|
On April 22 2013 00:14 Big J wrote:Why are you guys even discussing with him based upon an assumption that he has not proven? Where is any proof for anything being underpowered/overpowered at lower leagues? Specifically about mutalisk regeneration. Do low League players harass so much with mutalisks that they take a lot of damage that can be regenerated? Do low league players pull back with the mutas in time? Do they even build mutalisks? So here is some actual data that points towards a very balanced game at the lower leagues. (not to mention that blizzard has said so multiple times) http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/allCheck the Leagues, check the average point section. All races have similar amounts of points per player. So there is definitely no matchup that is very favored due to skill needed to play a race.
Oh come on ... just use some COMMON SENSE instead of that stupid fallback of "prove it 1000% first". Just look at the Blizzard boards and you will probably see a lot of WHINING about units ... which is based upon the perception of them being imba. That doesnt really mean they are, but they are probably still hard to play against. So there are things like the MULE, Forcefield and lots more in the game which really are hard to handle for lower levels.
A casual player is less able to do multitasking and thus will react much slower to unexpected threats or attacks. Thus anything that makes these unexpected threats - mostly harrassment in other words - stronger and safer will be a bad thing for a casual. Mutalisks are one such thing, but the speed boost for Medivacs is another. Widow Mines are not really a harrassment unit (unless you drop them in the enemy's base), but looking for them in unexpected places and constantly is not something which all casuals will be able to do. These are just three things which are new with HotS and which are hard to handle for a casual, but they arent the whole list.
Mutalisks - regeneration makes them survive longer (which I mentioned above) and thus they are more forgiving to use for harrassment and harder to deal with
Medivac Speed boost - one or two small red dots moving on the minimap are not instantly noticeable by everyone ... and if you increase their speed you reduce the warning time to react to them
Widow Mine - cloaked units are hard to deal with, but burrowed ones are not even moving. The nature of the movement system clumps up every army and thus they are neatly lining up for maximum efficiency for the Widow Mine attacks. This "one control group to rule them all with perfect unit movement" has been praised as a great improvement of SC2 for the casuals/beginners ... well it is not.
The list is much longer than this, but I dont think the effort is needed if you dont understand these three clear examples ...
Your stupid statistics PROVE NOTHING because they will always balance themselves out. They also do not prove that the games are won - on average - by the person with the better skill but they might be won equally well by people who simply abuse one strategy/unit. So at the bottom of the leagues these statistics arent worth the paper they could be printed on. Here is the common sense logic for "your statistics are worth nothing":
If "race X" is winning a bit easier the players of that race will just rise on the ladder until they meet players of better skill from the other races until their win rates average out and they dont rise anymore. (I also think the points system is somewhat stupid, because the winner gains more than the loser loses ... which means the total number of points increases over time AND you will gain points (=rise on the ladder) by simply playing a crapton of games. The definition of "casual" includes playing few games and thus will put them at the bottom of the ladder in general.)
Please do not forget that "those casuals just need to learn to deal with it" is not a good answer, because it is in the nature of the casual to play FOR FUN and not AS A LIFESTYLE and thus to just spend some time with the game every week instead of 3-4 hours every day.
|
I don't think they are problems.
if you think today's gamers are getting lazy at learning a game, then I don't see why you think this is a problem.
It's basically just like pub dota games where some non competitive heroes dominating hard because the other team doesn't know how to counter them well.
muta for example, requires a lot of multi tasking, injects, harass and not clumping up against thors or goes past stim marine/widow mines. That doesn't really sound too easy at all.
