EPTReluctance to Re-Introduce BW-Units - Page 28
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On June 19 2012 03:55 0neder wrote: Secondly, THIS thread points out EXACTLY how pathing could be improved for excitement, legibility, and in a way that would allow more IMBA splash without breaking the game. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889 We are at a crossroads now. It is time to bring this to DB's attention. Not a hard fix. Not a hard fix? You're talking about fundamentally changing how units move. This is the most basic aspect of play: the way units path from location to location. Making that change would require substantial alterations of just about every aspect of SC2. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On June 19 2012 04:44 NicolBolas wrote: Not a hard fix? You're talking about fundamentally changing how units move. This is the most basic aspect of play: the way units path from location to location. Making that change would require substantial alterations of just about every aspect of SC2. Was already implemented Go to 1:06. See how more majestic the Zerg army seem to be from what we have so far. They are so far apart. The reason why Blizz downplayed that part still remain an enigma to me. On June 19 2012 03:25 Greggle wrote: I don't think you could really import a lurker and keep it the exact same unit. Since units clump up so much more it would be several times more powerful than its BW counterpart, it would either need to be an expensive T3 unit or weaker in some other regard or both. I think the swarm host could turn out to be an interesting compromise. Which is why Terran/Protoss players need better micromanagement. We want to see these guys doing unhuman stuff. Lurker needs heavy investment in both mechanically speaking (Select Larvae, Morph into Hydra, Select Hydra, Morph into Lurker) whereas a Marine is 'Select Building, make it!'. Physically speaking it takes more effort and it required tons of resources and time to build. So it all evens out in the end. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On June 19 2012 04:44 NicolBolas wrote: Not a hard fix? You're talking about fundamentally changing how units move. This is the most basic aspect of play: the way units path from location to location. Making that change would require substantial alterations of just about every aspect of SC2. Not really. A few units might need buffs/nerfs based on the new dynamic of weaker ranged units/aoe units, but thats what a beta is for right? We could see tanks being powerful again. The colossus wouldn't be the pivotal go to splash unit. Forcefield effectiveness is mitigated. Maps can be bigger. Air/melee units wouldn't get obliterated by balls of marines. An entire new playground to innovate in. Besides, it's not like they said everything was gonna change in HotS...or did they | ||
|
Greggle
United States1131 Posts
On June 19 2012 03:31 MugenXBanksy wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bLnpG.jpg) are you just a impatient 16 year old, and yes people will Dota2 is a prime example people will buy the same thing if its been improved some how. Call of Duty or Call of Derp or my favorite Grenade of Grenade: Grenade Grenade is the simple minded brodouches and 12yr old boys who scream at you cause you don't have turtlebitch headset and can't do a 360 no-scope and Battlefield isn't actually that popular its like 1 BF3 : 5 CoD players which by the way is a made up statistical figure but I know for a fact that there are way more CoD players then people who play BF3 as all my bro says who play it are guys in like their 30s. Also CoD went from a fun FPS on the PC to the plague and a breeding ground for out of control 10yr olds with bad parents ruin everyone's experience on the dark place known as Xbox live Also Call of Duty is First Person Shooter or commonly as a FPS games like Starcraft , BroodWar, StarCraft 2 and Warcraft 2: tides of Darkness are Real time strategy also known as RTS And we all waited like what was it 10 or more years for D3 your statement is just full of bad examples that only apply to people on consoles or are like 14 and everything seems to take a eternity to happen but that's life. People shouldn't shit on Dota 2 for being the same game. Dota is a special case in that it had to exist entirely within another game, even more so than Counter Strike. You couldn't host a decent game without third party additions like banlist which were technically not even legal. The game was also reaching the peak filesize allowed within w3 preventing it from growing. In addition there's all the restrictions on what's possible in the game engine itself and all sorts of little known bugs and quirks. Dota needed to be remade as a separate game, and after years of evolving not only the metagame but the game itself through content updates starting from scratch with something completely new would have been self-destructive. No studio in the universe could push out a game with 110 heroes and have it be even remotely balanced. An essentially 1:1 port focusing on UI improvements was easily the best thing for the game they could have done. Which is why Terran/Protoss players need better micromanagement. We want to see these guys doing unhuman stuff. Lurker needs heavy investment in both mechanically speaking (Select Larvae, Morph into Hydra, Select Hydra, Morph into Lurker) whereas a Marine is 'Select Building, make it!'. Physically speaking it takes more effort and it required tons of resources and time to build. So it all evens out in the end. It evened out in Brood War just fine, but now you're making the marines clump up so much more while the micro for Lurkers remains pretty much exactly the same. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On June 19 2012 05:24 Greggle wrote: People shouldn't shit on Dota 2 for being the same game. Dota is a special case in that it had to exist entirely within another game, even more so than Counter Strike. You couldn't host a decent game without third party additions like banlist which were technically not even legal. The game was also reaching the peak filesize allowed within w3 preventing it from growing. In addition there's all the restrictions on what's possible in the game engine itself and all sorts of little known bugs and quirks. Dota needed to be remade as a separate game, and after years of evolving not only the metagame but the game itself through content updates starting from scratch with something completely new would have been self-destructive. No studio in the universe could push out a game with 110 heroes and have it be even remotely balanced. An essentially 1:1 port focusing on UI improvements was easily the best thing for the game they could have done. It evened out in Brood War just fine, but now you're making the marines clump up so much more while the micro for Lurkers remains pretty much exactly the same. If you watched the above video, Lurker Spine attacks actually slower than BW counterpart. So that left more time for Marines to be micro'd. So not exactly identical. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 19 2012 04:44 NicolBolas wrote: Not a hard fix? You're talking about fundamentally changing how units move. This is the most basic aspect of play: the way units path from location to location. Making that change would require substantial alterations of just about every aspect of SC2. As others have already pointed out, you arbitrarily assumed an astronomical difficulty. Additionally, Blizzard will be tweaking Sc2 for years to come, so there's no time like the present to improve this fundamental element to legibility and excitement. Browder's motto should be: 'Whatever it takes.' Blizzard has already blown a billion dollars to get this far. To achieve only 'good' would be a gross disappointment. I need to make a new thread about this stuff. A comprehensive archives that reexamines SC2, it's successes so far and how to unlock its full potential. Anyone wanting to help PM me please. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Bw was pretty simple in that regard compared to sc2. The difference was if you utilized the movement tricks in bw you destroyed your opponent. In sc2 its an edge and so far only a few that dominate the scene utilize a few movement tricks from all that are available, the rest simply doesn't bother with it and normally loses due to that. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 19 2012 05:56 FeyFey wrote: oh this dynamic movement thing again, well some really want to make the game easy as pie i assume. Unstacking units and keeping them unstacked is actually harder to do, then stacking them when they are unstacked by default, so i really like how Blizzard did it. And you have magic box you can utilize as well. Bw was pretty simple in that regard compared to sc2. The difference was if you utilized the movement tricks in bw you destroyed your opponent. In sc2 its an edge and so far only a few that dominate the scene utilize a few movement tricks from all that are available, the rest simply doesn't bother with it and normally loses due to that. The goal is to improve psychological army size, and as a result, legibility and excitement. That will not happen with the current iteration. SC2 has plenty of micro/macro for players to do without ruining this aesthetic. The change is necessary and will in no way lower the skill ceiling in any way that effects the world's best players. Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor. | ||
|
Plethora
United States206 Posts
On June 19 2012 06:06 0neder wrote: Could you please elaborate on SC2's key 'movement tricks' that make it's skill ceiling so high? In most people's experience, SC2 is sorely lacking in this department compared to it's predecessor. Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote: Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. Not just unit speed, but also abilities that punish any degree of poking, like concussive, forcefield, etc. contribute to this. And yes, the engine could change if absolutely necessary, it's just a matter of willpower. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote: Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On June 19 2012 06:49 Xiphos wrote: Its also because of the macro mechanics. At top pro, everyone can chuck out the same amount of guys under a specific time because of MBS. In BW, if you have an advantage in battle, that doesn't mean that you are able to keep up in the production category because it is much harder to do. That's where the level of skills truly shows, in order to become the best of the best, you have to do the above altogether which is much less difficult to pull off in SC2. I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
On June 19 2012 06:31 Plethora wrote: Part of this is the engine's fault, just for the record, and that part ain't gonna change... If you look at the units that are micro-able to some extent, they typically feel sluggish and slow to respond compared to BW units. If units behaved equally well to BW, Banshees would be incredibly abusable, for example. Also, it might just be my impression as a mostly spectator (not so much a player), but I feel like unit speeds are, on average, slower. Don't get me wrong, zerglings on creep are damn fast but I feel like retreat from a big battle is a much less viable option in most situations than it was in BW, contributing to the "one big battle and done" syndrome of many games across matchups. I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile. I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net? On June 19 2012 07:01 Fyrewolf wrote: I'm not so keen on giving up MBS in particular. I prefer the game to be easier to control efficiently, so that you can focus on strategizing against your opponent's strategy, to make for a better strategy game. MBS shouldn't be given up in SC2, which I guess is why they added in the "macro mechanics" into the game to add in the amount needed for the game to be mechanically demanding. And the game should definitely be mechanically demanding. I'm not entirely sure about "strategizing" in-game, usually good players will have some sort of grand strategy figured out before hand. If you are talking about reacting to elements in the game, such as a drop going off, or in-battle micro, then maybe. I feel like there's not many tactics involved from massive fights aside from spell casting and splitting units. Occasionally you have something like blink micro, but most of the time it's something like stutter step, which feels alot less like an actual decision then something that's done as a routine. | ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
