|
On January 19 2012 06:18 Blasteroids wrote:
This post is somewhat silly because the op is complaining the some things in starcraft 2 are not as they were in Brood War in terms of the flow of the game. Of course Starcraft 2 will be different and what's bad in your eyes might be good in someone else's eyes. Furthermore Stalkers are great! In PvZ mass stalkers can go around picking of bases, killing units that are separated. Things like funglegrowth and maruaders are necessary or else stalkers would just be to strong. If you don't like how starcraft 2 plays out go back to Brood War and don't say that there's a design flaw because that's your opinion not someone else's on how starcraft 2 plays out. Finally all units are good against somethings and garbage against others. If units were good against everything and really good against others it was that way in Brood War and its that way in Starcraft 2. As far as zoning units Blizzard addressed this problem with in Hots with units like the Tempest and the Swarm Host
Ah yes, you young'uns have clearly never played or watched much pro BW. Check out a few games, get past the low-res graphics, and you will find the game to be much more exciting and much more nuanced than SC2. All we're saying is that SC2 hasn't lived up to the reputation of its predecessor, and there are many design mechanics that could be utilized to "fix" SC2.
|
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
Stalkers are one of the most balanced units in the game, and one of the most interesting as they have an upgrade that gives them an interesting role, and they take skill to control optimally. More units like this in the future please, and fewer units like marauders and roaches and I'll be a happy man.
|
On January 19 2012 06:23 Wombat_NI wrote: fewer units like marauders and roaches and I'll be a happy man.
The problem with roaches was how blizzard changed their design to be that sort of mass-attack unit, albeit one that's only effective more around the early or mid-game not late.
They were on their way to making a pretty good micro unit.
terran also has reapers, but they botched them up quite a bit too, I'd say.
|
OP is basically saying that units in sc2 are glass cannons and giving them less damage/more HP would make battles longer, thus giving players more opportunity to get advantages in that fight through micro.
Completely agree with it, battles shouldnt be completely 1-sided just because 1 player had slightly slower reflexes or wasnt looking and got hit with a fungal or EMP.
|
Did TS really complain about the fact that 10 chargealots beat 3-4 tanks??
Also it's pretty funny people complaining about the game going to fast. This is where skill comes into play. When the game slows down there is less micro possible. I like the fact that there is a lot more micro possibilities in SC2.
|
On January 19 2012 06:32 Snijjer wrote:
Did TS really complain about the fact that 10 chargealots beat 3-4 tanks??
Also it's pretty funny people complaining about the game going to fast. This is where skill comes into play. When the game slows down there is less micro possible. I like the fact that there is a lot more micro possibilities in SC2.
Warcraft 3 was much much MUCH slower, so by your logic it had less micro possibilities than sc2?
|
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
On January 19 2012 06:28 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:23 Wombat_NI wrote: fewer units like marauders and roaches and I'll be a happy man. The problem with roaches was how blizzard changed their design to be that sort of mass-attack unit, albeit one that's only effective more around the early or mid-game not late. They were on their way to making a pretty good micro unit. terran also has reapers, but they botched them up quite a bit too, I'd say.
I liked the concept of a microable, meatshield kind of unit that can regenerate and have mobility via burrow. That's not how they function nowadays though, as THE A-move unit which is disappointing. I actually think this isn't so much a problem with the design of the unit per se, but Blizzard not anticipating just how efficiently professional players could produce them, I mean I've seen players hit max in 13/14 minutes with them.
Marauder is just an obnoxious, boring unit with a stupid ability. Marines are really, really good units, but as they take micro to use efficiently and also have a discernible weakness to aoe they are fine.
|
You know what will fix all these problems?
The double-down Thor.
|
Even though i fully agree with the OP, i have to yet again say the same thing: Blizzard has stated numerous times they want games to end fast (5-20min), otherwise they won't appeal to casual players which means things will always stay as they are. Why do you think Steppes of War came from? They just removed it cause it was just too imbalanced for some strategies and made games end even faster than those 5-20min.
If there was a way to keep games short if wanted for the casual player while doing what you said, then that would be it.
|
I wonder if Blizzard truly believes that, the fact is that casual players don't play, and Blizzard is better off getting people interested in watching competitive and selling tickets.
|
I agree with most things excepted the static defense part. I think static defense is strong enough right now but I also think they aren't making enough of them yet. For exmple even in BW they would make tons of turrets in their base but right now in sc2, terrans usually make like 4 which is fine in the beginning but not so much later on.
Another thing I don't agree with is saying that a PF is a huge commitment. I do not agree with this at all because if you have a PF and like 3/4 tanks(using ur examples of leaving marines behind) then you actually dont need the marines there.
Also in maps where you can expand towards your opponent a PF is so much more valuable than an orbital. Sure you might lose out on mules but you;re exchanging it for a Strong point on the map that you can leave your army with and if the enemy attacks you there then it's great positioning for you. It's also a good place for your army to retreat if/when you see the battle's going sour
|
If you think spines are bad then you have never played zerg my friend
Spines are literally amazing
see: any good zerg out there
|
I can sort of see a point in battles being longer but I couldn't disagree more with the whole "more zone control units" and "better static defence".
