|
On December 04 2012 17:10 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 15:27 Rabiator wrote:On December 04 2012 13:17 rd wrote:On December 04 2012 12:24 Rabiator wrote:On December 04 2012 06:04 Plansix wrote:On December 04 2012 05:39 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 04 2012 05:22 Plansix wrote:On December 04 2012 05:17 rd wrote:On December 04 2012 05:09 Rabiator wrote:On December 04 2012 03:45 zhurai wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
-5 bunker build time?
[quote]
-1 damage on the fungal growth?
seriously these "Hey we're going to nerf X" has no meaning if they actually don't do anything about it, (I'm not too optimistic given their past record) Bio buff: Marines are reduced in size to 90% so you can stack them even more for insane "dps per area". Maybe they give them bikes to ride on for more speed (they do like to add speed to units). Infestor nerf:Infestors are changed to bright pink color so everyone knows instantly what to target.[/sarcasm off] Honestly it is really sad to see too many people read this "declaration of intent" by some dude and then gather around the fire to sing the "praise almighty Blizzard" song of the stupid worshipper. It's even more sad to see each and every announcement by Blizzard met with the darkest of cynicism. It is a bummer, since they are doing a ton of stuff people have been asking for. Well except make Hellbats make the transformers noise when they change, do back flips when they transform while moving or make them punch fire with their awesome shield fists. But I don’t need changes just for me.(god it would be awesome) Blizzard are doing stuff wrong because they are approaching it wrong. I've actually said I think David Kim knows what we want, vaguely, and roughly why and loves Starcraft/wants it to succeed. However Blizz don't seem to get the underpinning relationship/link between why we want it/how we want it achieved. For example, I want fewer deathballs. Pathing is something that I expect to remain untouched, maybe it's complicated to re-code everything or whatever. In terms of say, changing unit clumping for example, I can logically comprehend why Blizzard wouldn't do that, even if they know what the problem is. If you change unit clumping, you change how every single composition in the game interacts. It might be better, but that will lead to an absolute age where you're not trying to design cool features, but merely trying to rebalance nearly everything in terms of the numbers. My solution to that issue, is figuring out how to address why people actually get pissed off at deathballs, and think of ways to factor that in without touching the engine, or say, macro mechanics. You can do this with very, very simple changes to execute. I've proposed a 'solution' for at least part of the Protoss deathball problem. 1. Why it annoys the player losing to a deathball - The idea of the opposition player having to put in much less work, relative to you. I mean, it's why I think at a design level PvT/TvP is the best functioning matchup, and I practice it from both sides, but wow playing Terran can be frustrating. In the case of PvZ, it's not not being able to beat BL/Infestor that's inherently annoying (although it's hard as hell to engage too), it's that BL/Infestor and consideration of it has reduced modern PvZ down to a level where it's close to just about your ability to execute a timing attack well. 2. How to fix that, without affecting core design. - You make it harder to control for the Protoss player. However there is a net tradeoff in terms of rewarding guys who are good at unit control, and happen to play Protoss (relative to other Protoss as opposed to Terrans). 3. How you would apply the concept- I feel creating a more divergent range of movespeeds in Protoss would not 'fix' deathballs and clumping. However, they would create a bit more skill so that Terrans get less frustrated by losing to A-move armies, but decent Protoss players ALSO get less frustrated because they feel there is more to do in terms of getting an advantage through their army control. 4. How you would specifically do it- In this instance I feel making Collosus way slower, and Zealots have 'Zealot legs' so their passive speed is faster. Part of the reason the Collosus is the only part of the deathball most people actually really hate, it's to do with the difference between Squirtle's Collosus, and say, my Collusus not being relatively large compared to our different skill levels. 5. Why this would improve/mitigate the problem - Divergent movespeeds make stuff harder to move around in a ball. Consider how the deathball operates, with the addition of Templar. They move so much slower than the rest, that you have to stop and reposition every so often, if you want to keep the entire ball together. A slower collosus at the back, and faster passive speed Zealots at the front will naturally split up more than the same composition with the current move speed relationship. This is why Reavers were balanced, they had huge damage output but were slow. Hence this created future cool synergy between the shuttle and the Reaver. The shuttle covered the Reaver's weaknesses, but still requires sick control to use. (imo unintentional design, but awesome when used) This inadvertently splits your army a bit better in certain ways, but also adds positional control. I mean in terms of standing power, mech is rather 'deathballish'. The skill in mech play comes from positioning, so adding a little of that element is good. Also, faster Zealots would function in a more versatile way akin to say, Zerglings than as an A-move unit that doesn't reward good charge use. Yeah you can manually do it, but this is quite unintuitive than having a faster average move