|
Canada11266 Posts
On January 04 2013 19:02 Glorfindel21 wrote:Show nested quote +
So while much of this was probably not intentional, it is actually very good design wise because there are so many options and counter options for both sides. If you know the scarab behaviour attackers and defenders can make moves and counter moves to account for it.
So your point is that bad design can turn good. Then what the hell are we doing here (sincerely) bashing something that is simply in test-phase right now ? I call it irony, that is, philosophy.
Unintentional consequences is not the same thing as bad design. Patrick Wyatt lead designer for Warcraft 1 and 2 and troubleshoot programmer for Starcraft termed it 'emergent behaviour' which I think is far more accurate.
At the heart of what makes good unit design for microbility is burst damage so there is time in between attacks to retreat. And that a unit can speedily transition from attacking to moving or moving to attacking. (Getting rid of delay/ sluggishness.) And then unit speed- but this can be over-come if something like a shuttle give a unit like the reaver speed.
I believe you mentioned the collosi are not warp prism microed due to cost and I would agree it is probably too risky to spend much time sending it out by itself. There also isn't much burst damage on it to make it worth drop ship microing. Collosi does lots of damage due to the rate of fire due rather than individual bursts. It is also non-directional due to its arc which not provide as good targets as directional splash damage shots. (Particularly something like the backwards splash of scarabs.) I believe 2 years ago Morrow demonstrated that Collosi can be microed with warp-prisms. The fact that few have picked it up including every BW Protoss player that heavily relied on shuttle-reaver micro tells me there isn't sufficient incentive to make it worth spending the apm to do so.
...Or maybe we need to wait 10 years or something- but reaver micro was picked up pretty early on and actually had to be nerfed because it was too powerful.
There are probably other things like better anti-air for sniping drop play, but I am not so sure about that.
The other thing is what was unintentional consequences in the first game can be directly programmed as a feature in the sequel- see strafe-jumping in Quake or combo moves in Street Fighter.
|
On January 05 2013 05:04 Glorfindel21 wrote:Show nested quote +
The reaver was a tremendously well designed unit which got slightly dumber due to a flaw in the game engine. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work in reverse, you don't get magic bugs in your game engine that somehow transform all your poorly designed units into awesome, micro intensive badass units.
The reaver was so awesome you admire it IN COMBINATION with the shuttle. I don't think that developpers had that in mind when they released the unit. Show nested quote +
The reaver is virtually immobile, has an aoe attack which is telegraphed and dodgeable, requires constant attention and micro to use well, needs to spend money on each shot and, due to the bw engine, has buggy attacks.
Show nested quote +
The colossus is a mobile 1a unit that walks around herp derping out lasers and, due to the sc2 engine... walks around herp derping out lasers.
Here we go again. The infamous "every unit should be copied in design in the exact same place where it was from BW". The dodgeable shot exists in sc2 : it's the seeker missile. For the fact that it costs mineral and no energy, well, the concept is not quite original in itself, even in BW (spidermine). Even if i like the concept (making it cost mineral), i don't think this withdraws THAT much from SC2 I don't think starcraft 2 needs less APM to be played, it's simply that APM is invested in other ways, in mechanics that did not exist in BW (creep-spread for example).
They might not have had that exact combination in mind, but they knew they were making reavers highly immobile and shuttles a mobility-enhancing unit. The units have great synergy because they were individually well designed. There's just no getting around the fact that 'bad design' does not enter into this equation. Game engines do not create synergy between units, designing units with unique strengths and limitations does.
My point is not that reavers = dodgeable therefore collosus should = dodgeable, simply that powerful aoe should come with limitations. Be it extreme immobility, a dodgeable attack, damage-over-time with a chance to mitigate damage with micro, friendly fire, etc. Without such limitations such units can simply be 1a'd into the enemy ruining any chance for spectacular counter micro. This is not just 'bw fanaticism' or 'bw dogmatism', it is the same for any competitive game: extremely powerful tactics should require skill to use and some means of the enemy to defend or mitigate them with his own skill, or else they are dubbed 'cheap'.
At this point, there's a considerable consensus about which units in sc2 are the worst for spectating/gameplay and why. Trying to nitpick and say people shouldn't complain is just pointless. Blizz themselves acknowledge some of the problems and are working on them - 'deathball syndrome', infestor/fungal, lack of viable stargate for toss and no mech TvP, they agreed with the community's complaints about these and tried/are trying to fix them. Now it is just a matter of whether they will be able to fix the problems, and do so in a way which is good for gameplay. That's why people talk about stuff like whether the widow mine is a 'well designed' unit.
I understand that a lot of people are just aimlessly griping and saying stupid things like 'i will nevar buy the game! youtube is better than actually playing the campaign!' However you can't just lump everyone in with them and get annoyed and try to dismiss all discussion/constructive criticism about design flaws.
|
Look at all the terrans getting mad. You cant possibly refute that the zergling is not weaker in sc2. ZvT are a staple unit until late game.
|
On January 05 2013 07:16 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 19:02 Glorfindel21 wrote:
So while much of this was probably not intentional, it is actually very good design wise because there are so many options and counter options for both sides. If you know the scarab behaviour attackers and defenders can make moves and counter moves to account for it.
So your point is that bad design can turn good. Then what the hell are we doing here (sincerely) bashing something that is simply in test-phase right now ? I call it irony, that is, philosophy. Unintentional consequences is not the same thing as bad design. Patrick Wyatt lead designer for Warcraft 1 and 2 and troubleshoot programmer for Starcraft termed it 'emergent behaviour' which I think is far more accurate. At the heart of what makes good unit design for microbility is burst damage so there is time in between attacks to retreat. And that a unit can speedily transition from attacking to moving or moving to attacking. (Getting rid of delay/ sluggishness.) And then unit speed- but this can be over-come if something like a shuttle give a unit like the reaver speed. I believe you mentioned the collosi are not warp prism microed due to cost and I would agree it is probably too risky to spend much time sending it out by itself. There also isn't much burst damage on it to make it worth drop ship microing. Collosi does lots of damage due to the rate of fire due rather than individual bursts. It is also non-directional due to its arc which not provide as good targets as directional splash damage shots. (Particularly something like the backwards splash of scarabs.) I believe 2 years ago Morrow demonstrated that Collosi can be microed with warp-prisms. The fact that few have picked it up including every BW Protoss player that heavily relied on shuttle-reaver micro tells me there isn't sufficient incentive to make it worth spending the apm to do so. ...Or maybe we need to wait 10 years or something- but reaver micro was picked up pretty early on and actually had to be nerfed because it was too powerful. There are probably other things like better anti-air for sniping drop play, but I am not so sure about that. The other thing is what was unintentional consequences in the first game can be directly programmed as a feature in the sequel- see strafe-jumping in Quake or combo moves in Street Fighter.
