On September 05 2013 11:06 Schism wrote: The BW idea is so stupid it makes my head hurt. Want to instantly have most of the SC2 player base walk away? Re-instate a BW style control scheme.
You have a huge majority of players in SC2 used to using 1, maybe 2 control groups, and using somewhere from zero micro to a little bit of micro. Then all of a sudden you ask them to individually click on temps to storm, and to move across the map or engage an enemy go from 1a to 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a... ? Come on. You'd lose everyone below diamond to MOBA games in the blink of an eye.
One solution is to add 4 or 5 units to each race in LOTV. It would require constant balance tweaks probably for at least a couple of years, but at least the builds would be all over the place. New builds and strats would be hitting the scene all the time.
Also, the maps suck. Every map is the same. Ramped main. Easy access, easily defended natural. reasonably easy 3rd. Every single map is like this. Where are the island maps? Where are the open main maps? Where are the maps with no easy expansions?
90% of the games i've seen lately go like this: both players mass expand with little or no aggression for up to 15 minutes. Then a few little battles with small armies because both players have most of their supply locked up in workers. Someone makes a mistake. GG. The game doesn't allow for play from 1 base behind. Rinse and repeat.
SC2 is not popular because it has easy controls, it's easy controls makes it more popular than it would have been with harder controls, but the essence of SC2 does not come from controls.
Much like BW did not fail outside Korea because of difficult controls. It was less popular than it could have been due to the controls, but the essence of BW does not come from the controls.
SC2 is popular because it is a strategy game that is difficult to master but easy enough to give the illusion that you can mimic what you see pros do. This shrinks the overall viewer base because, for the most part, people who LOVE watching SC2 are people who want to be the best they can be in SC2.
League of Legends is popular because it has a forgiving interface and pacing system that allows bad players to legitimately stay in the game no matter how good the opponents are. This grows the player base because people who watch LoL are people who play LoL both passively and actively.
Think about it this way, because turrets prevents cheese, all LoL games last at least 20-30 minutes and usually 45-60. At worse, you can always run back to the Turret for at least the first 10 or so levels of gameplay. Once the turrets die everything snowballs and you will lose in less than ten minutes, but it will take about 10 minutes to get to that point.
In SC2, a bad player who dies to stalker poke will die at the 3 minute mark. In SC2, the worse you are at the game the easier you die to the "dumbest" of things without fallback. In order to stop dying in SC2 you need to literally be on your toes and never skipping a beat, ever. It requires a different type of mindset to enjoy. It's what gives the illusion that all it takes is 1 engagement to end the game. But this is only true in lower levels of play. In all matchups in the GSL we constantly see games go back and forth with battles happening all over the map, one player winning and then the other. But in order to do that you need to be *good enough* to do it. Most players are not Parting, most players are not Soulkey, or Innovation, or Keen. Most players don't have the macro, the micro, the game sense to minimize losses while maximizing production, while tactically striking the opponent.
However, any player no matter what skill level can hug a turret at level 1-5. Any player, no matter how bad, can run away from the enemy heroes and smack minions on the other side of the map.
Programming a champion AI is much easier than programming a Zerg AI. Casuals can have fun smacking the LoL bots much more than casuals have fun smacking the SC2 AI.
Because of that, more people play League that most any other game out there. Because their player base is so huge, they don't need to pull in a large portion of their base to reach 100k viewerships. There's only a few hundred thousand active SC2 players. When a stream reaches 60k-70k viewers, that's almost 1/3 of the player base. Could you imagine if 30% of all LoL players watched a daily tournament? Could you imagine a single stream with 2-3million live viewers? Twitch would die.
On September 05 2013 11:06 Schism wrote: The BW idea is so stupid it makes my head hurt. Want to instantly have most of the SC2 player base walk away? Re-instate a BW style control scheme.
