EPTI play SC2 a lot and am comfortable with every aspect of the game. However, this game is getting to the point of being unplayable to newcomers. There's so much you have to memorize/study for even basic 1v1 competitive gaming that it's extremely frustrating and daunting for those trying to get acquainted with all the units, spells, counters, timings, and map exploits. The mental checklists that run through my head every match is incredibly long, and I can only imagine what a new player feels like.
SC2 is heading in the wrong direction - Page 35
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
whoopadeedoo
United States427 Posts
I play SC2 a lot and am comfortable with every aspect of the game. However, this game is getting to the point of being unplayable to newcomers. There's so much you have to memorize/study for even basic 1v1 competitive gaming that it's extremely frustrating and daunting for those trying to get acquainted with all the units, spells, counters, timings, and map exploits. The mental checklists that run through my head every match is incredibly long, and I can only imagine what a new player feels like. | ||
|
DTX180
10 Posts
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's. | ||
|
Whiplash
United States2929 Posts
| ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On October 28 2011 07:54 whoopadeedoo wrote: I made a similar thread (granted with fewer words) but it got closed. I also feel like SC2 is moving away from melee/range unit positioning and control and more towards spellcasting, gimmicks, and timing/combo exploitation. I play SC2 a lot and am comfortable with every aspect of the game. However, this game is getting to the point of being unplayable to newcomers. There's so much you have to memorize/study for even basic 1v1 competitive gaming that it's extremely frustrating and daunting for those trying to get acquainted with all the units, spells, counters, timings, and map exploits. The mental checklists that run through my head every match is incredibly long, and I can only imagine what a new player feels like. No it's really not that complex at all. How many RTS have you played before? Stuff like Rise of Nations, now that has stupid amounts of pointless complexity. | ||
|
ZorBa.G
Australia279 Posts
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities. SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's. Wow, thats very interesting now you have pointed that out. I'm just thinking, if the damage system was modified in a way that actually made fights somewhat slower then just seeing 1 army roll over the other within a few seconds..... Say for example we seen projectile come from tanks at a slower rate just enough so you had a chance to weave your units around the splash. Or when infestors fungal, somehow when you see that green projectile come you have some amount of chance to stim your marines and marauders out of the way, may infestorrs could be made that they could attack from a certain range instead if going pretty much right next to your army. This might actually welcome more spellcasters into SC2 more smoothly. I dunno, it's just a thought process I just went through. Does that ^^^^ sound stupid or not? | ||
|
GentleDrill
United Kingdom672 Posts
On October 27 2011 16:40 DTX180 wrote: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_types Im not sure where you are getting that a dragoon would do 10 (+10), when units that did directly transfer from BW to SC2 did not see decreases in damage to compensate. Look at marines. Marines in SC1 had 6 base damage. What do they have in SC2?? Look at Dark Templar. Or Mutas. Obviously a unit like the hydra has changed, but thats because of the role blizzard changed the hydra into. The new damage system is also why I feel Carriers sucked. Edit: and Siege Tanks having smart fire and a faster fire rate is a major reason why their damage is lowered a ton. On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities. SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's. Your conclusion is correct (SC2 battles are faster), but your reasoning is mind-bogglingly wrong. Please explain it because I can't figure out how you can think these things. There is no practical difference between a system where you award bonuses or penalties if the final numbers are the same. 10 damage that is increased to 20 against certain units is identical to 20 damage that is decreased to 10 against not-those-units. That is a fact. The only real differences in the systems are that SC2 doesn't have a "Medium" unit equivalent (so no middle-ground, losing some granularity), and has potential for more specific bonuses than BW (you can have attacks do bonus damage to Biological or Psionic or Mechanical units, not just Armoured and Light). That leaves the actual numbers. If the numbers were overall higher you'd have a case (though it would have nothing to do with the damage system itself), but so far you're arguing that units that transferred from BW do the same amount of damage. Thus things do more damage and the battles are faster??? Huh? Why would they need a decreases in damage like you say? Marines don't get a damage bonus against anything! Nor do DTs or Mutas. Meanwhile Stalkers, the Dragoon analogue, do strictly less damage (same to small/non-armoured but 14 vs armoured compared to 20 vs large). Tanks also do less damage (50 vs 70). There are high DPS units like the Marauder and Collosus... but they do high DPS because their numbers are high, not because of some sorcery in the damage system. You also say that the damage system affects Carriers when Carriers do neither reduced damage to anything in BW nor bonus damage to anything in SC2. What??? Additionally, Protoss shields in BW always took full damage regardless of unit size or damage type. In SC2, the opposite is true: the shield has the same armour type as the unit, so it doesn't always receive the full potential damage (an Archon takes 10 damage from a Marauder shot for 350 whole HP, in BW an equivalent attack would always deal 20 damage). Please explain your thought process. Cite some specific examples. Because you're frying my brain at the moment. What you're saying just makes no sense. | ||
