|
On January 08 2013 22:42 ShamW0W wrote:When Blizzard makes a change like that (the Fungal projectile) my assumption is that people had almost completely stopped using Infestors after the previous nerf which I'm sure wasn't their intention. By buffing the Infestor (and imo, over-buffing it) they ensure that Infestors would be seen in games again and they could collect enough relevant data to inform their next patch. Looking forward to the next patch. 
It's true,
Infestors in the previous patch was impossible to use. Since the range was 8 and the projectile speed was slower than dirt, fungal effectively was range 5 or 6. Usually means you would lose an infestor to marine/maurader fire while trying to fungal them. It was absurd.
|
On January 08 2013 21:56 NicolBolas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 08 2013 19:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 19:49 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 08 2013 19:22 Grumbels wrote:On January 08 2013 19:13 Excludos wrote:On January 08 2013 18:55 Grumbels wrote:
That might be okay, but the discussion tends to be rather shallow. It's a bit like disliking a long movie, then saying: "long movies are bad design" while having Lord of the Rings as your favorite movie, and it makes no sense as a 'design flaw' either way. That sort of shallowness is the only way I can describe the discussions on these forums, because they always just pick something they dislike and then formulate a 'fundamental theory' about it, which happens to only apply to how a specific unit is used in the game at this point. Blizzard could slightly nerf fungal and not much about the ability would change, yet it would function a lot better in the game. All of a sudden cries of 'bad design' would stop and people would move on to the next thing they dislike about the game. Generally anything that limits skill ceiling is bad design. Any ability that makes one player completely incapable of micro lowers skill ceiling. Aka: Bad design. its not rocket science. And yes, we will move on to the next thing we dislike about the game, because its a game we love, and we want it to be as perfect as possible. So MBS and automine are bad design? And I presume you're talking about fungal for the next one. Fungal forces a lot of micro from the terran. Which lap is this on the very same arguments? Grumbels, et al, you know exactly what the response to "fungal forces micro from the terran" will be. the point is that people come up with a design rule for why x is bad, then only apply that to that one unit, and the reason is often nonsensical to begin with. fungal does force micro from the terran. the problem is that it is too unforgiving for terran to make a mistake, but it's not necessarily about 'preventing micro'. that's the shallow way of looking at it, but then it's endlessly repeated on the forum and people start thinking of themselves as game designers who can objectively look at fundamental design problems Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 11:56 Zahir wrote:
When you try and talk to your pal about why Dredd or the Godfather or Pulp Fiction was a better movie than say, transformers dark side of the moon, you don't mentally check yourself from talking about movie "design" and state that you just happen to prefer this or that, but as for what makes a good movie who knows!! You say the Godfather had depth, flawed and complex characters, central human themes like tragedy, violence, power, etc and that movies that have that stuff are good - are well designed.
You simply made a set of criteria for rating movies. It has little to do with design rules. It's still personal preferences, except that you say that fulfilling your personal set equals 'good design'. It is egocentric and dishonest. It's odd. I agree with your first point here, about the simplistic "anything that limits skill ceiling is bad design" nonsense. But I disagree with your second point, which effectively says that there's no such thing as objectively good or bad anything. I look at it like this. Consider two cities. And they're going to be connected by a road. We could make this a straight road, making the trip between the cities take 2 hours. Or we could take a more scenic route though mountains, that involves more winding and so forth. Let's say this adds another 20 minutes to the trip. One person could say that the shortest road is the best. It takes the least time, and that's what's important, right? Another person could say that the lounger road is better. Why? Because of the enjoyment of driving. The winding road gives the driver something to do along the way. It's not just 2 hours of "let's see if I can hold this car in my lane. Oh look, I can." There's even some nifty scenery. So let's do that instead. These are both subjective opinions based on different value systems. Both people value their time; they just do so in different ways. One wants to spend as little time driving as possible; the other enjoys driving and wants driving to be enjoyable. Now let's consider a third option: a straight road where every 2 feet is a giant pothole. Nobody likes this. It is objectively bad. Why? Because the road stops being a road. The whole purpose of a road is to provide a reasonably smooth surface, so as not to damage a car. A road littered with potholes is antithetical to the entire purpose of a road. And even if you found a group of people who enjoy pothole dodging, they're not going to enjoy 2 hours of it. Not when falling into a couple of them damages their car to the point where it no longer works. So there is such a thing as objectively bad. Once you understand what the most basic function of something is, you can therefore define "objectively bad" if it's not achieving that purpose. Oh sure, the "get there faster" crowd might try to argue that the purpose of a road is to get you to your destination as fast as possible. But even that isn't the most basic thing a