EPTPretty pathetic ;/
The myth of a long patch history in scbw - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kasumimi
Greece460 Posts
Pretty pathetic ;/ | ||
|
GIGAR
Denmark88 Posts
On October 01 2010 20:04 abrasion wrote:Ultimately I can completely see how Dustin said (and I quote what I recall) "we just threw units in there to be cool and worked around balance from there" - doesn't sound well thought out to me in the slightest. Tweaking numbers doesn't help when there's fundamental design flaws. If you could find a source for that, it would be great. It would also explain the current state of SC2, and why (especially Zerg) have evolved so much. Look in the protoss demo done a few years ago; Terrans till have Repears, Siege Tanks and the SCV CC deployment ability. Zealots still have charge and warp in, as well as Immortals, Collosi and Phoenixes (although the latter changed a lot), plus Mothership (lol) Zerg still have... Zerglings and Banelings? To me, it seems like Blizzard had awesome ideas for P and T, and practically none for Z. Z didn't end up with anything really awesome, anycase :/ | ||
|
Teddyman
Finland362 Posts
SC2 only needs to get to a point where the game can be balanced with maps. We might actually already be at that stage. Hell, even by eliminating a couple of the worst offenders from the ladder map pool and giving each player a map or two to thumbs down, you usually end up with a couple of somewhat balanced maps for each matchup. | ||
|
abrasion
Australia722 Posts
On October 01 2010 20:29 GIGAR wrote: If you could find a source for that, it would be great. It would also explain the current state of SC2, and why (especially Zerg) have evolved so much. I can't produce a link but I recall the outrage well - someone here will find the quote, no doubt - it was about 4 to 6 months ago. EDIT: Found it http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=119391 This shows a lack of real genuine game design, I wish I could explain where genius game design exists and provide examples but nothing springs to mind. Ultimately it shows no proper in depth planning of how X and Y works, this totally explains Zergs terrible unit variety and early game  and yet Terran has some absoloutely amazing options and is only going to get better (Artosis says this, I believe him) | ||
|
AcOrP
Bulgaria148 Posts
They created terran race first, all the ideas are great I bet everyone agree that Terran race has so many options,builds,strats,so many good units, give me 1 terran unit that is bad and useless? Terran mechanics are also pretty good so close to SC:BW, no one playing terran in SC2 miss units from SC:BW (maybe the goliath but thors) After finishing terran blizzard started protoss they had few good ideas the mother ship collosi warp prism the warp gate mechanic, they balanced it as much as they could vs terran. Then they had to make zerg they were out of ideas, and the result is very poor zerg mechanics very little options and rendering zerg pretty imbalance the tight schedule to make the whole zerg race lead to the current situation. The new things for zerg compared to BW are the need for creep to stay on even foot with terran and protoss, the need for constant larva inject, the lack for early mobile anti-air. the lack of early agression, the lack of mobility out of creep, the lack of creativity that zerg offer overall. I don't belive expansions will solve this things at all, nor any balance patch, you cannot balance things that are faulty by design.TvP can be balanced with minor changes, Zerg need to be redesign. | ||
|
GIGAR
Denmark88 Posts
On October 01 2010 20:43 abrasion wrote: I can't produce a link but I recall the outrage well - someone here will find the quote, no doubt - it was about 4 to 6 months ago. EDIT: Found it http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=119391 This shows a lack of real genuine game design, I wish I could explain where genius game design exists and provide examples but nothing springs to mind. Ultimately it shows no proper in depth planning of how X and Y works, this totally explains Zergs terrible unit variety and early game and yet Terran has some absoloutely amazing options and is only going to get better (Artosis says this, I believe him)Terran (and Protoss) will continue to develop new, interesting strategies. Zerg will not. A lot of people seem to be like "give the game some time, Zerg will learn new epic strats". Okay, like what? Speed teching to Mutas aren't going to prevent a Reaper from harassing or destroying your base, for instance - Since Zerg is such an reactoinary race, there's no "zerg can just do this and amove and win!" tactics anymore. Tbh, right now, every time I think of SC2 Zerg, I just get pissed off. Like, literally. It's starting to affect my RL, since I'm almost constantly