|
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB |
On February 06 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 01:00 Lightspeaker wrote:On February 05 2013 11:08 sunglasseson wrote:
blizzard doesnt want to hurt AI to make this happen and thats fine.... but limit keybinds AT LEAST Doesn't go far enough in my opinion. You should only be able to select ONE unit at a time. Also you should only be able to play using your feet whilst standing on your head. That'll really sort people out and make it harder to play! More skill, right? I honestly don't get this "limit unit selection" argument at all. Nor the "make AI stupid" argument. You should be playing against other people, not wrestling against crappy unit AI that doesn't do what you tell it to totally at random. And certainly not fighting to merely move your army from one place to the other because you can't actually give orders to it all at once. The simple fact is that it IS beneficial to not straight up just select all and blob up. But why do people not do it? Because the benefits aren't really that strong. For example: taking the time and attention to adjust the Protoss army into the perfect layered configuration just isn't worth it for the benefit it provides. Even small things like staggering your colossus line in PvP against enemy colossus to reduce the splash just doesn't see enough use. Double or triple the effect of AoE and you will almost surely end all deathballs. As an example--the Reaver did 125 damage a shot over a large area, a colossus does 30 damage a shot over a smaller area. You'd be crazy to clump versus reavers, you can still make a clump work against colossus.
Another possibility could be special terrain on maps such as perma-spells or (as I believe you suggested in another thread, although I'm not sure) lava. [Edit: I mean you suggested lava. The spells are suggested in http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=395256 by someone else. Sorry for any confusion.]
My initial thought to this is that its silly, but after thinking a little more, this could take us closer to what we desire while working within the rules set by Blizzard (for ladder maps). Lava placed on the map with certain geometries could prevent people from just moving a blob around without repercussions. More care would be need to be taken to move small groups of units through safe ground, etc.
Of course, there are some other side effects that are questionable. For example, Protoss should probably never keep charge as autocast.
Sure, its not perfect, but maybe its worth trying?
|
I think reducing the resources per base is a great suggestion. Reducing the resources per base would increase the frequency of engagements and skill required to win games without alienating casual players.
6 mineral patches per base should be implemented on some tournament maps to test this concept, and if it's successful it could be expanded to the ladder pool.
|
I used to play Age of Mythology, and one of the things that I remember about unit movement was that if you selected all of your units, they would only move as fast as the slowest unit. This meant that to move more efficiently across the map you had to use different groups, or move individual types of units first, then move the slow ones. They also allowed you to select a "formation" for your units to move in, such as "Box Outline", "Clumped" and "Circle". I'm not certain if this would actually work in SC2, but the idea intrigues me
|
On February 07 2013 16:50 Rainling wrote:
I think reducing the resources per base is a great suggestion. Reducing the resources per base would increase the frequency of engagements and skill required to win games without alienating casual players.
6 mineral patches per base should be implemented on some tournament maps to test this concept, and if it's successful it could be expanded to the ladder pool.
You cannot simply put 6 mineral patches maps in the game without rebalancing the whole game.
I'd say Blizzard should go all-in in this, but they never will.
They'll get the message once the game is dead... right now it's dying but it's not dead yet 
|
On February 07 2013 17:12 Patate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 16:50 Rainling wrote:
I think reducing the resources per base is a great suggestion. Reducing the resources per base would increase the frequency of engagements and skill required to win games without alienating casual players.
6 mineral patches per base should be implemented on some tournament maps to test this concept, and if it's successful it could be expanded to the ladder pool. You cannot simply put 6 mineral patches maps in the game without rebalancing the whole game. I'd say Blizzard should go all-in in this, but they never will. They'll get the message once the game is dead... right now it's dying but it's not dead yet
I agree, the game would be imbalanced in the short term. I didn't think about the repercussions for balance on tournament maps considering the game is current balanced around 8 mineral patch per base.