I absolutely hate RTS games where come down to sitting on a great position that is almost unbreakable for the opponent. I've quit so many RTS games because of this. I much prefer fast paced all over the place kind of gameplay.
I remember playing wc3 and it was all fun and stuff until some orc or human player decided to bloody mass towers all over the goddamn map and go for a +1 hour game play of base trading and harassment. Was so incredibly boring and the game almost felt broken because of it. Also in all other RTS games I've played I absolutely despised maps where it was all about controlling an awesome map position because it was almost unbreakable, just to wait for your opponent to give up out of boredom.
|
Agree completely, most games especially TVP are decided by one engagement fore example. I love TVTs where the game goes on for a while with both players dropping and killing scvs etc, it seems much more like the player with the better multitask and mechanics will win in the end. Unfortunately all the other MU are starkly different IMO and shouldn't be based around 1 fight.
|
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
Casual players are the BIGGEST, by far, whiners about rushes/cheese/allins or however you want to categorise it. All Blizzard's desire for shorter games does is alienate the serious player, while doing nothing to mitigate this by appealing to the casual player.
That's why I don't understand Blizzard's reasoning. For a start you are not likely to pick up a significant number of new players if they didn't get Wings of Liberty. For those who stopped playing after playing WoL, there was probably a reason for that, namely they didn't like/enjoy the game enough. You aren't getting those players back, so make alterations to your upcoming expansions to keep the active playerbase onside.
The only outlet that I know of that is getting new players into Starcraft are those who get into it through watching streams of MLGs and the likes. This is only anecdotal but I know of 5 people who really got enthused by clicking links on my Facebook out of curiosity, and really getting into the game that way.
Every single casual gamer I played with, or who got the game the same time as me, no longer plays the game, and isn't buying Heart of the Swarm because they game is 'too hard'. Remember Artosis
The knowledge needed to recognise and hold efficiently the massive varieties of all-ins that are viable in this game is a lot more than the good players, with many accumulated hours of play and TL browsing actually recall. It is specifically this aspect of the game that ruined all my friends' enthusiasm for the game, well at least those who stopped playing it. The easier game engine doesn't help in this situation, because the players that they will be up against have the same engine, with all that entails.
TLDR, Blizzard: Make this game as good an E-sport game as it can be, and within reason ignore the casual playerbase, it is casual observers that don't own the game that are the untapped market. Most players who quit after WoL are not going to pick up HoTS just because it has a few new units, at least among those I know. A more interesting, balanced and varied HoTS will also see a higher proportion of those currently playing the game, remain, at least in my humble opinion.
|
On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote:
Conclusion: Stalkers
I personally feel that Stalkers are one of the most well designed units in the entire game. They don't kill things exceptionally fast, really gain a heavy edge in terms of your ability to micro them and even have an upgrade that lets them become extremely strong in the hands of a skilled player. Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't. The problem is so many units destroy stalkers in the right conditions. A reasonable number of lings in a ling roach situation allows the zerg player to a-move the stalkers and there's nothing they can do, blink only helps so much. What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change.
There is something else that makes me rage: The need for zerg to have better awareness than other races. The infestor more or less is the siege tank/colossus equivalent for zerg, with its advantages and disadvantages. A couple good fungals can feel overpowered, but getting those huge infestors into the right position without getting them sniped by 2 stimmed marauders/a ghost/4 blink stalkers/colossus/whatever requires a lot of tactical decisions from the zerg. And even then, you will probably lose them, since your units are not ranged and if you cannot fungal 100% your units will often time not be able to prevent/scare off the opponent from sniping your infestors. Furthermore, and this makes me sometimes really angry, is the space control aspect of siege tank/colossus. Place a tank/colossus on your cliff, your opponent walks in, and your unit fires automatically. Infestors do not. For one base entrance this may seem easy, but what about having 5 locations you want/need to defend? As pointed out, Spine crawlers do not always do the job. I often times even get 3 spores behind my mineral line, since 3 spines cannot even defend an 8 marine drop (whereas the spores have a chance to kill the medivac before unloading (most)).
