|
On February 02 2012 19:25 ch4ppi wrote:Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW .... All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP.
How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not?
How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege.
How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds?
The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now.
Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game.
So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in.
|
When I watch BW, I cannot tell who is winning, but in SC2 it is so easy, I mean easier, see their unit composition..
|
|
|
On February 02 2012 19:51 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 19:25 ch4ppi wrote:the "overall dmg nerf" patch was BW-->SC2. Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW .... All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP. How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds? The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now. Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in.
How come lowering the DPS would make small groups useless? I disagree. Think about how many shots it take for a marine to kill a drone in BW. Does this means marines are useless in small groups against Z? Far from that. But I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
- Reaver drops: you could clear an entire mineral line in 2 shots, but It required a lot of micro and if you lost your shuttle, it's a pretty big hit. It was a high risk high reward play. Micro required: drop in key positions and pickup after 1 shot, repeat after every shot.
- Vulture drop/run-by: you could also clear an entir mineral line in a few seconds, but it needed to micro the vultures away from workers so they dont get trapped, and also mine the path that reinforcements will likely take, so as to prevent them from taking your vultures down. That's a lot of micro right there. Now let's see some SC2 situations:
- Marauder/Marine drops:you can clear an entire mineral line/snipe a key building. Micro required: stimpack.
- Zealot drop: you can't do too much, unless your opponent is v bad or you're doing many attacks at once. Micro required: pretty much non-existant.
See the difference?
|
On February 02 2012 21:41 Scarbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 19:51 Big J wrote:On February 02 2012 19:25 ch4ppi wrote:the "overall dmg nerf" patch was BW-->SC2. Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW .... All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP. How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds? The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now. Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in. How come lowering the DPS would make small groups useless? I disagree. Think about how many shots it take for a marine to kill a drone in BW. Does this means marines are useless in small groups against Z? Far from that. But I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples: - Reaver drops: you could clear an entire mineral line in 2 shots, but It required a lot of micro and if you lost your shuttle, it's a pretty big hit. It was a high risk high reward play. Micro required: drop in key positions and pickup after 1 shot, repeat after every shot. - Vulture drop/run-by: you could also clear an entir mineral line in a few seconds, but it needed to micro the vultures away from workers so they dont get trapped, and also mine the path that reinforcements will likely take, so as to prevent them from taking your vultures down. That's a lot of micro right there. Now let's see some SC2 situations: - Marauder/Marine drops:you can clear an entire mineral line/snipe a key building. Micro required: stimpack. - Zealot drop: you can't do too much, unless your opponent is v bad or you're doing many attacks at once. Micro required: pretty much non-existant. See the difference?
Did you even read what I wrote:
I said BW had more dps. I wrote that lowering dps could be bad.
And then you give me examples of the reaver and the vulture, two units with extremly high dps/HP-relations, even in a BW context, and how they were so much "better" than the lower dps units like marines, marauders and zealots when being droped.
You are making my point!
Nevertheless I want to point out here, that BW is so different due to pathing/AI, that I don't think comparing stats makes a lot of sense to begin with.
|
On February 02 2012 22:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 21:41 Scarbo wrote:On February 02 2012 19:51 Big J wrote:On February 02 2012 19:25 ch4ppi wrote:the "overall dmg nerf" patch was BW-->SC2. Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW .... All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP. How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds? The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now. Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in. How come lowering the DPS would make small groups useless? I disagree. Think about how many shots it take for a marine to kill a drone in BW. Does this means marines are useless in small groups against Z? Far from that. But I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples: - Reaver drops: you could clear an entire mineral line in 2 shots, but It required a lot of micro and if you lost your shuttle, it's a pretty big hit. It was a high risk high reward play. Micro required: drop in key positions and pickup after 1 shot, repeat after every shot. - Vulture drop/run-by: you could also clear an entir mineral line in a few seconds, but it needed to micro the vultures away from workers so they dont get trapped, and also mine the path that reinforcements will likely take, so as to prevent them from taking your vultures down. That's a lot of micro right there. Now let's see some SC2 situations: - Marauder/Marine drops:you can clear an entire mineral line/snipe a key building. Micro required: stimpack. - Zealot drop: you can't do too much, unless your opponent is v bad or you're doing many attacks at once. Micro required: pretty much non-existant. See the difference? Did you even read what I wrote: I said BW had more dps. I wrote that lowering dps could be bad. And then you give me examples of the reaver and the vulture, two units with extremly high dps/HP-relations, even in a BW context, and how they were so much "better" than the lower dps units like marines, marauders and zealots when being droped. You are making my point!Nevertheless I want to point out here, that BW is so different due to pathing/AI, that I don't think comparing stats makes a lot of sense to begin with.
