|
On June 18 2012 10:17 Xiphos wrote:
Look guys here is the problems that most are having in StarCraft 2: Unit Clumping
Easy solution would be to increase AoE dmg so that you have the incentive of actually splitting your Units!
In Brood War, you can easily clump up your units as well due to archaic AI like Hydralisks are stuck together when moving to one location or Lurkers need to be spread out INDIVIDUALLY and same with tanks to prevent being stormed or hit by Stasis. In BW, there is just as much unit spreading needed. That's because Psionic Storm, Siege Tanks and all those area of effect spells dealt SOOO much more damage to their enemies (Vultures Mines are Area of Effect too).
This is where the argument of instroducing Lurkers instead of Swarm Host comes in. Swarm Hosts merely send out minions out of them. Still doesn't give me any reason for Terran to split as they can just clump up as one blob to fend off against it. You want to see players to do the most inhumane move possible, you want to add the Lurkers where one spine hit can annilate your entire force. Players will have to move their units one by one and that is APM taxing.
But I know that SC2 is meant to target onto a casual fanbase so I doubt they will attempt introducing harder mechanics.
That would be a good start, but it doesn't solve the problem of psychological army size and unit clipping affecting legibility.
|
On June 18 2012 09:51 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:44 SarcasmMonster wrote:On June 18 2012 09:40 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 09:36 SarcasmMonster wrote:On June 18 2012 09:32 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 08:50 Vindicare605 wrote:
Here's the disagreement.
You feel like the unit clumping in SC2 is a problem that needs to be corrected. While the developers feel it's a part of the game in the same way the pathing in SC1 was. Rather than just split stuff up which they can do, they want to make the game balanced despite it the same way they did with Brood War's pathing 10 years ago.
So while the developers are trying to make what they have work, you're asking them to completely rework a core part of the game in order to make what you envision and want work better.
This would be understandable in most circumstances, except there are a few huge reasons it isn't. 1 - Starcraft is about big armies. BW armies felt bigger because they took up multiple screens. What is currently 'part of the game' in SC2 is single screen hyper concentrated deathballs. That isn't what made BW successful, nor is it as exciting. At times, it can approach the same level of excitement, but it is more rare. The deathball diminishes the variability in positioning that allows for layers of success in engagements. 2 - It's not just about relative spacing. UNITS ACTUALLY CLIP EACH OTHER. This is bad for player micro, and bad for legibility as it makes the game harder to understand because of the layers of information. This is bad for esports beyond just the psychological army size. Blizzard has no reason to not fix spacing, other than laziness and money. The 'part of the game' response is a cop-out that attempts to ignore the fundamental superiority of actual correct spacing. To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen. Twice is an exaggeration and the asymmetrical viewing window is another sc2 shortcoming, but don't get me started on that. =) I don't think it's an exaggeration (or the exaggeration is very minor). 40% more width and 40% more height is enough to double the surface area. Especially when the observer removes the HUD, you get a huge part of the map on the screen at one time. Are you talking pixel count? I'm confused, let's talk percent of aspect ratio. Given that, I'd say it's no more than 30% wider. Is the SC2 camera zoomed out further? At any rate, screen proportion alone is not the cause of this.
I'm just talking about how much stuff you can see on the screen at a time. I think it's because SC2 is played in a higher resolution and a larger wider field of view (???). Not really sure how to objectively compare.
SC2: If you take off the HUD, that's another 20-25% more screen space.
![[image loading]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/i6Hiq5-BgYQ/0.jpg)
BW:
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ULTyJUbQNOI/TaZtnmqqdvI/AAAAAAAAACU/fOt-w9jo5es/s1600/starcraftqwe.jpg)
Also note that Metalopolis (140x140) is a bigger map than Big Game Hunters (128x128). You can see on the minimap how much of the map (or a battle) can fit on the screen at one time.
|
SarcasmMonster, I think you might be on to something there!
Zoom in all the SC2 games!
That might give us more of a lucid view!
|
On June 18 2012 10:32 Xiphos wrote:
SarcasmMonster, I think you might be on to something there!
Zoom in all the SC2 games!
That might give us more of a lucid view!
Exactly! I want to get close and personal with every single unit on the battle field. Zoom in until I can see the whites of their eyes.
|
On June 18 2012 09:53 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:47 Fencer710 wrote:
I guess no one read my suggestion to slightly increase movement speed across the board and along with that, increase AoE? A decent proposal. However, SC2 is already pretty fast and on the border of confusion for a casual spectator. This also wouldn't address the psychologically small army size issue.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I thought it was a great game for casual spectators or people who have never even played starcraft it self, unlike watching mobas thats like watching someone play cricket without know the rules which I don't but I understand how mobas work but I think my example holds.
rts is the red army is trying to kill the blue army its simple enough as is just knowing the units and what they do is helpful.
|
To me SC2 is not SCBW. If I wanted BW units I'd play SC2BW or BW.
