|
On August 11 2013 20:38 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 20:18 vthree wrote:On August 11 2013 19:17 Rabiator wrote:On August 11 2013 18:45 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 11 2013 18:43 Foxxan wrote:On August 11 2013 04:41 RaFox17 wrote:On August 11 2013 04:03 chatuka wrote:On August 11 2013 03:55 Salient wrote:
This is one of the most balanced RTS games ever made, and the races have totally different mechanics. That's a huge accomplishment. People complain way too much. You don't lose ladder games due to imbalance. You lose ladder games because you failed to scout, got supply blocked, tried something risky, messed up your micro, failed to tech switch in response to your opponent's changing composition, etc. This thread is ridiculous. i don't buy your argument. The game has design flaws where many units are unusable due to its stats and its innefficient ability to be productive. The Terran has several units that need a slight buff to its stats. There needs to be more dynamic action where sneak attacks, speed merchants causing havoc, as well as just goliaths at end games that just become a wrecking ball to the opponent. That is not happening, that fault lays directly to David Kim. I mean, i bet I could design the game better than David Kim, and I don't even get paid by Blizzard to do so. If you truly thinks so then go ahead and give us a detailed plan to fix the game. (please don´t make it simply about buffing terran) Why should he do that? To proof it toyou that he could do it? I could also design this game better than what they have done already It's because when you make empty claims like "I could also design this game better than what they have done already" without proof then you sound like an idiot. That's why we asked for substantial comments. Oh come on ... Blizzard made a really pisspoor job when they designed SC2 and they are unwilling to correct the big mistakes. Consequently they have to keep going down their path of absurdly stupid unit design and then force them into the game by making specialized changes. It isnt hard to design an RTS (which SC2 isnt really anymore due to the gigantic importance of economy and production over actual unit placement and control) that is better than SC2. All you have to do is start at BW and then improve on it ... and "improving" includes a kind of quality control where you actually check if anything new actually makes the game better. The classic example for improvements from BW to SC2 is "unlimited unit selection". This is usually thought of as an advancement due to better technology, but I seriously doubt that the technology in 98 was forcing those limitations. They just thought a dozen units was an acceptable number of units to represent with small pictures in the UI. What are the consequences of unlimited unit selection? (listed with + / - to assign them "better" and "worse" judgements) (+) Sure enough you can control your whole army easier, but is 1a really that much easier than 1a2a3a4a ? I dont believe it and thus it only gets a "minor improvement". - The total dps of your closely clumped army increases. This is BAD because it lowers the response time for the defender to "less than a second". This is really one of the reasons why lower level players with longer response time wont have as much fun playing the game: their army will be gone because they were looking elsewhere and took too long to switch back to the action. - Clumped up armies allow for critical numbers to exist. Critical numbers are really bad, because they increase the efficiency of a bunch of units to a pont where they become more efficient than just a few units of that type. Thus the unit has TWO LEVELS OF BALANCE and that is really bad to have in the game because you only balance units for one level. In BW there was critical numbers as well, but they were possible only for flying units (primarily Mutalisks) and they got balanced by the necessary micro and certain hard to use skills (Psi Storm, Irradiate, Plague) which could make it really risky to clump up your units this much. SC2 does not have those corrective measures, because it would counter the desired effect of mass battles; AoE has been nerfed a lot so it doesnt counter the tightly clumped armies which Dustin told us is what we wanted ... Honestly ... its not difficult to design a game that is better than SC2 1. Keep it FUN for players of all levels instead of balancing it around the "trained monkeys" who are playing it professionally. 2. Keep the importance of production and economy LOW to keep the focus of the game on UNITS. 3. Keep STRATEGY in the game and dont replace it by action. 4. Dont automate everthing to keep the players busy. Make them WORK TO WIN and not WIN BECAUSE THE DEFENDER WASNT LOOKING. Defense must be easier than offense! 5. Add in "nifty skills and tricks" to unhinge / circumvent defense but keep those things non-stackable. 6. Keep your EGO out of balance discussions and try to make every unit viable! It isnt you the stupid developer that should "shape the game" but the players instead. Leave the choice to them ... and give them lots of choices. Blizzard really failed in many ways, but the most glaring one is that they made bad choices years and years ago and they are unwilling to correct them even if it becomes clear how bad they are. They are also stuck in their cubicles and never look at the game "from the outside" or with an objective perspective. Lol, you talk about EGO? You who think it is easy to make game game with 3 balanced races with different units where all units are viable? I would really like to see you do that. Come on ... BW is a good place to start and all you have to do is improve A LITTLE and add a new unit or two. The way I would do it would be to have a "fixed number of unit slots" taken from BW (to keep the game nice and simple) and then add "sidegrade units" which you had to choose to replace a unit from the standard set. That way you keep the number of units low, so balancing isnt going to be too much of a hassle (imagine adding another spellcaster to SC2 and then having to nerf the new spells