|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +Basically, I've been trying to think of a way to get Blizzard to pursue a better design philosophy in certain aspects. I believe a small, but potentially significant avenue is open to us on TL if we collate a lot of interlinked ideas and suggestions under one central thematic idea. This could potentially be forwarded to Blizzard when it's properly formed and formatted. Now, this isn't to say that they will necessarily listen or implement these changes or suggestions by any means. However, we would at least have a kind of manifesto-esque document. I mean, we could even recruit a pro player who had access to Blizzard to at least make sure they read such a document. They mightn't agree with any of it, but at least in that way we could be sure As I see it, so much of our perception of what Blizzard doing is based on conjecture and reading between the lines. I feel that they're balancing/designing the game, but without knowledge of certain aspects of the community's thinking, but that's not based upon any actual knowledge. However, if we make the attempt to at least find a way to present something to Blizzard that we know they have received and read (say by using a pro with access) at least moving on we know that the issues are something they are aware of, we eliminate the uncertainty of second-guessing Blizzard. By collating a kind of collection of ideas made by potentially many different posters into a single source, we also reinforce its potential, as opposed to say each of the contributors emailing Blizzard individually. This is a kind of, initial testing of the waters of this idea. I'm not going to put the effort in if the will of other members isn't actually there. Firstly, it defeats the cumulative power of crowdsourcing ideas, if the crowd isn't there. I also intend to fully keep up with the OP, and incorporate ideas into it regularly, formatting it properly and everything like that. Again, that's if the central premise is deemed worthwhile by you guys. My final stipulation, is that we can discuss things like potential problems of macro mechanics, but without suggesting things that Blizzard have explicitly said they will not do. This is both unrealistic and against the actual central point of the thread, which is to eliminate the transparency issue of the Blizzard-community relationship. Another part of this is factoring in Blizzard's potential workload, ideas that would improve the game but would take a ridiculous rebalancing of the entire game are kind of unrealistic/unfair to expect Blizzard to do, even if they would be good. An example is something like the pitfalls of the warpgate mechanic. People that would suggest removing it entirely would fall short of what we're looking to do, even though it's something I would like done. Blizzard have explicitly stated it's off the table, so the uncertainty problem that I outlined doesn't exist with this one, we know they're not going to do it. However, you can improve the warpgate mechanic and how it relates to both depth and enabling more varied Protoss playstyles in other subtle ways. That is the kind of thing that I believe it is possible to have occur. Accepting that macro mechanics won't be removed, but also accepting that they could be improved in subtle ways and figuring them out is the name of the game here folks! I have some 15,000 words of various ideas and game concepts that fit into this rough on my hard drive as we speak. Not all of these are mine of course, but they're there. I could, in terms of resources available, do this myself and stick it in a blog. It might be terrible, it might be the finest analytical piece TL had ever done. That's immaterial, we're trying to form a more coherent way to organise like-minded people. Bear in mind that I know these people do exist, we have interesting discussions all the time on fundamental design issues. So many of these posts are amazing concepts, but there isn't really a thread that I feel tries to link them, to weave them into a coherent narrative. I tend to run across these kind of posts everywhere from LR threads, to the strat forum and parts beyond. Some of these posts I feel are great in terms of critiquing or finding the reasoning behind issues, but perhaps have suggested solutions that are something I think is terrible. That's fine too! Mods and users alike I humbly submit this mere idea of a thread to your mercy. If you feel a thread about making a thread falls foul of standards, I'll happily attempt to make it more thread-worthy. If you think the idea is good and either want to contribute, or even just think it's a good idea in and of itself, I'd love to hear from you. Again, if the consensus is that this is a terrible idea that's fine, but I'd like to have people criticising my hypothesis, not anything to do with stuff like 'Blizzard won't do this' unless it's backed up by some kind of evidence. If on the other hand, you want to non-ironically 'TLDR' this, please fuck off and not bother posting 
Spoiled post is the original wall of text
*UPDATE*
The Idea itself
Finding shared grievances with certain design approaches or decisions that are shared across many groups. Many but not all of these are related to basic RTS fundamental design, but are often proposed by so diffuse a range of users that they don't attain any kind of collective weight. Some of the ideas also relate to other areas such as the social experience of SC. We share a feeling that Blizzard find it difficult to sort bad feedback from good, and we feel this project at least gives them a central source of 'good' feedback, if they desire it.
How to do this
Collect as much feedback as possible and find a way to organise it coherently in one place. The overall document must also be able to be edited by other users, subject to change flexibly and expand with new information becoming available.
Where we're currently at
1. I have got a lot of feedback from a wide variety of different groups and a lot of information
2. I have, in response to this feedback altered some of the basic structure and re-evaluated some approaches.
3.In response to other feedback I believe I have found a method to at least create the main chunk of content
I'm currently doing a very basic writeup on googledocs/googledrive which gives us:
-The ability to crowdsource writers and various other skillful people in this regards
-The ability to add constructive criticism to the document itself
-Additional benefits such as the ability to IRC while viewing the document, so we could edit in realtime
-A way to flexibly adjust the article in scope when required
What we currently need moving forward
1. Some more input from the pro community. We don't ask their help, but ask whether they think it's potentially productive as a method. Ideally, moving forward we'd also love either their creative input, or perhaps having some on board to publicise the document to Blizzard.
