| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
G4MR
United States371 Posts
On April 12 2010 15:39 Zelniq wrote: that explains the changes to roach/hydra this patch although i dont think those changes were really the right way to break up that roach/hydra combo..it's still really widely used. I'm curious on how blizzard wants us to play zerg. | ||
|
cartoon]x
United States606 Posts
| ||
|
TerranUp16
United States88 Posts
We've already seen what that approach has done to the Roach, Marauder, Thor, Mothership, and hell even the Banshee (originally it had an area-of-effect rocket attack not unlike that of the C&C Generals' Comanche). Probably even screwed with the Stalker (and I'm sure I'm missing a ton of units) as I really get the feeling that the Stalker originally started with Blink but was squishier... However, kudos to his answer for the last question on the second page which is an area in which I think Blizzard is lightyears ahead of most other RTS developers. On a side note, was this interview included in a GameInformer magazine first and then posted online after a delay? Because if so the typical delay most magazines wait for that seems to coincide almost perfectly with the interview having been conducted right before Patch #5. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On April 12 2010 16:53 Half wrote: Where else would you suggest they get unit designs from besides "Out of their asses" (aka: Their head). Think up ideas, keep what works conceptually, scrap what doesn't, balance the numbers. What you're talking about is what I would call "shotgun design." That is, if you fire enough bullets, you'll eventually hit the target. That's fine. And really, that is Blizzard's design style; that's why it takes so long for them to make games. Because shotgun design takes a long time. You have to take time to come up with an idea. You then have to test it to see that it works. You either scrap it or keep it. Then another idea comes along. You have to test it against the old idea, and if the old idea needs modification, you have to test that too. Ad nausium. The alternative is a more contemplative design paradigm. That is, you take a race. That race has certain units. You then add or subtract units based on your estimation of what that race needs or what facets of that race you want to emphasize. That is, instead of starting from a random unit idea and working it into the existing structure, you take a thoughtful approach. You ask, "What are the problems?" You then identify problems. And you use your understanding of those problems to create unit ideas that solve those problems. In this design, each part of the whole fits. Each has a specific purpose or function, because it is designed to have a specific purpose or function. | ||
|
Kaboo
Sweden125 Posts
The way they design opens up for a potentially better game. If they just sat down and designed every race from the top down and then applied unit style and gameplay to conform to the original plan, the game could end up very stale and square. The endless testing and tweaking leads to a MUCH better game. Im so happy they allow themselves the time and effort to really go over EVERY detail in the game over and over. SC1's success was a fluke in many aspects, but if SC2 succeeds it wont be luck that decided it. TLDR: Dustin is a gem and I think this will turn out great. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
Really, Mr. Browder you should read TL. In a long run SC2 is all about competitive online play, so we really do not care much about how you teach people into this game, If someone want to get good at the game, they will find a way to learn it. Make it less noob friendly, really, SC2B now is like Math, This>that and no random factor of high ground or anything. And even Math has x, y,z those unknown element, but SC2B is now going to the 2>1, 3>2 direction. If this guy make A unit I just have to make B to beat him(assume that both are on the same level) | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
I almost wish they never said that. Ignorance is bliss. EDIT: I also wish interviewers would ask questions that really matter, i.e. highground advantage? Massing/unit combo game? | ||
|
Attica
United States277 Posts
Feels like blizzard is doing nothing but streamlining zerg to 3 or 4 units. Their answer to roach/hydra being core to the matchups was nerfing them and not making the other units more useful. Leaves me scratching my head honestly. | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On April 12 2010 17:45 Caphe wrote: SC2B now is like Math, This>that and no random factor of high ground or anything. And even Math has x, y,z those unknown element, but SC2B is now going to the 2>1, 3>2 direction. You don't sound like you know what math is about. | ||
|
GoDannY
Germany442 Posts
They already increased the buldtime heavily and that proxygate is even possible in SC:BW - and stoppable in both games -.- | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