Biggest problem with Warp prism micro in sc2 is that its completely pointless and will most likely only work against you. Collosus can already be hit by air units, so picking the unit up with another air unit is like trying to micro a phoenix into a warp prism. Even if you could it would be completely pointless. And, like you said, collosus deals in short, fast burst. So you'll deal a lot more damage by simply leaving it to do its own thing.
This is probably why everyone hates it. It does its damage best if you leave it completely alone. Doesn't exactly entice micro now does it?
I know this was in the last patch and not this one, but the insane effect on dropships right now is really troubling. It limits your options as protoss a lot. While earlier you could stay on gateway units while getting upgrades and expanding, you now have to rush for splash or die to any push post medivacs. And while I do appriciate that they're trying to make small drops stronger, whats actually happening is that Terrans are picking up their entire army and dropping it in your base. While this was powerful in WoL, you could deal with it. But with the added healing effects, you either see it before it happens, or you straight up die.
My experience anyways. We're all just experimenting at this point anyways. But I would like to hear someone elses view on this as well (I don't even need to mention the problem with Bio being stronger and mech useless right now. Which is opposite of what most of us want).
|
So, how do you play against zerg in HotS? I try all kind of things but in the end I just gets starved by brood lord/infestor/viper and tech switches to ling ultra infestor with spine walls everywhere, no matter how many bases I fucking kill, just like how my TvZ ended up in WoL 5 months ago when I last played sc2.
TvP is a bit different, not so fun on the Terran side of things, just more annoying things to worry about. It was fun playing that matchup as Protoss tho.
TvT: Still a fun matchup, I mech alot and it's a bit more fun with the mines but thats it. I guess the must reaper opening is a bit annoying tho. I also think making the mines a stand alone unit instead of putting them on hellions so it functions like a vulture is a big mistake. Just feels so mindless walking the mines around the map if you wanna cut out zones on the map while playing mech. I guess you could make one medivac and drop them around with the new speed boost but still.....
All in all, pretty boring expansion for me as a Terran tbh. Feels like I'm still playing WoL but with a silly speed boost on medivacs while everyone else is playing a new game. :/
|
|
|
They might not have had that exact combination in mind, but they knew they were making reavers highly immobile and shuttles a mobility-enhancing unit. The units have great synergy because they were individually well designed. There's just no getting around the fact that 'bad design' does not enter into this equation. Game engines do not create synergy between units, designing units with unique strengths and limitations does.
My point is to say that devs can't predict how exactly their units will be used. You can't go around that. Maybe they thought of a use of the reaver with the shuttle. But how could they know it was viable ? They could not. That's why dev are devs and pros are pros : because devs gives units and pros realise their potential.
In fact, I admit every unit is designed from the start : but you can never predict exactly how one design will interact with other design and if it's possible in real play.
You often see Colossus-prism drop ? No, me neither (only once to be honest). It could be done, but is it worth it ? Pros say no.
My point is not that reavers = dodgeable therefore collosus should = dodgeable, simply that powerful aoe should come with limitations. Be it extreme immobility, a dodgeable attack, damage-over-time with a chance to mitigate damage with micro, friendly fire, etc. Without such limitations such units can simply be 1a'd into the enemy ruining any chance for spectacular counter micro. This is not just 'bw fanaticism' or 'bw dogmatism', it is the same for any competitive game: extremely powerful tactics should require skill to use and some means of the enemy to defend or mitigate them with his own skill, or else they are dubbed 'cheap'.
You can"t say there are no limitations to Colossus !
First, its both an air and ground target, which makes it easily killed or useless if an air-to-air army stands on a high ground with no blink.
Second, it's slow, really slow. It encourages runbys, slower the protoss ball.
Third, it's completely useless without extended TL, which cost 200/200 and takes A LOT OF TIME to get in play. Reaver is not that useless for pros whithout 25+ or 10 (from 5) scarabs.
Fourth, AOE is not as powerful or covers as much surface as the reaver if i'm correct.
So if we take the time to compare, you exchange mobility for power, HPS for more counters, forced upgrade/synergy with shuttle.
And if you think there is no micro with colossus, well, watch PvP laser late game. It's simply that it's not as "seeable" as with the last master of starcraft tank into medivac.
At this point, there's a considerable consensus about which units in sc2 are the worst for spectating/gameplay and why. Trying to nitpick and say people shouldn't complain is just pointless. Blizz themselves acknowledge some of the problems and are working on them - 'deathball syndrome', infestor/fungal, lack of viable stargate for toss and no mech TvP, they agreed with the community's complaints about these and tried/are trying to fix them. Now it is just a matter of whether they will be able to fix the problems, and do so in a way which is good for gameplay. That's why people talk about stuff like whether the widow mine is a 'well designed' unit.
Problem with TL community is they feel they are powerful. If they were simply a bunch of really wise people, they would not get here to whine (like i see on the infestor) to the extreme ("remove infestor, remove root"). You need patience and refinement. If every one here had the intelligence to think twice, well, this would change much.
Never forget the "let's follow this dude effect", the all-on-one-unit-whine-effect and the fact that not all people here are masters/GMs and you will understand that most of the balance threads are simply not well thought.
Do i like colossus as a design for toss high dps ? I'm not sure.
I understand that a lot of people are just aimlessly griping and saying stupid things like 'i will nevar buy the game! youtube is better than actually playing the campaign!' However you can't just lump everyone in with them and get annoyed and try to dismiss all discussion/constructive criticism about design flaws.
Well, sometimes you have too. People tend to forget they have to improve BEFORE even get here to whine. It's already extra-hard to make people admit root is not necessarily a bad design. There must be forces that act in the opposite ways, because TL has power and this power can modify the game; It should not be taken lightly.
|
Off query, people are complaining that Widow mine cant 1 shot a few units, but with the splash add-on, you kill 2 units, Zealot 150 overall health, first missle hits for 125, second hits another target killing the zealot with 40 splash for 165 overall damage, which is still enough to take out stalkers as well. Making it so 2 units total take 165 damage while those around it take 80.
Just a thought.
|
On January 05 2013 11:35 Gosi wrote:
So, how do you play against zerg in HotS? I try all kind of things but in the end I just gets starved by brood lord/infestor/viper and tech switches to ling ultra infestor with spine walls everywhere, no matter how many bases I fucking kill, just like how my TvZ ended up in WoL 5 months ago when I last played sc2.