road is supposed to do. Where you draw that line may be subjective, but that line still exists. The same goes for analyzing narrative works or game design. The problem that the "anything that limits skill ceiling is bad design" crowd has is that the rule can't be applied generally. There are many elements of every RTS that could be removed and increase the skill ceiling. From being able to select more than one unit to having build queues at all. Hell, you could be required to manually move each worker to minerals constantly, and that would certainly increase the skill ceiling. If this "general" rule can't be applied generally, then it's hard to say that the most basic function of game design is to increase the skill ceiling. That doesn't mean that things that limit skill ceiling can't be bad. Nor does it mean that they can't be bad for that reason alone. But it does mean that you can't accept it as a general design mantra, as some objective criteria to differentiate good gameplay from bad. Humans have been writing and analyzing narrative fiction for millenia. We have a pretty good idea of what constitutes good, compelling narrative and what does not, and much ink has been spilled on the subject. So it's a lot harder to say that we can't objectively analyze a narrative. Such detailed analysis has only really begun in terms of game design. While we've had various kinds of games for a long time, we only really accidentally stumble across good game design. Chess and Go were just people fiddling around with rules until they found something that worked. There were hundreds of other of their contemporaries that didn't catch on, either due to rules that had holes in them or just not providing enough depth. It's a lot harder to talk about objective quality in game design without having a common understanding about theories of game design and the overall function of that design, let alone the various consequences of selecting any particular element of design for the overall work.
I suppose there exists good and bad design, but it's really elusive and hard to describe, sometimes requiring extensive knowledge in fields such as psychology and game theory - beyond trivial things like 'games should be fun'.
I think a good approach to design discussions should be that we look at units that appear problematic in the eye of the community/individual; we then determine how they interfere with some sort of desirable goal ("we want the game to have satisfying unit interactions"), and what sort of approach one could take to address this issue, such as whether we can isolate the problem to just one unit or whether it's a broader issue - maybe it's not even possible to change without hurting the overall gameplay. All of this does not mean that a unit is badly designed or breaks a design rule, it only means that as currently implemented it might not be suited to the game. I think that approach is a lot more adequate, since you are actually forced to analyze your personal thoughts on the issue and therefore talk about what you know.
What people on this forum do instead is to take a basic goal such as a wish to have interesting gameplay and promote it to a multitude of fundamental laws that can all be broken to disastrous results. I think it should be obvious that your average person on the forum can't independently come up with fundamental design rules any more than I can come up with fundamental rules of physics.
As an example: "abilities should not prevent micro" is a very nonsensical rule. Many abilities that are perceived as preventing micro are necessary to make the game work (fungal), or they actually force micro by encouraging spreading your units (fungal), or they allow you to use really interesting micro yourself (forcefield). Maybe in all cases there are better alternatives, but not because of design laws or rules, just because there are units that suit the game better. And obviously there are reasons behind why certain abilities seem very annoying, but that more than likely has to do with some sort of statistical analysis where there is not enough depth, complexity and odds of satisfying interactions taking over common game scenarios etc. All very complicated and hard to analyze and depending on intuition more than anything else.
I watched a recent video about the concept of counter-play. This concept is pretty obvious, but I thought it was nicely worded and maybe it promoted awareness. I think one could formalize this and experimentally test it, therefore finding support for a basic rule of game design. I think this way you can base your design on good design rules (they might be imperfect of course), which is different from what often occurs in discussion here, which is to infer good design rules from gameplay you don't like. You don't like something, so it's bad design. It should be the other way around for it to be anything more than personal preferences.
One could say that good design accomplishes certain goals, but that's also nonsense. You can create a unit which is supposed to be anti-air, in practice it functions as mobile harassment. It doesn't accomplish its original goal, but it does accomplish some different goal. However, this is not falsifiable, with every unit that's fun you can find a matching goal. It's just another way of describing "I like this" or "I don't like this". There are some things that people tend to like universally, especially within this community, and they provide a good basis for discussion. There probably is some sort of consensus for goals we would like to accomplish, but that still isn't about 'design rules' and still equates good design with preferences, in which case there is no need to use the word 'design', especially as often the unit wasn't designed to fulfill the goal it ends up fulfilling to begin with. Game designers don't have too much influence on this, they just try out a lot of units and then if units end up being fun that's mostly accidental.
