|
On October 31 2011 10:45 SolidZeal wrote:
The difference between mind control and replication is very obvious, but how can you say that Mind Control is balanced and replication can not be made balanced? There are many ways to adjust the ability without breaking it's usefulness.
I don't see why you think this unit is so gimmicky in a franchise that has also utilized mind control. It hasn't been used before, but it's not like the ability is really that much of a stretch from previous abilities. It is a concept that has been used to greatly interesting effect in other awesome strategic franchises (specifically I'm thinking of MTG) it can be really cool for starcraft. If you think that the replicant in it's current incarnation wouldn't be used competitively then there is no hope for you. Why would a pro not replicate a ghost unless he thinks the other players caster micro is so much better than his? Even then, at least it would force the other player to try to split his ghosts.
The primary difference between Mind Control and Replication is that the former was a researchable ability (expensive and with long research time) of a niche caster unit that required a fair amount of tech to even get off the ground, and whose other abilities were more useful anyway. While Replicants are built out of a Robo without any additional requirements, don't need any research, and can't do anything else.
Mind Control in BW was a fringe ability of a fringe unit that you almost never saw in real games, except maybe as BM. Replicants are being thrown into the primary Protoss tech path without any additional requirements, and are very clearly expected to be used in some normal situations. One of the first things commented upon in relation to the Replicant was "You can Replicate a Tank and hold 1/1/1!".
When I read shit like that, or "replicate a Ghost and EMP their Ghosts", it just makes me facepalm so hard. It's such a shitty and cheap solution to everything. Protoss units not good enough to fight marine/tank/banshee? Let's allow Protoss to make Terran units instead! And I'm not even talking about the spectator-friendliness of it all. On SotG the most obvious use of the Replicant discussed was Replicating a worker and taking your third with a different race. How in the world will that look to a spectator, Protoss making a CC at their third? It's just retarded, confusing, and probably unbalancable.
Mark my words, it's either not going to make it into Beta, or it does and will get nerfed until it's only used for defending tank all-ins. And thus it will become another gimmick for the gimmick race. Long live Dustin Browder.
|
On October 31 2011 11:05 Toadvine wrote:
The primary difference between Mind Control and Replication is that the former was a researchable ability (expensive and with long research time) of a niche caster unit that required a fair amount of tech to even get off the ground, and whose other abilities were more useful anyway. While Replicants are built out of a Robo without any additional requirements, don't need any research, and can't do anything else.
Mind Control in BW was a fringe ability of a fringe unit that you almost never saw in real games, except maybe as BM. Replicants are being thrown into the primary Protoss tech path without any additional requirements, and are very clearly expected to be used in some normal situations. One of the first things commented upon in relation to the Replicant was "You can Replicate a Tank and hold 1/1/1!".
When I read shit like that, or "replicate a Ghost and EMP their Ghosts", it just makes me facepalm so hard. It's such a shitty and cheap solution to everything. Protoss units not good enough to fight marine/tank/banshee? Let's allow Protoss to make Terran units instead! And I'm not even talking about the spectator-friendliness of it all. On SotG the most obvious use of the Replicant discussed was Replicating a worker and taking your third with a different race. How in the world will that look to a spectator, Protoss making a CC at their third? It's just retarded, confusing, and probably unbalancable.
Mark my words, it's either not going to make it into Beta, or it does and will get nerfed until it's only used for defending tank all-ins. And thus it will become another gimmick for the gimmick race. Long live Dustin Browder.
Thank you for being less condescending with your second post. I mean, obviously we have a difference of perception of the situation. Specifically the replicant as an answer to 1-1-1, you saw a shitty cheap solution, I thought it was rather elegant. Protoss is hard to balance and it's true that is entirely blizzards (and warpgates) fault. but If they gave protoss a strong enough unit to hold off 1-1-1, then it seems to me that protoss all ins would get a lot stronger v.s. terran and zerg. However, the siege tank is a beautifully designed unit and the problem with the 1-1-1 goes away when protoss gets their hands on 1 or 2. I really don't think the 1-1-1 is dead, but it's a lot more confined to a gambit, instead of a consistent path to victory if the map plays it well. but more than a unit that stopped an enormously irritating all in( and i do feel that all in is holding starcraft esports back in entertainment value) the replicant has really interesting interaction with the whole game, in my opinion. I like how caster focused protoss will be because of it and i like that it will hasten protoss tech switches for a higher cost.
