|
On January 12 2013 23:00 Telenil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 10:39 nailertn wrote:On January 11 2013 07:28 Channel Pressure wrote:
There is something intrinsically silly about saying of a company that produced a best selling game that all of you play, 'Has no clue what they are doing'. No clue whatsoever? You mean to say, at blizzard, they threw changes into a hat, drew them out and implemented them? Surely they have a clue. Come on. Yes I agree some of these changes are. . unexpected, but #1 its a beta guys, they have liberty to experiment during a beta. And #2, they are game designers, and very good ones. They do have a clue. Can we just hang in there and be a little less pessamistic? It would be an exaggeration to say Blizzard has done nothing right in the last decade, but not a big one. All their franchises are feeding off the success of their predecessors. Yeah, all of us who play Starcraft 2 totally do it because it's fashionable to play the Brood War sequel, not because the game is enjoyable in any shape or form. /facepalm
Yes. And we keep on playing it even thought there are a million other new fast paced RTS games out there with a lot better quality, and perfect balance even thought the races are unequal in their design.
edit: Yes, I did say perfect balance. I do get that the game isn't actually balanced. But its still getting a very equal (even 55/45% is equal in this scenario) winratio all the way to the top. Most RTS out there have massive imbalances and/or a single unit which can win by itself. They're only fun up to the point where you get slightly competitive and start abusing strategies. I don't think I know of anyone who's done as good a job with their game balance as blizzard.
|
From a balance point of view I have just one (main) concern: The people at blizzard fail to realize that balancing ONLY around overall W/L ratios is just plain wrong. It seems that in WOL they completely missed the fact that some races have the upper hand in late game so others had to work around that and try to win as early as possible. Not gonna point at any specific matchups, the problem is obvious to everyone. It's sad that they realized it too late 
The changes seem interesting to me, gonna try more factory play. I loved mech in SC1 and tried it multiple times in WOL, hopefully it will be worth the effort in HOTS 
o/
|
On January 12 2013 23:34 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 23:00 Telenil wrote:On January 12 2013 10:39 nailertn wrote:On January 11 2013 07:28 Channel Pressure wrote:
There is something intrinsically silly about saying of a company that produced a best selling game that all of you play, 'Has no clue what they are doing'. No clue whatsoever? You mean to say, at blizzard, they threw changes into a hat, drew them out and implemented them? Surely they have a clue. Come on. Yes I agree some of these changes are. . unexpected, but #1 its a beta guys, they have liberty to experiment during a beta. And #2, they are game designers, and very good ones. They do have a clue. Can we just hang in there and be a little less pessamistic? It would be an exaggeration to say Blizzard has done nothing right in the last decade, but not a big one. All their franchises are feeding off the success of their predecessors. Yeah, all of us who play Starcraft 2 totally do it because it's fashionable to play the Brood War sequel, not because the game is enjoyable in any shape or form. /facepalm Yes. And we keep on playing it even thought there are a million other new fast paced RTS games out there with a lot better quality, and perfect balance even thought the races are unequal in their design. edit: Yes, I did say perfect balance. I do get that the game isn't actually balanced. But its still getting a very equal (even 55/45% is equal in this scenario) winratio all the way to the top. Most RTS out there have massive imbalances and/or a single unit which can win by itself. They're only fun up to the point where you get slightly competitive and start abusing strategies. I don't think I know of anyone who's done as good a job with their game balance as blizzard.
everyone can balance a game if they devote a couple of ressources to it (like hire one statistican and he will do it for you).
However, design is much much more difficult to get right than balance (which I define as 50% w/r at highest level of play).
If you get design correct you can obtain the following:
1) Spectators can now clearly see the difference nr. 1 in the world and nr. 50 (we can't do that today - at least not most of us).
2) The game can be balanced across all skill levels (if units are equally difficult to use as to play against then this can be done).
3) Games will be actionoriented, both early, mid and late game.
4) It will not be deathball'ish - instead we will see action all over the place which requires great multitasking.
5) The game could be even more entertaining to watch than BW was
But to get design correctly you need at great understanding of sc2 - something most below master players don't have, and even many master/gm haven't reflected enough upon design to do that.
Also you need great analytical skills.
