EPT
Yeah surprised nobody clocked this faster
Developers Update : Heart of the Swarm - Page 79
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Autotroph
United Kingdom940 Posts
Yeah surprised nobody clocked this faster | ||
|
Dreadwolf
Canada220 Posts
On April 16 2012 01:36 Pitrocelli wrote: Being one of last fanboys prevents you from seeing real flaws. Are you forgotting ladder is shrinking rapidly season after season, viewers numbers are dropping ? Most viewed match in SC2 have been Nada vs Boxer not long after beta and it has been downhill ever since .. So what you are saying is, we should play lol, its is the superb design of this game that make the population grow and that in itself is suposed to indicate a good game from a bad one. If that was true how come BW isnt the only game played on this planet. Do you know what would have slow the decline in, better chat clan support, does this make the game design better, NO! not at all, its the same game, yet it would retain more people.. Now for the viewers, Why Nada vs Boxer was the most view match wasnt because sc2 was at the peek of its popularity, it wasnt, it was still going up. The reason why it has the most view is because allot of people from BW watched it, plain an simple it was for a brief time a glimpse of what will happen when the BW and the SC2 community merged into one. It WILL happen, some BW fan will never switch but when the big 3 go to sc2 and they will, Flash is watching Vods of sc2 already, BW teams bought really nice new computer to play sc2, kespa is ready to switch too, its going to happen, this year? i dont think so, Next Year? yeah probably. | ||
|
Mehukannu
Finland421 Posts
I guess that would go to show how annoying it is that it messes up your brain by not being logical or something. =D | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
On April 12 2012 01:25 rift wrote: I don't want "cool" stuff, I want a well-designed esport. Blizzard, please stop making units that are explicitly role-specific. Swallow your pride and use the assistance of Kespa/progamers as was planned. IP rights dispute is over. You propose to have a bunch of people that aren't play SC2 at the highest level, to decide where SC2 goes? Kespa fanboyism is too much man lol. | ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
It means that the number of possible strategies and builds will greatly increase. Making a macro nexus will actually be viable. It hugely increases the decisions a protoss player has to make with regards to nexus energy. They have to manage the exact amount of energy on each nexus. Think ahead and prepare for a possible escape or defense by pooling energy, and weigh the opportunity costs of holding that energy instead of using it as it comes for chrono. (Think terrans saving scans) The other races already have multiple ways to use their energy. (queens, orbitals) Only makes sense that toss get its own choices. This change does so much good to relieve stagnation in SC2 that any problems that occur with balance will for sure be solved without having to remove recall on the nexus. And also, when looking at nexus recall, if you are just adding to Wings of Liberty and changing nothing else, obviously there are things to worry about. But every race will be getting new stuff to play with in HOTS. It's just that the toys for toss have already been more fleshed out, which I would argue is because it's easier to see the holes in Protoss design. | ||
|
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
| ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
Then you see how important this is to me! | ||
|
TheMatrix
51 Posts
On April 15 2012 19:41 VoO wrote: Everyone who hates argues that "SC2 should be more like Broodwar" and the opposite "Then play Broodwar, this is SC2" arguments are stupid. StarCraft 2 should have been the evolution of Broodwar. Now it's more like a bad C&C crossover which basically was verified by recycled ideas of Browder during the HotS presentation. Races were designed which much less hard mechanics to appeal to the mainstream, but which will 100% backfire since the watchability of deathballs are not as exciting as, e.g. good marine micro (one of the few examples of old fashioned BW hard mechanics in SC2). Conclusion is that C&C style units don't work for a game like SC and if Browder won't stop to implement the units from his past games, SC2 will be ruined in the long run for highest level players, i.e. we won't see any long-term consistency in player base and a decline of interest within the viewership at least for certain matchups. Its already happening, we are seeing sharp declines in playing numbers and watching numbers. We've also seen a small reduction in professional players. And we must remember Brood War didn't have the massive hype that SC2 did and there wasn't the internet so much back then for everyone to get hooked and Brood War still succeeded. SC2 with all the technology, hype and community it had going for it is actually performing worse than Brood War did 12 years ago. | ||
|
Novalisk
