|
On April 29 2011 00:04 gnutz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:03 Headshot wrote:On April 28 2011 22:57 Weirdkid wrote:
As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1. He can't be serious. It's true what he says. I don't know what you all think, but please play some games of BW ^^
Seriously, SC2 had way more extreme hard counters than BW. In BW all (maybe I've missed some exception) counters are entirely control (micro) dependent - in SC2 they are not, save for a couple of exceptions, such as Marines vs. Banelings.
Control based counters =/= hard counters. Most of the counters in SC2 work like in Age of Empires series, pikes >cavalry, cavalry > archers, etc. That's what hard counters are. BW is completely different.
|
On April 29 2011 01:49 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +Much of Heart of the Swarm will be talking about the story of Sarah Kerrigan, and many things will be happening to her, and she might be attacked quite a number of times too. Oh no! :O
How dare Blizzard ruin my diplomacy sim!! GG Blizzard, GG
|
I'm glad the SC2 team is looking at balance and tournaments on a regular basis and they seem to be looking forward to the future rather than the short-term only. For all the shit Browder gets, he seems like an intelligent and calculated man.
|
On April 29 2011 04:26 hmunkey wrote:
I'm glad the SC2 team is looking at balance and tournaments on a regular basis and they seem to be looking forward to the future rather than the short-term only. For all the shit Browder gets, he seems like an intelligent and calculated man.
Well its certainly nice that they do that. But I dont think hes making a good read on the subjects of hard counters and balance. Thats a shame.
|
On April 29 2011 04:21 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 00:04 gnutz wrote:On April 29 2011 00:03 Headshot wrote:On April 28 2011 22:57 Weirdkid wrote:
As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1. He can't be serious. It's true what he says. I don't know what you all think, but please play some games of BW ^^ Seriously, SC2 had way more extreme hard counters than BW. In BW all (maybe I've missed some exception) counters are entirely control (micro) dependent - in SC2 they are not, save for a couple of exceptions, such as Marines vs. Banelings.
What, praytell, do you think the difference is between BW and SC2's damage systems? SC2 renamed the armor and damage types and presented it in a different way, nothing more.
Control based counters =/= hard counters. Most of the counters in SC2 work like in Age of Empires series, pikes >cavalry, cavalry > archers, etc. That's what hard counters are. BW is completely different.
So is SC2. SC2's system is nothing at all like AOE. AOE had cheap units (no gold cost, vs gold cost for the thing they countered) with massive bonuses to the unit they countered. SC2 has...units that are better against armored than non-armored, or better against light than not. They're a world apart.
I'm guessing you didn't play AOE much to come up with that one :D
|
You guys do realize this was poorly translated, right? And that's why the answers are a tad...off? No? Ok, just continue the rage.
|
On April 29 2011 04:45 Sky.Technique wrote:
You guys do realize this was poorly translated, right? And that's why the answers are a tad...off? No? Ok, just continue the rage.
Translated twice :0 (unless Browder knows Mandarin hah)
|
Dustin Browder is quickly becoming Blizzard's equivalent of the Iraqi Information Minister.
|
Russian Federation142 Posts
On April 29 2011 04:45 Sky.Technique wrote:
You guys do realize this was poorly translated, right? And that's why the answers are a tad...off? No? Ok, just continue the rage.
No amount of translation is going to change the facts. DBro feels that sc2 has less hard counters than sc1. This little statement, regardless of how you dress it up, is enough to send most of TL into a fit of nerd rage. Then he also mentioned soft counter, and marauder vs stalker in the same sentence.
|
On April 29 2011 04:42 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 04:21 maybenexttime wrote:On April 29 2011 00:04 gnutz wrote:On April 29 2011 00:03 Headshot wrote:On April 28 2011 22:57 Weirdkid wrote:
As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1. He can't be serious. It's true what he says. I don't know what you all think, but please play some games of BW ^^ Seriously, SC2 had way more extreme hard counters than BW. In BW all (maybe I've missed some exception) counters are entirely control (micro) dependent - in SC2 they are not, save for a couple of exceptions, such as Marines vs. Banelings. What, praytell, do you think the difference is between BW and SC2's damage systems? SC2 renamed the armor and damage types and presented it in a different way, nothing more. Show nested quote +
Control based counters =/= hard counters. Most of the counters in SC2 work like in Age of Empires series, pikes >cavalry, cavalry > archers, etc. That's what hard counters are. BW is completely different.