So not everybody can get design correct - its very difficult and requires a lot of analysis, however it is obtainable and Blizzard is doing a terrible job designwise unfortunately.
|
United Kingdom12058 Posts
On January 12 2013 23:34 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 23:00 Telenil wrote:On January 12 2013 10:39 nailertn wrote:On January 11 2013 07:28 Channel Pressure wrote:
There is something intrinsically silly about saying of a company that produced a best selling game that all of you play, 'Has no clue what they are doing'. No clue whatsoever? You mean to say, at blizzard, they threw changes into a hat, drew them out and implemented them? Surely they have a clue. Come on. Yes I agree some of these changes are. . unexpected, but #1 its a beta guys, they have liberty to experiment during a beta. And #2, they are game designers, and very good ones. They do have a clue. Can we just hang in there and be a little less pessamistic? It would be an exaggeration to say Blizzard has done nothing right in the last decade, but not a big one. All their franchises are feeding off the success of their predecessors. Yeah, all of us who play Starcraft 2 totally do it because it's fashionable to play the Brood War sequel, not because the game is enjoyable in any shape or form. /facepalm Yes. And we keep on playing it even thought there are a million other new fast paced RTS games out there with a lot better quality, and perfect balance even thought the races are unequal in their design. edit: Yes, I did say perfect balance. I do get that the game isn't actually balanced. But its still getting a very equal (even 55/45% is equal in this scenario) winratio all the way to the top. Most RTS out there have massive imbalances and/or a single unit which can win by itself. They're only fun up to the point where you get slightly competitive and start abusing strategies. I don't think I know of anyone who's done as good a job with their game balance as blizzard.
I'd love to see these imaginary millions of games.
|
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade. Obviously not a fix at all for TvZ (they still suck lategame) but very happy about this change for other purposes.
|
On January 13 2013 00:53 duckmaster wrote:
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade.
But this is just another design myth. It doesn't matter whether tanks become viable in the midgame. What matters is designing units so that they can create interesting games. Having 2 tanks in the midgame adds nothing of interest - it may even be a bad thing as it delays medivac drop play which can be pretty entertaining.
When you evaluate stuff always try to take the role as a spectator listening to a caster. Assume you have seen the unit/ability/strategy being used 500 times, does it still excite you to see it being used the 501th time?
Marine split does that, which Is why everyone agrees on it being a great designed unit. However, people will give a shit about a terran building 1-2 siege tanks in the early midgame for the 501th time - they just wanna see action, micro and multitasking. Therefore we shouldn't care about adding more trivial/pointless choices to the game because they are goanna get boring pretty quickly.
|
On January 13 2013 00:59 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 00:53 duckmaster wrote:
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade. But this is just another design myth. It doesn't matter whether tanks become viable in the midgame. What matters is designing units so that they can create interesting games. Having 2 tanks in the midgame adds nothing of interest - it may even be a bad thing as it delays medivac drop play which can be pretty entertaining. When you evaluate stuff always try to take the role as a spectator listening to a caster. Assume you have seen the unit/ability/strategy being used 500 times, does it still excite you to see it being used the 501th time? Marine split does that, which Is why everyone agrees on it being a great designed unit. However, people will give a shit about a terran building 1-2 siege tanks in the early midgame for the 501th time - they just wanna see action, micro and multitasking. Therefore we shouldn't care about adding more trivial/pointless choices to the game because they are goanna get boring pretty quickly.
Wait, so the concept of map control in an RTS isn't interesting?
|
On January 13 2013 01:04 ShamW0W wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 00:59 Hider wrote:On January 13 2013 00:53 duckmaster wrote:
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade. But this is just another design myth. It doesn't matter whether tanks become viable in the midgame. What matters is designing units so that they can create interesting games. Having 2 tanks in the midgame adds nothing of interest - it may even be a bad thing as it delays medivac drop play which can be pretty entertaining. When you evaluate stuff always try to take the role as a spectator listening to a caster. Assume you have seen the unit/ability/strategy being used 500 times, does it still excite you to see it being used the 501th time? Marine split does that, which Is why everyone agrees on it being a great designed unit. However, people will give a shit about a terran building 1-2 siege tanks in the early midgame for the 501th time - they just wanna see action, micro and multitasking. Therefore we shouldn't care about adding more trivial/pointless choices to the game because they are goanna get boring pretty quickly. Wait, so the concept of map control in an RTS isn't interesting?
