EPTSo well done, now convince David Kim and Browder and this franchise might redeem itself.
Fungals, FF, Storms, and Smart-casting - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sephiren
United States85 Posts
So well done, now convince David Kim and Browder and this franchise might redeem itself. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
Analytical Genius
5 Posts
On November 23 2012 04:22 Crushgroove wrote: I've done a lot of thinking about this particular proposal... and at the end of it all, I concluded that its not a very good idea. One of the things that awesome about golf, is that I can grab my sticks and go out and play the exact same game that the pros play, but I shoot 85 from a short tee and they shoot 65 from the tips. I can really appreciate how incredible their accomplishments are because I'm playing by the same rules, swinging the same stick at the same ball over the same grass.... I just know I'll never, EVER be as superhuman as they are. Same for every other game, pretty much. You will have the opportunity to "play by the same rules" if that's your choice -- you will have that option. I can more easily appreciate what pro gamers are able to do because I have all the same exact buttons to push and I can't push them like they do. I don't think its good for esport to change the rules at the pro level. So, you're basically agreeing that Blizzard dumbing down the mechanics of BW for the SC2 pro scene wasn't a good thing. Particularly because Brood War not only came first, it also shaped and gave SC2 the popularity it has received today. In addition, how the hell can anyone ever progress to that level if there is some new, awful, learning curve going from amateur to pro? Hard work is how you progress to that level. I can use Brood War as an example. There was a distinct learning curve going from amateur to pro in that game. However, people were able to do it. There was a marginal difference from somebody who was amateur and somebody who was pro in BW. The same cannot be said in SC2. Also, even assuming your premise wasn't something I disagreed with, your cutoff is horrible. There are CODE S players who are not GM on KR. They're stuck at rank 1 masters or whatever. Any change you implement for pro play MUST effect master league, as there are always some pros there, and some top level amateurs as well. Also, as a top 8 masters player, I very much do not want a different game than the one played at the pro level. Of course the system will be affected. However, StarCraft 2 is still in it's "development stage" and won't be finalized until it's last expansion is released. If this change is implemented in HotS then everybody won't have a choice but to get used to the set up. Also, from what I have read -- the pros encourage this change. If a player wants to play the game casually he will have that option and if they want to take it to the next level -- he will have that option as well. The same reason that MANY diamond/platinum/ and even gold league players got insulted and angry when you took away their losses on the ladder stats page. And they eventually got over it. Along with a lot of other complaints. Some of us play the game BECAUSE we want to play a challenging game where we are working to emulate the miraculous feats at the pro level. If you make the game different for the masses, then there will be out-cry. That's just not what starcraft is about. One set of rules for everyone. If that's the case then start out on the Pro Mode and work your way up. If you are a casual gamer that doesn't have any intentions on becoming a Pro then why would you want to play a harder game? The moment you want to "emulate the miraculous feats at the "PRO LEVEL" means that you are no longer a casual but a competitive gamer. Also, it appears that "not making the game different for the masses" has already created the out-cry. | ||
|
Chewie
Denmark708 Posts
Dont stand back and wait for Blizzard to make the game of your dreams. YOU make it! | ||
|
Seldentar
United States888 Posts
On November 23 2012 04:22 Crushgroove wrote: I've done a lot of thinking about this particular proposal... and at the end of it all, I concluded that its not a very good idea. One of the things that awesome about golf, is that I can grab my sticks and go out and play the exact same game that the pros play, but I shoot 85 from a short tee and they shoot 65 from the tips. I can really appreciate how incredible their accomplishments are because I'm playing by the same rules, swinging the same stick at the same ball over the same grass.... I just know I'll never, EVER be as superhuman as they are. Same for every other game, pretty much. I can more easily appreciate what pro gamers are able to do because I have all the same exact buttons to push and I can't push them like they do. I don't think its good for esport to change the rules at the pro level. In addition, how the hell can anyone ever progress to that level if there is some new, awful, learning curve going from amateur to pro? Also, even assuming your premise wasn't something I disagreed with, your cutoff is horrible. There are CODE S players who are not GM on KR. They're stuck at rank 1 masters or whatever. Any change you implement for pro play MUST effect master league, as there are always some pros there, and some top level amateurs as well. Also, as a top 8 masters player, I very much do not want a different game than the one played at the pro level. The same reason that MANY diamond/platinum/ and even gold league players got insulted and angry when you took away their losses on the ladder stats page. Some of us play the game BECAUSE we want to play a challenging game where we are working to emulate the miraculous feats at the pro level. If you make the game different for the masses, then there will be out-cry. That's just not what starcraft is about. One set of rules for everyone. Nice, you've obviously thought about this a lot more than I have. This is