I did read what you wrote and I pointed out the marine vs drone example to show that it's not entirely true. After that I went on a different direction that had nothing to do with DPS, as to support my argument that DPS is not the problem. To quote myself:
I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
|
On February 02 2012 22:50 Scarbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 22:41 Big J wrote:On February 02 2012 21:41 Scarbo wrote:On February 02 2012 19:51 Big J wrote:On February 02 2012 19:25 ch4ppi wrote:the "overall dmg nerf" patch was BW-->SC2. Just becaue certain numbers are lower doesnt mean that the dmg is lower than in BW .... All the stuff u want to see emphasized is cool with me, but nearly all parts of that can be achieved if the "terrible terrible dmg"-syndrom would be reduced in the way the OP suggests. HotS is most definativ a good step in the right direction, but it will still have the same problems, which have been mentioned by the OP. How do you want to predict that HotS won't just have a metagame in which Protoss is always warping in at the front because they can never ever lose an army as long as their nexus has 75energy and therefore they can just be aggressive with every single unit, in groups or not? How you're going to predict that zerg isn't one base swarm host/zergling rushing evergame, because they are guaranteed dmg, because if properly played they cant be beaten open field and therefore get a free siege. How do you predict that possible shredder drops just make good saturation a big gamble in vT, while mass expanding gets pretty easy due to mech builds? The damage in BW was lower out of 2reasons: metagame and nonclumping. You simply can't predict what happens if SC2 turns more into a aggressionbased game (with very small units), than the sit back, macro up that is the general guideline right now. Personally I don't believe that damage nerfs are the way to go. Like it's been pointed out, it will reduce the efficiency of small attack groups like drops or infestors or dts or warp-ins or runbys etc. and the game could turn out to become a big roach vs stalker battle. Because those are the units that already follow the "low dps, high HP"-path and make for some of the most boring battles, while other high dps/low HP unit battles like marines vs banelings are amongst the best things that ever happened in this game. So in conclusion: just because he has some arguments for it, doesn't mean that the counterarguments couldn't just overwhelm them... There is absolutly no way to make "roach vs stalker" battles interesting, without a lot of micro abilities like FFs, blink, Fungal, burrow and high dps units like zerglings mixed in. How come lowering the DPS would make small groups useless? I disagree. Think about how many shots it take for a marine to kill a drone in BW. Does this means marines are useless in small groups against Z? Far from that. But I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples: - Reaver drops: you could clear an entire mineral line in 2 shots, but It required a lot of micro and if you lost your shuttle, it's a pretty big hit. It was a high risk high reward play. Micro required: drop in key positions and pickup after 1 shot, repeat after every shot. - Vulture drop/run-by: you could also clear an entir mineral line in a few seconds, but it needed to micro the vultures away from workers so they dont get trapped, and also mine the path that reinforcements will likely take, so as to prevent them from taking your vultures down. That's a lot of micro right there. Now let's see some SC2 situations: - Marauder/Marine drops:you can clear an entire mineral line/snipe a key building. Micro required: stimpack. - Zealot drop: you can't do too much, unless your opponent is v bad or you're doing many attacks at once. Micro required: pretty much non-existant. See the difference? Did you even read what I wrote: I said BW had more dps. I wrote that lowering dps could be bad. And then you give me examples of the reaver and the vulture, two units with extremly high dps/HP-relations, even in a BW context, and how they were so much "better" than the lower dps units like marines, marauders and zealots when being droped. You are making my point!Nevertheless I want to point out here, that BW is so different due to pathing/AI, that I don't think comparing stats makes a lot of sense to begin with. I did read what you wrote and I pointed out the marine vs drone example to show that it's not entirely true. After that I went on a different direction that had nothing to do with DPS, as to support my argument that DPS is not the problem. To quote myself: Show nested quote +I don't think the way to go is lowering the DPS, but increasing the micro necessary to make units useful. That's what made BW so exciting and skill-based. Let's have some examples:
yeah but WHY are reaver and vulture such great drop units? dps!
go and do that with the colossus if you want to do it. People have done it, and the reward is just not good enough. Why? Because the Colossus has like zero dps compared to a reaver, but has way more health.
Go and do that with roaches or stalkers, if you want to harass mineral lines with skill. burrow and blink can keep them alive for a long time, but their dps is just not high enough for the reward.
Imo it is a simple principle:
small groups of units either do terrible damage, or they won't be used in small groups.
