|
On April 12 2010 18:38 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +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?
An RPS is a...
Requested payment service for the Raytheon polar services that is a real property system implemented on top of the railway pension scheme that recently switched to renewable portfolio standards because their rotating folder organizer with a large number of revolutions per second caused a really powerful SHARC to complain about his reversible pilot seat so he began to real person slash.
|
On April 12 2010 18:42 zomgzergrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 18:38 lolaloc wrote: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? An RPS is a... Requested payment service for the Raytheon polar services that is a real property system implemented on top of the railway pension scheme that recently switched to renewable portfolio standards because their rotating folder organizer with a large number of revolutions per second caused a really powerful SHARC to complain about his reversible pilot seat so he began to real person slash.
that took you too long, I'm sure
roflflflfl nice one.
|
Respond to my previous post! please
|
all of you criticising the way of blizzard development methods have you played the game?
I mean, sure its not balanced yet but its surely more entertaining AND more balanced than sc1 vanilla was in beta. This of course is a result of the evolution of rts gamers and ts knowledge but still...
(I don't even want to play the "sc1 was still being balanced years after its release" card)
|
On April 12 2010 18:29 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
I love how even low postcount users are complaining. Seriously, this can't be real.
So what? I person doesn't have a legitimate complaint unless he's posted on this specific website many times? Give me a break. I see plenty of posters here with over a 1000 posts and they are in Gold or lower. I don't want to hear it. This might come as a surprise to you but not everyone playing sc2 is from sc1. New game new people. You're probably one of those guys that pull out your "What's your Iccup rank?" card whenever I beat you like it holds some bearing in sc2. Just like you think how your 800+ posts regarding sc1 have any bearing on sc2 discussion.
|
On April 12 2010 19:15 Titanidis wrote:
all of you criticising the way of blizzard development methods have you played the game?
I mean, sure its not balanced yet but its surely more entertaining AND more balanced than sc1 vanilla was in beta. This of course is a result of the evolution of rts gamers and ts knowledge but still...
(I don't even want to play the "sc1 was still being balanced years after its release" card)
Definitely. I don't think SC2 quite matches the epicness of BW pro gaming at its height, but compared to the SC beta? Pfft, its not even comparable. Their is potential, and were not going to see it realized for some time. Blizzards going to take a much more active role in balancing now that their an established company with near unlimited resources. Contribute, whine, GL, HF, and enjoy the ride ^_^.
And try not to hurt yourself in the process 
|
On April 12 2010 14:32 lolnoty wrote:
The quote in the OP is confusing when you read it and then look at the Zerg.
agreed ^^
|
Pleasing the fans is the hardest and most ungrateful job in the world.
We are still in beta, things can change even when the game is released, no need to scream doom and gloom people.
|
Warpgates and gateways has already been nerfed so badly that it is very difficult to stop some of the other race rushes (such as the 3 minute Reaper rush). I don't see how they could nerf the timing of it even further without creating a huge imbalance in the opposite direction.
|
On April 12 2010 18:29 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
I love how even low postcount users are complaining. Seriously, this can't be real.
I love how those recently registered are complaining (read: you), about people not spamming the boards as much as them.
|
Blah, tl;dr even if Dustin is damn hawt baldie. 
|
Designing anything without a general direction or overarching purpose either turns it into an incoherent mess or turns it into something with a very homogeneous texture, so to speak. Hence, Protoss is no longer the most expensive/slow-to-produce race, Zerg is no longer the mass-units-quickly race, and Terran is no longer (viable as) the mixed bag of ultra-mobile glass-cannon bionic and slow-moving, powerful mech.
Instead, each race is composed of the basic unit (thankfully still characteristic of each race's ORIGINAL vision.) and mid-tier tank units, siege units, harass units, and anti-air units. Great, except they forgot something. They forgot to preserve each race's original vision in designing the units. They forgot to encourage armies that work through SYNERGY. Can you believe that they redesigned the Roach because fighting against it produced drastically different results if the units were microed versus if they were not microed? I thought micro was supposed to be a game-changing factor, not an afterthought? What went wrong?
No design template, that's what went wrong.
|
On April 12 2010 21:00 LunarC wrote:
Designing anything without a general direction or overarching purpose either turns it into an incoherent mess or turns it into something with a very homogeneous texture, so to speak. Hence, Protoss is no longer the most expensive/slow-to-produce race, Zerg is no longer the mass-units-quickly race, and Terran is no longer (viable as) the mixed bag of ultra-mobile glass-cannon bionic and slow-moving, powerful mech.
Instead, each race is composed of the basic unit (thankfully still characteristic of each race's ORIGINAL vision.) and mid-tier tank units, siege units, harass units, and anti-air units. Great, except they forgot something. They forgot to preserve each race's original vision in designing the units. They forgot to encourage armies that work through SYNERGY. Can you believe that they redesigned the Roach because fighting against it produced drastically different results if the units were microed versus if they were not microed? I thought micro was supposed to be a game-changing factor, not an afterthought? What went wrong?
No design template, that's what went wrong.
I can understand that decision because if it wasn't changed, then the newbs would cry about imbalance.
But then again, isn't that precisely what made lurkers so cool?
|
On April 12 2010 21:11 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 21:00 LunarC wrote:
Designing anything without a general direction or overarching purpose either turns it into an incoherent mess or turns it into something with a very homogeneous texture, so to speak. Hence, Protoss is no longer the most expensive/slow-to-produce race, Zerg is no longer the mass-units-quickly race, and Terran is no longer (viable as) the mixed bag of ultra-mobile glass-cannon bionic and slow-moving, powerful mech.