So is SC2. SC2's system is nothing at all like AOE. AOE had cheap units (no gold cost, vs gold cost for the thing they countered) with massive bonuses to the unit they countered. SC2 has...units that are better against armored than non-armored, or better against light than not. They're a world apart. I'm guessing you didn't play AOE much to come up with that one :D
It's not necessarily the difference between the damage systems. It's mostly unit design. It doesn't matter why the game works the way it work if you don't even acknowledge the problem (talking about Blizzard here; and I can't say with 100% certainty what exactly causes the problem either).
As for the AoE example. First of all, it was an exaggeration. Second of all, I wasn't talking about how the counter system works in both games (i.e. massive damage bonus vs. countered units in case of AoE), but simply the fact that the game works that way. Play 1 makes unit A, player 2 counters with unit B, player A counters that unit with unit C, and so on. This is why there's so much emphasis being put on having the correct unit composition in SC2.
AoE and SC2 are worlds apart in terms of methods used to produce such type of gameplay/counters, but they're very similar in terms of results (gameplay). In both games you're trying to get the right combination of rock, paper and scrissors, so to speak, and counter with more paper if the opponent invests too much into rock.
BW is completely different. What composition of units you use is not nearly as important as how you use those units (both in terms of tactics and micro).
edit: As Slugamoo (sp?) said, while the relationship between Marines and Banelings in sc2 is unique to only a couple of units, pretty much all counters work that way in BW. If you compare BW, SC2 and AoE in terms of counters, SC2 is definitely much closer to AoE than BW.
|
This is one of those threads where I'm just really disappointed by most of the community's responses.. This is a translated interview, don't take it as some sort of clear statement of Blizzard's current view on the game. What you should take from translated interviews like this are details like seasons being 3 months, new maps every season, or the little info on heart of the swarm.
I feel embarrassed as a StarCraft player when I see responses from the community like this  . Reminds me of the childish/whiny communities of other games.
Thank you for translating this, though!
|
On April 29 2011 04:52 serge wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 04:45 Sky.Technique wrote:
You guys do realize this was poorly translated, right? And that's why the answers are a tad...off? No? Ok, just continue the rage. No amount of translation is going to change the facts. DBro feels that sc2 has less hard counters than sc1. This little statement, regardless of how you dress it up, is enough to send most of TL into a fit of nerd rage. Then he also mentioned soft counter, and marauder vs stalker in the same sentence.
You would be surprise how much a mistranslation can change the original message. I suggest you hold your rage a few more weeks until we have interviews being fully conducted in English.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On April 29 2011 04:42 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 04:21 maybenexttime wrote:On April 29 2011 00:04 gnutz wrote:On April 29 2011 00:03 Headshot wrote:On April 28 2011 22:57 Weirdkid wrote:
As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1. He can't be serious. It's true what he says. I don't know what you all think, but please play some games of BW ^^ Seriously, SC2 had way more extreme hard counters than BW. In BW all (maybe I've missed some exception) counters are entirely control (micro) dependent - in SC2 they are not, save for a couple of exceptions, such as Marines vs. Banelings. What, praytell, do you think the difference is between BW and SC2's damage systems? SC2 renamed the armor and damage types and presented it in a different way, nothing more. Show nested quote +
Control based counters =/= hard counters. Most of the counters in SC2 work like in Age of Empires series, pikes >cavalry, cavalry > archers, etc. That's what hard counters are. BW is completely different.