because they synergize too well with the spells from another caster). This system would allow them to add an "infinite" amount of new units, because every new one would be a sidegrade to an old one and would have to replace it if you wanted to use it. With this setting you could have tournaments set in "BW time" or ones set in "SC2 time" or "the future" or you leave the choice to the players and force them to make choices before the game begins and the opponent wouldnt know if you had Reapers to scout or Medics to heal before encountering them in game. The ability to add in new units regularly would keep the game fresh for a much longer time ... which is an advantage games like LoL have over SC2. Additionally you could even have mods where you branch out and play with units from a totally different universe like Warhammer 40k (Terrans get replaced by Orcs with funky ramshackle buildings, Protoss are Eldar and Zerg become chaos or tyranids in one form or another). Obviously lots of the stuff in Starcraft has been "strongly inspired" by the Warhammer 40k universe already ... It isnt rocket science and all you need is some imagination ... In case it wasnt clear from what I said: I wouldnt change the core game mechanics apart from making slight improvements to unit pathing (getting rid of buggy pathing, adding more directions than 8, automine), but everything else (the buildings, the 12 unit selection limit) would stay the same. Destructible terrain is a neat addition too, which mapmakers have put into BW maps for a long time already and giving it a correct outfit wouldnt hurt. The core point of my criticism is ... if you are unwilling to learn from the past (i.e. compare SC2 to BW and honestly look for screw-ups in development) you are inventing the wheel all over again. Just remember to invent it finally and dont get bogged down over the color. ------- Another point where Blizzard screwed up is the fact that they attempt to make the game "faster" by increasing production speed and economy. Well they should have realized that "faster" also means "more unstable balance" and that "slower" is actually easier to balance and easier to play for low skill players. It is only todays kids - you know the type with the attention span of a goldfish (which really is 3 seconds) - which screwms for more action, but Blizzard is big enough to train their own fans to be better ... propaganda really works after all.
The problem is, how many people would have bought SC2 if it was BW with 'a couple new units'. Yes, the BW hard cores would, maybe even most of TL. But the general public? Don't think they would fork over $50 just for a couple units and graphics update. The business model of SC is just different from LoL.
Also, if you think just fixing the unit pathing wouldn't mess with balance assuming no other changes, you are wrong. The maps in BW were made with unit path bug in mind. And you want to add units every couple of months? Look at what. The infestor patch did, it isn't like LoL or DoTa where you can at least ban out champions.
|
On August 12 2013 09:12 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 20:38 Rabiator wrote:On August 11 2013 20:18 vthree wrote:On August 11 2013 19:17 Rabiator wrote:On August 11 2013 18:45 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 11 2013 18:43 Foxxan wrote:On August 11 2013 04:41 RaFox17 wrote:On August 11 2013 04:03 chatuka wrote:On August 11 2013 03:55 Salient wrote:
This is one of the most balanced RTS games ever made, and the races have totally different mechanics. That's a huge accomplishment. People complain way too much. You don't lose ladder games due to imbalance. You lose ladder games because you failed to scout, got supply blocked, tried something risky, messed up your micro, failed to tech switch in response to your opponent's changing composition, etc. This thread is ridiculous. i don't buy your argument. The game has design flaws where many units are unusable due to its stats and its innefficient ability to be productive. The Terran has several units that need a slight buff to its stats. There needs to be more dynamic action where sneak attacks, speed merchants causing havoc, as well as just goliaths at end games that just become a wrecking ball to the opponent. That is not happening, that fault lays directly to David Kim. I mean, i bet I could design the game better than David Kim, and I don't even get paid by Blizzard to do so. If you truly thinks so then go ahead and give us a detailed plan to fix the game. (please don´t make it simply about buffing terran) Why should he do that? To proof it toyou that he could do it? I could also design this game better than what they have done already It's because when you make empty claims like "I could also design this game better than what they have done already" without proof then you sound like an idiot. That's why we asked for substantial comments. Oh come on ... Blizzard made a really pisspoor job when they designed SC2 and they are unwilling to correct the big mistakes. Consequently they have to keep going down their path of absurdly stupid unit design and then force them into the game by making specialized changes. It isnt hard to design an RTS (which SC2 isnt really anymore due to the gigantic importance of economy and production over actual unit placement and control) that is better than SC2. All you have to do is start at BW and then improve on it ... and "improving" includes a kind of quality control where you actually check if anything new actually makes the game better. The classic example for improvements from BW to SC2 is "unlimited unit selection". This is usually thought of as an advancement due to better technology, but I seriously doubt that the technology in 98 was forcing those limitations. They just thought a dozen units was an acceptable number of units to represent with small pictures in the UI. What are the consequences of unlimited unit selection? (listed with + / - to assign them "better" and "worse" judgements) (+) Sure enough you can control your whole army easier, but is 1a really that much easier than 1a2a3a4a ? I dont believe it and thus it