Since lower league can't macro well, they got tonnes of resources to just build lots of turrets everywhere.
you just have to stop complaining about mass production etcetc because blizzard ain't gonna change that, we have to find a way to make the game more balanced (not towards the lower league) and a higher skillgap to seperate the good and the bad player (which artosis has said hots has done well)
we are not gonna contribute anything to the thread if you continue to argue this way.
|
On April 22 2013 13:04 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:14 Big J wrote:Why are you guys even discussing with him based upon an assumption that he has not proven? Where is any proof for anything being underpowered/overpowered at lower leagues? Specifically about mutalisk regeneration. Do low League players harass so much with mutalisks that they take a lot of damage that can be regenerated? Do low league players pull back with the mutas in time? Do they even build mutalisks? So here is some actual data that points towards a very balanced game at the lower leagues. (not to mention that blizzard has said so multiple times) http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/allCheck the Leagues, check the average point section. All races have similar amounts of points per player. So there is definitely no matchup that is very favored due to skill needed to play a race. Oh come on ... just use some COMMON SENSE instead of that stupid fallback of "prove it 1000% first". Just look at the Blizzard boards and you will probably see a lot of WHINING about units ... which is based upon the perception of them being imba. That doesnt really mean they are, but they are probably still hard to play against. So there are things like the MULE, Forcefield and lots more in the game which really are hard to handle for lower levels.
If I use my common sense it tells me that low league players don't have the multitasking to harass properly with mutalisks. That they often won't do enough damage, lose a lot of mutalisks in the process and just die to a straight up attack. And the regeneration will hardly ever matter. When they win with mutalisks, it's going to be because their opponent wasn't in position to deal with them and a whole mineralline is gone before their army got back.
@FreeTossCZComentary:
I believe that mass phoenix is the only way to combat mutalisks properly if you don't want to rush a zerg. (unless it's a lategame switch and you already have blink and stormtemplar ready and mass gateways, good ground upgrades etc...)
This is not different at all at amateur level.
|
On August 16 2011 07:07 Xenogears wrote:
Techno I entirely agree with you on TvP MU, you have to be really skilled to "make it happen" when Protosses mostly don't have much to do.
I know the game is balanced at high level, but it is really frustrating for low master / high diamond like myself to lose so badly when the "terran magic" does not happen.
Even more frustrating when there is no magic needed from the protoss...
this is whine thread. protoss and terran is equal. it's just your skill. get better.
|
On April 22 2013 18:35 erdem wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 07:07 Xenogears wrote:
Techno I entirely agree with you on TvP MU, you have to be really skilled to "make it happen" when Protosses mostly don't have much to do.
I know the game is balanced at high level, but it is really frustrating for low master / high diamond like myself to lose so badly when the "terran magic" does not happen.
Even more frustrating when there is no magic needed from the protoss...
this is whine thread. protoss and terran is equal. it's just your skill. get better.
Why on earth are you responding to a 2 year old post?
|
I guess it's because it was on the first page.
erdem, see the numbers at the bottom? The ones that go up to 466. That's the number of pages in this thread, each of them has a large number of posts. I would read the first couple of pages and then read the last 10-15 to get an idea what's currently being discussed. Then reply to that.
|
Mutalisk, widow mine, speedvacs. Scary units like these is what makes the game quite fun imo. The casual player will find them fun because it's quite something to look out for when you move out, it is quite something to use when you are the casual player using it.
You are not always on the receiving end with these extremely good units, you are often the one using them. If the game became bland and very little could go horrible wrong, well, would that be a good game? I welcome extremely good units.
|
On April 22 2013 19:57 crappen wrote:
Mutalisk, widow mine, speedvacs. Scary units like these is what makes the game quite fun imo. The casual player will find them fun because it's quite something to look out for when you move out, it is quite something to use when you are the casual player using it.
You are not always on the receiving end with these extremely good units, you are often the one using them. If the game became bland and very little could go horrible wrong, well, would that be a good game? I welcome extremely good units.
