EPTThe Philosophy of Design: Part 2 - Unit Design - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
| ||
|
LimeNade
United States2125 Posts
| ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
While SC2 has its own virtues, in the shadow of BW its flaws are way too blatant to be ignored. What we know that works for a RTS now we know from BW, but SC2 seems to be taking steps further and further away from what made BW the best RTS game of all the time. Nony's post says everything better than I could have done: On January 12 2012 02:39 Liquid`Tyler wrote: BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it. Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best. | ||
|
AKspartan
United States126 Posts
Stalkers, even with blink, die very fast to tanks and are not a good investment. Immortals are quite good against tanks but with ghost support landing a few good EMPs the battle will be far in your favor. The only real threats to tank play are zealots and archons, which can be significantly weaked by good army placement reducing the ability of protoss to engage with all of his zealots and forcing him to clump and landing some good EMPs to kill zealot shields and weaken archons. | ||
|
AKspartan
United States126 Posts
| ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
| ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
@all the people rolling their eyes because they think it's another BW vs SC2 comparison: Well if it is, so what? Since both share the name of "Starcraft," comparisons between the two is inevitable. Heck, I'll even say that it's desirable. As Tyler said, "we ought to examine [BW] to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games." This applies especially to SC2. I think it's a good reminder of the fact that Starcraft 2 is, after all, Starcraft TWO. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1978 Posts
well there is in every rts you need a good unit control and battle overview (for example react on minimap dots) and you need a speed (in some games you need less but if you are slow like shit and missclick alot you are screwed) | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
| ||
|
snively
United States1159 Posts
On January 13 2012 08:17 Kharnage wrote: I'm sorry, but reading that what I pretty much see is 'I'm zerg and I don't like ZvP cause I lose to either FF or colossus. Let me distract you with fungal and marauder before I go back to protoss bashing". Don't be like that. Balance issues plague every game, but that doesn't mean every post not outlining a specific build is necessarily QQ. Many people resort to QQ when they're upset, but this thread is a valid, thought-provoking discussion of the smaller details that go into SC2 and BroodWar (and games in general). edit: spelling | ||
|
meatybacon
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On January 13 2012 06:29 Big J wrote: well, but most of the mechanics are pretty broodwar specific things. And most of the "RTS"-understanding is broodwar specific. Most of the broodwar things won't help you instantly when you go to a game like World in Conflict that don't even have bases or ressources. Only after you understand the metagame. Before that all your mechanics won't make heavy tanks a solid choice against infantry. And I'm not sure if we are really there in SC2 yet. Partially of course, but there is so much basic stuff being developed. One month we see a build just turning the whole metagame upside down, next month it has been solved and we are back to the standard from before. And don't tell me you can just overcome this with basic understanding and good mechanics. If build loses to another (standard) build, then the first build is simply not viable and another build has to be developed. And before all those options have been explored, there is no way arguing that SC2 started somewhere were close to where broodwar was. There is simply no dragoon pressure, no minefields, no lurkerrushes around in SC2. There is other stuff. And right now we don't even know exactly which stuff is around. If some Terrans keep showing off that certain (many) builds in TvT can simply get destroyed by reaperrushes, then we have to question each and every of these openings. We even have to question the follow ups, because what if there was a "bigger" reaper rush that would destroy these? Not a few months ago ZvZ was considered to be a rock-scissor-paper scenario (early pool - 14/14 - 15hatch). These days we see many Zergs going back to ling/bling rushes, because they have the SC2 mechanics and the SC2 understanding to emphasize on those tiny advantages they get in army and tech. This is specific knowledge. A BW pro doesn't know this and has to experience this himself, to see why 14/14 pool can be pretty good in a lot of scenarios vs 15hatch. Furthermore I want to question this part about "understanding of RTS fundamentals". RTS games are soooo far spread: from no base management only micro games to no micro only basemanagement games from zero ressources to Idk... 10? from no hardcounter (armor type etc), to 1unit being 10.000% costefficieny against the right units from action from the first minute games to turtle wars honestly, I don't even think there is a single thing you could tell me that is an "RTS fundamental", which I can't give you a counterexample for. With mechanics it is probably different, but still I think that most of it is very game - and inside games even faction - dependent. Addressing "RTS fundamentals": It took time before people know how to manage their econ and workers. It took time before people know that they need to Maynard workers (wow what a coincidence that he played wc2 and aoe at a high level. People know that taking more bases meant less money/tech/army now more money later. People know about the tech vs money vs econ thing. People know what micro and macro is. Just a few examples of RTS fundamentals off my head. When I say people I mean waaaaaaaaay more people than in 1998 of course, because even if a few of them know something information doesn't spread fast. | ||
