On April 23 2011 01:14 -Archangel- wrote: Did Dustin Browder also work on C&C: Generals? Because that game was awesome and pretty competitive without stupid units.
I wonder why didn't he use some of those units in SC2 instead of RA3 or CnC3 ones
Buses full of mob with Ak47s :D Armored vehicles that you could change the function depending on what you put inside. At least we know how they came up with the idea of cloaking the buildings in SC2 :D
And epic comments like "Thanks you for the new shoes" or "Ak47 for everyone!"
On April 22 2011 20:33 kedinik wrote: "Take out the fun" as in "remove zany imbalanced over the top units and powers like you have in C&C games."
It's a very reasonable thing to say.
Yeah. I'm betting he wanted to do this too... I didn't play C&C generals but I'd expect any C&C designer to put in stupid units or abilities. And I don't think that game was balanced although it was fun at a non-competitive level. Great for a friendly lan party not great for a e-sport.
The mothership kind of feels like that kind of unit. ( also makes me really miss the arbiter)
Such an elegant and articulated individual this Dustin Browder character is... What with all his "cool" unit ideas he copied from a fluffy, dull, and gimmicky project of his past. Command and Conqueror Generals wrote up the blueprint on how to dissuade a game from eSports and kill the promising future of a classic series that had an old and dedicated fan base.
I can't begin to imagine how ridiculous these "fun" unit prototypes might have been, nor do I want to attempt to think like a 4th grader, so I'll just move along. The fact that anyone working on a recent C&C game has gotten such a high level position at Blizzard is beyond me.
Knowing that Dustin Browder and perhaps some of his C&C cronies are the main catalyst of sc2's evolution really leaves me with a feeling of hopelessness for the future of sc2.
I thoroughly enjoy eSports and everything has to offer, I think it is amazing what the community has done with sc2. Though I will admit I have not been amazed, impressed, or excited by anything Blizzard has done with sc2 -- I really hope they can bring some fresh intuitive people on board to lead their next project.
On April 23 2011 01:05 eviltomahawk wrote: Actually, Dustin Browder didn't work on C&C3 and RA3. Heck, RA3 was announced in 2008, which was after many of SC2's core designs had been previewed.
As far as your comparisons go, I do disagree with some of them.
The Viking was unveiled BEFORE the Mecha Tengu was unveiled for RA3. The Viking was introduced in 2007 in some of the first preview videos. The Mecha Tengu was announced in 2008 with the full unveil of the Empire of the Rising Sun faction that was revealed months after the original RA3 announcement. One could say that the Mecha Tengu copied the Viking.
The Stalker is literally a Dragoon with Blink that was made slightly weaker to compensate for the added mobility.
Although the Hellion is visually inspired by the Attack Buggies of C&C, the Vulture from BW also is very similar in functionality.
Also, I don't think the Annihilator Tripod did AOE damage. It could shoot in 3 different directions, but I think the lasers were concentrated on single targets which made it more of an anti-armor unit whereas the Colossi mainly counters low-HP units in small numbers and everything in larger numbers. Visually, there are obvious similarities.
In addition, I'm not surprised to see some cues in SC2's design from C&C3. C&C3 was fairly well-received when it was released, and similar to SC2, it was praised by critics as a good example of an old-school RTS design being modernized. Heck, C&C3 was even a modest e-sport for some time to a point where it appeared at WCG for a few years.
some yes, but you cant deny the similarities. i know browder left before cnc3. but it doesnt deny that he was influenced by the games..
C&C3 was a decent esport till the balance designers ruined the game, coupled with EA cutting funding, It was in WCG because EA funded alot of the cnc portion. I competed in the WCG national finals for cnc3 for the 2 years it ran and played over 7000 some games =/. Tripod did do aoe damage, it kind of splashed but it only splashed in unit groups, like a rifleman squad. i used them to counter mass infantry all the time with support from other units of course. you may remember me from battlecast primetime spotlights from the earlier episodes and that replay that was downloaded several hundred thousand some times =/ You know the one with the mothership comeback? which thankfully they removed those types of abilities before the beta.
But my point was, similar units were used and they were essentially the simplest a move type units, or an intended micro function. There was a lack of creativity in the new units of how they are used. Other older interviews mention browder about wanting to keep "iconic" units and how they were difficult to balance. My biggest complaint about SC2 gameplay was always the bland or useless gimmick units. Hoping we get the balance stuff worked out were the niche units like the mothership become a bit more useful and not just a MLG crowd pleaser or super OP. And we get some new stuff come the expansions that add to gameplay in areas the races are weak at, or open new styles of play with them.
On April 22 2011 20:33 kedinik wrote: "Take out the fun" as in "remove zany imbalanced over the top units and powers like you have in C&C games."
It's a very reasonable thing to say.