Two tanks are NOT CONTROLLING ANYTHING and they are more of a burden - due to their control and speed - than a boost of power. This is SC2 we are talking about and not BW where two tanks actually deal damage.
|
On January 13 2013 01:04 ShamW0W wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 00:59 Hider wrote:On January 13 2013 00:53 duckmaster wrote:
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade. But this is just another design myth. It doesn't matter whether tanks become viable in the midgame. What matters is designing units so that they can create interesting games. Having 2 tanks in the midgame adds nothing of interest - it may even be a bad thing as it delays medivac drop play which can be pretty entertaining. When you evaluate stuff always try to take the role as a spectator listening to a caster. Assume you have seen the unit/ability/strategy being used 500 times, does it still excite you to see it being used the 501th time? Marine split does that, which Is why everyone agrees on it being a great designed unit. However, people will give a shit about a terran building 1-2 siege tanks in the early midgame for the 501th time - they just wanna see action, micro and multitasking. Therefore we shouldn't care about adding more trivial/pointless choices to the game because they are goanna get boring pretty quickly. Wait, so the concept of map control in an RTS isn't interesting?
That wasn't what I said - you missed the point.
But getting 1-2 tanks to be safe early game doesn't add anything to map control against protoss. It just makes you a bit safer in certain situations which shouldn't neccesarsily be a goal.
The drawback of that is that it actually makes your army a bit more immobile, which means you can drop less efficiently --> more boring games.
My point is that we should redesign units, including tanks, so that they actually can create interesting scenarios, and actually be able to control a certain location efficiently.
But we should never aim to give more pointless choices in the game. If a choice adds an interesting element to the game that we still like to watch for the 501th time, sure that is great, but pointless choises should be never a goal in it self.
|
Apologies, I missed the quote in your previous post.
|
On January 13 2013 00:59 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 00:53 duckmaster wrote:
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade. But this is just another design myth. It doesn't matter whether tanks become viable in the midgame. What matters is designing units so that they can create interesting games. Having 2 tanks in the midgame adds nothing of interest - it may even be a bad thing as it delays medivac drop play which can be pretty entertaining. When you evaluate stuff always try to take the role as a spectator listening to a caster. Assume you have seen the unit/ability/strategy being used 500 times, does it still excite you to see it being used the 501th time? ...
I don't agree with how much you emphasize the spectator's experience over the player's. It might no be exciting to see Tanks (which is debatable) but personally for me it would be way more fun to play with more options (what you call "trivial options"). Having more options means having more depth/strategy to the game. It's a pity if the spectators cannot appreciate that but would rather see terrible terrible damage.
|
On January 13 2013 00:40 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 23:34 Excludos wrote:On January 12 2013 23:00 Telenil wrote:On January 12 2013 10:39 nailertn wrote:On January 11 2013 07:28 Channel Pressure wrote:
There is something intrinsically silly about saying of a company that produced a best selling game that all of you play, 'Has no clue what they are doing'. No clue whatsoever? You mean to say, at blizzard, they threw changes into a hat, drew them out and implemented them? Surely they have a clue. Come on. Yes I agree some of these changes are. . unexpected, but #1 its a beta guys, they have liberty to experiment during a beta. And #2, they are game designers, and very good ones. They do have a clue. Can we just hang in there and be a little less pessamistic? It would be an exaggeration to say Blizzard has done nothing right in the last decade, but not a big one. All their franchises are feeding off the success of their predecessors. Yeah, all of us who play Starcraft 2 totally do it because it's fashionable to play the Brood War sequel, not because the game is enjoyable in any shape or form. /facepalm Yes. And we keep on playing it even thought there are a million other new fast paced RTS games out there with a lot better quality, and perfect balance even thought the races are unequal in their design. edit: Yes, I did say perfect balance. I do get that the game isn't actually balanced. But its still getting a very equal (even 55/45% is equal in this scenario) winratio all the way to the top. Most RTS out there have massive imbalances and/or a single unit which can win by itself. They're only fun up to the point where you get slightly competitive and start abusing strategies. I don't think I know of anyone who's done as good a job with their game balance as blizzard. I'd love to see these imaginary millions of games.
