EPTOne Community, One Dialogue: A United Scene - Page 3
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
KaiserKieran
United States615 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
Does it go anywhere close to addressing important parts of design like deathball syndrome, defenders advantage, micro-bility of units? Does it plan to? | ||
|
XenoX101
Australia729 Posts
How the hell is this a bad thing? Riot balance quickly because their game is for the casual base, and they nerf overpowered things far more than they buff underpowered things, and considering there are such a huge number of champions it's pretty hard for them to stuff that up. You simply can't compare that kind of balance to the balance in a highly competitive RTS game like SC2, where even the tiniest changes like adding range to an immortal or queen has the most profound impact on the game. And when you consider how frequently the meta-game shifts, with things like hellion runbys, baneling landmines, 1/1/1's, the emergence of forge expand in PvZ and then PvT, phoenixes in pvp, do you really think they would be right to adjust a perceived imbalance the moment it's discovered? Obviously not, especially when you consider what collateral damage the fix might have on the balance of the other match-ups (as mentioned in LoL there are so many champions you can probably nerf one to death and nobody would bat an eyelid). Sorry I respect your initiative and some of your other points but in order to follow through on this I really think you need a better understanding of the balancing process and why Blizzard does things the way it does (not to say they are perfect, but that, as clearly explained there are reasons behind their process). Oh and as far as the stuff 'between the games', this is a relatively recent complaint by the community, less than 3 or so months old, around the time when LoL became noticed by the SC2 community and the "sc2 is dying" stuff was posted. Prior to that it was very rarely discussed, and so it is understandable that Blizzard was not aware that this was a concern people had. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On November 25 2012 14:55 zlefin wrote: I dislike the choice of name you've made. It implies a degree of agreement with your project which is unwarranted. Yes, I had thought this too. If OneVoice is some sort of name for the project but not actually intended to be "one voice" then I have no problem with it. But, if this project purports to represent "the community" in its planned interactions with Blizzard then OP (and his collaborators) could not be more wrong. You certainly do not represent my thoughts on SC2, and I am confident in saying, the thoughts of many others in the community - especially those members of the community who just play the game without posting, or even lurking, on SC2 community sites. If this pretend representation of "the community" to Blizzard is indeed the aim of OneVoice, this is more than a little presumptuous. Be clear that it is your voice (and your collaborators). | ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
On November 25 2012 15:09 decemberscalm wrote: How far reaching of a change is this trying to promote? Does it go anywhere close to addressing important parts of design like deathball syndrome, defenders advantage, micro-bility of units? Does it plan to? Yes, yes, and yes. | ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
On November 25 2012 18:10 aZealot wrote: Yes, I had thought this too. If OneVoice is some sort of name for the project but not actually intended to be "one voice" then I have no problem with it. But, if this project purports to represent "the community" in its planned interactions with Blizzard then OP (and his collaborators) could not be more wrong. You certainly do not represent my thoughts on SC2, and I am confident in saying, the thoughts of many others in the community - especially those members of the community who just play the game without posting, or even lurking, on SC2 community sites. If this pretend representation of "the community" to Blizzard is indeed the aim of OneVoice, this is more than a little presumptuous. Be clear that it is your voice (and your collaborators). This has been a concern of ours as well! We would like to reflect the community as best we can, a good number of changes we are testing were ran by the community. Turns out a lot of other people want to see a tier 1.5 hydra and Immortal, or destructable Force Fields, or a Colossus that has counterplay to it. That said, we don't represent most of the community because most of the community hasn't heard of us, and there are many possible points of dissagreement. The point is to comb through the community for cool ideas, test those cool ideas, and if they seem to contribute to gameplay and theme, pass those replays on to Blizzard for consideration. This is why we want to hear from people like you. What are your thoughts on the game, its design, its state ect? We would love to hear from you at onevoicemod@gmail.com | ||
|
GorGor
78 Posts
| ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On November 25 2012 20:03 GorGor wrote: SCII cannot have "one voice" because there are 3 races and the races do not agree. They cannot speak with one voice, as it is in zerg's best interest to deny that their macro mechanics/infestors are overpovered, and protoss cannot agree that colossus are the reason the game is terrible. Lolz lolz. Maybe in middle school. I think both races would say that both units are necessary, filling a role they wouldn't otherwise have, but I think most people in the world agree that there are some huge issues with infestors and colossus that need to be tweaked. I wanna barf every time I see a zerg army consisting of like 4 BLords and like 30 infestors. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On November 21 2012 07:03 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: Here’s a controversial statement of the article: Dustin Browder is a pretty damn good designer. You are right. This is controversial ... to the point of making your reasoning stand on clay feet. Its not what he says in interviews, but rather what he does that defines him. Just look at the BGH thread and you notice that many people think that "SC2 battles arent fun" and many more such reasons are given. They have the wrong design concept and have yet to notice / acknowledge that they are wrong. On November 21 2012 07:03 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: Some ground rules: 1. Be polite to us, the community, and Blizzard, we are all in this together! 2. No Classic units. (Spin offs, and re imaginings are fine and dandy, Blizzard will not remake classic units verbatim this time around.) 3. Focus on racial theme and fun gameplay (for both players) I am sorry, but if we were "together" in this with Blizzard, why is there any need for YOUR effort? Unless you feel it necessary to behave like a bootlicker to get any attention from Blizzard of course. The community isnt listened to by Blizzard and the Warhound was a fake unit that they added to "show" that they do. At the speed at which they removed it there can be hardly any doubt ... OR you have to question your own statement from above. The point is that UNITS arent the problem of SC2, but the general game mechanics are. They make the game NOT FUN if you simply want to play it for fun. They make the game more about macroing well instead of using your units well (= playing skill). Builds can be copied by everyone, but playing skill has to be learned and the game should be about skill instead of preparation. Actually UNITS are part of the problem ... all of them which have gotten "bonus damage", because that means they suck against the rest of the units. Best example is the Thor, which *should be* the anti-air defense for mech, but only works somewhat decently against Mutalisks ... if the Zerg never learned to magic-box. So a replacement would be necessary ... in the form of the Goliath and saying "no classic units" is stupid, because there are only so many ways to design units. What is "classic" btw? Why not BW? Units with "bonus" damage are limited in their efficiency and abuseable by an enemy. Thus they need to add more units which do the same - like a mech anti-air with bonus damage against armored - and that makes the game too complicated, when one reason of its success [well that of BW] was the rather limited number of units ... and its simplicity. So my suggestions for you are: - remove production speed boosts - remove the MULE - limit the number of units selected to 12 - force units to spread out while moving - make units clumpable through micro - rebalance AoE damage and area to account for spread units - minimize the impact of bonus damage "New units" wont truly fix the game, because the game is not in a good state to begin with. Fix that first and then you can begin to add new stuff again. Think about "How are players supposed to micro?" or "Is it a good idea to have the defending player micro when faced with Banelings?" or "Are bigger battles really better battles?" or "What makes the game fun for a casual?" (hint: winning isnt everything as BGH clearly shows!) In other words: Think about the BASICS first, because if you start with false premises your result will be false. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
If you havent played BW .... PLAY IT ... for some time, because otherwise you dont understand what makes the game different from SC2 and in some cases better. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5212 Posts
On November 21 2012 07:03 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: Some ground rules: 1. Be polite to us, the community, and Blizzard, we are all in this together! 2. No Classic units. (Spin offs, and re imaginings are fine and dandy, Blizzard will not remake classic units verbatim this time around.) 3. Focus on racial theme and fun gameplay (for both players) I applaud the effort here, but it wasn't the community that united and changed how Riot balanced the game. Riot was open to the community from the get-go, and even though I think SC2 is a much better game at the moment, I cringe when I play HOTS and I am very excited for Season 3 LOL. Blizzard isn't open to the community relative to Riot at all. Blizzard has burned so many bridges with the community. How long did people complain about ramp blocking versus Zerg and close spawns? It got so bad that tournaments created their own maps, as they realized the imbalanced. Yet ramp blocking and close spawns continues to happen on the WOL ladder today, and Blizzard balances the game based on this data... it just doesn't make sense. People don't want SC2 to be like Broodwar in anyway except we want SC2 to be a good game because BW was a good game. But I'm not sure SC2 is as good as Broodwar, and that calls into question your statement about Dustin Browder being a good game designer (heck, he recently said he doesn't think Immortal Sentry all-in being too strong, during the WCS... and look how that turned out...). He had a template on how to make a good game, and he didn't follow it. And the end result is that we have a game that isn't as good. He needs to take responsibility and accept blame for that. Let's call a spade a spade here, and lay the blame where it belongs. SC2 has a history. Look at it, and