Many consider the reason balance was achieved so damn well in scbw was the fact that each race had its own unique forms of imbalanced units that gave each race different roles and positioning in different times in the game, leading to interesting and fun game flows.
If SC2 only had units that attack moved and that is it, it would be a horrible game.
This is quite disturbing to read about. StarCraft and Brood War were never meant to be e-sports, they were designed to be fun. Look what happened. I think Blizzard may be trying to hard to make StarCraft 2 an e-sport when they should just do what they did with Brood War and let the community do the rest.
On April 23 2011 02:13 KaBoom300 wrote: This is quite disturbing to read about. StarCraft and Brood War were never meant to be e-sports, they were designed to be fun. Look what happened. I think Blizzard may be trying to hard to make StarCraft 2 an e-sport when they should just do what they did with Brood War and let the community do the rest.
Good point, agree with this. I think people should give Blizzard more time to work on SCII and only when the 2 exps have been released and some time afterwards have passed will we ever see what SCII will become
Some of the old alpha videos from 2007. I hadn't watched these in for ever. Given the fact that they had actually implemented some of these you can imagine the kinds of ideas that got rejected outright.
On April 23 2011 01:47 Stringy wrote: Such an elegant and articulated individual this Dustin Browder character is... What with all his "cool" unit ideas he copied from a fluffy, dull, and gimmicky project of his past. Command and Conqueror Generals wrote up the blueprint on how to dissuade a game from eSports and kill the promising future of a classic series that had an old and dedicated fan base.
Lol. Did you even play it in MP? Did you play Zero Hour? There were some sided that were weaker then others but there were enough of those that could compete against each other.
On April 23 2011 01:05 eviltomahawk wrote: Actually, Dustin Browder didn't work on C&C3 and RA3. Heck, RA3 was announced in 2008, which was after many of SC2's core designs had been previewed.
As far as your comparisons go, I do disagree with some of them.
The Viking was unveiled BEFORE the Mecha Tengu was unveiled for RA3. The Viking was introduced in 2007 in some of the first preview videos. The Mecha Tengu was announced in 2008 with the full unveil of the Empire of the Rising Sun faction that was revealed months after the original RA3 announcement. One could say that the Mecha Tengu copied the Viking.
The Stalker is literally a Dragoon with Blink that was made slightly weaker to compensate for the added mobility.
Although the Hellion is visually inspired by the Attack Buggies of C&C, the Vulture from BW also is very similar in functionality.
Also, I don't think the Annihilator Tripod did AOE damage. It could shoot in 3 different directions, but I think the lasers were concentrated on single targets which made it more of an anti-armor unit whereas the Colossi mainly counters low-HP units in small numbers and everything in larger numbers. Visually, there are obvious similarities.
In addition, I'm not surprised to see some cues in SC2's design from C&C3. C&C3 was fairly well-received when it was released, and similar to SC2, it was praised by critics as a good example of an old-school RTS design being modernized. Heck, C&C3 was even a modest e-sport for some time to a point where it appeared at WCG for a few years.
some yes, but you cant deny the similarities. i know browder left before cnc3. but it doesnt deny that he was influenced by the games..
C&C3 was a decent esport till the balance designers ruined the game, coupled with EA cutting funding, It was in WCG because EA funded alot of the cnc portion. I competed in the WCG national finals for cnc3 for the 2 years it ran and played over 7000 some games =/. Tripod did do aoe damage, it kind of splashed but it only splashed in unit groups, like a rifleman squad. i used them to counter mass infantry all the time with support from other units of course. you may remember me from battlecast primetime spotlights from the earlier episodes and that replay that was downloaded several hundred thousand some times =/ You know the one with the mothership comeback? which thankfully they removed those types of abilities before the beta.
But my point was, similar units were used and they were essentially the simplest a move type units, or an intended micro function. There was a lack of creativity in the new units of how they are used. Other older interviews mention browder about wanting to keep "iconic" units and how they were difficult to balance. My biggest complaint about SC2 gameplay was always the bland or useless gimmick units. Hoping we get the balance stuff worked out were the niche units like the mothership become a bit more useful and not just a MLG crowd pleaser or super OP. And we get some new stuff come the expansions that add to gameplay in areas the races are weak at, or open new styles of play with them.
I wonder if you also played C&C Generals Zero Hour and what did you think of that game?
On April 23 2011 01:05 eviltomahawk wrote: Actually, Dustin Browder didn't work on C&C3 and RA3. Heck, RA3 was announced in 2008, which was after many of SC2's core designs had been previewed.
As far as your comparisons go, I do disagree with some of them.
The Viking was unveiled BEFORE the Mecha Tengu was unveiled for RA3. The Viking was introduced in 2007 in some of the first preview videos. The Mecha Tengu was announced in 2008 with the full unveil of the Empire of the Rising Sun faction that was revealed months after the original RA3 announcement. One could say that the Mecha Tengu copied the Viking.