|
UndoneJin
United States438 Posts
| ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
The thing is, Big J, SC2 is lucky enough to have BW as a reference for design. Everyone says SC2 is a different game, and that is true, but the design essence of both BW and SC2 is the same. While SC2 has its own virtues, in the shadow of BW its flaws are way too blatant to be ignored. What we know that works for a RTS now we know from BW, but SC2 seems to be taking steps further and further away from what made BW the best RTS game of all the time. Nony's post says everything better than I could have done: On January 12 2012 02:39 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Show nested quote + BW was very popular worldwide for an RTS. The biggest reasons why a game does not remain immensely popular do not reflect on the game's design. It's not completely fair which games get a shot at being a real competitive game and which don't. BW in Korea has gotten the best shot of any video game ever. Whether the Koreans got it wrong for sticking to the game or the rest of the world got it wrong for abandoning is not even worth time discussing; they have proven that it is a game worth playing for over a decade. There's no discussion to be had about it. Now, given that BW did get a shot and has proven that it was worth it, we ought to examine it to learn how the game is designed for lessons on how to design future games. BW has gotten the closest out of any video game to becoming as successful as athletic games (soccer) and board games (chess) have become. It makes sense to stay close to its formula, especially when talking specifically about its sequel. Because though there may have been good designs in other RTS's like you said, none of them have added up to anything close to BW. So unless sticking to BW's formula puts us worse and worse off, there's no reason for us to shake up the hat and pick a game design at random that some folks theorize may be the best. broodwar popularity was medicore outside of Korea in 1990s, and even since then the taste and accustom have drastically changed for gamers in the 2010s. I think quite a smart move for Blizzard to create/adapt designs that may fit the tastes for modern generation gamers. For such a volatile industry, why would you stick with a decade old game design? what liquid tyler suggesting is suicidal, he did not given much thoughts into them. I'm just talking about that quotation specifically of course. What I truly feel about sc2 or bw design is not relevant | ||
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
Forcefields, for example, don't "reduce" the micro required to play the game; they increase it, while also adding strategic depth. A huge amount of micro goes into trying to bait forcefields and trying to position your units to either minimize or maximize their effectiveness before they go down. True, you can't micro away from forcefields if your units are totally encircled by them, but saying that they therefore "reduce" micro is a false inference. You might as well say that psi storm reduces micro because if they hit good storms, your units are dead and you can't micro them. The reality is that if forcefields put you in a position where you can no longer micro effectively, it's because you've been thoroughly outmicroed already. The argument that a forcefield on a ramp ends the game is similarly specious because it doesn't answer the question why a forcefield on a ramp shouldn't be able to end the game. After all, a forcefield on a ramp only ends the game if you're already out of position, and being out of position can cost you a game whether forcefields are being used or not. Similarly, it is simply a mistake to assume that abilities like Fungal Growth or Concussive Shells reduce micro. To be sure, they limit micromanagement options after they've landed, but as with forcefields they place a premium on micromanagement before the fact. Spreading vikings to limit the impact of fungals is micro. Sniping valuable units, and avoiding having your valuable units sniped by concussive shell weilding marauders is micro. Far from limiting the "dimensions of interaction" between players, these units increase them substantially by forcing players to anticipate the opponent's moves rather than simply passively reacting to them. With the exception of the roach, your criticisms of supposedly "micro-less units" similarly do not hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. The suggestion that the collossus does not require micro on the part of the user (while also increasing the importance of the other player's micro) is so laughable that I don't know where to begin. If you believe that, then I can only assume that you've never played with the unit (or against it). Colossus are quite fragile for their cost. They require constant babysitting if you do not want them to be sniped. They place a large premium on positioning--achieved through micro--of both players. Nor can you simply attack-move with colossi, unless you're content to have them attack a nearby assimilator or supply depot while your army dies in vain. They have some of the worst--perhaps the worst--targeting AI in the game and require constant micromanagement to keep alive. Yet you dubt this a "micro-less unit"? Insanity. Your arguments regarding the thor are similarly baseless. In many situations, it's critical to micro manage your thors in order to maximize their effectiveness by specifically targeting clumped air units. Indeed, you even point out the unit's poor targeting, while seemingly neglecting to realize that the premium this puts on micromanagement. To be sure, the unit is slow, and difficult to reposition in battle, but the same can be said of the reaver in brood war, and no one who has played that game thinks that unit is "micro-less." Your objection to the phoenix is, to be frank, puzzling. You seem to have a problem with the fact that it moves while attacking, but you fail to articulate what your problem with it is. You write that it "removes the entire decision making process of what do I shoot at?