The idea AFAIK is to create units which aren't replicants of old units but create similar roles. We see the Phoenix and the Corsair having the same function on paper (more or less), the tanks, marines, zerglings, etc. etc. all have similar functions which were stable to the SC universe but I kinda like the fact that Blizzard is trying new things.
|
On June 18 2012 09:07 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 07:34 maybenexttime wrote:On June 18 2012 07:24 Ownos wrote:
Because it's Starcraft *2* More like "random RTS 2", as blizzard did not want to capture any of StarCraft's beauty. If it didn't look like StarCraft in terms of graphics/unit names, etc. people would have a hard time finding similarities between the two beyond the superficial level. Does it really matter? I would argue that the jump from WC2 -> WC3 is a 10x bigger gap than BW -> SC2. And WC3 is a great RTS game. (Unless you are talking about nostalgia? I'm not really sure why a sequel needs to mimic its predecessor)
It was a great RTS game to be sure, but it still didn't hold a candle to BW as an esport in terms of legibility.
Is it really up for debate why sequels should mimic their predecessor? Because the reason they exist is that their predecessor hit upon a winning formula.
|
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote:
To me SC2 is not SCBW. If I wanted BW units I'd play SC2BW or BW.
The idea AFAIK is to create units which aren't replicants of old units but create similar roles. We see the Phoenix and the Corsair having the same function on paper (more or less), the tanks, marines, zerglings, etc. etc. all have similar functions which were stable to the SC universe but I kinda like the fact that Blizzard is trying new things.
Except, the Phoenix and Corsair do not at all have the same function. It's great to try new things, but just as you keep the new thing when it succeeds, you also revert/replace the new thing when it fails.
|
On June 18 2012 10:36 MugenXBanksy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:53 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 09:47 Fencer710 wrote:
I guess no one read my suggestion to slightly increase movement speed across the board and along with that, increase AoE? A decent proposal. However, SC2 is already pretty fast and on the border of confusion for a casual spectator. This also wouldn't address the psychologically small army size issue. uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I thought it was a great game for casual spectators or people who have never even played starcraft it self, unlike watching mobas thats like watching someone play cricket without know the rules which I don't but I understand how mobas work but I think my example holds. rts is the red army is trying to kill the blue army its simple enough as is just knowing the units and what they do is helpful.
The rules of Sc2 remain equally simple as army size increases. Having better unit spacing increases legibility and unit recognition, both of which help the casual viewer. Having a more spread out army doesn't make things more confusing, but it does give a more epic feel to the game.
|
On June 18 2012 10:51 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote:
To me SC2 is not SCBW. If I wanted BW units I'd play SC2BW or BW.
The idea AFAIK is to create units which aren't replicants of old units but create similar roles. We see the Phoenix and the Corsair having the same function on paper (more or less), the tanks, marines, zerglings, etc. etc. all have similar functions which were stable to the SC universe but I kinda like the fact that Blizzard is trying new things. Except, the Phoenix and Corsair do not at all have the same function. It's great to try new things, but just as you keep the new thing when it succeeds, you also revert/replace the new thing when it fails.
I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out.
|
On June 18 2012 09:44 Xiphos wrote:
In China, there is a game streaming site on Sina.com (the biggest websites there is for news, and pretty much everything) kinda like Afreeca for SK or Twitch. Funny how Age of Empire 3 is the number one all time played game and not StarCraft 2
because Chinese consumers (and almost all asians beside Japan) are very unlikely to buy games and software in general. They don't have the same respect of intellectual properties as us
|
On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote:
I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out.
A splash air unit with exponentially scalable air superiority in no way is comparable to a non splash air unit of similar cost, even on paper.
Also, this idea that expansions will make working kinks out easier is a farce. Two years into WoL, Blizzard is still messing up the game with unnecessary tweaks like the ghost and possibly the queen. If anything, HotS has shown that expansions actually reset nearly the entire game design.
If proposing a silly 22 range or ridicu-splash air near-hero unit is Browder's definition of 'working out kinks' then there is little hope. The design team is doing so many things in backwards ways.
|
On June 18 2012 12:07 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote:
I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out. A splash air unit with exponentially scalable air superiority in no way is comparable to a non splash air unit of similar cost, even on paper. Also, this idea that expansions will make working kinks out easier is a farce. Two years into WoL, Blizzard is still messing up the game with unnecessary tweaks like the ghost and possibly the queen. If anything, HotS has shown that expansions actually reset nearly the entire game design. If proposing a silly 22 range or ridicu-splash air near-hero unit is Browder's definition of 'working out kinks' then there is little hope. The design team is doing so many things in backwards ways.
The EXACT same "reset" happened when SC1 went into Brood War.
Medics? Dark Templar? Lurkers?
All of those units were potentially game breaking units and yet they somehow managed to work back then. There were issues in SC1 that weren't ever even solved by Blizzard but eventually later by tournament made maps.
I find it so confusing and hypocritical that you're so eager to praise how good of a game Brood War is after years and years of evolution and yet are so reluctant to allow SC2 that same evolutionary process.
|
On June 18 2012 12:50 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 12:07 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 10:39 IntoTheheart wrote:
I believe they did on paper when the game was being designed. I mean you can use units in "weird," sorts of ways that the game wasn't designed for.
