EPTOn November 29 2012 13:43 Resistentialism wrote:
There are actually situations where you want to stim 40 marines and not 5, though. There aren't situations where you want 7 identically placed and simultaneous storms or forcefields. I'm saying it's not the same thing. The game can't read your mind, but that doesn't mean the game designers can't make the minimum effort to anticipate your intentions. Especially when that minimum effort simply involves not programing in a useless pitfall they already removed. If a smartcastless-like gameplay would happen to improve the gameplay, find another way to get to the same end result. There are lots of them being discussed, most of them are balance or engine (not negative UI) tweaks.
There are actually situations where you want to stim 40 marines and not 5, though. There aren't situations where you want 7 identically placed and simultaneous storms or forcefields. I'm saying it's not the same thing. The game can't read your mind, but that doesn't mean the game designers can't make the minimum effort to anticipate your intentions. Especially when that minimum effort simply involves not programing in a useless pitfall they already removed. If a smartcastless-like gameplay would happen to improve the gameplay, find another way to get to the same end result. There are lots of them being discussed, most of them are balance or engine (not negative UI) tweaks.
Not sure if you're accidentally or deliberately misunderstanding what I said. I'm talking about when you accidentally stim more than once in quick succession, wasting the health on the units you wanted to stim. There is not a single situation when you actually want to do that. These "negative UI" aspects, as you call them, are still in SC2. Allowing for mistakes to happen is a key part of what makes the game great.
On November 29 2012 13:43 Resistentialism wrote:
no comment
no comment
Not sure if you're trying to accuse me as one of these people you're talking about, but if you are you're being disingenuous. I was stating simple realities, not personal opinion. Furthermore, disallowing a particular key mapping exploit isn't even close to the same as getting rid of custom key mappings altogether, nor is it the same as forcing pros to play on standardized mice -- in fact, it's completely unrelated.
I'll say it again: if you can find the people that would say such a thing, I'd be intrigued.
On November 29 2012 13:43 Resistentialism wrote:
What I meant is that the maps actually mattered, because terrain ignoring units and mechanics were generally less powerful. Except for mutas, which gave you BW's only commonly maligned matchup: ZvZ.
What I meant is that the maps actually mattered, because terrain ignoring units and mechanics were generally less powerful. Except for mutas, which gave you BW's only commonly maligned matchup: ZvZ.
Maps also matter in SC2. That's also not what you meant at all, and you know it. You specifically said "the ship has sailed on this one". You and I both know you were saying that removing smart casting from SC2 AoE spells is out of the question. Instead of being nothing but dishonest in your entire response, make an argument worth posting.
----------------------------
On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
For the record, I agree that removing smartcasting for some units and not other has definite potential (hence why I started my reply with "absolutely"). I would point out that the comparison of blink to stim only ever adds one more click (plus movement of the mouse) regardless of the number of marines and stalkers involved. In comparison, removal of smartcasting for AE casters adds additional commands per number of casters. In theory, I think you have something with different smartcasting for different units, though.
My argument wasn't that we need smartcasting, and that any RTS without smartcasting is terrible because of sentries. My argument was that this is a different game with different balance and you can't just change things as large as smartcasting without doing a ton of work. Sure you can find a way to balance non-smartcasting and FF(or you can leave it as smartcasting) but that doing so changes the balance of a lot of things (FF placement and storming effectiveness effects all matchups FWIW - not just pvp). On the theory end, making these or other changes regarding the way in which spells are cast mechanically *may* result in a better end - but as long as we're talking theory, we'd need to first define "better" to know if this were true ("rewarding skill" is great as a concept, unless a person needs skill so high they'd never achieve it in order to see the reward - some amount of flaw in play must be acceptable - where is the line?).
On the practical end of things, it presses a big reset button on game balance. Have you seen the way matchups change with roaches (and later immortals) got +1 range added - or what about when fungal got changed to deal damage? The changes you're describing are vastly more game-impacting than the ones we've seen so far. Is EMP worth anything when casters are split up? Without a big group of infestors with smartcasting, does zerg have any options for moving into the lategame (it sure didn't feel like it before)? What about pheonixes - what the heck do we do about them? And for all AE casters, if the AE is harder to use, how much more damage should it deal (it still can't be BW storm for much the same reason siege tanks are weaker in WoL)? I'd be willing to bet that removal of smartcasting would be the largest game change we've seen since some point early in the design phase - is it worth rebalancing everything with this notion in mind? Will people be patient enough to see it through? Is it something we can even convince Blizzard is a good change?
