|
I don't agree with the assumption, nor the method.
I actually agree with you that the split is the result of design changes. The point is that it is weakening the scene as is, and that we and Blizzard can change it.
So to adress the problem of design changes, you create a mod which purpose is to change design ?
The real issue with Starcraft is simple : the way balance was thought and is being executed as a philosophy (and depending of the type of game, RTS). They have decided that they will not add thing to correct it but re-design - every nerf/bug is a re-design.
As you said, this creates a particular effect of motion for something that is supposed to have clear rules (like sports). That's why the community is both split and dynamic. This is in fact a paradox : motion of something that must stay still.
The infestor is the perfect example : the more we talk about it, the more versions of it exist, the more the game lose its place as sacred in our heart. Is there anyone on TL that doesn't have something to say concerning infestors ?
Think about this : imbalance doesn't exist in sports. Why ? Because this imbalance is confined to the players ! You could precisely say that Messi is imba, for example. E-sports' problem of balance comes from this interaction between human/machine/maths interaction.
|
I don't think you have differentiated design from balance...
|
|
|
This is easily one of the best things that ever happened to tl & the sc2 community. GJ and keep it alive!
|
I don't think you have differentiated design from balance...
Because i did not feel i had to. Every act that implies balancing implies re-designing, and by that, i mean a modification of the previous design, that is, conception, of the game.
Yes, when you change a single number, you create a whole new design (in the way i use the word).
I don't know how you would use it, perhaps as a way to describe the graphic form of a unit ?
I loved your posts on identities in SC2 compared to BW, really. But i feel this one lacks analysis for what concerns the definition of E-sport as a variation of sport.
The difference between both could be defined - to take an enormous shortcut - and reduced to this : in sports, there are only mirror MU (metaphor). That's why i love them on SC 2 : this is a pure matter of skill and no one would whine about imbalance (where the split starts) in this case. They could express how much they hate the metagame in ZvZ, but this is not imbalance. This is, in sport, the same as the tactics used by coaches, which can be boring as hell or making some teams look more attractive due to this metagame phenomenon.
So in classic sports, community will split between players or teams, maybe because of metagame sometimes (they won't like the way their team plays), but will not try every day to discuss if the limits of the playground should be re-designed, etc.
So SC2 is about two people, one of them fighting with a classic sword, the other with a katana. What i want to say is that i don't discover anything new, but this problem is related to the nature of SC2. There will always be a doubt regarding the skill of the players, because the tools are not the same. So there will always be people who want to change it as a way to precisely establish a perfect comparison between players. This is impossible.
What you want to do is different, you want to design a new game, that, in your mind, respects more the "philosophy" of Starcraft universe and races than SC2. Well, good luck with that, and i will like to play your mod, really. But this is a new game, and the perfect example for what I said.
There are two ways to use a tool : adapt to it and let its essence determine your actions, develop a new one that will adapt to your way and which essence is determined by your thinking.
Your mod belongs to the second way. You developed the bow when you saw you had to use a sword. I will not criticize this, but it highly contributes to what you want to solve : the community spliting.
Never forget that each one of us has its own version of the infestor in mind, each one. It's quite similar to the process of revolutions when I think about it. An infinite number of constitutions in their head, yet one to be chosen. If not ? Well, let's split in as much pieces as there are constitutions...Again, i won't judge this.
|
Is there any chance you could update the OP with some more details on the changes you plan on testing, or are you waiting for more suggestions before throwing out numbers?
Maybe you could reserve some space for a page with replays, which I think is the most important part of this project: Showing the results of our ideas in-game to both Blizzard and the rest of the playerbase.
Also, is anybody here actually planning on doing testing when the map comes out? Feels like there's a whole lot of "oh hey nice thread, ho hum buildin mah post count  " in this thread already...would be nice to know if there's some real support out there =/
|
couldn't really find myself agreeing with your controversial statement. even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Nevertheless well written and I do agree with the rest of your article.
|
I have been talking with the gentleman behind Starbow. I have followed that mod since its first iterations.
|
As one of the members of this team, I can say that--though Starbow is quite well designed--it doesn't quite accomplish what we're doing here. Starbow has shaped itself around the idea of "Brood War 1.5", as opposed to StarCraft II. With the inclusion of units such as the Dark Archon, the Reaver, Widow Mines, and Lurkers, it is like a second expansion to StarCraft vanilla with a graphics overhaul (Not a bad thing--like I said, I find it quite enjoyable).
We're trying to shape StarCraft II into the unit balance and interactions that it should have come with in the first place, instead of the stale match-ups and binary unit interactions that we have now. Stuff like the Mothership's Vortex, the Infestor's Fungal Growth, and the Thor's clunkiness and supply intensity are being worked with to provide a better dynamic and a more entertaining--and exciting--gameplay and observer experience.
|
On November 21 2012 15:05 topsecret221 wrote:As one of the members of this team, I can say that--though Starbow is quite well designed--it doesn't quite accomplish what we're doing here. Starbow has shaped itself around the idea of "Brood War 1.5", as opposed to StarCraft II. With the inclusion of units such as the Dark Archon, the Reaver, Widow Mines, and Lurkers, it is like a second expansion to StarCraft vanilla with a graphics overhaul (Not a bad thing--like I said, I find it quite enjoyable). We're trying to shape StarCraft II into the unit balance and interactions that it should have come with in the first place, instead of the stale match-ups and binary unit interactions that we have now. Stuff like the Mothership's Vortex, the Infestor's Fungal Growth, and the Thor's clunkiness and supply intensity are being worked with to provide a better dynamic and a more entertaining--and exciting--gameplay and observer experience.