Altogether remember that there are two more expansions to get all the kinks worked out. A splash air unit with exponentially scalable air superiority in no way is comparable to a non splash air unit of similar cost, even on paper. Also, this idea that expansions will make working kinks out easier is a farce. Two years into WoL, Blizzard is still messing up the game with unnecessary tweaks like the ghost and possibly the queen. If anything, HotS has shown that expansions actually reset nearly the entire game design. If proposing a silly 22 range or ridicu-splash air near-hero unit is Browder's definition of 'working out kinks' then there is little hope. The design team is doing so many things in backwards ways. The EXACT same "reset" happened when SC1 went into Brood War. Medics? Dark Templar? Lurkers? All of those units were potentially game breaking units and yet they somehow managed to work back then. There were issues in SC1 that weren't ever even solved by Blizzard but eventually later by tournament made maps. I find it so confusing and hypocritical that you're so eager to praise how good of a game Brood War is after years and years of evolution and yet are so reluctant to allow SC2 that same evolutionary process.
First of all, I'm not complaining about imba HotS units. I'm actually doing the opposite and saying there should be more imba splash units in SC2.
Secondly, you're ignoring my point. Starcraft got the foundation right and Brood War added more units. Did Brood War have to re-work unit spacing? Moving shot micro? High ground mechanics? Volatile macro mechanics? The evolutionary design process is easy, it's the intuition and wisdom of the design team that concerns me.
|
Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
|
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote:
Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
if someone could make a good arguement for why a unit similar to those games would make sc2 better more than WoL, HotS or bw units I'd support it!
|
On June 18 2012 12:57 Benjamin99 wrote:
Why dont they use units from warcraft 3? Or Commander & Conquer?. Maybe becuase its a new game? I really dont understand why BW fans keep bitching about starcraft 2. Its not the same game its a new game!
If you dont like it dont play it its very simple!
Unfortunately, I don't think your post was a troll attempt, but just to name a few:
Blink - from WC3
Concussive shells - from WC3
Hero Units - from WC3
Super long range high supply units - from C&C
And I'm not familiar with C&C, but based off what I've heard from TL, apparently most of the new SC2 units and their abilities directly correlate to C&C units, and many of SC2's current deficiencies parallel those of C&C.
I like SC2. But LIKE isn't good enough. Ever seen Ratatouille. I don't just want to LIKE SC2. I want to LOVE it. It's not good enough right now to love.
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
|
On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote:
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
You'd have to be extremely naive to pretend that BW was built on strong foundation of "game design, competition and excitement".
The competition and excitement was basically non-existent for years, until Boxer basically dragged the entire scene into the spotlight.
And a foundation of game design...just ask anyone who actually played the game, and they'll tell you the game was plagued with crippling quirks and bugs that were completely unintended. It was pure dumb luck that those glitches enhanced the competitive environment, instead of making it a complete and absolute dud.
|
On June 18 2012 13:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote:
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
You'd have to be extremely naive to pretend that BW was built on strong foundation of "game design, competition and excitement". The competition and excitement was basically non-existent for years, until Boxer basically dragged the entire scene into the spotlight. And a foundation of game design...just ask anyone who actually played the game, and they'll tell you the game was plagued with crippling quirks and bugs that were completely unintended. It was pure dumb luck that those glitches enhanced the competitive environment, instead of making it a complete and absolute dud.
Would BW have been chosen as the competitive game if it wasn't really fun to play on a well-designed battle.net and tons of people hadn't been already playing it? Then it was built on a foundation of competition and excitement.
Was a good high ground mechanic luck/glitch?
Was units that don't clip each other luck/glitch?
Was good unit/race dynamic design luck/glitch?
I don't think so.
Sure, MutaStack, etc. were bugs, but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about basic essential keys to success.
|
On June 18 2012 13:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 13:05 0neder wrote:
If you want to understand the critique, then you need to understand BW. I don't care about Brood War itself, but I love it because it was based on successful principles of game design, competition, and excitement. SC2 needs that complete foundation or it will fizzle fast. You can't just change major league baseball to teeball and say NEW GAME! BE HAPPY!
You'd have to be extremely naive to pretend that BW was built on strong foundation of "game design, competition and excitement". The competition and excitement was basically non-existent for years, until Boxer basically dragged the entire scene into the spotlight. And a foundation of game design...just ask anyone who actually played the game, and they'll tell you the game was plagued with crippling quirks and bugs that were completely unintended. It was pure dumb luck that those glitches enhanced the competitive environment, instead of making it a complete and absolute dud.
BoxeR is only one small factor to BW's spotlight. In fact, the one that truly started to bring Brood War into spotlight was http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/SSamJang this guy and Grrr...(Gyom Patry, french canadian player). Just to let you know, the first OSL didn't even feature BoxeR, he wasn't even in the group stage! http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/2000_Hanaro_OSL
In the beginning of Brood War, every little single cute tactics brought you a bit of fame. Such as how to wall yourself properly by St.Eangle and Maynarding your workers for maximum economical efficiency based on saturation bringing the players just ahead of the competition. Those were the Pre-LMY days where there was literally endless of possibility of styles. So that defeats your entire point about competition and excitement because it was watching the hatching of an egg that will soon became a majestic dragon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