Then give some unit like that to protoss, I dare you! Why 2 of them terran and one zerg? -.- Whenever I try phoenix harass, I find myself killing like 2 drones and 1 overlord... I may just really start with those all-ins, as normal toss is no fun.
|
On April 22 2013 20:03 FreeTossCZComentary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 19:57 crappen wrote:
Mutalisk, widow mine, speedvacs. Scary units like these is what makes the game quite fun imo. The casual player will find them fun because it's quite something to look out for when you move out, it is quite something to use when you are the casual player using it.
You are not always on the receiving end with these extremely good units, you are often the one using them. If the game became bland and very little could go horrible wrong, well, would that be a good game? I welcome extremely good units. Then give some unit like that to protoss, I dare you! Why 2 of them terran and one zerg? -.- Whenever I try phoenix harass, I find myself killing like 2 drones and 1 overlord... I may just really start with those all-ins, as normal toss is no fun.
Uh. You do have those units. Templar, Colossi, Oracles. They've always been scary units.
|
On April 21 2013 23:47 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 23:33 Assirra wrote:On April 21 2013 22:49 Rabiator wrote:On April 21 2013 17:39 Decendos wrote:On April 21 2013 16:15 Rabiator wrote:On April 21 2013 04:12 Grumbels wrote:On April 21 2013 03:10 Rabiator wrote:On April 20 2013 23:10 Grumbels wrote:
@Rabiator
Well, most players steal their builds instead of coming up with strategies and compositions independently, and that's why problems at the pro level often resurface in lower level play, but I think that the balance is good enough that at most levels you can win with pretty much any composition. And therefore mutalisks should not be an existential problem for ZvZ except in the pro scene. And because at the pro level everything depends on these really subtle details, I don't see the problem for specifically targeting ZvZ with a minor damage tweak to the corruptor (assuming the damage bonus fixes the match-up). It might make for confusing unit stats if they all had different damage bonuses to everything, but actually, they already do and most people don't care because they just play the game instead of memorizing stats. Mutalisks become an even bigger problem down the line IMO because of the stupid regeneration. At lower levels people are not fast enough or good enough to mass up ground units to fight regenerating air units which are not blocked by buildings or terrain. As soon as one player has massed up enough Mutalisks to more or less one-shot stuff it becomes too hard to manage and a reason to complain about it ... the game simply becomes too easy because these regenerating units are too safe at lower levels. I haven't actually had the chance to play HotS multi player (because my brother usurped my account to play custom games 24/7 :p) , but I would think that at lower levels it's also quite difficult to be as active with mutalisks as you would like. Furthermore, given that builds are less tight, it becomes easier to justify simply building five spore crawlers per base. I'd like to hear from someone with recent ~gold league experience about ZvZ in HotS though. The thing is that at lower levels you have fewer units and thus less firepower. With the regeneration on Mutalisks it will make sure that more of them are around with better hit points for the next fight ... and thats where the snowballing starts. You cant kill them with your lower numbers and on top of that they return much stronger next fight with a few more buddies. Professionals know how to get enough Marines and whatnot to at least scare them away, but casual players wont react in time to save their workers from just a few Mutas ... OR they have to build turrets everywhere to counter such a threat and then are behind with their army due to these "immobile fighting resources". Blizzard has no clue about the lower league players and they simply dont care. That much was clear from the start because the top focus of SC2 was always eSport ... Professional drivers might be able to drive a car through a rallye stage or a city at 100 miles per hour, but your everyday driver can not. It is as simple as that. 1. its good blizzard balances as highest level 2. a lot of stuff in lower leagues is "broken" but every race has it: banelings, fungals, storm, colossus, mech, widow mines, voidrays etc. 3. as for your specific problem: widow mines deal with everything even at GSL level so they are a MUCH bigger problem than mutas on every play level. 