You have a huge majority of players in SC2 used to using 1, maybe 2 control groups, and using somewhere from zero micro to a little bit of micro. Then all of a sudden you ask them to individually click on temps to storm, and to move across the map or engage an enemy go from 1a to 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a... ? Come on. You'd lose everyone below diamond to MOBA games in the blink of an eye.
One solution is to add 4 or 5 units to each race in LOTV. It would require constant balance tweaks probably for at least a couple of years, but at least the builds would be all over the place. New builds and strats would be hitting the scene all the time.
Also, the maps suck. Every map is the same. Ramped main. Easy access, easily defended natural. reasonably easy 3rd. Every single map is like this. Where are the island maps? Where are the open main maps? Where are the maps with no easy expansions?
90% of the games i've seen lately go like this: both players mass expand with little or no aggression for up to 15 minutes. Then a few little battles with small armies because both players have most of their supply locked up in workers. Someone makes a mistake. GG. The game doesn't allow for play from 1 base behind. Rinse and repeat.
SC2 is not popular because it has easy controls, it's easy controls makes it more popular than it would have been with harder controls, but the essence of SC2 does not come from controls.
Much like BW did not fail outside Korea because of difficult controls. It was less popular than it could have been due to the controls, but the essence of BW does not come from the controls.
SC2 is popular because it is a strategy game that is difficult to master but easy enough to give the illusion that you can mimic what you see pros do. This shrinks the overall viewer base because, for the most part, people who LOVE watching SC2 are people who want to be the best they can be in SC2.
League of Legends is popular because it has a forgiving interface and pacing system that allows bad players to legitimately stay in the game no matter how good the opponents are. This grows the player base because people who watch LoL are people who play LoL both passively and actively.
Think about it this way, because turrets prevents cheese, all LoL games last at least 20-30 minutes and usually 45-60. At worse, you can always run back to the Turret for at least the first 10 or so levels of gameplay. Once the turrets die everything snowballs and you will lose in less than ten minutes, but it will take about 10 minutes to get to that point.
In SC2, a bad player who dies to stalker poke will die at the 3 minute mark. In SC2, the worse you are at the game the easier you die to the "dumbest" of things without fallback. In order to stop dying in SC2 you need to literally be on your toes and never skipping a beat, ever. It requires a different type of mindset to enjoy. It's what gives the illusion that all it takes is 1 engagement to end the game. But this is only true in lower levels of play. In all matchups in the GSL we constantly see games go back and forth with battles happening all over the map, one player winning and then the other. But in order to do that you need to be *good enough* to do it. Most players are not Parting, most players are not Soulkey, or Innovation, or Keen. Most players don't have the macro, the micro, the game sense to minimize losses while maximizing production, while tactically striking the opponent.
However, any player no matter what skill level can hug a turret at level 1-5. Any player, no matter how bad, can run away from the enemy heroes and smack minions on the other side of the map.
Programming a champion AI is much easier than programming a Zerg AI. Casuals can have fun smacking the LoL bots much more than casuals have fun smacking the SC2 AI.
Because of that, more people play League that most any other game out there. Because their player base is so huge, they don't need to pull in a large portion of their base to reach 100k viewerships. There's only a few hundred thousand active SC2 players. When a stream reaches 60k-70k viewers, that's almost 1/3 of the player base. Could you imagine if 30% of all LoL players watched a daily tournament? Could you imagine a single stream with 2-3million live viewers? Twitch would die.
I don't have much to add, just wanted to say how well-written this post was. I agree, especially with the bolded part.
And he is also almost completely missing the point that was made. Sure there is more to it than the control group size, that is a bit beyond obvious. However if you now add stupid limits to selection you will overnight lose a large part of your player base, which means soon after you also lose a large part of your viewer base.
Basically his logic is broken: He says that SC2 isn't popular because of easy controls, But thats also not what Schism said, he said that SC2 wouldn't be popular anymore if you add stupid arbitrary restrictions in selection size. That's something quite different.