Israel1818 Posts
On April 12 2012 01:30 Egyptian_Head wrote: I am a little disappointed about the shredder, I liked the idea but I don't see how you can solve the issues the unit had. Glad the replicant is gone. Same, I wish they gave the shredder a bit more effort. It's a great concept that could have worked. Some thoughts: 1. Make the shredder affect all units, friendly and enemy, to avoid confusion. 2. Give it a hide ability, so it turns invisible if it hasn't moved or attacked in like 10 seconds. 3. Make them unable to attack with hold position, just like lurkers. 4. Make it pulse damage instead of doing constant damage, so it can be micro'd against. Example: "BZZZZZZZZ"-cooldown-cooldown-cooldown-"BZZZZZZZ". 5. Make shredders un-deployable in another shredders deployed range. You could also make their damage not stack but that would not be visually intuitive. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:16 TheMatrix wrote: Its already happening, we are seeing sharp declines in playing numbers and watching numbers. We've also seen a small reduction in professional players. And we must remember Brood War didn't have the massive hype that SC2 did and there wasn't the internet so much back then for everyone to get hooked and Brood War still succeeded. SC2 with all the technology, hype and community it had going for it is actually performing worse than Brood War did 12 years ago. Starcraft (and afterwards Broodwar) had a massive hype. It was the successor to the most sold PC game in the world (WC2) and was released in an era in which RTS was a very hyped genre. That being said, it doesn't make sense at all to compare those two. BW was the beginning of RTS esports, there was no business competition like SC2 has or had at least had to overcome with BW, WC3 and all the semiRTS games like the DotA clones. And that's only the RTS competition, not the general game competition (MMORPGs, RPGs and Shooters are probably more popular right now for casual gamers). Also show some numbers of players and how they have changed (for SC2 and BW), or whatever you are describing doesn't/didn't happen. | ||
|
habeck
1120 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:28 Novalisk wrote: Same, I wish they gave the shredder a bit more effort. It's a great concept that could have worked. Some thoughts: 1. Make the shredder affect all units, friendly and enemy, to avoid confusion. 2. Give it a hide ability, so it turns invisible if it hasn't moved or attacked in like 10 seconds. 3. Make them unable to attack with hold position, just like lurkers. 4. Make it pulse damage instead of doing constant damage, so it can be micro'd against. Example: "BZZZZZZZZ"-cooldown-cooldown-cooldown-"BZZZZZZZ". 5. Make shredders un-deployable in another shredders deployed range. You could also make their damage not stack but that would not be visually intuitive. The funny part is that you want to create super OP unit and you think that will be balanced. Nice, Blizz took it out because it won't be possible to balance such a unit - Too strong or too weak | ||
|
nemonic
132 Posts
On April 15 2012 23:38 Arkless wrote: These commonplace statements are getting very very old, mostly due to the fact that it isn't true in the slightest and is just a jab from someone on the outside looking in. Be honest with yourself, you have 0 idea what it takes to make a video game. As well you have 0 clue what goes on at blizzard behind closed doors. To inject an emotion into someone you don't even know is just ridiculous. Your statement is basically just fluff, with no real substance. There are always people who love to bitch but bring nothing to the table. This sort of reasoning is getting very old too. It's always the same: You criticize Blizzard and someone will come up and say: "You're not a game designer, thus you know nothing. Dustin Browder knows it all better ...". It doesn't matter in the slightest whether you are a game designer or not to criticize certain aspects of Blizzard's choices. It doesn't take a genious to see that Blizzard is making a chaotic impression with this blog entry. And Dustin Browder is just known for making questionable Balance statements. His statement on the early mappool is just legendary: + Show Spoiler + "We make our map pools for the ladder, for ladder players. There are players who like to rush, there are players who like to macro, We do have a system where you can veto maps you don't want to play on.. But I think we're starting to see a lot of the tournament players making these VERY complicated maps, with a LOT of expansions. This is not going to work for a lot our ladder players. A lot of our ladder players are going to fail to scout a lot of those extra expansions - and then its all about hidden expansions. Which is not appropriate - it's not a fun game. So we do want to have a mix of maps. We don't feel like what happens in tournament is appropriate for ladder, and what happens on ladder is not appropriate for tournaments, and we're very comfortable with two separate types of pools happening there. And we're gonna continue with that until we're convinced otherwise." You don't have to agree with everything a game developer says. But if the lead designer comes up with statements like that, then I truly feel that something is going wrong. My fear about this is simply that Blizzard does not listen to the community concerning design choices but rather focuses on short term success by mostly only trying to appeal casual gamers. | ||