My point had nothing to do with specific circumstances in specific matchups and everything to do with changing from a theory mindset to one of practicality. A lot of testing went into getting this game as good as it is - and if we're going to give that up - even just for some units - I personally think we should have a really gamebreakingly good reason for doing so.
On the constructive end of things, if we're looking to add more potential for skill - why is everyone looking to change what we have instead of trying to come up with something new that we don't have yet? Why change sentries (and all the balance implications that go along with that), when you can add a new type of unit, a new type of spell or resource or action or something? Is this not the point of expansions (even if HotS is closed to new units, which is unconfirmed, there's still LotV if an idea has enough support)?
+ Show Spoiler +
On November 29 2012 10:28 iamcaustic wrote:
When asking whether it's a good idea from a standpoint of game design to make some spells cast some ways and other spells cast differently, this reality is already present in StarCraft II. Compare abilities like stim, blink, burrow, baneling detonate, etc. to abilities like storm, forcefield, snipe, etc.
When asking whether it's a good idea from a standpoint of game design to make some spells cast some ways and other spells cast differently, this reality is already present in StarCraft II. Compare abilities like stim, blink, burrow, baneling detonate, etc. to abilities like storm, forcefield, snipe, etc.
For the record, I agree that removing smartcasting for some units and not other has definite potential (hence why I started my reply with "absolutely"). I would point out that the comparison of blink to stim only ever adds one more click (plus movement of the mouse) regardless of the number of marines and stalkers involved. In comparison, removal of smartcasting for AE casters adds additional commands per number of casters. In theory, I think you have something with different smartcasting for different units, though.
On November 29 2012 10:28 iamcaustic wrote:
I'm also not buying your response to the second point. The entire premise of the OP is making changes to the game. Your argument revolved around giving examples in the current game why smart casting needs to remain. In other words, your argument is assuming a lack of change -- or rather, the only change being made would be having smart cast removed from these examples. Trying to paint this point as a philosophical cop out isn't very convincing, because the real issue is you making arguments on a micro level to an idea that's more macro in scale.
Putting it in simpler terms: adding or removing smart casting is a matter of altering AI execution to adjust the skill ceiling of the game, not a matter of number tweaking to make sure the game's balanced. You're focusing too much on "how would these spells, with their current numbers/stats, possibly be any good/balanced without smart casting? I'd have to have the execution of a god just to stay alive in early game PvP, for example!"
With smart casting added to the powerful AoE spells in SC2, we've seen the balance numbers tweaked to accommodate the lowered skill ceiling -- namely, the nerfing of these abilities. Since everyone can storm like Jangbi, storm can't be as powerful as it was. It also puts a damper on the spectator value of the game, since now Jangbi-quality storms are no longer impressive to see. If you're super concerned about force fielding in PvP, there are plenty of answers:
1. Adjust the balance numbers of FF
2. Alter the design of FF
3. Adjust other aspects of Protoss to reduce reliance on FF to defend 4gate and other scenarios
4. Simply keep FF as a smart cast spell
Any one of those options could be picked while still and removing smart casting from and adjusting the stats of the powerful AoE spells of all the races.
I'm also not buying your response to the second point. The entire premise of the OP is making changes to the game. Your argument revolved around giving examples in the current game why smart casting needs to remain. In other words, your argument is assuming a lack of change -- or rather, the only change being made would be having smart cast removed from these examples. Trying to paint this point as a philosophical cop out isn't very convincing, because the real issue is you making arguments on a micro level to an idea that's more macro in scale.
Putting it in simpler terms: adding or removing smart casting is a matter of altering AI execution to adjust the skill ceiling of the game, not a matter of number tweaking to make sure the game's balanced. You're focusing too much on "how would these spells, with their current numbers/stats, possibly be any good/balanced without smart casting? I'd have to have the execution of a god just to stay alive in early game PvP, for example!"