TvP is a bit different, not so fun on the Terran side of things, just more annoying things to worry about. It was fun playing that matchup as Protoss tho.
TvT: Still a fun matchup, I mech alot and it's a bit more fun with the mines but thats it. I guess the must reaper opening is a bit annoying tho. I also think making the mines a stand alone unit instead of putting them on hellions so it functions like a vulture is a big mistake. Just feels so mindless walking the mines around the map if you wanna cut out zones on the map while playing mech. I guess you could make one medivac and drop them around with the new speed boost but still.....
All in all, pretty boring expansion for me as a Terran tbh. Feels like I'm still playing WoL but with a silly speed boost on medivacs while everyone else is playing a new game. :/
TvZ check this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=390979
Tvp I agree so many new all ins makes mech so hard to play and air toss no counter !!
TvT: I dont like it reaper vs reaper...
|
Can't wait to see what blizzard has been doing during the holidays to make HotS even more appealing ! 
|
On January 04 2013 10:23 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:15 The_Darkness wrote:On January 04 2013 06:11 KamikazeDurrrp wrote:
This is why I hate posting in forums. You guys completely twist my words and in the end misunderstand everything I say. Do you even pay attention to what I write? My point was:
a)units in SC2 offer too much utility
b)to access most of the utility that a SC2 unit has to offer most of the time you just push a button and you get the full utility
What do I mean by this? Let's say I was a protoss player in SC2 and I saw that the terran player was massing seige tanks. What would I do? All I have to do is drop a robotics bay, make immortals and immediately a-move them into seige tanks because by just making the immortal, I have created the sufficient counter to stop seige tanks, because by design, the immortal has been given all the utility it needs to counter seige tanks (hardened shields, high burst damage, decent mobility). This creates a "dynamic" where instead of making decisions that would reward you for your strategy, you are more or less rewarded for doing the obvious. Compare this to the lurker, which has the obvious utility of doing large amount of aoe burst damage. However, in order to DO that you have to position your lurkers in the ground where they have to expose themselves, and prevent themselves from moving. In the end this forces positioning and smart usage. This is what I mean when I say “dynamic”. You don’t instantly gain access to all the utility the lurker has by just making it, you are REWARDED that utility by using lurkers well.
This especially applies to fungal because as I have repeated again and again, fungal pretty much does everything for the zerg player. For just the price of landing it, you get crowd control, damage and immobility from your opponent. It's not the fact that fungal "restricts" micro, it's the fact that it's so easy to restrict micro with fungal WITH the free damage WITH the long range of fungal that just pushes the spell over the top in terms of design.
This was why I made a parallel when comparing SC2 to BW because when compared to the units in BW, SC2 have much more utility than the BW units had. BUT for what utility that the BW units had, they were much stronger, but also much more limited in accessing that utility. Let's just look plague when compared to fungal. As I've noted earlier, fungal provides much more utility than plague, since fungal can immobilize AND silence some units from using abilities (stalker blink, etc.). However, in terms of burst damage, plague does MUCH more damage. BUT you know how much plague costs? 150 ENERGY. Compare that to the cheap, spammable 75 energy fungal. Also consider plague is PURGABLE in BW. I don't see a purge in SC2 anytime soon.
And when did I say SC2 units were "all about the balance" when BW units had "cool micro"? I made the point BW was much MORE RESTRICTIVE in terms of the additional utility that their units had, making so that ACCESSING THAT UTILITY WAS POTENTIALLY GAME CHANGING. You never had the "make one unit completely counter options from the other race" in BW as much as you do in SC2. You especially see this mentality when you look at the various forums on how to deal with certain compositions. You lose to Broodlords or Colossus? Make more vikings. You lose to Ultralisks? Make more maruaders. You lose as zerg? MAKE MORE INFESTORS. And so on and so on.
And for you information, I NEVER EVEN PLAYED BROODWAR. I’m aware that many of the units in Broodwar were buggy, dumb pieces of crap that never worked all the time. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN OF THE UNIT. Just because the reaver scarab didn’t work all the time make it so it completely invalidated the design of the unit, which included restricting the ammo and the mobility of the reaver.
Is it too much to ask for less a-move units with less ability to do everything and just be extremely strong in one aspect? Is it too much to ask for a game where you are rewarded for your execution rather than your ability to do the obvious? I know Starcraft 2 is not an easy game to master, but if we want to make a DYNAMIC COMPETITIVE E-SPORT there are more factors than just “something looks cool and as long as it works it should be in the game”. You could make rock paper scissors the most awesome graphically interesting jaw dropping animations into a video game, but it still wouldn’t take away from the fact that all the possibilities are obvious and not that dynamic.
As a spectator I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the protoss should have made more immortals to counter the siege tanks. I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the zerg should have made more fungals in order to tear the deathball into pieces. I want to learn to use marines like MKP in order to maximize the utility of marines like he does. I want to learn to use zerglings like Life does and abuse them in every stage of the game for runbys, counterattacks and small strike forces. But with the way blizzard is balancing the game it just doesn’t look possible. Just look at the tempest. You know why blizzard created the tempest in the first place? “Protoss is struggling too much with mutalisks, so let’s give the protoss a unit that completely counters mutalisks”. This then changed to “completely counters broodlord-infestor” when blizzard saw how much people were struggling with that ridiculous composition. I mean, just the thought of the tempest hurts my head. Out of all the races that needed a new capital ship, and Blizzard chose protoss? I don’t even know what’s real anymore.
One only has to look at the responses against me to see how much the “terrible terrible” design philosophy has seeped into the minds of people. The moment I try to compare BW design to SC2 design I am instantly turned into “that idiot BW elitist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about that’s ruining SC2 and only wants BW with better graphics”. Um…No? What I was trying to achieve was how we could just look at BW and learn how BW designed their units, and the successes that made BW great could be emulated in SC2. Contrary to what people believe, I don’t want another BW, I want a BETTER and MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN BW AS A GAME in every way. And can we really say at this point SC2 is better game than BW is? If your answer is no then you have no right calling me a BW elitist. You write, "You never had the "make one unit completely counter options from the other race" in BW as much as you do in SC2. " BW was probably the most refined game on the planet and it was very clear to the pros at almost all times, it seemed to me at least, what they should be doing, what they should be making and when they should be doing it. For example, mutas made it so that zvz always featured the exact same unit comp. Always. If you built something else you lost. End of story. How is that, in your book, so worthy of celebration? Also, e.g., didn't the presence of science vessels mean that you couldn't build mutas anymore (in mass)? These things were hard counters for that tech. How else should they be described? What aspect of the BW meta game was at all dynamic? That game was effectively solved. That's not a knock on BW. It's bound to happen to any game that is played for as long as BW and is not continuously patched. You write, "As a spectator I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the protoss should have made more immortals to counter the siege tanks." Terran almost never mech in competitive tvps. When you have you been in a position to say this? I seriously doubt you watch SC2. It's OK to think SC2 has problems but to think that you have some insight into what constitutes good game design is arrogant given that you do not appear to be very knowledgeable about SC2. You completley misunderstand everything he says, which I honestly even doubt is intetionally. Its more likely that you are unnuanced in your understanding of game philosophy that you aren't capable of understanding his logic. This would be fine if you just wasn't so damn arrogant and offensive in all of your comments. You should consider being more humble and study game design/play the game at decent level before you start attacking other.