2. Some more input from certain areas of the playerbase. For example more mapmakers and casuals.
3. Some more input from creative people with presentation skills. Anything from good writers, people who are good with graphics and creative design, anything like that.
How you can help!
1. Give feedback and constructive criticism.
2. Help with sources that we may not be aware of that could be useful
3. Get involved yourself! This isn't a pet project of mine, so I am happy to delegate.
The Document as it Exists Currently
I was reluctant to put this up, because I've really only started it and it looks unimpressive thus far. However I do think it shows the potential is there now we have found at least some vague shared ideas and a method to write them up. It is also all subject to change!
Cheers in advance, and much gratitude for the many of you who have helped so far!
Wombat
|
I think this is a great idea! In addition to this, have you also thought about consolidating all, or at least a portion of, the design philosophy threads in teamliquid? There are plenty of good ones out there and it would be a shame if they were to be missed.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
On December 04 2012 01:10 SharkBait wrote:
I think this is a great idea! In addition to this, have you also thought about consolidating all, or at least a portion of, the design philosophy threads in teamliquid? There are plenty of good ones out there and it would be a shame if they were to be missed.
I'm considering the actual methods we could employ to consolidate the information in a way that best suits the ideals of the thread. I mean it's a potential blog post, or even a potential full article that I could write and host on various sites. This is the kind of thing I need feedback on so cheers. Basically, this is assuming assuming the central ideas are, if not correct, at least possible. If it's merely 'good idea, Blizzard MIGHT be suffering from the problems you're describing', I'd still press on with the thread. In terms of intent, the ideal consequence would be changes made to the game for the better design wise at Blizzard's end. The underlying, main motivation, is to 100%, visibly try to prove if Blizzard are either aware of the issues, but unwilling to fix them, or aware of them and unsure of how to fix them.
I love that design section, basically I'm doing a really rough resource collection in a Word Doc, so I can use it as I see fit. Either I can type out everything, so I can cut/paste sections into any main body of the article, or I can just have all the hyperlinks as a kind of 'for further reading' kind of thing. I've got a few reference articles, but if you had any you think I might not have read, would love you to send me the links.
Here's an illustrative example as to why I actually think Blizzard are responding to community feedback, but from the wrong perspective. Thus there is at least a vague example of why I think the entire idea is important in the first place. They either responded to the wrong feedback, or interpreted the feedback wrongly, imo because it exemplifies them actually having good potential design concepts and then changing course for the worse. Now the specifics and broken builds etc, are immaterial to this particular example, it's to kind of get the concept across.
The Mothership Core and its changing design philosophy
In its original form, attached to the Nexus and with energise and its cannon it was good fundamental design. Regardless of the numbers and 'balance' Protoss had choices to make, conscious choices that enabled different approaches to be employed. Conscious choices that have a consequence that aren't random or inherently based on assumptions, but an example of deeper strategical approaches. For example of the kind of 'random' stuff that is a consequence of a conscious decision, but really fucking annoying, consider getting 6 pooled by a Zerg who guessed your spawn and you scouted him last. Now, in a tournament setting it's suicide to employ his strategy, but on ladder he can do something that you cannot predict and counter through good pre-emptive planning that is based on information.
Here's a further example of the tradeoffs the mothership core's original design created. Ignore the potential for abuse for certain builds for a second and instead think about the actual rationales. You can use all of these applications of the mothership core, but not all of them simultaneously.
1. Use its energise ability to give you more chronoboost to give you either a macro advantage in chronoing production, or really focusing on say upgrades to hit a timing.
2. Use energise in another way to say, give a sentry full energy and giving the capacity for more forcefielding to be available. This enables you to play greedier, but at the expense of doing what I mentioned it point 1. You can use the gas you save on creating extra sentries to go towards tech.
3. Pool energy blindly to use the cannon ability. This allows you to be more blindly safe, but at the expense of pushing other advantages, such as increased availability in chronoboost, which you again have to make a decision how to use (upgrades vs probes vs tech units like collosi)
4. Pool energy for recalls. This enables you to do more non-commital pressure
5. The mothership core was rooted to kind of stick around a nexus, but could teleport to another one. If I recall correctly this took energy as well. This again rewards good preemptive, smart play and punishes blind/risky greed if you don't think ahead. You couldn't have your mothership core on your main nexus say, and be using it to improve your ability to chronoboost pure probes, but yet be able to warp to your natural and use the Purify cannon. This would be a natural, unforced error/miscalculation, because you'd used up all the energy that would enable the Core to defend.
6. I thought of the Mothership Core as a kind of thing that let you augment Protoss macro mechanics and make them more important. This is another fringe benefit, I mean bar the early game, and for specific timings how many Protoss players in WoL use chronoboost properly, compared to Zergs and their use of injects. The Queen is also an example of a good unit that is also a macro-assistant unit, but that is currently flawed design wise. The tradeoffs with the Queen just aren't there in the current metagame. They're not overpowered at defending, or in the macro sense. However, in combination and with the addition of the consideration that it is always a good idea to get Queens pretty much, breaks this kind of relationship.
Old MSC, here was a balance between these potential issues in terms of tradeoffs. Even if one use was potentially broken individually and being abused, the fundamental design and the strategic options available were (potentially) SO good.
