EPTThe Philosophy of Design: Part 2 - Unit Design - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KULA_u
Switzerland107 Posts
| ||
|
gn0m
Sweden302 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
That's one incarnation of an automation argument: the fear of alienating casual players. I have two examples to sort of illustrate some of the ideas in here. I used to play Warcraft 3 a lot and I was able to convince one of my brothers to also play the game. He actually likes strategy games a lot and often plays Risk and Rome: Total War and such. He did not play on as high a level as I did, playing mostly team games, where he likes getting ultimate unit compositions. I don't think I could have gotten him to play Brood War the same way though. Maybe some big money maps, if that, because Brood War is so much harder than Warcraft 3. My youngest brother tried Warcraft 3 melee gameplay like a couple of times, but he was terrible at it and just stuck to playing DotA. For him even WC3 was too mechanically demanding compared to just the one hero. My second example is that I'm currently playing through the Warcraft 2 campaigns and if you think Brood War was mechanically demanding, try that game. No control groups, awkward hotkeys, no queuing, you can only select 9 units maximum. If you play it at the highest speed and actually bother with expanding, you'll be so busy creating units you will hardly have time to even do scouting or set up attacks. You pretty much need to sacrifice efficient macro, just build way too many barracks, and focus on purely army movement in such cases. I will say that playing this is a little bit tiring, but I actually hardly have any problems with it, even if it's more demanding than Starcraft 2. I think the reason is because I only play the campaigns and I'm not punished for lack of speed: it just makes the missions harder, but I can also always play on slower game speeds if I want to or use cheat codes. Personally, I think that you have to know your audience, and some people are simply not good at multitasking and/or strategic thought. To dilute something too much for the casuals will eventually alienate actual RTS players, who are the people you want to attract. At the same time, not everyone has the ability to acquire mechanical skill and it's a good thing to have a playable game for both casuals and hardcore players. Maybe at TL the focus is purely on the hardcore aspect of it, but you will eventually lose an audience of potential RTS gamers that are just too overwhelmed by the game's difficulty. I honestly think it's a big missed opportunity that Blizzard didn't create more of a casual multiplayer experience. As I said earlier, I don't think requiring mechanical skill is too overwhelming (maybe) if you are simply not punished for the lack of it. Ladder play does exist, and it's pretty nice, but it's still a game mode focused on competitive play, where you will be punished. It's not about fun. I think some people approach RTS games with a certain idea in their head about how they like to play the game and they are mostly concerned about recreating that idea, not about "playing to win". So just an example of what an implementation of this might look like: instead of the silly practice ladder, just divide the ladder into two modes: casual, competitive. Casual is focused on having a slightly slower game speed, lots of available scouting information such as plentiful xel`naga towers, safety against rushes, lots of resources. I think if Blizzard wants to, they could also add autocast options for mules, inject larva, building workers. Add a notification to the warpgate icon for protoss that shows when all your warpgates are off cooldown etc. So keep the game mostly the same (I think having actually different units can be confusing), but change the maps and add some beneficial UI features. All these features would disappear from the competitive ladder, though. I hope what this accomplishes is to separate competitive play and 'fun' play in a meaningful way that does not prevent crossover. The units are the same, the mechanics are also mostly the same, it's just that minerals are sparser, attacks are easier and there's overwhelmingly more mechanical stuff to do. I think that if the game was set up this way you could attract a casual audience that you could sort of 'nurture' and have transition off into watching or playing competitive e-sports - or just stick to casual modes, of course. In my first example, I think my brother that plays DotA would still not go for Starcraft 2 in this incarnation, but my other brother certainly would, so that'll be nice I think. Obviously you can accomplish all of this in the map editor, but it's not as accessible and frankly, the results won't have the quality of when an industry-leading game development company would do the same thing. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