speed, but a lower peak. 5. Other benefits to the game that may arise- Faster Zealots with less reliance on charge which is autocast, would be more controllable. Setting up Zealot flanks would be a more highly rewarded skill. Wombat, no offence, but you dislike everything Blizzard does. If they announced that they were giving everyone HotS for free as an apology for the balance mistakes for WoL, you would be pissed that it took them so long to admit it. They are never going to please you, so why bother trying? Come on ... go through that list and find something to criticise. It is long enough and stupid enough so you should find several things that wont work. If you can find nothing then you arent critical enough and should try harder instead of criticising people for being critical of Blizzard ... who have been really stupid with their responses and actions for months now. If you cant come up with anything you might want to look at my list HERE ... My favorite ones are the Tempest and the Ultralisk ... Alternatively you could come up with reasons why these proposed changes - which should be criticised for not being precise enough anyways (Blizzard should just not say anything until they know exactly what they want to change and how!) - are good ... something more than "I like it". So far none of people who have criticised me for being critical of Blizzard has really answered any of the lists I made, but maybe you are the first. On December 04 2012 05:17 rd wrote:On December 04 2012 05:09 Rabiator wrote:On December 04 2012 03:45 zhurai wrote:5. Buff Bio in the late game - with the addition of new units in HotS, we feel Bio in the late game is a bit weak. -5 bunker build time? 4. Nerf Infestor quite heavily -1 damage on the fungal growth? seriously these "Hey we're going to nerf X" has no meaning if they actually don't do anything about it, (I'm not too optimistic given their past record) Bio buff: Marines are reduced in size to 90% so you can stack them even more for insane "dps per area". Maybe they give them bikes to ride on for more speed (they do like to add speed to units). Infestor nerf:Infestors are changed to bright pink color so everyone knows instantly what to target.[/sarcasm off] Honestly it is really sad to see too many people read this "declaration of intent" by some dude and then gather around the fire to sing the "praise almighty Blizzard" song of the stupid worshipper. It's even more sad to see each and every announcement by Blizzard met with the darkest of cynicism. Apparently you can't be optimistic without being a stupid Blizzard worshipper. People who arent critical enough have been the reasons for many wars while the critics have been booed at. It is the same principle here and "being proven right eventually" wont make us happy, because the game will be ruined then. Blizzard is currently screwing up the game by making it too complex and too fast. The incredibly high unit density already makes the "kill speed" rather high, so you can only react properly if you are a kid who does nothing else every day. This is not good, because it is a GAME and should be about FUN instead of clicking fast enough. It isnt an action game - which I accused them of years ago already - it is a strategy game and thus should focus more about "the right plan" and not "the right clicks". I have added the link to my criticisms of the "declaration of intent" by David Kim in the first reply here and maybe some more people can go down the list and ask themselves "Is this really good for the game?" Anyone who doesnt really find anything bad is kinda stupid IMO and that isnt a good sign. Even justifying the changes through some reasoning would work for me ... How can you justify "buffing bio for late game" if you nerf the Infestor properly? Wouldnt it be much simpler to nerf the new things to make things work instead? What is the reason for giving units more speed and how will that make it better for casuals to play for example? Why do Tempests and Ultralisks have to be good against EVERYTHING while other units - like the Siege Tank - are limited by "bonus" damage? There are LOTS of bad apples in that stupid list and people who find nothing are just indoctrinated fanboys who will happily run after every stick their master Browder/Kim throws for them while barking joyfully. I am sad to have reached this point, but can you honestly say that I am wrong? There is a fairly large difference being critical and cynically mocking every update from Blizzard. I mean again, you literally re-establish the same strawman of anyone who doesn't appear to agree with you entirely as some brain-dead Blizzard fan incapable of embracing what is clearly sound logic emanating from your enlightened view into Blizzard. ... and you again prove me right by not arguing and looking at the criticisms I make of their announcement/proposed changes/declaration of intent. You are more interested in trying to prove me wrong because I say you arent arguing than actually proving my reasoning to be wrong. Soooo ... please go through the list of the announcement and list why these changes are GOOD and NECESSARY and the RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. Personally I believe you shouldnt need to balance a game that works with a sledgehammer but rather with a small chisel. Since they use the sledgehammer I am guessing it doesnt work. Lol? Theres no reason to be had in mocking opinions that differ from yours because you disagree and are an over the top cynic. I don't care to disprove your reasoning. I merely pointed out the ridiculous irony in labeling a post disagreeing with yours "sad" despite the cynicism in brandishing dissent as fanboyism, and you respond with a wall of text going over shit I have no need to go over.
