|
A: Most of the time the game mechanic leads; for example, we have think that it would be really cool to have a unit that is able to jump cliffs.
This response troubles me. In theory, following game mechanics is the ideal method of unit creation/design. But the selected game mechanic needs to be significant. Cliff-jumping in itself is trivial; it would be like creating the Zergling as "a unit that you get two of with one larva". Sure, it complements the Zergling's purpose as a massed, replaceable unit, but it's not the actual main purpose of the Zergling. It seems like Blizzard is looking at these trivial aspects and designing unit roles around them, rather than finding the necessary unit roles (i.e An early harassment unit that can exploit over-reliance on static defenses) and adding aspects that help the unit accomplish its role.
Now, I'm not saying that "fun" abilities will lead to inherently bad design. But they need to address gameplay issues to actually be fun. In the Reaper's case, the cliff-jumping ability complements their status as a harassment unit, allowing them to bypass static or relatively immobile defenses (without being, say an air unit). But would giving Spore Crawlers the ability to cliff-jump make them significantly more interesting or dynamic as a unit? Obviously, that's an extreme example, but designing the "fun" abilities first, then placing them into a unit role, can lead to pitfalls where the ability doesn't really complement the actual unit role, or at least not as effectively as another ability or design could.
|
On June 01 2011 04:51 zawk9 wrote:It single-handedly makes the protoss matchups (particularly PvT) so ridiculous 90% of the time from a spectators POV. 
9 range vikings are equally boring.
As are the tier 1.5 units for each race (Roach, Marauder and Stalkers) all are armoured, fast, high hit points.. the only interesting mechanic out of them is Blink.
|
i really dislike the idea of removing units
i cant think of any unit in the game right now that could be removed without completely wrecking balance in some way. also creates a scenario where WoL progames could be more exciting than HOTS progames
blizzard is releasing 2 expansions. id say give each race 1 new multiplayer unit per expansion and thats only 2 more units. not hard to balance that.
for zerg id say ultra+broodlord is a powerful anti-ground combo. zergs real main weakness is anti-air i think and it never happens in games but if someone gets a 200food air army against zerg they simply cannot beat it. so a new zerg unit for hots could be some type of anti-air-flyer maybe a upgrade to mutalisk
whatever blizzard can add whatever they want but i think removing units is a terrible idea
|
I agree that some attempt to fix units already in the game should take place before thinking about removing units.
|
When they say removing units, I'm pretty sure it's not like they're taking out an entire unit role, but rather editing the unit a bit, for example in Beta they "removed" Nullifier and put Sentry in, and "removed" Nomad to put the Raven in.
Let's just hope things work out well ^_^
|
Like a few people have said Cookies, if you watch the whole interview you find that in context some things like that were not very concerning. Hell I"ve seen things quoted and people said Oh crap they'll ruin it! and in the video they're laughing and its plain to be a joke.
I'm not going to touch the app/map microtransaction argument any more. It does not belong in this thread. I do not like custom maps for $ either but I don't agree with the argument made. And with that I'll shut it.
The question I submitted was never asked
I still want to know if there will still be a personification around the characters or if they'll return to the original and far more glorious in my opinion approach where you were part of the big picture instead of just one (albeit massive) battle cruiser with Cade.. and Hall.. and those other guys... and you ran about and did stuff and it saved the day.
Good morning Adjutant.
|
United States129 Posts
I'm excited about this though it is a bit disappointing to hear that it might not have an impact so heavily on the mutliplayer. Though I suppose in some eyes that could be a blessing as it would prevent people from having to tweak their builds. I just think adding onto the multiplayer should be a concern of theirs as that is what drives the game in the long run. I like the idea of branching out with the single player though so it's not quite so macro heavy and focuses more on individual units and micro type strategies.
|
On June 01 2011 05:24 ManyCookies wrote:Show nested quote +A: Most of the time the game mechanic leads; for example, we have think that it would be really cool to have a unit that is able to jump cliffs. This response troubles me. In theory, following game mechanics is the ideal method of unit creation/design. But the selected game mechanic needs to be significant. Cliff-jumping in itself is trivial; it would be like creating the Zergling as "a unit that you get two of with one larva". Sure, it complements the Zergling's purpose as a massed, replaceable unit, but it's not the actual main purpose of the Zergling. It seems like Blizzard is looking at these trivial aspects and designing unit roles around them, rather than finding the necessary unit roles (i.e An early harassment unit that can exploit over-reliance on static defenses) and adding aspects that help the unit accomplish its role.
