|
On October 01 2010 07:55 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 07:52 hugman wrote:On October 01 2010 07:45 .risingdragoon wrote:
Well, you have to remember that The Blizzard that made SC and BW is a different Blizzard. Most of those guys have gone and started new companies, like ArenaNet. Another common, unsubstantiated claim I think yours is the unsubstantiated claim.
Regardless if whether it is or not, it is plain wrong.
1 - The people from SC/BW working on this are different people than they were 10 years ago. Shit happens, they think differently, they design games differently after learning and improving at what they do over time.
2 - There are many people who did not work on SC/BW that did work on SC2. This adds in new ideas the original team would not have had, good or bad.
Different times, different developers, different games. This is a different Blizzard.
|
On October 01 2010 07:59 Raz0r wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 07:48 muzzy wrote:On October 01 2010 07:42 blabber wrote:
isn't it the general consensus that Orc (specifically Blademaster) is imbalanced? vs Undead, yes. This is a problem not with the unit, but the random drops in WC3. You can stack BM so much that they really become too powerful. Kind of a inherent problem when you add any random factor to competitive game, which is why they got rid of all randomness in SC2. Even the random hit % when firing uphill in BW was not a good idea. i disagree, random firing % uphill means it is a tactical move to take a hold of the ramp. There should be a disadvantage when trying to atk upwards. It is a common real war strategy, whoever has the high ground usually has the upper hand.
The idea is that that being RANDOM is a bad idea. A %damage decrease would be better, so that it would be consistent.
|
On October 01 2010 07:41 Pawshter wrote:
What proof do you have that wc3 is unbalanced? Unsupported statements.
Orc vs Undead is considered to be quite imbalanced.
|
On October 01 2010 08:00 Bair wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 07:55 .risingdragoon wrote:On October 01 2010 07:52 hugman wrote:On October 01 2010 07:45 .risingdragoon wrote:
Well, you have to remember that The Blizzard that made SC and BW is a different Blizzard. Most of those guys have gone and started new companies, like ArenaNet. Another common, unsubstantiated claim I think yours is the unsubstantiated claim. Regardless if whether it is or not, it is plain wrong. 1 - The people from SC/BW working on this are different people than they were 10 years ago. Shit happens, they think differently, they design games differently after learning and improving at what they do over time. 2 - There are many people who did not work on SC/BW that did work on SC2. This adds in new ideas the original team would not have had, good or bad. Different times, different developers, different games. This is a different Blizzard.
Well, you can say that for anything. It doesn't MEAN anything. If say, you could name CORE developers that had left, you might have a point. Otherwise, it's just like saying "Well the Nintendo that made Super Mario World is different than the Nintendo that made Super Mario Galaxy."
|
It seems ridiculous that people have been begging for balance changes super fast, when the game everyone praises - SC:BW had very long times between balance patches. It takes a long time to really understand what changes need to be made and how they affect the game.
I think the beta made everyone crazy - they think they are entitled to making whatever race they play more powerful right, now, and in the exact way they want. Don't get me wrong, I think the beta was a great idea, but people wrongly expect that attitude to continue after release, which is a horrible idea.
|
On October 01 2010 08:00 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 07:59 Raz0r wrote:On October 01 2010 07:48 muzzy wrote:On October 01 2010 07:42 blabber wrote:
isn't it the general consensus that Orc (specifically Blademaster) is imbalanced? vs Undead, yes. This is a problem not with the unit, but the random drops in WC3. You can stack BM so much that they really become too powerful. Kind of a inherent problem when you add any random factor to competitive game, which is why they got rid of all randomness in SC2. Even the random hit % when firing uphill in BW was not a good idea. i disagree, random firing % uphill means it is a tactical move to take a hold of the ramp. There should be a disadvantage when trying to atk upwards. It is a common real war strategy, whoever has the high ground usually has the upper hand. The idea is that that being RANDOM is a bad idea. A %damage decrease would be better, so that it would be consistent.
Adding a bit to Mystical's point. Since it is random, what if for an entire battle that 30% never kicked in? You just went through the trouble of getting the high ground for nothing.
Or what if it kicked in every time? Suddenly an army that would have otherwise lost terribly wins just because they had the high ground.
|
On October 01 2010 07:45 .risingdragoon wrote:
Well, you have to remember that The Blizzard that made SC and BW is a different Blizzard. Most of those guys have gone and started new companies, like ArenaNet.