Thanks for the easy "win" in the "discussion" then, why you argue at all is beyond me though. If you cant be asked to read something I really wonder why you read forum posts at all ... and post yourself.
On December 04 2012 17:31 aZealot wrote:
You don't appear to see the problem in that suggestion, compounded as it is by all the factors I previously outlined. Mainly, how to identify the "good" ideas. On what metric are these to be identified? The validity of the ideas? Their testing? Their implementation? Some solutions may only appear to be solutions in terms of a current problem in the meta-game or a problem in a specific match-up. Some ideas while good may actually turn out to be bad later. The fact that, to put it bluntly, you are convinced you shit gold, does not necessarily make it so that you do. Or, even if you do, that Blizzard could and should justify sifting through layers of shit to get to your scattered gold nuggets. Rationally, they have no incentive to do so.
I'm more and more convinced that Blizzard should ignore the community as far as possible when it comes to balance/design, and lend only a selective and measured ear to all suggestions screamed in its direction. Does this mean that Blizzard know more about the game than the community (extending far past TL)? Not necessarily - and in comparison to the dispersed aggregated knowledge of the overall community, probably not. But that's a long way from discounting what they do know.
That said, the real answer, in my view, to many issues of balance and design when it comes to as complex a game as SC2 is, "I don't know". Given that, and whatever resource restrictions the Blizzard development team operate under in the real world, I am happy to leave the overall fate of the game in Blizzard's hands. Now, does this mean that the game will be better than if it was developed by the "community"? I don't know. But having observed this community for almost 2 years now, and having taken part myself in many a design circle jerk, I am skeptical about the next SC2 Messiah popping up on the forums convinced that he knows the way to SC2 Nirvana where the game is always innovative and fun and balanced all of the time. Even if Blizzard do indeed screw SC2 up, I am doubtful, very doubtful, that "the community" could and would do any better.
The problem of "what is a good idea and what isnt" is really difficult to answer and it is my firm belief that a look from "outside of the game" is necessary to identify underlying problems. This isnt something which progamers can really do, because they are focused too much on the immediate problems of their builds and race.
Nevertheless they should read forums and suggestions, because the dev team is only limited in size and the community is MUCH bigger. Thus the chance of getting a good idea from the community is quite large AND Blizzard devs themselves are suffering from the same problem as I said progamers suffer from ... a certain "blindness" or maybe "lack of objectivity" towards the problems. Thus I would think it quite reasonable to assume that *some* people in the community can see clearer than Browder and Kim. Sadly there is this general "let the big guns do what they get paid for" attitude by lots of people who dont want to think (or argue) themselves [see above].
To find the problems of the game is easy - at least thats my opinion - but some are not connected with any specific unit and its combat values ... and these "general mechanics" are ignored by Blizzard when it comes to the balance of the game. There are several problems and I can list the problems which they create:
- Unit density: More units within range of each other create a much higher rate of death compared to only a few units on each side. If you make a mistake you have a much shorter time to react appropriately with lots of units within range of each other ... and this is something that is "anti-casual" or "anti-low-level-player". BW got its cult status through being accessible for casuals and playing "just for fun", but SC2 is terrible in that regard. Tight unit density also allows for "critical numbers" to be reached ... and that is something terrible for the game, since your units become too efficient.