That kind of deep interaction is so interesting to me, in terms of enabling different styles to be prioritise and increasing stylistic differences between Protoss player. Unless it was economic suicide I would actually consider making a fucking MACRO NEXUS!!! if the abilities were on that structure. That's how much I loved the underlying concept.
I was flabbergasted when they changed it to its current, limited fucking form. They'd actually shown good basic game design and they reverted it because apparently people 'wanted a unit that moves' or 'felt like a unit'.
It also has another net, indirect benefit and the kind of actual changes to the overall game experience that I think would appeal to almost everyone. It increases strategic divergence, so people who want 'cool stuff to do' can kind of enjoy having more potential things to do. For mechanically strong players, they will benefit more in terms of using something like the chronoboost increasing potential to its effect, and a bad one. However, equally a mindless mechanics machine might not benefit as much as somebody who very smartly manages the Mothership Core's different functionalities.
This is the kind of thing I genuinely think would appeal to Blizzard. They're trying to find a balance between hardcores and casuals which I understand is hard. If you find something that makes the game better for all the different motivational factors that keep people in Starcraft, everyone will benefit, even Blizzard in terms of getting sales.
1. People who enjoy just screwing around have more options available to them. Even a bronze player who doesn't understand the game would probably rather have something with more abilities to explore. I'm making an assumption here.
2. People who play the game to win and are very competitive can benefit. They have an additional tool to reward their good play, if they use it well.
3. It doesn't artificially close the so-called skill gap. If you design something so that good players benefit from good use over worse players, but don't make it something frustrating, both hardcores and casuals are potentially placated. Assuming of course these factors correlate properly.
Thanks for the reply man, hopefully the first of many.
|
This Thread may interest you, going by the first couple of paragraphs.
|
On December 04 2012 01:56 Fencar wrote:This Thread may interest you, going by the first couple of paragraphs.
"That thread" is kinda stupid, because they have this illusion of "one community", which is false, and they have restricted themselves by saying that they dont want to think about "classic units" because Blizzard wont add them anyways. That is grade A stupid IMO, because there are only a limited number of working concepts of how units can deal damage before it gets ridiculous and BW units might be the best there can be after all.
|
I think the first thing we need to do is convince blizzard that NOW is the time to start experimenting and messing with the game. It's the end of the year, many players are taking a break, not many tournaments are happening right now, and we're getting ready for an expansion to come out. There has never been a more perfect time to make radical influential changes, yet blizzard still takes the "we can't do anything to majorly affect the game" mentality.
Also, we need to make it so that testing these changes are EASILY ACCESSIBLE so that more feedback is given. Why do I have to access a separate ptr large pack that ultimately becomes useless in a month or so in order to test the game? All this stuff should be within the main game client itself if blizzard was really serious about making the best possible rts e-sport in face of the earth.
I have more suggestions but these are the most important ones right now that I can list  . I'll add more as time goes on.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
It has some good examples I hadn't considered though, that could serve for good illustration.
I mean, this is an attempt to find a commonality in, if not the solutions, then in the goal most of us share which is making Blizzard address design issues. To find a common ground between different backgrounds and starting points so that our 'group', who are otherwise all considered as fitting into certain niches of TL posters.
I mean to illustrate my point, unless you have seen me post to that effect, or know me personally. Yes/no please and I'll give you a reveal if you want. I don't think you can get 100% in this without that common knowledge (unless by chance) based solely on the interpretations of my ideas themselves. If you couldn't be bothered to do it, but see my point without the benefit of the whole perception/reveal thing going on, I'll understand.
1. Do I have a background in playing BW semi-seriously?
2. Do I have any background in game design in any capacity?
3. Do I have any kind of background in statistical analysis?
4. Do I ever play casual games as my 'main' game for any periods of time?
5. Do I play Starcraft 2 at a relatively high level?
6. Do I want the game to make my race more fun to play?
7. Do I want the game to make my race closer to 50/50 balance in all matchups?
If you can get all of these right, well done/lucky fucker . If not, it shows that the link between technical knowledge, skill, and the overarching goals etc are not as linked as you'd think.
This illustrates perfectly the fundamental reason it is inherently a good idea to separate our message from the messagers and present it as a kind of consensus, logic-driven collaborative process.
Consider that it is generally minority groups that tend to define themselves on the basis that they ARE a minority. Majority/dominant groups societally tend to fragment more, so that other aspects of how they choose their self-identity are given importance. If I extend this tenuous logical link..........
We ARE the majority
|
I have thought that getting a progamer or other celebrity (Day[9] was the guy I had thought of due to his interest in math, but then he made those stupid HotS battle reports for 9 year olds and I threw the idea overboard, because he is not tough enough to do it IMO.) on board would be a good idea as a last ditch effort to try and convince Browder and his bunch of "experts" that they are doing it wrong, but there is a catch attached. Not a lot of people in the progaming circuit are really impartial and distanced enough from the game to actually see the problem. Only if you are "not involved" can you change your perspective to look at things from different angles to notice problems. Blizzards devs share this problem, because they are never taking a step back, stand on their head and then look at SC2 ... let alone compare things to BW and ask themselves "Why did it work in BW but doesnt in SC2?"