On April 12 2010 17:57 Attica wrote: It really irks me whenever I read that they were trying to make every unit diverse. Zerg feels like an attack move race. Every cool ability/tool that they had initially has been nerfed to the point that most people don't even use it anymore. Nydus canal used to be cool and was useful for surprise attacks. I've yet to see it since the nerf from a pro player. Anything to do with burrow has been nerfed to the ground so it is slower to get and less useful. Muta harass has been nerfed indirectly with Thor buffs and static defense buffs. Infestors were used for a week and were immediately nerfed to the point of uselessness. Feels like blizzard is doing nothing but streamlining zerg to 3 or 4 units. Their answer to roach/hydra being core to the matchups was nerfing them and not making the other units more useful. Leaves me scratching my head honestly. The changes are to "make other zerg units, like the infestor used moar" of course! That's exactly why they nerfed everything useful to the point of complete uselessness. You silly goose you. This is exactly the reason why day9 should have headed the sc2 project instead of dustin. | ||
|
Makica
Canada180 Posts
| ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
On April 12 2010 18:16 Makica wrote: So wait, were convinced this is a real interview? I'm still in denial that he said this. Can we get a confirmation? You won't believe it until Terrible, Terrible Damage has been done, huh? | ||
|
Makica
Canada180 Posts
On April 12 2010 18:18 zomgzergrush wrote: You won't believe it until Terrible, Terrible Damage has been done, huh? LOL n1, My concerns are they are focusing too much on making players have hoops to jump through online and in the game (Achievements, playing versus AI to get better, etc ). Instead, I would rather they focus on providing that high level of competition, support, balance and entertainment that is crucial for this game to take e-sports to the next level and more. People complain it will be too newb friendly and they have a point. Casual gamers will buy the game regardless of a lot of the features they are talking about adding. I guess I'm just surprised. When I read the interview I was like "...wtf this is what he's thinking about? sigh" . lol | ||
|
Black Octopi
187 Posts
On April 12 2010 18:13 zomgzergrush wrote: The changes are to "make other zerg units, like the infestor used moar" of course! That's exactly why they nerfed everything useful to the point of complete uselessness. You silly goose you. This is exactly the reason why day9 should have headed the sc2 project instead of dustin. The terran would have Thors instead of marines, dropships would be some sort of Plenetary Fortress, super cheeze rushes in the first 10s would be the norm -- and so on. Think of it as the opposite of what IdrA would do in the same position. | ||
|
[DUF]MethodMan
Germany1716 Posts
| ||
|
norlock
Netherlands918 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
The problem is, if you have too many interesting, powerful abilities, then the game descends into total chaos. Some element of rock-paper-scissors belongs in the game, but there needs to be a stable base that keeps the advantage gained by winning each round of pure RPS small enough to keep the overall result from being completely random once a basic level of skill is achieved. It's not an easy balance to achieve, but they know it's important, and this is Blizzard. They're committed to the themes that make it distinctly Starcraft, and they'll keep tweaking things until it plays right, long after the release, however many months or years that takes. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12023 Posts
On April 12 2010 15:25 xnub wrote: Seige tank is crazy good and cool destroys zerg and terran ground /shrug. Its more the thor that is worthless. GooD vs mutas if you have one at each base .... oh and trying to cheese rush with one and win. I can second this, I was 2v2'ing yesterday and I went tanks, marines on TZvTT, every time his army got near to the center of metalopolis, they got tanked into oblivion. | ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On April 12 2010 18:32 Funchucks wrote: Some element of rock-paper-scissors belongs in the game, but there needs to be a stable base that keeps the advantage gained by winning each round of pure RPS small enough to keep the overall result from being completely random once a basic level of skill is achieved. What the f is an RPS?!!! Revolutions per second? Renewable portfolio standards? Raytheon polar services? Railway pension scheme? Really powerful SHARC? Reversible pilot seat? Real property system? Real person slash? Requested payment service? | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Percival vs Cham
Spirit vs Harstem
Cure vs TBD
Krystianer vs TBD
Kung Fu Cup
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
PiGosaur Monday
RSL Revival
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