pissed off with all this garbage. Blizzard even openly states that Zerg isn't fun to play. Blizzard also said that they didn't really know what they wanted the Ultralisk to do. What does that mean for the rest of the race? If you don't know what a T3 unit is supposed to do, then wth is the other things supposed to do? Collosus are a pretty nice "raep all non-huge ground units". Carriers are some kind of lol-unit, that's practically unbeatable when massed. Battlecruisers are like Carriers. Thors are just completely insane at destroying light Air units, and have a decent ground attack. Okay, Mothership is lol, but those are all useful T3 units to a varying degree - We KNOW what they can do, and what they're supposed to do (kinda). Zerg is just "lol sup lets make some units" - "k" I'm a sad Zerg now *goes to punch wall* | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19053 Posts
| ||
|
Andre
Slovenia3523 Posts
The main point between back then and today is that you've got bunch of people whining today about balance, it's like a trend that i believe started with WoW and is now everywhere. Certain periods of time in SC1 could be considered as highly favoring a certain race, due to maps, dominance etc. I ask you, is SC1 balanced so good that every race has a chance to dominate, or are the players just so damn skilled that they make BALANCE look like it's not a factor? I'm quite sure if we take the current SC2 and don't patch it for 10 years we'll have bisus/jaedongs/flashes. Nothing can trully be balanced imo :X | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
Nowadays they have the BW history to learn from, replays, a huge amount of statistics from their ladder and a lot of different tournaments. These are all things they didn't have at the time, so doing things a lot faster should definitely be expected. The expansions will also affect balance, and if they continue balancing the game the same way, then it will not be balanced at all between the expansions, so we can expect the game to be in a balanced state for the first time after no less than 4 years(and that's a very optimistic estimate), which is much more than in took SC and will drive a large amount of players from the game, as well as having a big effect on the competitive scene as well. | ||
|
abrasion
Australia722 Posts
On October 01 2010 21:00 GIGAR wrote: Terran (and Protoss) will continue to develop new, interesting strategies. Zerg will not. A lot of people seem to be like "give the game some time, Zerg will learn new epic strats". Okay, like what? Speed teching to Mutas aren't going to prevent a Reaper from harassing or destroying your base, for instance - Since Zerg is such an reactoinary race, there's no "zerg can just do this and amove and win!" tactics anymore. Tbh, right now, every time I think of SC2 Zerg, I just get pissed off. Like, literally. It's starting to affect my RL, since I'm almost constantly pissed off with all this garbage. Blizzard even openly states that Zerg isn't fun to play. Blizzard also said that they didn't really know what they wanted the Ultralisk to do. What does that mean for the rest of the race? If you don't know what a T3 unit is supposed to do, then wth is the other things supposed to do? Dude, I play Protoss and I feel sorry for Zerg. There's a reason people at the high level are complaining. Zerg first 10 minutes suck, there's like no options, none! If you're a grand master at the game, you get the 'right' to continue and maybe, just maybe now diversify and try some different stuff. However those first 10 minutes are about performing the perfect opening and surviving - on the backfoot. Someone showed a picture recently from a chart they drew, showing up the Terran advantage in the early game, then curving slowly as the game progresses until the end, where I think Zerg can really shine with some sweet variety. None the less that opening sucks and the units are boring - I'm glad I chose P to be honest. | ||
|
Cyuss
Germany22 Posts
Also, do not forget the changed marketing strategy: while SC1 operated with three playable races at the same time, Blizzard introduces the races via singleplayer in SC2 step by step. Result of this, if Blizzard wants it ro not, will be that Zerg and Protoss will first come to the gameplay focus after the second and third add-on. For the multiplayer ballance it can only mean, that the chance to hit a good ballance for all three reaces by making campaings for them was just much higher. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
What's the difference? If you measure it in time it will probably be the same. I dont like the big patches anyways, i'd rather get 10 small ones than 1 big one. I've asked this in other balance threads aswell, but could anyone tell me 1 game that has been balanced in its first 3 months? or even 5 months? Like any competitive game. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