With smart casting added to the powerful AoE spells in SC2, we've seen the balance numbers tweaked to accommodate the lowered skill ceiling -- namely, the nerfing of these abilities. Since everyone can storm like Jangbi, storm can't be as powerful as it was. It also puts a damper on the spectator value of the game, since now Jangbi-quality storms are no longer impressive to see. If you're super concerned about force fielding in PvP, there are plenty of answers:
1. Adjust the balance numbers of FF
2. Alter the design of FF
3. Adjust other aspects of Protoss to reduce reliance on FF to defend 4gate and other scenarios
4. Simply keep FF as a smart cast spell
Any one of those options could be picked while still and removing smart casting from and adjusting the stats of the powerful AoE spells of all the races.
My argument wasn't that we need smartcasting, and that any RTS without smartcasting is terrible because of sentries. My argument was that this is a different game with different balance and you can't just change things as large as smartcasting without doing a ton of work. Sure you can find a way to balance non-smartcasting and FF(or you can leave it as smartcasting) but that doing so changes the balance of a lot of things (FF placement and storming effectiveness effects all matchups FWIW - not just pvp). On the theory end, making these or other changes regarding the way in which spells are cast mechanically *may* result in a better end - but as long as we're talking theory, we'd need to first define "better" to know if this were true ("rewarding skill" is great as a concept, unless a person needs skill so high they'd never achieve it in order to see the reward - some amount of flaw in play must be acceptable - where is the line?).
On the practical end of things, it presses a big reset button on game balance. Have you seen the way matchups change with roaches (and later immortals) got +1 range added - or what about when fungal got changed to deal damage? The changes you're describing are vastly more game-impacting than the ones we've seen so far. Is EMP worth anything when casters are split up? Without a big group of infestors with smartcasting, does zerg have any options for moving into the lategame (it sure didn't feel like it before)? What about pheonixes - what the heck do we do about them? And for all AE casters, if the AE is harder to use, how much more damage should it deal (it still can't be BW storm for much the same reason siege tanks are weaker in WoL)? I'd be willing to bet that removal of smartcasting would be the largest game change we've seen since some point early in the design phase - is it worth rebalancing everything with this notion in mind? Will people be patient enough to see it through? Is it something we can even convince Blizzard is a good change?
My point had nothing to do with specific circumstances in specific matchups and everything to do with changing from a theory mindset to one of practicality. A lot of testing went into getting this game as good as it is - and if we're going to give that up - even just for some units - I personally think we should have a really gamebreakingly good reason for doing so.
On the constructive end of things, if we're looking to add more potential for skill - why is everyone looking to change what we have instead of trying to come up with something new that we don't have yet? Why change sentries (and all the balance implications that go along with that), when you can add a new type of unit, a new type of spell or resource or action or something? Is this not the point of expansions (even if HotS is closed to new units, which is unconfirmed, there's still LotV if an idea has enough support)?
Of course the removal of smart casting from certain abilities causes change in balance. That was one of the core points in the OP: because of smart casting, these powerful AoE spells have had to be nerfed significantly to compensate. If smart casting was removed from them, then we'd be looking at re-buffing them to their former strength (or whatever balance numbers make sense).
In terms of defining "better", I think the difference has already been clarified, but let's summarize it here:
The relationship between spell strength and landing perfect spells is an intertwined one.
With smart casting on AoE/area-target spells, anyone can cast perfect spells (e.g. Jangbi-level) with minimal effort. As a result, these spells have had to be nerfed accordingly. These necessary nerfs also mean that you need perfect casting for these spells to have the kind of impact necessary to make them useful (e.g. missed FFs = GG yo). It also makes it very hard for pros to differentiate themselves from an average player in this area.
Without smart casting on AoE/area-target spells, it becomes very hard to get a perfect result. Consequently, the spells can be more powerful because most people won't have 100% efficiency. It also means you don't need perfect casting, because the damage you do manage to inflict will still generally be sufficient enough thanks to the increased strength. This also opens a huge opportunity for pros to differentiate themselves from an average player, as their spell casting will be much more efficient.
What the OP (and myself) consider "better" is the one that allows for a greater range of skill. In this case, it would be the latter of the two. Now, targeting some specific quotes:
On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
Is EMP worth anything when casters are split up?
Is EMP worth anything when casters are split up?
Yes. It's still an incredibly valuable spell in TvP regardless. As for ghosts vs. casters in general, against a clumped group of casters you might want to EMP, while against a split up number of them, snipe would be more useful. It's situational, but the ghost has answers to both.