The overall impression is of a sophomoric attempt to sound good. I don't understand the point of belaboring multiple gripes and stacking them up with pictures, hoping it looks like a coherent statement. I have no idea what you intend of not this. Have you studied game design? If so, could you please... talk about game design? I feel bad for all the halfwits who are misled by the pomp. If you haven't... please call your threads something like "my thoughts on some things I don't like about sc2". | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On January 12 2012 20:50 Bagi wrote: This is the same thing I always think of when people complain about abilities that "don't allow micro". There are countless situations in the game where you are using unit comp X against unit comp Y and you cannot micro your way out of it or retreat simply because the other guy has a more mobile army. Also its not like there is no way to avoid these abilities. A part of being a good player is knowing how to deal with these abilities: keeping track of the protoss sentry count and trying to make him waste some, spreading your army against fungals, avoiding engagement with marauders unless its a favorable position. These abilities actually bring a lot of depth to the game, which people are quick to dismiss just because...Brood war didn't have them I guess? What are you even talking about? These things are just RTS fundamentals.. in BW of course you keep track of specific unit counts. Of course you spread units. And yes of course you avoid a non-favourable engagement instead of suiciding into it. The spells don't add any more of that, it's not like you can move in and then retreat without doing yourself heavy damage most of the time. The speed and length of the engagements in SC2 just amplifies this problem and limits the tactical scope. Forcing players to pick a decision which is 100% commited to the attack just makes turtling and deathballs worse. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On January 12 2012 22:02 Big J wrote: what??? you cant go marines because mech is good? WTF??? Seriously, you have to give me something better than that. Just because another strategy would work as well, doesnt mean that we would not see marine strategies more often... seriously... so you have always enough gas for everything in broodwar? Since when? My one base BC/tank of lacks gas. My vultureless Goliath/Tank composition has excess minerals, my only marine 2base attack has excess gas. Builds are made around which ressources you have/interact with when you take ressouces. And some builds are simply not viable due to this, in BW as well as in SC2. The builds in BW and SC2 are composed after the amount of gas. It's not like you would go for those compositions anyways... u can go for double factory with only one base in broodwar, that produce constantly tanks, try it... u can't do that in starcraft 2.. marine in broodwar vs mech is the shit, even with a better pathfinding... i just wondering if you have played brood war marine in sc2 are like god units, i have just finish watching kakiwaki reps, they are good replay, indeed, but it's boring how in EVERY SINGLE REP that i have watched, he always built marines as main force, and this is against every race | ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
On January 12 2012 21:05 Big J wrote: well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2? if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect. Omg it's the metagame, twice, bolded and in capitals!!! | ||
|
gn0m
Sweden302 Posts
On January 12 2012 23:00 blubbdavid wrote: Omg it's the metagame, twice, bolded and in capitals!!! Or as Chill would put it: Sweet post! | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 12 2012 22:52 Garmer wrote: u can go for double factory with only one base in broodwar, that produce constantly tanks, try it... u can't do that in starcraft 2.. marine in broodwar vs mech is the shit, even with a better pathfinding... i just wondering if you have played brood war marine in sc2 are like god units, i have just finish watching kakiwaki reps, they are good replay, indeed, but it's boring how in EVERY SINGLE REP that i have watched, he always built marines as main force, and this is against every race Tanks in BW =/= tanks in SC2 Dragoons =/= stalkers Zealots =/= Zealots so comparing how many of how many bases you can go doesnt make sense. (not even to mention that "a base" means something different in SC2 and BW) especially as I haven't said anything about double fac tanks in BW, my argument remains and not answering to it and instead telling me stuff about things I never even mentioned just makes you look stupid. and you know that I wasn't talking about going mass marine vs mech. That is obvisouly dumb. In BW as well as in SC2 (that's why people add marauders when they see mech in TvT, or they go marine/tank against marine tank, or they go pure mech themselves to begin with) I was saying that mass marines doesn't coexist with mech as a viable TvX strategy in BW. also should I add that it is boring how all BW-Terrans use tanks all the time in TvX? (apparently there are some which don't in TvZ, just like there are marineless players in TvZ and TvT in SC2) Well I'm not, because I don't think it is boring. Neither do I think that mass marines is boring. Or mass ling, roach, hydra, zealot, dragoon, mutalisk, goliath, vulture... | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