Your and the other BW dogmatists' thoughts on design and HoTS amount to little more than comical assertions about what constitutes good design. That you take yourself and suggestions like this Durp clown seriously is an example of unintentional comedy at its finest. His post is clear enough but there's little to undestand. It's a paeon to certain of the better BW units. According to the BW dogmatists like you, to determine good design: you look at a BW unit; make an amateurish attempt at distilling key characteristics of that unit; and then assert that you've found the magic elixir for fixing whatever ails HoTS and triumphantly proclaim that Blizzard has no idea what it's doing. Q.E.D. If these posts were elementary school essays, they'd earn C-'es. Durp is repeating the same tired thoughts on "good game design" that have been repeated as an article of faith by all of the BW dogmatists since HoTS came out. They do not deserve to be taken seriously for a variety of reasons, including (i) importantly, neither he nor you nor you nor any of RTS design theorists in this forum has any idea what he's talking about when it comes to game design and (ii) units and abilities cannot be viewed in isolation but must be assessed in the context of all of the other units, all matchups, maps, strategies, etc. This is why it's complicated to design "good" units. It is nearly impossible to know precisely how pros will end up using the unit at the time it's designed. This is why patience is required during a beta. The BW dogmatists of course can look at a unit's stats and determine exactly how a unit will be used, but for the rest of us, this is a difficult business.
|
On January 08 2013 05:22 The_Darkness wrote:
Your and the other BW dogmatists' thoughts on design and HoTS amount to little more than comical assertions about what constitutes good design. That you take yourself and suggestions like this Durp clown seriously is an example of unintentional comedy at its finest. His post is clear enough but there's little to undestand. It's a paeon to certain of the better BW units. According to the BW dogmatists like you, to determine good design: you look at a BW unit; make an amateurish attempt at distilling key characteristics of that unit; and then assert that you've found the magic elixir for fixing whatever ails HoTS and triumphantly proclaim that Blizzard has no idea what it's doing. Q.E.D. If these posts were elementary school essays, they'd earn C-'es. Durp is repeating the same tired thoughts on "good game design" that have been repeated as an article of faith by all of the BW dogmatists since HoTS came out. They do not deserve to be taken seriously for a variety of reasons, including (i) importantly, neither he nor you nor you nor any of RTS design theorists in this forum has any idea what he's talking about when it comes to game design and (ii) units and abilities cannot be viewed in isolation but must be assessed in the context of all of the other units, all matchups, maps, strategies, etc. This is why it's complicated to design "good" units. It is nearly impossible to know precisely how pros will end up using the unit at the time it's designed. This is why patience is required during a beta. The BW dogmatists of course can look at a unit's stats and determine exactly how a unit will be used, but for the rest of us, this is a difficult business.
Okay, I've had enough of your arrogant, rude, and frankly unwarranted condescension. I am just one person among any, who has his own opinions of what is wrong with the game of SC2, and in order to voice his opinions, uses an example of what he views is good design as a contrast. Now instantly, because I'm not some "genius, well known developer", I have no credibility to my argument, and I have no idea what I'm talking about. You know what? How about next time, instead of immediately criticizing and calling people idiots for being "BW dogmatist", why don't you write your own post about how you feel the direction of SC2 should go so that people can instantly take every line that you write out of context, call you a retard and then ultimately dismiss you as a "SC2 apologist". You don't even have the courage to do something simple and write you own post what you feel about the game but instead you try to bully others into submitting into your narrow-minded point of view where only you are right and everyone else doesn't know where they're talking about. Now crawl back under the hole you came from so I can have a civilized discussion with people who want SC2 to be a better game than the current iteration of the game is right now.
|
Now I'm reminded why I don't spend much time with nerds.
Jesus, the way people wring their hands over minutiae...
HOTS is def. an improvement over WOL thus far I hope it only gets better.
|
Clicked on the thread waiting for the new patch which is taking Blizzard a comically long time to release, and ran into the following steaming pile of ...
On January 08 2013 05:22 The_Darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:23 Hider wrote:On January 04 2013 08:15 The_Darkness wrote:On January 04 2013 06:11 KamikazeDurrrp wrote:
This is why I hate posting in forums. You guys completely twist my words and in the end misunderstand everything I say. Do you even pay attention to what I write? My point was:
a)units in SC2 offer too much utility
b)to access most of the utility that a SC2 unit has to offer most of the time you just push a button and you get the full utility
What do I mean by this? Let's say I was a protoss player in SC2 and I saw that the terran player was massing seige tanks. What would I do? All I have to do is drop a robotics bay, make immortals and immediately a-move them into seige tanks because by just making the immortal, I have created the sufficient counter to stop seige tanks, because by design, the immortal has been given all the utility it needs to counter seige tanks (hardened shields, high burst damage, decent mobility). This creates a "dynamic" where instead of making decisions that would reward you for your strategy, you are more or less rewarded for doing the obvious. Compare this to the lurker, which has the obvious utility of doing large amount of aoe burst damage. However, in order to DO that you have to position your lurkers in the ground where they have to expose themselves, and prevent themselves from moving. In the end this forces positioning and smart usage. This is what I mean when I say “dynamic”. You don’t instantly gain access to all the utility the lurker has by just making it, you are REWARDED that utility by using lurkers well.
This especially applies to fungal because as I have repeated again and again, fungal pretty much does everything for the zerg player. For just the price of landing it, you get crowd control, damage and immobility from your opponent. It's not the fact that fungal "restricts" micro, it's the fact that it's so easy to restrict micro with fungal WITH the free damage WITH the long range of fungal that just pushes the spell over the top in terms of design.
