|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On July 15 2012 00:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 00:10 Meatex wrote:On July 14 2012 23:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
This is a conspiracy theory, backed up by no evidence.
You can argue that units doing a lot of damage is a bad game design decision, but to argue that it's to cater to casuals and to increase sales is to make a baseless and highly insulting accusation.
Terrible terrible damage is a phrase coined by Dustin Browder - you know, the guy who designed Starcraft 2 - and while from memory he didn't say it was specifically to cater to casuals I seem to remember him saying something along the lines of more exciting for a broader audience If anything, it's a marketing phrase. In an RTS, people want to see armies. You are not going to get RTS fans that played SupCom to play SC2, by saying: "Watch small skirmishes including little groups of units slowly battling it out". You label the stuff as: "Watch epic battles where huge armies collide" Whether or not this has happened from BW to SC2 is a different story. Seeing how much AoE damage has been turned down in SC2, I absolutly don't think that this was a design philosophy. I mean, just WATCH the video in the OP. Not just listen to it. The one time it's 2 Archons, the next time it's 8 Stalkers, then it's 7 Hydralisks... that do "terrible, terrible damage". So what does a reaver do, if 8 stalkers do terrible, terrible damage? I guess: + Show Spoiler +Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, damage
OR OR no dmg at all!
|
Any credence to Blizzard influencing the map rotation for the big Korean competitions? The mapmakers for BW seemed willing to change things when needed, and I'd think they would jump on fewer resources per base.
|
On July 15 2012 00:10 Meatex wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 23:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
This is a conspiracy theory, backed up by no evidence.
You can argue that units doing a lot of damage is a bad game design decision, but to argue that it's to cater to casuals and to increase sales is to make a baseless and highly insulting accusation.
Terrible terrible damage is a phrase coined by Dustin Browder - you know, the guy who designed Starcraft 2 - and while from memory he didn't say it was specifically to cater to casuals I seem to remember him saying something along the lines of more exciting for a broader audience
Terrible, terrible damage is a throw away comment made in a commentary, not a design choice. The design choice is having units do high amounts of damage, but this has always been a key feature of Starcraft, when compared to, say, Warcraft 3, where units had a lot more HP and a lot less damage because it was a micro focused game. Again you've continue to present no evidence for your accusations that this is to cater to casuals or a broader audience. Nor have you shown how this design choice would even appeal to casuals.
|
Er, just a moment. You say Blizzard are catering to casual players rather than intelligent etc players. That is not true. Yes, you can easily macro up a deathball and a move across the map, but pros have a tendency to rip holes in said deathballs - part of their job is to come up with ways to deal with that.
Part of the enjoyable mystique of SC2 is that you watch a pro, they do something awesome and you go "FUCKING A, I want to do that" and immediately half the people of that race do shitty versions of it. BW was so arcane that half the time it was impossible to tell what they actually did, and WC3's amazing plays were usually too subtle to be quantized.
Now no offence but I've seen plenty of games on ladder even amongst we "casuals" where 3-4 bases are taken. There are clear palpable macro advantages from taking additional bases especially in speed of remax and teching. Pros tend to do it much better than casuals.
A really engaging game allows for personal enjoyment in both watching and playing. SC2 manages this fine. I feel like the attempts of the "ex-BW community" to make the game more like BW are just going to hurt it in the long run.
|
I do feel that the game has less action in the beginning to get a viewer, and more importantly a newer viewer, hooked into the game. You don't see the bunker rush come out as much as the space between bases is increasing. Reaper openings are so cool and seeing some cool early ling baneling action is so fun to watch.
|
New players are probably more likely to appreciate "deathball clashes" over 3 or 4 skirmishes around the map at several points during the game. But changes like FRB are meant to increase the gap between the world class champions and the average pro which, to most people who are experienced with the game, is probably more fun to see. This doesn't mean that casual players will necessarily like or dislike a change like this.
|
this thread always has to good reason to bump.
|
That was a god awful bump... why....
|
I wish this idea had panned out. A game of starcraft 2 feels like one battle or a series of successive battles. Though I never played Brood War, watching a game of Brood War makes me feel like I'm watching a war. I feel like Barrin's idea would have given Starcraft 2 a more war-like feel.
|
On July 15 2012 04:09 Evangelist wrote:
Er, just a moment. You say Blizzard are catering to casual players rather than intelligent etc players. That is not true. Yes, you can easily macro up a deathball and a move across the map, but pros have a tendency to rip holes in said deathballs - part of their job is to come up with ways to deal with that.
Part of the enjoyable mystique of SC2 is that you watch a pro, they do something awesome and you go "FUCKING A, I want to do that" and immediately half the people of that race do shitty versions of it. BW was so arcane that half the time it was impossible to tell what they actually did, and WC3's amazing plays were usually too subtle to be quantized.
Now no offence but I've seen plenty of games on ladder even amongst we "casuals" where 3-4 bases are taken. There are clear palpable macro advantages from taking additional bases especially in speed of remax and teching. Pros tend to do it much better than casuals.
A really engaging game allows for personal enjoyment in both watching and playing. SC2 manages this fine. I feel like the attempts of the "ex-BW community" to make the game more like BW are just going to hurt it in the long run.
seriously fucking lol that you're basically attributing the highest levels of BW play to magic
if you rewound this site like five years there would be, and you might find this hard to believe, a statistical majority of users who could parse BW
|
I just wanted to push this thread back up, so more people reading it. I think this is an excellent topic, and something Blizzard should definitly consider for HotS. Especially now in the beta they should try it out. They rebalance the game for HotS nevertheless. So this is the right time to do this.
|
While the intention was good, and conceptually seemed like a good idea, it didn't work for me.
