|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On September 20 2012 14:24 very cool gamer wrote:Show nested quote +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
It was impossible to tell what they did because:
A - the spectator interface was absolute balls B - there were like 5 people who cared about and therefore watched BW
It's not "lol", it's simply a valid observation of how laughable the foreigner BW community was compared to the current SC2 community.
|
Goddam how did I not find this topic before... Support!
|
It is a pity that this came out when it did, if it had come out maybe 3 weeks ago i think it could have had a much larger impact as people were/are very angry about Infestor/BL turtle games these days.
|
I really doubt that fewer resources will "fix" the game or make it better, because the real problem is the production speed boosts for the races which cause too many units to be on the battlefield AND which is asymmetrical in that all units for Zerg and only some units for Protoss and Terran are boosted. The implemented economic boosts (MULE, mass Drone production after injecting larvae, Chronoboost on Nexus') are the second part of the problem of "too many units".
The solution is easy: Remove both economic and production speed boosts ... which should also make Siege Tanks more important, because the other units are produced in lower numbers.
On November 11 2012 21:36 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:24 very cool gamer wrote: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 It was impossible to tell what they did because: A - the spectator interface was absolute balls B - there were like 5 people who cared about and therefore watched BW It's not "lol", it's simply a valid observation of how laughable the foreigner BW community was compared to the current SC2 community. A "deathball" army is not really "casual friendly" because there are too many units involved. Using your big army efficiently involves a lot of "dancing around" with it and trying to spot an opening in your opponents positioning and this is not easy to pull off. Moving around with smaller forces (and losing a smaller chunk of your army if you screw up) is much easier for a casual.
With fewer units AND being forced to spread them among several control groups you have much smaller battles and those are slower as well. Slow battles give casuals way more control compared to the big "all-in" army engagements ... but sadly most casuals dont understand that (but this could be explained easily IMO if the right guys do it: Day[9], Husky, ...).
Please stop the braindead "oh you are just trying to turn SC2 into BW" train of thought, because it is actually quite dumb and assumes that SC2 is better in all regards than BW. You need PROOF for that first. I have given you some examples as to why SC2 is worse than BW above and you are welcome to try and find a flaw in that logic, but "propaganda rhetoric" isnt enough. Its not about recreating BW, but rather comparing the games and then finding the flaws and weak spots in the newer one AND fixing those.
|
Austria1114 Posts
|
This wonderful idea was killed by a neglecting Blizzard and a community that's says to be more and more bored by the game, but meanwhile as conservative about new idea's for maps as ever.
|
|
This is a great post, really really good. I really hope Blizzard gives you atleast a response on this, because this really 'might just be' a great problem/solution. ^^
|
really impressive. pray that blizzard pay attention
|
This idea died because it doesn't work...It's a poor representation of what Barrin wanted to accomplish...there are a lot of things that just cannot be done without Blizzard's support, and they have shown that they are not willing to test such changes...his second rendition of this idea was much more effective but less people appreciated it simply because physically removing a mineral patch is much easier to understand, instead of lowering mining rate which is not as easily observable.
|
On November 11 2012 21:36 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 14:24 very cool gamer wrote: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 It was impossible to tell what they did because: A - the spectator interface was absolute balls B - there were like 5 people who cared about and therefore watched BW It's not "lol", it's simply a valid observation of how laughable the foreigner BW community was compared to the current SC2 community.
To be fair bw did get a few more than 5 people to watch on youtube years after it came out. Here is one channel to prove it.
http://www.youtube.com/user/VioleTAK/videos?sort=p&flow=grid&view=0
If bw had youtube, twitch, husky , day9 and common broadband connections around when it came out I don't think it would be that far from sc2's numbers. (It did sell over 4 million outside korea + all the pirates can watch also so don't say it wasn't popular enough)
I just don't think people can conclusively say it was the game design of bw that kept it from getting sc2's viewer numbers outside korea instead of what was around at it's release.
|
On November 11 2012 23:13 coolcor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2012 21:36 Evangelist wrote:On September 20 2012 14:24 very cool gamer wrote: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 It was impossible to tell what they did because: A - the spectator interface was absolute balls B - there were like 5 people who cared about and therefore watched BW It's not "lol", it's simply a valid observation of how laughable the foreigner BW community was compared to the current SC2 community. To be fair bw did get a few more than 5 people to watch on youtube years after it came out. Here is one channel to prove it. http://www.youtube.com/user/VioleTAK/videos?sort=p&flow=grid&view=0If bw had youtube, twitch, husky , day9 and common broadband connections around when it came out I don't think it would be that far from sc2's numbers. (It did sell over 4 million outside korea + all the pirates can watch also so don't say it wasn't popular enough) I just don't think people can conclusively say it was the game design of bw that kept it from getting sc2's viewer numbers outside korea instead of what was around at it's release.
: P BW was only hard to understand if you had the mentality of a child. The reason it wasn't popular in the US is because the US/anywhere but Korea wasn't really that big competitively when it came to gaming but Korea sold it as a possibility. Things take time and it's not easy for continents, let alone nations to just jump on the "pro gaming" bandwagon like a single nation, korea, managed to do.