Sarcasm
|
On January 13 2013 00:15 FHC Nex wrote:From a balance point of view I have just one (main) concern: The people at blizzard fail to realize that balancing ONLY around overall W/L ratios is just plain wrong. It seems that in WOL they completely missed the fact that some races have the upper hand in late game so others had to work around that and try to win as early as possible. Not gonna point at any specific matchups, the problem is obvious to everyone. It's sad that they realized it too late The changes seem interesting to me, gonna try more factory play. I loved mech in SC1 and tried it multiple times in WOL, hopefully it will be worth the effort in HOTS o/
Um, thing is they don't balance ONLY around them. They've explained this a couple times in interviews. They've also said they do look at W/L considering things like when a race wins or has advantages. I think it's a bit insulting for you to assume they are so silly as to balance only around overall W/L? They are a professional company o.o
Maybe you are referring to when they were talking about how terran have a slight advantage in the midgame in TvP, and that Protoss has at least a slight advantage lategame? I guess it's up to interpretation, from that post I didn't sense they were totally fine with it, IIRC they said something about it being alright to have small advantages in MUs over different stages, but I'm sure anything more than a small advantage would be looked at.
On January 13 2013 01:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 01:04 ShamW0W wrote:On January 13 2013 00:59 Hider wrote:On January 13 2013 00:53 duckmaster wrote:
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade. But this is just another design myth. It doesn't matter whether tanks become viable in the midgame. What matters is designing units so that they can create interesting games. Having 2 tanks in the midgame adds nothing of interest - it may even be a bad thing as it delays medivac drop play which can be pretty entertaining. When you evaluate stuff always try to take the role as a spectator listening to a caster. Assume you have seen the unit/ability/strategy being used 500 times, does it still excite you to see it being used the 501th time? Marine split does that, which Is why everyone agrees on it being a great designed unit. However, people will give a shit about a terran building 1-2 siege tanks in the early midgame for the 501th time - they just wanna see action, micro and multitasking. Therefore we shouldn't care about adding more trivial/pointless choices to the game because they are goanna get boring pretty quickly. Wait, so the concept of map control in an RTS isn't interesting? That wasn't what I said - you missed the point. But getting 1-2 tanks to be safe early game doesn't add anything to map control against protoss. It just makes you a bit safer in certain situations which shouldn't neccesarsily be a goal. The drawback of that is that it actually makes your army a bit more immobile, which means you can drop less efficiently --> more boring games. My point is that we should redesign units, including tanks, so that they actually can create interesting scenarios, and actually be able to control a certain location efficiently. But we should never aim to give more pointless choices in the game. If a choice adds an interesting element to the game that we still like to watch for the 501th time, sure that is great, but pointless choises should be never a goal in it self.
Terrans already have WM Hellion and Banshee for map control (and raven/viking to snipe observers or help harass). Getting an early tank or two can make you safe against any early pressure, which can then in turn help you to focus on getting map control units out. Or the other way -- get map control units around (hellion and/or Banshee and/or WM harass/drops/etc), and then be able to get quick siege mode tanks out if the protoss is going to attack.
|
On January 13 2013 01:50 duckmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 00:59 Hider wrote:On January 13 2013 00:53 duckmaster wrote:
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade. But this is just another design myth. It doesn't matter whether tanks become viable in the midgame. What matters is designing units so that they can create interesting games. Having 2 tanks in the midgame adds nothing of interest - it may even be a bad thing as it delays medivac drop play which can be pretty entertaining. When you evaluate stuff always try to take the role as a spectator listening to a caster. Assume you have seen the unit/ability/strategy being used 500 times, does it still excite you to see it being used the 501th time? ... I don't agree with how much you emphasize the spectator's experience over the player's. It might no be exciting to see Tanks (which is debatable) but personally for me it would be way more fun to play with more options (what you call "trivial options"). Having more options means having more depth/strategy to the game. It's a pity if the spectators cannot appreciate that but would rather see terrible terrible damage.
More more more is exactly what breaks SC2 and makes it unstable across the playing skill levels.
- Stalkers REQUIRE either Forcefield or Blink to keep up in a battle.