It wouldn't be as simple as changing the tournament map pool, because that would result in race imbalances in tournaments. Maybe lower resources per base could be incrementally introduced to tournament maps, and Blizzard would slowly adjust balance in response.
It would be best if Blizzard started implementing 6 mineral patches per base, but without sufficient push from the community doing so would likely represent too much of a risk for them. I think the community needs to lead the way on this one.
|
On February 07 2013 17:22 Rainling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 17:12 Patate wrote:On February 07 2013 16:50 Rainling wrote:
I think reducing the resources per base is a great suggestion. Reducing the resources per base would increase the frequency of engagements and skill required to win games without alienating casual players.
6 mineral patches per base should be implemented on some tournament maps to test this concept, and if it's successful it could be expanded to the ladder pool. You cannot simply put 6 mineral patches maps in the game without rebalancing the whole game. I'd say Blizzard should go all-in in this, but they never will. They'll get the message once the game is dead... right now it's dying but it's not dead yet I agree, the game would be imbalanced in the short term. I didn't think about the repercussions for balance on tournament maps considering the game is current balanced around 8 mineral patch per base. It wouldn't be as simple as changing the tournament map pool, because that would result in race imbalances in tournaments. Maybe lower resources per base could be incrementally introduced to tournament maps, and Blizzard would slowly adjust balance in response. It would be best if Blizzard started implementing 6 mineral patches per base, but without sufficient push from the community doing so would likely represent too much of a risk for them. I think the community needs to lead the way on this one.
Tournaments, especially GSL, get support from Blizzard. They will never go their own way to innovate without Blizz's approval.
As for Blizzard, they should say " ok we fucked up.. we want to encourage macro games and we want to destroy the deathball.. there will be difficult times ahead as far as balance goes, but we think that in X months, the game will be as good, if not better, as BW to watch. Here's our plan..".
But that will not happen.
|
On February 07 2013 07:19 Falling wrote:I've heard it said when people learn to play the game 'right' they will start using hotkeys for their army. But I wonder exactly when that starts. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that 1 hotkey armies go a fair way up Blizzard's ladder. In contrast, a BW newb who may not know a single hotkey- the first ones they will probably learn is to hotkey their army.
I've never been a fan of artificial difficulty, but I'd like more ways to reward people using more hotkeys, and/or punish them for not doing it. Like, if fungal didn't root, and did more damage, it would reward splitting more. Better AOE generally is something that'd be good for the game.
I think we're just going to continue to get scraps from Blizzard, and have to make our own way. I've seen maps with neutral blind clouds at the bottom of ramps to make high ground a bigger deal, and I think that's the right way of thinking. A lot of BW maps were hilariously gimmicky, really. There's no reason to be ashamed of doing the same in SC2.
I wanna see maps with each mineral field having 1200 resources so they mine out even faster (rarely-noted difference between BW and SC2; BW bases last a lot longer). What if the third base was a 6-field gold with a single high-yield gas? Then we'd need 8 less drones to saturate it. What if we made the center low ground with neutral blinding clouds, but full of goodies? What if we had the salvage things from the vulture mission in the campaign occasionally dropping 75 minerals?
I don't know why everyone's so obsessed with having maps be Blizz-friendly and trying to get them on the ladder.
|
i read the beggining when OP is saying he try to fix sc2 gameplay by need to expanding more. Lol? In bw u expand usually much slower, it took years for terrans to start getting "fast" 3rd in tvp. I shake my head when i watch a cast and both players are taking 5th like 10 mins in the game without any previous skrimishes... I dont play sc2 anymore btw i only watch JD, Flash and Baby raping foreigners. (MVP invitational  )
|
On February 07 2013 18:46 Slayer_Chessi wrote:i read the beggining when OP is saying he try to fix sc2 gameplay by need to expanding more. Lol? In bw u expand usually much slower, it took years for terrans to start getting "fast" 3rd in tvp. I shake my head when i watch a cast and both players are taking 5th like 10 mins in the game without any previous skrimishes... I dont play sc2 anymore btw i only watch JD, Flash and Baby raping foreigners. (MVP invitational )
That's sort of the point. In sc2 economy goes much faster. If you reduce income per base, it will develop slower, making for longer early (pretty much nonexistant today) and midgame.
|
I do have a question about this: let's say that maps with third bases with six mineral patches and one geyser became standard, would that be a step in the right direction? And if so, while map makers can't get away with solely 6M bases, could they not push to get maps in the GSL which have these features?
