On May 04 2013 16:07 Sissors wrote: Quite frankly I think Demigod works for a company that produces 'high-end' audio cables (for audiophiles). Since his tactics look quite similar to what they use: They try to burrow you under jargon, trying to make you feel stupid, since if they use so many jargon they surely know alot about it, right? But then in the end you realize they are pretty much trying to burrow you under words with little meaning behind them.
Convention is absolutely right, if you cannot explain your arguments to others they are fairly useless in a discussion. Being explain to others* what you do is one of the most important skills to have in any scientific field, if you aren't just trolling you are clearly lacking that skill.
* Yes that includes others who aren't at your 'level' on the relevant subject.
Btw I am a fan of positional play, just not of Demigod's posts.
This might be pedantic, but since we're focusing on language and clarity, the word you're looking for is bury, not burrow. Burrow implies self-induced or self-made like a gopher making his burrow (bur-row), while bury (bare-ree) is a very deliberate action onto another, like burying the dead body.
I've been following this discussion with a lot of interest now (I seem to have found a bit of a masochistic streak), but you must honestly admit that this small semantic oversight is probably merely Starcraft-related and says absolutely nothing about the poster's argument.
Yep that was just my English not being perfect, and probably due to using English quite a bit SC2 related I used the wrong word. @Cloak, I corrected it now, thanks for pointing that out, a mistake I probably won't make again . But as dejavue said, I don't think it really matters for the argument.
I figured English wasn't your main language, so I was just taking the opportunity to teach. Only language I can write is this one, so you're already leagues ahead of me in that regard. Yep, had nothing to do with the argument. Jargon is basically another tool for understanding. It's shorthand for already prelaid or often used concepts. The layman will associate jargon use with expertise, and the jargon user can exploit that authority to gain an edge. I don't think DemigodCelph is intentionally coming off that way. I just don't like undefined value judgement like "healthy" and "proper" from the first post, especially for something that can be explained in simple mathematical terms. I guess it could mean longevity? Complexity? Solvability? Enjoyability? Watchability? Penetrance into a market?
He is making a valuable point regarding positioning though. Positioning is ideally the substrate of RTS. The complexity and elegance of those position interactions pay off very handsomely: So any way to nurture or promote said interactions is a good design choice.
The (optimal) meta organically arises from the basic rules of the game by necessity, because what else can you use to develop the meta of a game? Another game? Pop psychology? So there are objective ways to evaluate meta, simplest example is probability of using X build. The basic blocks are, mentally prelaid combination of buildings and units and mentally prelaid foci of interaction for maximum value. It makes tactic vs. strategy just a difference of scope. Now compile all these prelaid patterns, and assess what a rational actor would pick for value, you can continually meta the meta, and there's an interesting piece on it here: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=10632 Ironically, there is some jargon there, so, just in case, the gist is you always want to stay 1 and only 1 meta level ahead of your opponent. Undershoot and you have no intelligence advantage, overshoot and you start making suboptimal decisions by using invalid assumptions. These are all very objective assessments that can apply to any game involving a lack of information.
There is a "subjective" element, meaning that any stable compilation of strategies might (on average) be worse because of the idiosyncratic patterns, and even more so subjective in a game like Starcraft that has other pressures outside the game itself. In biology, we call it evolutionary stable strategy or ESS. In economics, you have the Nash equilibrium. They're merely observations of how these metas progress; for example, union dues. Let's pretend the dues were voluntary. A cooperator would be someone who pays and a defector is someone who doesn't. If a defector was dropped in a pool of 90% cooperators and 10% defectors, he'd be well off just defecting his heart out. Now, the cooperator is getting the shaft, because he's paying for the benefits all the workers get to enjoy, so some of them start to defect. A couple years later, it's now 80% defector and 20% cooperator, you drop a defector in there and in this example, he would continue to defect, but it would lead to the eventual collapse of the system, hence why dues are mandatory. In real life, there is usually a good reason to cooperate on the individual level by co-opting with another cooperator, while the defectors die off, so you get a flux of ratios between defector and co-opter. You can apply it to Starcraft as aggressive or macro builds and we see this real life contrast between server regions, like Koreans being more aggressive.