1. Why is it good that Blizzard creates a game which is "balanced for professionals and broken for the majority of players"? Does this mean we all should drive Formula 1 cars which professionals can handle but most of us will drive into windows or run pedestrians over because they are simply too fast? 2. Why do you think it is acceptable to have "broken stuff" in the game because everyone has it? 3. I was just pointing out why the Muta is stupid now with the regeneration in lower levels. That doesnt affect or judge anything else and something "more broken" doesnt change the fact that the Muta is badly designed with the regeneration. Because balancing for the majority will most likely screw up the competitive top. A lower level player can always play better where a a pro is already at the max of the current scene. Just imagine if they buff some stuff so lower lvl players will get better with it. A pro with that same buff will absolutely destroy the balance. "Broken" stuff in general makes stuff more enjoyable to watch as long as it balanced properly. Look at BW, soo much stuff that is broken beyond belief yet it somehow balances through one way or another. Rofl .... BW wasnt broken for the masses and worked for the competition. At the core of most broken things rests the core design of SC2 ... which centers around HIGH ECONOMY and PRODUCTION BOOSTS and CRITICAL MASSES and LARGE ARMIES IN SMALL AREAS. BW had none of these and I would say - as an example - the Infestor in its original form would NOT be as overpowered if you could only produce a few of them AND they would not clump as tightly as they do in SC2. As a result you would not have the ability to cover a whole area with Fungals and Infested Terrans because your units would be fewer and spread out more. Blizzard is simply under the delusion which many movie directors have: MORE STUFF will make it better and that is wrong. Watching a Zergling battle between two Zerglings each and then having one player win with both his Zerglings alive is more interesting - in MY opinion - than watching a battle between 50 Roaches on each side. The reason is quite simple: It is the same as for a shark who is faced with a single fish to hunt or a fish swarm ... you simply cant follow the action well enough if the whole screen is covered with units. Quality over quantity. Yes, BW had broken units, BUT due to the reduced density of units AND the "inability" to use them in critical numbers that game has the far superior core design. Sure, some pros might be able to pull off using critical numbers (several groups of Mutas for example), but the majority could not do it, wheras anyone can get and use critical numbers in SC2 due to the stupid unlimited unit selection and perfectly tight unit movement. SC2 simply focuses too much on the MASS ARMY and CRITICAL NUMBER part which require a much more precise balancing than BW ever did. This is the main reason why BW is better ... because you can get away with broken units at all levels of play! As an added bonus BW allowed you to stack up your units tightly through manual work for an increased defensive capability, but in SC2 there is no defenders advantage but rather an attackers advantage because they choose the time and place and angle of attack. This is bad design.
BW is ten years old, had an interface that was ten years old and had virtually impenetrable mechanics. The only reason it survived as long as it did was because it was free to play in Korean PC bangs. It was dead in the West and for good reason - it wasn't as good a game as people say it was.
Starcraft 2 is a far more competitive, far more engaging and far more fun game to play in its current iteration. There are more people from more countries playing it with a much larger community built up around it.
|
On April 22 2013 20:03 FreeTossCZComentary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 19:57 crappen wrote:
Mutalisk, widow mine, speedvacs. Scary units like these is what makes the game quite fun imo. The casual player will find them fun because it's quite something to look out for when you move out, it is quite something to use when you are the casual player using it.
You are not always on the receiving end with these extremely good units, you are often the one using them. If the game became bland and very little could go horrible wrong, well, would that be a good game? I welcome extremely good units. Then give some unit like that to protoss, I dare you! Why 2 of them terran and one zerg? -.- Whenever I try phoenix harass, I find myself killing like 2 drones and 1 overlord... I may just really start with those all-ins, as normal toss is no fun.
I play protoss myself, and our deathball, is among the most scary thing there is. Forcefield is soo scary when used correctly. But you are correct that we dont seem to have much scary harrasment, only our dump in zealots using pylon/prism at certain expansions, DT's as well without detection.
We dont have a single unit that strikes out as much as the widow mine or mutas though. But dont tell me protoss is not scary as fuck if left alone. That is their fear factor, they can not be left alone building up the doom of death, you have to hinder them their gasball of doom.
|
Lolol people are talking about how BW technical limitations were the better core design.