You (Tyler) brought up a valid point about the 3rd being another race as a viable strat. That may look bad from a spectators point of view, but that tech switch will be extremely costly, risky and I think it will be reasonably counter able such that it won't be the standard. If that SCV gets sniped it was a huge loss for the protoss. I think suiciding a banshee will be worthwhile if it gets it. Even if it gets built I don't think the terran tech tree will be worth devoting much into beyond getting ghost tech and orbitals. Not to mention the massive timing window that 600/200 in money spent leaves you.
If protoss massing the units of the other races becomes standard, then i agree, the unit should get the axe, but i don't think that will be the case. Time will tell, but i think the replicant is a vital component of the new expansion being balanced.
|
My opinion is a lot similar. Most of the ideas for hots make me uneasy, especially a unit like the replicator. As cool as the idea is, its just so weird to think that its quite possible that protoss is going to be able to make bases with another race (they could in BW as well but it seemed a lot harder to pull off.). Even the swarm lord that seems like its just going to be a unit that you can get at lair that is a weaker brood lord to put pressure on an expansion. I realize a lot of these units haven't been tested yet and they could be great for the game, but I can't help but feel a little disappointed with most things that were announced, especially for Terran.
|
I think if instead of making the replicant high cost, they should make it high food, to encourage people to treat the units they transform into as disposable. This to prevent people from really crafting their 200/200 death balls tailored with units from other races. Of course you can have other ways to balance it too, but I think giving it like 6 supply is a good starting point.
|
On October 31 2011 12:28 Grumbels wrote:
I think if instead of making the replicant high cost, they should make it high food, to encourage people to treat the units they transform into as disposable. This to prevent people from really crafting their 200/200 death balls tailored with units from other races. Of course you can have other ways to balance it too, but I think giving it like 6 supply is a good starting point.
As of the blizzcon build it's 4 which I think is plenty to be honest. This is the kind of thing that will have to be tested. I'm just frustrated with the way they are approaching the expansion with unit design and such.
|
On October 28 2011 13:25 GentleDrill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 16:40 DTX180 wrote:On October 27 2011 16:21 Alzadar wrote:On October 27 2011 15:00 DTX180 wrote:
The way units in SC2 deal damage is why SC2 will never have the insane microing that SC1 had. I dont think i need to explain it to anyone, but SC1's units take a standard amount of damage or have damage mitigated by their armor types. SC2's have units either take a standard amount or take more damage based on armor type. Its not "marauders own stalkers because they survive longer against a stalker", its "marauders own stalkers because they mop them up very quickly"
I guess you could make the argument that SC2 requires more skill because you have to do all the microing at an even faster paced due to how damage is dealt, but even the pros are seeing how difficult it can be to micro this faster damage dealing system. Of course the pros that are dominating SC2 were scrubs compared to the flashes, jaedongs, storks, and bisus of SC1, so maybe we just aren't seeing the godly micro quite yet.
So as of right now SC2 battles are entirely about positioning and the timing of it all.
I also miss the much larger advantages the high ground provided. This isn't really true at all. The damage system in SC2 is basically exactly the same, it's just explained in a much more intuitive fashion that makes it easier to read. A Dragoon in SC2 would do 10 damage, +10 vs Armored. The amount of damage most units do is pretty similar, or even lower. Siege Tanks do much less damage; Colossus obviously have much weaker burst damage than Reavers; Storm does 2/3rds as much damage, etc. http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Damage_typesIm 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. Show nested quote +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.
You bring up some interesting points, but your unit examples are horrid.
1) Ive said this already, saying "siege tanks in sc2 are weaker than sc1!!!!!" as a counter proves nothing. First off, Siege Tanks in SC2 have smartfire. That makes them more powerful by itself. Secondly, Siege tanks also attack faster now. That means they needed to be weaker too. More than just "how much damage something does" goes into damage of RTS units. Attack speed, AoE, etc. I know you probably know this, but you dont seem to take it into account.
