|
On December 06 2012 13:18 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually like the Stalker and how it works in PvT. It has a kind of vague role that shifts over time, it's a finesse unit as I see it. There are also benefits from stalker/marine design interactions being asymetric in scale.
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.
Versatility always comes at a price AND it requires skill ... which makes it a "skill check" for players and not really a good idea to make the game accessible for new players. It should be about STRATEGY and not PLAYING SKILL. The boost of a unit's efficiency through skill should be more like 10-20% increase. The increase through Blink feels much stronger than that.
|
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
Hm, this project is proving troublesome 
I'll figure a way to laterally think my way out of this conundrum soon, in terms of how I relate to you. You seem to like strategy in and of itself, more so than I do. I like strategy, but with more emphasis on the kind of crisp execution I like to try and employ, or enjoy to watch.
In this case I feel we kind of want the same thing, in terms of going into a game with a gameplan, and being able to achieve that, via intuitive/instinctive applications of our overall gameplan, vs our execution differences. The idea you seem to like is that deep strategical understanding should give you certain advantages over say, a mindless mechanics machine. In my case, I believe my strengths are in general game understanding and mechanics, but should give me advantages over either extreme, like theorycraft god but who has bad execution.
Perhaps I'm wrong entirely, but it seems we can coexist. Especially as we agree on a lot of other things. Do you like things for example, good timing attacks beating players who are overall better?
I also think the concept of 'strategy' is deeply flawed, or at least the kind of things like 'I like strategy' that frequently get misunderstood. It's an idea going into the article btw so it's worth discussing here.
|
On December 06 2012 13:13 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 06:57 jinorazi wrote:On December 06 2012 06:23 Rabiator wrote: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. 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).
i dont think there is a need to withdraw new ideas because they would not fit in the confinements of current units and their stats. everything is up for change. it could be a combination of dps, unit size, fire rate, range that throws off stalker/marine relationship and modifications can balance it, then again would ruin it with other unit relationships. (i personally think its fine the way it is)
simply put i'm suggesting small increments of upgrades as game goes on, if we look at bw its things like range and speed that gets upgraded first for all races, sc2 has left few of that out in favor of something more direct and faster access to spells like emp, fungal, force field.
as for the critical number talk, engine would need to be modified so units dont clump up so efficiently. muta stacking is done by adding 1 larva or 1 overlord with the mutas, spamming right click is not needed to keep them clumped, at least not to the point sc2 requires.
|
Looks like OP has a lot of motivation to help. However, Blizzard, along with most everyone else will take one look at long posts like that and "NOPE."
You want to know a big reason why Blizzard listens to pro feedback a great deal? Their play experience and knowledge results in balance proposals that are professional, convincing, and succinct. Do the same and you'll be heard!
|
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
On December 07 2012 04:16 MrHavix wrote:
Looks like OP has a lot of motivation to help. However, Blizzard, along with most everyone else will take one look at long posts like that and "NOPE."
You want to know a big reason why Blizzard listens to pro feedback a great deal? Their play experience and knowledge results in balance proposals that are professional, convincing, and succinct. Do the same and you'll be heard!
They listen to pros because pros are good at the game, pretty much. Regardless of whether their ideas are good or not, that gives them a platform to be heard.
This is a massive wall of text/discussion. We'll sort it out later into a better format!
Think of it like our version of the 'PvZ Guide'. That was epic and long, but well laid out and rather easy to navigate. It was a good collaboration, lots of users made it possible
|
So the mods shut down my thread because they thought it was a suggestion (an assertion I disagree with), but let me repost it as a blog. The link is below. The post is a long one, but I'm hoping to generate some good discussion.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=386564
|
I will make this quick but here are my current thoughts on sc2 design,
Ultimately for me everything boils down to
1. terran over reliance on rax units. basically this is a double edged sword. you can start pumping bio very early and be very safe and powerful, but as time goes on your units just melt. The time and infrastructure cost of using a large amount of factories/starports begins at an automatic disadvantage against protoss and zerg, which can create T3 units (HT, ultralisk) from larvae or warpgate. hatcheries and gates cost only minerals, so terrans use rax units to counter these units or have a very specific build that gets out mech at a reasonable time but is relegated to doing an all in because you have dumped so much cash into units / factories. If you try to play a reactive mech or air style you get absolutely crushed and it doesnt feel like there is enough resources to EVER support an army like this. by the time you can max out with these units and get "competitive" upgrades (by this i mean, 2 upgrades behind your opponent at the most) they have already maxed out and begun to take more bases/structures. There is no incentive to use these units because they are proven time and time again to be more flimsy and less cost effective than even terrans most cheapest units (hellion, marine, marauder, medivac) and this is a problem. Terrans have no reason to tech. I can be sitting on ten bases vs a three base protoss and just keep adding more rax. there is no point on making other units because they are horrible and slow producing.