It's not "design" if it's not intended, guys. They didn't limit control groups to 12 and not put MBS and automine because they somehow foresaw that it would be a better design (and it's not).
The bad path finding (which is why units don't clump in BW) wasn't intended by design either. In fact, Blizzard was quite proud to present in early alpha stages of SC2 how they improved the path finding. No game designer in his right mind would say: "I'll introduce more constraining mechanics and technical limitations and bad path finding than in any of our modern RTS concurrents. Please buy my game, it's awesome."
Please no. Stop talking about "design", you're not game designers. Let's keep it to balance. Blizzard won't change the core mechanics anyway.
|
On April 22 2013 20:03 FreeTossCZComentary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 19:57 crappen wrote:
Mutalisk, widow mine, speedvacs. Scary units like these is what makes the game quite fun imo. The casual player will find them fun because it's quite something to look out for when you move out, it is quite something to use when you are the casual player using it.
You are not always on the receiving end with these extremely good units, you are often the one using them. If the game became bland and very little could go horrible wrong, well, would that be a good game? I welcome extremely good units. Then give some unit like that to protoss, I dare you! Why 2 of them terran and one zerg? -.- Whenever I try phoenix harass, I find myself killing like 2 drones and 1 overlord... I may just really start with those all-ins, as normal toss is no fun.
Besides the earlier mentioned Oracle, you also got for example the MsC, which has an opposite role, it makes defending against those things (and everything else) much easier. Oh he attacks me and I forgot to make an army? Lets cast planetary nexus.
Or what about the colossus? That is pretty much the ultimate casual terror weapon: Click your colossi, a-move, see how large laser beams that do splash damage from very large range kill everything.
|
On April 22 2013 20:12 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 23:47 Rabiator wrote:On April 21 2013 23:33 Assirra wrote:On April 21 2013 22:49 Rabiator wrote:On April 21 2013 17:39 Decendos wrote:On April 21 2013 16:15 Rabiator wrote:On April 21 2013 04:12 Grumbels wrote:On April 21 2013 03:10 Rabiator wrote:On April 20 2013 23:10 Grumbels wrote:
@Rabiator
Well, most players steal their builds instead of coming up with strategies and compositions independently, and that's why problems at the pro level often resurface in lower level play, but I think that the balance is good enough that at most levels you can win with pretty much any composition. And therefore mutalisks should not be an existential problem for ZvZ except in the pro scene. And because at the pro level everything depends on these really subtle details, I don't see the problem for specifically targeting ZvZ with a minor damage tweak to the corruptor (assuming the damage bonus fixes the match-up). It might make for confusing unit stats if they all had different damage bonuses to everything, but actually, they already do and most people don't care because they just play the game instead of memorizing stats. Mutalisks become an even bigger problem down the line IMO because of the stupid regeneration. At lower levels people are not fast enough or good enough to mass up ground units to fight regenerating air units which are not blocked by buildings or terrain. As soon as one player has massed up enough Mutalisks to more or less one-shot stuff it becomes too hard to manage and a reason to complain about it ... the game simply becomes too easy because these regenerating units are too safe at lower levels. I haven't actually had the chance to play HotS multi player (because my brother usurped my account to play custom games 24/7 :p) , but I would think that at lower levels it's also quite difficult to be as active with mutalisks as you would like. Furthermore, given that builds are less tight, it becomes easier to justify simply building five spore crawlers per base. I'd like to hear from someone with recent ~gold league experience about ZvZ in HotS though. The thing is that at lower levels you have fewer units and thus less firepower. With the regeneration on Mutalisks it will make sure that more of them are around with better hit points for the next fight ... and thats where the snowballing starts. You cant kill them with your lower numbers and on top of that they return much stronger next fight with a few more buddies. Professionals know how to get enough Marines and whatnot to at least scare them away, but casual players wont react in time to save their workers from just a few Mutas ... OR they