only gets a "minor improvement". - The total dps of your closely clumped army increases. This is BAD because it lowers the response time for the defender to "less than a second". This is really one of the reasons why lower level players with longer response time wont have as much fun playing the game: their army will be gone because they were looking elsewhere and took too long to switch back to the action. - Clumped up armies allow for critical numbers to exist. Critical numbers are really bad, because they increase the efficiency of a bunch of units to a pont where they become more efficient than just a few units of that type. Thus the unit has TWO LEVELS OF BALANCE and that is really bad to have in the game because you only balance units for one level. In BW there was critical numbers as well, but they were possible only for flying units (primarily Mutalisks) and they got balanced by the necessary micro and certain hard to use skills (Psi Storm, Irradiate, Plague) which could make it really risky to clump up your units this much. SC2 does not have those corrective measures, because it would counter the desired effect of mass battles; AoE has been nerfed a lot so it doesnt counter the tightly clumped armies which Dustin told us is what we wanted ... Honestly ... its not difficult to design a game that is better than SC2 1. Keep it FUN for players of all levels instead of balancing it around the "trained monkeys" who are playing it professionally. 2. Keep the importance of production and economy LOW to keep the focus of the game on UNITS. 3. Keep STRATEGY in the game and dont replace it by action. 4. Dont automate everthing to keep the players busy. Make them WORK TO WIN and not WIN BECAUSE THE DEFENDER WASNT LOOKING. Defense must be easier than offense! 5. Add in "nifty skills and tricks" to unhinge / circumvent defense but keep those things non-stackable. 6. Keep your EGO out of balance discussions and try to make every unit viable! It isnt you the stupid developer that should "shape the game" but the players instead. Leave the choice to them ... and give them lots of choices. Blizzard really failed in many ways, but the most glaring one is that they made bad choices years and years ago and they are unwilling to correct them even if it becomes clear how bad they are. They are also stuck in their cubicles and never look at the game "from the outside" or with an objective perspective. Lol, you talk about EGO? You who think it is easy to make game game with 3 balanced races with different units where all units are viable? I would really like to see you do that. Come on ... BW is a good place to start and all you have to do is improve A LITTLE and add a new unit or two. The way I would do it would be to have a "fixed number of unit slots" taken from BW (to keep the game nice and simple) and then add "sidegrade units" which you had to choose to replace a unit from the standard set. That way you keep the number of units low, so balancing isnt going to be too much of a hassle (imagine adding another spellcaster to SC2 and then having to nerf the new spells because they synergize too well with the spells from another caster). This system would allow them to add an "infinite" amount of new units, because every new one would be a sidegrade to an old one and would have to replace it if you wanted to use it. With this setting you could have tournaments set in "BW time" or ones set in "SC2 time" or "the future" or you leave the choice to the players and force them to make choices before the game begins and the opponent wouldnt know if you had Reapers to scout or Medics to heal before encountering them in game. The ability to add in new units regularly would keep the game fresh for a much longer time ... which is an advantage games like LoL have over SC2. Additionally you could even have mods where you branch out and play with units from a totally different universe like Warhammer 40k (Terrans get replaced by Orcs with funky ramshackle buildings, Protoss are Eldar and Zerg become chaos or tyranids in one form or another). Obviously lots of the stuff in Starcraft has been "strongly inspired" by the Warhammer 40k universe already ... It isnt rocket science and all you need is some imagination ... In case it wasnt clear from what I said: I wouldnt change the core game mechanics apart from making slight improvements to unit pathing (getting rid of buggy pathing, adding more directions than 8, automine), but everything else (the buildings, the 12 unit selection limit) would stay the same. Destructible terrain is a neat addition too, which mapmakers have put into BW maps for a long time already and giving it a correct outfit wouldnt hurt. The core point of my criticism is ... if you are unwilling to learn from the past (i.e. compare SC2 to BW and honestly look for screw-ups in development) you are inventing the wheel all over again. Just remember to invent it finally and dont get bogged down over the color. ------- Another point where Blizzard screwed up is the fact that they attempt to make the game "faster" by increasing production speed and economy. Well they should have realized that "faster" also means "more unstable balance" and that "slower" is actually easier to balance and easier to play for low skill players. It is only todays kids - you know the type with the attention span of a goldfish (which really is 3 seconds) - which screwms for more action, but Blizzard is big enough to train their own fans to be better ... propaganda really works after all. The problem is, how many people would have bought SC2 if it was BW with 'a couple new units'. Yes, the BW hard cores would, maybe even most of TL. But the general public? Don't think they would fork over $50 just for a couple units and graphics update. The business model of SC is just different from LoL. Also, if you think just fixing the unit pathing wouldn't mess with balance assuming no other changes, you are wrong. The maps in BW were made with unit path bug in mind. And you want to add units every couple of months? Look at what. The infestor patch did, it isn't like LoL or DoTa where you can at least ban out champions.
