|
On January 24 2012 03:49 Sejanus wrote:Rhetorical question: why TL doesn't implement some sort of minimum age / literacy requirement to post in forums? I mean, I just watched planet of apes a few mins ago, and before I start with analogies I better change the topic... I don't necessarily agree with OP on every single point he made, but they are very well thought points backed by strong arguments. I believe that theoretically fixing early defense can improve SC2 greatly. But will it? Depends on implementation of course. I hope Blizzard is looking into this. I always believed (and still do) that WoL is more of a test than a complete game. HotS will most likely be the same. By the time of LotV Blizzard will have enough data to make a perfect game they probably intend to. Until then I'm just not taking SC2 balance issues too seriously. It's like playing beta, of sorts...
well, I don't think Blizzard is looking into the problem, atleast not the problems we are discussing here. Last showcase of HotS' new units/abilities made it clear that they are trying to make the game more attractive rather than dealing with fundamental design issues. I don't usually believe in conspiracy theories but I think there is someone influential who forces blizz game-designers to make it eye-candy-like, everything flashy like in hollywood. tbh Dustin and David didn't seem so enthusiastic when they were showcasing new units. Because It definitely going to affect the already 'volatile' balance of the game. maybe I fantasize too much, but thats my general impression. I remember an interview of WhiteRa (too lazy to find the link). He said something like "sc2 needs less spells and more raw power units so that players use pure skill rather than relying on success/luck of some game-deciding spells (EMP, storm, fungal..)". Thats what I think too.
on topic: Defender's advantage and positioning are bread and butter of any strategic game. Basically, in any RTS you have to defend your weak points, and find weak points of enemy. Thats how you show your superior skill, your intelligence or smartness. Micro, reactions and speed are secondary factor which come into play when two players are equally smart. In SC2 defender's advantage kinda matters when small groups are fighting but it gets out of control when big ones start. we should look into late game defender's advantage, PF being only viable option now.
|
" He said something like "sc2 needs less spells and more raw power units so that players use pure skill rather than relying on success/luck of some game-deciding spells (EMP, storm, fungal..)". Thats what I think too."
?? like what, micro ability? or are you talking about the guy who macros first and A moves wins type deal?
|
I think one of the most simple ways of creating defenders advantage is more maps where the entrance to the main has specific places you can exploit. (Think siege tanks in the main on Shakuras being able to defend the natural but more-so than that)
|
Had you made this post less the protoss part 6 months ago i'd of been inclined to agree that there is an issue with defense with no fix in site.
Knowing what's potentially coming in HoTS to address P and T defensive issues at various points in the game, along with fixes to zergs attacking issues at various points of the game. I can't help but see the lack of what you are trying to bring attention to that isn't already getting attention.
Will HoTS and the proposed changes fix things, who knows for sure. Will hopefully the changes made in HoTS bring the game closer to the strategic level of BW, one can only hope.
|
I don't really oppose the ideas as much as the fact that these threads are constantly saying the same thing over and over. The only difference in these threads (the ones I linked to and the OP) is that they each betray different thinly veiled racial balance biases. Why is the obvious thought and effort that goes into these threads not directed at developing new strategies and tactics and maps to open up the game?
There are two possibilities: Starcraft 2 becomes a stable and closed system (or, eventually, 3 stable closed systems -- accounting for expansions). Any perceived imbalance or gameplay flaws are simply accepted and dealt with by players and map designers (as happened in SC:BW). If there truly is fundamental imbalance or gameplay issues, the pros gravitate to a certain race, or one of the other expansions becomes the competitive standard.
The other possibility is that Blizzard forever tweaks the design of the game based on the feedback of a vocal minority. Pro players are forever arguing that there race is underpowered -- because of self-interest. SC2 becomes a game not of skill, but of politics -- whatever faction can convince Blizzard to buff their race, or to change the gameplay to suit a different style of play.
I trust that given 3 opportunities, Blizzard will make a version of SC2 that will address all these concerns -- and each time, there will be a new crop of "game breaking" imbalance and design issues. Please, my friends, if you insist on making these threads, please include ideas and examples of solutions to these problems that do not come from Blizzard -- either map features or gameplay ideas and examples.