- Racial asymmetry: The asymmetric nature and style is what made Starcraft unique and fun to play, but is it possible to do too much? In my opinion the racially different speed boosts for unit production (and economy) are the part of the reason why Zerg are "too strong in the late game" and the other two races are pretty strong early on. This isnt "imbalanced" in itself, BUT the production speed boosts are part of the reason why there are too many units on the battlefield [see above] and since they kick in at different times they give advantages to one race or the other at certain times. That doesnt seem like a wise thing IMO and probably makes balancing more difficult rather than easier.
- Bonus damage: This has a positive name, but is it really a good thing? I think not, because any unit with "bonus" damage is bad against all other units. The easiest example here is the Thor with its "vs light" AA bonus damage, which makes it ok against Mutalisks and Phoenixes, but what is a Terran mech player to use against Corruptors/Broodlords? Non-mech units ...
These three "general points" are easy to understand and should show some problematic points of the game which make balancing AND playing it as a casual rather hard. Sadly Blizzard seems incapable of seeing this OR they dont care to make the necessary changes. Right now - at the brink of HotS being released - they would have the perfect opportunity of fixing these things to start fresh with the next expansion. Blizzard however is trying to fix the balance through units alone and while that might be possible it also makes the game more and more complex ... too complex to be balanced eventually.
The wise choice would be to make the game easier to play for casuals by reducing unit density and getting rid of the production speed boosts which enhance the differences between the races wayy too much. Getting rid of bonus damage and replacing it with a "splash damage system" like BW had it would be yet another step for making the game easier to balance. A reduced unit density allows for "exciting and overpowered abilities" just like BW had it ... simply because you cant kill the whole army of your opponent by locking it down with just a few Fungals as you can now. All in all you can sum up my problems and solutions with "the game is too fast for its own good and fewer units mean more/easier control [micro]".
This failure of Blizzards dev team to "look at the big picture" is rather depressing and the main reason why I am only able to talk with sarcasm about their suggestions, because these "big problems" are so clear. Another reason is that their suggestions are so unreasonable ...
|
On December 04 2012 18:57 Rabiator wrote:The problem of "what is a good idea and what isnt" is really difficult to answer and it is my firm belief that a look from "outside of the game" is necessary to identify underlying problems. This isnt something which progamers can really do, because they are focused too much on the immediate problems of their builds and race. Nevertheless they should read forums and suggestions, because the dev team is only limited in size and the community is MUCH bigger. Thus the chance of getting a good idea from the community is quite large AND Blizzard devs themselves are suffering from the same problem as I said progamers suffer from ... a certain "blindness" or maybe "lack of objectivity" towards the problems. Thus I would think it quite reasonable to assume that *some* people in the community can see clearer than Browder and Kim. Sadly there is this general "let the big guns do what they get paid for" attitude by lots of people who dont want to think (or argue) themselves [see above]. To find the problems of the game is easy - at least thats my opinion - but some are not connected with any specific unit and its combat values ... and these "general mechanics" are ignored by Blizzard when it comes to the balance of the game. There are several problems and I can list the problems which they create: - Unit density: More units within range of each other create a much higher rate of death compared to only a few units on each side. If you make a mistake you have a much shorter time to react appropriately with lots of units within range of each other ... and this is something that is "anti-casual" or "anti-low-level-player". BW got its cult status through being accessible for casuals and playing "just for fun", but SC2 is terrible in that regard. Tight unit density also allows for "critical numbers" to be reached ... and that is something terrible for the game, since your units become too efficient.
- Racial asymmetry: The asymmetric nature and style is what made Starcraft unique and fun to play, but is it possible to do too much? In my opinion the racially different speed boosts for unit production (and economy) are the part of the reason why Zerg are "too strong in the late game" and the other two races are pretty strong early on. This isnt "imbalanced" in itself, BUT the production speed boosts are part of the reason why there are too many units on the battlefield [see above] and since they kick in at different times they give advantages to one race or the other at certain times. That doesnt seem like a wise thing IMO and probably makes balancing more difficult rather than easier.