Well, I think this system could actually work very, very well. Just not with Starcraft if you keep all 3races, the same amount of units (too many for this kind of system) and its gameplay (a lot of sidekick units that are all needed for the one or other situation).
If you design a new RTS game around it, I believe that such a system would be by far the best way to go.
Since this is the balance discussion thread, all of that is pretty derailing.
|
yeah. let's get back to discussing how terran and protoss are much better races than zerg. : )
|
On August 12 2013 10:13 willstertben wrote:
yeah. let's get back to discussing how terran and protoss are much better races than zerg. : )
In before the Jaedong takes his first title. 
|
wow polt is so bad.
but chances are terran is gonna carry him to a victory.
edit: called it. tvz is so imba it's actually hilarious.
i'll go watch TI3. fuck this.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Zerg got decimated this season in WCS. We gotta get a montage going on
|
Polt: the title is "mine".
|
Poor Jaedong. That was some bullshit.
|
On August 12 2013 10:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 10:13 willstertben wrote:
yeah. let's get back to discussing how terran and protoss are much better races than zerg. : ) In before the Jaedong takes his first title.
ummm yea about that. Polt played well but i saw 17 mines traverse the map along with marine/medivac i knew JD would either just flat out die, or it would soak up so much of his time to clear up he would be behind.
|
Yea, I don't think anything has to be said about that. No way JD should have lost 4-0 with how much damage he did in some of those games. MMMM is ridiculous.
But god damn is Polt amazing anyways, not taking anything away from him, even if terran didn't have advantages he would still be one of the best.
|
How about Swarm hosts vs mines , Arnt they quite good vs mines ?
|
On August 12 2013 11:54 Parcelleus wrote:
How about Swarm hosts vs mines , Arnt they quite good vs mines ?
I think boosted medivac drops would completely toy with that strat.
|
So Polt can lose entire mineral lines, multiple times, to baneling runbys, run over baneling mines like 3 times - things that we all agree are really, really bad things for Starcraft players to do in games - and still wins? What were JD's comparably massive mistakes on Neo Planet S that caused him to lose?
How long until we can all agree that widow mines are really fucking stupid units in TvZ? Discussing this on another forum and someone says, completely seriously, "Jaedong lost because he wasted all his banelings on SCVs."
...
..............
I don't want to live in this world anymore.
|
MMMM LoL, waiting for Legacy of the Void the new MMMMM!
|
On August 12 2013 11:54 Parcelleus wrote:
How about Swarm hosts vs mines , Arnt they quite good vs mines ?
Not when Terran also uses, well, other stuff.
|
Once Terran gets all those mines out, it's incredibly hard for Z to win.
It's hard to get to that point with all the mines, and you still need to keep poking, but now Z has to defend drops and worry about mines, both of which require far less attention from T than Z.
No other matchup has such an effective way to capitalize on an advantage. The game is just over once all those mines are out.
|
On August 12 2013 11:57 fdsdfg wrote:
Once Terran gets all those mines out, it's incredibly hard for Z to win.
It's hard to get to that point with all the mines, and you still need to keep poking, but now Z has to defend drops and worry about mines, both of which require far less attention from T than Z.
No other matchup has such an effective way to capitalize on an advantage. The game is just over once all those mines are out.
It's the 3-3 that tips it. Terran can research 3-3 while attacking. Zerg cannot research 3-3 while defending. That's how the race is designed, to have to make hard steers towards either tech or army value. You can't get a Hive and 3-3 while trying to hold off constant bio aggression, so when 3-3 hits, you're screwed.
|
On August 12 2013 11:54 Parcelleus wrote:
How about Swarm hosts vs mines , Arnt they quite good vs mines ?
i guess they r good if we let them stand alone, swarm host cannot be the supporting unit like mine, cause swarm host r pure shitty in small number
|
|
|
On August 12 2013 12:03 halfaspider wrote:
I blame mules
It's a combination of MULEs, mines, Medivacs, Marines, and the ability to get 2-2 and 3-3 on the same level of tech. If just one of those upgrades (or even Adrenal Glands) was made available to Lair tech, I feel like it would be a lot better, but that would kinda break the shit out of ZvP I think.
Maybe if they reduced the prereq on 3-3 to Infestation Pit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
