|
On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game.
This is incorrect. Or at least not a fundamental principle of game design, even if some games do follow this philosophy.
This is a recipe for having the highest tech units dominate the game once they hit the field. Infestor broodlord comes to mind. If high tech units "should be better" then once they are available they obsolete lower tech units, and this is undesirable. As the game goes longer the tech cost is amortized over more units, and becomes a very small cost which enables a player to get a vastly superior higher tech army.
In my opinion all units should be relevant at all stages in the game. Design their interactions within a flat tech system where every single unit is available all the time. Once the unit interactions are where you want them to be, then you can start designing how you want to bury tech. The game begins with limited options, and as the game progresses the players' options expand outwards, but the newer options aren't strictly superior merely because they are unlocked later.
Note that there's no reason you can't thematically have more expensive units be unlocked later, and more expensive units naturally need to be stronger to justify their cost. However there's also no reason you couldn't have a cheap unit be high tech.
|
United States7166 Posts
of course i agree strongly that all units should be relevant, and no unit should ever be obsolete.
i was just saying that units unlocked by a high amount of tech have some effect on their power, not that they should always be a superior choice over lower tech units. this is why units should not overlap roles either.
which brings me to units like the roach, which because of their troubled history in sc2's early stages, have become this terribly supply inefficient unit that loses a lot of their power in the lategame. would be nice if this unit and other such units had some upgrade at lategame tech that made them more relevant, preferably in a way that doesn't make them overlap with any other unit roles
|
I understand your position, and a lot of RTS games do adopt it (including SC2, but arguably not BW). However I would go so far as to say that a unit's position in the tech tree should have no impact on its effectiveness per cost, or its relationship with other units.
For purposes of designing unit interactions, there is no reason to ever factor in when those units are available. Indeed, the tech tree should be designed to create an interesting system of availability for units whose interactions are already designed with the assumption that all players can build everything for just its build cost.
The tech tree design needs to take into account unit relations and properties. Timings for unit availability should be adjusted to accommodate problems created by other units' availability or unavailability. But unit properties and interactions should be entirely tech tree agnostic, with zero power or efficiency increase or decrease based on being high tech or not.
|
Iam really sad that I preordered Hots....
I Feel like this: Browder says somethin about corrupter being boring units and needs to be changed....What they change is, of course Terran nerf/buffs. I mean c´mon whats going on in dev team?
|
United States7166 Posts
Yeah it'd be really great if the next time someone interviews Browder or D. Kim, they asked about their old plans to make the corruptor and overseer (and possibly others?) more interesting..kinda sucks that they haven't said or done anything about it until this point afaik.
|
Yes this makes me very sad zergling who doesn´t want to run in circles around xel naga pillar -.-
|
On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game.
It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice.
Warcraft 3 was different. A tier 1 unit never stood a chance against tier 2 which never stood a chance against tier 3. In starcarft zerglings counter thors, marines counter voidrays etc. In sc2, i'd rather say that tech allows your composition to get better, but you're never going to make pure high tech unit ever, except in some retarded situations like skytoss.
As you said later, though, it's preferable for low tech units to remain usefull trough the entire game.
Concerning the role of tech, I think its role in sc2 is to create an effect like "now things play differently because this tech is on the field". Like a toss that doesnt have to worry at all about air in zvp before muta can be out, or a Z that knows he cant engage anymore with his zergling army because a collossus is ready, etc.
The role of tech is also to give strategical choice to the players. One can either go for tech, for eco or for army with his money. If Toss couldnt tech faster than zergs, they would never be able to take a 3rd.
|
On February 24 2013 08:00 Natalya wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game. It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice.
Actually, that's exactly how it works. If it wasn't for late-game upgrades all T1 units would be trash.
|
so just i understand it
people cry that the hellbat is to strong and they BUFF it but not tell anyone so blizzard not get hatemails ? WTF
|
On February 24 2013 08:15 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 08:00 Natalya wrote:On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game. It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice. Actually, that's exactly how it works. If it wasn't for late-game upgrades all T1 units would be trash.
