EPTSome people like it, some don't. The general view of people who do like it is something like "It's a new and interesting harassment method which doesn't kill workers. Just as blizzard intended. It just needs to be balanced". I disagree with this notion on the grounds that it is not an interesting harassment option and no amount of balancing will make it interesting, the core design of the spell is flawed.
Making features in a good esport is like picking a good Dota2 line-up. Every feature of a feature in the game needs to satisfy a particular role in order for it to be successful. The first feature that im concerned with is re-playability. Just like how the carry of a Dota2 team will ensure their victory in the long run, re-playability will ensure an esport's success in the long run.
Instead of writing an extra hundred words explaining this concept, i will thank the pro gamer Orb for doing this for me instead. Thanks Orb!
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote:
The inherent problem here is the idea of replayability. When a game is too easy, it is fun the first couple times and then completely loses its charm and gets boring. I love Portal to death, but once you understand the puzzles and what you are supposed to do, it is so easy upon playing a second time through that it is just not fun or worth the time anymore. In order for video games to continue being played for years instead of taking the route of pretty much every single EA title, they need to have some inherent difficulty that is not knowledge based (because anything that's only difficult because you don't know what to do will no longer be difficult once you understand the solution). This is where execution and tactics in Starcraft come in. If the game was only strategy and no tactics, it would get boring extremely quickly and there is no way it would be an esport. It's the simple difficulty of executing a tricky task that makes playing starcraft so fun no matter how many times you have already played it. The problem with Blizzard's design philosophy is that it overestimates the pros of low-difficulty, and underestimates the pros of high-difficulty.
Low difficulty mechanics
Pros: Newbies get less frustrated because there are less things to mess up.
Cons: These same newbies get bored quickly because there is nothing exciting to do (as all the excitement died after the first couple times executing something so easy). Esports is delegitimized and experiences more variance due to a lower skill cap and less opportunities for pros to excel. 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). The game does not last nearly as long in popularity because there are no inherently rewarding things to do.
High difficulty mechanics
Pros: Newbies get inspired to actually spend time playing the game 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 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 (don't believe me? Just look at the olympics... pro sports... BROOD WAR). The game's shelf life is extended tremendously due to the increased enjoyment in replayability.
Cons: Newbies get more frustrated because they cannot perform tactics they see professionals use upon first try and must actually spend some modicum of time practicing.
The inherent problem here is the idea of replayability. When a game is too easy, it is fun the first couple times and then completely loses its charm and gets boring. I love Portal to death, but once you understand the puzzles and what you are supposed to do, it is so easy upon playing a second time through that it is just not fun or worth the time anymore. In order for video games to continue being played for years instead of taking the route of pretty much every single EA title, they need to have some inherent difficulty that is not knowledge based (because anything that's only difficult because you don't know what to do will no longer be difficult once you understand the solution). This is where execution and tactics in Starcraft come in. If the game was only strategy and no tactics, it would get boring extremely quickly and there is no way it would be an esport. It's the simple difficulty of executing a tricky task that makes playing starcraft so fun no matter how many times you have already played it. The problem with Blizzard's design philosophy is that it overestimates the pros of low-difficulty, and underestimates the pros of high-difficulty.
Low difficulty mechanics
Pros: Newbies get less frustrated because there are less things to mess up.
Cons: These same newbies get bored quickly because there is nothing exciting to do (as all the excitement died after the first couple times executing something so easy). Esports is delegitimized and experiences more variance due to a lower skill cap and less opportunities for pros to excel. 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). The game does not last nearly as long in popularity because there are no inherently rewarding things to do.
High difficulty mechanics
Pros: Newbies get inspired to actually spend time playing the game 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 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 (don't believe me? Just look at the olympics... pro sports... BROOD WAR). The game's shelf life is extended tremendously due to the increased enjoyment in replayability.
Cons: Newbies get more frustrated because they cannot perform tactics they see professionals use upon first try and must actually spend some modicum of time practicing.