Also, the maps suck. Every map is the same. Ramped main. Easy access, easily defended natural. reasonably easy 3rd. Every single map is like this. Where are the island maps? Where are the open main maps? Where are the maps with no easy expansions?
I agree, but it also will never ever happen. Look at TL when new map pool is announced. The majority of the players instant-veto any map that looks to have a bit different third base, let alone actually different maps. For example Korhal Floating Island, immediatly pretty much every terran on TL auto-vetod it because on the alternative spans you couldn't wall-off your main. They didn't even bother trying to play the map. If they did they might have noticed you could wall-off your main.
On September 05 2013 15:22 Sissors wrote: And he is also almost completely missing the point that was made. Sure there is more to it than the control group size, that is a bit beyond obvious. However if you now add stupid limits to selection you will overnight lose a large part of your player base, which means soon after you also lose a large part of your viewer base.
Basically his logic is broken: He says that SC2 isn't popular because of easy controls, But thats also not what Schism said, he said that SC2 wouldn't be popular anymore if you add stupid arbitrary restrictions in selection size. That's something quite different.
I was referring almost entirely to the LOL-SC2 comparison on accessibility, and the part i bolded. Didn't read much of the prior argument.
A major issue with faster ending battles compared to BW stems from the damage scaling system. In BW damage was scaled down and units received penalties depending on damage type vs unit size. In SC2 all units receive bonuses vs armor types and damage scales upward.
In BW, a "normal" paced battle was something along the lines of dragoons vs unsieged tanks. Take those same dragoons and pair them against zerglings and you have a slow paced battle with the dragoons kiting lings while the zerg tries to get a good surround.
The only time you had armies being wiped out in the blink of an eye was against splash damage units and you could still micro your units to avoid most of the damage. (hydra storm dodge, marines micro vs lurker, goon focus fire or pull back vs siege).
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
Certainly some other tweaks are needed to balance the game with reduced damage but It certainly can be done. Honestly I think 50% reduction is too drastic 60-65% would be better. But at least this video shows clearly that if we want longer battles dps must be reduced.
That wasn’t fully working mod it was just an experiment to show how SC2 would look like with less dps.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
This looks great, fuckton entertaining (some credits go to husky obviously), and without "terrible damage syndrome" game looks far more strategic and understandable. It needs more exposure and maybe people will like it.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
I have thought of that too. But high income is another disputable thing of SC2. At one time of this game one player dropped 19 mules.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
Protoss units have half the damage. And yeah, PvP or PvRoach fights do last very long. Especially with combat slowers like Forcefield and Blink. With our experience, it's just very clear who will win the combat and we usually call the winner long before the units are actually dead.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 17:33 Zarahtra wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:59 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
Protoss units have half the damage. And yeah, PvP or PvRoach fights do last very long. Especially with combat slowers like Forcefield and Blink. With our experience, it's just very clear who will win the combat and we usually call the winner long before the units are actually dead.
I agree that protoss would need to be looked at, but I'd argue if blizzard was smart they should've done that a long time ago. Protoss relies to much on AoE which makes it an insanely gimmicky race. I however disagree completely that fights last long in PvZ, sure it isn't quite the 1 second fight such as TvP, but it's still rather short imo, normally max length of 2x force fields.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 17:33 Zarahtra wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:59 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
Protoss units have half the damage. And yeah, PvP or PvRoach fights do last very long. Especially with combat slowers like Forcefield and Blink. With our experience, it's just very clear who will win the combat and we usually call the winner long before the units are actually dead.
I seem to fail to understand your point. What exactly are you saying?
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 17:33 Zarahtra wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:59 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
Protoss units have half the damage. And yeah, PvP or PvRoach fights do last very long. Especially with combat slowers like Forcefield and Blink. With our experience, it's just very clear who will win the combat and we usually call the winner long before the units are actually dead.