Also I'm retarded and don't know how to embed video on TL. =(
I've always thought about that puzzle that it has a very interesting character. Some endgame puzzles are merely technical exercises, but the wonderful thing about chess has always been the potential for each position to be, as they say, 'its own universe'. And honestly, the most interesting chess games are uniquely worthwhile by themselves as objects of study, you could be happy with just one chess match for your entire life and you wouldn't be selling yourself short. I don't think Starcraft can ever approach that level, the game is so mechanical and fast paced, and as such I'm not sure it even needs to try and aim for this. I mean, how often do people go back to rewatch their favorite Starcraft 2 games for another reason than nostalgia?
On May 04 2013 10:54 DemigodcelpH wrote: As for Big J I am done responding to him, as he seems to be in the state where he's collapsing under the weight of his own name-calling (his latest "rebuttal" seems to be asserting I've never read books on X, which of course, is unknowable and a childish remark), confirmation bias, and repeat refusal to acknowledge counter-evidence.
On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:
On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote: You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post.
He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion.
Or my favorite excerpt: "...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."
And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language?
I never accused him of being ambiguous I just accepted that possibility that he had a lapse in understanding, and there's nothing wrong with what you're quoting of mine, as every word as a very specific meaning. I'm being quite clear, and simply because you don't follow doesn't necessarily mean it has "little to no" meaning in the discussion. That is an entirely unfounded claim.
On May 04 2013 10:11 Grumbels wrote:
On May 04 2013 09:51 convention wrote:
On May 04 2013 09:26 DemigodcelpH wrote: You're equivocating (unintentionally, or either likely simply not comprehending) which is a fallacy, and confusing this with higher order governing from a meta perspective. Please read my post.
He's the one using very specific language. Compare that to your most recent post: "higher order governing from a meta perspective". I'd have to say you are the one that is throwing out words that have little to no meaning in the discussion.
Or my favorite excerpt: "...this meta law is intuitively and consciously understood by all regular RTS players and designers because of how Euclidean geometry functions. Similarly, because of how meta laws function in that they are the direct result of fundamentals inherited from higher order laws such as game theory and geometry (simulation of area 2D or 3D) we have a certain amount of constants."
And you really think he is the one using ambiguous language?
I felt like some ignorant hick reading DemigodcelpH's earlier post that you're quoting, since half of the sentences were incomprehensible - which was annoying since he just insulted me for being dumb and not understanding the concepts. >.>
In any case, the abstract game theory concepts that he kept relating things to could also be described in layman's terms, instead of jargon, so I don't feel too bad about it. It's his responsibility to make his writing accessible to the people he is responding to.
I apologize as you seem to be quite reasonable, and I'm not trying to make anyone feel this way; I was being rather specific there actually, as that point is one of the more important ones so if there's something you don't understand in particular I don't mind mapping it out for you; sciences involving abstractions like game design tend to be involve higher level language when communicating more advanced concepts like the fundamental relationship of in-game (meta) laws and governing laws because the strategy genre, in it's simplest form, is a scaling of real-world mental logistics (problem solving) and situations; for example this is why all games involving some form of physical area simulation also involve Euclidean geometry making some meta (in-game) laws (such strategic attenuation) subject to the authority of this specific higher level governing rule.
This kind of higher level↔meta level relationship is not only observable in the instance of RTS games involving physical area simulation (which not incidentally happens to be about all of them), and is why things certain things are healthy to the genre (such as a proper implementation of positional play), as core RTS concepts (which indirectly influence which higher level (real world) laws apply because of the concept implementation stage) will always be the same or similar (and if not then you violate the definition of the genre such as CnC 4 being properly defined as RTT and not RTS) meaning that meta-laws are not all arbitrary despite what intuition would incline you to believe.
This is why positional play being valuable for the game is not subjective. (I also advise you not to make the same mistake as Big J and confuse meta-level RTS tactics being governed by higher level game theory in the context of the study of decision making, and meta-level RTS tactics being equated to being a specific property of that higher level theory as these are strictly and absolutely different things — in any case that was all a bit brief but I posted a bit more about it on the last page.)
As a scientist, if someone asks me a question about my field I will answer it in a way that they will understand. I can do that because I have a good understanding of what is really going on, so I know what basic knowledge is important. Basically, I want the other people to understand the answer to the question so I explain it to them in a way that is still correct, but understandable. What you are doing, is answering questions intentionally in a way such that no one can understand what you are saying. That doesn't promote discussion, and as someone who has answered a lot of questions to people at different levels (from junior high school to college level), answering questions with jargon is the fastest way for people to not believe anything you say. If you truly know what you are talking about, and you understand the concepts, you don't need to hide behind technical words.
Attack the argument; not the person. Know that such a juvenile tactic isn't going to work.