On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
Without a big group of infestors with smartcasting, does zerg have any options for moving into the lategame (it sure didn't feel like it before)?
Without a big group of infestors with smartcasting, does zerg have any options for moving into the lategame (it sure didn't feel like it before)?
Blizzard never designed the game for Zerg to mass infestors. This style of play is exactly why Blizz is looking to nerf fungal growth -- something they might not have to look at if they instead just removed smart casting from the ability. The best of the best Zergs might still be able to get a similar result that any random ladder player can currently get today, but for most people the ability would be appropriately "nerfed" without actually having to muck with the balance numbers and/or design.
On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
What about pheonixes - what the heck do we do about them?
What about pheonixes - what the heck do we do about them?
What about them? Graviton beam is fine as a smart cast ability. I don't think single-target abilities should lack smart casting -- it'd be too much to try and select a single caster then try and select a single target as well. There should be a good balance between precise and imprecise selection, I think.
On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
And for all AE casters, if the AE is harder to use, how much more damage should it deal (it still can't be BW storm for much the same reason siege tanks are weaker in WoL)?
And for all AE casters, if the AE is harder to use, how much more damage should it deal (it still can't be BW storm for much the same reason siege tanks are weaker in WoL)?
This question is a clear lack of understanding of the game. Siege tanks don't do as much damage because of some changes to the AI. In Brood War, siege tanks would waste their shots on units that were already killed by another tank; that doesn't happen in SC2, making tank damage much more efficient. Due to increased efficiency, the damage had to be reduced. Sound similar to what I was just saying regarding AoE spells? If you reduce the ease of efficiency with AoE spells, then their strength can very well be returned to BW levels (theoretically).
Browder on why they can't remove tank overkill: "To help with perfomance, units do not fire all at once. There is a tiny offset between different units firing their weapons. From the users perspective it is almost simultaenous, but the shots are actually 1/8-1/16th of a second apart. Since units cannot target units that are already dead and since Siege Tanks hit their targets instantly, this creates the situation you are describing, where Siege Tanks waste fewer shots."
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132653
On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
I'd be willing to bet that removal of smartcasting would be the largest game change we've seen since some point early in the design phase - is it worth rebalancing everything with this notion in mind? Will people be patient enough to see it through? Is it something we can even convince Blizzard is a good change?
I'd be willing to bet that removal of smartcasting would be the largest game change we've seen since some point early in the design phase - is it worth rebalancing everything with this notion in mind? Will people be patient enough to see it through? Is it something we can even convince Blizzard is a good change?
Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void. I bring them up because they are, by their very nature, rebalancing everything. Blizzard has also mentioned that they'll be looking at WoL units for the sake of redesigning/rebalancing them to be better during the HotS beta. And, finally, in terms of the community convincing Blizzard to implement changes through discussion and implementation, look no further than the new unbuildable rocks/debris in HotS. They're the result of the community discussing the ramp block strategy (namely, how to get rid of it because it's stupid) and implementing a band-aid solution in the form of neutral supply depots.
On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
A lot of testing went into getting this game as good as it is - and if we're going to give that up - even just for some units - I personally think we should have a really gamebreakingly good reason for doing so.
A lot of testing went into getting this game as good as it is - and if we're going to give that up - even just for some units - I personally think we should have a really gamebreakingly good reason for doing so.
A much more powerful and skill-oriented spell casting experience, which opens opportunities to have much cooler/more powerful spells and a better professional scene where top level players have another outlet to differentiate themselves from the pack. I think that's a pretty good reason.
On November 30 2012 01:54 Treehead wrote:
On the constructive end of things, if we're looking to add more potential for skill - why is everyone looking to change what we have instead of trying to come up with something new that we don't have yet?
On the constructive end of things, if we're looking to add more potential for skill - why is everyone looking to change what we have instead of trying to come up with something new that we don't have yet?
This is simple: without addressing how AoE spells work in SC2, even if you add new units and spells, they'll still be restricted from a balance standpoint in terms of what they can do. It really hinders the "cool"-factor that spells could have, as well as the professional scene to a lesser degree. At the end of the day, it's all about wanting SC2 to be the most awesome game it can be. Nothing more, nothing less.
Split, yo! Besides, it certainly would be harder to pull off in the middle of a battle than it currently is, which is when it really counts. Happening to catch some vikings with an infestor outside of a major engagement is one of those "whoops" moments.