/when do I act to shoot," but the ability to move while firing has little to do with the former: the unit is no less able to be told specifically what to attack than any other, nor does it place less value on doing so. As for the latter, there's rarely much deliberation about "when" to shoot in this game with any unit. Indeed, other units automatically engage hostile targets that are in their range. Do you have a problem with that too? If not, I see no substance to your objection regarding the phoenix. Overall, this thread is only slightly better than its predecessor. Similarly lacking in originality, most of its points are without any merit and are just poorly disguised whines that have little to do with game design. A better and more focused topic would have focused on the critical issues presented in section (C) rather than wasting time rehashing the tired and largely unfounded arguments of sections (A) and (B). | ||
|
FuRong
New Zealand3089 Posts
Forcefields and FG are micro-reducing in this sense because once cast, the victim can't do anything until the spell subsides. Although I think one point the OP missed is Terran using Medivacs to lift units, which is a valid micro response to free units trapped in Forcefields. But if your army eats an FG, then too bad, you just have to take the damage. On the other side of the coin, consider spider mines and dark swarm. Once a player lays mines, the other player can try to target them down, or even try to drag them into enemy units and cause a "daebak" explosion. If he's not paying attention or doesn't have that level of control, then sure, the mines just kill everything. But there is a choice and available response. Dark swarm is the same, once it's cast, the (let's say Terran) player has to respond by unsieging and retreating his army. Then the Zerg can move his Lurkers forward, and it becomes a push-pull battle where the Zerg slowly gains ground. Yes, FF and FG require micro in terms of positioning, but the contrast is between micro that occurs pre-spell and micro that can occur after a spell has already been cast. SC2 has a lot more of the former, whereas BW had a balance between the two (storm, stasis, plague are examples of the first type, whereas mines, dark swarm and to some extent Reavers are examples of the second type). | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3245 Posts
As for micro-reducing abilities, it's an old argument, and not necessarily a false one, but it needs to have some massive caveats on it. First of all, the range on force field is not all that long. A range 9 forcefield would certainly just be a game-destroying element. In its current state, it instead just generates new and diverse gameplay. In your terminology, it creates new dimensions of interaction between players. RTS's in general, including BW, have always had a great deal of strategy built around the principle of basing combat and engagements on your surroundings. SC2 has the entirely new element of actually giving the player the power to create terrain that's favorable to their purposes. Cutting armies in half, cutting off retreat paths, denying attempts to run by defenses and cause havoc, or even interesting possibilities like blocking DTs from your base until you get detection up are generated by this ability. The relationship between player and terrain has always been complex and multi-dimensional, but up until now it has only been one-way, terrain affecting the player (with the occasional small exceptions, like destructible terrain, mineral walls, etc). Making this a 2-way relationship has very interesting implications, and dimensions of play are increased, not decreased, by adding this ability. These abilities also create much more interesting tactical decisions for the attacking player. If you can't afford to let your units get trapped in, then you have to stay out of range of sufficient numbers of sentries. This encourages considering the existing terrain, for instance avoiding enclosed areas and preferring more open ones. This also creates multi-dimensional tactical decisions when engaging the enemy; a few melee units in the front of the army will do wonders for your engagement. Short of that, shorter-range units are a good choice. Even better from a tactical perspective, units that don't want to be hit by zealots should be in back. If the Protoss tries to move forward to forcefield behind your entire army, then you have to back up to behind the sentries' range, thus creating a fighting game-style spacing element to combat. Fungal growth creates interesting decisions for both players as well. For the infestor-ing player, placement of fungal growths becomes an exercise in both mechanics and strategy; on the one hand, you want to hit the largest clump of units, but there's also a preference for hitting the front units to avoid something running in to kill your infestors. Then there's the issue of where to engage with infestors and what units to use for backing up your infestors, thus creating another situation in which the infestor-ing player prefers closed spaces, while the opponent prefers open spaces. For the other player, on the other hand, there is suddenly a powerful motivation to have smart tactical gameplay, particularly regarding formations. Obviously RTS's always have the incentive to have the DPS in front where it can hit the opponent, but there's also a great deal of incentive to space out in response to an AoE attack. Since infestors do best against a clumped opponent, and lings do best against a spaced-out opponent, infestor ling has serious potential for abusing whatever formation the opponent chooses. Concussive shells and "micro-reducing abilities" in general deny the opponent the opportunity to effectively retreat. This is not bad game design. This has always been one of the advantages of faster units: retreat is impossible. Now retreat is being denied by a different means, but the effect is the same, and not a negative one. It allows the player using the ability to be a little bolder with their units, since they can retreat and their opponent can't, and it forces their opponent to be more hesitant to move out, choose their engagements carefully, and maintain map awareness. A zerg afraid of being forcefielded out of their main has to maintain good map awareness and have the army ready to defend on either side of the ramp at a moment's notice. A Terran afraid of getting caught unawares by an excellent fungal growth has to keep their marines in a dispersed formation and send stimmed marines around when moving out to find the position of the enemy army. In other words, these abilities are generating interesting gameplay, not destroying it. | ||
