|
On January 06 2012 13:56 Thugtronik wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 12:06 0neder wrote:On December 08 2011 11:17 happyness wrote:On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote:
Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW. It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game. The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things: - The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player). - Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc). - The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air... - The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor. - The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change. - Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example... it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again. SC2 =/= BW
also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem.
This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz.
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes.
Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
|
On January 07 2012 18:45 Humanfails wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 13:56 Thugtronik wrote:On January 06 2012 12:06 0neder wrote:On December 08 2011 11:17 happyness wrote:On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote:
Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW. It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game. The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things: - The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player). - Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc). - The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air... - The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor. - The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change. - Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example... it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again. SC2 =/= BW also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem. This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz. Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes. Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are.
I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling.
While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do.
I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
|
I strongly agree with the point made that HoTS has to be relatively balanced before it is used in any tournament...
This would probably take quite a bit of time with the addition of all the units though so I wonder how the pros would adapt.
|
I hope they make the beta period very long for hots to get it right for release... oh and i hope they have more changes than just the units, now would be the time to experiment.
|
I'm not so sure if the pros mentioned this. But why does it seem like every new unit that's coming out is targetted at terran? Almost seems like blizzard is trying to eliminate terran altogether. Hell, even the new terran unit is meant to counter tanks.
|
I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful.
If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging.
|
On January 07 2012 19:06 ixi.genocide wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 18:45 Humanfails wrote:On January 06 2012 13:56 Thugtronik wrote:On January 06 2012 12:06 0neder wrote:On December 08 2011 11:17 happyness wrote:On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote:
Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW. It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game. The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things: - The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player). - Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc). - The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air... - The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor. - The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change. - Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example... it's been said far too many times but i'll say it again. SC2 =/= BW also similar to policy making. There was a vide ofloating around that was anti-SOPA by some proponent of net neutrality who actually went on about policy makers in washington and comparing it to the war on drugs. They 1; cant admit it was a failure, and 2; cant admit all their policies were bad implementations, so they just keep trying to add on more and modify existing ones so it fixed the problem, with the end result being a bloated load of policies that may have some impact but bring more negative than positive solution to the problem. This is the same with dustijn browder, his ego, and blizzard/activision's control over blizz. Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps, they made brood war 2.0. There's nothing stopping the community from making a better game, and voting it better than the current blizz dev team's compilation, and thus proving that they are making an inherently flawed game by working more with the ego of not being wrong than with the ego of wanting to actually correct their mistakes. Such egos are status quo for celebrity figures and policy makers, which the head guys over at ActiBlizz are. I find that to be an interesting take on sc2 development. Because the map editor is so good in sc2 we can create and showcase the game we think is appropriate and point out the flaws in the shipped game. While I have considered this before, you just pointed out something that should be obvious, we don't have to build the game in the editor to come to the conclusion that blizzard is not doing this game justice. While you can take both bw and sc2 at face value and make an appropriate judgement, with the addition of using the map editor we get something almost tangible instead of a feeling. While this is probably not going to matter ever, The simple fact that we can make a better game with less tools using the in game map editor and have it voted by popular consensus (probably) and rated higher in competitive merit means that you can't argue that blizzard is doing the best job they can do. I hope that blizzard rearranges some of the units from WoL in HotS. I would really like to see the hydra at the roach spot and the roach either moved to tier 2 and changed appropriately or removed. Obviously the hydra would have to be tweaked to not be op but still. There are other units that could probably benefit from this change like the observer just requiring 1 of the 3 tech paths, not robo in particular or removing the reaper speed requiring factory etc.
why no one, have changed the bad things about sc2, with the editor? like removing the marauder, colosus and roach, and tweak some other stuff, to see what would happen
|
Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps
This is a surprisingly good point. Anybody can step up and create the game that supposedly everybody wants. Dota is a fan made map, and look where it got to now. Why cant the same happen again?
|
On January 08 2012 06:57 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +Seriously, people can create their own units and their own mechanics with sc2 maps This is a surprisingly good point. Anybody can step up and create the game that supposedly everybody wants. Dota is a fan made map, and look where it got to now. Why cant the same happen again?
Because it turns out game development is freaking hard - at least much more difficult than people seem to believe.
|
On December 08 2011 11:25 LaLuSh wrote:I also meant to talk about warp gate mechanic and its influence. Then also about how the worker saturation mechanics influence battles toward being shorter, because there is less room for "wasteful" attacking in SC2 when mining rates have equalized. The defining factor of a game then becomes battle micro and to some extent your ability to mine slightly more gas and tech to a slightly more useful unit composition without sacrificing too much in the way of minerals. A large part of the prolonged battle dynamics of BW were IMO a result of - A clear defender's advantage
- More imbalanced tech units
- Larger differences in mining rates based on the number of expansions/bases
- No macro mechanics
Of course the better AI plays a huge role as well. Though to me the constricting effect of the mining rate equalization is undeniable. It hampers the fluidity and the sort of dynamics the viewers deem exciting in games. Although I have to end this post by saying that from watching the players who currently are the best of the best, I think they're doing a pretty damn good job of keeping it fluid and dynamic. The absolute best seem to realize how SC2 needs to be played. It requires a shitton of multitasking and that's why most of us are still stuck here whining, but it seems possible from what I've seen the last seasons in GSL and from Stephano. A bit more volatile than BW sure, but still damn entertaining when the absolute best players duke it out.