Simply because you don't understand even the reiterated version I've posted for Grumbels doesn't mean it's invalid especially considering there's no specialized jargon in there whatsoever. Until you can come up with a proper rebuttal this is your loss.
On May 04 2013 12:29 convention wrote:And yes, positional play being valuable is actually completely subjective, you cannot prove that at all.
False, as a plain statement made without a supporting argument is automatically invalid. See above — I've gone explicitly gone over this.
It's not an attack, it's advice. I'm telling you no one will even bother reading your post because it has so much (made-up) jargon that it isn't readable.
I find that ironic considering you read them all. It's very much an attack, and also an attempt to mask the fact that you don't have a rebuttal — instead of discussing the actual matter which is what this thread is intended for.
Also no word or phrase I've ever used has been made-up, so no, you're objectively wrong there. Once again know that such juvenile tactics will not work, and also once again until you can come up with a proper rebuttal this is your loss.
On May 04 2013 15:48 convention wrote: For example "meta-level RTS tactics being equated to being a specific property of that higher level theory as these are strictly and absolutely different things" is not even a logical sentence.
That isn't the full sentence. However that clause is objectively grammatically correct ("as these" is referring to clause 1 and cause 2), and follows a coherent logical scheme. Furthermore all words in it follow their standard dictionary definition.
On May 04 2013 15:48 convention wrote:You say things are healthy because they follow those rules. You still don't say what rules besides that they are higher level. You talk about "higher level↔meta level relationship" without even explaining what that is suppose to mean.
I've mentioned them two times in plain-text on several occasions, so that's a blatantly false claim.
In the context of positional play the higher level laws of Euclidean geometry and game theory, as in the study of decision making, are relevant as the game world is based on them; therefore any meta laws that exist have to respect this higher level authority — the paradigm of the RTS genre virtually demands it (exceptions to this that don't violate the genre are unseen and if they exist it's marginal) .
Do not claim I haven't explained myself simply because you don't understand it, and do not dismiss arguments for this reason either.
On May 04 2013 15:48 convention wrote:BigJ pointed to a standard game theory book and you act like he is just saying "read obscure book X". No, he is asking if you have heard of a standard book. It's like if someone claimed they knew something about higher level E&M and I asked if they've read Griffiths. It's the standard book that every school in the world will either use or reference at some point. And honestly, if someone didn't know what Griffiths E&M, I would immediately know they actually have no knowledge of E&M.
He is strawmaning either out of lack of comprehension (most likely, poor fellow) or on purpose; I've explicitly said this on page 475. And then on page 476 I explained why with an aside:
(I also advise you not to make the same mistake as Big J and confuse meta-level RTS tactics being governed by higher level game theory in the context of the study of decision making, and meta-level RTS tactics being equated to being a specific property of that higher level theory as these are strictly and absolutely different things — in any case that was all a bit brief but I posted a bit more about it on the last page.)
This is a very clear sentence and it says that he is equating something to something it is not and hence coming to an incorrect conclusion about my stance. The reason I called out equivocation (in addition to equation) is because he's using the same word to refer to two distinctly different phenomena: meta level (game) tactics, and tactics being a property of what governs it. Consider the classic example of equivocation:
A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Using the fallacy of equivocation someone who is wrong can claim "That is absurd, as light cannot be dark. You are clearly wrong and have never read a book about the subject." despite the fact that the speaker specifically specified with proof that he was not referring to color. This is why, as I said a bit ago, his mistake is either a lapse in comprehension or an intentional last ditch effort to not admit he's wrong.
I've familiar with the text he linked, and I likely know more about the subject than him. However he continues to ignore plain counter-evidence that existed before his claim in unchanged form which is why he hasn't gotten a response in a while.
On May 04 2013 16:07 Sissors wrote: Quite frankly I think Demigod works for a company that produces 'high-end' audio cables (for audiophiles). Since his tactics look quite similar to what they use: They try to bury you under jargon, trying to make you feel stupid, since if they use so many jargon they surely know alot about it, right? But then in the end you realize they are pretty much trying to bury you under words with little meaning behind them.
Convention is absolutely right, if you cannot explain your arguments to others they are fairly useless in a discussion. Being explain to others* what you do is one of the most important skills to have in any scientific field, if you aren't just trolling you are clearly lacking that skill.
* Yes that includes others who aren't at your 'level' on the relevant subject.
Btw I am a fan of positional play, just not of Demigod's posts.