have to build turrets everywhere to counter such a threat and then are behind with their army due to these "immobile fighting resources". Blizzard has no clue about the lower league players and they simply dont care. That much was clear from the start because the top focus of SC2 was always eSport ... Professional drivers might be able to drive a car through a rallye stage or a city at 100 miles per hour, but your everyday driver can not. It is as simple as that. 1. its good blizzard balances as highest level 2. a lot of stuff in lower leagues is "broken" but every race has it: banelings, fungals, storm, colossus, mech, widow mines, voidrays etc. 3. as for your specific problem: widow mines deal with everything even at GSL level so they are a MUCH bigger problem than mutas on every play level. 1. Why is it good that Blizzard creates a game which is "balanced for professionals and broken for the majority of players"? Does this mean we all should drive Formula 1 cars which professionals can handle but most of us will drive into windows or run pedestrians over because they are simply too fast? 2. Why do you think it is acceptable to have "broken stuff" in the game because everyone has it? 3. I was just pointing out why the Muta is stupid now with the regeneration in lower levels. That doesnt affect or judge anything else and something "more broken" doesnt change the fact that the Muta is badly designed with the regeneration. Because balancing for the majority will most likely screw up the competitive top. A lower level player can always play better where a a pro is already at the max of the current scene. Just imagine if they buff some stuff so lower lvl players will get better with it. A pro with that same buff will absolutely destroy the balance. "Broken" stuff in general makes stuff more enjoyable to watch as long as it balanced properly. Look at BW, soo much stuff that is broken beyond belief yet it somehow balances through one way or another. Rofl .... BW wasnt broken for the masses and worked for the competition. At the core of most broken things rests the core design of SC2 ... which centers around HIGH ECONOMY and PRODUCTION BOOSTS and CRITICAL MASSES and LARGE ARMIES IN SMALL AREAS. BW had none of these and I would say - as an example - the Infestor in its original form would NOT be as overpowered if you could only produce a few of them AND they would not clump as tightly as they do in SC2. As a result you would not have the ability to cover a whole area with Fungals and Infested Terrans because your units would be fewer and spread out more. Blizzard is simply under the delusion which many movie directors have: MORE STUFF will make it better and that is wrong. Watching a Zergling battle between two Zerglings each and then having one player win with both his Zerglings alive is more interesting - in MY opinion - than watching a battle between 50 Roaches on each side. The reason is quite simple: It is the same as for a shark who is faced with a single fish to hunt or a fish swarm ... you simply cant follow the action well enough if the whole screen is covered with units. Quality over quantity. Yes, BW had broken units, BUT due to the reduced density of units AND the "inability" to use them in critical numbers that game has the far superior core design. Sure, some pros might be able to pull off using critical numbers (several groups of Mutas for example), but the majority could not do it, wheras anyone can get and use critical numbers in SC2 due to the stupid unlimited unit selection and perfectly tight unit movement. SC2 simply focuses too much on the MASS ARMY and CRITICAL NUMBER part which require a much more precise balancing than BW ever did. This is the main reason why BW is better ... because you can get away with broken units at all levels of play! As an added bonus BW allowed you to stack up your units tightly through manual work for an increased defensive capability, but in SC2 there is no defenders advantage but rather an attackers advantage because they choose the time and place and angle of attack. This is bad design. BW is ten years old, had an interface that was ten years old and had virtually impenetrable mechanics. The only reason it survived as long as it did was because it was free to play in Korean PC bangs. It was dead in the West and for good reason - it wasn't as good a game as people say it was. Starcraft 2 is a far more competitive, far more engaging and far more fun game to play in its current iteration. There are more people from more countries playing it with a much larger community built up around it.
You are delusional and wrong.  Impenetrable mecharnics? The mechanics are simple to learn but hard to master, you just have to, you know, actually practice to get good.