I really have to agree with this and think about it SC2 is not even 2 years old. I don't know from experience but I don't think that BW as awesome to watch as it is now in the early days. Give it some time and enjoy (and copy) the players who seem to get the game
|
I just have to post this great picture in this thread, because it answers most of the comments in a way 
![[image loading]](http://www.quotepictures.net/wp-content/uploads/The-whole-problem-with-the-world-is-that-fools-and-fanatics.jpg)
|
I can't wait for Hots. The current meta game is horrible fail
|
me too, i have stopped playing, and i'm waiting for HOTS, more positioning units, Yay!
|
On January 08 2012 09:06 Kare wrote:I just have to post this great picture in this thread, because it answers most of the comments in a way
Love the qoute xD
|
On January 06 2012 12:06 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2011 11:17 happyness wrote:On December 08 2011 11:01 LaLuSh wrote:
Honestly don't see any reason to whine or complain about these things. And I used to be the one leading the charge when it came to riling people up against Blizzard. It's impossible to draw conclusions about how HotS will turn out at this point. What's more: people's expectations of how HotS is supposed to somehow "save" SC2 are unrealistic.
I think this pretty much ends the thread. There is no point in theorizing what HotS will be and what SC2 could have been. I'm personally going to put little thought into what HotS will be. Blizzard can worry about that. I for one will enjoy SC2 for what it is. If you like BW better, go enjoy BW. It is a great point, but I don't think it ends the thread. We have every reason to suspect that SC2 will become a good, but not great e-Sport game. The HotS demo and repeated interviews have indicated many things: - The Blizzard design team may have accepted the Colossus as a unit that must remain in the game, in spite of community consensus that it is very boring and creating a mediocre unit dynamic that is holding the spot of what could be a better one. This is evident in that all the new units they proposed for protoss revolved around them having a single concentrated death ball of units including the colossus so there is little split action or excitement a la Hero (luckily Hero understands showmanship and is an explorative player). - Blizzard may be incapable of fundamental changes that could improve the game for spectating and excitement, such as unit spacing to make armies feel bigger, and moving shot micro that may not be possible given the game engine and the programming team's shortcomings (Phoenix moving shot, gross oversights in attack ranges, etc). - The design team is dead-set on preserving certain game dynamics even though it arguably negatively effects other game dynamics to a greater amount. EG Jinro and many in the community want to see more terran mech, but the insistence on strong bio for the sake of Bio being viable in TvT mean that bio is the strongest choice in all TvX matchups and the strongest choice for any player picking up SC2 looking to be the best in the world and win big money. You can't tell me it's impossible for a non-meching Terran to beat factory units given the strength of ghosts and Terran air. The new TvT could very well be Air Mech vs Ground Mech if bio were nerfed. That MVP Top game was pretty damn exciting to me, with ghosts and nothing but mech in the sky and air... - The suggestion that it's unrealistic for us to expect an expansion to 'save SC2' implies it's already failed on some level to live up to it's predecessor. - The Macro mechanics' effect on the game may be negative for SC2 in the long-term for achieving the chaos of contemporary macro BW excitement, but we have no indication that these will ever change. - Blizzard's omission or removal of high-level micro (EG instead of a buff, the Carrier is scrapped for a slow strong AoE air unit with unexciting micro/speed potential) - only one example...
The example you cited about terran mech may be something a lot of players want to see but the 1 hour mech wars with only small positioning changes are the very thing that made people passionately hate TvT in the first place. Mech can be very exciting to use because at any point you could lose your whole army to a single miss-position, however since a great mech player doesnt do mistakes such as that it amounts to a bunch of I move forward you move ack you move forward I move back games that discourage people from watching mech vs mech.
When people talk about HotS not "saving" sc2 they are often referring to the people who think the game is broken expecting some major overhaul when one is not needed.
Also you example of removing high level micro requires a better example than the carrier. The sc2 carrier doenst really have much micro to it and any buff probably would not change that to a major degree. While I am against prejudging a unit I havnt used I expect that any micro I can do with the new capital ship is a step up in terms of sc2 carrier micro.
|
On January 08 2012 20:21 Adreme wrote:
Also you example of removing high level micro requires a better example than the carrier. The sc2 carrier doenst really have much micro to it and any buff probably would not change that to a major degree. While I am against prejudging a unit I havnt used I expect that any micro I can do with the new capital ship is a step up in terms of sc2 carrier micro.
Yes, but defending against muta ask for micro as well as using mutas. The new unit they want to bring in will remove that. So instead of making Carriers a good micro unit they are going to remove other micro from the game.
|
On January 08 2012 20:44 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 20:21 Adreme wrote:
Also you example of removing high level micro requires a better example than the carrier. The sc2 carrier doenst really have much micro to it and any buff probably would not change that to a major degree. While I am against prejudging a unit I havnt used I expect that any micro I can do with the new capital ship is a step up in terms of sc2 carrier micro. Yes, but defending against muta ask for micro as well as using mutas. The new unit they want to bring in will remove that. So instead of making Carriers a good micro unit they are going to remove other micro from the game.