The macro on the highest speed in Warcraft 2 is hard but that's the only feature of the game that makes it difficult. Still, I would play War2 over sc2 (in its current state) any day because when I play sc2 I feel like there is nothing to click on... | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
On January 12 2012 21:05 Big J wrote: well, maybe because the METAGAME of SC2 allows for far better economy? maybe in broodwar a mineral heavy METAGAME would have developed, if mass marines would have been actually controlable as well as in SC2? if you go for a ~1-1.5 workers per mineral patch + maximum gas saturation in SC2, your composition will look completly different. (something that zergs are sometimes doing in SC2 with bases that only mine gas etc...) Also saying that "the ratio is perfect" is just such an ignorant statement. Perfect for what? Perfect for the broodwar compositions YOU like! In no other way perfect. METAGAME | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On January 12 2012 23:17 Big J wrote: Tanks in BW =/= tanks in SC2 Dragoons =/= stalkers Zealots =/= Zealots so comparing how many of how many bases you can go doesnt make sense. (not even to mention that "a base" means something different in SC2 and BW) especially as I haven't said anything about double fac tanks in BW, my argument remains and not answering to it and instead telling me stuff about things I never even mentioned just makes you look stupid. and you know that I wasn't talking about going mass marine vs mech. That is obvisouly dumb. In BW as well as in SC2 (that's why people add marauders when they see mech in TvT, or they go marine/tank against marine tank, or they go pure mech themselves to begin with) I was saying that mass marines doesn't coexist with mech as a viable TvX strategy in BW. also should I add that it is boring how all BW-Terrans use tanks all the time in TvX? (apparently there are some which don't in TvZ, just like there are marineless players in TvZ and TvT in SC2) Well I'm not, because I don't think it is boring. Neither do I think that mass marines is boring. Or mass ling, roach, hydra, zealot, dragoon, mutalisk, goliath, vulture... I don't understand what the point of your post is, what your opinion is based on.. no single unit massed is boring simply just because.. what? BW hydra bust games where Z built solely hydra's were boring if we want a comparison to boring SC2 compositions just to show it's not universally SC2 problem, and sometimes certain rare goliath only builds were boring imo too. It's just lucky these were not the standard plays. BW tanks how would you even compare... what a poor example to bring up. It's pretty obvious why you could consider tanks interesting in each matchup and not mass marines/bio, that's perfectly reasonable view to have. It's not that it's a single unit it's how it's used. Aggressive muta builds are very entertaining (and fun to play) and viable in every matchup in BW. But if you could do the same with hydra's it would definitely not be interesting. | ||
|
gn0m
Sweden302 Posts
On January 12 2012 22:20 Grumbels wrote: I keep thinking more and more the biggest problem with so many of these issues is Blizzard wanting to have the game playable for bronze/silver level players. There is, as mentioned, an industry trend towards more automation so that the game actually becomes pure strategy, no execution involved, so even if you can barely play the game, you can still have some semblance of the experience the game is meant to provide. In Starcraft's case it is about alien races on harsh worlds going to battle - I think the fear is a new player is going to start, say, Brood War multiplayer and simply become overwhelmed by the high execution requirements and become frustrated at his inability to produce said armies. That's one incarnation of an automation argument: the fear of alienating casual players. I have two examples to sort of illustrate some of the ideas in here. [.....] I think there is a lot of truth in your post, Blizzard is actively thinking about low level casuals when designing SC2, both in terms of playability (easiness) and balance. This is a major problem in my opinion, even though I can see the reasons for doing so. I don’t think that it is a problem if some players are horrendous relative to professional players; they can still have a great time with a game, even though their games play out in a very different way compared to professional games. There is also one thing to keep in mind; the game is equally hard for all players. That means that even though BW is ridiculously hard, or maybe because BW is so hard, there will be tons of equally bad players. On the other hand of the spectrum, the “streamlined design” of SC2 creates major constraints for the extremely