EPTLook at Flash's games.. he's 75% in the last year overall and except for about 2 games it's all top players, and when he was outplayed in the game. What happens in the actual games was not volatile at all. People don't just get lucky and win a game here or there, it's not even prepared strategies relying on surprise that beat him. His results during his domination period are just totally consistent with the skill shown pretty much. If you are familar enough with both games it'd be dishonest to claim it was even close in this regard, you can just watch any random GSL day and see games roll into wins from advantages easily.
The Philosophy of Design: Part 2 - Unit Design - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Look at Flash's games.. he's 75% in the last year overall and except for about 2 games it's all top players, and when he was outplayed in the game. What happens in the actual games was not volatile at all. People don't just get lucky and win a game here or there, it's not even prepared strategies relying on surprise that beat him. His results during his domination period are just totally consistent with the skill shown pretty much. If you are familar enough with both games it'd be dishonest to claim it was even close in this regard, you can just watch any random GSL day and see games roll into wins from advantages easily. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On January 13 2012 02:16 infinity2k9 wrote: Volatile doesn't mean it's going to jump to everyone 50% winrate, just that games can far more easily go either way. Ret and IdrA both say it in recent interviews. There's still a mechanics gap it's just closer and means less. Look at Flash's games.. he's 75% in the last year overall and except for about 2 games it's all top players, and when he was outplayed in the game. What happens in the actual games was not volatile at all. People don't just get lucky and win a game here or there, it's not even prepared strategies relying on surprise that beat him. His results during his domination period are just totally consistent with the skill shown pretty much. If you are familar enough with both games it'd be dishonest to claim it was even close in this regard, you can just watch any random GSL day and see games roll into wins from advantages easily. just because idra and ret made some staments (which personally I have never heard before) makes them true; It sounds a lot like excuses to explain their failure. There is a reason why Nestea have something like 90% winrate against other zerg and MVP has 75% against other Terran. Nestea must be really lucky in ZvZ Statistically speaking, if games can easily go "either way", you wouldn't have such obvious domination in winrate for players like Nestea, MVP, Nerchio, etc. MVP is boosting 11 champion trophy and 3 silver on some of the most competitive tourneys, and you can always count on him getting at least into round of 4 of any tournament he participate in. Quite far-fetch to have this type of consistency if the game is as volatile as you make it out to be. You should take your own advice, and perhaps offer some evidence with your claim outside of personal anecdote. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
On January 11 2012 03:45 Markwerf wrote: Pff alot of these are just disguised balance whines. First of all you don't seem to know that much about gamedesign I'm realising. Complexity is not the holy grail in game design which your article does make it seem to be. Depth while remaining clarity is important. Chess is a great game because it's complex but still relatively easy to understand and thus strategize for, you don't have to know how to win directly for example by simply focussing on winning pieces allowing for people to plan strategies while not being experts. Go on the other hand is by many players especially in more Western societies deemed as too complex because it's very hard to set intermediar goals for the game because the game is more difficult to set subgoals for. Microless units are needed to create important units, if each unit had many abilities etc it would become too chaotic or complex. The microless units you mention are not poorly designed at all imo in fact many of them have interesting abilities i think. Roach for example may look like a boring vanilla unit but wasn't the hydra in BW as well? Roaches being no AA means there is much more room for air units to play a crucial role in XvZ matchups a great design choice imo. The only poor unit design mentioned in this article here is the colossus, not per se because it's boring in itself but because of the counterunits (viking and corruptor) that there are which invalidate other cool units (battlecruiser and carrier). In the same vein I don't see units that restrict micro as poor either. In the case of the sentry there is plenty that can be done about it for example, flanking, dropping, burrow, fungal, emp, etc.etc. Losing to it is aggrevating perhaps but that doesn't make the design poor, it's just a hidden balance whine.. Stasis and lockdown where liked abilities as well how are stuff like fungal etc different? If truly nothing could be done about these abilities then it might be problematic but there really is plenty you can do, for example marauder kiting can be solved by forcefields so these 'unfun' mechanics can perfectly solve eachother. The point about a slight lack of zone control units I agree with but saying siege tanks don't fulfill that role now is silly. The entire TvZ matchup and TvT matchup revolve for a large part about zone and map control because of the siege tank. Saying this doesn't work properly is just silly, breaking siege lines is still very hard. The problem is just that you seem to be comparing the game to BW too much, yes PvT is not the same and the PvT there is now might not as good the BW variant but that doesn't mean the tank is broken.. they just chose an other path for sc2. All this pretending to be some game design guru while it's just an elaborate balance whine basically is annoying. The conclusion is also just complete bogus. i don't feel t hat's what he's saying at all | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
