archons, and Siege Tanks is not. Marines need to be squishier for the health of the game and the Terran race specifically, they are currently too good in WoL and need to be addressed in a direct manner. IMO, this unit is responsible for 90% of the balance problems in SC2 right now because it is too powerful and artificially inflates the power of the other races units simply because they need ways to deal with the Marine.
I just wanted to say that I cant agree more about the marine. As far as I know, the Zerglings stayed the same number wise as in BW (Except for Adrenal glands I guess is a nerf) and the same can be said about the zealot (Except for charge is also a nerf). Then comes the marine. Free +5 HP. Upgradable +10 HP. Dont need to upgrade range anymore, they come with it. I mean... at this point, why make an upgrade for an already shitty unit like the Hydralisk so it gets +1 range when the marines come with it? Makes no sense, either give the Hydras their free range like the marines or have the marines have to upgrade their range to have 5. And for the free 5 HP buff, it makes EVERYTHING less good against the marine. They never needed it, it was a free buff probably because it was the Terran expasion or because Browder just felt like marines are cool or something... The reason why marines got the buff is because healing them came later in the game. Because of that, they were ok at the beginning but are really powerful at the point medivacs come out. They also got a plus one to dmg, btw. Zealots got a 1 armor but shields were reduced by 10 compared to BW.
Pretty damn sure the marines always did 6 dmg.
Also pretty damn sure the zealots had 1 base armor in BW.
So the marine is the only base unit that got buffed and not nerfed, they must feel pretty good.
|
On September 21 2012 07:06 baba1 wrote:
Pretty damn sure the marines always did 6 dmg.
Also pretty damn sure the zealots had 1 base armor in BW.
So the marine is the only base unit that got buffed and not nerfed, they must feel pretty good.
Been a while since I played BW but I believe a big part of why SC2 marine is so darn good is because its kiting is practically a moving shot. Imagine if marine was kind of like the hellion where there is a big delay between stopping to a halt and firing. It would be nowhere as good as it is now.
|
On September 21 2012 07:24 babyToSS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:06 baba1 wrote:
Pretty damn sure the marines always did 6 dmg.
Also pretty damn sure the zealots had 1 base armor in BW.
So the marine is the only base unit that got buffed and not nerfed, they must feel pretty good.
Been a while since I played BW but I believe a big part of why SC2 marine is so darn good is because its kiting is practically a moving shot. Imagine if marine was kind of like the hellion where there is a big delay between stopping to a halt and firing. It would be nowhere as good as it is now.
This is true, and a big part of the reason I have such a problem with the bonus HP they gave the marine in SC2.
Marine micro is a high-skill mechanic and as such encourages better play on both sides. The Terran executing the micro needs to be quick and accurate to do so properly and the Protoss/Zerg on the other side needs to manage the engagement properly to limit the effectiveness of the technique. The very core of Marine micro is what makes competitive gaming fun and interesting; it has become a defining feature of competitive SC2 and as such, should not be touched.
The 5 bonus HP Blizzard saw fit to give Marines way back in beta has turned the unit into a powerhouse that has tilted every single MU involving Terran into a race against Marine production. This has proven problematic for SC2 balance since release, and is ruining the game IMO.
Marines need to have their health specifically nerfed and no other aspect because it keeps the unit useful in the high-level way that it is already useful while toning down the cost-effectiveness as the game continues on.
Terran ALSO needs a higher-tech alternative to marine play. The role that the Goliath filled in BW and I think the Ghost/Thor was SUPPOSED to fill in SC2. Unfortunately, one of these units has been nerfed into oblivion and the other never truly filled it's role in the first place.
|
Well stated video  It's simple...Blizzards needs to add fun units/abilities and remove boring ones. And there are a lot of the latter... They are so obsessed with one-deminsion balancing that the game is spiraling down hill. We need units with weaknesses...units that emphasis positioning over speed. We need to re-examing stupid a-move units like roach/immortal/archon/marauder/thor/colossi and ask why have such well rounded simplistic a-move units? Fast units with good range and hp create deathballs and build order wins that are more aking to rock-paper-scissors than a proper strategy game. So easy to fix...is this fun? Is this not fun? Is it natural that terran always goes vs protoss: marauder/marine > medivac > viking > ghost. Or vs zerg, hellion harass into drop ship harass into a big timing attack before the zerg spirals out of control. Or PvP always goes 4gate if the choke is too big...mass colossi almost every other game? Why is it so acceptable that the game is so predictable? With the right thought process SC2 could evolve leaps and bounds from where it is now which will never happen 
|
On September 21 2012 07:24 babyToSS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:06 baba1 wrote:
Pretty damn sure the marines always did 6 dmg.