2. protoss i hate to rely on warpgate. it is stupid and should be removed from the game but i know this will never happen. I actually kind of like the idea to be honest, but with the units P has I just hate it. Instead of being like a normal race, it feels that protoss is only strong if i can front load economy and gateways while being super greedy and then i come out and do a cheesily-ridiculous-super-powerful "X" gate all in. Macro style as protoss is infintely harder than the other races to play and I'm saying this as a random player (at least, if you are playing against good terran and good zerg, it is very tough) so mostly at a "high" level (not like pro, but average player that's good) protoss relies on a lot of WG or robotics timing attacks because their macro styles are so flimsy and unreliable (you could argue in PvT it has been developed pretty well. But PvZ is still more like PvGameClock and PvP is even more retarded currently than it used to be imo) i hate playing as protoss especially against good players
3. zerg overreliance on multiple queens and infestors. basically i dislike how zerg works right now, i wish that queens were not made in stupid numbers, zergs did not sit and tech on 3 base, etc. But right now, this game is designed in a stupid way imho and you can be on 5 bases to 3 and die to a marine/tank, collosus/whatever push just because you didnt have hive tech out or a large number of infestors. Seeing zergs at a professional level sit on 3 hatches, with a macro hatch (lolwtf) , and tech stupidly quick to hive is boring and low level play - the problem is that the race is designed around this. there are ways toget around this especially in zvt where you can use creep spread + 2/2 bane muta timings to crush his timing attacks, but the problem still remains that on 3 bases your T/P opponent can make like 5 armies capable of killing you and you "want" to have hive tech and a good infestor count for every one of them. This is bad design and consistent with all of the ladder maps right now (take ez 3 base, turtle, amove and take a 4th)
my 2cents, there are a lot of things in this game that are stupid but mainly in specifics it is these things. other things include, unit DPS being way too high, buildings dieing very quickly, some of the AI features are too ez imo like certain smart casthing commands. for example as zerg, i can inject with all my queens, then dump all their energy into tumors and return them all to their respective hatcheries just using the minimap. :/ also i can hotkey my units before they are even produced which is something P and T cannot do (unless you count warpgates.. but id ont)
|
United States4883 Posts
|
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
I love these posts man, will have a proper read if required. Sadly trouble in my native city and rioting kept me from getting home until now (1am) so I've not been on the ball today alas. Also if you wish to get on board as an active contributor that'd be most welcome. If so PM me
I do feel though we need some basic ground rules, people should stick to them. May add or take away these basic stock rules, but I need to run them by you guys first. Trying to display a united front is hard, and there may be things we don't like but we have to restrict ourselves in certain ways for this to work in any way structurally:
Blizzard aren't idiots, or terrible game designers
There is much of SC2 that is fun and dynamic, so we shouldn't bash Blizzard unnecessarily. Firstly, they imo are only acting on terrible feedback in many instances, so you can't solely blame them for wanting to appease the community in some occasions. It will only make us look whiny or bitter and detract from our constructive/positive effort.
An idea is good if it is a good idea, regardless of source
Too often things are written off based on who has said them, or accepted on that basis regardless of them being close to good design. We do not wish to do that, and will at least consider the input from ANY community member.
Discuss game design with really specific, well-founded posts that are as close to unobjectionable or subjective as possible.
Do not suppose underlying conspiratorial motives for example if you find examples of inconsistency being applied. Criticise the inconsistency itself!
Do not post things you would like to see in the game
Unless purely for illustrative purposes, this is an effort to critique logically, not to try to claim we can do it better. We're simply attempting to bring our concerns to the forefront of the discussion, ideally they'd be considered and implemented but we are not here to tell our personal views on how the game should look.
Engage the rest of us, before writing material
We want your help in everything from formatting to content, but do not go to the effort without first seeing whether it is suitable for the current structure, or fits the accepted guidelines. I don't want you to waste your time as much as I don't want to waste mine! If you have an idea at this time, please PM me before pushing ahead.
|
How do people feel about making this game slower in terms of battle time? right now i feel that i have no tim to respond if i'm not paying complete 100% attention to my units because the DPS is so high. i think a ... like... global DPS lowering would be really good actually.
|
also i can hotkey my units before they are even produced which is something P and T cannot do (unless you count warpgates.. but id ont)
actually when warp in started the unit is already produced, because they take damage from enemy and the damage remain after warp in finished.
you can say the 5 seconds warp in is actually a weakness of warpgate allow enemy do some damage to the warping units so it do count as being produced the instant it started to warp.
|
Northern Ireland25698 Posts
On December 10 2012 03:34 RandomMan wrote:Show nested quote +also i can hotkey my units before they are even produced which is something P and T cannot do (unless you count warpgates.. but id ont) actually when warp in started the unit is already produced, because they take damage from enemy and the damage remain after warp in finished. you can say the 5 seconds warp in is actually a weakness of warpgate allow enemy do some damage to the warping units so it do count as being produced the instant it started to warp.
There's some other cool stuff you can do, not sure if it's 100% fair but shooting your own pylons to get a refund on both the cost of units/warpgate cooldown reset, or doing the same by changing a warp prism to phase mode mid-warp.
Anyway, on the topic at hand I have been disgustingly and unexpectedly busy. Have got a little bit done, and the feedback thus far has proven invaluable. Just a heads-up that I am not abandoning the project or anything like that!
Have a good Christmas all, if I don't get back on here before then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