The post is clearly not a balance discussion but an iteration about how unit design influence the gameplay and it is more a discussion about what gameplay is and what gameplay do we want and consider a good one. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
TvT is probably least volatile matchup so maintaining a winrate of that is probably feasible. And again what does bringing up single matchups prove anyway; it's not going to change the lack of defenders advantage, fast pace of engagements and minor advantages being hard to overcome. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 13 2012 01:06 Big J wrote: everyone could beat Flash one year after the game was out. Bring the same argument when SC2 is as old as BW, so let's say 10years from now?! This is a valid point which is commonly overlooked. After 10 years of nearly continual competitive play, BW is a far more fleshed out game than SC2. What did BW year one of the pro scene look like? Was there any point where the game revolved around 1 base play and expanding was rare? That would be a peice worth reading. Year one of BW as compaired to year one of SC2. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On January 13 2012 02:53 infinity2k9 wrote: Why don't you watch some games instead of bringing up random winrates, any pro stream, any GSL day and you can blatantly see it, fair enough if you want to just deny it pointlessly. Games end up being guessing and mindgames a lot; nothing wrong with mindgames but it can be too much. Nestea's record is of 30 games over a period of over a year; now obviously he's good at the matchup and kept ahead enough to do well with just far superior preparation, but now he loses a series against HayprO in a non GSL format. TvT is probably least volatile matchup so maintaining a winrate of that is probably feasible. And again what does bringing up single matchups prove anyway; it's not going to change the lack of defenders advantage, fast pace of engagements and minor advantages being hard to overcome. one is a measurable quantity and one is not? There is a reason people use numbers in debate and not "I see it with my eyes, so it must be true!". If you're going to argue in your favor, better bring up evidence instead of personal anecdotes... Losing a set to haypro did not magically discredit Nestea's consistency, that's an outrageous claim, and I have no idea where you're going with your first paragraph. For starter, you can try to explain how in this volatile settings can Nestea retain a impressive 90% winrates in ZvZ and 80% winrates in ZvP. If you say "just look at any gsl game" I will ignore every one of your posts to be honest I am not sure why I'm still arguing with you when you make outrageous claims like "minor advantage hard to over come" or "lack of defenders advantage". | ||
|
tztztz
Germany314 Posts
On January 11 2012 03:09 EternaLLegacy wrote: Forcefield is a really interesting mechanic on paper. . i don't think you are honest here. do you really think it's an interesting mechanic on paper? so than tell me, what makes it interesting on paper and why does it not translate to the game? don't get me wrong, it's a very well written article with many good points, but the forcefield topic is near to my heart and i think your take on it is insufficient. i LOOOVE forcefields. its one of the more unique and powerful spells in the game which i think the game should have more of. i think the sentry is a prime example of GOOD unit design, it is the only unit in the game which has not the main purpose to deal or tank damage, it feels so out of place and his main spell feels so op, and thats what every unit should feel like, op. sentries are THE zone controlling unit in the protoss arsenal you claim this game lacks of. forcefields make it hard to attack the protoss base, and because of forcefields, every engagement with the protoss army is crucial and deadly. you have to be patient and choose the right time and right place. i think your analysis misses the biggest drawback of sentries and the very reason sentries work: THEY'RE FREAKING EXPENSIVE! protoss is so gas dependent, especially in the lategame, that making sentries and sacrificing real damage dealing units is a non trivial choice which relies on skill. to make sentries work you have to have the exact right amount of sentries and sentry energy. and this adds to the game, because you have to know when and how many sentries to build, and you also have to protect them. and your opponent knows that. if sentries are involved, the enemy should force forcefields or try to kill them, that's what pros do. that's what sentries are all about: getting and protecting them or trying to snipe them. let me make a bw analogy: imagine your facing a protoss army with so many dark archons and energy, that the protoss mind controls your whole army. there is nothing you chould do, no micro will help you. (btw, maelstrom, another dark archon spell, was as "mirco reducing" as fungal, but noone complained back then, but now people say fungal is so "not starcraft"). you knwo why my analogy is ridiculous? because you should never let your opponent get that many dark archons in the first place. that's the same with sentries and every powerful spell caster in general. it's the task of the player to snipe the sentries or make them waste there energy before the crucial engagement. if you attack a protoss army with 10+ sentries with your 200/200 roach army in a narrow battle field, don't act like there is no way to avoid this scenario. thats what makes a good player, to prevent your enemy from getting the army he wants and the battle field he wants. ok, your point is that forcefields reduce micro and that micro reducing spells should not exist in an RTS. i will dismiss this