This is your ego speaking, as this is not-ironically a spiderweb of unfounded claims and kettle logic.
Asserting where I work is ridiculous
I haven't used any obscure technical jargon, and any non-basic words I've used are within the scope of this topic and follow their plain dictionary definitions.
I've reiterated my points (before you even posted) with basic level clarification in parenthesis.
Name-calling isn't going to get you anywhere.
With these points in mind I can reliably say that I'm not being ridiculously technical or archaic with my language, and quite frankly for a debate about game design on a strategy forum I'm being perfectly acceptable; if you can't handle it don't participate. With all due respect your entire post can be summed up to "I don't like you and I don't like having to look up words, how dare you hurt my ego, so I'm going to shout a bunch of things that have no thought behind them".
This is a debate not a classroom; it's perfectly reasonable to ask me what a particular phrase means if you don't understand it, and equally as not reasonable for you to blame me for your gaps in understanding.
On a Starcraft forum no less. Do not let your ego guide you away from reason.
On May 03 2013 18:47 aZealot wrote: The wet dream (sadly, only partly in jest) of miles of siege tank lines just may not belong in SC2. Time to get over it.
@ Demi: You come off as a condescending prat, mate. You may or may not know what you are talking about, and you may or may not have a point. But, nothing you've tried to say indicates it is worthwhile bothering to wade through your babble.
Naturally, in a discussion where two people try to explain to the other why one is wrong, it might look that way. The same can be said for others, however I assure you that I have no ill-intentions.
Furthermore in debate this is called a resignation; there's a reason you were arguing before, and suddenly can't for the life of you manage to further any of your points because I'm just so mean. Because naturally when someone is right they suddenly stop asserting themselves when faced with "meanness", and the fact that this happens to coincide with when all of your points were countered is purely coincidental I assume.
On May 04 2013 16:07 Sissors wrote: Quite frankly I think Demigod works for a company that produces 'high-end' audio cables (for audiophiles). Since his tactics look quite similar to what they use: They try to burrow you under jargon, trying to make you feel stupid, since if they use so many jargon they surely know alot about it, right? But then in the end you realize they are pretty much trying to burrow you under words with little meaning behind them.
Convention is absolutely right, if you cannot explain your arguments to others they are fairly useless in a discussion. Being explain to others* what you do is one of the most important skills to have in any scientific field, if you aren't just trolling you are clearly lacking that skill.
* Yes that includes others who aren't at your 'level' on the relevant subject.
Btw I am a fan of positional play, just not of Demigod's posts.
This might be pedantic, but since we're focusing on language and clarity, the word you're looking for is bury, not burrow. Burrow implies self-induced or self-made like a gopher making his burrow (bur-row), while bury (bare-ree) is a very deliberate action onto another, like burying the dead body.
I've been following this discussion with a lot of interest now (I seem to have found a bit of a masochistic streak), but you must honestly admit that this small semantic oversight is probably merely Starcraft-related and says absolutely nothing about the poster's argument.
Yep that was just my English not being perfect, and probably due to using English quite a bit SC2 related I used the wrong word. @Cloak, I corrected it now, thanks for pointing that out, a mistake I probably won't make again . But as dejavue said, I don't think it really matters for the argument.
I figured English wasn't your main language, so I was just taking the opportunity to teach. Only language I can write is this one, so you're already leagues ahead of me in that regard. Yep, had nothing to do with the argument. Jargon is basically another tool for understanding. It's shorthand for already prelaid or often used concepts. The layman will associate jargon use with expertise, and the jargon user can exploit that authority to gain an edge. I don't think DemigodCelph is intentionally coming off that way. I just don't like undefined value judgement like "healthy" and "proper" from the first post [These were further explained in the other two], especially for something that can be explained in simple mathematical terms. I guess it could mean longevity? Complexity? Solvability? Enjoyability? Watchability? Penetrance into a market?
He is making a valuable point regarding positioning though. Positioning is ideally the substrate of RTS. The complexity and elegance of those position interactions pay off very handsomely
Though my point goes a bit deeper than that thank you for being reasonable. I appreciate it.
On May 05 2013 05:02 Grumbels wrote: I've always thought about that puzzle that it has a very interesting character. Some endgame puzzles are merely technical exercises, but the wonderful thing about chess has always been the potential for each position to be, as they say, 'its own universe'. And honestly, the most interesting chess games are uniquely worthwhile by themselves as objects of study, you could be happy with just one chess match for your entire life and you wouldn't be selling yourself short. I don't think Starcraft can ever approach that level, the game is so mechanical and fast paced, and as such I'm not sure it even needs to try and aim for this. I mean, how often do people go back to rewatch their favorite Starcraft 2 games for another reason than nostalgia?
