EPTone also hsa to wonder though if this would work because quite frankly a lot lot of people like terrible damage philosphy. play at a lower level you'll see what i mean.
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 48
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
one also hsa to wonder though if this would work because quite frankly a lot lot of people like terrible damage philosphy. play at a lower level you'll see what i mean. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
 Great work Barrin!  | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 21 2012 00:35 BXiT wrote: And that is your mistake. First of all you say that like talking about Blizzard like it is single a person. Blizzard staff changes all the time. You can be 100% sure that almost none of the staff that worked at every level on sc1 is on the sc2 team. Dustin Browder, has only made the legendary eSport friendly and very well balanced and interesting (in term of economy, micro, macro) game : C&C (Generals, was it?)... -.-' , David Kim nothing... Then without going into something that is fit for another whole long and painful discussion, judging somebody from past accomplishments is a big big mistake, commonly and consciously made by almost everyone. If you don't do your research on the subject, you'll have to take my word for it, or just plainly ignore me and stay with your biaised assumptions. I'd better discuss my proposals instead of just arguing about random stuff derivated from it. So if you have nothing better than just you are wrong, I'll leave it at that. I know staff changes, and not everyone is the same. That doesn't change the point that the community doesn't know what it's doing with the game. Judging someone from past accomplishments is a mistake? That's the only thing that you can judge somebody on. In anything. Ever. For example Martin Scorsese is a great filmmaker, because of his past accomplishments of great films. He could still make a poor one, but he gets judged on his past accomplishments too. On March 21 2012 00:45 Umpteen wrote: The bolded parts just seem like finger-in-the-air hyperbole to me; sorry I appreciate that some changes could be an almost complete balance reset. I just don't buy into the assumption that all changes that touch income must necessarily be so. What I did acknowledge in my earlier post is that map SIZE becomes more important the fewer resources you have per base, because when early expansions are (proportionally) a bigger investment you need more of a defender's advantage to secure them. But other than that, what's changing? Mostly the time at which you can have any given army - something that's changing (almost) equally for everyone - and the granularity of the expanding process. Mules are my biggest concern in that respect, but could well be offset by the gas change disproportionately benefiting Protoss and Zerg (banelings, sentries etc). Sure, it could all be broken. But SC2 doesn't feel knife-edge enough to say, without even testing, that 6m maps constitute a balance reset or will inevitably generate broken strategies. I think you're making an unsupportably general argument. Yes, all changes that touch income will alter the balance. Income and costs are what an RTS is designed around and balanced off of. If you change it, you change the balance. That's why gold bases were imbalanced, because the design was not based around that income level and terrans were able to benefit more from it than others. I'm not saying don't play these maps in custom games, or that the idea doesn't need to be explored and pitched to blizzard, but if the community tries to balance the game themselves so haughtily, they will fuck it up. The solution will never be so simple as just take away 2 mineral patches, and the community doesn't have the data, the technology, the means, the expertise, objective view, or any of the things that would be needed to undertake the full task that comes along with this idea, a redesign of the entire game. Maybe it is a little hyberbolic. Above all, I urge Caution. The community doesn't know what it's doing when it comes to designing, making, and balancing an RTS. ESports exists because the community came together to create it, but if we aren't careful, the community can also kill eSports. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 21 2012 02:18 Ragoo wrote: lol the amount of positive answers in this thread definitely exceed my expectations. I told Barrin this was a cool idea but only very few people would even care and there is no way we could make this change happen... seem I might be proven wrong now Great work Barrin! Anyone that knows anything about statistics knows that a forum thread is the most inaccurate way to sample the community. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 21 2012 02:43 0neder wrote: The point of this thread is that experimentation and tweaking should be ongoing. Nothing should be set in stone if this game is to last a decade and be a popular esport for that long. Very much so, but the community should not be the ones in charge of it. We should play custom games like these until they are the #1 populars, we should send feedback to blizzard, we should encourage tournaments to do things like remove golds and imbalanced maps. But we shouldn't be trying to force the tweaks that some may like and others don't onto the game. We shouldn't splinter and try to make an iccup ladder like one person mentioned, or declare war on blizzard and force them into these changes. For Sc2 to survive, we need humility. We must be mindful of the entire community and think about the future. | ||