|
Novalisk
Israel1818 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:55 habeck wrote: The funny part is that you want to create super OP unit and you think that will be balanced. Nice, Blizz took it out because it won't be possible to balance such a unit - Too strong or too weak If a unit is easy to balance then it's likely boring. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On April 16 2012 03:55 habeck wrote: The funny part is that you want to create super OP unit and you think that will be balanced. Nice, Blizz took it out because it won't be possible to balance such a unit - Too strong or too weak Don't know why cloaking it would be a better idea, with them saying it was OP in the first place. 1 doesn't do much for what they said was OP (Shredder in mineral lines=20+ dead workers). 3 makes them stronger- transfer all at once, wait, then boom. 4 makes no difference with hold position. 5 might actually be a good nerf but that depends on what the shredder's base damage was. Would still be extremely good though, because you're still weakening a whole group of units at once, making it easier for them to be killed later. edit- on top of that, I didn't like the fact that it was a shitty role unit- it's either there to be put in mineral lines/sneaky harass unit, which Terran needs least out of all the races what with hellions, banshees and drops giving the most harass options already- or it's there to make sure that someone's army can't head in a particular direction- even if it was weak enough to not kill anything, if it's a TvT and the other guy is going bio, taking 10-20 health off of every marine in a control group is still incredibly powerful. But my main problem with it is that you can't really be creative with it- you either hide it and hope that it kills things, or you place it in a main lane to prevent the army from reaching there earlier. I'd rather have a set of new units that are good in many situations, like the Lurker and medic were. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On April 14 2012 18:44 Mafe wrote: There are a ton of possibilities to make an ability like nexus recall balanced and in fact even more interestingwithout removing it. Like for example no recall for massive units, high-tier-research needed before use, lot of energy for use, cast-delay on use (rendereing units helpless while waiting to be recalled just as with warp-in), units loosing shields/energy after being recalled... Just make a neutral protoss shop next to Xel'naga towers on every map and sell the scroll of mass recall for 350 minerals. Problem solved. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On April 15 2012 04:15 Falling wrote: Battle for Middle Earth suffers the same problem most modern RTS have these days. The units' response time between clicking and moving is extremely sluggish and therefore unmicroable no matter how many years the game has been out. Cool atmosphere I agree, but I couldn't stand playing it for every long. Think of every unit with all the response time and speed of the Thor. Do you know why that is the case? I am kind of used to it now, but I really really wanted to know when I first played Blizzard games after years of playing Age of Empires and other genres' games (e.g. shooters/fighting games). Units including workers all felt laggy/sliding/smooth-moving/accelerating instead of responding instantly to my commands. Everything felt less crisp. It took a long time for me to get used to it but I don't know why it has to be that way. You can see this effect in SC2. Move an SCV from point A to point B, it arrives at B as if it was decelerating instead of moving at full speed and making a sudden stop. Same thing when you change directions. It bugged me to no end when I first had to deal with this. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On April 16 2012 05:10 usethis2 wrote: Do you know why that is the case? I am kind of used to it now, but I really really wanted to know when I first played Blizzard games after years of playing Age of Empires and other genres' games (e.g. shooters/fighting games). Units including workers all felt laggy/sliding/smooth-moving/accelerating instead of responding instantly to my commands. Everything felt less crisp. It took a long time for me to get used to it but I don't know why it has to be that way. You can see this effect in SC2. Move an SCV from point A to point B, it arrives at B as if it was decelerating instead of moving at full speed and making a sudden stop. Same thing when you change directions. It bugged me to no end when I first had to deal with this. Because casual players don't really care about sluggish control as long as the animation and movement look more realistic. If you can move backwards and forwards instantly with no time for the turning animation, then it looks weird. Old games didn't have these constraints, since everything was in 2D, I suppose. Nobody cares if your grunt in WC2 doesn't have a pretty turning animation since it's represented by a sprite anyway. In Starcraft II, Stalkers have a lengthy turning animation while shooting, unlike marines, which means you can never micro stalkers against marines perfectly. But I think it's okay if you have at least some 'twitchy' units. (marines, zerglings) | ||