It's true that in a game like Chess, where the entire focus is one unit's movement, you're going to be allotted more attention to it. It also has to do with the nature of Starcraft units don't have weird L shaped patterns or can only attack diagonally (although air and ground could be equivalent to black and white tiles). I guess I should revise my statement that positioning is everything in an RTS, because resource management is definitely far more complex than Chess (1 move per turn). Positioning is everything for a layman spectator, but seasoned watchers can appreciate both, but even then, seasoned players love the spectacles. Then, actually playing the game, resource management and positioning can go either way. I personally like playing the resource management of RTS more, so games like Rise of Nations appeal to me with empire building. But I'm sure a bunch of others would argue just the opposite.
Edit: And that's probably why severe material deficit + amazing position can only go so far in Starcraft, since you don't want to invalidate half the playing experience. The closest we got are base snipes and really lopsided chokes/Forcefields.
Hahaha! Demi! You crack me up! I didn't think you were mean. Just a good laugh. I'll take it as confirmed then that you aren't able to make a clear point about anything. And leave it at that. Poor Demi. Keep at it, bud. You'll get there one day.
On May 05 2013 06:04 aZealot wrote: Just a good laugh. I'll take it as confirmed then that you aren't able to make a clear point about anything. And leave it at that. Poor Demi. Keep at it, bud. You'll get there one day.
Reiterated points with clarification in parenthesis during abstract parts:
If you don't have anything to contribute other than acting like a child in pain because you can't accept that you were wrong then kindly leave the discussion.
This thread is a cesspool with no balance discussion happening at all...
Zerg is gonna say Widow Mines op, Terrans gonna shout no because they like the power of the unit. Terrans gonna say Oracles op, Protoss gonna shout no because they like the power of the unit.
On May 05 2013 06:45 Sissors wrote: Tbh ignore the troll is a better advice.
I think we can all agree that his posts are objectively useless and therefore proved to be worth ignoring.
After that long sidetrack, back to the purpose of this thread. I have been wondering recently if the oracle buff will be enough to make them viable outside of an all-in or late game army tracking (i.e., viable as an actual harass unit). What are everyone's thoughts on that? Also, would mutas be put on a clock if the vision range of the infestor/mutas were played with? That is most likely way too large of a change, but it seems like the major issue with using infestors against mutas, is the mutas can see the infestor/fungal and retreat before it could possibly hit.
On May 05 2013 06:45 Sissors wrote: Tbh ignore the troll is a better advice.
I think we can all agree that his posts are objectively useless and therefore proved to be worth ignoring.
Unfortunately logic doesn't work that way. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that such a poorly thought-out childish tactic like the one above isn't going to do it as a last ditch effort to avoid reality.
I do agree we could use a change of discussion though.
On May 04 2013 11:05 badname wrote: I was just wondering what people would think of the following.
widow mine - cost changed from 75/25 to 125/25 - supply reduced from 2 to 1 - damage changed from 125+35 vs shields 40 splash, to 80 and 25 splash - rearm time changed from 40 to 15 seconds.
Effectively you are trading damage output for faster rate of fire and trading an increase of 50 minerals for 1 less supply.
With reduced damage and increased cost that initial shot is a lot weaker which is bad as often mines are used in such a way that they only live long enough for one shot.
On the flip side retention of mines becomes a lot more powerful there by keeping the mines overall previous strength if not making it even better assuming the terran has the increased skills/micro ability to exploit this fact.
Overall this is intended as an increase in the skill needed rather then a straight nerf.
This is actually quite interesting. I think this trade-off of power would encourage more interesting battles, but it's not exactly necessary as the mine in it's current state is generally regarded as fine.
On May 05 2013 06:45 Sissors wrote: Tbh ignore the troll is a better advice.
I think we can all agree that his posts are objectively useless and therefore proved to be worth ignoring.
Unfortunately logic doesn't work that way. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that such a poorly thought-out childish tactic like the one above isn't going to do it as last ditch effort to avoid reality. Oh how deeply deeply hurt you must be to trample your own dignity this way.
I do agree we could use a change of discussion though.