Also pretty damn sure the zealots had 1 base armor in BW.
So the marine is the only base unit that got buffed and not nerfed, they must feel pretty good.
Been a while since I played BW but I believe a big part of why SC2 marine is so darn good is because its kiting is practically a moving shot. Imagine if marine was kind of like the hellion where there is a big delay between stopping to a halt and firing. It would be nowhere as good as it is now.
Actually marines are so strong because you can have 50 in one control group and move them around and micro them very easily. in BW you had medics in with your marines so you had to control 2-3 control groups to make them effective. Unlimited selection makes everything so damn easy.
|
On September 21 2012 08:31 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:24 babyToSS wrote:On September 21 2012 07:06 baba1 wrote:
Pretty damn sure the marines always did 6 dmg.
Also pretty damn sure the zealots had 1 base armor in BW.
So the marine is the only base unit that got buffed and not nerfed, they must feel pretty good.
Been a while since I played BW but I believe a big part of why SC2 marine is so darn good is because its kiting is practically a moving shot. Imagine if marine was kind of like the hellion where there is a big delay between stopping to a halt and firing. It would be nowhere as good as it is now. Actually marines are so strong because you can have 50 in one control group and move them around and micro them very easily. in BW you had medics in with your marines so you had to control 2-3 control groups to make them effective. Unlimited selection makes everything so damn easy.
True but in BW the marine had to stand still while shooting so stuff like lurkers vs stim bio was pretty balanced and microing marines against lurkers was really difficult. Honestly I don't think lurkers would be that in SC2 TvZ because how quickly a good player can spread+focus with marines. It will force scans/detection from terran but baneling mines already accomplish that.
@ Jermstuddog: Any terran who has spent enough time playing his race knows that the marine is ridiculously good. I have been playing WoL since beta and back then the marine was so good that any tech+marine all-in was broken esp on the beta maps. Blizz answer back then was to nerf terran tech options around the marine. Now the game has developed to a point where marine centric armies backed by strong mechanics are the best terran late game has to offer.
This is fine for Korean terrans (I guess? Although I doubt anyone enjoys the feeling of using marines against storm/colo or infestor comps) but a lot of macro terrans are obviously frustrated with the late game esp. those of use who enjoyed the positional siege based mech play which is pretty much absent from WoL and things don't look good for HoTS either. For now its just grinding games and improving mechanics, but it wouldn't hurt Blizz to throw a bone or two our way.
|
On September 21 2012 08:50 babyToSS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 08:31 SigmaoctanusIV wrote:On September 21 2012 07:24 babyToSS wrote:On September 21 2012 07:06 baba1 wrote:
Pretty damn sure the marines always did 6 dmg.
Also pretty damn sure the zealots had 1 base armor in BW.
So the marine is the only base unit that got buffed and not nerfed, they must feel pretty good.
Been a while since I played BW but I believe a big part of why SC2 marine is so darn good is because its kiting is practically a moving shot. Imagine if marine was kind of like the hellion where there is a big delay between stopping to a halt and firing. It would be nowhere as good as it is now. Actually marines are so strong because you can have 50 in one control group and move them around and micro them very easily. in BW you had medics in with your marines so you had to control 2-3 control groups to make them effective. Unlimited selection makes everything so damn easy. True but in BW the marine had to stand still while shooting so stuff like lurkers vs stim bio was pretty balanced and microing marines against lurkers was really difficult. Honestly I don't think lurkers would be that in SC2 TvZ because how quickly a good player can spread+focus with marines. It will force scans/detection from terran but baneling mines already accomplish that. @ Jermstuddog: Any terran who has spent enough time playing his race knows that the marine is ridiculously good. I have been playing WoL since beta and back then the marine was so good that any tech+marine all-in was broken esp on the beta maps. Blizz answer back then was to nerf terran tech options around the marine. Now the game has developed to a point where marine centric armies backed by strong mechanics are the best terran late game has to offer. This is fine for Korean terrans (I guess? Although I doubt anyone enjoys the feeling of using marines against storm/colo or infestor comps) but a lot of macro terrans are obviously frustrated with the late game esp. those of use who enjoyed the positional siege based mech play which is pretty much absent from WoL and things don't look good for HoTS either. For now its just grinding games and improving mechanics, but it wouldn't hurt Blizz to throw a bone or two our way.