On June 19 2012 07:19 Nazza wrote: I'd actually rather have units that are incredibly abusable, because it's actually quite easy to tweak the damage output to make those units seem less deadly. Wraiths in BW were extremely microable, but their pew pew lasers did only a fraction of what a banshee does. However, they were extremely versatile. I guess it is a partial fault of both game design and the lack of LAN. I also heard that there is an in-built latency of 200 ms on b.net? I'm not sure what the latency is, but there is something that makes units feel very sluggish even when I first order my workers to mine. Right there I feel the difference. If there is an issue of latency, that will also hamper micro tricks. Something like muta micro really only worked on LAN and good servers like iCCup because Battlenet always had too much latency. I've been trying to figure out words to describe the difference because most people will say SC2 units move faster. And I think that's true, even the BW pro's talk about that. But I think the best analogy is that SC2 has faster top speed, but BW has faster acceleration/ more maneuverability. Or rather there are tricks to get it to have faster acceleration from 0 to 80km/hr. Whereas SC2 runs around at 120km/hr, but has a harder time getting up to speed and turning around. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best I can think of right now. In any event, it's that acceleration and maneuverability that's so key to being able to micro even the most boring unit and make it exciting. | ||
|
Greggle
United States1131 Posts
On June 19 2012 05:35 Xiphos wrote: If you watched the above video, Lurker Spine attacks actually slower than BW counterpart. So that left more time for Marines to be micro'd. So not exactly identical. This is true, there's no way of telling whether or not this would be the right change to make though. =/ | ||
|
MugenXBanksy
United States479 Posts
On June 19 2012 05:24 Greggle wrote: People shouldn't shit on Dota 2 for being the same game. Dota is a special case in that it had to exist entirely within another game, even more so than Counter Strike. You couldn't host a decent game without third party additions like banlist which were technically not even legal. The game was also reaching the peak filesize allowed within w3 preventing it from growing. In addition there's all the restrictions on what's possible in the game engine itself and all sorts of little known bugs and quirks. Dota needed to be remade as a separate game, and after years of evolving not only the metagame but the game itself through content updates starting from scratch with something completely new would have been self-destructive. No studio in the universe could push out a game with 110 heroes and have it be even remotely balanced. An essentially 1:1 port focusing on UI improvements was easily the best thing for the game they could have done. It evened out in Brood War just fine, but now you're making the marines clump up so much more while the micro for Lurkers remains pretty much exactly the same. I wasn't shitting on Dota2 for being the same game. T_T I think its great that its the same game its a good and competitive game even though I wasn't part of it in it's fledgling years or at its peak the point I was making is that some one else was saying that people don't want to see the same game that just looks better with some minor gameplay changes>:/ | ||
|
HumpingHydra
Canada97 Posts
Call my idea stupid, but I think that as interceptors die, they crash into the ground doing splash damage. Force players to counter carriers "properly." IE Neural, corruptor, Vikings (clustered from range), and voidray supplemented by micro-intensively controlled groups of cluster units like Hydra/marine/stalker. Thoughts? | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
On June 19 2012 09:09 HumpingHydra wrote: From my perspective, the Carrier doesn't work in SC2 because of how tight units can fit. IE marines/hydras/stalkers now clump tighter than their sc1 predecessors that Interceptors are killed too fast. But, people do not want to see their carrier changed too much, because of how iconic it is. Call my idea stupid, but I think that as interceptors die, they crash into the ground doing splash damage. Force players to counter carriers "properly." IE Neural, corruptor, Vikings (clustered from range), and voidray supplemented by micro-intensively controlled groups of cluster units like Hydra/marine/stalker. Thoughts? I'll give a legit reason why I don't like your idea: it's random and uncontrollable for the Protoss player. You can't control the interceptors themselves, and thus you can't control the "crashing down onto marine's heads" bit. Also, I don't think there should ever be a "proper counter" in Starcraft. There should be multiple ways to deal with a problem, instead of just resorting to a "He has X, so I should get Y" mentality. I think the reason why many people resort to this mentality is because there are too many hard counters built into the game, and the game tricks you into thinking that bonus damage = you must use unit vs this armor type. But yeah, I think like Oneder stated, fixing carrier micro would be fine. I believe atm, interceptors don't reheal when they get back into the carrier? Carriers weren't ever meant to be used against marines. Even in BW, marines would kill the interceptors so quickly that they'd be rendered useless. (Watch Hiya vs Violet on Bloody Ridge) Carriers are meant to abuse high ground/cliffs/ridges against slower moving forces with less anti air. | ||
| ||