A units purpose is dictated by the player not the developer. They intended the Immortal to be a tank unit, but more often then not they see it being used as a burst fire unit to drop enemy armor really really fast. Creatively designing and developing units around a style or concept then seeing how it fits competitively is a good way to keep units fresh and not cookie cutter competitive types.
Not all concept units they develop will be in the game, so that is a plus as well. You cant really design a unit and have it ONLY fulfill a specific role. Lings can be harass type units, or scouting units, or ambush units, or even in mass a kind of tank unit for more expensive units to get in closer and lay down the hurt.
Also, as an aside, Colossus should be tweaked, not removed. Allow ground units to cripple legs or something so it cant move as fast, i dunno.
|
Much as I'd like to see the Colossus replaced with something more tactical, I highly doubt we're going to see that happen. We're more likely to see replacements for Reapers, Motherships, Carriers(?), etc. You know, the less-seen units.
|
On June 01 2011 05:30 Probe1 wrote:Like a few people have said Cookies, if you watch the whole interview you find that in context some things like that were not very concerning. Hell I"ve seen things quoted and people said Oh crap they'll ruin it! and in the video they're laughing and its plain to be a joke. I'm not going to touch the app/map microtransaction argument any more. It does not belong in this thread. I do not like custom maps for $ either but I don't agree with the argument made. And with that I'll shut it. The question I submitted was never asked I still want to know if there will still be a personification around the characters or if they'll return to the original and far more glorious in my opinion approach where you were part of the big picture instead of just one (albeit massive) battle cruiser with Cade.. and Hall.. and those other guys... and you ran about and did stuff and it saved the day. Good morning Adjutant.
The entire singleplayer is based around Kerrigan. Protoss campaign will probably be based around Zeratul or Artanis.
|
On June 01 2011 05:30 Probe1 wrote:
Like a few people have said Cookies, if you watch the whole interview you find that in context some things like that were not very concerning. Hell I"ve seen things quoted and people said Oh crap they'll ruin it! and in the video they're laughing and its plain to be a joke.
Well yeah, obviously I can't tell Blizzard's design method off one hypothetical example. It's just an attitude I've sort of felt from them, and that quote highlighted it.
|
On June 01 2011 05:26 roymarthyup wrote:
i cant think of any unit in the game right now that could be removed without completely wrecking balance in some way. also creates a scenario where WoL progames could be more exciting than HOTS progames
"Carrier has arrived." Have you ever this outside of 4v4s, bronze league, or custom games? I'm fairly certain they could toss away the carrier and no one would even notice. Before the speed buff, the same thing could've been said about battlecruisers, although those have always been more viable than carriers.
|
This is Blizzard's way of owning up to the fact that they might have made some mistakes in the design process. I find it refreshing and rare for a company to come out and say something like this. We're probably going to see new upgrades available for certain units.
|
LMAO "axe to grind " WC3 haha
|
On May 31 2011 16:23 ReachTheSky wrote:
wow looks pretty kool, terran better get buffs if any of this is in multiplayer ;P
^^
|
i really dislike the idea of removing units
you are the only one.... simply game is broken at some unites and abylitis... game broken is that some staf are two boring to whatch (maby is balanced but simply no skill required) mass colloss ? where is skill in it...
mass banglings ? vs terran mecha bio ..a move is problem in gameplay that unites made it...
game is broken if you go T1 wholl game ....mass MMM good agenst everything...
game need to be reworked... to be good game.. simply plenty of ppl including me (to sey i personaly) think that WOL is worst game blizz made compare to all blizzard games...maby reason for that is they didnt made strategy games for a while... but now i think they know what we wont...
comunity whont competetive unites for multiplayer and not fun unites like (ripers colloss i dont know thors and all that caind of staf...) thx for reading.. 
IDRA HUK and some serius ppl who have good idea to improve game should help blizzard and NOT PPL LIKE DAY 9....that is my opinion... thx..