If thats the only defense the protoss uses against mutas i can imagine it being magic boxed away as quick as a thor would be. You still are going to need blink stalkers and high templar with maybe an archon or 2 mixed in to deal with the mass mutas that exist now; its just that now there will be another tool to make mutas more managable. Its really really hard to judge just one of these changes in a bottle not counting any of the other changes which by the way add so many micro elements that it might just be overkill.
|
On January 08 2012 05:57 eNVFroST wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful.
If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging.
Harder scouting would mean even more coinflip situations, and bigger maps combined with more expensive units would just result in more games where all is decided by one huge 5 second fight. No ty.
|
i think blizzard will do a fine job of balancing HOTS, assuming they close off online play for WOL, so they can focusing solely on balancing HOTS. however, it will take a lot of time (about 1 year), just like it did for WOL.
|
On January 09 2012 00:55 joopajoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 05:57 eNVFroST wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I want to see a game that where if you don't scout every aspect of what hes doing you have a very large potential to suddenly lose the game, there needs to be more tells, units need to be better but more expensive.
This might do:
With that change it would balance the armies significantly and buff your ability to micro. It would allow zerg to get some an advantage before 5 bases when terran and protoss have 3. They need to keep the carrier and get rid of the colossus, the carrier brings a great role to the game as an air support unit, if they just nerfed carrier's armor and health and make it very weak but buff the damage it would be very fun to watch voidray carrier play along with a mothership. The thor should not be taken out, but rather made more of a giant metal shield for weak bio units.
How this would make the game more exciting:
It would be more risky to do 3-base mass stalker play, you could not afford nearly as much as can a huge zerg empire of bases would not be an even match at all. Workers would play a better role in the game. Harrassing mineral lines is much more exciting to watch. Air should be nerfed a little bit, the voidray is just a tad bit too good past about 20-30 of them. 15 if they get charged up.
How it would effect the cheese style of play:
Cheesy builds revolve around sitting in your base holed up not allowing scouting. This would make 1-base play after 5 minutes nearly impossible unless a large screw up came from the other player.
PvP - Not nearly as much 1-base play, as your army will be weakened quite a bit and a lot harder to attack the expanding player since a defenders advantage just means that much more in the early game.
ZvZ - No more 1-base roach rush play. Zerglings would multiply the effectiveness and roaches could only really be used in mid-late game ZvZ.
TvT - Don't have much to say as I don't really ever play terran.
Maps should be bigger:
In my opinion the maps are too small to support this change at all. the Mediumish maps should have as many expansions as Tal Darim. Needs a more complicated map, they need a map that isn't 100% symetrical, this makes for much more interesting play. With having a more entangled center part of the map makes different engagements fun to watch. Having 2 bridges, 3 platforms and other non-perfectly symetrical numbers and forms would allow for many more strategic elements in the game and have a higher skill ceiling that increases for more experience on each map.
Scouting should be harder for terran and protoss:
DRAMATICALLY alters the skill ceiling. By having to rely on your knowledge of the game you are FORCED to have to know more about the game. This I believe IdrA tries to express in the fact that zerg scouting is harder but so much less reliable. This makes zerg normally have a skill cap where you can play good, but you can't play flawlessly as nearly much as terran and protoss can because you have to know many tells and other good tricks to get your information and scouting. If terran and protoss had this it would help watching the game to be more interesting.
Diversity in unit compositons:
By making every unit a bit better but more expensive it exaggerates counters and bonus damages, almost forcing better unit compositions against the opponents, which is reflected on harder scouting by each race. For example: Stalkers would be made better against roaches. But zealots are dramatically worse against roaches. So the zerg would need zerglings and infestors to accompany some roaches to take out the zealots with the zerglings to counter the stalkers. The protoss would need to counter the infestors with immortals and if they wanted 1 or 2 carriers for extra damage and having the immortals keep the infestors at bay, that would be much more interesting to watch, and harder for players because it requires a lot more micro. (could also use high templar but I'm ignoring too many spellcasters as that makes the game more like WoW than a solid rts.)
The above example is really weird, probably because it's an example and just a half-done theory.
If you have any issues with my thinking please say so, and how you think the change would be hurtful.
If you like it, add to it.
TL;DR
Units need to be more expensive to make risky 1-base styles of play a lot more challenging. Harder scouting would mean even more coinflip situations, and bigger maps combined with more expensive units would just result in more games where all is decided by one huge 5 second fight. No ty.
I meant harder scouting as in observers be removed. Terran should have scans be double cost. Zerg is fine, zerg already has all coinflip situations in the early game. If observers were removed it would atleast make hallucination be used more, i.e make the game more interesting because no protoss uses hallucination more than 3 times for scouting, but would make some cool things like hallucinating a colossus to get vision of the high ground, some things I've only seen a few times that are sorta brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