SC:BW is and should be the main model for SC2. But we do not just want a re-skin of SC1 -- there is still an active BW scene if anyone wants to play a game that is "like brood war." Hell, a few months ago, I signed up on ICCUP and started getting owned. The game is fun as fuck, but there is no reason to make SC2 exactly like brood war. My question was getting at, "What are other games that have implemented these gameplay styles that I can go play and compare?" -- it was not a sarcastic or rhetorical question -- I just want to know of an RTS (not chess or risk) other than BW (which we all know about by now) that has successfully implemented defender's advantage in an otherwise fast-paced game. The WC3 comparisons in the responses are what I was asking for.
Last point: I hate deathball on deathball fights. Like many terran players (I am new to terran and also terrible) I have trouble against late game toss deathballs. The only way for me to beat them is to make the other player spread out by pushing the front while sending as many simultaneous drops out as I can. It works -- and it usually means that there are numerous, small fights going on, and the games are usually decided by chipping away at the other player, rather than in one a-move fight.
TL;DR -- SC2 should be a game of adaptation and skill, not the politics of securing favorable patch changes. Deathballs can be punished.
In the Age of Empire series, your central Town Center was able to fight back from the first second of the game if you were attacked, making many early rushes impractical. In addition, using ranged units to take control of any hills near your base afforded you a slight damage bonus. As a result, games would typically revolve around trying to poke at the fringes of your opponent's base, and battles came down to intense wars of positioning where you had to have the right number of melee and siege units to take down a Town Center before defending ranged/melee/cavalry could obliterate you. However, I think that AoE was overall not as fast-paced or as good a game in general (seriously, go back and play the series; what is with some of those design decisions?)
Again, I think there are many aspects of this (defender's advantage) related to the metagame. Remember a few months ago when 4-gate was unbeatable? Terran and Zerg (unfortunately not Protoss) just laugh at 4-gate now. Remember when 1-1-1 was at about a 95% winrate versus Protoss (if pulled off correctly)? Yes, they buffed Immortals, but Protosses also figured out some much better ways to deal with 1-1-1s that didn't involve weak expands and a ton of Stalkers that died instantly to Tank/PDD.
Defender's advantage does NOT mean you auto-win versus any aggressive moves that aren't perfect. Defender's advantage does and SHOULD mean assuming equal play (i.e. equal numbers, tech, position, and micro techniques), the one who is being attacked at his fortified or already-held position will have the natural upper hand. If any of those things - overall numbers, level of tech, quality of defensive position, or micro - is significantly behind his opponent, then the defender can and should be punished for his poorer play. *A clarification: I don't mean that if a defender has 4 or 5 less supply he should be punished. I'm talking about someone being super greedy and not at all close: like if a Terran made 6 marines and a maruader versus a full fledged 4-gate trying to expand too early.
I believe that we are starting to see the results of this already, and it will keep adjusting as the metagame fluctuates. See my examples about aggressive rushes earlier. HotS and presumably LotV will make significant contributions to this dynamic as they come out. Look at how many technical or spellcaster units are being added: Viper, Oracle, Nexus abilities, Battle Hellion transformation, Shredders, Swarm Host, Replicant. All of these units are units that will require finesse in their usage, and open up options for players. One of the arguments that I think has real teeth is that SC2 units are less improved by micro than their BW counterparts. I believe that all of these spellcasters and finesse/situational units will aid that. No one in their right mind would make an entire army of Swarm Hosts or Shredders, they simply add options to your positioning.
|
Defenders advantage is already completely implemented. You just need to learn how to take advantage of it. Comparing starcraft with risk is quite a far fetch, even though i get the picture.
Just a few examples of what already exists in the game: ramps at entrance of main or natural or both (map example of existing defenders advantage), building placement (brain usage to amplify defenders advantage), units walking faster on creep(race related defenders advantage).
I really dont believe any modification on this aspect of the game should be implemented. This is a game of timings, of scouting, nothing is unstoppable, but you ve got to be punished by lack of map awareness, no scouting. etc.
|
On January 25 2012 00:11 Douillos wrote:
Defenders advantage is already completely implemented. You just need to learn how to take advantage of it. Comparing starcraft with risk is quite a far fetch, even though i get the picture.