T1 is trash because the power of a unit is dependent on it's cost/supply... and all T1 units have a low cost/supply.
|
On February 24 2013 08:50 CoR wrote:
so just i understand it
people cry that the hellbat is to strong and they BUFF it but not tell anyone so blizzard not get hatemails ? WTF
They didn't BUFF anything. They fixed it's improper scaling. And honestly the hellbat isn't too strong. Zergs are just too used to being pampered and greedy as fuck in the early game. They believe if they have to make units before 50 drones they lose. Even if you get attacked by proxy reapers and such you usually still have a 2nd/3rd much earlier than the terran.
|
On February 24 2013 08:55 rpgalon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 08:15 Grumbels wrote:On February 24 2013 08:00 Natalya wrote:On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game. It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice. Actually, that's exactly how it works. If it wasn't for late-game upgrades all T1 units would be trash. T1 is trash because the power of a unit is dependent on it's cost/supply... and all T1 units have a low cost/supply.
I'm sorry what? t1 is trash? Terran can fight all three matchups with 80% t1 and a few t3 supports. ZvZ used to be t1.5 dominated roach fights. Protoss has all sorts of things they can do with t1 and t1.5.
|
On February 24 2013 08:55 rpgalon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 08:15 Grumbels wrote:On February 24 2013 08:00 Natalya wrote:On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game. It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice. Actually, that's exactly how it works. If it wasn't for late-game upgrades all T1 units would be trash. T1 is trash because the power of a unit is dependent on it's cost/supply... and all T1 units have a low cost/supply.
Yeah, say that to the Marines.
|
On February 24 2013 06:24 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D And probably isn't very good at controlling ghosts.
Ghost aren't gas dumps. They're twice more expensive in mineral than in gas. ( 200/100 )
|
On February 24 2013 08:50 CoR wrote:
so just i understand it
people cry that the hellbat is to strong and they BUFF it but not tell anyone so blizzard not get hatemails ? WTF
Not a buff, a bug fix. Now if it makes the units too strong they'll get adjusted. Before they were in a pretty good place I thought, now they'll be stronger and that may be a problem. If it's a problem they'll get adjusted.
|
On February 24 2013 06:24 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D And probably isn't very good at controlling ghosts.
But ghosts aren't a gas dump. 200 mins 100 gas.
Edit: Someone beat me to it
|
The upgrade damage does seem more proper, although it sounds too strong [at first] being able to 1 shot +3 armour lings, but then again, as people have said, you should really be making lings at that point anyway.
|
Really you complain about a buggfix? Why wouldn't the hellbat's upgrades scale like every other unit?
Yes the hellbat might be a little stronger then the zealot. But it's also a unit that has a much higher tech requirement, don't forget that guys.
|
On February 24 2013 10:56 Zorgaz wrote:
Really you complain about a buggfix? Why wouldn't the hellbat's upgrades scale like every other unit?
Yes the hellbat might be a little stronger then the zealot. But it's also a unit that has a much higher tech requirement, don't forget that guys.
It's a fix that makes an already strong unit stronger, and there's no reduction in base damage to compensate for the fixed upgrade damage. Perfectly natural to complain.
|
On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell.
Define "better" please. Just because a Battle Hellion can one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will be able to do so. The Zergling is MUCH faster than the terran unit, so "better" clearly comes from a highly subjective point of view where you conveniently disregard the downsides of a unit. Please dont do that and be objective or refrain from using the word "better".
Another thing is that with such asymmetric units you cant ever give stats to the units to make them all totally balanced, so please refrain from the "boohoo their units are better than mine" whining, because thats not how the game works and you should know better.
"Balanced" is a stupid concept and rather impossible to achieve exactly. Sadly Blizzard tries to do it and really "needs to" because the game relies on too many units being produced. They totally failed to "balance" the unit production boosts of the three races in their initial concept of SC2 and we have to suffer the consequences ever since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