I'm just confirming the fact their ideas were based on look rather than game-play first, which is a big issue in game developing nowadays. Just wanted to point that out. Cyuss, right on. That's leads me to another notable quote. To paraphrase Dustin unconsciously told us where the emphasis on the units were placed (Terran, Protoss, Zerg) through the Single Player campaign. Zerg are the predominant nemesis in the game. Likewise they got the short-end of the stick. Hence, at launch there were more Terran players than not, so these numbers are a little askew. This is why it was silly for them to skip parts of production. The product could have been a lot better if they focused on all 3 campaigns at the same time. They skipped a lot of steps because they wanted the game to hit shelves and rake in money, but then again the game would probably be in develop for another 1-2 years and this would cost millions and millions of dollars. Can we blame them? :/ | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
How can you even expect a company to listen to all the requests of everyone playing. Sure, in beta it was one thing, nothing was set in stone but doing "massive changes" now, on the live game? LOOOOLLL!!! You people are really crazy. Go read up on what development means and see it's not exactly push 2 buttons and voila you have some software. No wonder most of the idiots actually believe they have a right to try cracked games and software, you know nothing of the work that goes into making something like SC2, time wise it's longer than building sky scrapers and you expect stuff to change at the community's whim? | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
There is no denying Blizzard rushed the product. They put more emphasis on appeasing the casual consumers and unfortunately the game-play had to take the bullet. There have been several interviews conducted based on their process for developing SC2. Perhaps you should read them. Many of them have been posted on this website. A search might suffice. I know I'm well aware of the work that goes into any project Blizzard does because I've been following them ever since I was about 12 and I'm almost 30 now. | ||
|
Plakk
Canada32 Posts
On October 01 2010 07:51 Seide wrote: Hard counter system? have you played more than 5 games of SC2? I think you forgot get something: a clue. SC2 countering system is no different from BW. There will be unit compositions that work better against other unit composition that is like basic RTS -_- Took me a while to get this post. I understand now. Its a joke, not good one, but a joke nonetheless | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On October 01 2010 21:14 lololol wrote: The last balance patch for BW was the one that introduced replays. The whole time they balanced the game they didn't even have replays, and the game also evolved slower, because of that. Nowadays they have the BW history to learn from, replays, a huge amount of statistics from their ladder and a lot of different tournaments. These are all things they didn't have at the time, so doing things a lot faster should definitely be expected. The expansions will also affect balance, and if they continue balancing the game the same way, then it will not be balanced at all between the expansions, so we can expect the game to be in a balanced state for the first time after no less than 4 years(and that's a very optimistic estimate), which is much more than in took SC and will drive a large amount of players from the game, as well as having a big effect on the competitive scene as well. Pretty much nailed it. SC2 now after a beta and a few months is already at a level that BW was at only a few years ago. People are really good at SC2 already, and the core understanding of macro, timings, expanding, unit compositions, and overall RTS is SO much higher than in the early life of BW. The problem is simple: Blizzard wants SC2 to be an esport like its predecessor. They don't want to balance it quickly and aggressively. Therefore, players can't afford to wait around for their race to be balanced, so everyone switches to the imbalanced race and the game loses depth and starts to die. Blizz better pick it up. | ||
|
Champ24
177 Posts