The Stalker is literally a Dragoon with Blink that was made slightly weaker to compensate for the added mobility.
Although the Hellion is visually inspired by the Attack Buggies of C&C, the Vulture from BW also is very similar in functionality.
Also, I don't think the Annihilator Tripod did AOE damage. It could shoot in 3 different directions, but I think the lasers were concentrated on single targets which made it more of an anti-armor unit whereas the Colossi mainly counters low-HP units in small numbers and everything in larger numbers. Visually, there are obvious similarities.
In addition, I'm not surprised to see some cues in SC2's design from C&C3. C&C3 was fairly well-received when it was released, and similar to SC2, it was praised by critics as a good example of an old-school RTS design being modernized. Heck, C&C3 was even a modest e-sport for some time to a point where it appeared at WCG for a few years.
some yes, but you cant deny the similarities. i know browder left before cnc3. but it doesnt deny that he was influenced by the games..
C&C3 was a decent esport till the balance designers ruined the game, coupled with EA cutting funding, It was in WCG because EA funded alot of the cnc portion. I competed in the WCG national finals for cnc3 for the 2 years it ran and played over 7000 some games =/. Tripod did do aoe damage, it kind of splashed but it only splashed in unit groups, like a rifleman squad. i used them to counter mass infantry all the time with support from other units of course. you may remember me from battlecast primetime spotlights from the earlier episodes and that replay that was downloaded several hundred thousand some times =/ You know the one with the mothership comeback? which thankfully they removed those types of abilities before the beta.
But my point was, similar units were used and they were essentially the simplest a move type units, or an intended micro function. There was a lack of creativity in the new units of how they are used. Other older interviews mention browder about wanting to keep "iconic" units and how they were difficult to balance. My biggest complaint about SC2 gameplay was always the bland or useless gimmick units. Hoping we get the balance stuff worked out were the niche units like the mothership become a bit more useful and not just a MLG crowd pleaser or super OP. And we get some new stuff come the expansions that add to gameplay in areas the races are weak at, or open new styles of play with them.
I wonder if you also played C&C Generals Zero Hour and what did you think of that game?
Yeah I have to say to all the people criticizing bowder - Generals was a pretty decent game with very few "zany" things, it was probably the most realistic of all the CnC games.
That said I wish that maybe someone else was the lead designer of sc2, he just doesn't seem like the best fit imo.
On April 22 2011 20:37 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: Too bad warpgate still made it through the beta :\ reapers were bad and were essentially nerfed out of the game, but warpgate is still what's wrong with the game right now and I guarantee was one of Browder's "cool" ideas.
The problem with "nerfing it out of the game" is that the entire Protoss race is designed around the ability to warp gateway units in - Protoss units build the slowest of all the races, even after warpgate finishes:
Gateways: 1 Zealot - 38s (28s cd w/warpgate) 1 Stalker - 42s (32s cd w/warpgate) 1 Sentry - 42s (32s cd w/warpgate)
This itself means that protoss is very reactive by nature - you will most always have a smaller army size (because of the higher build times) and must unit comp to be effective. This is also part of the reason that warpgate is so good - if you are moving from gateway to warpgate, right after a gateway finishes building, the warpgate has NO COOLDOWN for the next unit being built. This is the ONLY time that production is better than the other races, one time during the entire game.
This fact is also a point to think about with the talks concerning build times and the PvP 4gate dilemma that was brought up on the forums earlier. Think about it - if gateways produce a zealot in say, 30s, and a warpgate produces one instantly but incurs a CD of 40s, one could theoretically produce a zealot, switch to warpgate, warp a zealot, switch back to gateway, produce a zealot.
Net gain? the first zealot takes 30s, the second takes 10s to change mode to warpgate + 5s to warp in, and the third takes 10s to change mode and 30s to build (the same as waiting for a warp in). This allows the Protoss, without incuring a cooldown on mode changing, to effectively bypass the drawback that is being talked about.
As it is currently, because gateway units take longer to produce over warpgate units, this kind of "trick" cannot be employed except the very instant warpgate is completed.
That said, I think I went off-topic a bit. If warpgates were Browder's idea, the entire race was (re)built around said feature. Nerfing it out of existence requires a full and complete overhaul of the Protoss race, which is extremely unlikely.
On April 23 2011 03:46 mucker wrote: Some of the old alpha videos from 2007. I hadn't watched these in for ever. Given the fact that they had actually implemented some of these you can imagine the kinds of ideas that got rejected outright.
I really like those old corruptors. Even just the artwork with their tentacles more spread apart. Makes them a lot more menacing. But yeah, that corrupt ability was pretty weird.
It's not bad to have a creative mind like Browder working on the game as long as he doesn't have free reign.. I really wouldn't like to have siege tanks disguise as trees in starcraft
EPT