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United States7166 Posts
Yeah removing the colossus entirely and adding another (hopefully better designed) unit would be the best and most sensible decision. I do wonder how many people would actually miss it. From what I've noticed, every player, even (or especially) protoss players, they dislike using the colossus and find it a very boring/poorly designed unit to either use or deal with.
In fact I just realized how interesting a comparison you can make between the colossus and the lurker. One unit is adored and constantly called for its return, whereas another is disliked by nearly all players/specatators alike (afaik). And yet they're similar enough (both powerful line-attack AoE ranged units) to make comparisons from, and make conclusions as to why the lurker was so successful as a well designed unit that made for exciting/good gameplay, and why the colossus failed on those accounts.
In terms of mobility, the colossus is the complete opposite of the lurker: the lurker requires good positioning and setup before it can be used to attack, then had to undergo a 1.5ish second vulnerable period where its not able to move or attack as it Burrows into the ground, and then becomes completely immobile and therefore very vulnerable. To help offset this weakness, is the cloaked nature while burrowed, providing some level of protection for a now immobile unit, adding a layer of depth with the dynamic of detection, getting detection, the strength or mobility of the detection, killing/targeting of detectors, etc. (I could write a whole article on the significance that cloaked units provided in BW, and should be providing in SC2. There's very good reasons why lurkers, DTs, spider mines, and even arbiters played such a crucial role to the game's success at the professional level. It added a much needed dimension to units beyond simply ground or air.).
Whereas the colossus is, on top of being able to simply move and attack whenever it wishes, also have no collision with their other units giving it unprecedented levels of freedom for a ground unit to move in battles. Not even taking their cliff-walking ability into account (mostly as an easy way to circumvent any well designed map terrain and reduce the potency of drops and multi-pronged attacks), add to that their much stronger durability and you get one of the toughest units to kill in the game that has eliminated nearly every vulnerability from the ground: the complete opposite of the immobile lurker. I'm sure at the time it seemed like a cool idea to Blizzard to have ridiculous levels of mobility for the most powerful splash/long-ranged unit in the game, but it turned out to be a poor combination of strengths for a single unit to have. There's good reasons why the 3 ground splash units in the game: the lurker, reaver, siege tank, all had strong aoe attacks offset by very low mobility. Blizzard seems to have missed the significance of that combination of attributes when designing the colossus.
Then of course there's the attack animation, the lurker had a nice straight line attack that could be dodged provided really good control and/or really good unit positioning. Of course there's yet another level of depth as the lurker player could use the map's terrain features to eliminate these issues, being able to hold key positions such as ramps or narrow chokes much stronger than open terrain. But you take the colossus whose attack is in a perpendicular line, is instantaneous and cannot be dodged whatsoever, and for the most part you get a unit that does not care how well you microed your units, what kind of terrain features are used, or where your army is positioned (relatively speaking).
|
On June 01 2011 05:41 Zelniq wrote:
In fact I just realized how interesting a comparison you can make between the colossus and the lurker. One unit is adored and constantly called for its return, whereas another is disliked by nearly all players/specatators alike (afaik).
Im as big of a fan of the Lurker as anyone but this type of statement isnt fair. The Lurker is not in the game currently and the Collossus is. The displeased are always more vocal than the pleased.
|
On June 01 2011 05:24 ManyCookies wrote:Show nested quote +A: Most of the time the game mechanic leads; for example, we have think that it would be really cool to have a unit that is able to jump cliffs. This response troubles me. In theory, following game mechanics is the ideal method of unit creation/design. But the selected game mechanic needs to be significant. Cliff-jumping in itself is trivial; it would be like creating the Zergling as "a unit that you get two of with one larva". Sure, it complements the Zergling's purpose as a massed, replaceable unit, but it's not the actual main purpose of the Zergling. It seems like Blizzard is looking at these trivial aspects and designing unit roles around them, rather than finding the necessary unit roles (i.e An early harassment unit that can exploit over-reliance on static defenses) and adding aspects that help the unit accomplish its role.
This approach is about creating different mechanics that could be used to make the game more interesting. It has flaws because it's not actively addressing a gameplay concern, however; designing units for fun and designing units to address gameplay don't necessarily cancel eachother out. You can do both at the same time.
Now i'm not saying blizzard is perfect and that they'll design a great unit every time. But I don't think you can immediately rule out blizzards design philosophy of fun first just because you think they're going to ignore healthy gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