|
taintmachine
United States431 Posts
On October 28 2011 13:21 ZorBa.G wrote: Wow, thats very interesting now you have pointed that out. I'm just thinking, if the damage system was modified in a way that actually made fights somewhat slower then just seeing 1 army roll over the other within a few seconds..... Say for example we seen projectile come from tanks at a slower rate just enough so you had a chance to weave your units around the splash. Or when infestors fungal, somehow when you see that green projectile come you have some amount of chance to stim your marines and marauders out of the way, may infestorrs could be made that they could attack from a certain range instead if going pretty much right next to your army. This might actually welcome more spellcasters into SC2 more smoothly. I dunno, it's just a thought process I just went through. Does that ^^^^ sound stupid or not? i don't like the slow projectile thing or anything like that. i think making the spells less effective is a good idea. the emp nerf is a step in the right direction. just watched a game today that seemed to end just because emps went all over the toss army in a matter of 1 second. toss would have probably lost that game anyway, but it was so abrupt and ridiculous looking that it didn't look like a real battle. in the beta, the nerfed storm in a similar way to emp - they reduced its aoe a good bit. FG got buffed but got nerfed again. it will be good if blizzard keeps modifying/nerfing aoes, probably minus the siege tank and including the colossus, and balancing the game around less effective splash. i, along with others, have been saying that for a while, though, with the addition of wanting some units (marines) to be less cost effective once splash is sufficiently nerfed. i think this sort of focus would lead to a slower game for sure. | ||
|
SnowK
United States245 Posts
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities. SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's. Why don't we play on Fast instead of Faster? Is there a reason we play on that setting besides the fact that it's the highest setting? If Fast makes it too easy to do everything, then by all means, but the game speeds have always been something arbitrary to me. If they had designed SC1 to be played on Fastest, and then they added slower settings (for performance or other reasons), then I suppose my reasoning is flawed, but if you want more decisions and time to react, the game time is one way to approach that without having to affect balance. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
| ||
|
lyAsakura
United States1414 Posts
On October 28 2011 13:44 SnowK wrote: Why don't we play on Fast instead of Faster? Is there a reason we play on that setting besides the fact that it's the highest setting? If Fast makes it too easy to do everything, then by all means, but the game speeds have always been something arbitrary to me. If they had designed SC1 to be played on Fastest, and then they added slower settings (for performance or other reasons), then I suppose my reasoning is flawed, but if you want more decisions and time to react, the game time is one way to approach that without having to affect balance. Slowing the game down does not decrease the pace at which units die, which is the problem. Making the game easier does not make it better. | ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
| ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities. SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's. It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion. 10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored). In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc. | ||
|
taintmachine
United States431 Posts
On October 28 2011 13:52 Supamang wrote: I think the way splash works and how armies ball up in SC2 is the real cause of why battles take less time. You mismicro your marines for a second, you could lose all of them to banelings. You mismicro your banelings for a second, you could lose them all to a couple siege tank shots. And so on and so on. I really dont like how easily armies ball up when it comes to big battles. Thats pretty much one of the few gripes i have about SC2's system it's not even that they ball up. pros don't talk about this anymore it seems and i haven't seen blizzard interviewed about splash specifically at blizzcon, but the game is clearly designed around splash in GvG engagements and that is the underlying problem for "deathballs" and units balling up and making splash so effective. marine balls destroy almost everything for cost in the absence of splash. marines can die ridiculously fast to splash, though. that's where the balance lies, but people don't like the balls of units and good pathing. well, guess what? people also say it is good for spectators if the units die in clumps and die in explosions, because it's exciting. i think sometimes it is and sometimes it's just boring and anti-climatic to see a long game end b/c the splash units caused enough damage to justify their cost 4 times over. it's also boring to see a short game end b/c a set of units is more cost efficient than another race's because that other race needed its splash to stand a chance. the scary thing about the tempest is blizzard is still heading that way with their unit design. they decided mutas are problematic, so they create a splash unit that MUST be super cost effective vs. them or they won't be worth the investment. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