- Bonus damage: This has a positive name, but is it really a good thing? I think not, because any unit with "bonus" damage is bad against all other units. The easiest example here is the Thor with its "vs light" AA bonus damage, which makes it ok against Mutalisks and Phoenixes, but what is a Terran mech player to use against Corruptors/Broodlords? Non-mech units ...
These three "general points" are easy to understand and should show some problematic points of the game which make balancing AND playing it as a casual rather hard. Sadly Blizzard seems incapable of seeing this OR they dont care to make the necessary changes. Right now - at the brink of HotS being released - they would have the perfect opportunity of fixing these things to start fresh with the next expansion. Blizzard however is trying to fix the balance through units alone and while that might be possible it also makes the game more and more complex ... too complex to be balanced eventually. The wise choice would be to make the game easier to play for casuals by reducing unit density and getting rid of the production speed boosts which enhance the differences between the races wayy too much. Getting rid of bonus damage and replacing it with a "splash damage system" like BW had it would be yet another step for making the game easier to balance. A reduced unit density allows for "exciting and overpowered abilities" just like BW had it ... simply because you cant kill the whole army of your opponent by locking it down with just a few Fungals as you can now. All in all you can sum up my problems and solutions with "the game is too fast for its own good and fewer units mean more/easier control [micro]". This failure of Blizzards dev team to "look at the big picture" is rather depressing and the main reason why I am only able to talk with sarcasm about their suggestions, because these "big problems" are so clear. Another reason is that their suggestions are so unreasonable ...
Well, people are just going to disagree with your points and/or your solutions. For example I do, even though I agree with some of your points.
- Unit density: I disagree that it is a pathing and/or selection problem. Sure those things can solve the problem (which I completly agree with). But imo, this problem does only exist for very certain units, in names: marines, marauder, stalkers, infested Terrans, to a small extend roaches. I don't see a problem with moving siege tanks in tight formations, nor with thors or hellions, or archons or zealots or zerglings. Not to mention that this is one of the design advantages of air units, used in many, many RTS games (including Broodwar and WC3).
Imo the solution to this problem is way easier: less range and/or bigger size for basic units and small adjustments to melee units to keep the individual unit balance similar. Like:
Increase marinesize by 25%, marauders, stalkers, hydras, roaches -1range, and then nerf zealots by 10HP, zerglings by 15% speed. Something along those lines...
It's a LOW TIER RANGED DEATHBALL UNIT PROBLEM we have, so we should attack low tier units (BL/Infestor and Roboballs in PvP are only a problem because of the unit stats, not because of some density).
- Racial asymmetry: I think it's great. Maybe some parts should be smoothed out (f.e. Inject/Hatchery spawning relation), but actually one of the biggest flaws of this game is that Protoss still has two production structures and Zerg has gained one unit (Robo, Stargate; Queen), that use Terran design. They had years to come up with something... So no, I think that's really not a problem for design. Sure some things don't balance out properly, that's where blizzard should step in and bring it back to balance. (there are many tools to do so, from upgrades, to tech requirements and unit stats)
- Bonus damage: I haven't seen a game without bonus damage systems, or at least I wouldn't know about it. The only difference is, that other games simply don't write it somewhere.
Yeah, I agree that they went overboard with a few units (Immortal), and that they should have kept it simpler - +vs armored, + vs light; nothing else.
But those bonus damage systems are one of the most established strategy parts of strategy games, if you take them away, the game loses a lot of depth immidiatly (if you want to keep it balanced and have various units in it).
|
BW did just fine with a bonus damage system. So I don't think that can be the problem.