I will readily admit that both sides of Terran are broken. The Marine is too good, but there is also a huge lack of ANYTHING ELSE. Blizz really should address this huge problem in the game.
|
Agreed with most of the things in the video. Especially that gameplay should always come before balance. Lets face it, a colossus is not fun to play with, its not fun to play against either. That is an example of a unit that has bad game design. And most people would agree that removing it (and adding something with a similar role, like reaver) would be for the best.
As I only played customs in BW; did BW have any "hard counter" units? (like the colossus is to the marine, immortal to roach etc)
|
On September 21 2012 09:12 Millet wrote:
Agreed with most of the things in the video. Especially that gameplay should always come before balance. Lets face it, a colossus is not fun to play with, its not fun to play against either. That is an example of a unit that has bad game design. And most people would agree that removing it (and adding something with a similar role, like reaver) would be for the best.
As I only played customs in BW; did BW have any "hard counter" units? (like the colossus is to the marine, immortal to roach etc)
y the mutalisk is the hard counter to zealot.
in all seriousness: no.
|
I agree with the overall philosophy gameplay first, balance second, but the examples in the video are just bad. I get the feeling that the author does not understand what he is talking about.
If anything, ToHS is already introducing several great concepts from the gameplay point of view, and I I'm liking it much more than WoL.
|
On September 21 2012 09:12 Millet wrote:
As I only played customs in BW; did BW have any "hard counter" units? (like the colossus is to the marine, immortal to roach etc)
Sure, in this respect BW is the same in comparison to SC2. In BW hts and reavers counter marines even harder than colossus. That is why you rarely see marines in BW TvP past some early games. The only difference in BW is that some units can be microed better to increase their potential both to counter even harder (good storms in BW are much harder to pull off than in SC2, but BW storms hard counter even more things) or to reduce hard countering (i.e. microless vultures are hard countered by dragoones, but proper mine micro can make gragoones less of a counter).
Both SC2 and BW are very similar in respect that they have many hard counters, but BW engine/design allows for more interesting positional and micro-intensive play that can sometimes mitigate this hard-countering aspect or make it even stronger (to the point that many units in BW are not used at all in some match-ups).
I feel that HoTS makes things better. However more micro potential in HoTS is always appreciated.
|
On September 21 2012 09:12 Millet wrote:
Agreed with most of the things in the video. Especially that gameplay should always come before balance. Lets face it, a colossus is not fun to play with, its not fun to play against either. That is an example of a unit that has bad game design. And most people would agree that removing it (and adding something with a similar role, like reaver) would be for the best.
As I only played customs in BW; did BW have any "hard counter" units? (like the colossus is to the marine, immortal to roach etc)
Firebat vs zergling, scourge vs battlecruiser/carrier, corsair/valkyrie vs muta are the only ones I can think of where a unit was designed specifically to counter another unit. In practice, none of these could be said to be hard counters thanks to micro and the spread out nature of brood war battles.
|
Of course, only Firebat Hero built Firebats, and even then only one. It'd be like if SC2 had a guy called Colossus Hero, and only built one..
|
10387 Posts
On September 21 2012 10:29 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:12 Millet wrote:
Agreed with most of the things in the video. Especially that gameplay should always come before balance. Lets face it, a colossus is not fun to play with, its not fun to play against either. That is an example of a unit that has bad game design. And most people would agree that removing it (and adding something with a similar role, like reaver) would be for the best.