You're not using logic. You're replacing logic with mindless jargon that you
A.) Don't know the definition to B.) Have apparently made up your own personal definitions to that everybody else is just supposed to magically know and C.) Couldn't explain even if you tried
This is readily apparent to any outside observer of this conversation (i.e. me), and the sneering superiority complex that accompanies your posts certainly doesn't help things
Demi I'm quite articulate, and patient as hell at reading long posts, but your recent posts are horrible jargon-fuelled intellectual wankery. It doesnt enable good discussions to form from the interesting ideas you have laid out because it is painful to read.
@Rabiator, I agree with much of what you say but I don't really get your motivation. SC2 has been out for a good while now, if such wholesale changes were to even be countenanced by Blizzard I would eat my own shoes. Do you dislike SC2 as it is now, or simply think it can be a lot better than its current design allows for?
On May 05 2013 13:07 Wombat_NI wrote: @Rabiator, I agree with much of what you say but I don't really get your motivation. SC2 has been out for a good while now, if such wholesale changes were to even be countenanced by Blizzard I would eat my own shoes. Do you dislike SC2 as it is now, or simply think it can be a lot better than its current design allows for?
1. General game design
The way I see it is that SC2 is favoring OFFENSIVE far too much. This makes the game pretty fast due to the ability to concentrate firepower and harrass rather easily (especially with the HotS additions). Ultimately this results in two things for players: a. You are required to have super awareness and reaction to be able to counter harrassment, which is fine at a pro level but not realistic for a low tier level. b. You are experiencing "build order losses", because something you didnt prepare for comes into your base and completely annihilates your economy. This is the case in lower levels of skill where people simply lose to a few Reapers inside their base or an Oracle or a flock of Mutalisks ... + Show Spoiler +
Simply saying "l2p" is stupidly ignorant, because suffering those losses is not fun and demoralizes the new player. So the game needs to become "simpler" (with fewer gimmicks) at the start while keeping the complexity at the end. People have whined about Gateway and warping into your base directly and Reapers and Baneling bust and Forcefield and and and ... I kinda understand them and the huge economy is at the core of this IMO.
The game could be much better IMO if the "army dps" was reduced to BW levels by lowering the unit density (unit selection limit and forced unit spreading). This wouldnt change the games at pro levels much, because you can still micro your units a lot but at a lower level your units would not die as instant as they do now; example: now you have to actually see the Banelings rolling into your Marines and then jump there and split them all within a second or less. A reduction of army dps would also make it harder to kill the more expensive units and this is a good thing.
Additionally I believe the players should be given the choice of whether they want to clump up their units (and risk losing more stuff from AoE attacks) or stay safe and keep them spread out. This isnt possible with the current unit selection and movement mechanics AND AoE damage design. AoE has been nerfed to accomodate the tight unit movement and that is bad overall. More choice is better and I feel this is one area where players should be able to show their skill.
2. Balancing the game
The super high army damage and "critical numbers of units" is making balancing the game harder than it should be. My usual "Marines vs Stalkers" example should be familiar by now to show the shifting of power with rising numbers. This makes precision very very important for the balance ... you have to get it perfectly right. Basically the balancing shifts the "critical number" for each unit and I think a game without or with only a few units able to achieve critical numbers would be better.
Another example is the Infestor. Why did it become OP? Because players started to build 25+ of them and could use them in a tight clump to spew out 70+ Infested Terrans easily while still having enough energy to instantly Fungal a whole lot of stuff as well. If the units were spread out more and the economy reduced so you would not be able to macro up such an amount easily the unit would be acceptable in its original form without the need to nerf the spells much. "A handful" (2-3) of Infestors can run out of energy, but a huge clump can not and Fungal is very very powerful as an irresistible crowd control spell.
The point is simply: Slower is easier to control and needs less balancing! Ultimately this will also put more emphasis on the player skill and not the power of the units.
3. Game design
IMO the offensive focused nature of SC2's design changes the game from being a STRATEGY game into an ACTION game instead. This is a bad thing for people like me who rather like "slow and methodical" compared to "fast". Slowing the game down by reducing the army density&dps would allow for Terran mech positional play again. Ultimately I would not want people from NOT being able to play a "moving army style" as it is now but rather allowing for an additional style to become viable for the slow-minded people like me.
A big part of the huge number of units on the battlefield is the economy and I think that focus should be deemphasized. Players should not be required to learn to drop MULEs or do larva injects or spend Chronoboosts.
