| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
lazyitachi
1043 Posts
Type 1 - Same damage to all type Type 2 - 50% extra damage to medium units - 100% extra damage to light units Type 3 - 50% extra damage to medium units - 100% extra damage to large units Protoss shield takes the highest damage for each attack type. Have to learn all the "size" of units that is not immediately obvious nor stated in-game. Oh wait? This is Broodwar?!?! WTF.. Lousy game design. | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
On December 05 2012 17:05 lazyitachi wrote: Have to learn all the "size" of units that is not immediately obvious nor stated in-game. Massive, armored, and light? | ||
|
SeeDs.pt
Portugal33 Posts
Regardless, think 1 thread, article or something of the sorts that is centralized will make it worse and harder. It'll condense possibly too much information into 1 gigantic wall of text, which to my belief is also a problem of several threads. Too long, too broad, so it becomes easy for people to scatter in every random direction. In my opinion threads should be shorter and concise, especially on design subjects. With that in mind, what comes to mind that would work better is a specific section for design ideas (this mean units, mechanic, maybe some spell) and a sticky post that acts as a table of contents with links for the several design ideas. This most likely would spawn several subsections dedicated to specific things, which would have their own table of contents. Or a website with a similar structure to hold information and just fish that information from a section here. Both of those approaches would require a lot of moderation though, so it would remain as clean and focused as possible. Obviously if there's too many inputs some way of filtering ideas (in a cyclic way) would be needed, like a group of people that choose them or a poll with several ideas to be added and let the community choose what they'd like to have added to the toc. Personally was going to do one about a specific unit design and was searching if something already existed - so i wouldn't over create yet another thread -, which was how i came across this one. On a last note, i believe focusing on backgrounds is and will just sidetrack the ideas themselves. They should be evaluated by what they are and not who said them, and even bad ideas are good in brainstorming sessions. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
I'm trying to figure out specifically how we can present a range of ideas about design, to Blizzard themselves. I've been working hard, not in terms of understanding examples and ideas, but in finding them because they are all being expressed all over the place. Essentially at present I am going ahead just writing the ideas up anyway as an article/blog post. This may not in itself change anything, but I feel its worthwhile regardless, even if just for my own amusement | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Another quick point, manifestos are generally very short in the end (I'm thinking of, for example, Charter 77) and catchy concepts like "elephant in the room", "patchzerg" or even "when ahead get ahead" are generally one-liners. Which doesn't mean that they won't need lengthy articles to come about. But it points at the amount of distilling of ideas needed before it's ready. GL. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
You're also right about the manifesto part. Unfortunately I am not very good at concise metaphorical titles (Elephant in the Room, or funny enough to get attention in other ways (Lings of Liberty) At the very least, I'll give the title over to somebody else  | ||
|
XenoX101
Australia729 Posts
| ||
|
SeeDs.pt
Portugal33 Posts
As i see it makes much more sense to only have a soft filter on them and provide multiple ideas to Blizzard even within the same topic, this because they also will filter and ultimately decide what is better for their game. We're just extending the brainstorming pretty much  I can't emphasize enough the importance it would be to deliver to Blizzard directly a structured and concise document, every now and then, instead of putting the entire burden on their community team to search everything. I'm guessing this is somewhat already within the power of TL, of having a sort of channel for possible periodic idea listing. Obviously these are just opinions , can be just plain wrong. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