This was why I made a parallel when comparing SC2 to BW because when compared to the units in BW, SC2 have much more utility than the BW units had. BUT for what utility that the BW units had, they were much stronger, but also much more limited in accessing that utility. Let's just look plague when compared to fungal. As I've noted earlier, fungal provides much more utility than plague, since fungal can immobilize AND silence some units from using abilities (stalker blink, etc.). However, in terms of burst damage, plague does MUCH more damage. BUT you know how much plague costs? 150 ENERGY. Compare that to the cheap, spammable 75 energy fungal. Also consider plague is PURGABLE in BW. I don't see a purge in SC2 anytime soon.
And when did I say SC2 units were "all about the balance" when BW units had "cool micro"? I made the point BW was much MORE RESTRICTIVE in terms of the additional utility that their units had, making so that ACCESSING THAT UTILITY WAS POTENTIALLY GAME CHANGING. You never had the "make one unit completely counter options from the other race" in BW as much as you do in SC2. You especially see this mentality when you look at the various forums on how to deal with certain compositions. You lose to Broodlords or Colossus? Make more vikings. You lose to Ultralisks? Make more maruaders. You lose as zerg? MAKE MORE INFESTORS. And so on and so on.
And for you information, I NEVER EVEN PLAYED BROODWAR. I’m aware that many of the units in Broodwar were buggy, dumb pieces of crap that never worked all the time. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN OF THE UNIT. Just because the reaver scarab didn’t work all the time make it so it completely invalidated the design of the unit, which included restricting the ammo and the mobility of the reaver.
Is it too much to ask for less a-move units with less ability to do everything and just be extremely strong in one aspect? Is it too much to ask for a game where you are rewarded for your execution rather than your ability to do the obvious? I know Starcraft 2 is not an easy game to master, but if we want to make a DYNAMIC COMPETITIVE E-SPORT there are more factors than just “something looks cool and as long as it works it should be in the game”. You could make rock paper scissors the most awesome graphically interesting jaw dropping animations into a video game, but it still wouldn’t take away from the fact that all the possibilities are obvious and not that dynamic.
As a spectator I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the protoss should have made more immortals to counter the siege tanks. I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the zerg should have made more fungals in order to tear the deathball into pieces. I want to learn to use marines like MKP in order to maximize the utility of marines like he does. I want to learn to use zerglings like Life does and abuse them in every stage of the game for runbys, counterattacks and small strike forces. But with the way blizzard is balancing the game it just doesn’t look possible. Just look at the tempest. You know why blizzard created the tempest in the first place? “Protoss is struggling too much with mutalisks, so let’s give the protoss a unit that completely counters mutalisks”. This then changed to “completely counters broodlord-infestor” when blizzard saw how much people were struggling with that ridiculous composition. I mean, just the thought of the tempest hurts my head. Out of all the races that needed a new capital ship, and Blizzard chose protoss? I don’t even know what’s real anymore.
One only has to look at the responses against me to see how much the “terrible terrible” design philosophy has seeped into the minds of people. The moment I try to compare BW design to SC2 design I am instantly turned into “that idiot BW elitist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about that’s ruining SC2 and only wants BW with better graphics”. Um…No? What I was trying to achieve was how we could just look at BW and learn how BW designed their units, and the successes that made BW great could be emulated in SC2. Contrary to what people believe, I don’t want another BW, I want a BETTER and MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN BW AS A GAME in every way. And can we really say at this point SC2 is better game than BW is? If your answer is no then you have no right calling me a BW elitist. You write, "You never had the "make one unit completely counter options from the other race" in BW as much as you do in SC2. " BW was probably the most refined game on the planet and it was very clear to the pros at almost all times, it seemed to me at least, what they should be doing, what they should be making and when they should be doing it. For example, mutas made it so that zvz always featured the exact same unit comp. Always. If you built something else you lost. End of story. How is that, in your book, so worthy of celebration? Also, e.g., didn't the presence of science vessels mean that you couldn't build mutas anymore (in mass)? These things were hard counters for that tech. How else should they be described? What aspect of the BW meta game was at all dynamic? That game was effectively solved. That's not a knock on BW. It's bound to happen to any game that is played for as long as BW and is not continuously patched. You write, "As a spectator I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the protoss should have made more immortals to counter the siege tanks." Terran almost never mech in competitive tvps. When you have you been in a position to say this? I seriously doubt you watch SC2. It's OK to think SC2 has problems but to think that you have some insight into what constitutes good game design is arrogant given that you do not appear to be very knowledgeable about SC2. You completley misunderstand everything he says, which I honestly even doubt is intetionally. Its more likely that you are unnuanced in your understanding of game philosophy that you aren't capable of understanding his logic. This would be fine if you just wasn't so damn arrogant and offensive in all of your comments. You should consider being more humble and study game design/play the game at decent level before you start attacking other. Your and the other BW dogmatists' thoughts on design and HoTS amount to little more than comical assertions about what constitutes good design. That you take yourself and suggestions like this Durp clown seriously is an example of unintentional comedy at its finest. His post is clear enough but there's little to undestand. It's a paeon to certain of the better BW units. According to the BW dogmatists like you, to determine good design: you look at a BW unit; make an amateurish attempt at distilling key characteristics of that unit; and then assert that you've found the magic elixir for fixing whatever ails HoTS and triumphantly proclaim that Blizzard has no idea what it's doing. Q.E.D. If these posts were elementary school essays, they'd earn C-'es. Durp is repeating the same tired thoughts on "good game design" that have been repeated as an article of faith by all of the BW dogmatists since HoTS came out. They do not deserve to be taken seriously for a variety of reasons, including (i) importantly, neither he nor you nor you nor any of RTS design theorists in this forum has any idea what he's talking about when it comes to game design and (ii) units and abilities cannot be viewed in isolation but must be assessed in the context of all of the other units, all matchups, maps, strategies, etc. This is why it's complicated to design "good" units. It is nearly impossible to know precisely how pros will end up using the unit at the time it's designed. This is why patience is required during a beta. The BW dogmatists of course can look at a unit's stats and determine exactly how a unit will be used, but for the rest of us, this is a difficult business.