Additionally I think the asymmetric production speed boosts - on top of the asymmetric unit production style of the races - is too much and bad design, because Terrans are already "burdened" with needing the most production buildings in the game already and then they are limited in what they can boost in production.
On May 05 2013 06:45 Sissors wrote: Tbh ignore the troll is a better advice.
I think we can all agree that his posts are objectively useless and therefore proved to be worth ignoring.
Unfortunately logic doesn't work that way. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that such a poorly thought-out childish tactic like the one above isn't going to do it as last ditch effort to avoid reality. Oh how deeply deeply hurt you must be to trample your own dignity this way.
I do agree we could use a change of discussion though.
You're not using logic.
Everything I've said has been backed my sheer logic, but you're free to post something that you think isn't and show me why.
On May 05 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:A.) Don't know the definition to
False. All words I've used are by their standard dictionary definitions.
On May 05 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:B.) Have apparently made up your own personal definitions to that everybody else is just supposed to magically know
False. All words I've used are by their standard dictionary definitions.
On May 05 2013 12:08 RampancyTW wrote:C.) Couldn't explain even if you tried
You're going to have to try harder.
On May 05 2013 13:07 Wombat_NI wrote: It doesnt enable good discussions to form from the interesting ideas you have laid out because it is painful to read.
This, on the other-hand, is reasonable criticism. As it stands I've already expanded on and clarified abstract concepts with basic level writing, but what exactly do you not understand (that hasn't been clarified in parenthesis)? Can you list these?
I'm open to criticism, and some points may be verbose, but it doesn't excuse a few select posters in here from being wrong about the topic nor does it excuse them from coming up with a reasonable rebuttal especially when I've been accommodating. Cloak seemed to have no issues understanding the writing.
My first post so sorry ahead incase some of it being extremely stupid lol. My opinion for balance changes is for the protoss race. * First I think protoss ground units ( except for probes ) should be able to receive a slight speed bonus if they are in range of a Pylons energy field. My primary thought about this is based on the premise that the Zerg(More Motified then made) and Protoss were both made by the xel'naga. Zerg get a speed bonus while on creep It would seem logical that Protoss would receive a similar passive ability as well. Just a slight speed bonus nothing crazy, would help with base defense with medevac boosters and mutas. Just a thought * Second It would be nice if the carriers could replenish their interceptors for free instead of paying for them. Zerg players do not have to pay to shoot broodlings or hatch locus. Terran also doesn't have to pay per widow mine shot. Just a thought, would be nice to see more carriers in games however I would think a lot of players do not build them because of having to rebuilding their interceptors over and over again wastes to much minerals. If these seems to be to extreme of changes please lower the amount of minerals cost per interceptor. * Finally bring back the amulet of the high Templar and make the upgrade give the unit a increased max energy instead of adding so much when it is builded. Just a few suggestions, I'm trying to make protoss a OP race I just would like to not see anything else taken away from the race like so many other upgrades have when they could have been modified instead. Also if there is a more official way I could communicate these ideas to blizzard directly please someone let me know. Please I do not want to make this into a WTF he's trying to unbalance the game I just believe considering these changes might make the game more balanced in the end. Thank You for your time.!!!
On May 05 2013 13:07 Wombat_NI wrote: Demi I'm quite articulate, and patient as hell at reading long posts, but your recent posts are horrible jargon-fuelled intellectual wankery. It doesnt enable good discussions to form from the interesting ideas you have laid out because it is painful to read.
@Rabiator, I agree with much of what you say but I don't really get your motivation. SC2 has been out for a good while now, if such wholesale changes were to even be countenanced by Blizzard I would eat my own shoes. Do you dislike SC2 as it is now, or simply think it can be a lot better than its current design allows for?
It says something about Demi's posts that someone is more willing to read Rabiator's posts..
No offence to either, but I've started to skip the posts of both recently. Which isn't to say that the discussion should not happen, but I might not be the only one who comes to this thread looking for different content.