An example: BONUS DAMAGE
This sounds like something GOOD, right? Well you are wrong in supposing that to be true. Basically bonus damage limits the usefulness of a unit against anything NOT of that type and thus creates a rock-paper-scissors system which is terrible. I firmly believe that not having as many bonus-damage-limited-units is part of the reason why Zerg are so good and EASY TO PLAY. Roaches are good against everything basically [Insert the "Mondragons answer to everything" graphic from TSL3 - I couldnt find it, but hopefully you remember] ... just as Zerglings. They might have vulnerabilities, BUT good tactics can still make them effective and the vulnerabilities dont count anymore.
Another example: QUEEN RANGE BUFF
This basically didnt balance units against each other, but it balanced macro mechanics instead. Due to the range buff the Zerg can macro up much more freely and thus have a clear advantage over the other two races ... which shows the stupidity of these production and economic boosts quite clearly if you are willing to see it.
The last example would be the unit density and pathing issue, but enough has been said about it already and if Blizzard hasnt understood it by now then they and the game are beyond saving.
+ Show Spoiler +1. Nope ... just played the game for fun.
2. Nope ... just an active brain and the ability to look at things from "unusual angles".
3. Nope ... just long experience in life to know that statistics can be faked in whatever way you choose and dont matter as much as brains and a good impartial judgement.
4. Nope ... SC2 isnt made for casual games anyways.
5. Nope ... I am too old to cope with the amounts of units required for that.
6. Nope ... all races must be equally fun to play.
7. Nope ... because 50/50 is auto-adjusted by the ladder anyways and the true challenge is to make the races equally difficult (or easy) to play.
P.S.: Yes/No answers are stupid without an explanation, because you can be "randomly correct" in any multiple choice test.
PP.S.: We are only theoretically the majority ... since too many people refrain from using their brains and rather sit comfortably at home and think "the president is always right" ... or rather "Blizzard is always right and will fix this, so why bother?"
|
I actually like the idea of the PTR outlined in the thread. However, I disagree that there is a major "going back to BW vs.leaving it in the past " split. There are elements of that in the community, but the vast makority of it seems to be misinformed players crying about balance.
On the design of the MsC, has moved from something that could've been really interesting to something that's kind of interesting, but doesn't really fulfill it's original purpose anymore. I think Blizzard should go back to it's idea of a defensive early-mid game unit, instead of just another unit that has to be included in the death ball.
Wombat, I think you should do a blog about this in additon to the discussion thread. It seems to me that you are really interested in this discussion (obviously) and that you have a lot to positively contribute to this area. I think the blog will help focus people's thoughts and allow for constructive feedback.
|
Oh I want a reveal! I know nothing about you other than the random post or two I catch, so I'm just going to guess.
1. Yes
2. Maybe a little?
3. No
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. I think you want that for all races
7. Same as 6
|
There was very little "game design" about Brood War that is worth revisiting beyond the occasional unit concept like the Lurker. I find it amusing that the same people who bitch endlessly about the Marauder and the Roach fail to see the significance of the Dragoon in their design.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
On December 04 2012 05:13 Evangelist wrote:
There was very little "game design" about Brood War that is worth revisiting beyond the occasional unit concept like the Lurker. I find it amusing that the same people who bitch endlessly about the Marauder and the Roach fail to see the significance of the Dragoon in their design.
That's a misunderstanding of not necessarily why BroodWar is good in terms of retroactive logic I guess. It's a misunderstanding of the degrees to which design intentions, technical limitations and other factors relate to the outcome by assuming that good outcomes = good design in every case of cool unit interactions.
BW Design Intentions vs Outcomes
Apologies for invoking Godwin's Law folks, was pissed off but not trying to shock or anything
|
We also need to convince the Teamliquid mods themselves to capitalize on the BETA before things become permanent. I don't think anyone in charge of the forum realizes that the window for significant changes in the game is nearly closing.
Change freeze will probably happen on February. After that, we are going to be stuck on whatever design is in place.
I mean the Beta came out and they just renamed one sub-forum on TL. Have you read the guidelines? Here's what it says:
+ Show Spoiler +Note: The SC2 Single Player Forum is now the HotS Beta Forum until the expansion is released, and then it will be the Single Player forum again.
StarCraft 2 Single Player Forum Rules
1. No obvious spoilers.
Don't post spoilers in thread titles. The game has been out for a while at this point so general spoilers are fine, but if you're unsure, use a spoiler tag. Use your common sense, eg if someone is asking how to beat a certain mission, don't go spoiling stuff that happens after that mission.
2. Official Mission Threads
Try to keep general discussion about a single mission in one thread. But for other aspects of the Single Player, feel free to create as many threads as you'd like.
3. Guides and Walkthroughs
If you wish to make a guide or walkthrough for a particular mission, go ahead. Your guide may be used for Liquipedia. Or even better, you could edit the Liquipedia entry for that Single Player mission yourself. PM Aesop or any of the Liquipedia team if you want to help.
4. Newbies
Be nice and patient with the newbies. A lot of new users will be posting in this forum and thus there may be a large difference in knowledge or skill levels. Please give these new SC2 fans a warm TL welcome so they enjoy their time here.
5. Achievement Save Files
Please don't post or request these on our forums.
Most mods just ban and temp-ban guys for improper forum behavior. There is "forum policing" but no "forum management" or "forum guidance."