In the absence of 'fundamental design rules', can we as a community please stick to what we know: the game, and as such only analyse situations in the game without invoking universal laws.
|
considering its tuesday and there hasnt been any announcement i guess the next patch will come out next week
that would be the 15th, which leaves us with less than 8 weeks until release
considering this short time i think its highly unlikely blizzard will change anything drastic, how many patches do you think there will still be anyways?
Poll: how many patches will there still be before release4 (6) 33% 8 (4) 22% 5 (3) 17% 7 (3) 17% 6 (2) 11% 18 total votes Your vote: how many patches will there still be before release (Vote): 4
(Vote): 5
(Vote): 6
(Vote): 7
(Vote): 8
|
On January 08 2013 23:56 summerloud wrote:considering its tuesday and there hasnt been any announcement i guess the next patch will come out next week that would be the 15th, which leaves us with less than 8 weeks until release considering this short time i think its highly unlikely blizzard will change anything drastic, how many patches do you think there will still be anyways? Poll: how many patches will there still be before release4 (6) 33% 8 (4) 22% 5 (3) 17% 7 (3) 17% 6 (2) 11% 18 total votes Your vote: how many patches will there still be before release (Vote): 4
(Vote): 5
(Vote): 6
(Vote): 7
(Vote): 8
You may want to say "balance update" instead of "patch", since Blizzard does distinguish between the two, and the patches have been roughly monthly whereas the balance updates have been as frequent as once per week at points.
|
On January 08 2013 21:56 NicolBolas wrote:
Now let's consider a third option: a straight road where every 2 feet is a giant pothole.
Nobody likes this. It is objectively bad. Why? Because the road stops being a road. The whole purpose of a road is to provide a reasonably smooth surface, so as not to damage a car. A road littered with potholes is antithetical to the entire purpose of a road.
And even if you found a group of people who enjoy pothole dodging, they're not going to enjoy 2 hours of it. Not when falling into a couple of them damages their car to the point where it no longer works.
So there is such a thing as objectively bad. Once you understand what the most basic function of something is, you can therefore define "objectively bad" if it's not achieving that purpose.
Close, but no cigar. It's not about understanding the most basic function, it's about understanding the whole picture.
You know what the pothole-strewn road would do? It would reduce frivolous travel between the cities. It would promote telecommuting and reduce pollution - potentially desirable outcomes. Or take selection and unit movement in BW vs SC2 - the 'basic function' of which is to get units where you want them to be. SC2's system is much better, but would ruin BW.
|
On January 09 2013 00:11 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 21:56 NicolBolas wrote:
Now let's consider a third option: a straight road where every 2 feet is a giant pothole.
Nobody likes this. It is objectively bad. Why? Because the road stops being a road. The whole purpose of a road is to provide a reasonably smooth surface, so as not to damage a car. A road littered with potholes is antithetical to the entire purpose of a road.
And even if you found a group of people who enjoy pothole dodging, they're not going to enjoy 2 hours of it. Not when falling into a couple of them damages their car to the point where it no longer works.
So there is such a thing as objectively bad. Once you understand what the most basic function of something is, you can therefore define "objectively bad" if it's not achieving that purpose. Close, but no cigar. It's not about understanding the most basic function, it's about understanding the whole picture. You know what the pothole-strewn road would do? It would reduce frivolous travel between the cities. It would promote telecommuting and reduce pollution - potentially desirable outcomes. Or take selection and unit movement in BW vs SC2 - the 'basic function' of which is to get units where you want them to be. SC2's system is much better, but would ruin BW.
From another thread, but I don't want to retype it.
DB has spoke and TvP Mech is the topic of the next patch:
"Hi! =)
We are doing these patches very quickly. We change our minds a lot as we do testing and we pick at the design and balance. It's hard to know what's coming in the next patch because the next play test could cause something to completely change.
We are working on mech TvP this week and we are working a little on Reapers. We feel like mech TvP still isn't where we want it to be and Reapers are now a better early rusher but we would like to see if we can find a way to make it more generally useful.
But TvP mech is the real focus. We are looking at some buffs to mech units but we have to be careful because mech units can be very strong in other matchups (TvT, TvZ). "
Rock a/k/a DB
And
"Thanks for the post. I am NOT endorsing Protoss nerfs by posting on this thread. =) I tend to agree with his comments on the heal beam, the need for changes on the Tank and the Battle Hellion, his concerns on the Raven and the Thor.