|
eloist
United States1017 Posts
On April 16 2012 05:10 usethis2 wrote: Do you know why that is the case? I am kind of used to it now, but I really really wanted to know when I first played Blizzard games after years of playing Age of Empires and other genres' games (e.g. shooters/fighting games). Units including workers all felt laggy/sliding/smooth-moving/accelerating instead of responding instantly to my commands. Everything felt less crisp. It took a long time for me to get used to it but I don't know why it has to be that way. You can see this effect in SC2. Move an SCV from point A to point B, it arrives at B as if it was decelerating instead of moving at full speed and making a sudden stop. Same thing when you change directions. It bugged me to no end when I first had to deal with this. It's prioritization of a cinematic feel over gameplay on the developers side. It's the same reason why some games look amazing but offer you less control as a tradeoff (unresponsive drunken-drake in uncharted comes to mind). Basically to retain a twitchy and responsive feel, game developers need to allow you to cancel out of animations, which doesn't look great. It's a tough balance. Most RTS games get this horribly wrong though. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On April 16 2012 05:53 Grumbels wrote: Because casual players don't really care about sluggish control as long as the animation and movement look more realistic. If you can move backwards and forwards instantly with no time for the turning animation, then it looks weird. Old games didn't have these constraints, since everything was in 2D, I suppose. Nobody cares if your grunt in WC2 doesn't have a pretty turning animation since it's represented by a sprite anyway. In Starcraft II, Stalkers have a lengthy turning animation while shooting, unlike marines, which means you can never micro stalkers against marines perfectly. But I think it's okay if you have at least some 'twitchy' units. (marines, zerglings) I think Stalkers and Marines have the same turn rate. Marines just have a very low damage point (delay before attack) and backlash (delay after attack). Most units (including stalkers,) have the same stats in these sections because Blizzard never bothered to customize them other than the Marine and Marauder and a few other units. It's lower for Marines and Marauders which is why they are so good at kiting. Edit: In Age of Mythology there was a terrible issue with special abilities. They were all auto abilities and many had long animations with delays. It would make the units bug out and they couldn't decide between attacking normally or going into their special animation if you right clicked anything with them. It was so bad I had to only build units that didn't have special abilities last time I played. Battle for Middle Earth was worse than other games, though. I think it just had sloppy programming. I modded it a fair bit, and was able to adjust things like delays and attack animations, but it didn't really help that much. You just couldn't really have much control over your units no matter what. | ||
|
TheMatrix
51 Posts
On April 16 2012 06:10 Gfire wrote: I think Stalkers and Marines have the same turn rate. Marines just have a very low damage point (delay before attack) and backlash (delay after attack). Most units (including stalkers,) have the same stats in these sections because Blizzard never bothered to customize them other than the Marine and Marauder and a few other units. It's lower for Marines and Marauders which is why they are so good at kiting. Edit: In Age of Mythology there was a terrible issue with special abilities. They were all auto abilities and many had long animations with delays. It would make the units bug out and they couldn't decide between attacking normally or going into their special animation if you right clicked anything with them. It was so bad I had to only build units that didn't have special abilities last time I played. Battle for Middle Earth was worse than other games, though. I think it just had sloppy programming. I modded it a fair bit, and was able to adjust things like delays and attack animations, but it didn't really help that much. You just couldn't really have much control over your units no matter what. and guess who was lead designer for battle for middle earth - Dustin Browder All his games have had sluggish controls and unresponsive units | ||
| ||