The HOTS forum needs to be cleaned and organized --strategies on one pile, suggestions on another and debates/whines on another. Right now they are just letting posts go at-it on a free-for-all arena.
There should be sub-forums for:
+ Show Spoiler +1. HOTS Beta Strategy - where actual Beta testers can discuss about actual gameplay problems and where Blizzard can get a glimpse of the metagame.
Most posts would be guides and requests for help and most important of all --actual Beta Testing threads.
I mean, whatever happened to having to post a reply?
+ Show Spoiler +2. HOTS Beta Suggestions - where constructive posts and replies will be taken --maybe even judged for merit.
If there was a specific sub-forum, with rules and guidelines on posting that stimulate and promote "suggestion quality" --one where lazy posts are weeded out-- then we can just ask Blizzard to basically view page 1 of that sub-forum and the best community ideas will be seen.
Beta testers and non-beta tester post would thrive, as long as ideas are constructive and helpful.
+ Show Spoiler +3. HOTS General Discussion - a place where everyone can just vent without burying the threads posted on those sub-forums I mentioned above.
This is where all balance discussions/rants/raves/news can be moved.
Why look for pro-gamer spokespeople for our ideas when this site already is the goto-site for Starcraft? This site can speak for us louder. No need to pursue Blizzard, Blizzard/Blizz Employees probably already read/post here. We should try to pursue the Teamliquid guys to make it so that Blizzard does not have to sift through hundreds of posts. Good posts will just be naturally highlighted weekly with proper forum regulation.
The OP author is already volunteering to edit threads to make them presentable, I bet if he became one of a few forum moderators on a suggestion forum he can find other guys and filter threads for "quality".
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
On December 04 2012 06:07 Don.681 wrote:We also need to convince the Teamliquid mods themselves to capitalize on the BETA before things become permanent. I don't think anyone in charge of the forum realizes that the window for significant changes in the game is nearly closing.Change freeze will probably happen on February. After that, we are going to be stuck on whatever design is in place. I mean the Beta came out and they just renamed one sub-forum on TL. Have you read the guidelines? Here's what it says: + Show Spoiler +Note: The SC2 Single Player Forum is now the HotS Beta Forum until the expansion is released, and then it will be the Single Player forum again.
StarCraft 2 Single Player Forum Rules
1. No obvious spoilers.
Don't post spoilers in thread titles. The game has been out for a while at this point so general spoilers are fine, but if you're unsure, use a spoiler tag. Use your common sense, eg if someone is asking how to beat a certain mission, don't go spoiling stuff that happens after that mission.
2. Official Mission Threads
Try to keep general discussion about a single mission in one thread. But for other aspects of the Single Player, feel free to create as many threads as you'd like.
3. Guides and Walkthroughs
If you wish to make a guide or walkthrough for a particular mission, go ahead. Your guide may be used for Liquipedia. Or even better, you could edit the Liquipedia entry for that Single Player mission yourself. PM Aesop or any of the Liquipedia team if you want to help.
4. Newbies
Be nice and patient with the newbies. A lot of new users will be posting in this forum and thus there may be a large difference in knowledge or skill levels. Please give these new SC2 fans a warm TL welcome so they enjoy their time here.
5. Achievement Save Files
Please don't post or request these on our forums. Most mods just ban and temp-ban guys for improper forum behavior. There is "forum policing" but no "forum management" or "forum guidance." The HOTS forum needs to be cleaned and organized --strategies on one pile, suggestions on another and debates/whines on another. Right now they are just letting posts go at-it on a free-for-all arena. There should be sub-forums for: + Show Spoiler +1. HOTS Beta Strategy - where actual Beta testers can discuss about actual gameplay problems and where Blizzard can get a glimpse of the metagame.
Most posts would be guides and requests for help and most important of all --actual Beta Testing threads.
I mean, whatever happened to having to post a reply? 2. HOTS Beta Suggestions - where constructive posts and replies will be taken --maybe even judged for merit.
If there was a specific sub-forum, with rules and guidelines on posting that stimulate and promote "suggestion quality" --one where lazy posts are weeded out-- then we can just ask Blizzard to basically view page 1 of that sub-forum and the best community ideas will be seen.
Beta testers and non-beta tester post would thrive, as long as ideas are constructive and helpful. 3. HOTS General Discussion - a place where everyone can just vent without burying the threads posted on those sub-forums I mentioned above.
This is where all balance discussions/rants/raves/news can be moved. Why look for pro-gamer spokespeople for our ideas when this site already is the goto-site for Starcraft? This site can speak for us louder. No need to pursue Blizzard, Blizzard/Blizz Employees probably already read/post here. We should try to pursue the Teamliquid guys to make it so that Blizzard does not have to sift through hundreds of posts. Good posts will just be naturally highlighted weekly with proper forum regulation. The OP author is already volunteering to edit threads to make them presentable, I bet if he became one of a few forum moderators on a suggestion forum he can find other guys and filter threads for "quality".
A progamer wouldn't be representing us necessarily, but kind of like our megaphone. Yeah, our message will be the same, but it'll be heard louder with a progamer standing arm in arm with us in solidarity. I would love a progamer to actually join the discussion though, somebody with the mechanical and timing knowledge to figure out potential pitfalls in potential solutions.
For example a progamer is the kind of person to point out that buffing gateway units would make proxy 2 gate builds much stronger, and would therefore require more number shifts to be actually implementable.