The only zerg units that do not pose a game-losing move when getting caught off guard seem to be roaches (and hydras early zvp, brood lords late game in zvp if covered by a lot of roaches), since they will at least fire back, whereas all other zerg units usually cost the game if you don't look for a split second (half your ling army running into hellion/siege tanks/marines, banelings running into siege tanks, 30 mutalisks worth 3k/3k! dying in 2 seconds to 20 stimmed marines etc
|
On January 19 2012 06:22 lowercase wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:18 Blasteroids wrote:
This post is somewhat silly because the op is complaining the some things in starcraft 2 are not as they were in Brood War in terms of the flow of the game. Of course Starcraft 2 will be different and what's bad in your eyes might be good in someone else's eyes. Furthermore Stalkers are great! In PvZ mass stalkers can go around picking of bases, killing units that are separated. Things like funglegrowth and maruaders are necessary or else stalkers would just be to strong. If you don't like how starcraft 2 plays out go back to Brood War and don't say that there's a design flaw because that's your opinion not someone else's on how starcraft 2 plays out. Finally all units are good against somethings and garbage against others. If units were good against everything and really good against others it was that way in Brood War and its that way in Starcraft 2. As far as zoning units Blizzard addressed this problem with in Hots with units like the Tempest and the Swarm Host Ah yes, you young'uns have clearly never played or watched much pro BW. Check out a few games, get past the low-res graphics, and you will find the game to be much more exciting and much more nuanced than SC2. All we're saying is that SC2 hasn't lived up to the reputation of its predecessor, and there are many design mechanics that could be utilized to "fix" SC2.
Saying that someone will find BW much more exciting shows your bias. I've watched my fair share of BW and to me it just feels very slow and bland after watching SC2. To each his own?
|
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
On January 19 2012 06:57 Cirqueenflex wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 18:28 Filter wrote:
Conclusion: Stalkers
I personally feel that Stalkers are one of the most well designed units in the entire game. They don't kill things exceptionally fast, really gain a heavy edge in terms of your ability to micro them and even have an upgrade that lets them become extremely strong in the hands of a skilled player. Have you ever lost to a player using a lot of stalkers (outside of allins) where it felt awful and terrible? Where it felt like there was nothing you could do he just clicked a couple of buttons and autowon? I haven't. The problem is so many units destroy stalkers in the right conditions. A reasonable number of lings in a ling roach situation allows the zerg player to a-move the stalkers and there's nothing they can do, blink only helps so much. What about if they get fungled? gg. Terran has marauders? gg. Toss made immortals? gg. Each of those situations requires the stalker player to micro his ass off to survive, but the Marauder, Immortal, Ling/Roach or Infestor player has to do almost nothing to smash the stalkers to pieces. This needs to change. There is something else that makes me rage: The need for zerg to have better awareness than other races. The infestor more or less is the siege tank/colossus equivalent for zerg, with its advantages and disadvantages. A couple good fungals can feel overpowered, but getting those huge infestors into the right position without getting them sniped by 2 stimmed marauders/a ghost/4 blink stalkers/colossus/whatever requires a lot of tactical decisions from the zerg. And even then, you will probably lose them, since your units are not ranged and if you cannot fungal 100% your units will often time not be able to prevent/scare off the opponent from sniping your infestors. Furthermore, and this makes me sometimes really angry, is the space control aspect of siege tank/colossus. Place a tank/colossus on your cliff, your opponent walks in, and your unit fires automatically. Infestors do not. For one base entrance this may seem easy, but what about having 5 locations you want/need to defend? As pointed out, Spine crawlers do not always do the job. I often times even get 3 spores behind my mineral line, since 3 spines cannot even defend an 8 marine drop (whereas the spores have a chance to kill the medivac before unloading (most)). The only zerg units that do not pose a game-losing move when getting caught off guard seem to be roaches (and hydras early zvp, brood lords late game in zvp if covered by a lot of roaches), since they will at least fire back, whereas all other zerg units usually cost the game if you don't look for a split second (half your ling army running into hellion/siege tanks/marines, banelings running into siege tanks, 30 mutalisks worth 3k/3k! dying in 2 seconds to 20 stimmed marines etc
Good post in general but as an argument against this. Mutas in ZvP are massively forgiving as pretty much nothing in the Protoss arsenal is actually good at killing them.
|
I do agree, SC2 is very fast and that is good in some ways but bad in this. I personally COMPLETELY agree that it would be REALLY nice to be able to actually do some more wc3 micro in battle. That said, I think it would be interesting but not practical if Bliz literally just halved the dmg that everything does. Just to try it. Would be interesting.
Haha
But you must remember, that SC2 is a macro game. Building another army to replace your first will always trump microing your arse off  Of course, some micro is needed, but that's a given. A shame, but hey, that's what we play.
|
I think the biggest factors that make the game uninteresting are;
-Like the OP said, the counter system of armoured/light is too extreme. The fact that situations exist where you get unit X because of unit Y's vulnerability to bonus damage just seems so shallow. Immortals are the guiltiest of these units, as they are so extremely situational but there are only really gimmicks that try to make it a unique unit.
-The full strength of an army can be brought to bear on a small area. It's not just that units clump up it's how even collosus stand over armies, since it's that way by design I dont think it will ever be seen as a 'problem'.
-Large powerful armies are too mobile. This comes back to the last point. If you make powerful units have some setup time or awkward movement (siege tanks/reavers) or spells that force units to reposition (darkswarm) battles become so much more dynamic. Right now all you can hope to do is maximize surface area (or in some cases as toss restrict it) and really there is no thought of action involved in either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
