|
On April 09 2013 14:30 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 13:24 Rabiator wrote:On April 09 2013 12:20 ZenithM wrote:
Stop trying to go back to some supposedly "flawed" design of Starcraft 2 mechanics. It's the "Designated Balance thread", not the "Design and Balance thread".
"Mines are such bad design because now Dragoons don't have awful pathing anymore, which was why BW was great!!!". Yeah... no. If the CORE GAME MECHANICS are CREATING FLAWS then this is a valid point to make. It's not, because Blizzard precisely won't change "core game mechanics". That's why it's high time we understand that we have to stop asking for the removal of warpgate and replacement of colossus by the reaver, it's not happening. Show nested quote + Just disprove the theory that 1-4 Infestors are not as overpowered as 30 ... Wtf? 4 old infestors were just as overpowered as 30 old infestors. Blizzard changed the design of the unit when they changed games, remember? Probably the only time it was worth talking about design, but it's not anymore. Show nested quote +Many of the problems of the "new game" are created by its "new mechanics" ... this is something we could LEARN from BW. + Show Spoiler +If we fail to learn from "history" (what happened in the past) then we fail at being humans, because we arent evolving but rather repeat mistakes and fail to adapt. Some among us actually don't think there is a problem in SC2 to begin with, let alone many. And I'm grateful you put out of place third-rate philosophy in a spoiler, but I still ended up reading it :'(
Blizzard wont change the core stuff UNLESS THEY SEE THE LIGHT. The qustion is: do you see it? The point is to wake up the community and make them pester Blizzard. It worked for the Warhound (and maybe the Carrier), so it might work for a more serious problem as well.
Back to the examples again ...
You neatly chose to take only the Infestor one to disagree with me, but deleted the Stalker vs Marine one. Can I assume you agree with me there? I can repeat the example in great detail again (as I have done many times before) but I think it is easy to see that 30 Marines have the power to one-shot any one of the ten Stalkers which is unlucky to get in range while 3 Marines can be evaded and kited by one Stalker for a while longer.
The Infestor is also a question of "4 or 30", because 30 Infestors will have a combined mana regen of "A LOT" and will always have a Fungal available because of this and are always able to spam 10-20 Infested Terrans. With only 4 Infestors you dont have this "always available" part of the spells and thus it is easier to fight a Zerg who has only 4 Infestors and the rest made up of regular units compared to one who has 30 Infestors with a little bit less but still a lot of regular units. Thats why 4 Infestors are less annoying than 30 and consequently the amount of units is the problem ... compared to the tight grouping and easy useage of them.
+ Show Spoiler +If you think my philosophy is third rate then you are welcome to that opinion, but it is the failure to learn from history which will make us ruin the world eventually. The signs are there ... every day in the news from all over the world.
On April 09 2013 16:15 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 12:23 Wombat_NI wrote:
I do feel BW > SC2 from a viewing perspective, but I also do not believe that modern gamers would put up with the kind of mechanical restrictions/difficulty that BW has, I just don't.
I especially agree with the above post. Babysitting army pathing, AI, scv mining, limited unit selection and control ground are frustrating experience more than anything. It's not rewarding to have your army able to move to where you want to go. not rewarding for making scvs and tell them to mine. Even if BW is indeed more fun to watch, the game experience itself is frustrating, then please just make it stay at the "flawed" sc2 level.
The point isnt to "recreate BW" 100% but rather to learn from the comparison of SC2 and BW and take the good and the necessary!!! stuff from each game.
BW
- unit selection limit (this is important because the concentration of too much firepower in one tight group creates problems: "critical numbers" where X Marines can one-shot a Stalker thus removing the ability to micro)
- unit design
- core game design
- damage system (+ Show Spoiler +it is simpler than the SC2 one because the percentages are FIXED and the only category is size
SC2
- improvements to the pathing but without the "perfectly tight clustering"
- MBS to a limited amount
- smart casting ????
- automine
- unit design as an ADDITION to the BW units and not a replacement while keeping in mind that the game shouldnt have too many different units
|
I just hope they take a closer look at the widow mine, instead of leaving it for almost a year like they did with WoL infestors.
It's five times as difficult to counter mines as it is to use them.
|
Rabiator, SC2 has been out for 3 years already, no one is going to bother relearning the game from scratch.