You miss my point, we assume Blizzard read these forums, and it's likely. Has anybody every seen somebody post from Blizzard though, or references to specific TL threads? We assume they are reading us, but we have no confirmation generally, apart from when pros are involved.
Why is the Carrier back in the game? Because of Nony's video, I believe 100% that's why. He didn't just say to bring it back though, he did it by illustrating visually the concepts that made Carrier micro GOOD design, and something that if included could make it viable again. I don't know whether this is necessarily being implemented, but Browder has said he would consider applying the concept of making a Carrier microable. A Carrier that is microable is a hell of a lot more useful to us than the Carriers we have now as Protoss, and expands our potential strategy set. That would slightly improve our compositions even in WoL by giving us a something that can only be good. Nony/Tyler's video was basically an intelligent, articulate Starcraft player presenting a longstanding, commonheld idea that we had been discussing here for at LEAST a year.
Why do people listen to Destiny's rants? Yeah, he makes some good points but the entire posts are often based on incredibly fallacious assumptions that discredit everything else he says. They pay attention because he's Destiny.
Here we've got a variety of perspectives, but the same central ideas - work with us on design issues and how they interract with the game, we'll do a lot of legwork and collate shitloads of examples.
Including one notable pro is really just exploiting people's tendency to defer to expertise/authority figures and what they say, regardless of the logic of what they say.
I firmly believe this can actually be done, if we even get one good idea through to Blizzard that they actually consider in a new light based on our pure theorycraft, that's more than would be done otherwise.
|
Nice Post.
As is the "One community" post linked above.
The problem is that everybody has their own opinion and there are not that many points everybody can agree on.
First step should probably be you and the one community people working together.
A form of community test map as a sort of PTR, which regularly integrates balance proposals and then captures feedback with polls would be a great thing. Let's say, for example, with iterations of 2-4 weeks.
Then the feedback is published and and changes are made and the next iteration starts.
The problem is to find a way to accept different balance proposals and theories and then make a choice between them by somehow capturing the feedback of the community in a definite way.
The only thing that most people agree on currently is that the infestor is overpowered and maybe that terran needs something more in HotS than what they got so far.
Some might agree that the vortex is a pretty bad spell and that the mothership forces a deathball even more.
A few people agree that forcefield is actually a bad mechanic (for various reasons) and that the warpgate is not implemented in the best possible way.
But these are mostly people who played for a long and think about game design a lot and I would think they are the minority. Most people tend to want to buff their race and nerf the other races.
If you have the energy, time and motivation to do it I would suggest trying to capture and combine the major ideas from the various great and well argumented posts around here, then list them and offer a set of polls for each major idea or concept. That would at least be a way to capture some feedback.
If, by some miracle the community could agree on certain ideas, it should not be a great problem to create the test map.
The "one community" guys are doing that and I myself also played around with the editor to create a testmap for my own ideas.
I did not get to test it with anyone though.
That's why some form of community support is needed.
Well, good write-up.
If you need any help or want to make some practice games, feel free to PM me.
|
This idea is hopeless as you won't even agree on what the problems are in the first place let alone potential solutions.
There are so many different views on what problems are and especially on what ideal solutions are. Some people suggest making interface changes like cap on unit selection (BW style), some suggest fundamental changes like pathing, minerals per base etc. while others just suggest unit changes. Even for a relatively simple 'problem' like the infestor at the moment and ZvT there are tons of different opinions.
I for example can't stand why people keep whining about warpgate so much. I think it's a brilliant design and really fits in making the races unique, of course it has some implications on gameplay but doesn't break the game in any way I feel.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
On December 04 2012 10:47 Markwerf wrote:
This idea is hopeless as you won't even agree on what the problems are in the first place let alone potential solutions.
There are so many different views on what problems are and especially on what ideal solutions are. Some people suggest making interface changes like cap on unit selection (BW style), some suggest fundamental changes like pathing, minerals per base etc. while others just suggest unit changes. Even for a relatively simple 'problem' like the infestor at the moment and ZvT there are tons of different opinions.
I for example can't stand why people keep whining about warpgate so much. I think it's a brilliant design and really fits in making the races unique, of course it has some implications on gameplay but doesn't break the game in any way I feel.
The entire point is to find the points of convergence, so people with different desires in terms of specifics, can still get across their similar mentality.
For your example, warpgate. Had a PM discussion with a guy earlier on it, and he wants it 100% removed. I think that because Blizzard specifically said they won't do that, you can still balance it but in other ways. If Blizz won't do his favoured way, he'd still prefer my way of potentially looking at other ways. People who like warpgate existing, also don't have it removed if they think it's a cool mechanic to see Protoss teleporting in.
It's making them consider the root causes of balance complaints, rather than treating the symptoms. Specifics aren't overly important if they get the concepts being discussed, or at least why we think that. Perhaps people won't agree with that approach being enough to ever influence them, but as long as we make a proper attempt that'd be enough for me anyway. It's an attempt to productively pool our resources, for positive, constructive lobbying.
Think of it like an r/Starcraft emailing the sponsors campaign, but trying to do something positive for the game and the community at a base level.
Things you can try to find common ground on, regardless of whether these illustrative examples are right
Common misconceptions that damage the game for everyone, even if it's to small degrees, damage the game
'Casuals want an easy game, hardcore players want a hard game.'