Your next sentence is drivel and doesn't need refuting.
Dead in the west? How about you respect the site that you're on? There are still plenty of BW players around and this is 15 years after release. Do you think SC2 will have anything like that after 15 years? I can't see it happening and I actually like SC2; people will move on to the next newest thing.
In short please don't spout nonsense when you don't know what you're talking about, you only embarass yourself.
|
On April 22 2013 20:23 ZenithM wrote:
Lolol people are talking about how BW technical limitations were the better core design.
It's not "design" if it's not intended, guys. They didn't limit control groups to 12 and not put MBS and automine because they somehow foresaw that it would be a better design (and it's not).
The bad path finding (which is why units don't clump in BW) wasn't intended by design either. In fact, Blizzard was quite proud to present in early alpha stages of SC2 how they improved the path finding. No game designer in his right mind would say: "I'll introduce more constraining mechanics and technical limitations and bad path finding than in any of our modern RTS concurrents. Please buy my game, it's awesome."
Please no. Stop talking about "design", you're not game designers. Let's keep it to balance. Blizzard won't change the core mechanics anyway.
Strafe jumping in Quake wasn't an originally intended mechanic either, but look at the gameplay that emerged as a result.
You blindly dismissing mechanics as a means of making interesting gameplay is ignorant. Just because the technology has improved (pathing, MBS, infinite control groups) does not mean that the gameplay improves as a result.
In games as with many things in life newer does not mean better.
|
On April 22 2013 21:39 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 20:23 ZenithM wrote:
Lolol people are talking about how BW technical limitations were the better core design.
It's not "design" if it's not intended, guys. They didn't limit control groups to 12 and not put MBS and automine because they somehow foresaw that it would be a better design (and it's not).
The bad path finding (which is why units don't clump in BW) wasn't intended by design either. In fact, Blizzard was quite proud to present in early alpha stages of SC2 how they improved the path finding. No game designer in his right mind would say: "I'll introduce more constraining mechanics and technical limitations and bad path finding than in any of our modern RTS concurrents. Please buy my game, it's awesome."
Please no. Stop talking about "design", you're not game designers. Let's keep it to balance. Blizzard won't change the core mechanics anyway. Strafe jumping in Quake wasn't an originally intended mechanic either, but look at the gameplay that emerged as a result. You blindly dismissing mechanics as a means of making interesting gameplay is ignorant. Just because the technology has improved (pathing, MBS, infinite control groups) does not mean that the gameplay improves as a result. In games as with many things in life newer does not mean better.
No it doesn't. But neither does older not include better.
In the end it comes to personal taste when it comes to fun. And more people's taste match with SC2, than it did with SC1.
|
On April 22 2013 21:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 21:39 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:On April 22 2013 20:23 ZenithM wrote:
Lolol people are talking about how BW technical limitations were the better core design.
It's not "design" if it's not intended, guys. They didn't limit control groups to 12 and not put MBS and automine because they somehow foresaw that it would be a better design (and it's not).
The bad path finding (which is why units don't clump in BW) wasn't intended by design either. In fact, Blizzard was quite proud to present in early alpha stages of SC2 how they improved the path finding. No game designer in his right mind would say: "I'll introduce more constraining mechanics and technical limitations and bad path finding than in any of our modern RTS concurrents. Please buy my game, it's awesome."
Please no. Stop talking about "design", you're not game designers. Let's keep it to balance. Blizzard won't change the core mechanics anyway. Strafe jumping in Quake wasn't an originally intended mechanic either, but look at the gameplay that emerged as a result. You blindly dismissing mechanics as a means of making interesting gameplay is ignorant. Just because the technology has improved (pathing, MBS, infinite control groups) does not mean that the gameplay improves as a result. In games as with many things in life newer does not mean better. No it doesn't. But neither does older not include better. In the end it comes to personal taste when it comes to fun. And more people's taste match with SC2, than it did with SC1.