As I only played customs in BW; did BW have any "hard counter" units? (like the colossus is to the marine, immortal to roach etc) Firebat vs zergling, scourge vs battlecruiser/carrier, corsair/valkyrie vs muta are the only ones I can think of where a unit was designed specifically to counter another unit. In practice, none of these could be said to be hard counters thanks to micro and the spread out nature of brood war battles.
Firebat vs Zergling depended on the numbers, and whether or not Zerg could get a good surround on it or not. Mass firebats were not the norm anyways lol
Battlecruisers in critical mass actually destroyed scourge, since they would one-shot them. Carriers would have a problem against scourge, but were often accompanied by sairs to block that. Scourge weren't really "designed" to be hardcounters to those units anyways lol
Corsairs and Valks destroyed mutas when they achieved critical mass, but doing so was not exactly easy or common to do (at least with the Valks, mass Corsair play being the norm is a fairly new development). Plus, there are a LOOOT of games where progamers take out Corsair fleets w/ some awesome Muta/Scourge micro .. similar w/ Valks too
I mean, hardcounters can exist, but there needs to be a room for micro potential. So I totally support the idea/concept of this thread
|
Although I agree with most of what he said, I think we really need to give up hope and stop wasting time trying to get Blizzard to bring back any broodwar units. It is just not going to happen. They would be admitting to failure if they did that and clearly that is not something Blizzard likes to do. Instead lets encourage them to bring in units similar to broodwar, like they are already doing. The swarm host is basically a lurker, the viper is basically a defiler and the widow mine is basically a spider mine. Now if they could go ahead and just bring in something like a Reaver and something like a Goliath, we should be set for a good expansion. (And no, the Oracle is not like a Reaver. The Oracle looks like it is going to be a very boring unit. Except for maybe the Phase Shift thing)
What really concerns me is how come it takes Blizzard so long to realise the Warhound was broken? What kind of internal testing are they doing with these unit concepts they come up with? I mean any SC2 player, from Bronze to GM could see that the Warhound was not only incredibly boring, but also very overpowered. The fact that it made it into closed beta testing really worries me.
|
On September 21 2012 15:24 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 10:29 red4ce wrote:On September 21 2012 09:12 Millet wrote:
Agreed with most of the things in the video. Especially that gameplay should always come before balance. Lets face it, a colossus is not fun to play with, its not fun to play against either. That is an example of a unit that has bad game design. And most people would agree that removing it (and adding something with a similar role, like reaver) would be for the best.
As I only played customs in BW; did BW have any "hard counter" units? (like the colossus is to the marine, immortal to roach etc) Firebat vs zergling, scourge vs battlecruiser/carrier, corsair/valkyrie vs muta are the only ones I can think of where a unit was designed specifically to counter another unit. In practice, none of these could be said to be hard counters thanks to micro and the spread out nature of brood war battles. Firebat vs Zergling depended on the numbers, and whether or not Zerg could get a good surround on it or not. Mass firebats were not the norm anyways lol Battlecruisers in critical mass actually destroyed scourge, since they would one-shot them. Carriers would have a problem against scourge, but were often accompanied by sairs to block that. Scourge weren't really "designed" to be hardcounters to those units anyways lol Corsairs and Valks destroyed mutas when they achieved critical mass, but doing so was not exactly easy or common to do (at least with the Valks, mass Corsair play being the norm is a fairly new development). Plus, there are a LOOOT of games where progamers take out Corsair fleets w/ some awesome Muta/Scourge micro .. similar w/ Valks too I mean, hardcounters can exist, but there needs to be a room for micro potential. So I totally support the idea/concept of this thread
By 'design' I meant what the original developers were thinking of back in 1998. Obviously BW evolved in an infinite number of ways the development team could never have imagined, leading to BW effectively having no de facto hard counters. Regarding scourge I actually would say that they were specifically envisioned as a capital ship counter. Strategy guides from those days specifically recommended using scourge against BC/Carrier. Scourge dealing 110 damage had to have been a deliberate decision made so that scourge could 5 shot BC/carrier while not being able to 1-shot smaller air units. Thus (again, in theory) it was much more cost efficient to use your scourge against capital ships than small/medium flyers. Of course in practice capital ships were never made against zerg anyways except in BGH so scourge were primarily anti muta/sair/observer/dropship/science vessel, but I highly doubt the original devs saw that coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