So it's probably better to look at the balancing history of WC3, possibly WoW's arenas also. Sloppy, of course.
u cant be serious in comparing WOW arena balance too what the balance team for sc2 is going to do. wow had to balance single player and multiplayer at the same time. that is why they had so many difficulties... terrible example... not to even mention trying to balance 8 races or whatever compared too 3
|
If Blizzard somehow managed to make SC2 perfectly balanced the majority of players would still complain about balance constantly.
|
On October 01 2010 08:02 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 08:00 Bair wrote:On October 01 2010 07:55 .risingdragoon wrote:On October 01 2010 07:52 hugman wrote:On October 01 2010 07:45 .risingdragoon wrote:
Well, you have to remember that The Blizzard that made SC and BW is a different Blizzard. Most of those guys have gone and started new companies, like ArenaNet. Another common, unsubstantiated claim I think yours is the unsubstantiated claim. Regardless if whether it is or not, it is plain wrong. 1 - The people from SC/BW working on this are different people than they were 10 years ago. Shit happens, they think differently, they design games differently after learning and improving at what they do over time. 2 - There are many people who did not work on SC/BW that did work on SC2. This adds in new ideas the original team would not have had, good or bad. Different times, different developers, different games. This is a different Blizzard. Well, you can say that for anything. It doesn't MEAN anything. If say, you could name CORE developers that had left, you might have a point. Otherwise, it's just like saying "Well the Nintendo that made Super Mario World is different than the Nintendo that made Super Mario Galaxy."
Why do I have to name the core developers? The ones who left still left regardless of if I know who they are.
|
If anything, this shows that if it is necessary Blizzard is not afraid to make game sweeping changes to a game that has been out for a substatial amout of time.
|
On October 01 2010 07:59 Raz0r wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 07:48 muzzy wrote:On October 01 2010 07:42 blabber wrote:
isn't it the general consensus that Orc (specifically Blademaster) is imbalanced? vs Undead, yes. This is a problem not with the unit, but the random drops in WC3. You can stack BM so much that they really become too powerful. Kind of a inherent problem when you add any random factor to competitive game, which is why they got rid of all randomness in SC2. Even the random hit % when firing uphill in BW was not a good idea. i disagree, random firing % uphill means it is a tactical move to take a hold of the ramp. There should be a disadvantage when trying to atk upwards. It is a common real war strategy, whoever has the high ground usually has the upper hand.
I'm not saying the idea of high ground advantage is bad. I'm saying randomness is bad.
|
On October 01 2010 08:04 Bair wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 08:02 MythicalMage wrote:On October 01 2010 08:00 Bair wrote:On October 01 2010 07:55 .risingdragoon wrote:On October 01 2010 07:52 hugman wrote:On October 01 2010 07:45 .risingdragoon wrote:
Well, you have to remember that The Blizzard that made SC and BW is a different Blizzard. Most of those guys have gone and started new companies, like ArenaNet. Another common, unsubstantiated claim I think yours is the unsubstantiated claim. Regardless if whether it is or not, it is plain wrong. 1 - The people from SC/BW working on this are different people than they were 10 years ago. Shit happens, they think differently, they design games differently after learning and improving at what they do over time. 2 - There are many people who did not work on SC/BW that did work on SC2. This adds in new ideas the original team would not have had, good or bad. Different times, different developers, different games. This is a different Blizzard. Well, you can say that for anything. It doesn't MEAN anything. If say, you could name CORE developers that had left, you might have a point. Otherwise, it's just like saying "Well the Nintendo that made Super Mario World is different than the Nintendo that made Super Mario Galaxy." Why do I have to name the core developers? The ones who left still left regardless of if I know who they are.
There's no proof that they left, if you can't name or find an article that says "Core BW developers leave Blizzard." Otherwise, we don't know the significance of the people that left. It could be interns in terms of importance, or it could be the lead designers.
|
Actually there is. Look at the game manuals, or the credits. There is a shortlist of guys who stuck around with Blizzard.
Bill Roper led the SC:BW team. Now we have Dustin. That's just a starting point.