I agree that protoss would need to be looked at, but I'd argue if blizzard was smart they should've done that a long time ago. Protoss relies to much on AoE which makes it an insanely gimmicky race. I however disagree completely that fights last long in PvZ, sure it isn't quite the 1 second fight such as TvP, but it's still rather short imo, normally max length of 2x force fields.
Protoss relies as much on AoE against Terran/Zerg as Zerg relies on AoE against Terran. Which has the simple reason that MMM is the strongest, and roach/hydra/zergling the second strongest singlefire composition in the game and the only way to beat a singlefire composition that is stronger than your own strongest singlefire composition is to go AoE.
The actual combats last much longer. You just don't have all those small skirmishes and poking before the combats (like in 4M vs ling/bling/muta) as there are usually no interesting position/unit interactions. Apart from Templar vs Viper/Ghost. The actual ling/bling/muta vs 4M or tank/marine vs tank/marine, ling/bling vs ling/bling combats are over in seconds. The excitement comes from everything that is delaying the combat to get an advantage that you can press with the combat.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
It should be quite obvious that you have to re-balance everything to make such a big change possible. An easier solution without this requirement would be to reduce the game-speed to "fast" instead of "faster". Big battles feel quite different with slower game speed.
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
Economic part needs huge overhaul if we are going to cut dps in half. Or the game will quickly reach the stage when supply is always 200/200 and mineral/gas are stockpiling.
Agreed, it's no silver bullet but I definitely saw potential there, even it'd require a lot of changes to make work. I'd personally still like less of a hardcounter system too(so fx. a stalker wouldn't get assraped as bad by a rauder).
On September 05 2013 17:42 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 17:33 Zarahtra wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:59 Big J wrote:
On September 05 2013 16:45 MikeMM wrote: Guys did you see this video? What do you think of cutting damage in half? I actually enjoied this game very much.
Well, that looks nice in a game of glascanons aka TvT... come again when you see a stalker fight a roach Also think about all the balance implications... What about a tankline? Tanks shoot, the units don't die and close in and laugh because the tanks stop shooting at a minimum range. What about banelings? Will they work like that? Granted more of them will reach the enemy units, however, is it worth to use banelings if you need 4 of them to kill a marine? Doesn't that mean that every player will always have lightyears of time to split against them? Similar for mines and spells. Is a storm of any use if it does only 10damage before everybody has run out of it? What about medivacs and queen healing; or mutalisk regeneration? They suddenly outheal everything unless you cut their healing in half as well. What about rushes that include buildings? You are not going to kill a canon or a bunker ever. Or a hatchery block at your natural... Zerg creep? You scan and only kill half of the tumours.
You can't just cut the damage in half for everything, balance completely changes through that. Such games are fun because noone has a clue how to play properly, but they are most likely terribly imbalanced.
I think you are completely missing the point of that video though. Sure you don't have it balanced just by cutting the dmg in half, but with less dmg it allowed for a lot more micro and the battles lasted longer allowing for more decisions to be made. It was quite an interesting experience and while ofcourse it wasn't balanced, I think slowing the dps in this kind of fashion would be good for the game. I'll grant you that banelings would need to be looked at separately(aswell as possibly mines).
we have that, it's called Protoss.
Huh? Protoss fights normally last long? I haven't noticed.
Protoss units have half the damage. And yeah, PvP or PvRoach fights do last very long. Especially with combat slowers like Forcefield and Blink. With our experience, it's just very clear who will win the combat and we usually call the winner long before the units are actually dead.
I seem to fail to understand your point. What exactly are you saying?
A Stalker has less dps vs armored than a Marauder vs light (not to mention armored...), or a single Marine vs everything. A Zealot has less dps than 2 zerglings. A Colossus has roughly as much dps as a single siege tank. A Void Ray has less dps vs armored with Prismatic Alignment activated than two Vikings An Immortal has basically the same dps vs armored that 2hydralisks have vs everything
Protoss units have SHIT dps. They completely rely on having double the health as their equivalents.
EPT
