|
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 share your sentiments. blizzard seems to be focusing more on the casual gamers and their feelings. make the game easier for them so more casual gamers will buy
|
On September 21 2012 21:53 AlmondCS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:33 R3demption wrote: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 share your sentiments. blizzard seems to be focusing more on the casual gamers and their feelings. make the game easier for them so more casual gamers will buy
you got the point. Actualy ca$h it's what really matter, not the quality.
|
On September 21 2012 22:31 BuffaloSoldier wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 21:53 AlmondCS wrote:On September 21 2012 04:33 R3demption wrote: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 share your sentiments. blizzard seems to be focusing more on the casual gamers and their feelings. make the game easier for them so more casual gamers will buy you got the point. Actualy ca$h it's what really matter, not the quality.
Funny how that backfired. Brood War sold 11 million copies. Starcraft 2 hasn't even gotten to half that. So developing for mass appeal obviously doesn't work.
Anyway, good video, I definitely agree with a lot you said. I think Blizzard should be far more radical in their changes and push towards making the game more dynamic, fun, and overall just a better gameplay experience. The numbers can come later! And like you said this beta is a perfect time to do some wild changes, just see how it goes. Remove the Marauder for a week. Swap the Roach and Hydralisk, etc. Just do some radical changes, there is NOTHING TO LOSE Blizzard! You've made a vast and complex, good game, no one decision should be taken as the final solution, experiment! Hell I think even having a separate WoL PTR style client where every couple of weeks they do some further tweaks with very radical changes to the game. If some of the changes draws people in and they like how it works and plays....why not put it into the actual game?
|
good video, blizz is being stubborn not bringing back mechanics and units from sc1, most of the design and mechanics in sc1 were genius, why not implement some of them instead of trying so hard to come up with something new and failing to satisfy, ie. warhound.
|
On September 20 2012 23:53 Big J wrote:
I did only watch up to 10mins, but I absolutly didn't want to watch any further, as I just completly disagree. Awesome gameplay is created by units that are balanced in ways so that they are used actively all the time.
Just using his examples:
Reaper: 5rax reaper was completly overpowered, but it was awesome to play with, awesome tense to watch and even playing against it, was in a way awesome, because it felt soooo good when you could beat it, while it was sooooo tense all the time.
What they did with the reaper was nerf it into an underpowered state. What they should have done, is BALANCE IT in a way that reapers would still get used! Find that sweetspot that creates tense gameplay, where most of the time a player will get an advantage of it, but not wins or loses straight up.
Tempest: it's a unit that shoots the opponent. Always (not anymore with 15range, but I'd hope it gets a little bit more again throughout the beta). If properly BALANCED. How does that not create tense moments? What the game needs is more units that can attack even if you don't allin.
The HotS units are some of the best ideas because if we look at them:
Oracle: fast harass unit; support unit for hit squads against fungal - introduces more active play
Tempest: long ranged unit; when properly used, it should shoot the opponent and force a reaction that is not "turtle harder) - introduces active play
MS Core: Allows Protoss to walk out on the map early; introduces active play
Swarm Host: Sends Units to the opponent from long range; Should always do that, because the unit should be safe itself. - introduces active play
Battle Hellion: allows the hellion to be a better combat unit if need be; producing more fast harass units means more active play.
Basically the only unit that is somewhat questionable in terms of more active play is the widow mine, as it could turn out that the best way to play against it would be to sit back and not move until you are ready to clear the map from minefields with a huge army (though for that the widow mine would have to be properly balanced first)
What blizzard needs to do, is balance units in ways so that they actually can do more stuff, even if the opponent turtles, while diminishing their all-in potential. In WoL, mostly just the 2nd one has been done.
It's not a question of design, if the reaper is overpowered. It's a question of "how close is the battle between reapers and the defender".
Completely disagree with you. Balance didn't seem to have much to do with the evolution of WoL imo.
From 2010 to now.
I really agree the game needs to be fun and they shouldn't be shy for trying anything even if its recycling units from bw. +1
|
In my opinion the key point is that Blizzard should start to try even crazier things out.
As in the video said they should just implement BW Units (reaver, lurker, goliath,...) to see the impacts. Later on they can decide. But Blizzard decides without showing us why and without testing it out.
|
this is amazing!
its so easy to get caught up in the balance issues but starcraft was fun for me before i had a clue how to properly play it. Just playing bgh with my buddies and all the amazing fun units are what makes sc such a fantastic game.
GLHF FILTERSC
|
Brood War = Chess
SC2 = Checkers
Chess is a very deep game, and once you get good at it, it can be alot of fun. Unfortunately, the average person does not like to play chess. However those who do, are long term players, and revel in strategic aspects of the game.
Alot more people play Checkers. Easy to learn and play.Exciting at first, but once you under stand the shallow mechanics of the game(basically not randomly moving pieces) people get bored very quickly, when they realize the lack of dynamic game-play(much like TicTacToe). And all the casuals want to do is simplify the game even more with "House-Rules"(Cheats). These simplification of a simple game irritate those who attempt to find the strategic depth of the game and thus these players leave, and then the normal casuals leave as a result of interest in a different game.