Plus I doubt most people want the annoying and frustrating BW limitations to ruin their gaming experience.
|
Just imagine the reviews for LotV if they would do that. Unless their plan is to get horrible sales it really wouldnt be a good idea to make even telling your army to go somewhere a challenge. You cannot get away with such a horrible decision, even if it would improve balance. And it really isn't needed for that.
|
Northern Ireland27328 Posts
I don't think he's advocating a straight return to BW-style play, but some kind of hybridic solution.
|
On April 09 2013 17:52 Nekovivie wrote:
I just hope they take a closer look at the widow mine, instead of leaving it for almost a year like they did with WoL infestors.
It's five times as difficult to counter mines as it is to use them.
I think that is the point, terran gets an easy to use-Hard to deal with unit to bring the other races up to Terrans micro requirements. I noticed a pattern in the new units overall for that. Terran got very easy to use units/abilities while Zerg and Protoss got units that require thought to properly use. I think it was to fix the fact that terran had way more requirements with their lategame army compared to Z/P.
|
On April 09 2013 18:00 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't think he's advocating a straight return to BW-style play, but some kind of hybridic solution.
His solution is still bad and unnecessary, IMO.
|
On April 09 2013 18:02 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 17:52 Nekovivie wrote:
I just hope they take a closer look at the widow mine, instead of leaving it for almost a year like they did with WoL infestors.
It's five times as difficult to counter mines as it is to use them. I think that is the point, terran gets an easy to use-Hard to deal with unit to bring the other races up to Terrans micro requirements. I noticed a pattern in the new units overall for that. Terran got very easy to use units/abilities while Zerg and Protoss got units that require thought to properly use. I think it was to fix the fact that terran had way more requirements with their lategame army compared to Z/P.
That actually isn't quite 100% right. Terran indeed got the hellbat, an A-move friendly unit, while Protoss got Oracle and Zerg got Vipers which are quite micro intensive. However, all races got static/positional units that don't require many APMs to use (mine, tempest, swarmhosts).
I'm sure mines will take a lot of positional skill anyway once Blizzard gives them a taste of their nerfhammer :D
|
On April 09 2013 18:32 ZenithM wrote:
I'm sure mines will take a lot of positional skill anyway once Blizzard gives them a taste of their nerfhammer :D
I am very doubtful that will happen anytime soon.
|
On April 09 2013 18:51 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 18:32 ZenithM wrote:
I'm sure mines will take a lot of positional skill anyway once Blizzard gives them a taste of their nerfhammer :D I am very doubtful that will happen anytime soon.
Well, at worst they get nerfed to complete oblivion, and Terran is back to full-on splitting and stutter-stepping madness :D
|
On April 09 2013 07:10 Wombat_NI wrote:
Incidentally I feel the issue with widowmines is Zerg's poor detection.
In addition, Zerg benefit from their mobility, and ability to flank at speed. Widowmines are preventing that, because Overseers move so much slower than the rest of the swarm.
You can easily prevent mines wiping out your army with care, but it's at the expense of the flanking, run-by centric play that most of us love about Zerg.
I don't get this. Mines are supposed to be a positional and defensive unit foremost. If the Zerg could mindlessly flank even with the mines set up correctly, the whole 'controlling area' concept is flawed where the mines should be at their strongest.
How about you micro your overseers a bit? How about you make multiple overseers and spread them out a bit? They don't even cost supply and only 50 gas per piece.
|
Northern Ireland27328 Posts
On April 09 2013 19:14 yak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 07:10 Wombat_NI wrote:
Incidentally I feel the issue with widowmines is Zerg's poor detection.
In addition, Zerg benefit from their mobility, and ability to flank at speed. Widowmines are preventing that, because Overseers move so much slower than the rest of the swarm.
You can easily prevent mines wiping out your army with care, but it's at the expense of the flanking, run-by centric play that most of us love about Zerg. I don't get this. Mines are supposed to be a positional and defensive unit foremost. If the Zerg could mindlessly flank even with the mines set up correctly, the whole 'controlling area' concept is flawed where the mines should be at their strongest. How about you micro your overseers a bit? How about you make multiple overseers and spread them out a bit? They don't even cost supply and only 50 gas per piece.