the response I was looking for. I figured someone would pop in and counter with some valid reason for not implementing the idea. With there being so many people with different wants, expectations, and reasons for playing/watching the game it's very challenging to satisfy all of them. I personally don't like the fact that I am able to do any individual thing a pro can do in this game. For me it takes away from the mystique where I wonder how the hell the pro was able to do something incredible. In SC2 storms and fungals are so easy to use that I'm never impressed by them when I watch pro games, for example. For me, the skill cap isn't high enough and I wish there were more things making the pros really stand out from everybody else in extraordinary ways. That being said, this clearly doesn't appeal to everyone. It almost seems like to meet everyone's wants and expectations there would need to be two separate games instead of dividing SC2 into 2 groups. Perhaps the current SC2 and a remade BW for more "hardcore" players. I don't see that happening though. Maybe a mod like the above poster suggested would be much more viable. Thoughts? | ||
|
crbox
Canada1180 Posts
| ||
|
kiero
Canada136 Posts
But smart Casting isn't going away. Neither is Multiple building selection, or unlimited unit selection. They makes the game less frustrating to play, as your units are able to do what you want. And I don't believe artificially making the game harder to play is what makes a game fun, or what made sc1 great. Just because I was much more impressed with seeing good storm placement from pros in SC1 (due to the much high relative difficulty) doesn't mean it will be fun for me to try the same thing in game and mess up, only to be punished by having all my templar waste their energy by casting on the same spot as well. Neither do I think if smart casting were to be in SC1 now, would it break the game in such a way as to be unplayable (from my experience with SC2BW, the SC1 remake in SC2). But you do bring up a good point about spells and their relative 'boring' nature to watch and use. So perhaps, what we need to do is work with smart casting: if blanketing area of effect spells are too easy to cast, perhaps we should encourage more single target spells. Off the top of my head, an example I can think of that fits this criteria comes from the starcraft master training map; the ghost sniping banelings. I would be HUGELY impressed if a pro were to pull that off in a game, yet at least I wouldn't be punished if I attempted to try doing so in a game. That is, if ghost snipe wasn't nerfed... sigh. | ||
|
Deezl
United States355 Posts
On November 21 2012 12:02 Falling wrote: Did you read or watch anything in the OP? Spell-casters are by design a more difficult unit, therefore 'worse interface, making units dumber.' Given that spell casters are designed to be difficult, to what extent should they difficult? What are the draw-backs in terms of game-play that you get when you don't have spell-casting? I've listed a great number of benefits. Besides- smart-casting is slower than magic-box casting. The interface denies you the possibility of casting spells simultaneously. Look, this poster is correct. By the same logic as you're using, we should go back to 12 units in a control group. This forces players to do things a different and more difficult way and set up their armies in advance instead of just using big sweeping clicks. It's harder. I agree with a few of the points on balance, like the Mothership, but making the game harder is really just an arbitrary preference that makes it harder for people to enjoy the game. | ||
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
Maybe fewer, stronger storms were more exciting than carpet-storming in SC2, and maybe if you sink large amounts of time into playing the game and perfecting you micro the harder mechanics are more rewarding. But from a player's perspective, I don't want a single slip-up or a half-second's inattention to decided the game, neither in my nor my opponent's favour. And as a spectator, I want the smarter player to win, not the one who can click really fast. | ||
|
YaShock
Hungary119 Posts
On November 23 2012 04:48 Sephiren wrote: I would say that I completely agree with you, but I don't think anyone can NOT agree, since it's mostly a layout of cause and effect. So well done, now convince David Kim and Browder and this franchise might redeem itself. Won't happen | ||
|
Robotix
United States51 Posts
Please stop trying to make Starcraft 2 into Broodwar. | ||
|
Finnz
United Kingdom260 Posts
Do you think blizzard come on here and look at every balance/design change thread and think to themselve's "lets take a random person's thought process for changing our game and apply it to the game we have created!"? no. Blizzard are changing things that we are not suggesting to be changed and therefore blizzard are not looking at all of your threads about what YOU guys think should be changed. If anybody has a say in what they think should be changed its the pro players so just stop with these silly pointless threads. You can theorycraft all you like about how you wish the game should be changed but it makes no difference apart from spread negativity and give people false hope of what can happen. | ||
Falling
Canada11258 Posts