I also think he has good comments about TvP Mech. I don't know that nerfing the Protoss units are the answer because of the need for those units to be useful in other match ups but the original poster does (I think) identify the correct threats that are making mech not as viable as we would like. "
- Rock a/k/a DB
Feel the love people. Their plan is not buff stuff without breaking everything.
|
On January 09 2013 02:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 00:11 Umpteen wrote:On January 08 2013 21:56 NicolBolas wrote:
Now let's consider a third option: a straight road where every 2 feet is a giant pothole.
Nobody likes this. It is objectively bad. Why? Because the road stops being a road. The whole purpose of a road is to provide a reasonably smooth surface, so as not to damage a car. A road littered with potholes is antithetical to the entire purpose of a road.
And even if you found a group of people who enjoy pothole dodging, they're not going to enjoy 2 hours of it. Not when falling into a couple of them damages their car to the point where it no longer works.
So there is such a thing as objectively bad. Once you understand what the most basic function of something is, you can therefore define "objectively bad" if it's not achieving that purpose. Close, but no cigar. It's not about understanding the most basic function, it's about understanding the whole picture. You know what the pothole-strewn road would do? It would reduce frivolous travel between the cities. It would promote telecommuting and reduce pollution - potentially desirable outcomes. Or take selection and unit movement in BW vs SC2 - the 'basic function' of which is to get units where you want them to be. SC2's system is much better, but would ruin BW. From another thread, but I don't want to retype it. DB has spoke and TvP Mech is the topic of the next patch: " Hi! =)
We are doing these patches very quickly. We change our minds a lot as we do testing and we pick at the design and balance. It's hard to know what's coming in the next patch because the next play test could cause something to completely change.
We are working on mech TvP this week and we are working a little on Reapers. We feel like mech TvP still isn't where we want it to be and Reapers are now a better early rusher but we would like to see if we can find a way to make it more generally useful.
But TvP mech is the real focus. We are looking at some buffs to mech units but we have to be careful because mech units can be very strong in other matchups (TvT, TvZ). " Rock a/k/a DBAnd "Thanks for the post. I am NOT endorsing Protoss nerfs by posting on this thread. =) I tend to agree with his comments on the heal beam, the need for changes on the Tank and the Battle Hellion, his concerns on the Raven and the Thor.
I also think he has good comments about TvP Mech. I don't know that nerfing the Protoss units are the answer because of the need for those units to be useful in other match ups but the original poster does (I think) identify the correct threats that are making mech not as viable as we would like. "- Rock a/k/a DBFeel the love people. Their plan is not buff stuff without breaking everything.
Thank you a lot for the post, have been searching for any updates for quite a while, he´s not beena ctive on twitter tho. =)
|
On January 09 2013 02:52 gCgCrypto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 02:38 Plansix wrote:On January 09 2013 00:11 Umpteen wrote:On January 08 2013 21:56 NicolBolas wrote:
Now let's consider a third option: a straight road where every 2 feet is a giant pothole.
Nobody likes this. It is objectively bad. Why? Because the road stops being a road. The whole purpose of a road is to provide a reasonably smooth surface, so as not to damage a car. A road littered with potholes is antithetical to the entire purpose of a road.
And even if you found a group of people who enjoy pothole dodging, they're not going to enjoy 2 hours of it. Not when falling into a couple of them damages their car to the point where it no longer works.
So there is such a thing as objectively bad. Once you understand what the most basic function of something is, you can therefore define "objectively bad" if it's not achieving that purpose. Close, but no cigar. It's not about understanding the most basic function, it's about understanding the whole picture. You know what the pothole-strewn road would do? It would reduce frivolous travel between the cities. It would promote telecommuting and reduce pollution - potentially desirable outcomes. Or take selection and unit movement in BW vs SC2 - the 'basic function' of which is to get units where you want them to be. SC2's system is much better, but would ruin BW. From another thread, but I don't want to retype it. DB has spoke and TvP Mech is the topic of the next patch: " Hi! =)
We are doing these patches very quickly. We change our minds a lot as we do testing and we pick at the design and balance. It's hard to know what's coming in the next patch because the next play test could cause something to completely change.
We are working on mech TvP this week and we are working a little on Reapers. We feel like mech TvP still isn't where we want it to be and Reapers are now a better early rusher but we would like to see if we can find a way to make it more generally useful.
But TvP mech is the real focus. We are looking at some buffs to mech units but we have to be careful because mech units can be very strong in other matchups (TvT, TvZ). " Rock a/k/a DBAnd "Thanks for the post. I am NOT endorsing Protoss nerfs by posting on this thread. =) I tend to agree with his comments on the heal beam, the need for changes on the Tank and the Battle Hellion, his concerns on the Raven and the Thor.