Just a few examples of what already exists in the game: ramps at entrance of main or natural or both (map example of existing defenders advantage), building placement (brain usage to amplify defenders advantage), units walking faster on creep(race related defenders advantage).
I really dont believe any modification on this aspect of the game should be implemented. This is a game of timings, of scouting, nothing is unstoppable, but you ve got to be punished by lack of map awareness, no scouting. etc.
I'll edit this into the OP, because it's important to keep in mind. Edit: Again, this isn't a complaint about balance - warpins are very strong for attacking and deathball style play, both of which are prevalent in WoL, so a lesser defense out front or a slower expansion as a result may be warranted. Here are the list of benefits to being attacked vs. attacking:
Terran
Rush Distance (except against gateway units)
Able to pull workers
Use of Ramp to bottleneck attackers (unless using PF at the natural on a map with no choke)
Use of Simcity against low range attackers
Use of already sieged tanks
Use of PFs
Use of Bunkers (diminished at open expansions)
Use of Turrets
Zerg
Rush distance (except against gateway units)
Able to pull workers
Use of Ramp to bottleneck attackers (unless expanding on a map with no choke at natural - not really useful with zerg's T1 units)
Use of Simcity against low range attackers (not useful with zerg's T1)
Use of Creep
Use of Queens
Use of Spine Crawlers (diminished at open expansions)
Use of Spore Crawlers
Protoss
Rush distance (except against gateway units)
Able to pull workers
Use of Ramp to bottleneck attackers (unless expanding on a map with no choke at natural - FF makes this big)
Use of Simcity against low range attackers
Use of Photon cannons (diminished at open expansions)
Did I miss anything? Ok, now let's say you're playing a PvP on a map with an open natural - or worse, on a map with no ramp. Do you see that your "defender's advantage" becomes "Able to pull workers"? Are you suggesting Protoss simply need to get better at fighting with workers and the defender's advantage will be fine? What constitutes a good defender's advantage? I have no doubt that matchups may exist where defender's advantage is fine, but I have just as little doubt that all matchups have a sufficient defender's advantage.
On January 24 2012 23:51 Nerski wrote:
Had you made this post less the protoss part 6 months ago i'd of been inclined to agree that there is an issue with defense with no fix in site.
Knowing what's potentially coming in HoTS to address P and T defensive issues at various points in the game, along with fixes to zergs attacking issues at various points of the game. I can't help but see the lack of what you are trying to bring attention to that isn't already getting attention.
Will HoTS and the proposed changes fix things, who knows for sure. Will hopefully the changes made in HoTS bring the game closer to the strategic level of BW, one can only hope.
Do you disagree that Protoss mechanics mess with defender's advantage? Personally, I think the idea that warpgate can be used to negate rush distance as a form of defenders advantage has a big effect on things. Also, yeah, things are getting attention in HotS (as far as I can tell) - but shouldn't we keep an eye on the implementation and remember what the things we are getting are supposed to be for?
|
I think the issue of defender's advantage also stems from the fact that the High DPS/Splash Damage units all fire less damage in one burst (think reaver vs. colossus, siege reduced single hit, etc), even if the dps is equal to or greater the longer the battle goes. This prevents a smaller defender to deal adequate damage to make up for its losses - and it becomes a lopsided loss. This promotes more deathball-like armies, since smaller defensive forces cannot deal enough damage to make up for their cost, since a slightly greater attacking force is much more cost effective.
|
On March 18 2012 04:23 Forsy wrote:
I think the issue of defender's advantage also stems from the fact that the High DPS/Splash Damage units all fire less damage in one burst (think reaver vs. colossus, siege reduced single hit, etc), even if the dps is equal to or greater the longer the battle goes. This prevents a smaller defender to deal adequate damage to make up for its losses - and it becomes a lopsided loss. This promotes more deathball-like armies, since smaller defensive forces cannot deal enough damage to make up for their cost, since a slightly greater attacking force is much more cost effective.
Why did you bring back an old thread...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