+ Show Spoiler + These are observation I noted while doing my community service at a summer camp. I actually wrote a paper on this. Though I can't find it T_T. It had to do with Business and the Psychology of instant gratification.
|
On September 22 2012 04:01 GinDo wrote:Brood War = Chess SC2 = Checkers Chess is a very deep game, and once you get good at it, it can be alot of fun. Unfortunately, the average person does not like to play chess. However those who do, are long term players, and revel in strategic aspects of the game. Alot more people play Checkers. Easy to learn and play.Exciting at first, but once you under stand the shallow mechanics of the game(basically not randomly moving pieces) people get bored very quickly, when they realize the lack of dynamic game-play(much like TicTacToe). And all the casuals want to do is simplify the game even more with "House-Rules"(Cheats). These simplification of a simple game irritate those who attempt to find the strategic depth of the game and thus these players leave, and then the normal casuals leave as a result of interest in a different game. + Show Spoiler + These are observation I noted while doing my community service at a summer camp. I actually wrote a paper on this. Though I can't find it T_T. It had to do with Business and the Psychology of instant gratification.
Awful analogy. Brood war is a game that benefits from deep strategic analysis, as well as brute-force development of mechanics. While chess doesn't have so much in the way of mechanics (analyzing the board quickly and accurately could maybe count), I can accept an analogy between chess and brood war.
SC2 has nothing in common with checkers. Checkers does not benefit from deep strategic analysis, since most of the strategy is surface-level and doesn't go very deep. Checkers benefits with casuals because there's only one "unit" on the board, with a second that can be made by kinging a piece. Ultimately, though, the general strategy of checkers is something that becomes apparent to you within a few games. If you play enough you might get to a better understanding, but not by a lot, because much of the strategy is so apparent.
SC2, like BW, is a game that benefits from deep strategic analysis (you could argue it benefits less than brood war, although I would be skeptical), but with lower mechanical requirements than brood war. This means that SC2 gets more casuals than brood war, because it doesn't take hours and hours of practice just to play the game somewhat properly, but the strategy is still fairly high-level and beyond the casual player. It has a big number of units in the game, which means casuals don't even know right off the bat what half the stuff in the game even is, and have to figure it out as they go. And the gap between a casual and high-level player is MASSIVE, where in checkers it is barely a gap at all.
TL;dr: If you want to say BW is chess and SC2 is a slightly modified chess with some of the more tedious difficulties of chess removed, sure. But the checkers analogy just doesn't make sense.
|
God, you cant be more correct about the marine problem.
Done a good job of summing up the real issue of AOE, deathball and the marines. I really hope the adjust something in the game following your ideas.
|
I completely agree. The gameplay of SC2 is fun but nowhere near as fun as SCBW was.
|
Great vid, I hope the HotS devs take notice of this...
|
I agree completely. Great video :D
|
Everyone with beta accounts - post this video on battle.net for staff!
|
The biggest problems with SC2:
1) Not enough strong area damage to shutdown death balls and encourage scrappy defenses and fights on multiple fronts
2) Bases require too many workers, develop too slowly, and become too important as a result of those two factors.
3) Due to #1 and #2 your mega bases need to be close and easily defended, meaning drops and harassment play are not very effective at all and require very little skill to respond to.
Most games are a snooze fest for 8-12 minutes, and then it's a never ending stalemate until one army completely obliterates the other almost instantly and unstoppably rams in to someone's base immediately after. There's certainly exceptions in some matchups where trades are common, but these are huge fundamental issues with the game compared to its predecessor.
Ideally, you'd benefit more from your initial few workers and require less on gas per base. You'd also want to take more bases, and defense/fights would be more complicated because being all grouped up would generally be a large disadvantage.
There are also unit issues in some matchups, but those aren't worth talking about because everyone is aware and talking about them. The expansion is also trying to fix that to some degree, and I'm sure the next one will too.
edit: I have a high masters T account and a high masters Z account. I do drop play all the time as T, and I tend to favor a more aggressive zerg playstyle. I've also been mid masters as random.
|
As a Zerg playing i honestly don't want Lukers. I feel like Swarmhosts are far more interesting. However i agree with the other unit examples. Goliaths, Change AI of Carriers, Revers.
Though, i would be disapointed if Lukers replaced Swarm Hosts.
|
On September 23 2012 01:51 JustPlay wrote:
The biggest problems with SC2:
1) Not enough strong area damage to shutdown death balls and encourage scrappy defenses and fights on multiple fronts
That's a really interesting way of looking at it. Instead making blizzards AI worse, so that units spread out. Just make AoE dmg more powerful to discourage the death balls.
|
You realize by that logic you would buff colossus.
|
bases require way too many workers, I agree. In sc2, if you want to have 4 bases saturated you'd need 88 workers, barely having anything left for a sizeable army (because everything has such high supply costs as well)....
With that many drones, I could saturate around 7 bases in brood war. And still have 112 hydras as an army.
|
On September 23 2012 03:32 GoldenH wrote:
You realize by that logic you would buff colossus. Do colossus ever die against ground units once you get up to ~5? Broodlings don't count. Maybe in PvP they do sometimes. In TvP if you go next to a high colossus count without a bunch of vikings you are asking to lose, even if you emp them, and in ZvP you use your corruptors or broods to handle it (usually with fungal as well.)
I'll be honest and say I don't like colossus. There is no soft counter in skillful play like there is against BW tanks. You need to reach for the hard counter or get slapped down unless your opponent plays colossally (ohohoho) stupid.
I have a similar opinion on the state of tanks. I'd much rather see them have their damage or rate of fire upped a bit but overkill returned.
Anyway, colossus likely wouldn't need to be buffed by that logic. They get stronger in numbers and fill the ground aoe role ridiculously well. You could redesign them to be stronger in smaller numbers but have diminishing returns as you get more, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