'People want the game to be balanced primarily by win rates'
Common things I believe Blizzard neglects to factor in
Players want a balance, relatively equivalent between races in terms of variety/stylistic ways to play the game
Players want each race to reward each particular skill, as long as it doesn't sacrifice the kind of identity of the race.
|
On December 04 2012 10:57 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 10:47 Markwerf wrote:
This idea is hopeless as you won't even agree on what the problems are in the first place let alone potential solutions.
There are so many different views on what problems are and especially on what ideal solutions are. Some people suggest making interface changes like cap on unit selection (BW style), some suggest fundamental changes like pathing, minerals per base etc. while others just suggest unit changes. Even for a relatively simple 'problem' like the infestor at the moment and ZvT there are tons of different opinions.
I for example can't stand why people keep whining about warpgate so much. I think it's a brilliant design and really fits in making the races unique, of course it has some implications on gameplay but doesn't break the game in any way I feel. The entire point is to find the points of convergence, so people with different desires in terms of specifics, can still get across their similar mentality. For your example, warpgate. Had a PM discussion with a guy earlier on it, and he wants it 100% removed. I think that because Blizzard specifically said they won't do that, you can still balance it but in other ways. If Blizz won't do his favoured way, he'd still prefer my way of potentially looking at other ways. People who like warpgate existing, also don't have it removed if they think it's a cool mechanic to see Protoss teleporting in. It's making them consider the root causes of balance complaints, rather than treating the symptoms. Specifics aren't overly important if they get the concepts being discussed, or at least why we think that. Perhaps people won't agree with that approach being enough to ever influence them, but as long as we make a proper attempt that'd be enough for me anyway. It's an attempt to productively pool our resources, for positive, constructive lobbying. Think of it like an r/Starcraft emailing the sponsors campaign, but trying to do something positive for the game and the community at a base level. Things you can try to find common ground on, regardless of whether these illustrative examples are right Common misconceptions that damage the game for everyone, even if it's to small degrees, damage the game'Casuals want an easy game, hardcore players want a hard game.' 'People want the game to be balanced primarily by win rates' Common things I believe Blizzard neglects to factor inPlayers want a balance, relatively equivalent between races in terms of variety/stylistic ways to play the game Players want each race to reward each particular skill, as long as it doesn't sacrifice the kind of identity of the race.
the thing is, you're just stating the obvious now.
Do you honestly think blizzard doesn't know those things? They know they want balance and an interesting game but stating that doesn't help them in any way to get it...
Agreeing on more concrete things as a whole is virtually impossible though, every suggestion thread out there is basically an attempt at that already focussed on a single issue which rarely ends in concensus.
Blizzard shouldn't be communicating too much with the community, it only gives a false sense of choice. The moment you start to openly discuss idea's you only have to dissapoint people since you can't satisfy every wish anyway.
They should just come with concrete changes and monitor how they go, stealing any good idea they see. In the end it's all up to the developers though in which I unfortunately have zero trust considering what they've been doing so far. It it what it is though..
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
On December 04 2012 11:32 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 10:57 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 04 2012 10:47 Markwerf wrote:
This idea is hopeless as you won't even agree on what the problems are in the first place let alone potential solutions.
There are so many different views on what problems are and especially on what ideal solutions are. Some people suggest making interface changes like cap on unit selection (BW style), some suggest fundamental changes like pathing, minerals per base etc. while others just suggest unit changes. Even for a relatively simple 'problem' like the infestor at the moment and ZvT there are tons of different opinions.
I for example can't stand why people keep whining about warpgate so much. I think it's a brilliant design and really fits in making the races unique, of course it has some implications on gameplay but doesn't break the game in any way I feel. The entire point is to find the points of convergence, so people with different desires in terms of specifics, can still get across their similar mentality. For your example, warpgate. Had a PM discussion with a guy earlier on it, and he wants it 100% removed. I think that because Blizzard specifically said they won't do that, you can still balance it but in other ways. If Blizz won't do his favoured way, he'd still prefer my way of potentially looking at other ways. People who like warpgate existing, also don't have it removed if they think it's a cool mechanic to see Protoss teleporting in. It's making them consider the root causes of balance complaints, rather than treating the symptoms. Specifics aren't overly important if they get the concepts being discussed, or at least why we think that. Perhaps people won't agree with that approach being enough to ever influence them, but as long as we make a proper attempt that'd be enough for me anyway. It's an attempt to productively pool our resources, for positive, constructive lobbying. Think of it like an r/Starcraft emailing the sponsors campaign, but trying to do something positive for the game and the community at a base level. Things you can try to find common ground on, regardless of whether these illustrative examples are right Common misconceptions that damage the game for everyone, even if it's to small degrees, damage the game'Casuals want an easy game, hardcore players want a hard game.' 'People want the game to be balanced primarily by win rates' Common things I believe Blizzard neglects to factor inPlayers want a balance, relatively equivalent between races in terms of variety/stylistic ways to play the game Players want each race to reward each particular skill, as long as it doesn't sacrifice the kind of identity of the race. the thing is, you're just stating the obvious now. Do you honestly think blizzard doesn't know those things? They know they want balance and an interesting game but stating that doesn't help them in any way to get it... Agreeing on more concrete things as a whole is virtually impossible though, every suggestion thread out there is basically an attempt at that already focussed on a single issue which rarely ends in concensus. Blizzard shouldn't be communicating too much with the community, it only gives a false sense of choice. The moment you start to openly discuss idea's you only have to dissapoint people since you can't satisfy every wish anyway. They should just come with concrete changes and monitor how they go, stealing any good idea they see. In the end it's all up to the developers though in which I unfortunately have zero trust considering what they've been doing so far. It it what it is though..