|
Eluadyl
Turkey364 Posts
On March 21 2012 03:03 Fyrewolf wrote: Very much so, but the community should not be the ones in charge of it. We should play custom games like these until they are the #1 populars, we should send feedback to blizzard, we should encourage tournaments to do things like remove golds and imbalanced maps. But we shouldn't be trying to force the tweaks that some may like and others don't onto the game. We shouldn't splinter and try to make an iccup ladder like one person mentioned, or declare war on blizzard and force them into these changes. For Sc2 to survive, we need humility. We must be mindful of the entire community and think about the future. Are you even serious? People in this thread are proposing exactly the things you mentioned in your first two sentences. The rest are what you pulled out of your rear. Declare war on blizz? gimme a break. If you don't have anything useful to say, just stay quite and try to comprehend what people are saying. You are making things up obviously. | ||
|
UniQ.eu
Sweden82 Posts
| ||
|
pedduck
Thailand468 Posts
| ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On March 21 2012 03:03 Fyrewolf wrote: Very much so, but the community should not be the ones in charge of it. We should play custom games like these until they are the #1 populars, we should send feedback to blizzard, we should encourage tournaments to do things like remove golds and imbalanced maps. But we shouldn't be trying to force the tweaks that some may like and others don't onto the game. We shouldn't splinter and try to make an iccup ladder like one person mentioned, or declare war on blizzard and force them into these changes. For Sc2 to survive, we need humility. We must be mindful of the entire community and think about the future. When dealing with multi-million-dollar corporations, humility is really the last thing you need. I don't know, maybe you just sound way more negative than you try to sound, but to me, personally, you sound like you want to kill this whole idea with fire and forever banish everyone from the community who likes the idea. That, and calling the entire community incompetent when it comes to game design. I agree with you that "declaring war on Blizzard" won't be helpful, and that making a separate ladder won't be, either (not to mention it's forbidden by Blizzard anyhow), but I think the OP has an absolute great idea/concept and that we should explore it further, as a community. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But we won't find that out if we all just sit back and say "Well, I didn't study game design and Blizzard knows best anyhow, so we better not even talk about this". With that attitude, we would never have gotten rid of all these old, horrible maps. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 21 2012 03:17 Conti wrote: When dealing with multi-million-dollar corporations, humility is really the last thing you need. I don't know, maybe you just sound way more negative than you try to sound, but to me, personally, you sound like you want to kill this whole idea with fire and forever banish everyone from the community who likes the idea. That, and calling the entire community incompetent when it comes to game design. I agree with you that "declaring war on Blizzard" won't be helpful, and that making a separate ladder won't be, either (not to mention it's forbidden by Blizzard anyhow), but I think the OP has an absolute great idea/concept and that we should explore it further, as a community. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But we won't find that out if we all just sit back and say "Well, I didn't study game design and Blizzard knows best anyhow, so we better not even talk about this". With that attitude, we would never have gotten rid of all these old, horrible maps. I personally didn't enjoy my games on those maps, but I don't want to banish the idea or anyone who thinks it. It needs to be explored further in depth and I'm for that. But the community is the kind that will get up in arms and try to force change themselves, which they shouldn't do. They need Humility. And yes, there is no reason to think the community is competent at game design, I highly doubt the people posting in this thread have actually worked on an rts before. They need Humility. I wasn't specifically talking about the corporations though. ESports needs humility to survive, in a lot of areas. We can play all the custom games we want on these maps and do our testing and speculation and give feedback to blizzard and tournaments, but I'm saying we shouldn't overstep our bounds, not that we should sit back and do nothing. a.k.a. Humility. | ||
|
RoarMan
Canada745 Posts