Anywho, BW was fine, SC2 is fine, go have fun.
|
Subscribing to read later and try the maps out.
|
Canada11268 Posts
Hey Barrin, you probably didn't see this, but LaLuSh posted this in my last blog:
On November 05 2012 16:00 LaLuSh wrote:It would be interesting to see how you would rank all these concepts you've brought up by order of importance for gameplay. I'd be interested in seeing barrin and the others who frequently make these sort of posts rank which changes would most drastically change gameplay. I think my personal list would go something like this: 1) Economic system. + Show Spoiler +Preferably by reintroducing worker wandering as in the SC2BW mod as opposed to fewer resource bases. I honestly think a lot of the gameplay problems simply lie in how fast your economy grows in SC2. Cute and tricksy play (colossus warp prism harass, templar drops, baneling drops, any type of micro/tech intensive low econ choices) doesn't exist because either it gets overrun so easily by all-ins, or the opponents economy grows at a rate where the harass won't pay for itself in time. 2) Warp-in mechanic + Show Spoiler +I just don't think Protoss units can be balanced the way they're supposed to, with the values they deserve to have, as long as this mechanic exists. It also serves to exhasperate the problem above. Or perhaps that should be the other way around? Extreme economy exhasperates the problem of warp-in? Dunno. 3) Macro mechanics + Show Spoiler +The analogue to the warp-in mechanic here: larva inject. It too has a great impact on how zerg units can and cannot be designed. Chrono boost is lesser of a problem if warpin is out of the way. MULEs included here too. My proposition is to have all macro mechanics be tiered by tech levels. 2 larva per inject on hatchery tech. 3 on Lair. 4 on Hive. Perhaps something similar with regards to the mule. Just the chrono boost that I'm unsure of. It seems like a weaker ability than the others. But with the economy fixed and the warp-in removed, my theory is that you can safely reintroduce "overpowered" units into the game without breaking gameplay. Spell casters and siege units in BW are crazily overpowered if you think about it. But they work because:
#1 the less cost effective race is able to outexpand and keep outmining the opponent past 3 mining bases (think PvT and ZvP in Broodwar. TvZ was a special case -- while zerg might've been 1 base ahead of terran, they were so subdued when it came to being able to mine minerals that I think Terran should be considered the cost inefficient race in that matchup. Zerg's saturation was always weak until they held off the onslaught and stabilized in the late game. Lurkers + defilers being balanced owed a lot the dynamic of one race being allowed to be cost inefficient in a matchup). In SC2, you may have lots of games where a Protoss outplays a zerg, takes 6 bases versus 3, and by all rights should win the game. But all those 3 extra bases buy is the potential for a higher ratio of shiny high tech units to normal units. If the toss loses the big engagement resoundingly against infestor/BL, he generally won't have sufficient minerals for a second attempt despite being on "6 bases". Rewarding extra expansions provides an extra safeguard against "imbalanced" compositions being abused.
#2 The game is slower paced. No macro mechanics and a different economic system from Starcraft 2 simply makes for a slower game. More space for cutesy plays and moves, more space for variation in build orders, strategies and styles. 4/5) Unit spacing/ Overkill mechanic + Show Spoiler +These two benefitted ranged units, while screwing over melee units' viability without spell caster backup. Only explanation needed. 6) Microability/High ground advantage + Show Spoiler +Goes without saying. A higher degree of control benefits the better player. I don't think it impacts gameplay more than the economic system though. My philosophy about this has always been: If you take away control and maneuverability from units, you have to add some form of gimmick to compensate for it. Do vikings need 8 range? Not if they're able to dart in and out like wraiths. But in their current state: yes. They could need a small speed boost though. Do banshees need to be able to 2 shot workers? No. They're just slow and hard to maneuver, so they gotta have some feature to make them useful. Meanwhile in BW it takes 6 (if i recall correctly) wraiths to one shot a worker. Increased mobility and maneuverability over increased damage gives you more stable gameplay. A noob won't be able to kill you based on a coin flip move, because it takes hard microing and a skilled player to inflict damage with those puny wraith lasers. It differentiates the pros from the really really good but not pro players. It leaves crowds in awe. Does the hellion need a blue flame upgrade? I personally don't think it does if it were to be redesigned. I much prefer the Brood War dynamic of speed/range upgrades on basic units dictating the flow of the game over damage upgrades and range upgrades on high tech units: Zergling < Vulture < Speedling < Speed Vulture Zergling < Zealot < Speedling < Speed Zealot Hydralisk < Zealot < Speed hydralisk < Speed zealot < Range/Speed Hydra with lurkers < Zlot templar arch etc... Zergling < Marine < Speedling < Marine /w Stim (Same in SC2, but if we continue data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" Marine /w Stim < Mutalisk < Marine /w stim and range < Stacked mutalisks microed by Jaedong Dragoon < Marines proxy rax cheeses < Range Dragoon Even the smallest dragoon vs dragoon battles in the very early game would hinge on the completion timing of dragoon range. As for high ground advantage. I don't have a motivation why I included it on 6th place. Just seemed more relevant than other items. I fondly remember making a stand with my dragoons on the ridges of Heartbreak Ridge against oncoming vulture/tank timing pushes in order to slow them down. High ground advantage has a place in the game when it comes to controlling space. 7) Cliff walking/ Maps + Show Spoiler + While I see your point with cliff walking. I don't think it would be too difficult to solve through normal balancing. In a slower game, I'd very much like to see the movement speed of colossi reduced drastically. Making warp prisms more of a prerequisite for transporting them around for timing attacks. I honestly could see colossi working like reavers in PvP if they were to move a lot slower than they did now (with warpin and economy also being changed of course).