Instead, each race is composed of the basic unit (thankfully still characteristic of each race's ORIGINAL vision.) and mid-tier tank units, siege units, harass units, and anti-air units. Great, except they forgot something. They forgot to preserve each race's original vision in designing the units. They forgot to encourage armies that work through SYNERGY. Can you believe that they redesigned the Roach because fighting against it produced drastically different results if the units were microed versus if they were not microed? I thought micro was supposed to be a game-changing factor, not an afterthought? What went wrong?
No design template, that's what went wrong. I can understand that decision because if it wasn't changed, then the newbs would cry about imbalance. But then again, isn't that precisely what made lurkers so cool?
Same with DT's. THEY'RE PERMA-INVI FFS
|
Contrary to popular belief, there is no one standard way to create a game. Some of the more successful games have come from new approaches to the development process. So far I think it has worked out very well for them and the game that is coming out of it.
|
On April 12 2010 21:00 LunarC wrote:
Designing anything without a general direction or overarching purpose either turns it into an incoherent mess or turns it into something with a very homogeneous texture, so to speak. Hence, Protoss is no longer the most expensive/slow-to-produce race, Zerg is no longer the mass-units-quickly race, and Terran is no longer (viable as) the mixed bag of ultra-mobile glass-cannon bionic and slow-moving, powerful mech.
Are they not? I think the Immortal, Void Ray, Collossus, Carrier, Mothership fit your description pretty well. Ok, you can speed things up using chrono boost, but since all races got their ways to speed up macro, the higher speed is a general feature of the game and as such doesn't change the relations between races. Zerg can mass up Zerglings or Roaches extremely quickly; because of the Queen even quicker than in BW. Zerg can make quick tech switches and suddenly take you apart with 25 mutalisks you didn't see coming (there are a lot of complaints about this). Also fits your description well. Concerning terran, I think it's clearly just the Marauder that doesn't fit. But that's really a Marauder problem and not a general problem. Generally, the difference between the bio and mech paths is clearly there.
I also would have preferred to hear from the lead designer that the design team has started their creative process with three different race characteristics instead of a "bunch" of individual units. But at the same time, since their task was not to design just something, but to design Protoss, Terran and Zerg units, their was no way for them not to think about the races when developing their ideas. One has to bear this in mind when commenting on the quote. And when you compare manoevering a Collossus that is protected by Stalkers with a MMM army with perhaps a couple of Siege Tanks or a bunch of Zerglings and Mutalisks darting around and harassing, I would say that these three kinds of armies are very different in character and gameplay.
|
"At the time, the Roach's regeneration was above ground and all the time. While I appreciated the unit for its simplicity in that role -- a constantly regenerating unit, kind of a Zerg Wolverine character, that was pretty fun -- it ultimately produced some very random results in battles. If the units randomly focus-fired on your Roaches in the correct way, and just by chance they happened to pick off one Roach at a time, then you would suddenly have a big victory against the Roach as opposed to if you let them attack move and they all picked their own targets and you got a little unlucky with the acquisition, then suddenly the Roaches would roll your units."
So the roaches were too skill-based so they dumbed them down.
I'm starting to get how they designed SC2.
|
On April 12 2010 21:00 LunarC wrote:
Designing anything without a general direction or overarching purpose either turns it into an incoherent mess or turns it into something with a very homogeneous texture, so to speak. Hence, Protoss is no longer the most expensive/slow-to-produce race, Zerg is no longer the mass-units-quickly race, and Terran is no longer (viable as) the mixed bag of ultra-mobile glass-cannon bionic and slow-moving, powerful mech.
Instead, each race is composed of the basic unit (thankfully still characteristic of each race's ORIGINAL vision.) and mid-tier tank units, siege units, harass units, and anti-air units. Great, except they forgot something. They forgot to preserve each race's original vision in designing the units. They forgot to encourage armies that work through SYNERGY. Can you believe that they redesigned the Roach because fighting against it produced drastically different results if the units were microed versus if they were not microed? I thought micro was supposed to be a game-changing factor, not an afterthought? What went wrong?
No design template, that's what went wrong.
Quoted for truth.
This was exactly what was going through my head as I read the interview.
|
On April 12 2010 17:45 Caphe wrote:
A long interview but with very little information. I feel like I was reading a advertising article.
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.
You're right. We shouldn't be taught algebra or calculus or science. Sure, it took human history thousands of years to work out this stuff, but we can't possibly have people learning from that experience. If they really want it, they'll find a way to learn it, right?
Just because you figured it out for yourself doesn't mean that everyone should have to. And Blizzard spending some time trying to teach people how to play multiplayer is only a good thing. This expands the player base, allowing SC2 to be more widely played than SC1.
So the roaches were too skill-based so they dumbed them down.
That's not what he said. He was talking about what happened if two players A-moved into each other. The results were too random. It's not that he had a problem if one player micros; it's what happens if there is no micro. The result should be so determined by the vagaries of how the AI picks targets.
The result from two armies A-moving against each other should be fairly repeatable. If it's not, then there's a problem.
Also, Roaches themselves weren't skill-based in this implementation. It was fighting against them that required skill. I'm not sure having an A-move unit that says, "Micro or die!" to anything it comes across is a good idea.
|
I'm a little bit confused about how he believes most Zerg units are microable? Especially in regards to his comment that you can overcome counters by microing them? Reminds me of a comment I heard on LzGamers stream. I think someone said, "Sure, like you can micro Mutas against Thors. You can take the Mutas and hide them in the corner. Hah! I beat your build, your Thor will never make it here!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