2) Stalkers are another horrid example. Saying things like "uh stalkers are weaker than dragoons!!!!" isnt saying anything about how the damage system is coolio. First off, it may seem easy to just compare a stalker and dragoon (the "second" gateway unit in both games, both are 4 legged ranged walker units, etc), but stalkers are so much more mobile its not even funny. Their AI isnt absurdly dumb like dragoons, and a bunch of stalkers with blink allow you to blink the stalkers right into a specific area, bunching up groups of stalkers so they can all shoot at once. Dragoons rarely (if ever) all attacked at once due to crappy AI, and no ability like a blink, etc.
And finally, when i compare damage systems, im not just comparing the damage system in each game to each other. Im comparing the damage systems in each game's individual game engine. Starcraft 1's engine is much different than SC2s...
|
More than anything I'm just surprised to see them making huge games after only a yearish+ of the game developing. Sure SC1 had broodwar expansion, but the game overall developed for such a long time. We aren't going to see that with SC2 if it continues to drastically change every year. New units are really fun, but I think it is more impressive seeing what pro players come up with with what they have already. I have not ever been bored watching an SC2 match.
|
I kind of agree with what TT1 is saying. I think the replicant is a unit that looks somewhat lazy in terms of game design. It's like Blizz acknowledge protoss are lacking in certain areas and rather than create something cool and new they've just given P players the ability to cherry-pick Ts and Zs best units for their own.
I don't want to be too critical given HOTS isn't even in beta yet, but replicants are going to make PvT and PvZ more like mirror matchups, which isn't a great thing, IMO.
|
I agree that the replicant is a terrible unit design, but it does open up some interesting possibilities.
Copies three banelings~
Gets access to move burrow~
Burrows and moves into opponents drones~
Or holding 1-1-1
Or emping ghosts
Or changing unit comp at last second
If its made from robo, making a robo unit that potentially shoots up
If from gateway, making units reinforce faster for higher cost (having immortals reinforce instantly vs mass marauders
|
On November 15 2011 08:42 RobCorso wrote:
I agree that the replicant is a terrible unit design, but it does open up some interesting possibilities.
Copies three banelings~
Gets access to move burrow~
Burrows and moves into opponents drones~
Or holding 1-1-1
Or emping ghosts
Or changing unit comp at last second
If its made from robo, making a robo unit that potentially shoots up
If from gateway, making units reinforce faster for higher cost (having immortals reinforce instantly vs mass marauders
If you have that much extra resources, why wouldn't you just build another robo? All this adaptation argument seems irrelevant. Protoss has the best scouting unit in the game. It's unlikely for protoss to have no idea what's coming save before robo bay comes up, and at that point there's not likely resources that can be wasted on replicants.
|
I would like to hear some ideas from all those people above complaining about the proposed HOTS changes. If SC2 is headed in the wrong direction, what is the right direction ?
There are only so many basic units you can have.. air/ground/melee/ranged everything else is an ability(spell) or a rock/paper/scissors (elemental) unit type... I have not seen any other proposed changes any better than those previewed for HOTS.
The match-ups in WOL are already becoming stale so some changes need to be made. Have a little faith in Blizzard, they have always been innovators in PC gaming and I don't think they will fail on enhancing this game.
The gamers will follow Blizzard (albeit kicking and screaming) because they are still a step above any other RTS gaming company.
|
On November 15 2011 09:44 Rocor wrote:
I would like to hear some ideas from all those people above complaining about the proposed HOTS changes. If SC2 is headed in the wrong direction, what is the right direction ?
There are only so many basic units you can have.. air/ground/melee/ranged everything else is an ability(spell) or a rock/paper/scissors (elemental) unit type... I have not seen any other proposed changes any better than those previewed for HOTS.
The match-ups in WOL are already becoming stale so some changes need to be made. Have a little faith in Blizzard, they have always been innovators in PC gaming and I don't think they will fail on enhancing this game.
The gamers will follow Blizzard (albeit kicking and screaming) because they are still a step above any other RTS gaming company.
things like the tempest, which is just a thor in the sky, didn't work out for terran.
splash upgrade for pheonix would serve better than the tempest.
replicant, oracle are more gimmicky units, which adds more to protoss's dependency on casters.
hard counter stuff is bad direction too. i'd like to see more of bane/marine, vulture/dragoon relationship and not immortal vs roach, marauder vs stalker.
|
i really dont get some of the "its not bw, its starcraft 2!!"