by just saying i don't agree with your premise that every RTS should have the maximum amount of microbility possible. i think this is up to debate. i think the sacrifice of micro for the strategical depth the sentry adds is more than worth it. and saying forcefields are less fun to watch is just an opinion. i think they're still hard enough to use and not tapped to their fullest potetial (especially in PvT). anyway. i love them <3 ps: sorry for my crappy english | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all. On January 13 2012 03:06 iky43210 wrote: to be honest I am not sure why I'm still arguing with you when you make outrageous claims like "minor advantage hard to over come" or "lack of defenders advantage". Haha right, everyone is mistaken the game is not volatile at all. And there's just as much defenders advantage and comeback potential as before. You must have a pretty limited understanding of either one of the games to have this opinion, or you think volatile implies that every game is a coinflip. People will still outplay people and win the game design has just allowed for potential situations where it's mindgames and split second events which can tilt a game too far one way. I dunno what games you've been watching where this doesn't happen. | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote: No its not valid and not commonly overlooked, people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid. People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt. People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically, in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM. No strategy is out of reach in mechanics, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out. Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all. take your own advice your entire argument boils down to that the skill cap have been reached, which isn't possible by nature of RTS games. Sc2 alone has seen drastic changes in just previous 6 months] and I love how you keep quoting pros out of context, just keep tightening that rose goggles of yours. Who knows what catastrophic event will happen if you see things out of bias. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote: No its not valid and not commonly overlooked, people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid. People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt. People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically, in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM. No strategy is out of reach in mechanics, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out. Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all. I will say all the dumb crap I want and there is very little you can do to stop me(MODs on the other hand can stop me any time, but please don't). The same goes for you and judging by the number of posts you have, you have been doing it for a while now. You offer no proof that SC2 will not evolve over 10 years or even 2 years. Your argument basiclly boils down to "BW is hard and SC2 is for scrubs." No one is saying that SC2 is as mechanically difficult as BW, because it simply is not. We all accept that SC2 is a more accessable game across the board, but that does not mean it cannot evolve and become a deeper game. And I am not asking people to give it 10 years. But I do think the compairing the depth of the game play to a game with 10 years of professional play behind it is unfair at the least. But, hey, if you think it is to easy, good for you. I hear that you can still play BW and enjoy yourself. And you fail to answer my basic question: What did year one of professional BW look like compaired to modern BW? This so something a lot of people who got into SC2 do not know about. Can someone drop the knowlage bomb on us? | ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote: No its not valid and not commonly overlooked, people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid. People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt. People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically, in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM. No strategy is out of reach in mechanics, and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out. Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all. Haha right, everyone is mistaken the game is not volatile at all. And there's just as much defenders advantage and comeback potential as before. You must have a pretty limited understanding of either one of the games to have this opinion, or you think volatile implies that every game is a coinflip. People will still outplay people and win the game design has just allowed for potential situations where it's mindgames and split second events which can tilt a game too far one way. I dunno what games you've been watching where this doesn't happen. I dont know if you have noticed but Sc2 HAS changed quite a bit in the last year. The knowledge gained from brood war is beneficial but it doesnt directly translate into tactical brilliance. Time will always be a factor. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