for instance: Tempests being such a strong air ship will provide protoss reasons to go stargate vs zerg, which will give protoss map control (as it does now) allowing them to expand to a faster third allowing them to start fighting zergs with larger armies as they want to instead of always being stuck on low base count. Oracles allow a REAL defenders advantage in PvP, phasing out pylons to prevent reinforcements is really a powerful powerful thing when alot of PvPs result in a big battle removing all hope of a comeback because of warpgate reinforcement. Replicators allow protoss to use observers to gain the abilities of other races and to rapidly adapt to compositions the opponent has. don't think of it as blizzard balancing protoss by the ability to copy units, think of it as blizzard giving protoss much needed flexibility. after all getting 1 ghost to EMP their ghosts before they EMP you (when you don't go for templar and just feedback them instead) is pretty damn powerful and allows multiple ways to build against ghost tech instead of having only one tree have a counter. Nexus recall allows protoss to be more spread out and expand more, something they have yet to do in most games (though the Double forge PvT tends to expand fast), as well as being able to turn buildings into weak cannons can facilitate fast expand strategies that look to keep up with zerg and out expand terran. Protoss should look to what every new advantage protoss is gettign points to, expansion, instead of what they wish they had. | ||
|
SnowK
United States245 Posts
On October 28 2011 13:50 lyAsakura wrote: Slowing the game down does not decrease the pace at which units die, which is the problem. Making the game easier does not make it better. Relative to real time, yes it does, and that's what I gathered was part of the complaints - shit is dead before you can react. Slowing game time down reduces the perception of units dying really quickly, as well as increasing the time to react and giving more time to micro. You can slow game time down to the point where a unit survives 8s real time under fire, or you can change the damage and health values until it survives 8s real time under fire. Both methods result in the same perception and ultimately real time lifetime value. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
burrowed banelings > removes ovie/bane drop vs gate unit/collo balls micro battles in pvz, having burrowed banes in the late game just makes ff's useless so z's wont need to upg drop anymore right now the burrowed banes move insanely fast while burrowed which makes it OP as shit. i think there actually faster then burrowed speed roaches. this can be easily tweaked tho by decreasing the movement speed while burrowed. as long as toss actually makes an obs i dont see how moving burrowed banelings under the toss army will even be possible IF there slow enough. also drops in general are still good so zerg wont stop reserching it just because of banes. especially since burrowed movement for banelings is a hive tech upgrade. arc shield> removes any sort of threat of muta harass or dropplay(pvz and tvp), being able to defend drops/muta harass with ur units was a skill which tested ur multitasking abilities, now with arc shield their just making the game much easier to play for p users no it doesnt... arch shield does 20 dmg to light, 5 dmg to everything else. so units like roaches and marauders will only be tickled by arc shield. not only that but upgrades such as crackings or +2 armor mutas will make arch shield negligable. they basically have the same dmg as a regular cannon to light units only. it will not affect drop play at all. however in its current state arch shield is pretty stupid cuz u can build a assmilator in someones base and make like half there mineral fields useless to mine from. however its something that can be tweaked which is why ppl should just wait for beta... i wont go too in depth but i can name off various changes in which blizzard has made just for the sake of making the game easier to play(another one that comes to mind is the ingame timer, having good game sense/timing was an important skillset in sc1), they need to stop adding useless spellcasters to the game and focus more on adding game mechanics that promote micro engagements, game sense, multitasking etc.(or at the very least prevent from removing them lol) blizz is dead set on making the game easy to learn but hard to master. dustin himself said he doesnt want the game to be overly complicated. this was obvious from day 1 of the WOL beta where D- players from BW instantly became diamond in SC2. the game will always be easier and the game will NEVER be like BW. if u dont like the direction SC2 is going then take dustins words and go play BW. its a great game still. SC2 is completly diffrent from SC1 and they are trying there hardest for it NOT to be like SC1. | ||
|
TurboMaN
Germany925 Posts
My guess is that most Pros will ask them to heavily change the announced changes and or to remove certain units. In my opinion Blizzard has announced to many game changing units and changes in HotS. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On a serious note, can we stop pretending like StarCraft II and StarCraft: Brood War are synonymous for like 12 seconds? | ||
|
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On October 28 2011 20:38 Chargelot wrote: I agree with TT1, that fucking in-game timer has ruined E-Sports. You're supposed to sense when it's 46:37, not know. It rewards a billion years of experience and the ability to track time 20% faster than your brain has been trained to. On a serious note, can we stop pretending like StarCraft II and StarCraft: Brood War are synonymous for like 12 seconds? That is such a minor complaint that I can't even believe it. When people didn't have the clock, they were using other indicators of time, i.e how much gas that had been mined, or where they were in the builds based on build orders, also it wasn't even that hard to "have your brain track time 20% faster"... | ||
|
Skullsc2
Estonia18 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
| ||