And also, are these type of maps stronger for terran? (this wouldn't matter in HotS, mind you, since the balance is new anyway)
|
we lost somethings with unlimited unit selection, micro muta would be stupid with 40 mutas in 1 control group, vultures with that micro and free mines would be retardly op if you could select 60 of them
|
All sports have some kind of hindrances. Why do you have to bounce a basketball, instead of just running with it like in Handball? That's a hindrance that defines the game. If it isn't an antificial difficulty, what is it?
A less extreme example: in soccer, you can't have a player in the opponent's goal area before the ball has arrived. Isn't it artificial difficulty? Of course it is. And it helps soccer to be more dynamic, chalenging and fun.
The problem with unit selection limit, IMO, is that 1) it doesn't really stops deathballs; they'll still optimal for most units/strategies, so players will do the most to make it happen; 2) unlimited unit selection is one of the reasons why SC2 is a much more accessible game than BW. And accessibility is a good thing for a great number of reasons. Unit selection limits higher too much the skill floor, and doesn't higher the skill ceiling enough.
Given the level of AI technology we have today, overkill is also artificial difficulty. The difference is that 1) it doesn't make the newbie's life miserable and 2) it makes deathballs possible, but sub-optimal: so the player who a-moves is punished. It doesn't higher the skill floor; just the skill ceiling.
Now what really matters is... we have all those ideas:
- FRB
- Highground advantage
- Limited unit selection
- Overkill
What all of them need is a little less theorycrafting, a little more modding and testing, then back to theorycrafting.
|
They can't just simply reduce the amount of resources per base without redesigning the entire game, not to mention mules. I think they should focus more on implementing better early game strategies that fall somewhere in between what we had around launch (ridiculously overpowered all ins), and what we have now (don't attack until you have at least 3 bases).
I think 14/14 2 rax was probably the pinnacle of SC2 openers. It allowed for early aggro that was fun to play and watch, but it also wasn't a straight up all in nor was it impossible to fend off (though the zerg could still take substantial damage if outmicroed). These types of early game builds are what SC2 needs more of, imo. I'm pretty sure the proxy 11/11 version was the reason they eventually nerfed 2 rax in t v z, but maybe there is a way to bring it back in a more economic form without it being overpowered.
|
Edit : sorry for double post
|
On February 07 2013 18:20 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 07:19 Falling wrote:I've heard it said when people learn to play the game 'right' they will start using hotkeys for their army. But I wonder exactly when that starts. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that 1 hotkey armies go a fair way up Blizzard's ladder. In contrast, a BW newb who may not know a single hotkey- the first ones they will probably learn is to hotkey their army. I've never been a fan of artificial difficulty, but I'd like more ways to reward people using more hotkeys, and/or punish them for not doing it. Like, if fungal didn't root, and did more damage, it would reward splitting more. Better AOE generally is something that'd be good for the game. I think we're just going to continue to get scraps from Blizzard, and have to make our own way. I've seen maps with neutral blind clouds at the bottom of ramps to make high ground a bigger deal, and I think that's the right way of thinking. A lot of BW maps were hilariously gimmicky, really. There's no reason to be ashamed of doing the same in SC2. I wanna see maps with each mineral field having 1200 resources so they mine out even faster (rarely-noted difference between BW and SC2; BW bases last a lot longer). What if the third base was a 6-field gold with a single high-yield gas? Then we'd need 8 less drones to saturate it. What if we made the center low ground with neutral blinding clouds, but full of goodies? What if we had the salvage things from the vulture mission in the campaign occasionally dropping 75 minerals? I don't know why everyone's so obsessed with having maps be Blizz-friendly and trying to get them on the ladder.