- production speed boosts for the three races kick in at different times which means you HAVE TO scout what is going on in your opponents base
- defending against Banelings REQUIRES a rather frantic Marine-splitting
- offensive Terran proxy buildings or Banshee rushes can ruin your day and have to be scouted to be properly defended
You have to understand that more is NOT better in this case and that "more options" dont only come from having more different units with more abilities to click. More options comes from the map and creative useage of "less than optimal" units.
|
On January 12 2013 23:00 Telenil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2013 10:39 nailertn wrote:On January 11 2013 07:28 Channel Pressure wrote:
There is something intrinsically silly about saying of a company that produced a best selling game that all of you play, 'Has no clue what they are doing'. No clue whatsoever? You mean to say, at blizzard, they threw changes into a hat, drew them out and implemented them? Surely they have a clue. Come on. Yes I agree some of these changes are. . unexpected, but #1 its a beta guys, they have liberty to experiment during a beta. And #2, they are game designers, and very good ones. They do have a clue. Can we just hang in there and be a little less pessamistic? It would be an exaggeration to say Blizzard has done nothing right in the last decade, but not a big one. All their franchises are feeding off the success of their predecessors. Yeah, all of us who play Starcraft 2 totally do it because it's fashionable to play the Brood War sequel, not because the game is enjoyable in any shape or form. /facepalm
Most everything good about sc2 is taken directly from bw. They managed to give us pretty explosions and facebook integration in exchange for deathball vs deathball. If you call that 15 years well spent you have some pretty low expectations of a company that brought you Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo and WoW.
|
On January 13 2013 01:50 duckmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2013 00:59 Hider wrote:On January 13 2013 00:53 duckmaster wrote:
I actually like the no siege upgrade, especially for TvP. Now you can build Siege Tanks reactively when you scout for example a gateway all-in without having to invest too much gas into it. I think in HotS we might see people getting only one or two siege tanks when going for bio since they are actually quite good in midgame. In WoL if you wanna get any siege tanks you better fucking want to build multiple tanks/invest a ton of resources to them due to the upgrade. But this is just another design myth. It doesn't matter whether tanks become viable in the midgame. What matters is designing units so that they can create interesting games. Having 2 tanks in the midgame adds nothing of interest - it may even be a bad thing as it delays medivac drop play which can be pretty entertaining. When you evaluate stuff always try to take the role as a spectator listening to a caster. Assume you have seen the unit/ability/strategy being used 500 times, does it still excite you to see it being used the 501th time? ... I don't agree with how much you emphasize the spectator's experience over the player's. It might no be exciting to see Tanks (which is debatable) but personally for me it would be way more fun to play with more options (what you call "trivial options"). Having more options means having more depth/strategy to the game. It's a pity if the spectators cannot appreciate that but would rather see terrible terrible damage.
Let me ask you this; Who in their right mind wants to see "terrible terrible damage" for the 501th time?" Nobody right.
Before fungal got widely abused it was actually considered somewhat of a cool ability. Why?
Because it was kinda diffeerent from muta/bling and most people had not seen it 500+ time in actions. However, today alot of spectators have watched it 500+ times and they hate it.
On the other hand, mech can be extremely entertaining to watch an inifinitive amount of times as it (if designed correctly - blizzard aren't doing that though) will invovle a lot of multitasking and great mechanics.
Unit control and multitasking is what makes people spend time watching starcraft on a daily basis. Trivial decisions aren't.
|
Now that they have taken away the siege mode upgrade to allow a siege tank to siege, why not add an upgrade that improves the tank for the late game? Give it a real long build time, make it like 150/150, and when it's finished it gives tanks the ability to shoot air units when they are not in siege mode.
|
On January 13 2013 05:12 rumblen wrote:
Now that they have taken away the siege mode upgrade to allow a siege tank to siege, why not add an upgrade that improves the tank for the late game? Give it a real long build time, make it like 150/150, and when it's finished it gives tanks the ability to shoot air units when they are not in siege mode.
Sounds like a protoss unit to me.
|
Now that siegetanks cant seige.. maybe they should give the diamond bakc upgrade.. it will solve some TvZ problems.
|
On January 13 2013 05:42 Xtal wrote:
Now that siegetanks cant seige.. maybe they should give the diamond bakc upgrade.. it will solve some TvZ problems.
They can siege without the upgrade now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