STARCRAFT: BROOD WAR
STARCRAFT
STARCRAFT 2
its the same game, just like episode 1 and episode 2 of a show are the same.
Half life 1 was the same as Half life 2.
The problem we have is that Dustin is from C&C, which fits NOWHERE with starcraft, who thought it would be a good idea to put him in charge?
i dont mean to be rude, and the C&C series are good, but it DOESNT FIT with starcraft.
i give the guy respect for trying to make it work, but its like some shitty relationship, we need to break up, we're just from two different worlds.
|
On October 30 2011 09:44 Hypatio wrote:
The problem is that blizzard lacks fundamental RTS imagination.
There are DOZENS of other ways to have units project damage, provide defensive capabilities, or augment other unit capabilities but blizzard is lacking in this exploration. Most of the new stuff (replicant, oracle, big thor, ultra charge etc.) are just gimmicky one-dimensional nonsense. There are no new units or even new capabilities which have a core utility which can be used in manifold ways to produce creative, multi-dimensional, evolving play. The only possible exception to this is the new dark swarm.
It's crap, and it's disappointing.
I think this is a really good way of explaining it.
Skill ceiling/floor aside, most of the new stuff is very single-purpose.
Compare the Viper's harpoon to Neural Parasite, for instance:
- you can neural any unit, and you get to use all its abilities while removing it from the enemy's army
- you can harpoon any unit, but it remains an enemy unit and you don't get to do anything with it
Fundamentally they're similar spells (in terms of how they're applied at range, the types of units they will target etc) but one is clearly simpler and more direct than the other in how it 'deals damage.' Neural parasite is already childishly simple, so why go farther? One reason *not* to is that it creates a balancing nightmare:
How do you balance the Viper's harpoon? Do you make it cost a lot of energy? Does it cost a lot to research? Does the Viper have extremely low health or move speed to compensate? The tradeoff for having that spell has to either be enormous, or the spell has to be weakened to the point of uselessness (this is the path they're taking with the neural range reduction in a recent patch). Either way the "skill" is taken out of it - you can't compensate for what is simply an overbearing penalty, and you can't make a crappy ability behave like a good ability (when you play *at* the skill ceiling, where things like seeker missiles and carriers aren't seen too often). How can you tell a pro viper harpoon user apart from a newbie who knows enough to drag a colossus into the middle of his army and instantly kill it?
|
A lot of these "if you want sc2 to be broodwar, go play broodwar" comments are seriously silly. Fans of BW esports just want a sequel, not just another generic rts trying to be similar to broodwar. We want the next broodwar. After Starcraft came out, it spawned plenty of Starcraft clones. SC and C&C probably stagnated the rts genre for a bit. SC2 seems like its trying to live up to it, but along with the rest, failing. That is why people are upset. Don't hate on people for wanting an proper sequel to their favorite game. Blizzard dropped the ball completely for ESPORTS. One word erupts flames of fury from the community, lan.
I actually like most of the direction they are taking SC2. More land control units, and honestly it looks like it'll be closer to SCBW in terms of flow. Tell me you can't see the obvious resemblance in a lot of the units warhound/goliath, viper/deflier, swarm host/lurker, shredder/spiderMine,tempest/corsair (minus toss, no idea what they are doing there). Blizzard is actually listening with huge changes such as no low ground to high ground warp ins.
I understand the fundamental game is way different then BW because of ai, pathing, unit groups and all the updates to gameplay. Overall its a much easier and more accessible game for people. If they manage to fit Esports into the equation (which is obviously the afterthought), then its an added bonus. If not, *sigh* oh well. Watching the majestic Flash orchestrate the demise of his opponents never gets old. Sadly watching the GSL has.
|
On November 15 2011 09:56 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 09:44 Rocor wrote:
I would like to hear some ideas from all those people above complaining about the proposed HOTS changes. If SC2 is headed in the wrong direction, what is the right direction ?
There are only so many basic units you can have.. air/ground/melee/ranged everything else is an ability(spell) or a rock/paper/scissors (elemental) unit type... I have not seen any other proposed changes any better than those previewed for HOTS.