I also think he has good comments about TvP Mech. I don't know that nerfing the Protoss units are the answer because of the need for those units to be useful in other match ups but the original poster does (I think) identify the correct threats that are making mech not as viable as we would like. "- Rock a/k/a DBFeel the love people. Their plan is not buff stuff without breaking everything. Thank you a lot for the post, have been searching for any updates for quite a while, he´s not beena ctive on twitter tho. =)
Not a problem, my lunch break was well spent. I am excited to see what they do and hopefully it will be awesome.
|
On January 09 2013 02:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 00:11 Umpteen wrote:On January 08 2013 21:56 NicolBolas wrote:
Now let's consider a third option: a straight road where every 2 feet is a giant pothole.
Nobody likes this. It is objectively bad. Why? Because the road stops being a road. The whole purpose of a road is to provide a reasonably smooth surface, so as not to damage a car. A road littered with potholes is antithetical to the entire purpose of a road.
And even if you found a group of people who enjoy pothole dodging, they're not going to enjoy 2 hours of it. Not when falling into a couple of them damages their car to the point where it no longer works.
So there is such a thing as objectively bad. Once you understand what the most basic function of something is, you can therefore define "objectively bad" if it's not achieving that purpose. Close, but no cigar. It's not about understanding the most basic function, it's about understanding the whole picture. You know what the pothole-strewn road would do? It would reduce frivolous travel between the cities. It would promote telecommuting and reduce pollution - potentially desirable outcomes. Or take selection and unit movement in BW vs SC2 - the 'basic function' of which is to get units where you want them to be. SC2's system is much better, but would ruin BW. From another thread, but I don't want to retype it. DB has spoke and TvP Mech is the topic of the next patch: " Hi! =)
We are doing these patches very quickly. We change our minds a lot as we do testing and we pick at the design and balance. It's hard to know what's coming in the next patch because the next play test could cause something to completely change.
We are working on mech TvP this week and we are working a little on Reapers. We feel like mech TvP still isn't where we want it to be and Reapers are now a better early rusher but we would like to see if we can find a way to make it more generally useful.
But TvP mech is the real focus. We are looking at some buffs to mech units but we have to be careful because mech units can be very strong in other matchups (TvT, TvZ). " Rock a/k/a DBAnd "Thanks for the post. I am NOT endorsing Protoss nerfs by posting on this thread. =) I tend to agree with his comments on the heal beam, the need for changes on the Tank and the Battle Hellion, his concerns on the Raven and the Thor.
I also think he has good comments about TvP Mech. I don't know that nerfing the Protoss units are the answer because of the need for those units to be useful in other match ups but the original poster does (I think) identify the correct threats that are making mech not as viable as we would like. "- Rock a/k/a DBFeel the love people. Their plan is not buff stuff without breaking everything.
That is awesome. I wish they would do include themselves in discussions like this and give insight into what they're thinking more of the time. "Yeah, we agree this didn't work out like we wanted it to, now lets try this instead because of this" goes a long way into understanding their thought process.
|
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.
Well, you open reapers. Every game Ive played against reapes I've died, very often before lair. Im not kidding. They are just very strong. I sure have not figured out how to deal with them yet.
|
On January 09 2013 05:00 LoveTool wrote:Show nested quote +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. Well, you open reapers. Every game Ive played against reapes I've died, very often before lair. Im not kidding. They are just very strong. I sure have not figured out how to deal with them yet.
queens?
|
On January 09 2013 05:00 LoveTool wrote:Show nested quote +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. Well, you open reapers. Every game Ive played against reapes I've died, very often before lair. Im not kidding. They are just very strong. I sure have not figured out how to deal with them yet.
Extra queens deals with reapers quite effectively if we're talking about harass only (allins needs different responses, obviously). This was the way people dealt with hellions and reapers when they where still effective harass tools in WoL, without spending too many larvas on roaches.
|
On January 08 2013 22:55 Umpteen wrote:Ain't no such thing as objective game designers or fundamental design problems, so far as I know. 18 years in the games industry and I can't recall meeting either one. If something does its intended job poorly, that's bad design - but the fault can equally lie with the thing or the job. And we have to make sure we fully understand what the job is before we go judging it. That's usually where we go wrong.