I have used Entomb according to Blizzard's design and intent, and tbh, using Entomb and remembering to re-Entomb was trivially easy. Fly in and avoid any anti air, hit your Entomb hotkey and click, fly out. Remember to Entomb every 3 in-game minutes. That easy, especially considering how fast oracles move. Wheres the re-playability in this?
The second feature that I'm concerned with is the pro level entertainment value such as when you're watching MLG. This actually closely ties in with re-playability. Why are we impressed by such things as reaver/corsair micro in BW and marine micro in SC2? Because these features have insanely high skill caps, we're simply impressed and dumbfounded of how the pros can do that so perfectly. This isn't however adding in a high skill cap for the sake of a high skill cap, Blizzard can add in a feature that you can only select 5 units at a time, but how much would this add to the entertainment value? not much. This leads to my next point.
Harassment options need to feel like a serious threat.
lets say the Oracle is now a ground unit with Reaver level movement speed, you now have to use it with the Warp Prism when harassing. Lets also make it so that you have to cast Entomb on each mineral patch individually too. Imagine this. Wow, that must take an insane amount of skill to pull off, but is this any more exciting than before? more or less so. One would say that this is just adding skill for the sake of skill.
How come this image of the Entomb or the current version of Entomb doesn't have that excitement and entertainment value like other harassment options?
Entomb doesn't feel like a significant threat. How come we shit out pants when we see Banelings run into a mineral line or when someone executes the perfect storm drop? Or even when those Banelings don't hit, and when that storm doesn't even kill a single worker, our heart rate increases the moment we see it coming because its a real threat that can do huge damage. Even harassment options such as Phoenix harass still has that impact since its doing noticeable damage that the viewer can see.
Entomb currently just does not have this, it feels like a spell that does small chunks of harassment over time. Even if it was balanced to the point where it stopped mining for much longer period, and did huge damage. Entomb still won't have that impact like other harassment options. This is because to the viewer, not much has happened. Its like showing a spreadsheet of lost minerals to the viewer caused by the entomb.
Combined with the very low skill cap, a blunt way of putting it would be "Entomb is a boring harassment option".
I also disagree with the point that "entomb is a new method of harassment".
Lets look at what entomb really is, It is a spell that prevents/slows down income. There are ways in SC2 that this is already present. Such as force fields or even a vortex in a mineral line. If you look back to BW, this was also present, one thing the A.I. did was use Ensare onto a mineral line.
In essence, all these harassment options are the same as an Entomb. But the one thing that sets it apart is MICRO, you can micro out of getting hit by an Ensare, or getting hit by a Vortex but you cant micro out of Entomb. (A-moving into entombed minerals is the lowest possible form of micro in Starcraft)
Lets go back to "It is a spell that prevents/slows down income". All other forms of harassment already does this. A storm drop will force you to pull away workers, which slows down your mining. The only difference is that a storm drop has that special impact while casting Entomb onto a mineral line doesn't.
Entomb is currently a one man Dota2 team, the only feature it has is being a harassment option for the sake of being a harassment option. I believe the excitement in Starcraft 2 comes from the two opposing sides slaughtering each other, and what gives harassment options that special impact is indeed killing workers. I think Blizzard's intent of designing a harassment option without killing workers is flawed. I strongly believe that the current core design of Entomb does not have a place in esports.
EDIT:
The SC2 dev team at Blizzard are now seriously considering to cut Entomb (and Void Siphon) and replace them with new, more spectator friendly spells.
1. We agree with our community that Entomb is not a spectator friendly ability
2. We'd like to replace Entomb [and void siphon] with a different ability
and the new replacement spells of the oracle will be along the lines of...
Spell 2: Strong, repeatable harassing tool that has different degrees of success and makes good use of the fragile but fast movement speed of the Oracle.
Spell 3: Position dependent spell, combo with harassment spell, and/or support spell of some sorts.
Basically they seem to be trying to make the oracle into both a support harasser to make other harassment options more viable and a solo harasser. Just a good all round harassment/scouting specialized unit.
What's your opinion on the new direction that the oracle is heading in?