I think you'd see some really elegant prism/colossi micro both in battles and in harassing. I envision them in more of a defensive and/or siege unit role in a slower paced Starcraft 2. In that capacity, I wouldn't mind if Protoss armies were to be "imbalanced" PvZ. Because they'd also be slow moving without warp prisms. I wouldn't mind if assaulting protoss bases/expos would be harder, since the economic system would encourage a wasteful and super active style of play as opposed to a camping, hoarding, PREPARE FOR 1 BIG BATTLE WITH THE SHINIEST UNITS YOU CAN MUSTER AND THEN GG style of gameplay.
As for map designs. They adapt to the conditions of the game. Without warp gates, I might actually think forcefields are an OK restriction. Or rather I mean to say, they wouldn't be as much of a restriction for map makers. They'd be an acceptable restriction.
And I was wondering what you thought about his ranking? And more specifically, recreating the worker wandering of BW. My original answer to LaLuSh The reason why is (I'm pretty sure) there is a much softer cap on how many workers is most efficient on each base. Worker wandering gives more incentive to expand just like lower resources would. However, I hate, hate, hate the "you have 23/24" workers idea. Not the displaying of the numbers. But just that there is one and only one right way to play. Any variance and the player is getting in the way of the game. You hit 24 and that's the maximum that you should ever have mining.
Here's one of the old charts of effective workers per patch in BW. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=83287
Whereas I think less resources/ per base simply recreates the hard cap of workers, just with fewer numbers. Personally, I think the two biggest factors is rate of income combined with macro production. Too easy to max out at 200/200 within 10-14 minutes of the game. Once that's changed a lot of other things still need to be changed to make the battles interesting. But as long as macro feels like BGH or else Fastest Possible, all the new micro options in the world won't help.
|
It is at the point where people dedicate this much time to writing a post such as this and going into so much detail and so much research that the community and Blizzard need to pay all due attention and seriously consider running tests for this not just in the blizzard house but to the public. Something has to be done and I see no reason why this should not be at least trialed, and no implemented on whether Blizzard likes it or not rather whether or not it works!
|
This is an amazing post! I have been wracking my brain for over a year trying to play a more expansion-heavy game. The game as it is now requires so little tactical strategy. This is because bases and armies are much more condensed, thus allowing for easier defense. The more spread out bases and armies become, the more tactical you have to be with your engagements. I will be playing these maps for damn sure. Hope they produce the games I think Starcraft 2 is capable of!
|
Just read every line, great post. I agree with most of what's written and really feel like reducing the income per base is something worth exploring. Unfortunately unless either blizzard or one of the major leagues jumps onboard, it's going to be hard to switch over.
I noticed the NA BNET thread was deleted... was there ever a response from blizzard? Just a little message letting us know that they'd at least think about it?
|
What if, instead of reducing the number of mineral patches, you reduce the number of minerals per patch? I was thinking about that the other day and it seemed like it might have a similar impact without slowing down the start of the game.
|
I can do nothing but agree with this idea, and I hope that it still has a chance to make it. I still think that automining and MBS are big, big factors in our easy to max, deathball style play, alongside unlimited group size and ball movement, but as you said, we don't want to make SC2 into BW2; we want to make SC2 a better RTS game, and I think that this would be a huge step in the right direction, especially combined with some of the new, more positional HotS units (I'd vouch for the re-addition of the Lurker instead of the Swarm Host, though. I feel that it's a more skill-rewarding, exciting and positional unit. Also less situational. I absolutely love the widow mine, though.)
Watching players sitting on five bases and 160 supply at the 18 min mark gets me all giddy and excited, and makes me want to play all night. Combined with a general increase in map size, I really can see FRB bring this game to a whole new level.
|
What if, instead of reducing the number of mineral patches, you reduce the number of minerals per patch? I was thinking about that the other day and it seemed like it might have a similar impact without slowing down the start of the game.
This could work, another thing is, having normal amount of mineral patches in the main, but then every expansion has lower number of minerals and maybe even only 1 gas geyser. Definitely something map makers should experience with, such a great post. Only thing i disagree with is that having less resources allows for more micro, i think this is a false, since it would just lower the micro cap at that point. This point aside i totally agree i hate having this stagnated stage of the game, where both players are on 3 base economy and 200 supply and there's no more exponential growth. You can see my thread on Bnet about Supply Limits: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/5966867632
|
|
|
|