On December 05 2012 22:12 SeeDs.pt wrote: Ah, thought it was meant more of gathering different, somewhat feasible, ideas and providing it to Blizzard in a more structured way and not as chaotic as a forum usually can get (which will just increase the chances of Blizzard never being able to see it). And not as much as debating a single point to death, which i don't see much of a point if its to give to Blizzard. As i see it makes much more sense to only have a soft filter on them and provide multiple ideas to Blizzard even within the same topic, this because they also will filter and ultimately decide what is better for their game. We're just extending the brainstorming pretty much I can't emphasize enough the importance it would be to deliver to Blizzard directly a structured and concise document, every now and then, instead of putting the entire burden on their community team to search everything. I'm guessing this is somewhat already within the power of TL, of having a sort of channel for possible periodic idea listing. Obviously these are just opinions , can be just plain wrong.Your idea of a 'soft filter' is actually kind of what I'm getting at. Blizzard still get the right to reject our ideas and not implement ANY of them. However, they would be acting as a filter like you described. As it is, the problem is that they aren't getting the right information to even apply a filter to. PMed you btw | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On December 05 2012 17:05 lazyitachi wrote: Having bonus damage is bad design!!! Type 1 - Same damage to all type Type 2 - 50% extra damage to medium units - 100% extra damage to light units Type 3 - 50% extra damage to medium units - 100% extra damage to large units Protoss shield takes the highest damage for each attack type. Have to learn all the "size" of units that is not immediately obvious nor stated in-game. Oh wait? This is Broodwar?!?! WTF.. Lousy game design. You are of course correct in pointing that out and I must admit that I made a mistake in saying that "bonus damage is bad". I had completely forgotten about the BW system, since it isnt really "obvious" to see and rather general in the lists. I will maintain my opinion that the bonus damage system of SC2 is TERRIBLE and for exactly the reason I mention plus one additional reason. For my opinion of "bonus damage is terrible" you just have to look at the Thor AA damage: 6 damage + 6 vs light means that it deals only 50% damage against non-light units. This doesnt look that terrible when compared with the BW system of 100%/75%/50%/25% (depending upon the damage type the unit deals), BUT the terrible thing is that dealing bonus damage is the exception in SC2 and some races have an unusually high number of units which deal "normal" damage. Zerg have a grand total of only 3 units which deal "bonus damage" and two of them are pretty situational/late game units [Corruptor, Ultralisk]. Only the "one-shot" Baneling has bonus damage among their infantry and this does give them a serious bunch of advantages over other races by being more allround units. Zerg simply are NOT required to build "vs armored" units when faced by Stalkers ... any unit can work. Terran have 6 units which deal "bonus damage" and all three of the mech units do. Protoss have 4 units with "bonus damage" and half of them are among the rarely used air units. So if you compare the Marauder with the Roach for example it is easy to explain what seems a tad wrong: The Marauder has a weakness against "vs. armored" units defensively and is weak against non-armored. The "bonus" against armored is easily abuseable by just not building armored units to fight them. The Roach in comparison had only the weakness against "vs armored" damage but is good against everything. This is the same for basically all the Zerg units commonly used and only the transitory Corruptors are limited in their offensive power by some bonus damage. Ultralisks are rarely built due to their inability to move in such tight SC2 armies and Banelings are built only against light targets (we all know how much commentators "sigh" when Banelings are used against Marauders). The point of this is: The bonus damage system is implemented in a terribly lopsided way and might even be one of the reasons why mech doesnt work or why Terrans are having problems right now while Zerg have a decided advantage from not having many bonus damage units. Consequently Zerg should be changed to have more of them or Terran should just improve their weapons to have less ... Protoss seems to be in the middle and needs to be adjusted in the direction that is chosen ... more or less bonus damage for all races. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
though amount of spells and their abilities are very similar between the two games, bw and sc2, one aspect is very different: spells in bw focused on late game, as if spells are introduced to bring the game to an end. dark swarm, maelstrom, emp just to name a few. now if we look at sc2, these similar spells are introduced very early. FF to manipulate the battle field, which stasis did at certain level. emp has been nerfed and made abundant. fungal is available from early mid game and zerg is very dependent on it as it deals with many, many situations. with these three spells, we all know battles can go one way or the other depending on the first half a second. 