On November 23 2012 07:03 kafkaesque wrote: Thinking about it again, I feel it is better the way it is than it was in Broodwar. Maybe fewer, stronger storms were more exciting than carpet-storming in SC2, and maybe if you sink large amounts of time into playing the game and perfecting you micro the harder mechanics are more rewarding. But from a player's perspective, I don't want a single slip-up or a half-second's inattention to decided the game, neither in my nor my opponent's favour. And as a spectator, I want the smarter player to win, not the one who can click really fast. Isn't that kinda what happens now? A single slip up in FF's or a half-second's delay on spamming out spells and the game is decided. SC2 even more so then BW? Isn't that people talk about with Protoss- nothing dies and then suddenly everything dies. And balancing the game around tons of spells is also about who can click really fast. That's really hard to get away from unless it is turn-based strategy or your actions just don't matter too much due to un-responsive units. On November 23 2012 07:58 Finnz wrote: People need to stop making threads about changing sc2... Do you think blizzard come on here and look at every balance/design change thread and think to themselve's "lets take a random person's thought process for changing our game and apply it to the game we have created!"? no. Well HotS is kinda all about change now isn't? So then the question is then is all the new change good and is the change too much or is it too little? An expansion without change... seems rather pointless. And furthermore, the number of threads, while tiresome over time, should be an indicator that there is at least a perceived problem. This is my analysis as to what is a significant underlying cause. Browder at least was quite supportive of people making these sorts of threads. Having said that, I suffer no illusions as to the probability of this being implemented. But unlikely or not as this is being used as a solution, I still think it would be a powerful solution to a significant problem. And perhaps all I can do is (maybe) help move the conversation away from saving ourselves two extra clicks per cast is inherently 'smarter' to look instead at the actual impact that each type of casting has on gameplay and viewability. (Plus magic-box casting has actually less clicking then 'smart-casting.) | ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On November 23 2012 07:58 Finnz wrote: People need to stop making threads about changing sc2... Do you think blizzard come on here and look at every balance/design change thread and think to themselve's "lets take a random person's thought process for changing our game and apply it to the game we have created!"? no. Blizzard are changing things that we are not suggesting to be changed and therefore blizzard are not looking at all of your threads about what YOU guys think should be changed. If anybody has a say in what they think should be changed its the pro players so just stop with these silly pointless threads. You can theorycraft all you like about how you wish the game should be changed but it makes no difference apart from spread negativity and give people false hope of what can happen. Well, they said that they come here and look for a feedback from the community. But yeah, I would say a lot of times they would read on the suggestion and take them with a grain of salt because I do not really think we know what goes behind the door at Blizzard, nor we have enough data to really suggest the game design change. People here sometimes is just too passionate and forget that there's a lot of influence that make developers design a game in a certain way. | ||
|
Turbo.Tactics
Germany675 Posts
On November 23 2012 07:58 Finnz wrote: People need to stop making threads about changing sc2... Do you think blizzard come on here and look at every balance/design change thread and think to themselve's "lets take a random person's thought process for changing our game and apply it to the game we have created!"? no. Blizzard are changing things that we are not suggesting to be changed and therefore blizzard are not looking at all of your threads about what YOU guys think should be changed. If anybody has a say in what they think should be changed its the pro players so just stop with these silly pointless threads. You can theorycraft all you like about how you wish the game should be changed but it makes no difference apart from spread negativity and give people false hope of what can happen. So theorycrafting and suggesting balancechanges spreads negativity? Besides, Dustin Browder just encouraged those discussions in his last interview and confirmed "blizzard is watching us/teamliquid". Of course Blizzard looks at the premiere site of their core audience for the game and depending on how good your ideas actually are the attention and focus on a thread/idea can give it the bump for blizzard. If you have a problem with the function of a forum here is your time to log out. But making these false claims and debbiedowning an elaborate balance discussions sounds kinda counterproductive to me. | ||
|
blarkh
Austria72 Posts
| ||
Spazer
Canada8028 Posts
On November 23 2012 08:17 blarkh wrote: I actually disagree with the notion that spells are added to make the game more difficult. They are added to make combat more diverse and to give players more options on how to change the outcome of a fight. Put in another way, their goal isn't to make micro more difficult but to make forming strategies more difficult (and also more interesting) because there are more variables to consider. In any RTS game, executing a strategy is impossible if you don't have the required mechanics to do so. Strategy and mechanical skill go hand in hand - you can't have one without the other. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