I don't think lessening minerals per base will solve the problem, I really think supply is something that should be looked at. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On March 21 2012 03:43 Fyrewolf wrote: I personally didn't enjoy my games on those maps, but I don't want to banish the idea or anyone who thinks it. It needs to be explored further in depth and I'm for that. Great, I'm glad we can agree on that. But the community is the kind that will get up in arms and try to force change themselves, which they shouldn't do. They need Humility. I fundamentally disagree with this. The community is the reason we now have tournament maps on ladder. I think humility is generally a bad idea here, but elaborating on this would probably be quite off-topic. Of course the community shouldn't be a pitchfork-wielding mob, and ideas like this one should be thought through and tested thoroughly, but in the end the community should have its voice heard. Especially when Blizzard is involved. And yes, there is no reason to think the community is competent at game design, I highly doubt the people posting in this thread have actually worked on an rts before. True, the large majority of the community most likely is no expert at game design. But then again, the community also includes people playing this game for a living, people analyzing this game in front of an audience for a living, and most, most likely people working for Blizzard. But that's besides the point, anyhow. In the end, it would be most desirable if someone from Blizzard would look at this idea and comment on it, whether they'd say they like it or explain why it won't work. But for that to happen the community needs to have itself heard, see above. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On March 21 2012 02:33 Fyrewolf wrote: Yes, all changes that touch income will alter the balance. Income and costs are what an RTS is designed around and balanced off of. If you change it, you change the balance. That's why gold bases were imbalanced, because the design was not based around that income level and terrans were able to benefit more from it than others. I agree with the bolded part, but not solely because of mules. Too often, gold bases were where Terrans wanted to camp their army anyway: there was no risk/reward, just reward/reward. The rest... I'm sorry, but I don't follow; I suspect you're equivocating, if unintentionally. Yes: an RTS is balanced around income and costs, but not (so far as I can see) in the sense you're trying to imply, which is that it inevitably becomes unbalanced if you change everyone's income equally. Strategies changing because timings change != imbalance. Maybe it is a little hyberbolic. <snip> if we aren't careful, the community can also kill eSports. I just thought those two sentences deserved to be closer together | ||
|
Kevan
Sweden2303 Posts
| ||
|
Natespank
Canada449 Posts
| ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On March 21 2012 06:09 Umpteen wrote: I agree with the bolded part, but not solely because of mules. Too often, gold bases were where Terrans wanted to camp their army anyway: there was no risk/reward, just reward/reward. The rest... I'm sorry, but I don't follow; I suspect you're equivocating, if unintentionally. Yes: an RTS is balanced around income and costs, but not (so far as I can see) in the sense you're trying to imply, which is that it inevitably becomes unbalanced if you change everyone's income equally. Strategies changing because timings change != imbalance. I just thought those two sentences deserved to be closer together Even though the income changes equally for the races, it changes the balance. The physical cost changes because it is a greater part of your economy being invested, and the time cost is also not balanced around the new income rate. Nice snip. Just ignore the part where I urge caution in big bold letters so that we don't end up in hyperbolic situations. | ||
Falling
Canada11264 Posts
On March 21 2012 03:03 Fyrewolf wrote: Very much so, but the community should not be the ones in charge of it. We should play custom games like these until they are the #1 populars, we should send feedback to blizzard, we should encourage tournaments to do things like remove golds and imbalanced maps. But we shouldn't be trying to force the tweaks that some may like and others don't onto the game. We shouldn't splinter and try to make an iccup ladder like one person mentioned, or declare war on blizzard and force them into these changes. For Sc2 to survive, we need humility. We must be mindful of the entire community and think about the future. You do know how map making worked in BW right? One of the crucial steps was to abandon all of Blizzard's maps and use community made maps, particularly the progaming maps that have been tested over and over again and can be tweaked very quickly. It's sometimes argued that mapmaking was the final step in balancing the game and to keep balancing the game. The problem now is the monopoly Blizzard holds with maps with the Ladder system and a really crummy custom map system. But I don't really see why maps need Blizzard's stamp of approval. | ||
|
Nudelfisk
Sweden104 Posts
i for one love these kinds of ideas. creativity is awesome, leads to innovation, might lead to good things, might not. and whether it's good or bad will determine if it's put into the game. comparing film-making and game-design (5 games vs 0 etc) is not really relevant; you don't have viewers of the film trying to figure out new ways to watch the movie ("what if i put the TV upside-down?" lol sorry) except for certain types of people who look for conspiracies and hidden messages anywhere... in any case, the weirdoes who do this for movies don't affect anyone elses viewing. a game otoh is based around community interacting with each other, playing games against each other, trying to "break" the balance by finding something imbalanced that they can use in order to give themselves an advantage and win more than lose, or finding new ways to play in order to make it more enjoyable. so yeah, my take is that the playerbase uses the product infinitely more than does the developer and as such they will come up with infinitely more ideas on how to improve it. imo, the developer just needs to select the good ideas and implement them. this might be a good idea but yeah, i guess we'll have to wait and see. | ||
| ||