... pseudo intellectual derision -- the magnitude of this bile of a post's vacuity is only matched by the astonishment that a human being could somehow go through the inane thought process required for its construction and submission.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 08 2013 05:22 The_Darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:23 Hider wrote:On January 04 2013 08:15 The_Darkness wrote:On January 04 2013 06:11 KamikazeDurrrp wrote:
This is why I hate posting in forums. You guys completely twist my words and in the end misunderstand everything I say. Do you even pay attention to what I write? My point was:
a)units in SC2 offer too much utility
b)to access most of the utility that a SC2 unit has to offer most of the time you just push a button and you get the full utility
What do I mean by this? Let's say I was a protoss player in SC2 and I saw that the terran player was massing seige tanks. What would I do? All I have to do is drop a robotics bay, make immortals and immediately a-move them into seige tanks because by just making the immortal, I have created the sufficient counter to stop seige tanks, because by design, the immortal has been given all the utility it needs to counter seige tanks (hardened shields, high burst damage, decent mobility). This creates a "dynamic" where instead of making decisions that would reward you for your strategy, you are more or less rewarded for doing the obvious. Compare this to the lurker, which has the obvious utility of doing large amount of aoe burst damage. However, in order to DO that you have to position your lurkers in the ground where they have to expose themselves, and prevent themselves from moving. In the end this forces positioning and smart usage. This is what I mean when I say “dynamic”. You don’t instantly gain access to all the utility the lurker has by just making it, you are REWARDED that utility by using lurkers well.
This especially applies to fungal because as I have repeated again and again, fungal pretty much does everything for the zerg player. For just the price of landing it, you get crowd control, damage and immobility from your opponent. It's not the fact that fungal "restricts" micro, it's the fact that it's so easy to restrict micro with fungal WITH the free damage WITH the long range of fungal that just pushes the spell over the top in terms of design.
This was why I made a parallel when comparing SC2 to BW because when compared to the units in BW, SC2 have much more utility than the BW units had. BUT for what utility that the BW units had, they were much stronger, but also much more limited in accessing that utility. Let's just look plague when compared to fungal. As I've noted earlier, fungal provides much more utility than plague, since fungal can immobilize AND silence some units from using abilities (stalker blink, etc.). However, in terms of burst damage, plague does MUCH more damage. BUT you know how much plague costs? 150 ENERGY. Compare that to the cheap, spammable 75 energy fungal. Also consider plague is PURGABLE in BW. I don't see a purge in SC2 anytime soon.
And when did I say SC2 units were "all about the balance" when BW units had "cool micro"? I made the point BW was much MORE RESTRICTIVE in terms of the additional utility that their units had, making so that ACCESSING THAT UTILITY WAS POTENTIALLY GAME CHANGING. You never had the "make one unit completely counter options from the other race" in BW as much as you do in SC2. You especially see this mentality when you look at the various forums on how to deal with certain compositions. You lose to Broodlords or Colossus? Make more vikings. You lose to Ultralisks? Make more maruaders. You lose as zerg? MAKE MORE INFESTORS. And so on and so on.
And for you information, I NEVER EVEN PLAYED BROODWAR. I’m aware that many of the units in Broodwar were buggy, dumb pieces of crap that never worked all the time. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN OF THE UNIT. Just because the reaver scarab didn’t work all the time make it so it completely invalidated the design of the unit, which included restricting the ammo and the mobility of the reaver.
Is it too much to ask for less a-move units with less ability to do everything and just be extremely strong in one aspect? Is it too much to ask for a game where you are rewarded for your execution rather than your ability to do the obvious? I know Starcraft 2 is not an easy game to master, but if we want to make a DYNAMIC COMPETITIVE E-SPORT there are more factors than just “something looks cool and as long as it works it should be in the game”. You could make rock paper scissors the most awesome graphically interesting jaw dropping animations into a video game, but it still wouldn’t take away from the fact that all the possibilities are obvious and not that dynamic.
As a spectator I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the protoss should have made more immortals to counter the siege tanks. I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the zerg should have made more fungals in order to tear the deathball into pieces. I want to learn to use marines like MKP in order to maximize the utility of marines like he does. I want to learn to use zerglings like Life does and abuse them in every stage of the game for runbys, counterattacks and small strike forces. But with the way blizzard is balancing the game it just doesn’t look possible. Just look at the tempest. You know why blizzard created the tempest in the first place? “Protoss is struggling too much with mutalisks, so let’s give the protoss a unit that completely counters mutalisks”. This then changed to “completely counters broodlord-infestor” when blizzard saw how much people were struggling with that ridiculous composition. I mean, just the thought of the tempest hurts my head. Out of all the races that needed a new capital ship, and Blizzard chose protoss? I don’t even know what’s real anymore.
One only has to look at the responses against me to see how much the “terrible terrible” design philosophy has seeped into the minds of people. The moment I try to compare BW design to SC2 design I am instantly turned into “that idiot BW elitist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about that’s ruining SC2 and only wants BW with better graphics”. Um…No? What I was trying to achieve was how we could just look at BW and learn how BW designed their units, and the successes that made BW great could be emulated in SC2. Contrary to what people believe, I don’t want another BW, I want a BETTER and MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN BW AS A GAME in every way. And can we really say at this point SC2 is better game than BW is? If your answer is no then you have no right calling me a BW elitist. You write, "You never had the "make one unit completely counter options from the other race" in BW as much as you do in SC2. " BW was probably the most refined game on the planet and it was very clear to the pros at almost all times, it seemed to me at least, what they should be doing, what they should be making and when they should be doing it. For example, mutas made it so that zvz always featured the exact same unit comp. Always. If you built something else you lost. End of story. How is that, in your book, so worthy of celebration? Also, e.g., didn't the presence of science vessels mean that you couldn't build mutas anymore (in mass)? These things were hard counters for that tech. How else should they be described? What aspect of the BW meta game was at all dynamic? That game was effectively solved. That's not a knock on BW. It's bound to happen to any game that is played for as long as BW and is not continuously patched. You write, "As a spectator I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the protoss should have made more immortals to counter the siege tanks." Terran almost never mech in competitive tvps. When you have you been in a position to say this? I seriously doubt you watch SC2. It's OK to think SC2 has problems but to think that you have some insight into what constitutes good game design is arrogant given that you do not appear to be very knowledgeable about SC2. You completley misunderstand everything he says, which I honestly even doubt is intetionally. Its more likely that you are unnuanced in your understanding of game philosophy that you aren't capable of understanding his logic. This would be fine if you just wasn't so damn arrogant and offensive in all of your comments. You should consider being more humble and study game design/play the game at decent level before you start attacking other. Your and the other BW dogmatists' thoughts on design and HoTS amount to little more than comical assertions about what constitutes good design. That you take yourself and suggestions like this Durp clown seriously is an example of unintentional comedy at its finest. His post is clear enough but there's little to undestand. It's a paeon to certain of the better BW units. According to the BW dogmatists like you, to determine good design: you look at a BW unit; make an amateurish attempt at distilling key characteristics of that unit; and then assert that you've found the magic elixir for fixing whatever ails HoTS and triumphantly proclaim that Blizzard has no idea what it's doing. Q.E.D. If these posts were elementary school essays, they'd earn C-'es. Durp is repeating the same tired thoughts on "good game design" that have been repeated as an article of faith by all of the BW dogmatists since HoTS came out. They do not deserve to be taken seriously for a variety of reasons, including (i) importantly, neither he nor you nor you nor any of RTS design theorists in this forum has any idea what he's talking about when it comes to game design and (ii) units and abilities cannot be viewed in isolation but must be assessed in the context of all of the other units, all matchups, maps, strategies, etc. This is why it's complicated to design "good" units. It is nearly impossible to know precisely how pros will end up using the unit at the time it's designed. This is why patience is required during a beta. The BW dogmatists of course can look at a unit's stats and determine exactly how a unit will be used, but for the rest of us, this is a difficult business.