On May 05 2013 19:29 jacson1253 wrote: My first post so sorry ahead incase some of it being extremely stupid lol. My opinion for balance changes is for the protoss race. * First I think protoss ground units ( except for probes ) should be able to receive a slight speed bonus if they are in range of a Pylons energy field. My primary thought about this is based on the premise that the Zerg(More Motified then made) and Protoss were both made by the xel'naga. Zerg get a speed bonus while on creep It would seem logical that Protoss would receive a similar passive ability as well. Just a slight speed bonus nothing crazy, would help with base defense with medevac boosters and mutas. Just a thought * Second It would be nice if the carriers could replenish their interceptors for free instead of paying for them. Zerg players do not have to pay to shoot broodlings or hatch locus. Terran also doesn't have to pay per widow mine shot. Just a thought, would be nice to see more carriers in games however I would think a lot of players do not build them because of having to rebuilding their interceptors over and over again wastes to much minerals. If these seems to be to extreme of changes please lower the amount of minerals cost per interceptor. * Finally bring back the amulet of the high Templar and make the upgrade give the unit a increased max energy instead of adding so much when it is builded. Just a few suggestions, I'm trying to make protoss a OP race I just would like to not see anything else taken away from the race like so many other upgrades have when they could have been modified instead. Also if there is a more official way I could communicate these ideas to blizzard directly please someone let me know. Please I do not want to make this into a WTF he's trying to unbalance the game I just believe considering these changes might make the game more balanced in the end. Thank You for your time.!!!
Welcome to TL, also go sign in at the TL ten commandments thread.
As for your ideas, they are quite out there. But I'll respond briefly:
1) Speed boost in pylon range: this will mainly add two features. a) Faster drop defense. It will be easier for P to move units within their base and evacuate probes which makes it harder for T to drop. b) It will force P to think about simcity more carefully and might open interesting timings with pylon/warp prism highways. All in all, not the biggest of impacts but a very interesting idea should terran drops be found to be strong. I'm hesitant to recommend it currently only because the meta is all about P allinns - midagame drops - lategame deathball. And the advantage of terran is really in being able to drop. If you weaken that, it might lead to imbalance. But I'm still open to reconsidering in the future when the game is more mature.
2) I think the minerals are very inconsequential and there are other reasons why carriers are not built (*cough* build time *cough*). So might as well.
I don't think this is something that should return to the game as P already has great mobility on today's gigantic maps, and also giving their casters superior mobility is just asking for trouble. It's also not as interesting for spectating compared to baby-sitting HT and moving them around with a warp prism. There is nearly no risk to warping in a HT and casting storm, as opposed to keeping the warp prism safe while a ton of gas heavy units are in it.
On May 05 2013 06:45 Sissors wrote: Tbh ignore the troll is a better advice.
I think we can all agree that his posts are objectively useless and therefore proved to be worth ignoring.
After that long sidetrack, back to the purpose of this thread. I have been wondering recently if the oracle buff will be enough to make them viable outside of an all-in or late game army tracking (i.e., viable as an actual harass unit). What are everyone's thoughts on that? Also, would mutas be put on a clock if the vision range of the infestor/mutas were played with? That is most likely way too large of a change, but it seems like the major issue with using infestors against mutas, is the mutas can see the infestor/fungal and retreat before it could possibly hit.
On May 05 2013 06:45 Sissors wrote: Tbh ignore the troll is a better advice.
I think we can all agree that his posts are objectively useless and therefore proved to be worth ignoring.
After that long sidetrack, back to the purpose of this thread. I have been wondering recently if the oracle buff will be enough to make them viable outside of an all-in or late game army tracking (i.e., viable as an actual harass unit). What are everyone's thoughts on that? Also, would mutas be put on a clock if the vision range of the infestor/mutas were played with? That is most likely way too large of a change, but it seems like the major issue with using infestors against mutas, is the mutas can see the infestor/fungal and retreat before it could possibly hit.
About the oracle: If you think about it, it is in a kind of stupid place right now. It is not a support caster at all. It fills exactly the same role as the phoenix. It is fast, can destroy light units with a spell and gets shut down hard by static defense. After the static defense is in place, the oracle can be used to scout for army movement or grand detection. But you don't need more then maybe one or two of them for that job.
The central problem is, that the oracle has no synergy with the phoenix. These units do not work together at all. You either build a few of one or the other.
Now imagine they had a nice synergy. You would build a oracle for detection early and then add phoenix. Then you go and harass with both of them together. After the harass gets shut down you still have a oracle as detection and as scout, and phoenix to hunt down drops or mutas. To achieve that synergy, the oracle needs to be changed quite radically. It should have an attack that works together with the phoenix lift, and maybe it should be able to recharge energy of other units somehow. If the changes to the oracle are done right, stargate openings will be less of a coin-flip an more stable. The Damage potential of early all ins would be lower, while the units build retain a bigger usefulness in the rest of the game.
I am afraid blizz will never make such drastic changes after release.
EPT
. But as dejavue said, I don't think it really matters for the argument.