And more people's taste match with Call of Duty than SC2, I guess that means that CoD is the better game.
|
On April 22 2013 21:47 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 21:44 Big J wrote:On April 22 2013 21:39 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:On April 22 2013 20:23 ZenithM wrote:
Lolol people are talking about how BW technical limitations were the better core design.
It's not "design" if it's not intended, guys. They didn't limit control groups to 12 and not put MBS and automine because they somehow foresaw that it would be a better design (and it's not).
The bad path finding (which is why units don't clump in BW) wasn't intended by design either. In fact, Blizzard was quite proud to present in early alpha stages of SC2 how they improved the path finding. No game designer in his right mind would say: "I'll introduce more constraining mechanics and technical limitations and bad path finding than in any of our modern RTS concurrents. Please buy my game, it's awesome."
Please no. Stop talking about "design", you're not game designers. Let's keep it to balance. Blizzard won't change the core mechanics anyway. Strafe jumping in Quake wasn't an originally intended mechanic either, but look at the gameplay that emerged as a result. You blindly dismissing mechanics as a means of making interesting gameplay is ignorant. Just because the technology has improved (pathing, MBS, infinite control groups) does not mean that the gameplay improves as a result. In games as with many things in life newer does not mean better. No it doesn't. But neither does older not include better. In the end it comes to personal taste when it comes to fun. And more people's taste match with SC2, than it did with SC1. And more people's taste match with Call of Duty than SC2, I guess that means that CoD is the better game.
probably.
|
On April 22 2013 21:39 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 20:23 ZenithM wrote:
Lolol people are talking about how BW technical limitations were the better core design.
It's not "design" if it's not intended, guys. They didn't limit control groups to 12 and not put MBS and automine because they somehow foresaw that it would be a better design (and it's not).
The bad path finding (which is why units don't clump in BW) wasn't intended by design either. In fact, Blizzard was quite proud to present in early alpha stages of SC2 how they improved the path finding. No game designer in his right mind would say: "I'll introduce more constraining mechanics and technical limitations and bad path finding than in any of our modern RTS concurrents. Please buy my game, it's awesome."
Please no. Stop talking about "design", you're not game designers. Let's keep it to balance. Blizzard won't change the core mechanics anyway. Strafe jumping in Quake wasn't an originally intended mechanic either, but look at the gameplay that emerged as a result. You blindly dismissing mechanics as a means of making interesting gameplay is ignorant. Just because the technology has improved (pathing, MBS, infinite control groups) does not mean that the gameplay improves as a result. In games as with many things in life newer does not mean better.
+ Show Spoiler +Design: (noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;
"Strafe jumping" wasn't intended, so it wasn't "design". That's all I'm saying here. Stop talking about "design", dammit, that's not even your point most of the time. Most of the great things that came with BW weren't "by design".
And my point about Blizzard not wanting to put BW's mechanics back in SC2 is that it's not marketingly viable for them to do so. When most of the RTS out there feature hundreds of "different" units and 20 factions and hugely automatized mechanics (like auto-unit production), you can't really say "yeah, we have bad path-finding, welcome to 2010!".
And we'll have to agree to disagree about MBS and auto-mine being bad for the game. I think it was great.
People arguing about "design" when they don't even know what design means seem also ignorant to me.
|
i think i have the perfect solution for hellbat 'balance issues'.
not let hellbats be built from factory until transformation servos has been upgraded. this will stop the very very early hellbat drops in all matchups, pushing them later into the game when people have better economy to be able to spend money on defending against them well.
The problem with directly nerfing hellbats is that for mech players is that these are the units that are keeping mech viable with all the new anti-mech goodies such as vipers and tempests. This proposed change would keep mech hellbat armies strong, as mech players can use hellions a lot early game and transform them later, but it would be harder to go bio + hellbats as you would need to first wait for the transformation upgrade...as well as having to allocate the resources towards it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