I don't play Zerg for a start, and I like the idea of the mines. I just feel they're more problematic for TvZ/ZvT balance at present than speedivacs, which are more frequently maligned are.
|
I'd like to know WTF they were thinking when designing the oracle.
It can be shut down completely by building static defence. Maybe they're stingy and skimp on a turret, so you do some damage. Or if they're not stingy you cost them 200 minerals. And that's the best you can say about the unit.
It simply doesn't have the same presence on the map as mutas, helions, doom drops, etc. Revelation is the best thing about it. But it does the same job as a scanner sweep, and Terran gets that for free.
You'd have to be crazy to pick Protoss in HotS.
|
On April 09 2013 18:32 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 18:02 Hypemeup wrote:On April 09 2013 17:52 Nekovivie wrote:
I just hope they take a closer look at the widow mine, instead of leaving it for almost a year like they did with WoL infestors.
It's five times as difficult to counter mines as it is to use them. I think that is the point, terran gets an easy to use-Hard to deal with unit to bring the other races up to Terrans micro requirements. I noticed a pattern in the new units overall for that. Terran got very easy to use units/abilities while Zerg and Protoss got units that require thought to properly use. I think it was to fix the fact that terran had way more requirements with their lategame army compared to Z/P. I'm sure mines will take a lot of positional skill anyway once Blizzard gives them a taste of their nerfhammer :D
depends on how they get nerfed.
if they tweak a certain part of it, then the positional skill will be there for the terran, but not the opponent
(ex: make it deal less damage+less splash, it'll still hurt terran units if they aren't spread at all, but the opponent - if it's nerfed so badly - could just ignore the positioning and still break it without even bothering from attacking from multiple angles/etc. -- or not give a shit.)
|
TvZ is not balanced at all, when the only working ZvT strategy is muta ling baneling and still get slaughtered easily by T.
Just watch the Korean TvZ games, and every Z except Life should be called patch-zerg.
|
Northern Ireland27328 Posts
On April 09 2013 19:27 zhurai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 18:32 ZenithM wrote:On April 09 2013 18:02 Hypemeup wrote:On April 09 2013 17:52 Nekovivie wrote:
I just hope they take a closer look at the widow mine, instead of leaving it for almost a year like they did with WoL infestors.
It's five times as difficult to counter mines as it is to use them. I think that is the point, terran gets an easy to use-Hard to deal with unit to bring the other races up to Terrans micro requirements. I noticed a pattern in the new units overall for that. Terran got very easy to use units/abilities while Zerg and Protoss got units that require thought to properly use. I think it was to fix the fact that terran had way more requirements with their lategame army compared to Z/P. I'm sure mines will take a lot of positional skill anyway once Blizzard gives them a taste of their nerfhammer :D depends on how they get nerfed. if they tweak a certain part of it, then the positional skill will be there for the terran, but not the opponent (ex: make it deal less damage+less splash, it'll still hurt terran units if they aren't spread at all, but the opponent - if it's nerfed so badly - could just ignore the positioning and still break it without even bothering from attacking from multiple angles/etc. -- or not give a shit.)
I'd take away their tunnelling drill upgrade or whatever it's called for a start, just to see. Too often I even see Terran caught with their pants down, burrow their mines, stim and run away with their bio and still clear out big clumps of lings etc.
|
I think there are a number of things that can be tried out to balance the mines. Like the last guy mentioned, removing their upgrade might help, but I don't think it would be enough. I think one possibility that would be good would be if you give them the full 'fire cooldown' thing when they burrow, that way they are primarily used for defense since you burrow them in defensive positions, but you cant do this retarded stuff like mine drops and attacking with mines, or even pure mass mines as ive seen some pros do on ladder.
|
Yeah, let's completely butcher the offensive viability of the entire unit,"for a start".
The splash AOE will be reduced, that's it. Don't overcomplicate things where it isn't necessary.
|
Northern Ireland27328 Posts
Then all you do is butcher its potency as a deterrent and its ability to control space in small numbers?
|
No, you just slightly tone down the AOE so that one lucky mine won't kill 12 banes at once. It will still oneshot mutas and be effective against ling/bane, but makes them a little less scary for zerg to attack into.
It's called taking baby steps towards a balanced unit, a concept many people here don't seem to understand at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
