EPTI'm still eagerly anticipating a Clan system for SC2, and Browder's answer is the typical Blizzard "We're working on it. Soon.", which in essence means jack all, and is highly unlikely to be seen for at least the next 2-3 years.
Interview with SC2 Lead Designer Dustin Browder - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Cocoabean
Canada90 Posts
I'm still eagerly anticipating a Clan system for SC2, and Browder's answer is the typical Blizzard "We're working on it. Soon.", which in essence means jack all, and is highly unlikely to be seen for at least the next 2-3 years. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
It's really funny to read guys like you who explain all balance with GSLs. Terrans won much more tourneys than any other race from the release date, but they didn't win GSL for 4 months so yeah it explains everything. Lol did you even believe what you just said? Its not GSLs, its every tournament. Different races have gone through various patches of dominance, but there's never been a time when one race one everything, or one race was incapable of winning. Even at their most UP, Zergs have won their fair share. Even when they were bitching all over the place, Protoss could win. And in contrast, even when people were lolling about Terran early game, or Zerg macro, or Protoss deathballs...every race has always been beatable. The game is not figured out. At all. Every time we think it is, someone comes along and says, "hey, what if we open with several queeens, and forego gas..." and then you have the Spanishiwa build changing the metagame. Or someone says, "wait, Void + Colossus seems a lot better than people give it credit for..." and ZvP lategame utterly changes. Shit like this happens every couple weeks. But people are so ridiculously impatient. If one month goes where a race racks up a lot of wins or a lot of losses, the balance complaints set in. People take anecdotal evidence, combine it with a whinging inability to admit their losses are their own damn fault, and cry "imba" at the drop of a hat. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England1992 Posts
| ||
|
LastMan
90 Posts
This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1. lost all the faith in that game, he doesnt even know what players mean by micro and phoenix "move shot" change keeps me convinced that their design team isnt better ... as a side note: Im seriously getting tired of all the butthurt protoss players trying to convince people in every topic that they arent OP | ||
|
meep
United States1699 Posts
As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1. He must be playing a different game than us. Sounds like a fun game though. | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On April 29 2011 00:12 Robellicose wrote: Why does everyone complain about balance and unit countering and then compare SC2 to SC1? Their unit interfaces are completely different - multiple building select, large hotkey groups, smartcasting and better pathing all lead to the superior player being better able to press the advantage where necessary. The reason battles were more spread out in SC1 was because the players lacked the tools necessary to keep their armies tight and well controlled (with the exception of air). I'm willing to bet that multiplayer SC1 on the SC2 engine would lead to swarm and deathball tactics, with harass thrown in - just like SC2! It wasn't a lack of tools, the reason units spread out better in BW was a combination of two things. One being that the game used A* pathing on a hex-grid (wiki). The other being that having a spread out army (to an extent) was an advantage. I actually don't know what pathing algorithm is used in SC2 but it is a big factor in causing death balls. In many situations it becomes a disadvantage to spread your units out because the AI does a better job and because of how the units are designed. Again, problems caused because the pathing algorithm is possibly too good. There is no doubt that it's a huge achievement getting such a good pathing system running in real time. Is it really enhancing gameplay though? Other RTS games still use A* pathing and do a much better job than Brood War (yet avoid "death balls") simply because there are more cpu cycles available these days. It's a really interesting topic. I think a good compromise can be found in between the two pathing systems. Unfortunately I don't know if Blizzard will ever consider changing pathing because of how much effort it took to implement and how much of a technical achievement it was. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On April 29 2011 00:26 vek wrote: It wasn't a lack of tools, the reason units spread out better in BW was a combination of two things. One being that the game used A* pathing on a hex-grid (wiki). The other being that having a spread out army (to an extent) was an advantage. I actually don't know what pathing algorithm is used in SC2 but it is a big factor in causing death balls. In many situations it becomes a disadvantage to spread your units out because the AI does a better job and because of how the units are designed. Again, problems caused becaused the pathing algorithm is just so good. There is no doubt that it's a huge achievement getting such a good pathing system running in real time. Is it really enhancing gameplay though? Other RTS games still use A* pathing and do a much better job than Brood War (yet avoid "death balls") simply because there are more cpu cycles available these days. It's a really interesting topic. I think a good compromise can be found in between the two pathing systems. Unfortunately I don't know if Blizzard will ever consider changing pathing because of how much effort it took to implement and how much of a technical achievement it was. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132171 If you look at company of heroes they use swarm AI and perfect pathing, and still maintain spread out units. The problem is the design itself, Blizz thought it would be really cool to have units move in schools, rather than a more realistic ad-hoc formation. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 29 2011 00:21 Cocoabean wrote: Another ho-hum response on battle.net improvements. Despite being out for essentially an entire year now, Battle.net 2.0 still provides less features than most online game lobbies of games released 10 years ago. I'm still eagerly anticipating a Clan system for SC2, and Browder's answer is the typical Blizzard "We're working on it. Soon.", which in essence means jack all, and is highly unlikely to be seen for at least the next 2-3 years. People complained about the map pool, custom games system, and chat channels. The map pool has gotten changed for the better. The custom game system also has experienced change. Though it's still a flawed system, Blizzard at least implemented some new features to compensate for the flaws. Despite previously claiming that chat channels were near useless and officially declining to include them in B.net 2.0, countless complaints had forced Blizzard to implement the bare-bones system that we have now despite their previous stance. In addition, Blizzard has at least attempted to spruce up the ladder by creating Masters and Grandmasters league as well as include custom icons based on rank. B.net 2.0 is still a very unfinished interface, yet Blizzard is at least making some progress in improving it. A lot can still be added in the upcoming year, and it's entirely possible that the final product will be worlds better than what we have now. | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
On April 29 2011 00:33 sluggaslamoo wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132171 If you look at company of heroes they use swarm AI and perfect pathing, and still maintain spread out units. The problem is the design itself, Blizz thought it would be really cool to have units move in schools, rather than a more realistic ad-hoc formation. Ah, cool. I haven't seen that thread yet. I was wrong about some things but not too far off. I also didn't know CoH used a similar algorithm. The fact it didn't annoy me when I played it means they did a good job haha. Still a really interesting read and basically confirmed what I thought was wrong with the pathing in SC2. I'm not completely mad yay. Thanks for the link. | ||
|
ChApFoU
France2982 Posts
I feel the 200/200 deathball issue kinda fits into that 2nd category ... Time will tell but Blizz is very wrong if they think they can ignore the pros opinion just because there's pros and thus have a financial interest in the balance issues. They may be partial sometimes, but they are also the ones that have the deepest understanding of the game's mechanics. | ||
|
Essentia
1150 Posts
uhh duhh? war3 bnet had it and it was great, war 3 bnet also had automated tournies running have u heard of that feature too? can we please make bnet 2.0 actually be a step forward not backwards. | ||
|
OmniscientSC2
United States713 Posts
 "Looking into Clan system"?!?!?!?! I'd be fine with the current system if we could change our names over and over, but for people to pay $50 just to change their clan tag is ridiculous... They'll probably release paid name changes and expect us to change our name everything we want to be in a different clan -_- | ||
|
Sneakyz
Sweden2361 Posts
On April 28 2011 23:28 Beef Noodles wrote: You're right dood. It isn't deathball vs deathball anymore... Watch a SC1 game (even from 4-5 years ago) and it is much more spread out, exciting, action packed, and with more comebacks. Why would you compare it to a game which, even if you look at games 5 years ago, had been out for like 8 years, when starcraft 2 has been out for slightly more than a year including the beta. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On April 29 2011 00:39 eviltomahawk wrote: People complained about the map pool, custom games system, and chat channels. The map pool has gotten changed for the better. The custom game system also has experienced change. Though it's still a flawed system, Blizzard at least implemented some new features to compensate for the flaws. Despite previously claiming that chat channels were near useless and officially declining to include them in B.net 2.0, countless complaints had forced Blizzard to implement the bare-bones system that we have now despite their previous stance. In addition, Blizzard has at least attempted to spruce up the ladder by creating Masters and Grandmasters league as well as include custom icons based on rank. B.net 2.0 is still a very unfinished interface, yet Blizzard is at least making some progress in improving it. A lot can still be added in the upcoming year, and it's entirely possible that the final product will be worlds better than what we have now. Theyve been working on bnet for like 2 years now, and the finished product we got was basically a fraction of a more functional one implemented in 1999. There's absolutely no excuse for bnet to have been that terrible, and for them to release something lacking the most basic features found in almost all other games. Just doesn't make sense, wtf was the bnet design team doing in the long time sc2 was being developed? I can't think of any other respectable game company that's released something this incomplete and said "w/e we'll patch it at some point in a year and half or something". No chat channels, clan system, lan, xrealm play, shared replay viewing, etc. Yes Blizzard improved the map pool but that's not really saying much considering it used near unplayable. They're still not listening to the community's demands to the extent they should be. GSL maps....why is there only one map added? The other ones are clearly excellent maps and have produced amazing games. On top of that why modify a great map made my professional designers by adding needless adjustments like destructible rocks the entire community has grown sick of. I guess its silly to get mad cause what's done is done. Still, I'd like to see Blizzard actually have some sense of how to prioritize their tasks. They give us like 5 different custom game interface changes and stupid decals no one cares about and flashier stat things when watching replays, yet a year after beta still haven't addressed the most crucial features that should really have been there since the beginning. Just two basic things: being able to watch replays with other people and a simple clan feature. Why aren't these being immediately addressed? It's ridiculous | ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