|
jodogohoo
Canada2533 Posts
im not sure what is the best course of action for blizzard as i'm fearful that i am in a minority of people that want a better SCII with better mechanics and unit designs... perhaps the majority of people enjoy SCII they way it is and for the sake of maximizing utility we should just let them have their fun. however an SCII without all these flaws would be truly something worthwhile. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On January 13 2012 11:50 iky43210 wrote: broodwar popularity was medicore outside of Korea in 1990s, and even since then the taste and accustom have drastically changed for gamers in the 2010s. I think quite a smart move for Blizzard to create/adapt designs that may fit the tastes for modern generation gamers. For such a volatile industry, why would you stick with a decade old game design? what liquid tyler suggesting is suicidal, he did not given much thoughts into them. I'm just talking about that quotation specifically of course. What I truly feel about sc2 or bw design is not relevant . . The game was still a huge success outside of Korea going into the millenium. At the time it was one of the best-selling games outside of Korea as well. As for now? The industry is a lot bigger. You cannot compare the numbers from now to the past. It doesn't work that way. Third time this week I've caught you doing something like this (not in this thread alone). Next time please use a reference point before talking about such statistics. Yes, Blizzard has shown us time and time again that they try to make each title in the series unique if WCII <---> WCIII and SC:BW <---> SC2 are any indication. Even though D.B.'s RTS canon is very similar in comparison we cannot hinge on that in this case because there was a lot of input from the artists on this title. I digress! Blizzard wanted to open new doors. Heck, they even wanted their parents to be able to enjoy the game. That's all fine and dandy, but my biggest gripe I have with the Blizzard team is putting unit looks before anything else. It's just not practical. There will be a lot of hits and misses. That's where the basics of all RTS come in. We have to consider every RTS on the market to gauge the good from the bad before expanding upon it. Things can be grouped into smart design or poor design. This goes for any game. Not just RTS. Once again I'm repeating myself. There is nothing old or antiqued about BW's game design. For those unexperienced with it, the U.I. looks daunting. U.I. is nothing more than the rulebook of engagement in the game. In other words, no two line passes! It only helps dictate the flow alongside the units, maps, A.I., etc. It's all about the state of mind and perspective in which you view it. You want to make it more user friendly so more gamers can get into it? No problem! I insist. Just remember, somethings can be good others can be bad. Regardless of good or bad, there will be a domino effect once you start tinkering around with any model. There is nothing suicidal about NonY's suggestion when we're talking about the principles of RTS. It doesn't start and stop with the Starcraft and Warcraft series either. We have to consider everything we know about RTS as a whole when we're talking about the game design. | ||
|
AySz88
United States83 Posts
I read your first part first, and I got a bad vibe of throwing-out-babies-with-the-bathwater. I'm glad to see the suggestions in this part, like the force fields with HP. I think it's much more interesting to think about what could be some Starcraft 2-esque solutions, without abandoning the advantages of the current mechanics. To contrast, in the first part, I hated that the suggestion for unlimited-size control groups was to re-limit them - isn't there any way to distill the problem down further? And for the ball mechanic, why not try to think up a way for control groups to remember their formation more "strongly"? Suggesting to go back to Brood War's mechanics makes me cringe. For example, I was kicking around the idea of having units in control groups interpret move commands almost as if they were individually-microed "in formation" move commands on the minimap. (There's UI details to resolve, like how to handle adding units to the control group - do we rally units to the median location of the group? - and handling the orientation of the formation.) This would have the side benefit of being more useful for small formations (with large formations, you'd get mismicros, like units going on the wrong side of a cliff), so that helps with the first problem, too. This isn't too fleshed out yet, but it's just an example; I'm sure there's tons of other potential ideas to toy with. On a different note, I'd like to see your opinion on the HotS Terran shredder unit, and how it might help out with making terrain control more important? There's no battle where you go, “man, that guy had such great colossus control. If he played worse there he'd have lost it.” Huh?? I seem to remember colossus micro being a huge feature of colossus-vs-colossus battles - the person that had less-clumped-up colossus would win. That's the only context where I can think of colossus micro, though. (edit: clarify) (edit2: add idea...) | ||
| ||