I think objective --> taking the POV of spectators --> what makes most interesting games.
|
On January 08 2013 19:54 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 19:49 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 08 2013 19:22 Grumbels wrote:On January 08 2013 19:13 Excludos wrote:On January 08 2013 18:55 Grumbels wrote:
That might be okay, but the discussion tends to be rather shallow. It's a bit like disliking a long movie, then saying: "long movies are bad design" while having Lord of the Rings as your favorite movie, and it makes no sense as a 'design flaw' either way. That sort of shallowness is the only way I can describe the discussions on these forums, because they always just pick something they dislike and then formulate a 'fundamental theory' about it, which happens to only apply to how a specific unit is used in the game at this point. Blizzard could slightly nerf fungal and not much about the ability would change, yet it would function a lot better in the game. All of a sudden cries of 'bad design' would stop and people would move on to the next thing they dislike about the game. Generally anything that limits skill ceiling is bad design. Any ability that makes one player completely incapable of micro lowers skill ceiling. Aka: Bad design. its not rocket science. And yes, we will move on to the next thing we dislike about the game, because its a game we love, and we want it to be as perfect as possible. So MBS and automine are bad design? And I presume you're talking about fungal for the next one. Fungal forces a lot of micro from the terran. Which lap is this on the very same arguments? Grumbels, et al, you know exactly what the response to "fungal forces micro from the terran" will be. the point is that people come up with a design rule for why x is bad, then only apply that to that one unit, and the reason is often nonsensical to begin with. fungal does force micro from the terran. the problem is that it is too unforgiving for terran to make a mistake, but it's not necessarily about 'preventing micro'. that's the shallow way of looking at it, but then it's endlessly repeated on the forum and people start thinking of themselves as game designers who can objectively look at fundamental design problems Show nested quote +On January 08 2013 11:56 Zahir wrote:
When you try and talk to your pal about why Dredd or the Godfather or Pulp Fiction was a better movie than say, transformers dark side of the moon, you don't mentally check yourself from talking about movie "design" and state that you just happen to prefer this or that, but as for what makes a good movie who knows!! You say the Godfather had depth, flawed and complex characters, central human themes like tragedy, violence, power, etc and that movies that have that stuff are good - are well designed.
You simply made a set of criteria for rating movies. It has little to do with design rules. It's still personal preferences, except that you say that fulfilling your personal set equals 'good design'. It is egocentric and dishonest.
Without any criteria for rating what constitutes good movies or games, how can you have any criteria for talking about good or bad game/movie design? Unless you're proposing that the two are completely unrelated.
Your argument would make sense if we were talking about the laws of physics, or some other objective aspect of reality, but we're not. Good game design is a subjective concept. There is no objective good or bad unless you're religious or something. Therefore anyone talking about what constitutes good game design is referencing a set of subjective goals (a random example: fun factor, accessibility and competitiveness).
People with degrees in psychology or what have you do not magically gain access to a set of objective rules for what makes games 'good'. Their understanding probably makes them more adept at identifying goals and fulfilling them in ways that create success, but success itself is a subjective term and can't be measured or defined in any objective way.
You're trying to create a distinction between subjective 'preferences' and objective 'design rules' where it necessarily can't exist. Anyone who talks about good game design, or design in any field is making a subjective judgement about what makes something 'good.' They're using personal preferences as well. One person may be better informed, trained and educated than another but his opinion is still based on subjective value judgements, ie, monetarily successful games are desirable, appeal to casuals is desirable, fulfilling the company's goals for the game is desirable.
|
Against terran, i tend to build four queens + 1 expand by default. That should be able to shut reapers rush down easily.
I only faced one game where the terran uses reapers as starter. Not much of a harassment, I just move my queen where the reaper is coming.
Overlord placement and scouting is important. With proper scouting, you should be able to see this coming and stop it quickly.
On January 09 2013 05:04 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 05:00 LoveTool wrote: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. Well, you open reapers. Every game Ive played against reapes I've died, very often before lair. Im not kidding. They are just very strong. I sure have not figured out how to deal with them yet. Extra queens deals with reapers quite effectively if we're talking about harass only (allins needs different responses, obviously). This was the way people dealt with hellions and reapers when they where still effective harass tools in WoL, without spending too many larvas on roaches.
|
Russian Federation125 Posts
considering this short time i think its highly unlikely blizzard will change anything drastic, how many patches do you think there will still be anyways?
In fact blizz have about 1 month of beta, 1 month before release beta will be closed most likely (that is how it was with wol neta) and blizz start printing disks and deliver them to magazines.
So blizz have time for max 2 patches with serious changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