My eyes glazed over around the third or fourth time you wrote bw dogmatists. I find you more dogmatic than anyone else on this forum, as far as hots discussions. You seem adamant about dismissing all arguments or ideas about hots not on their merits, but on the basis of your personal standards and who is allowed to speak and when. Youre also seemingly oblivious to any evidence contrary to your opinions.
You make two points, first that no one here is qualified to speak about design. Okay.
http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/mission.html
There's a pertinent section here: "every voice matters." The most qualified people in this matter do not agree with your opinion, should I therefore disregard it?
Your second point is that units must be looked at in the larger context of the game, that this a complicated process and that's why people need patience during a beta. I agree, but what you fail to acknowledge is that many discussions do have these characteristics of wider analysis and moderation/ patience (so much patience, in fact, that we are nearing the release date).
Your heavy use of stereotyping and straw men are a classic example of shit posting. Q.E.D.
|
So....who else is just waiting on the new patch and havevalready given up on the current patch? I got a feeling this next patch going to be big big big.
|
On January 05 2013 14:45 Griffith` wrote:
vote with your wallet.
Except for the fact that the majority of the people buying hots will be those who buy all blizzard games and never touch real multiplayer...
Also chill the fuck out guys, this game is 3 months away from release, and even if the current beta build would be the release build, you remember how fucking broken wol was at release? Give hots a year post release and then think about balance again...
|
On January 08 2013 06:28 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 05:22 The_Darkness wrote:On January 04 2013 10:23 Hider wrote:On January 04 2013 08:15 The_Darkness wrote:On January 04 2013 06:11 KamikazeDurrrp wrote:
This is why I hate posting in forums. You guys completely twist my words and in the end misunderstand everything I say. Do you even pay attention to what I write? My point was:
a)units in SC2 offer too much utility
b)to access most of the utility that a SC2 unit has to offer most of the time you just push a button and you get the full utility
What do I mean by this? Let's say I was a protoss player in SC2 and I saw that the terran player was massing seige tanks. What would I do? All I have to do is drop a robotics bay, make immortals and immediately a-move them into seige tanks because by just making the immortal, I have created the sufficient counter to stop seige tanks, because by design, the immortal has been given all the utility it needs to counter seige tanks (hardened shields, high burst damage, decent mobility). This creates a "dynamic" where instead of making decisions that would reward you for your strategy, you are more or less rewarded for doing the obvious. Compare this to the lurker, which has the obvious utility of doing large amount of aoe burst damage. However, in order to DO that you have to position your lurkers in the ground where they have to expose themselves, and prevent themselves from moving. In the end this forces positioning and smart usage. This is what I mean when I say “dynamic”. You don’t instantly gain access to all the utility the lurker has by just making it, you are REWARDED that utility by using lurkers well.
This especially applies to fungal because as I have repeated again and again, fungal pretty much does everything for the zerg player. For just the price of landing it, you get crowd control, damage and immobility from your opponent. It's not the fact that fungal "restricts" micro, it's the fact that it's so easy to restrict micro with fungal WITH the free damage WITH the long range of fungal that just pushes the spell over the top in terms of design.
This was why I made a parallel when comparing SC2 to BW because when compared to the units in BW, SC2 have much more utility than the BW units had. BUT for what utility that the BW units had, they were much stronger, but also much more limited in accessing that utility. Let's just look plague when compared to fungal. As I've noted earlier, fungal provides much more utility than plague, since fungal can immobilize AND silence some units from using abilities (stalker blink, etc.). However, in terms of burst damage, plague does MUCH more damage. BUT you know how much plague costs? 150 ENERGY. Compare that to the cheap, spammable 75 energy fungal. Also consider plague is PURGABLE in BW. I don't see a purge in SC2 anytime soon.
And when did I say SC2 units were "all about the balance" when BW units had "cool micro"? I made the point BW was much MORE RESTRICTIVE in terms of the additional utility that their units had, making so that ACCESSING THAT UTILITY WAS POTENTIALLY GAME CHANGING. You never had the "make one unit completely counter options from the other race" in BW as much as you do in SC2. You especially see this mentality when you look at the various forums on how to deal with certain compositions. You lose to Broodlords or Colossus? Make more vikings. You lose to Ultralisks? Make more maruaders. You lose as zerg? MAKE MORE INFESTORS. And so on and so on.
And for you information, I NEVER EVEN PLAYED BROODWAR. I’m aware that many of the units in Broodwar were buggy, dumb pieces of crap that never worked all the time. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN OF THE UNIT. Just because the reaver scarab didn’t work all the time make it so it completely invalidated the design of the unit, which included restricting the ammo and the mobility of the reaver.
Is it too much to ask for less a-move units with less ability to do everything and just be extremely strong in one aspect? Is it too much to ask for a game where you are rewarded for your execution rather than your ability to do the obvious? I know Starcraft 2 is not an easy game to master, but if we want to make a DYNAMIC COMPETITIVE E-SPORT there are more factors than just “something looks cool and as long as it works it should be in the game”. You could make rock paper scissors the most awesome graphically interesting jaw dropping animations into a video game, but it still wouldn’t take away from the fact that all the possibilities are obvious and not that dynamic.
As a spectator I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the protoss should have made more immortals to counter the siege tanks. I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the zerg should have made more fungals in order to tear the deathball into pieces. I want to learn to use marines like MKP in order to maximize the utility of marines like he does. I want to learn to use zerglings like Life does and abuse them in every stage of the game for runbys, counterattacks and small strike forces. But with the way blizzard is balancing the game it just doesn’t look possible. Just look at the tempest. You know why blizzard created the tempest in the first place? “Protoss is struggling too much with mutalisks, so let’s give the protoss a unit that completely counters mutalisks”. This then changed to “completely counters broodlord-infestor” when blizzard saw how much people were struggling with that ridiculous composition. I mean, just the thought of the tempest hurts my head. Out of all the races that needed a new capital ship, and Blizzard chose protoss? I don’t even know what’s real anymore.