I took a few friends with me into this very recently to try it out. It didn't slow the game down in a way that made it more entertaining. It slowed the game down in a way that made it very boring.
You reach the mineral cap on a base really quickly. In fact, constant worker production at this rate pushed a 13 gateway opener to a 15 gateway. You reached base cap on probes mining minerals before your cybercore would finish, and stayed at base cap when the assimilator finished. 21 probes is hit before you can even build anything but a zealot. I have to expand that much earlier, but I barely have enough minerals to build tech continuously. Chronoing was a bad idea because I couldn't continuously build until I had above a set number of probes.
It didn't turn into a more exciting early game; it resulted in more time waiting for a nexus to finish because you can't produce workers constantly. My friends tried to one base play a few games, and it didn't make the play any more interesting, there were just less units, or the same unit numbered push would happen later. Sentries had a lot more time to accumulate energy, resulting in easier early game defense (and less excitement).
Multi-base play was just awful feeling, as I spent more time babysitting my next expansion than trying to use my units. Harassing didn't feel like it had any meaning, as destroying one base worth of probes would be rebuilt in 3-4 waves from the other bases around the map. To me, this was a huge problem, as a harass had more routes, but less effect overall. It led to an elongated game of turtling into a 200/200 deathball, since harass wasn't really effective.
The point was to try to make smaller skirmishes happen and make more bases a requirement, with the idea being that it'd be more exciting. Instead, it just made everything take longer to accomplish the same thing, with no real addition to the gameplay for me. Having to basically continually build nexus one after another sucks into unit production, but if you don't continuously build nexuses, you quickly cap out on your workers in base. The whole point is to use your army effectively, but if I'm sinking all minerals so I can eventually afford units, the game basically stalls.
The bonus I will say (as a toss player), gas came more quickly, so teching and researching was easier. But it wasn't like I could spend this gas, because all my minerals were sinked into probes, pylons, and nexuses (not units).
It's a good try, but it seems like cutting the resource rate without cutting your resource costs simply stalls the game out. I hope innovative ideas like this do come out, but in my mind, this one just won't work. (Sorry Barrin, I did try).
|
On October 18 2012 05:42 Rasera wrote:
While the intention was good, and conceptually seemed like a good idea, it didn't work for me.
I took a few friends with me into this very recently to try it out. It didn't slow the game down in a way that made it more entertaining. It slowed the game down in a way that made it very boring.
You reach the mineral cap on a base really quickly. In fact, constant worker production at this rate pushed a 13 gateway opener to a 15 gateway. You reached base cap on probes mining minerals before your cybercore would finish, and stayed at base cap when the assimilator finished. 21 probes is hit before you can even build anything but a zealot. I have to expand that much earlier, but I barely have enough minerals to build tech continuously. Chronoing was a bad idea because I couldn't continuously build until I had above a set number of probes.
It didn't turn into a more exciting early game; it resulted in more time waiting for a nexus to finish because you can't produce workers constantly. My friends tried to one base play a few games, and it didn't make the play any more interesting, there were just less units, or the same unit numbered push would happen later. Sentries had a lot more time to accumulate energy, resulting in easier early game defense (and less excitement).
Multi-base play was just awful feeling, as I spent more time babysitting my next expansion than trying to use my units. Harassing didn't feel like it had any meaning, as destroying one base worth of probes would be rebuilt in 3-4 waves from the other bases around the map. To me, this was a huge problem, as a harass had more routes, but less effect overall. It led to an elongated game of turtling into a 200/200 deathball, since harass wasn't really effective.
The point was to try to make smaller skirmishes happen and make more bases a requirement, with the idea being that it'd be more exciting. Instead, it just made everything take longer to accomplish the same thing, with no real addition to the gameplay for me. Having to basically continually build nexus one after another sucks into unit production, but if you don't continuously build nexuses, you quickly cap out on your workers in base. The whole point is to use your army effectively, but if I'm sinking all minerals so I can eventually afford units, the game basically stalls.
The bonus I will say (as a toss player), gas came more quickly, so teching and researching was easier. But it wasn't like I could spend this gas, because all my minerals were sinked into probes, pylons, and nexuses (not units).
It's a good try, but it seems like cutting the resource rate without cutting your resource costs simply stalls the game out. I hope innovative ideas like this do come out, but in my mind, this one just won't work. (Sorry Barrin, I did try).
So you couldn't expand, tech, and build an army at the same time. Woah.
And it seemed like you only played a few games at, obviously, not a high level. I don't know what we're supposed to get from your post.
|
|
|
Be sure to keep us posted on the state of the new mod Barrin! I really look forward to what you come up with.
|
I still support this idea even though it's not getting much attention lately, it's obviously hard to keep a thread like this active for long when Blizz shows so little interest. I've actually had some really great games on the custom maps. I just wish they would consider giving it a chance for HotS.
|
bumb - remember the titans...
|
This was an unnecessary bump.
But, honestly, I liked having to place only 6 minerals and 1 gas. :p
|
On October 18 2012 07:48 Barrin wrote:
The current state of the FRB mod is not a proper representation of what the goal actually is. I should probably take it down until I remake it completely into a full-blown arcade map where I edit much more than just the economy (in planning stages).
Still supporting you bro, goodluck
|
On October 18 2012 07:48 Barrin wrote:
The current state of the FRB mod is not a proper representation of what the goal actually is. I should probably take it down until I remake it completely into a full-blown arcade map where I edit much more than just the economy (in planning stages).
yes I would like a Protoss race that doesn't die if you miss a force field in the first 10 minutes of the game. I loved playing this mod when it was first popular. Safe SC2 Barrin plz 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