Unless you want to suggest some theory on a new strategy MVP or someone could possibly do if they got better than now. Maybe mech in TvP right, you seem like you have a level of understanding where you think that would work. Thanks for telling me that the game changed a lot in a year right after release and where it's been repeatedly patched. Very imformative. What next, a theory that the game might change a lot in the next few years too hrm... maybe | ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:33 infinity2k9 wrote: It's not about skill cap how could there even be a literal cap, everything can be micro'd slightly better or refined slightly. Nobodies reached the cap doesn't mean there's going to years of fruitful strategy evolution when the game clearly isn't going to have that. Obviously it's going to be forcibly changed whatever happens and hopefully some additions eventually which allow for that, but the game as it is does not. Unless you want to suggest some theory on a new strategy MVP or someone could possibly do if they got better than now. Maybe mech in TvP right, you seem like you have a level of understanding where you think that would work. did you know reaper medivacs is starting to become more popular in Korea? The fact that whole heavy ghost usage was a very recent event and so is double forge chrono and just warp prism play in general. Heavy hellion usage is also a relatively recent event as well Nydus, queens, raven, pheonix, plenty of things haven't been fully utilized, not that pure unit composition is the only way for there to have improvements. I won't waste anymore time with you, but you're quite naive if you think the game won't look quite different 6 months from now | ||
|
Guamshin
Netherlands295 Posts
And im not talking about positioning, im talking about proper kiting, pulling back weakened units(or those that you see are targeted down) Even at pro level players often don't do this, but this is one thing players can improve on and doesn't need to be changed in the game or something. Maybe the maps just need to be bigger, more open so in deathball situations you can still micro, deathball armies are way too big for most maps. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:33 infinity2k9 wrote: It's not about skill cap how could there even be a literal cap, everything can be micro'd slightly better or refined slightly. Nobodies reached the cap doesn't mean there's going to years of fruitful strategy evolution when the game clearly isn't going to have that. Obviously it's going to be forcibly changed whatever happens and hopefully some additions eventually which allow for that, but the game as it is does not. Here is my main problem with your argument. You provide zero evidence to back up this claim. Your argument amounts you someone pointing at a stream of a profesional SC2 player and shouting "Look at it! Its garbage! Its trash. How can you think people will ever get any better at that crap!?!?!" There is little we can do to counter your argument because you act as if it is the god-given-truth that SC2's skill cap has been reached and there is nothing more to learn. I think there are a large number of professional players, many who played BW, who will disagree with you. You could argue that they are saying that out of self intrests as a professional player, but the same could be said for you as a fan of BW. But you clearly hate SC2 and there is little we can do to change it. The real question is why do you continue to post in these threads? Do you believe that you can somehow make us agree with you by insulting something we enjoy? How effective did you think that would be? It is not like we spend time in the BW forums saying it is a ugly, dated game that no one should play because it looks like trash.(clearly I do not think this) | ||
|
junemermaid
United States981 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 13 2012 03:11 infinity2k9 wrote: No its not valid and not commonly overlooked yes it is. , people say it all the time and it's fucking stupid. ok mister, "I don't like SC2 at all, but I know EVERYTHING about it", tell me why: People go into SC2 with mechanics and the experience of BW already learnt. yeah and I had good grades at school, and still I do have to study hard if I want to learn more in mathematics. People come into SC2, which is also all around easier game mechanically define easier... less apm needed to control a single unit? agree! Less apm spendable? disagree , in unit control, macro and every way; and with like 300-400 APM. you know when you use your whole hand to slap the keyboard, you can get WAY higher than that! No strategy is out of reach in mechanics you clearly haven't seen bots like the automaton 2000. Haven't seen a player do that yet , and that's the reason there was even the whole evolution. People could literally not do the strategies learnt many years in because they could not do it. yeah right... everyone always knew about the Bisu build, it just happened to be Bisu that was able to play it, and all the other protoss players all around the world suddenly increased in skill after he used it, so that they could play it too. Right after Bisu had done it. WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Some strategies are still limited to a couple of players due to pure skill, and new things are still worked out. I agree. There is only a handful of players who have the mechanics and the knowledge to play Mech in SC2 TvT. Simply saying give SC2 10 years and see what happens when it's non-sensical. I'm pretty sure that we will have significant changes even in a short periode like 3months from now. Just look at what happened in the last 3months. And in the 3months before that. And before that. It's not like people only just got more APM and better mechanics, they learned about what is possible and how their interactions lead to possibilities. People could play the current version for 10 years and you seriously think a lot would change? yes How theoretically would it become more fleshed out when everything is reduced to make mechanics less important and the battles go at a speed which limits the micro even more. yeah micro mechanics in a big battle are less important. But you could do an extra drop instead while microing in the big battle! You could use the spare APM to split even better! To kite even better! To macro better! People should not be allowed to say this dumb thing anymore, no thought about it at all. Yeah, you obviously didn't think at all. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On January 12 2012 22:29 EatThePath wrote: EternalLegacy, why do you title these threads "philosophy of design"? A list of opinions should not have pretensions of a design article. 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". This guy gets it | ||
| ||