One only has to look at the responses against me to see how much the “terrible terrible” design philosophy has seeped into the minds of people. The moment I try to compare BW design to SC2 design I am instantly turned into “that idiot BW elitist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about that’s ruining SC2 and only wants BW with better graphics”. Um…No? What I was trying to achieve was how we could just look at BW and learn how BW designed their units, and the successes that made BW great could be emulated in SC2. Contrary to what people believe, I don’t want another BW, I want a BETTER and MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN BW AS A GAME in every way. And can we really say at this point SC2 is better game than BW is? If your answer is no then you have no right calling me a BW elitist. You write, "You never had the "make one unit completely counter options from the other race" in BW as much as you do in SC2. " BW was probably the most refined game on the planet and it was very clear to the pros at almost all times, it seemed to me at least, what they should be doing, what they should be making and when they should be doing it. For example, mutas made it so that zvz always featured the exact same unit comp. Always. If you built something else you lost. End of story. How is that, in your book, so worthy of celebration? Also, e.g., didn't the presence of science vessels mean that you couldn't build mutas anymore (in mass)? These things were hard counters for that tech. How else should they be described? What aspect of the BW meta game was at all dynamic? That game was effectively solved. That's not a knock on BW. It's bound to happen to any game that is played for as long as BW and is not continuously patched. You write, "As a spectator I don’t want to sit there and say it’s obvious that the protoss should have made more immortals to counter the siege tanks." Terran almost never mech in competitive tvps. When you have you been in a position to say this? I seriously doubt you watch SC2. It's OK to think SC2 has problems but to think that you have some insight into what constitutes good game design is arrogant given that you do not appear to be very knowledgeable about SC2. You completley misunderstand everything he says, which I honestly even doubt is intetionally. Its more likely that you are unnuanced in your understanding of game philosophy that you aren't capable of understanding his logic. This would be fine if you just wasn't so damn arrogant and offensive in all of your comments. You should consider being more humble and study game design/play the game at decent level before you start attacking other. Your and the other BW dogmatists' thoughts on design and HoTS amount to little more than comical assertions about what constitutes good design. That you take yourself and suggestions like this Durp clown seriously is an example of unintentional comedy at its finest. His post is clear enough but there's little to undestand. It's a paeon to certain of the better BW units. According to the BW dogmatists like you, to determine good design: you look at a BW unit; make an amateurish attempt at distilling key characteristics of that unit; and then assert that you've found the magic elixir for fixing whatever ails HoTS and triumphantly proclaim that Blizzard has no idea what it's doing. Q.E.D. If these posts were elementary school essays, they'd earn C-'es. Durp is repeating the same tired thoughts on "good game design" that have been repeated as an article of faith by all of the BW dogmatists since HoTS came out. They do not deserve to be taken seriously for a variety of reasons, including (i) importantly, neither he nor you nor you nor any of RTS design theorists in this forum has any idea what he's talking about when it comes to game design and (ii) units and abilities cannot be viewed in isolation but must be assessed in the context of all of the other units, all matchups, maps, strategies, etc. This is why it's complicated to design "good" units. It is nearly impossible to know precisely how pros will end up using the unit at the time it's designed. This is why patience is required during a beta. The BW dogmatists of course can look at a unit's stats and determine exactly how a unit will be used, but for the rest of us, this is a difficult business. My eyes glazed over around the third or fourth time you wrote bw dogmatists. I find you more dogmatic than anyone else on this forum, as far as hots discussions. You seem adamant about dismissing all arguments or ideas about hots not on their merits, but on the basis of your personal standards and who is allowed to speak and when. Youre also seemingly oblivious to any evidence contrary to your opinions. You make two points, first that no one here is qualified to speak about design. Okay. http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/mission.htmlThere's a pertinent section here: "every voice matters." The most qualified people in this matter do not agree with your opinion, should I therefore disregard it? Your second point is that units must be looked at in the larger context of the game, that this a complicated process and that's why people need patience during a beta. I agree, but what you fail to acknowledge is that many discussions do have these characteristics of wider analysis and moderation/ patience (so much patience, in fact, that we are nearing the release date). Your heavy use of stereotyping and straw men are a classic example of shit posting. Q.E.D.
Although I don’t exactly agree with The_Darkness’s tone, I do feel his frustrating with a lot of the arguments on this forum. The posters that he is referencing have dominated the HotS forums with constant stream of negativity and dislike for HotS, all in the guise of “design discussion”. Constructive criticism is valid and good, but these posters go that and meet any form of excitement about HotS with a full blown effort to show how badly the "design" is.
Although some discussion what makes a units a good units can be constructive at times, I have seen the same arguments and talking points regurgitated over and over by the same small group of posters. They have all blended together to the point where I cannot tell them appart. It has started to suffocate the HotS forums and make any discussion useless because it will be derailed with “design” comments. I don’t even bother looking for new builds for HotS on TL or for any discussion about actually playing the beta. Its not because people aren’t playing it, because they are there when I sign on. But that is not what is being discussed on these forums.
|
On January 08 2013 07:14 Lorch wrote:Except for the fact that the majority of the people buying hots will be those who buy all blizzard games and never touch real multiplayer... Also chill the fuck out guys, this game is 3 months away from release, and even if the current beta build would be the release build, you remember how fucking broken wol was at release? Give hots a year post release and then think about balance again...
I think people on TL forget that the vast majority of people who buy RTS games never touch multiplayer in any way. And then there are the people who forgot WoL at launch. Oh steps of war, how I miss it. Or rax before supply depot. Those were the days.
|
On January 08 2013 07:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 07:14 Lorch wrote:On January 05 2013 14:45 Griffith` wrote:
vote with your wallet. Except for the fact that the majority of the people buying hots will be those who buy all blizzard games and never touch real multiplayer... Also chill the fuck out guys, this game is 3 months away from release, and even if the current beta build would be the release build, you remember how fucking broken wol was at release? Give hots a year post release and then think about balance again... I think people on TL forget that the vast majority of people who buy RTS games never touch multiplayer in any way. And then there are the people who forgot WoL at launch. Oh steps of war, how I miss it. Or rax before supply depot. Those were the days.
Forget steppes, Blistering Sands was the shit! Oh, you're walling off? Well too bad theres a back entrance to your base which is also a quicker route!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