|
On December 04 2012 22:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 18:57 Rabiator wrote:The problem of "what is a good idea and what isnt" is really difficult to answer and it is my firm belief that a look from "outside of the game" is necessary to identify underlying problems. This isnt something which progamers can really do, because they are focused too much on the immediate problems of their builds and race. Nevertheless they should read forums and suggestions, because the dev team is only limited in size and the community is MUCH bigger. Thus the chance of getting a good idea from the community is quite large AND Blizzard devs themselves are suffering from the same problem as I said progamers suffer from ... a certain "blindness" or maybe "lack of objectivity" towards the problems. Thus I would think it quite reasonable to assume that *some* people in the community can see clearer than Browder and Kim. Sadly there is this general "let the big guns do what they get paid for" attitude by lots of people who dont want to think (or argue) themselves [see above]. To find the problems of the game is easy - at least thats my opinion - but some are not connected with any specific unit and its combat values ... and these "general mechanics" are ignored by Blizzard when it comes to the balance of the game. There are several problems and I can list the problems which they create: - Unit density: More units within range of each other create a much higher rate of death compared to only a few units on each side. If you make a mistake you have a much shorter time to react appropriately with lots of units within range of each other ... and this is something that is "anti-casual" or "anti-low-level-player". BW got its cult status through being accessible for casuals and playing "just for fun", but SC2 is terrible in that regard. Tight unit density also allows for "critical numbers" to be reached ... and that is something terrible for the game, since your units become too efficient.
- Racial asymmetry: The asymmetric nature and style is what made Starcraft unique and fun to play, but is it possible to do too much? In my opinion the racially different speed boosts for unit production (and economy) are the part of the reason why Zerg are "too strong in the late game" and the other two races are pretty strong early on. This isnt "imbalanced" in itself, BUT the production speed boosts are part of the reason why there are too many units on the battlefield [see above] and since they kick in at different times they give advantages to one race or the other at certain times. That doesnt seem like a wise thing IMO and probably makes balancing more difficult rather than easier.
- Bonus damage: This has a positive name, but is it really a good thing? I think not, because any unit with "bonus" damage is bad against all other units. The easiest example here is the Thor with its "vs light" AA bonus damage, which makes it ok against Mutalisks and Phoenixes, but what is a Terran mech player to use against Corruptors/Broodlords? Non-mech units ...
These three "general points" are easy to understand and should show some problematic points of the game which make balancing AND playing it as a casual rather hard. Sadly Blizzard seems incapable of seeing this OR they dont care to make the necessary changes. Right now - at the brink of HotS being released - they would have the perfect opportunity of fixing these things to start fresh with the next expansion. Blizzard however is trying to fix the balance through units alone and while that might be possible it also makes the game more and more complex ... too complex to be balanced eventually. The wise choice would be to make the game easier to play for casuals by reducing unit density and getting rid of the production speed boosts which enhance the differences between the races wayy too much. Getting rid of bonus damage and replacing it with a "splash damage system" like BW had it would be yet another step for making the game easier to balance. A reduced unit density allows for "exciting and overpowered abilities" just like BW had it ... simply because you cant kill the whole army of your opponent by locking it down with just a few Fungals as you can now. All in all you can sum up my problems and solutions with "the game is too fast for its own good and fewer units mean more/easier control [micro]". This failure of Blizzards dev team to "look at the big picture" is rather depressing and the main reason why I am only able to talk with sarcasm about their suggestions, because these "big problems" are so clear. Another reason is that their suggestions are so unreasonable ... Well, people are just going to disagree with your points and/or your solutions. For example I do, even though I agree with some of your points. - Unit density: I disagree that it is a pathing and/or selection problem. Sure those things can solve the problem (which I completly agree with). But imo, this problem does only exist for very certain units, in names: marines, marauder, stalkers, infested Terrans, to a small extend roaches. I don't see a problem with moving siege tanks in tight formations, nor with thors or hellions, or archons or zealots or zerglings. Not to mention that this is one of the design advantages of air units, used in many, many RTS games (including Broodwar and WC3).
Imo the solution to this problem is way easier: less range and/or bigger size for basic units and small adjustments to melee units to keep the individual unit balance similar. Like:
Increase marinesize by 25%, marauders, stalkers, hydras, roaches -1range, and then nerf zealots by 10HP, zerglings by 15% speed. Something along those lines...
It's a LOW TIER RANGED DEATHBALL UNIT PROBLEM we have, so we should attack low tier units (BL/Infestor and Roboballs in PvP are only a problem because of the unit stats, not because of some density).