Stop trolling. You aren't contributing anything.
|
On October 01 2010 08:06 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 08:04 Bair wrote:On October 01 2010 08:02 MythicalMage wrote:On October 01 2010 08:00 Bair wrote:On October 01 2010 07:55 .risingdragoon wrote:On October 01 2010 07:52 hugman wrote:On October 01 2010 07:45 .risingdragoon wrote:
Well, you have to remember that The Blizzard that made SC and BW is a different Blizzard. Most of those guys have gone and started new companies, like ArenaNet. Another common, unsubstantiated claim I think yours is the unsubstantiated claim. Regardless if whether it is or not, it is plain wrong. 1 - The people from SC/BW working on this are different people than they were 10 years ago. Shit happens, they think differently, they design games differently after learning and improving at what they do over time. 2 - There are many people who did not work on SC/BW that did work on SC2. This adds in new ideas the original team would not have had, good or bad. Different times, different developers, different games. This is a different Blizzard. Well, you can say that for anything. It doesn't MEAN anything. If say, you could name CORE developers that had left, you might have a point. Otherwise, it's just like saying "Well the Nintendo that made Super Mario World is different than the Nintendo that made Super Mario Galaxy." Why do I have to name the core developers? The ones who left still left regardless of if I know who they are. There's no proof that they left, if you can't name or find an article that says "Core BW developers leave Blizzard." Otherwise, we don't know the significance of the people that left. It could be interns in terms of importance, or it could be the lead designers.
And you'd know them by name, right?
I remember reading an article on BW's balance, about how they had a formula for balancing tech trees. This was later used for Guild Wars at ArenaNet. So yeah, I do consider the people behind SC2 a different group.
|
On October 01 2010 08:06 MythicalMage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 08:04 Bair wrote:On October 01 2010 08:02 MythicalMage wrote:On October 01 2010 08:00 Bair wrote:On October 01 2010 07:55 .risingdragoon wrote:On October 01 2010 07:52 hugman wrote:On October 01 2010 07:45 .risingdragoon wrote:
Well, you have to remember that The Blizzard that made SC and BW is a different Blizzard. Most of those guys have gone and started new companies, like ArenaNet. Another common, unsubstantiated claim I think yours is the unsubstantiated claim. Regardless if whether it is or not, it is plain wrong. 1 - The people from SC/BW working on this are different people than they were 10 years ago. Shit happens, they think differently, they design games differently after learning and improving at what they do over time. 2 - There are many people who did not work on SC/BW that did work on SC2. This adds in new ideas the original team would not have had, good or bad. Different times, different developers, different games. This is a different Blizzard. Well, you can say that for anything. It doesn't MEAN anything. If say, you could name CORE developers that had left, you might have a point. Otherwise, it's just like saying "Well the Nintendo that made Super Mario World is different than the Nintendo that made Super Mario Galaxy." Why do I have to name the core developers? The ones who left still left regardless of if I know who they are. There's no proof that they left, if you can't name or find an article that says "Core BW developers leave Blizzard." Otherwise, we don't know the significance of the people that left. It could be interns in terms of importance, or it could be the lead designers.
Additionally, there is no proof that they stayed. Since you seem to be attempting to shoot down what I have to say, I will leave the burden of proof to you.
Even with names, we would not know the significance. We do not know who contributed what to the overall creation of SC/BW. And Dustin Browder jokes aside, we do not know who contributed what to the overall creation of SC2. For all we know, one guy had all the good ideas, and the rest just supported him. Or everyone had a fair share of ideas.
You seem to be missing the point as to why this is not the same Blizzard. New people have arrived, senior people have left, new management is pulling the strings, and 10 years has changed everything in the gaming industry.
|
On October 01 2010 08:03 EnderCN wrote:
If Blizzard somehow managed to make SC2 perfectly balanced the majority of players would still complain about balance constantly.
ahahahah this is so sad but true -____-
|
I think we should drop the comparisons already. For bw players sc2 will never measure up because it's more or less another random 3d rts with the exception of having an already established pro-scene in its beta due to bw. For sc2 players bw is old and ugly, and they'd be 10 years behind everyone else if they ever attempted it.
|
It's kind of sad once you think about it. I hate mental blocks and barriers.
My message to all the complainers is this: "You aren't trying hard enough."
|
we just need players like jaedong and Flash that can ignore the balance...so people can stfu about balance...constantly complaining about the balance instead of trying to explore different options is not gonna get u anywhere.
yea some noname bw progamer who became known in early stage of sc2 complains about balance...big deal.
|
While the quantity of changes SC underwent is actually even smaller than the sum of changes we've seen in SC2 since beta began, we should note that most balance patches were major and spaced far apart. We may assume that the time between balance changes allowed for much deliberation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