Top hits the nail on the head. For better and worse, we need to work within the framework of Starcraft 2. This means that we can't straight up remove a unit and replace it with something we know works like the Lurker. Blizzard simply won't implement it. Practicality aside, I would much rather bring the dynamics of Brood War forward in new units that function with an updated UI, pathing, ect.
|
On November 21 2012 11:05 Ooshmagoosh wrote:Is there any chance you could update the OP with some more details on the changes you plan on testing, or are you waiting for more suggestions before throwing out numbers? Maybe you could reserve some space for a page with replays, which I think is the most important part of this project: Showing the results of our ideas in-game to both Blizzard and the rest of the playerbase. Also, is anybody here actually planning on doing testing when the map comes out? Feels like there's a whole lot of "oh hey nice thread, ho hum buildin mah post count " in this thread already...would be nice to know if there's some real support out there =/
We are working on a master article detailing the changes we have made and why we have made them. We are a month into actual testing, so numbers have a bit more definition, but we still have a long ways to go.
|
One of the best theards I have read the last time.
I agree to almost all your points and I hope that, with this written in a good english, more people will think about this and really improve starcraft!
But I am also very confused, because this theard is not hyped in any way, so please take this serious, it is a good start to change something in the right direction and not just flaming and whining all the time.
Greetz
|
On November 21 2012 23:18 Fibbz wrote:
But I am also very confused, because this theard is not hyped in any way, so please take this serious, it is a good start to change something in the right direction and not just flaming and whining all the time.
We're going to take this as seriously as we can manage. We can't really hype this specific thread beyond ItWhoSpeak's reputation from his Race Identity threads a little while back, but we're working on other methods of media. Once the game is closer to a final, playable state, we will start working on teasers, trailers, and eventually getting larger community figures to acknowledge us, if not assist us.
We're dedicated, and we should be making some serious progress in the coming months 
|
Hopefully, we will have something out in the next few days for you all.
|
Search One Voice In the Custom Games Lobby (not the arcade). One Voice PTR CloudKingdom and Ohana are now up.
IWS, Do you have a chat channel already up for this, or do we(the people) just use the default ones?
|
I don't agree with most of your changes - specifically Protoss (as these are changes I have thought about most in my time on TL - being Protoss myself). I am also not sure about this initiative to constantly feedback suggested changes on a weekly basis. I think this a terrible idea, as it's little more than an arena for the implementation of (usually ) all kinds of "whine of the week" ideas. The game will never settle sufficiently for real development with that kind of never-ending adjustment.
I do, however, respect your passion and dedication to the game. So, I do wish you well in your endeavour.
If they do lead to a better SC2, then I will be pleasantly, and happily, surprised. Good luck.
|
I could give less of shit about the community and esports. What SC2 needs is more interesting gameplay to keep it fun. Its way too stale right now, at least on release people were figuring things out. Now there is basically nothing left to do. The game just doesn't have a high enough skill cap. At the highest levels most matchups are still borefests, there is absolutely nothing special about watching the best play, because they best players have no way to show how much better they are than everyone.
Watching someone like Flash play BroodWar you could stare in awe at how good he is. You could try to copy one aspect of his play and not even come close to doing it like him. Try doing the same in SC2 and you realize you can copy his entire build order nearly perfectly and do the same timing pushes with ease. There is no "wow factor". The worst part is every patch since the beta has been steadily lowering the skill cap. Remember when Reaper micro mattered? It was a spectacle watching the pros kite Roaches and Queens to death. Remember when you tried to do it and embarrassingly lost all your Reapers?
|
On November 25 2012 07:29 Doominator10 wrote:
Search One Voice In the Custom Games Lobby (not the arcade). One Voice PTR CloudKingdom and Ohana are now up.
IWS, Do you have a chat channel already up for this, or do we(the people) just use the default ones?
You need to stick a big fat red announcement on the top of your thread that tells everybody this.
|
I have the same concerns as aZealout.
While the client-side PTR would totally help with testing those changes, does the game really need to go through that many changes so often? Basically, we're saying that each strategy in the game should have viability over two weeks before something should be tested and readjusted. I'm assuming we're talking a retail version, too, and not beta. In any case, while the scene might benefit from something like this early on, when does it stop? When do we just let the game settle and let the player make use of the game's idiosyncracies and wrinkles?
I do like your "bi-partisan" approach to all of this. The blatant negativity and mob-sheep-mental-speak hurts things more than it helps, which is why Blizzard is probably cautious what and whom they listen to and how often they makes changes. Browder has often expressed how they'll make a change, and suddenly it doesn't become an issue anymore. Is this because of the change itself or the perception of the players?
In any case, good stuff man.
|
I dislike the choice of name you've made. It implies a degree of agreement with your project which is unwarranted.
While your goals are laudable; i'm not convinced of your means.
And i still dislike the substantial number of errors you made in yoru articles of the races; it is far too much error for someone who seeks to balance the game. And saying browder's done a great job is the nail in the coffin; results speak for themselves, and the results on sc2 speak to design problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