"As someone who watched BW and even WC3 a lot, SC2 is a somewhat problematic game compared to the two. I'm not a "BW elitist" but some things done in BW were done right. In WC3 (which is probably an easier game to play than SC2), a lot of things were done right compared to SC2. And WC3 had smart casting, formation movement (you can make it so the fastest unit in your control group is slowed down to the slowest, to make microing easier), MBS, etc... it wasn't a "fighting the interface" game but yet WC3 has less problems than SC2. WC3 and BW (IMO) are much better than SC2. SC2 has all sorts of problems right now. Throwing out ideas on how to potentially fix it is a good thing. We definitely want SC2 to succeed. Right now, SC2 has design problems and a lot of problems that both BW and WarCraft III did better (and again, WC3 wasn't a "fighting the interface game"... WC3 has everything SC2 has besides unlimited unit selection). So it's not me (or others) wanting SC2 to be like BW (or wanting SC2 to be WC3). Also I don't think that removing smart casting would make battles more of a "knife's edge". Currently, battles are a knife's edge because mainly of positioning and how easy it is to be in the wrong position and how spell casters can change everything all in an instant (force fields and fungal for example). Removing smart casting or going the WC3 route of not making OMG WTF OP would lessen the "knife's edge" effect and make games more gradual instead of you make 1 mistake you lose and you can't come back from the game. Edit - Of course I'm not saying removing smart casting automatically fixers everything. As I said earlier, positioning (being out of position) or deathball syndrome (basically, how splitting your army is really discouraged in the game, thus making being out of position even more of a threat) is a detrimental to the game. Some things: 1. Since being out of position (which unlike both WC3 and BW) is such a huge factor in whether you win or lose games (unlike both BW and WC3, splitting up your army for long periods of time is discouraged), something has to be done with that. 2. Deathball syndrome - Splitting up your army means that if you're hit by a deathball, your split up army loses (due to how easy it is to mass a death ball, unlike both BW and WC3). 3. Things die a lot faster (thanks to deathball syndrome, in BW the armies sort of came in waves after wave which meant that your army died gradually instead of all at once... in WC3, units have a large enough health that it takes like a minute for any unit to die). Also, take note units actually do more damage (even outside of deathballs) in SC2 than BW. Hydralisks for example do a ton of damage in SC2 compared to BW. Marauders (didn't exist in BW) also did a ton of damage. The only thing that did more damage in BW are spell casters (which is countered by BW's mechanics), possibly Marines (stim doubled the attack rate instead of just increasing it by 50%) and maybe Carriers. 4. Spells that root (fungal) or impede movement (forcefield) in general heightens the above two negative issues. If this was WC3 (units died slowly) or if this was BW (units weren't all in a clump and splitting up your army was encouraged in most match ups), then fungal or force field wouldn't be as much of a problem. In fact, Stasis Field is probably a more powerful and stronger ability than both Forcefield and Fungal combined (if it was in the game, you could easily split your opponent's army in half) but yet due to BW's overall gameplay, it wasn't OP. Not that I'm saying SC2 isn't a great game but that SC2 could have the potential to be a better game. It doesn't have to be like BW or WC3 but if you look at those games, I'd much rather everything not be a "knife's edge" or you mess up once, you lose and can't come back." tl;dr - The problem isn't the easy interface or whatever exactly. It's the fact that the game is way too much of a knife's edge where you make one mistake or get caught out of position one time, you can lose the entire game. If SC2 games didn't revolve around losing "entire" armies in seconds (in BW "and" WC3, it was all gradual), then spells like fungal, etc wouldn't be a problem. On November 23 2012 13:36 Integra wrote: Why don't we just dumb down the game back to Warcraft2, (before BattleNet edition) and remove everything UI improvement including building ques and auto-attack. It would, without a doubt, solve practically every problem we have in SC2 and really distinct the good from the best.  Nah. Remove the "knife's edge" problem from SC2, and the game is fixed. Though really though, while WC2 was more fighting the UI than BW, BW was definitely a harder game to play. Things like muta micro, shuttle + reaver micro, move shotting, etc required precision micro (though you had enough time to do "precision micro", unlike SC2 where it's like you get your hand off of your army for 1 second to do "micro"... then you find your army is already gone. In WC2, it was just mindlessly clicking fast (not that WC2 is bad but the "micro" in WC2 compared to BW is mindlessly clicking fast). ACTUALLY yet another reason for SC2 to be less "knife's edgy". If the game was less of a knife's edge, players would have more time to actually micro and macro units. In BW, smart casting wasn't needed at all because it was a more gradual game. You could select individually multiple ghosts to lock down those 8 battlecruisers or multiple corsairs to disruption web multiple areas (inb4 who wastes 500/500 [Fleet Beacon + Spell Upgrade] on Disruption Web) because you didn't worry about all your units dying in seconds. BW was fast paced, a lot more than WC3 (which some people dislike because it's too slow) but yet it was still gradual. SC2 is fast paced too but it's a lot less gradual and more "one small mistake, you lose". Also, again WC3 (which has the same SC2 "interface help", minus unlimited group selection but "PLUS' the fact you can set your entire control group to move at the same speed [which reduced the need to micro]) was arguably an easier game to play than SC2. WC3, the better player usually won (there are a lot more consistent players in high level WC3 than SC2 right now, though that's not a good argument considering WC3 is kind of low) but the point is, even with the easy interface, WC3 had consistent top players. What matters is that the game isn't too random (random in the sense that one mistake or one BO can win/lose you the game so easily). And again, this applies to BW too (the game was gradual and not too random). | ||
|
cari-kira
Germany655 Posts
removing fungal and forcefield after you removed stim. stim is the real problem. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11258 Posts
| ||
| ||