make a judgement. When companies are mismanaged and not listening to it's customers people need to stand up and say "What the hell is going on here?" and things need to change. Going back and trying to talk to Blizzard again isn't going to work, it has been tried over and over again. The problem isn't the community. At this point, I am pretty sure the only solution is that heads need to roll at Blizzard. SC2 needs a new design team. And I'm not saying this to be rude, I am saying this because every time the community has tried to work with Blizzard, changes have moved at a glacial pace, if at all. We've gone through three UI's in SC2 history, and none of them are very good (the latest in HOTS lacks a clock...) and none of them have addressed the problems with custom games. We've talked a lot about this in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383247 I hope what you're trying works, I really do. But you can't change how the Blizzard team operates regarding their openness to the community. But maybe we can change who makes up that team. | ||
|
Shadowbite
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
Hetz
196 Posts
On November 21 2012 07:03 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: What the Community can do. First, we need to show consistent interest in exploring changes to unit and race design. We need to show Blizzard we want to see changes discussed and tested, not just during one of the two remaining betas, but week after week, and seeing the results of our efforts foster a better Starcraft. This means, making custom maps and testing things out and sending that data to blizzard, saying “hey, we think this will make for an even better Starcraft experience, you should try this out!” Blizzard has looked at things as fundamental as unit pathing, they can sure as heck test out tier 1.5 hydras, or a difference in Warp Gate implementation. Second, we must learn from the past, not implement it. Brood War was fantastic; it was a big part of my adolescence, and it showed us that Esports could dominate a CULTURE. It holds a place in history and rightly so, many, many good things came from BW: design, readability, gameplay. The question is, why imitate Brood War when we can do better? If the fanbase can collaborate with Blizzard, Starcraft 2 could easily meet, or even surpass Brood War in design and gameplay. To do so, we need to be open to each other, respectful, organized, and most importantly, we must set aside our sacred cows, our assumptions that Brood War was some unreachable miracle of design our comfort with WoL’s second fiddle in the Esports scene. No, we must push every day to make this game better as a community, with common understandings of what makes good design, what can be good design, and what is to be avoided. Third, not take a few pixels too seriously. P.S. If Broodwar was a big part of your adolescence I feel sorry for you. Better luck in the future!  | ||
|
Unshapely
140 Posts
| ||
|
Cirqueenflex
499 Posts
Whereas when I decide to try SC2 again, it is lonely, I have only 3 Races to play (not 100+ Champions with even more variety when you include that 10 people pick one of 100+ champions), and the actual game takes a toll on me. It is not that winning would not feel good and strategy and macro/micro would not be rewarded, it is that losing feels THAT bad. I do not feel like i lost because of a stupid misclick, a misread, not enough scouting, it always feels like I lose because the game wants me to lose. Fungal, FF, Colossi, Archon Toilet, Siege Tanks + Planetary Fortress, Concussive shells, Stim - I feel helpless and denied hard when facing those abilities. Thus i rather play LoL. | ||
|
Unshapely
140 Posts
My share: Hard counter should not exist. They take away the "dynamic" feel of the gameplay. One example can be: "You build collosus; I build Corruptors/Viking". Another: "You build tanks/roaches; I build immortals". This is not at all dynamic. | ||
|
topsecret221
United States108 Posts
On November 26 2012 09:37 Unshapely wrote: I wonder. Can the mod be implemented in way that addresses the feeling the above poster is describing? My share: Hard counter should not exist. They take away the "dynamic" feel of the gameplay. One example can be: "You build collosus; I build Corruptors/Viking". Another: "You build tanks/roaches; I build immortals". This is not at all dynamic. We have been working on addressing the concerns he has listed above. Fungal is being nerfed, FF has been nerfed, Colossi are being retooled, Archon Toilets will be no more, Siege Tanks + Planetaries will have more counterplay, Conc Shells are out... But for everything removed or retooled, something else has been or will be worked in that is both fun to use and fun to counter (so don't fret if you are a zerg player when you see that fungal doesn't stun, or if you're a protoss player and see that colossi are slightly harder to use. Similarly, we are working on making the counter system less "unit counters", and more "strategy counters". Against mech, harass a little bit more and jump around. Against colossi, micro your way around the beams, or force a retreat. Of course, this is still considered an alpha version of the build, since not all of what we were intending was implemented. If you find any issues with something that is too easy to counter, or too difficult to hold out against, email us your concern and an appropriate replay at onevoicemod@gmail.com. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
Good to hear Any current plans on those? I've done a lot of experimentation on those issues. | ||
|
snively
United States1159 Posts
| ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
| ||
| ||
