EPTMissions should be dynamic, and WoL did a good job of keeping them all pretty unique with a lot of different ideas. This idea of too large a proportion of missions having little twists just strikes me as silly. It's those twists that make the missions fun.
[D] Distribution of missions in WoL/HotS Campaign - Page 3
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Beakyboo
United States485 Posts
Missions should be dynamic, and WoL did a good job of keeping them all pretty unique with a lot of different ideas. This idea of too large a proportion of missions having little twists just strikes me as silly. It's those twists that make the missions fun. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 21 2013 07:05 naastyOne wrote: I liked WOL campain. While true that missions didn`t offer a lot of varaety in terms of completion by themselves, there was a lot of it if you factor in the unlinear nature of campain, and that you could have totally different tech options depending on when you play the mission, and what upgrades you purchase. That created more than enought varraety for me to do 3+ runs of WOL campain, which, for RTS campain, is huge replay value. And i certainly do not want to see more type A missions, they tend to not be as fun as missions C anyway. I found the missions were very well designed. My main gripe is the lack of narrative. Too much "oh, lets play with some toss here and do some piracy there." Which is a far cry from watching Fenix stare into his fading psi blade as he realized antioch had fallen and he was unable to protect it. It was a far cry from the realization that Kerrigan was not dead. It was a far cry from watching Arthas perform pre-emptive genocide, a far cry from watching Hellscream die in Thrall's arms. I actually like the WoL missions better than BW or SC1 missions. More dynamic, more fun, etc... But when you freed Ghosts? Stole from the protoss? Robbed a train? I didn't feel that emotional tug that I look for in campaigns. | ||
|
TheUnderking
Canada202 Posts
| ||
|
Maxyim
430 Posts
Once again, it is not my intent to offend you, but I really do feel that you could have made much better use of your time as opposed to writing this thread and responding to comments. | ||
|
Millet
Sweden143 Posts
The point of this thread is not to boost my ego by any mens. I wanted to start a discussion and at the same time get my ideas out there, because frankly, no one else had touched this topic before. So why not contribute with an actual thread for once? And I don't think it should be frown upon to create a well constructed thread rather than just spew out the idea in a brutish fasion, like some people do. I never expected any kind of change to HotS, no matter when I would have posted this honestly. All I wanted was to form a discussion revolving around this subject that I feel is interesting. I think I've succeeded with that. Edit: I'd like to also point out that the extreme majority of discussion threads created on TeamLiquid has 0% effect on the actual outcome/change of the game. | ||
|
fezvez
France3021 Posts
- You missed the Nova mission (definitely type E) - Mission 18 is type A, at least, that's how I see it. You conquer two bases. Then you a-move your 200/200 archon/stalker/immortal + 1 high templar (feedback the hybrid!) in the ennemy base | ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
Then I started WOL. Already the first few missions awesome. You had to hold a base against masses of zergs, you had to lead small groups of "guerillas" to raid a mining complex, you saved civilians from zerg invasions etc. If it had been more of type A missions I might actually never even had completed the campaign. Especially when casual RTS gamers play a campaign it is easy to fall back to the "I'll sit here and mass out 1000000000 of the best units possible. Then I'll click attack move to the other end of the map and go to do something else until after a while I come back see burning ruins of enemy base and that I lost one unit." mentality. WOL campaign fights against this very succesfully in my opinion. There are time limits integral to the mission, such as protoss mothership roaming around in the Safe Haven or the wall of fire in the Supernova. There are clever ways of introducing new units in the missions and the limited availability of tech and resources forces you to be creative and actually plan your doings. In general I have a feeling that more type A missions would not be an improvement, those are the missions which enable casuals to play in ways that are clearly impossible and unsustainable in multiplayer e.g. by massing banshees off two bases. Similarly type A missions which would remind normal macro of multiplayer games could feel pointless to more competitive gamer, why would they want to repeat the usual ladder experience in singleplayer storymode as well. Rather than adding more type A missions I would actually like to see even more type B and type C missions. Of course type B does not fit very well into the massing aggressive swarmyness of zerg, but could we have missions where we play the aggressive part of the type B mission? On the other hand these kind of missions would easily tend to bend towards type A's where massing an unbeatable ultra-super-killer-army gets rid of the enemy at once. Instead I would love to see something where multipronged lingwaves and drops should be used, and even then it would be more like chipping slowly away the defenses of hard-turtlet Dominion outpost or so. If anyone of you has played the Battle for Middle-Earth you'll know what I am speaking of when I say that missions such as the sieges of Minas Tirith and Helm's Deep would feel very zergy. | ||
|
Lugh
36 Posts
Type A missions may not have a lot of variety in their goals. On the other side they allow a more open map where you decide for yourself which base to attack next. And they let you play around with the new units and upgrades you unlocked. I really missed that in most missions since I had to fight against the clock. | ||
|
Delwack
123 Posts
Most other campaigns I've played with encourage 'macro' missions one way or another (Dawn of War, Rise of Legends) have serious flaws. They get extremely repetetive, and there become specific weaknesses that are 'easier' to exploit that macro (rush AI with sharp 1-base timing, turtling super-hard with super cost-efficient units and a super-cost efficient position, exploiting lack of AI micro/positioning, knowing beforehand the direction/timing/composition of attacks after losing a few times, and tailoring army composition for perfect countering, etc.). I don't think you can feasibly shore up all such weaknesses, and all such non-macro based solutions to an AI that tries to force macro (that I can think of) are all ultimately easier than macroing properly. For the record I really liked WoL's campaign from a mission design standpoint. It gave you great variety in missions, and excellent flexibility in approaching the campaign as a whole with the tech tree and upgrades (and ability to unbalance your units). I believe campaign missions should be first and formost fun. Variety is the spice of life in these types of campaigns, and WoLs campaign was packed full of lots of variety. Macro, though useful in multiplayer, can be fairly repetative after a few missions, and suffers from serious challenges in trying to 'force' a player to macro when other solutions at hand will likely be used first. | ||
| ||