Well yeah? Or at least it's possible.
The issue is that there IS a relationship established with the community, in terms of stuff like devs posting on Bnet about design, and pros being consulted. It's defining this relationship, and seeing how we can be more productive going forward.
It's an entire fucking waste of time to have to put in the effort and noise of the 'Save the Carrier' campaign to get anything done. It doesn't even change anything, it's still a terrible SC2 unit without the microability, which as I know thus far is being looked at.
I mean I played WC3 for years and there was no such relationship, so the expectation wasn't there. It wasn't an issue. You raise my central point is that there is now this relationship established, and it's not unidirectional you have to define the terms of it.
1. Blizzard monitor every Team Liquid design thread closely
2. They get somebody to sift through it in some capacity and filter out stuff.
3. They get most of their feedback from Bnet forums and battlenet
4. They'll do their own thing
5. They'll consult the pros and only the pros.
Now, if you think defining which of those 5, definitively is a case of stating the obvious, fair enough. I think there's a pretty conclusive case to be made for defining it.
If it wasn't for my interest in game design just in and of itself, I wouldn't bother to post most of my design theories and talk about balance. If the motivation in me was to get tangible changes made, and we found out Blizzard just freestyle it, then there's no need to worry about it. However if it's a case of they are listening to feedback, but it's the lowest common denominator kind of posts, then we can offer an alternative to that.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
And now for the reveal! (drum roll is obligatory here) I don't have to really expand on each individual one to illustrate my point further, nor am I doing the reveal to tell you more about the mysterious Wombat. It's to illustrate that ideas, and the reasoning influencing the person proposing them are too often pigeonholed. Blizzard, imo are doing this at present with their approach to balancing and designing SC2. The attempt to make them consider this more into their thinking would 100% lead to a better game for everyone. Even Rabiator, who identified/factored in my general way of thinking and my psyche, wasn't able to predict my background. Blizzard are suffering from this problem too, it's pretty obvious when you look at some of their approaches to fixing issues.
1. Do I have a background in playing BW semi-seriously?- No
2. Do I have any background in game design in any capacity? No
3. Do I have any kind of background in statistical analysis? No
4. Do I ever play casual games as my 'main' game for any periods of time?Yes Even pretty recently
5. Do I play Starcraft 2 at a relatively high level? No -Relative to the playerbase yes, but considered lowskill on TL
6. Do I want the game to make my race more fun to play? Yes
7. Do I want the game to make my race closer to 50/50 balance in all matchups? Yes However, no if this is to the detriment of everything else.
|
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.
|
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?
|
Have a feeling there's some derailing in the thread but then again am sick and might've misunderstood something.
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.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
Yeah, you agree with the central ideas I'm trying to get across. Your idea is also great in terms of fixing de-rails of threads on TL. I like the idea of a separate section for us folks who want to talk about design concepts.
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
|
Wombat, if you want this to work as a community project, it's probably best to concentrate on writing clear guidelines for the process and to just make all your resources public in whatever shape or form you can put them yourself. (For example, creating a TOC+sectioned google doc where anyone can "comment"). At the moment it's still a tiny bit vague as to how this would work.
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.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
Good ideas man, I'll get adding some sort of overall resource thing online, that people can upload stuff to or just read.
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
|
We definitely need more structure, but as others have mentioned you are going to have a lot of contradictory/conflicting viewpoints on any given topic, and compromising between them would not only be a difficult task (if it is even possible in some circumstances), but would make the discourse even muddier than it is now, which I think is contrary to what you're after. I think the best way to do this is is to treat it like a peer-reviewed journal of sorts. You have either a select group of people, or the community as a whole review good articles on the topic with a particular rubric/set of standards in mind, and then you 'publish' the good articles within the 'journal' (which would be a comprehensive thread on this initiative). This way, you get the single voice you are looking for, without having to laboriously figure out what stance to take on any given topic and face all the inevitable problems that come with such a task. Plus, this puts the ball in Blizzard's court, and shows that we trust them to figure out which direction to take on any given topic. The variety of opinions also means that there is a higher likelihood that they will take something on board, since they have more opinions to pick and choose from than with the single voice idea.
|
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.
|
Northern Ireland25706 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
|
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.
|
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.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
So here we see some agreement on deeper design flaws or approaches, albeit that disagree specifically.
The actual reasoning/rationale behind it is roughly similar, it's drawing the similarities out there and making them more coherent.
|
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.
|
On December 06 2012 06:23 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
Ok as we stand, here is where we currently are at.
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!
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
How I feel Blizzard are currently at, with regards to the latest patch
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.
|
United States4883 Posts
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.
|
Northern Ireland25706 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
|
On December 06 2012 06:57 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
Northern Ireland25706 Posts
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.
|
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 Ireland25706 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 Ireland25706 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 Ireland25706 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 Ireland25706 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