30 air units going down to stream of fungals, group of sentries or templars getting emp'ed and gateway units getting rofl stomped, offensive FF on ramp, perhaps the most annoying situation for any player, defensive FF being very dependent to survive. bw made these aspects late game, and it worked out. sc2 has made it early game and it adds more to the coin flippiness of it. its like losing 5 workers in the first 3 minutes vs losing 5 workers at 13 minutes. early decisive win/loss scenario is much more available in sc2 because of how units and abilities are designed. what i propose is more relationship like lurker vs marine, goon vs vulture, marine vs bane, splitting vs reaver, etc. micro vs micro through revamped units and abilities. spells being introduced later, mid-late to late game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
The actual reasoning/rationale behind it is roughly similar, it's drawing the similarities out there and making them more coherent. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On December 06 2012 04:54 jinorazi wrote: spells though amount of spells and their abilities are very similar between the two games, bw and sc2, one aspect is very different: spells in bw focused on late game, as if spells are introduced to bring the game to an end. dark swarm, maelstrom, emp just to name a few. now if we look at sc2, these similar spells are introduced very early. FF to manipulate the battle field, which stasis did at certain level. emp has been nerfed and made abundant. fungal is available from early mid game and zerg is very dependent on it as it deals with many, many situations. with these three spells, we all know battles can go one way or the other depending on the first half a second. 30 air units going down to stream of fungals, group of sentries or templars getting emp'ed and gateway units getting rofl stomped, offensive FF on ramp, perhaps the most annoying situation for any player, defensive FF being very dependent to survive. bw made these aspects late game, and it worked out. sc2 has made it early game and it adds more to the coin flippiness of it. its like losing 5 workers in the first 3 minutes vs losing 5 workers at 13 minutes. early decisive win/loss scenario is much more available in sc2 because of how units and abilities are designed. what i propose is more relationship like lurker vs marine, goon vs vulture, marine vs bane, splitting vs reaver, etc. micro vs micro through revamped units and abilities. spells being introduced later, mid-late to late game. The units you propose to relate could be called "boring" by some, because there isnt any spellcaster amongst them. This is an "illusionary fun" which has been taught to too many kids these days who think that only masses of units and spells are fun; even Stalkers have their "fun" aspect of Blink now which makes them a bazillion times better than Dragoons, right? I would disagree there, because this "fun" comes at a price which people dont seem to recognize and the price is the death of positional play. Sure, Blink isnt the only reason for that, but it shares part of the blame as does the Colossus' cliffwalking, Reaper jump (well theoretically), Infested Terran and Nydus Worm (without requiring creep). Regardless of this I think it is really difficult to balance pure damage units against each other in SC2 due to the "balance variation" between small numbers and large numbers as a comparison between Stalkers and Marines should show. It would be the wise choice to balance the game around "simple units", but at this stage the crutches of Forcefield and Fungal Growth seem to be necessary to make the races work. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On December 06 2012 06:23 Rabiator wrote: The units you propose to relate could be called "boring" by some, because there isnt any spellcaster amongst them. This is an "illusionary fun" which has been taught to too many kids these days who think that only masses of units and spells are fun; even Stalkers have their "fun" aspect of Blink now which makes them a bazillion times better than Dragoons, right? I would disagree there, because this "fun" comes at a price which people dont seem to recognize and the price is the death of positional play. Sure, Blink isnt the only reason for that, but it shares part of the blame as does the Colossus' cliffwalking, Reaper jump (well theoretically), Infested Terran and Nydus Worm (without requiring creep). Regardless of this I think it is really difficult to balance pure damage units against each other in SC2 due to the "balance variation" between small numbers and large numbers as a comparison between Stalkers and Marines should show. It would be the wise choice to balance the game around "simple units", but at this stage the crutches of Forcefield and Fungal Growth seem to be necessary to make the races work. you're right, fungal and especially FF is there as a buffer to the imbalance, the respective races depend on them. however, because of that, balance can sometimes be placed on a tip of a needle; it can easily