That being said, ask yourself, does 100% balance really matter that much right now? I'll do an example. Let's say for instance for the sake of argument that zerglings are deemed too powerful and blizz decides to nerf their build time by 15 seconds. (yes it is extreme and that is why I chose it). For that to matter, you would need to play against a Zerg player and play in a way that is supposedly strong against zerglings but their build time is too short so you end up losing. The "odds" that you will play a Zerg player is 33%(again, for the sake of argument) and the odds that he played zerglings in a way that blizzard deems too powerful, say 25%, and the odds that you played in such a way that is suppose to defeat the strategy, say 33%. Taking all of that into consideration you would lose 2 to 3 games out of 100 because of the imbalance assuming you and your opponent played equally well. Also take into effect that you may play a race and strategy that blizz deems too powerful and you win about 2 to 3 games out of 100 that you otherwise should have lost. My point? As the great Paul McCartney wrote, "let it be". | ||
|
grimmr
United States4 Posts
For one thing, Brood War was NEVER BALANCED. That is, Broodwar was never balanced in the sense that people seem to expect from Starcraft 2. In a game where the races have fundamentally different mechanics, it's ridiculous to expect that each matches up perfectly in all stages of the game, on any map. But the Brood War competitive scene made up for this with map design, for the most part. For example, PvZ was very lopsided unless the Protoss was given a protected Natural expansion. Maps like Andromeda, Medusa, and Outsider were favorable ZvT (around 60-40) because of the wide open center and ease of taking extra gas. Other maps like Othello were just as favored TvZ because of the lack of these things. But overall, the Kespa mapmakers were able to produce maps with consistent enough design to keep the matchups even. Now, one could look at Starcraft 2 and see (hypothetically), that TvZ is 65-35% right now between roughly equally skilled players. How Blizzard is thinking right now, and what the community expects from them in general, is the premise that "Okay, Terran is obviously too strong right now, what kind of numbers can we tweak downwards to bring the matchup to 50%". It would be MUCH healthier for the game if instead, the train of thought went "Okay, Terran simply has too many options in the early game that prevent a Zerg from being able to match the Terran economy. If we made the maps bigger and less cliff heavy, it might allow them to stabilize into the midgame better." But the problem with that, is that Blizzard is trying to run the "esports" aspect of Starcraft 2. Which is good in many ways, but it also means that by setting the ladder maps in stone, it discourages experimenting with new maps at the highest levels of play; players will favor the familiar maps as they're the primary means through which to practice. Which makes things harder to change. Maps like Battle Royal and Tears of the Moon were badly balanced in Brood War; but it was alright - they lasted a season or less of Proleague or a Starleague, then were removed once the problems with the map were acknowledged. I don't see the current set of ladder maps going away anytime soon; and even if they do, I don't expect Blizzard to depart from its current philosophy regarding mapmaking as long as the primary balance concerns by the community are focused around units. (Main + Natural with no easy third base, Gold in the Center, Too many cliffs, air or rush distances that are stupidly short ) In my opinion, the using the idea of patch philosophy to address "balance" is only detrimental to the game in the long run. Some things need to be addressed (Mostly the Mule, but that's a post for a different time), but really, most of the glaring problems with the game have already been worked out through beta. Continually tweaking numbers and units devalues practicing specific builds, and hinders the creation of a standard model for a matchup, something which broodwar hinged on. For example, the standard TvZ - Marine Medic into Marine Tank Vessel against Mutalisk into Lurker Defiler into Ultra; that could describe hundreds of games, yet still managed to be entertaining, both in the player's execution, micro, and situational deviations from it. And for me at least, that's much more entertaining than playing "see what sort of random harass the Terran will do this game" Changing statistics also bears the risk of moving units toward Roach territory; an overreactive, crippling change that addressed the balance problem only taking one supply, but went a step too far, as well as making the unit impressively boring and soulless. Blizzard has half of the pieces to the puzzle right now; they don't want to do kneejerk balance changes to Terran because they've shown a good deal of success in a few community run tournaments and have a larger popularity on ladder. But, on the other hand, they eventually need to acknowledge that the map is just as much a part of the game as the race is. And the community needs to do much the same if they ever want to see the competitive scene grow to rival Brood War. | ||
|
Daedie
Belgium160 Posts
| ||
| ||