Ribbon, you always post such wisdom.
It's on my list to make a map with scrap robots.
|
On February 08 2013 02:16 nerak wrote:
All sports have some kind of hindrances. Why do you have to bounce a basketball, instead of just running with it like in Handball? That's a hindrance that defines the game. If it isn't an antificial difficulty, what is it?
A less extreme example: in soccer, you can't have a player in the opponent's goal area before the ball has arrived. Isn't it artificial difficulty? Of course it is. And it helps soccer to be more dynamic, chalenging and fun.
The problem with unit selection limit, IMO, is that 1) it doesn't really stops deathballs; they'll still optimal for most units/strategies, so players will do the most to make it happen; 2) unlimited unit selection is one of the reasons why SC2 is a much more accessible game than BW. And accessibility is a good thing for a great number of reasons. Unit selection limits higher too much the skill floor, and doesn't higher the skill ceiling enough.
Given the level of AI technology we have today, overkill is also artificial difficulty. The difference is that 1) it doesn't make the newbie's life miserable and 2) it makes deathballs possible, but sub-optimal: so the player who a-moves is punished. It doesn't higher the skill floor; just the skill ceiling.
Now what really matters is... we have all those ideas:
- FRB
- Highground advantage
- Limited unit selection
- Overkill
What all of them need is a little less theorycrafting, a little more modding and testing, then back to theorycrafting.
I don't disagree with you--but the reason you bounce a ball in basketball is (now) to prevent traveling. I forgot what game it was, but a team once just hugged on to the ball like a vice and walked around for 15-20 minutes at a time and the game ended in their favor since they'd score a 2-4 points ahead and just turtle with their grip ball for the rest of the game.
So it's sort of artificial difficulty--but it's also to prevent turtling. In other words, if no one bounces the ball then no one can steal the ball from each other, player interaction is then made null and void and you stop having a game.
But yes--I do agree with you
|
I think what we're agreeing with is: difficulty just for the sake of difficulty isn't smart. Hidrances to shape the game into something better to play/watch is different.
|
On February 08 2013 02:50 nerak wrote:
I think what we're agreeing with is: difficulty just for the sake of difficulty isn't smart. Hidrances to shape the game into something better to play/watch is different.
+1
I mean...
I agree!
Whichever is the more appropriate response.
|
On February 08 2013 02:50 nerak wrote:
I think what we're agreeing with is: difficulty just for the sake of difficulty isn't smart. Hidrances to shape the game into something better to play/watch is different.
Agreed. Fun is most important.
|
Considering things like economy design, pathfinding changes, overkill, moving shot, high ground advantage, limited unit selection, and so on, there are clearly some workable suggestions.The fact that Blizzard has demonstrated no awareness of any of the community discussion of these concepts is in my opinion the single worst thing that has happened in the development of Heart of the Swarm; there are no changes, no references to it, not a single concession done.
Development of Brood War, including the original game, took as long as the development of Heart of the Swarm alone, don't tell me they didn't have the time or resources to experiment with any changes to these type of fundamental aspects of the game. They didn't even remove any of the units that function badly in Wings of Liberty, although they had the opportunity to replace all the units that the community dislikes so much (colossus). It feels to me like they want to have a maximum of results for a minimum of effort, which is unsurprising given that seemingly there are only two people (DK, DB) that work on multi-player development.
I think it's the curse of Starcraft 2: not good enough to stop people from complaining about the game, but good enough to prevent them from doing anything about it.
I do actually like the idea of switching to third or fourth bases with fewer resources, like Tal'Darim Altar and Daybreak used to have. I think it could be successful and it's less radical than FRB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