fall over to one side or the other. instead of "needing" them as crutches, redesign so there is no such need. maybe blizzard already looked into this, maybe not, just a suggestion in taking what was good from bw - spells being strong and late game. as you suggest, ff and fungal are used as a bandaid, remove/alter it and heal/fix it permanently, give units abilities like goon range, marine range, stim, spider mine, ling speed, blink, siege, etc. etc. to go about till the mid game, with the viability of tech rushing. this gives an advantage/reward for players with good micro, not merely based on smartcasted spells. i'm in no way saying there is no micro, there is, but more would be good. preemptive positioning like vs emp, fungal is not as fun as on-demand splitting like vs lurker, reaver, baneling. my idea of "fun" is based on available ways to show off my skills, in that sense, smart casting spells do not fit that category meanwhile marine splitting vs banes and storm does. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
Technical Limitations The problems of pursuing a collaborative based approach have been somewhat addressed in terms of finding an actual method to put the information up there I'm still limited by certain lack of structural consistency, but it will come with time Current groups 'on board'- Agreeing with the central kind of thing we're trying to do and have helped somehow Casual Players Guys who are really interested in SC design, or RTS design A range of players in terms of skill level At least a few pros (no names yet I'm afraid). Players of a range of races Players who just watch Starcraft for the E-sports aspect Players who have previously quit playing Starcraft Current groups that I wish to talk to, who I haven't been able to include yet Mapmaking community More pros, to get more information on how the Blizz/pro relationship actually works Artistic community, the kind of people who can design graphics etc to improve the presentation of everything. Casting community E-sports journalists Blizzard themselves. In terms of what we're trying to do, making that second list shorter can only help us. If you know anyone who is active in those communities and would potentially like to help out, even if it's just feedback please help me engage them! | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
Some good changes, some bad. However I defy any of you to find a coherent design-based philosophy that actually links their proposed changes. Some are good, some are bad imo, but regardless of that my sole frustration is that there is no clear consistency, no clear interlinking of concepts here. If I'm wrong would enjoy some debate, but I don't think I am. | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
On December 06 2012 12:43 SC2John wrote: I mean, when you look at all the changes that Blizzard just made to HotS that are absolutely wonky as hell and will completely change the game, it's hard to imagine that the community is any more full of suggestions that we thought Blizzard would never do. Seriously, I'm shocked at the crazy changes for medivacs, seeker missile, and infestors. 100% MY POINT in making this thread. It's not that Blizzard aren't willing to throw things in the air. Going to lift a post I made elsewhere to illustrate this. It's that they're more radical than we perhaps thought, perhaps more willing to listen to the community too. However when this isn't tied together in a coherent way, it's a matter of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks! It's not a good approach, fundamentally imo to be 'radical' for the sake of it. It's not a matter of copying Brood War's unit interactions that annoys us who like both BW and SC2, in my case someone who's more familiar with SC2 but who can watch Proleague games and see sick games and appreciate that. It's the fact that Blizzard's aim 'make harassment better' as one of the stated ones, isn't applicable to everything, or necessarily going to improve the entire game to that effect. To illustrate this I'm going to start from scratch with the same intent to show you what I mean. Do not, I swear to god criticise the individual examples I have pulled out of my ASS to show the logic as somehow being 'wrong'. My stated aim for this patch - Currently a mystery! Protoss changes Zealot: Charge is now removed with the replacement of an upgrade that increases its passive speed Collosus: All stats remain the same with the exception of movement speed which is now a lot slower Carrier: Microability is increased through implementation of Tyler's video and its ideas on things like leash range Phoenix: No changes other than a slight change to energy to give slightly more gravitons be available for each Dark Templar: Has an upgrade to give it a very short lived, but active ability that increases its speed Terran changes Hellion: Slightly reduced damage at the trade of an increase in microability Marauder: Concussive shells now slows a