talented gamers. With the approach that more stuff happens automatically, there are less ways for a better player to utilize his APM to dramatically affect the outcome of a battle. Blizzard needs to find a balance where there is a way to perform basic tasks without extensive use of micro/skill in order to appeal to casuals, and at the same time give professional players enough room to fully get rewarded for their skill. At this stage, I think the balance is skewed towards making SC2 accessible to everyone which hinders the complexity and ultimately the lifespan of the game. In conclusion, I think that the professional scene could appreciate a boost in micro ability while it wouldn’t affect casual players that much as they still would face players of a similar skill level. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On January 12 2012 20:19 Garmer wrote: you can't deny that in sc2 the minerals are far more high than broodwar, and in game i have always more minerals than gas, that is due to the tree mechanic(chrono, queen larva and especially mule) i know, but is still bad in broodwar, mineral/gas ratio is perfect, and therefore it's possible to produce more late tech units, instead on making always rines(all tvx now are about this units, really boring to watch) yep, now imagine playing zerg in that scenario, as zerg is the most gas intensive race. It's two first gas units use gas on 2:1 and 3:1 ratios, and it gets worse from there. Most protoss units are around 2:1-3:1 and they're much stronger, requiring 1.5:1 or higher in zerg army to compete in late game. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On January 12 2012 20:36 Gummy wrote: Forcing detection is a key issue that a lot of SC2 players don't appreciate the beauty of. 3hatch lurker-based PvZ, which is basically standard, relies on the fragility of protoss detection that allows Zerg to stay alive long enough for its economy to kick in. Whether the zerg can keep observers at bay is what determines the outcome of the game in these situations. Zone control: 2 tanks behind a wall-in was "absolute defense" for an expansion in TvP. With repair, those two siege tanks could almost always hold a position until reinforcements arrived. Ground-based expansion sniping was essentially impossible in PvT (while Carrier play focused around it). This point is a bit overstated though, imo, since Protoss never really had a unit that could exert zone control in any of its matchups (no the reaver doesn't count since it was only ever used in static defense in PvZ behind cannons or with a shuttle). In the PvT matchup, with proper positioning, tanks trumped everything on the ground. The metagame evolved around this paradigm, with Protoss expanding offensively so as to force base trades where Terran always wanted to force an engagement. Also, the argument that roaches roaches are anti-micro is applicable to dragoons in BW. They're just a beefy all-around good unit to have that work best in reasonable numbers with a-move (with minor adjustments for position). Also, hydras in SC2 are much tankier (relative to the aoe they are matched up against) than their SC2 counterparts (bw storms 1shotted hydras). They're just slow and roaches are so much tankier. NO. I;d rather be one shotted by storm and have colossus removed. colossus absolutely KILLS hydralisks. Hydras lost their ground speed from brood war, remained the same HP, and hained 2 points of damage, while around them the game inreased in damage all around, particularly AoE from the A move colossus. not to mention smartfire tanks. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
It's fun, rewarding with the difficult aspects and i think making it too easy in every aspect is going a bit far, do pc gamers really need it changed that much? Not saying the reaver should be in SC2, i don't think it should infact, but an example like that is a unit that is fun for all to use isn't it, even for a very low level player. I guess there is no equivlent now. But if there's more simple macro why not have multiple units with that kind of potential. I would have thought it's more fun than completely removing it. Oh and HotS is really worrying in this regard. I thought Blizzard said they thought of fun things then balanced them. Well why do most of them look the total opposite. Every P unit for a start, what's going on with that? Freezing minerals will never be a fun thing to do or watch or any of the other things they do, they are just negative abilities that don't create anything interesting. And the Tempest is a big a-move ship to counter one unit apparently. Swarm host, that looks very worthless in any tactile feedback for the player, the shredder as well. Both to me again look not fun. Warhound again the same. The transforming hellions i guess are neutral and the viper the only possibly fun unit. Others might disagree about them i guess, but you have to admit they seem uninspiring to control or watch; i made a blog post with some alternative ideas that i felt would be fun to control and improve gameplay. Is it that hard to think of anything fun for P? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 12 2012 23:49 infinity2k9 wrote: I don't understand what the point of your post is, what your opinion is based on.. no single unit massed is boring simply just because.. what? BW hydra bust games where Z built solely hydra's were boring if we want a comparison to boring SC2 compositions just to show it's not universally SC2 problem, and sometimes certain rare goliath only builds were boring imo too. It's just lucky these were not the standard plays. BW tanks how would you even compare... what a poor example to bring up. It's pretty obvious why you could consider tanks interesting in each matchup and not mass marines/bio, that's perfectly reasonable view to have. It's not that it's a single unit it's how it's used. Aggressive muta builds are very entertaining (and fun to play) and viable in every matchup in BW. But if you could do the same with hydra's it would definitely not be interesting. because the game is (the games are) designed in a way that you lose if you only mass 1unit. So the only ways to use those 1unit compositions in the first place is to outsmart your opponent who goes for a too far spread (combatutilitiwise) composition. It's not "obvious" why monotank is so superultracool-always-the-most-entertaining-thing-to-have composition. True (as I said I don't dislike it), there is a very nice positional aspect, and timingwise aspect in which your vulnurable to them. But I don't get why this should be so bad with other compositions. Example: Mass Marine in TvT MMA-style (from the MMA vs MVP finals): -) pressure your opponent while you expand and get an eco lead -) add Marauders and drop your opponent to keep him busy while you get a bigger eco lead -) transition into bio/mech --> I really don't know why this should be boring. Tons of stuff (rushes, drops, expansions...) going on. another example: mass zergling Stephano style: -) Expand a lot while you only build zerglings -) counterattack and sacrifice expansions while keeping your base count high -) tech to infestors and fast hive --> counterattacks, pressure from the opponent, drops because pure ling isnt that strong of a dropdefense etc going on. Again the monocomposition/gameplan leads to an exciting match! And those are pretty much the most one unit focused compositions in SC2, and they don't lead to "boring" games. Also they are by no means monocompositions for all of the game. I haven't seen the stable monounit composition in neither SC1 or SC2 that the guy was talking about. Ofc there will always be monoplay as well, but even that doesn't mean that the resulting game has to be bad... | ||
|
Zax19
Czech Republic1136 Posts
1) SC2 is a developed e-sport, there are people who make life off SC2 any major game change will influence them greatly 2) If you want to be good at SC2 you need to accept the limitations/imbalances of the game design and improve your play within the boundaries 3) The people who might be able to influence Blizzard are usually progamers/casters so they: ---> Rely on SC2 and don't necessarily want to keep re-learning the game over and over or criticise Blizzard openly, let alone “strike” (point 1) ---> Want to get better and have to overcome bad game design with their play (point 2) Even as I spectator you need to employ point 2 because it's not fun to watch a TvZ and keep b*tching and moaning about bunker rushes, hellions and banshees every time (yes, I do that and it pains me a lot). The issue of what and how needs to be changes stays controversial even among progamers. Since I get to hear him a lot EGiNcontroL is an example of a progamer I have the biggest "how the hell can he think that?" moments when he talks about SC2. That's why I'm very pessimistic about the future of SC2, it feels like the opposite of a well oiled machine and the parts don't fit together at all (yet, it happens to be the most popular competitive RTS I know off). PS: I felt like discussing the specifics of the article is unnecessary when we don’t have the tools to employ any design changes and that’s what I’d like to see discussed among the influential people from the SC2 community. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On January 12 2012 22:18 gn0m wrote: I agree 100 % although the absence of micro is a far more severe problem than micro-reducing abilities in my opinion. I mean, micro-reducing abilities are not that big of a deal if there isn’t much micro potential to begin with. I think you are on to something here gn0m. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 13 2012 00:24 Zax19 wrote: I really liked the comparison to CnC, they seem to think about "fun" first and only later on about the repercussions on competitive gameplay. Supposing we're done with the question "can SC2 be improved?" the main issue for me is the vicious circle which comes from: CnC always had a small competetive scene and balance wasn't too far off as far as I know from playing RA3 myself for some time. | ||
| ||