All the harass units have the same abilities: high dps or high mobility. So it is either easy to harass with them or rewarding.
|
^^ I see. Well, in that case the game probably would benefit from units with extreme DPS:HP relations that require a lot of micro to be used properly.
|
On February 02 2012 08:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 08:13 FuRRyChoBo wrote:
I've been saying what OP says since I first saw fungal+banes. Way too much AoE damage, way too many "hard counter" units. and yet out of all the "counters" you pick the two that are probably the ones with the most universal uses and led to some of the most interesting dynamics in SC2. (banelingsplits vs marine splits, tanktargetfire and ling/bling wars; banelingdrops and fungal as anti clump, detection, anti air. landmines and infestors for zone control etc...) banelings a barely efficient against marines in marine/tank compositions and against lings and other blings. still we do see them against a lot of things due to universalness. on the other hand fungals can be pretty great against nearly everything, so they are far away from being specific counters.
Of course they have universal uses...that's why they're broken. A million spells that negate any sort of micro that require minimal control while forcing the other player to have incredible splitting coupled with units that do way too much splash damage. Add on the "dynamic" unit movement where all of your units automatically clump up and the game becomes really, really boring.
|
This game doesn't need Warcraft 3 level damage. This game is fast-paced and it should stay that way.
|
I think Blizzard wanted the game design of Starcraft2 to really resemble BW. You can tell from the basics of the game and the role of early, basic units, their costs, damage, etc. But they made some terrible deviations that counterbalanced their attempt at making BW 2.0. Too many units deal "bonus" damages in SC2. In Starcraft1, you had units either do full damage or LESS. A lot of units only dealt half of what is written on the paper. So adding +1 defense really meant a lot. Starcraft2 has units with similar HPs as Starcraft1, but they now do either full damage or BONUS DAMAGE, which is often 1.5x of the base damage. A lot of units in Starcraft1 received +1 or +2 attackpower per weapon upgrade. But in SC2, due to the BONUS DAMAGE, it's common to see units increase tremendously in firepower after just +1 upgrade. So DPS of units in SC2 is much higher than in SC1. And to make the things more "volatile", units clump together a lot so AOE spells and splash damages deal harsh, harsh damage that often ends an otherwise 50:50 game after one engagement. As of a result, the game literally becomes one sided after one bad engagement, even though both players played evenly well for 25 minutes. Is that a bad thing? I wouldn't say it is definitely a bad thing, but it makes the game feel "cheap" and very one dimensional. Once you obtain a "deathball", you become all of a sudden really strong. That makes timing push really strong. Is that a bad thing? Let's just say if there was no "deathball" in the game, the game would be more interesting. Once you have a deathball, it becomes very very hard for your opponent to come back.
So SC2 is just this: It is still a fun and hard game to master. But it feels much more "cheap" than BW even in victory
|
On February 03 2012 02:06 FuRRyChoBo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 08:30 Big J wrote:On February 02 2012 08:13 FuRRyChoBo wrote:
I've been saying what OP says since I first saw fungal+banes. Way too much AoE damage, way too many "hard counter" units. and yet out of all the "counters" you pick the two that are probably the ones with the most universal uses and led to some of the most interesting dynamics in SC2. (banelingsplits vs marine splits, tanktargetfire and ling/bling wars; banelingdrops and fungal as anti clump, detection, anti air. landmines and infestors for zone control etc...) banelings a barely efficient against marines in marine/tank compositions and against lings and other blings. still we do see them against a lot of things due to universalness. on the other hand fungals can be pretty great against nearly everything, so they are far away from being specific counters. Of course they have universal uses...that's why they're broken. A million spells that negate any sort of micro that require minimal control while forcing the other player to have incredible splitting coupled with units that do way too much splash damage. Add on the "dynamic" unit movement where all of your units automatically clump up and the game becomes really, really boring.
So at first you call banes and fungals "hard counters". Now you call them too universal.
Furthermore I don't really want to argue design with you, when the purpose of your post is to whine about balance.
|
I agree with most of the stuff here, this is exactly why 1v1 isn't enoyable. It's not satifying when you A-move a deathball and jus watch the enemy die, I'd find it so much more satisfying if i'd have actually work to win with heavy micro and innovation and also be a close game. This also brings very fustrating loses when you've put just as hard work to get a decent army as your opponant and put your opponant just masses collosi and wins. Battles are too desisive in this games.
|
Agree with the zoning part.
|
I agree that spine crawlers and cannons are too weak vs the marine with medivac support, but they are just fine against P and Z in general. If they were to buff them, they would become too strong period and you would need to hard counter spine crawlers and cannons every games with tanks, immortals etc..
I think the problem might be the healing power of the medivac more than in the static defenses being too weak.
Turrets are pretty good against mutas. In fact they are super effective !! When you have 2500 gas invested in a mutas ball, it's just normal that it 1 shots mineral only turrets. Pretty much any army in the game with 2500 worth of gas should destroy static defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