- Racial asymmetry: I think it's great. Maybe some parts should be smoothed out (f.e. Inject/Hatchery spawning relation), but actually one of the biggest flaws of this game is that Protoss still has two production structures and Zerg has gained one unit (Robo, Stargate; Queen), that use Terran design. They had years to come up with something... So no, I think that's really not a problem for design. Sure some things don't balance out properly, that's where blizzard should step in and bring it back to balance. (there are many tools to do so, from upgrades, to tech requirements and unit stats)
- Bonus damage: I haven't seen a game without bonus damage systems, or at least I wouldn't know about it. The only difference is, that other games simply don't write it somewhere.
Yeah, I agree that they went overboard with a few units (Immortal), and that they should have kept it simpler - +vs armored, + vs light; nothing else.
But those bonus damage systems are one of the most established strategy parts of strategy games, if you take them away, the game loses a lot of depth immidiatly (if you want to keep it balanced and have various units in it).
1. The unit density IS the problem and the solution for it is the pathing and unit selection. Tight unit density and an unlimited unit selection means that you could gather up 200 Marines in one spot ... and move them around as a tight bunch. Now imagine a single (or very few) enemy unit(s) you are going to encounter ... they WILL DIE instantly no matter how tough they seem to be just because you can clump up the Marines to a super tight density and move them around. This basically makes a lot of the big and seemingly tough units rather bad against anything that can be massed and you HAVE TO clump them up as well. This is the reason why the deathball exists and I dont know about you, but I think it is terrible and limits the available strategies.
Super tight formations also allow for "critical numbers" and one of the usual examples I bring here is Zealots vs Marines. Eventually - with ever increasing numbers - there will be so many Marines that they will kill many Zealots before they even reach the Marines simply because the added dps of the clump is so high. If you only have 2 Marines fighting one Zealot you have a different situation and the Zealot has a chance. This "shift in balance" is a terrible idea, because it makes it rather unpredictable.
Bigger size of units doesnt solve the problem, because the movement will still look somewhat unnatural. Less range wont solve it either since you would have to rebalance the whole relationship between melee and ranged infantry and it did work in BW, so why doesnt it in SC2?
2. Racial asymmetry isnt questioned by me ... its the production speed boosts which exaggerate it even more which are too much. The ability of Zerg to produce anything they want and to make whatever tech switch they want in the late game is just too strong when compared to the rather limited production speed boost of Terrans for example. It is this kind of asymmetry which I criticize ... its about giving the three races different timings when they "kick into high gear" and others when they fall behind their competition. In addition the production speed boosts are responsible for filling the battlefield with too many units, making the deathball bigger and bigger ...
3. The whole "+vs X" system is really just an elaborate rock-paper-scissors game which has been softened so that rock *might* win against paper sometimes, but it isnt good. The culmination was the "psionic units immune to Fungal" test they had in the first call to action. I cant remember any other game having such a bonus damage system AND keeping the same low amount of units per race! A bonus damage system really limits the efficiency of units and thus the freedom of choice for the players.
While BW did have its own system I feel it was less unit-specific, because in SC2 the ratio between "max damage" and "bonus damage" can be different, whereas this was a fixed percentage for all attacks of type X (concussive/explosive/splash). In SC2 the Zerg have hardly any bonus damage among their infantry units and this makes them very good allround units; the two other races have to think about (= scout) their opponents forces to choose the right units to build.
|
On December 03 2012 13:51 BeyondCtrL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 13:30 mrjpark wrote:On December 02 2012 06:52 SuperYo1000 wrote:On December 02 2012 06:48 mrjpark wrote:
Uh, isn't the egg nerf actually a decent nerf? It means one storm will now kill however many eggs are within the radius, while feedbacks are always options in the earlier part of the game to just deal with the infestors themselves. oh come on please...how many times has this been corrected. One storm WILL NOT kill eggs. Eggs just like every other zerg unit regen life. eggs survive with 1 or 2 hp Right, they might as well be dead with 1 hp. Or is your army doing nothing? You know that when they hatch they get 100% hp? Eggs, just by themselves, add so much hp to an army (also act very much like FF by walling stuff off) and if you don't manage to kill the damn eggs (even 1 hp right before hatch) they will spawn with full 50hp AND with massive dps. Each infested terran adds a 150 hp (130 with this patch) tank to the Zerg army if not killed. That's stupidly ridiculous when you think about it that way. Your army wastes so much DPS on the IT that the Z army will kill you. If you ignore eggs and fire on army eggs hatch and do massive dps, and all you need is 2-3 fungals to ensure that the opposing army cannot escape.