little less than before Thor: Replaced with a unit that is less strong individually but costs less individually and has better AA. More agile. Raven: Faster passive speed, auto-turrets no longer counted as buildings so able to be cast more intuitively. Zerg changes Infestor: Fungal growth unchanged from current WoL bar addition of projectile, and changing fungal to a slow Mutalisk: Acceleration is increased over where it is now, overall passive speed at full flight is the same Roach: The transition from burrow to unburrow is made faster for this specific unit Now, go ahead claim my changes are terrible. However if I hadn't told you my actual reason for every single change, could you guess what it is? If not, then you're perhaps not looking hard enough. If yes, then you validate my central premise, at least in terms of why Blizzard annoy me personally. Reveal to follow folks | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On December 06 2012 06:57 jinorazi wrote: you're right, fungal and especially FF is there as a buffer to the imbalance, the respective races depend on them. however, because of that, balance can sometimes be placed on a tip of a needle; it can easily fall over to one side or the other. instead of "needing" them as crutches, redesign so there is no such need. maybe blizzard already looked into this, maybe not, just a suggestion in taking what was good from bw - spells being strong and late game. as you suggest, ff and fungal are used as a bandaid, remove/alter it and heal/fix it permanently, give units abilities like goon range, marine range, stim, spider mine, ling speed, blink, siege, etc. etc. to go about till the mid game, with the viability of tech rushing. this gives an advantage/reward for players with good micro, not merely based on smartcasted spells. i'm in no way saying there is no micro, there is, but more would be good. preemptive positioning like vs emp, fungal is not as fun as on-demand splitting like vs lurker, reaver, baneling. my idea of "fun" is based on available ways to show off my skills, in that sense, smart casting spells do not fit that category meanwhile marine splitting vs banes and storm does. There is this example of "Stalkers vs Marines" which I have brought in several other threads already to show why Blink and Forcefield are needed ... not to allow for imbalance, but to make Stalkers work at all. You can stack Marines - which have roughly the same dps individually as a Stalker - much tighter and thus get a higher dps for the whole clump. Since you can also build three Marines for every Stalker resourcewise that easily gives the Terran an advantage. It doesnt go that way however, since the Protoss probably builds a few Sentries to limit the number of Marines able to shoot the Stalkers to a defeatable amount. While this is a nifty tactic it REQUIRES SKILL and thus is terrible for beginners to learn. Blink is yet another one of those crutches which make the Stalkers work, but since it destroys positional play I am of the opinion that we would be better off without it. There are too many anti-Siege-Tank-devices in the game already and HotS adds a few more of them. Opening up possibilities for other types of play wont work that way ... Simply increasing the dps or defensive values of the Protoss units wouldnt work to make up for a removed Forcefield and Blink however, because they would become unkillable/too strong themselves. The only solution I see is to reduce the densoity of units for all races to a lower amount so you can micro your Stalkers when their shields are spent ... in other words the "critical number" potential for units - where they can one-shot an opposing unit - must be eliminated OR be made to require intensive micro to achieve (like Mutalisk micro in BW for example which required heavy clicking to keep them stacked together). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
1. The early game where sheer micro can beat small groups of marines for next to no loss. 2. Blink allins where a specific timing hits and is only possible to work through a combination of a strategy (blink-obs allin) looking to exploit a build (1 Rax FE) and through good execution (hitting the timing) with ways to prevent it reactively existing for the Terran (snipe the obs that gives highground vision) 3. The general use of stalkers both as a harassment unit, a defensive unit, and a watch-tower holding unit. Only possible with blink sometimes, especially the watch-tower holding. The thing you talk about is correct in terms of the theory underpinning it, I feel the stalker is the kind of unit we kind of need more of, regardless of the theory, because it's versatility that is enabled by blink allows it to be used in a variety of roles, differently. | ||
| ||
|
|
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Cure
TBD vs Zoun
OSC
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Classic vs TBD
Online Event
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