The match-ups in WOL are already becoming stale so some changes need to be made. Have a little faith in Blizzard, they have always been innovators in PC gaming and I don't think they will fail on enhancing this game.
The gamers will follow Blizzard (albeit kicking and screaming) because they are still a step above any other RTS gaming company.
things like the tempest, which is just a thor in the sky, didn't work out for terran. splash upgrade for pheonix would serve better than the tempest. replicant, oracle are more gimmicky units, which adds more to protoss's dependency on casters. hard counter stuff is bad direction too. i'd like to see more of bane/marine, vulture/dragoon relationship and not immortal vs roach, marauder vs stalker.
There's only but so many types of units you can add that aren't going to be labeled as gimmicky, boring or unnecessary. The challenge is for Blizzard to walk the line between cool new stuff and game balance and I think it's too early to already say they've failed.
As far as hard countering, I'm not against it in certain situations. I think Blizzard intended mutas to be used for harassment and not to be massed in massive death balls. I don't think a unit designed to shut down play like that is necessarily bad game design, and anyway the tempest looks more like a way to zone mutas out of certain areas, not something that's going to be able to hunt down and destroy every muta on the map.
|
Thor=slow, clunky, easy to magic box
Warhound=goliath is back baby
Tempest=it can fly!
I remember when sentry's seemed like the counter to the unstoppable MUTARRISK
Too bad P and T don't have the true counter to Muta's
THE MIGHTY ROACH
|
On November 15 2011 10:54 decemberscalm wrote:
If they manage to fit Esports into the equation (which is obviously the afterthought), then its an added bonus. If not, *sigh* oh well. Watching the majestic Flash orchestrate the demise of his opponents never gets old. Sadly watching the GSL has.
Well I guess you have to give Blizzard credit then because there's a pretty impressive SC2 e-sports scene given that it was just an "afterthought".
|
On November 15 2011 11:45 MysteryHours wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 10:54 decemberscalm wrote:
If they manage to fit Esports into the equation (which is obviously the afterthought), then its an added bonus. If not, *sigh* oh well. Watching the majestic Flash orchestrate the demise of his opponents never gets old. Sadly watching the GSL has. Well I guess you have to give Blizzard credit then because there's a pretty impressive SC2 e-sports scene given that it was just an "afterthought".
Obviously. Bliz has BW and Warcraft to ride on. Their primary focus is what makes money which is why the game is far more accessible. Look at the maps Blizzard put forth at first. Tiny, bloody maps. They wanted people to be able to finish a match quickly, hence the ladder is meant for the masses, not the pros. Is there a seperate ladder for pros? No? What about LAN which is essential for FPS esports and damn near it for RTS esports. Sure was cool when b.net went down during the finals of a major tourney. Its not hard to see esports wasn't a primary focus, making money was, but hey, that's their job. I don't blame them.
|
On November 15 2011 11:51 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 11:45 MysteryHours wrote:On November 15 2011 10:54 decemberscalm wrote:
If they manage to fit Esports into the equation (which is obviously the afterthought), then its an added bonus. If not, *sigh* oh well. Watching the majestic Flash orchestrate the demise of his opponents never gets old. Sadly watching the GSL has. Well I guess you have to give Blizzard credit then because there's a pretty impressive SC2 e-sports scene given that it was just an "afterthought". Obviously. Bliz has BW and Warcraft to ride on. Their primary focus is what makes money which is why the game is far more accessible. Look at the maps Blizzard put forth at first. Tiny, bloody maps. They wanted people to be able to finish a match quickly, hence the ladder is meant for the masses, not the pros. Is there a seperate ladder for pros? No? What about LAN which is essential for FPS esports and damn near it for RTS esports. Sure was cool when b.net went down during the finals of a major tourney. Its not hard to see esports wasn't a primary focus, making money was, but hey, that's their job. I don't blame them.
The point I was trying to make is that e-sports was obviously more than just an afterthought, especially since the game's success as an e-sport will directly translate into more people purchasing the expansions. The large competitive scene that surrounds SC2 isn't an accident, it's because despite what many say the game is actually very well designed, (reasonably) balanced even at high levels of play and great fun to watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