So is SC2. SC2's system is nothing at all like AOE. AOE had cheap units (no gold cost, vs gold cost for the thing they countered) with massive bonuses to the unit they countered. SC2 has...units that are better against armored than non-armored, or better against light than not. They're a world apart. I'm guessing you didn't play AOE much to come up with that one :D
Shields take 100% of the damage they recieve in Brood War, for example a vulture deals concussive damage against a dragoon(Large unit typ) so it deals only 25% of the damage on his health, however a vulture will deal 100% damage (20 damage) to the dragoon until his shields are depleted. Pretty big difference really.
|
|
|
she underwent many changes due to the Protoss artifact
Wasnt it a xelnaga artifact?
|
On April 29 2011 02:07 Hikko wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:05 loveeholicce wrote:On April 29 2011 01:50 BLinD-RawR wrote:On April 29 2011 01:37 loveeholicce wrote:On April 29 2011 01:20 SKC wrote:On April 29 2011 01:16 loveeholicce wrote:On April 29 2011 01:09 GeorgeForeman wrote:On April 29 2011 00:23 awesomoecalypse wrote:lots of intelligent things Just wanted to thank you for giving a little bit of perspective in this thread. SC2 hasn't even been released for 12 months yet and all people can do is bitch. There hasn't even been one expansion. The game will change. New units will be implemented. And the metagame a year from now won't look like the metagame does currently. It's fine to think constructively about how weak some things are, but to think you know enough about the game now to say definitively that it's horribly imbalanced (a position lots of people in this thread seem to take) is absurd. New units won't be implemented New units will be implemented at expansions, I don't remember ever reading that this wasn't the case, and I'm pretty sure Blizzard themselfs said they would/could do that, I'm not sure where you got that information. Then you read wrong...they won't be uhhh of course they will.Its an expansion there are always new units in expansions. I remember they said in an interview like a month ago that adding new units would make the game feel too clustered so they won;t be doing it in multiplayer. I'll see if i can find the interview From what I understand, they will remove units as they add more units to the game in order to keep things from becoming too cluttered.
I actually doubt that, unpopular units such as the colossus and the immortal play very significant roles in all match-ups and so while replacing them is possible, it would require a lot of re-balancing.
However, I don't know what approach Blizzard will take with moving on to the expansion: it might be so that they will have a very long beta, and even after the beta the professional leagues will still have the ability to play with pre-HotS balance and units. At the same time there will be small tournaments to test the waters for HotS and then there will be a grace period and finally everyone will be playing the same version again. I think that's wise, but if you look at what Blizzard has done in the past, they've pretty much disowned their legacy versions for competitive play. When The Frozen Throne was released, it included a bunch of changes that only made sense with the new units added, but were still implemented also for Reign of Chaos. Result was that RoC was less playable than before, so you pretty much had to change to TFT.
If they take the first approach, then there's time to replace units and severely change the game, but if they're going to hold a super-big tournament with a 100.000$ price pool the day after release, then it's just not feasible if they want the winner of that to matter in any way.
|
Don't forget that he's not the main responsable about balance.
David Kim is.
|
Lol wow
Inb4 nerds rage at browder for knowing sc2 better than them.
Oh too late.
Really though. Every single person here complaining about balance has zero fucking clue including some of the dumbest theory crafting of all time. ("oh. Oh, hard counters, my race still up, can't win except if I do pressure, blah blah")
Oh wait, browder has stats that show incredible win loss margin indicators of balance. But he's still wrong.
Oh wait browder consults grandmaster players, and disregards bias statements. But he's still wrong.
Oh wait, browder keeps track of all high level tournaments to scout for unusual win loss rates or op/broken strategies, and finds none.. But he's still wrong.
Everyone should stop mashing on this dude. Because as far as I've seen now, balance actually IS incredibly robust right now. And I'm going to send the guy flowers and a box of chocolates, thanking him for dedicating this portion of his life to balancing a beautiful game, whilst not letting trolls dumb him down win their utterly stupid theorycraft. (yes offense intended)
User was temp banned for this post.
|
....hmm you can see state of game by looking at patch 1.3.3 i finaliy whont to tell that blizzard make great patch and take guts tu make it....
but there is 2 meny things that also need to get changed and i dont know whay are they w8ting...
simply TvZ boring to whatch (also like 4gate) bnalgings fungell mass mass mass marines....boring...
TvP also mass MMM to end of game...boring....there is no tech svichs or something...from t1 to t2...
only to me is PvZ interesting to whatch becous from beginging there is a lot of cool bettles... problem is only when Protoss get mass unites (colloss) and game go to late game...then P probully win....
there is a plenty of staf tu do...sry of my ENG...
|
On April 29 2011 04:59 shinarit wrote:Wasnt it a xelnaga artifact?
DunDunDun!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