wow. just wow. i am not sure it is confidence or arrogance in dustin's answer. i mean, i doubt that even blizz themselves cant say that scbw is a perfectly balance and yet he claimed that sc2 is more balanced than scbw O.O. if i was the interviewer i would immediately ask, 'how many games have you play with each races on ladder?'. or randomly throw him a question of asking how do you deal with MMM with zerg. just to let him show us that he knows nothing about the game. i will defo buy the rest of the expansions(i am a collector and wanna see the ending  ). but HotS will help me to decide whether should i put more time to play mp of this game or not. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On April 29 2011 00:20 Piski wrote: Every Blizzard/DB interview thread goes the same. Whining and shock from what they say. It's not like they suddenly changed their stance. It's always been like this. This, the moment I saw Dustin Bowder I knew an immense nerd rage would come. About his 2 "controversial" answers: -About Micro and hardcounters: He is right but man, he gave some horrible examples. Sure some counters like Marauder vs Roach/Stalker seem pretty one sided but he is right in that good micro can sometimes overcome stuff like that. Actually I don't remember anyone using Blink Micro vs Marauders hmmmmmm. -About Balance: Well, since they have more data than any of us, most of the rage comes from gut reaction vs data. And yeah he is right in that how people perceive balance and how Pros complain about their race can change a lot in little time.Remember when the Bioball>All? Or how about when Protoss were considered the worst race according to GSL?About pros complaining about their race, MVP,Boxer,idra,Nesstea, Fruitdealer, MC have complained about their race so far. And honestly what did people expected from his answers? "Yeah you are right, the game is extremely broken. Better go back and play BW" Am I the only one who saw the interviewer as extremely biased with his questions? But I guess this kind of questions give you hits | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 28 2011 23:02 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: ... erm... ya... you serious? also looks like no clan support till expansion or whatever.. interview makes me sad but ofcourse thanks for posting/translating it! :> Hm, I actually kind of agree with him when I think about it. The problem, and what makes it seem like SC2 is just full of hardcounters, is probably a couple of specific units rather than the game as a whole... I.E critical mass colossus - you either have a shitton of vikings or corruptors and you win, or you dont and you lose... Or immortal vs tanks/ultras. The clan support answer is a bit lol, I really dont understand how they can answer it like it was the first time it was brought up. | ||
|
dtz
5834 Posts
On April 29 2011 00:45 ChApFoU wrote: I really find it hard to believe that ZvP stats at diamond and above are in the 50-55% range. If you want to have somewhat meaningful stats about the game you gotta ignore the inferior leagues where the concept of balance is very different : It's more about what is easier/harder to master than about was is deeply imbalanced and almost impossible to overcome no matter the skill of the players (granted their opponents are in the same skill range). I feel the 200/200 deathball issue kinda fits into that 2nd category ... Time will tell but Blizz is very wrong if they think they can ignore the pros opinion just because there's pros and thus have a financial interest in the balance issues. They may be partial sometimes, but they are also the ones that have the deepest understanding of the game's mechanics. Sure but the pros also have conflicting opinions. Which pros do they have to listen to? The loudest? The ones who complain the most? The most succesful? They keep in touch with pros all the time with survey form and also e-mails/bnet. But they can't make impulsive. Browder said that he thinks that there might be imbalanced in some matchup but if the data does not support it, there is nothing he can't do. And of course he does not mean data in bronze-diamond when he considers the pro scene. Despite what we think, the dude is not a complete idiot. | ||
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
(...) but from what I see now in the top tournaments, unit counters are actually quite relative. Well I agree with him, just take a look at banelings vs. marines, Zerglings vs. Hellions, or even Mutalisks vs. Thors. Anyway I believe that once the player's micro will be high enough then we will be able to draw conclusions. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
On April 29 2011 00:58 dtz wrote: Sure but the pros also have conflicting opinions. Which pros do they have to listen to? The loudest? The ones who complain the most? The most succesful? They keep in touch with pros all the time with survey form and also e-mails/bnet. But they can't make impulsive. Browder said that he thinks that there might be imbalanced in some matchup but if the data does not support it, there is nothing he can't do. And of course he does not mean data in bronze-diamond when he considers the pro scene. Despite what we think, the dude is not a complete idiot. He's an idiot on several things but I agree this isn't one of them. I believe ZvP is broken but when I look at stats recently (in nasl and gom for example) they just don't seem to support it to the extent I feel it's there. Just from that I can understand why theyre cautious to implement balance changes. Also from what I hear they do a fairly good job of consulting pros. like I remember yesterday on Sheth's stream he said dayvie (david kim) had just asked him to play on the PTR to test some of the 1.3.3 patches. On top of that we just got an infestor buff. I don't think infestors are good in ZvP at all but it would still be silly to say theres an imbalance without letting this patch play out more. As incontrol pointed out on state of the game, a few months ago Protoss was the weakest race. They still get nerfed twice, and now theyre the strongest O-o | ||
| ||