This is irrelevant now, but basically having one or two colossi in your army would render IT irrelevant with a storm or two. Don't forget that when Zergs are doing this strategy, a large portion of their army is actually infestors -- units that cannot attack. Sure, the eggs are tanking, to make sure your casters can all get away. But if you just kill the eggs, the Zerg now has a large caster army that's incapable of doing any damage for the next minute or so. Your view on this is so extreme, it's almost ignorant. You will have a full army with aoe damage. The Zerg will have half an army waiting to spawn with another half an army trying to engage. The eggs take 5 seconds to hatch. Storm takes 4 seconds. Hell, 4-6 storms should wipe everything out. Otherwise, just focus your colossus on the eggs with everything else fighting off the real army. There are so many different ways to approach this scenario without just straight up dying.
|
On December 05 2012 06:12 mrjpark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 13:51 BeyondCtrL wrote:On December 03 2012 13:30 mrjpark wrote:On December 02 2012 06:52 SuperYo1000 wrote:On December 02 2012 06:48 mrjpark wrote:
Uh, isn't the egg nerf actually a decent nerf? It means one storm will now kill however many eggs are within the radius, while feedbacks are always options in the earlier part of the game to just deal with the infestors themselves. oh come on please...how many times has this been corrected. One storm WILL NOT kill eggs. Eggs just like every other zerg unit regen life. eggs survive with 1 or 2 hp Right, they might as well be dead with 1 hp. Or is your army doing nothing? You know that when they hatch they get 100% hp? Eggs, just by themselves, add so much hp to an army (also act very much like FF by walling stuff off) and if you don't manage to kill the damn eggs (even 1 hp right before hatch) they will spawn with full 50hp AND with massive dps. Each infested terran adds a 150 hp (130 with this patch) tank to the Zerg army if not killed. That's stupidly ridiculous when you think about it that way. Your army wastes so much DPS on the IT that the Z army will kill you. If you ignore eggs and fire on army eggs hatch and do massive dps, and all you need is 2-3 fungals to ensure that the opposing army cannot escape. This is irrelevant now, but basically having one or two colossi in your army would render IT irrelevant with a storm or two. Don't forget that when Zergs are doing this strategy, a large portion of their army is actually infestors -- units that cannot attack. Sure, the eggs are tanking, to make sure your casters can all get away. But if you just kill the eggs, the Zerg now has a large caster army that's incapable of doing any damage for the next minute or so. Your view on this is so extreme, it's almost ignorant. You will have a full army with aoe damage. The Zerg will have half an army waiting to spawn with another half an army trying to engage. The eggs take 5 seconds to hatch. Storm takes 4 seconds. Hell, 4-6 storms should wipe everything out. Otherwise, just focus your colossus on the eggs with everything else fighting off the real army. There are so many different ways to approach this scenario without just straight up dying.
When your spellcasters, which are supposed to be support units, take up of half of your army supply, then something is wrong. With the new changes, maybe zerg will invest more into actual fighting units and less on the infestors. This is a good thing.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
Change is change, at least they are doing something 
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On December 04 2012 17:31 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2012 17:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2012 17:39 aZealot wrote:
I think you miss his point Wombat. You may believe your voice is easily differentiated from the mass of other voices on TL (and elsewhere). I'm not really sure how you can come to that point regardless, a good forum profile means shit. How is Blizzard supposed to consistently pick out the occasional pearl (if that is indeed what it is) from the mass of swine swill that is the usual balance/design offering on TL? They'd have to be masochists to do so, and those dedicated couple of personnel (poor sods) trawling through TL and other community sites would be reaching for sharp blades and rolling up their sleeves real quick.
So much of community "input" is little more than whine of the week, or moan of the month - forever changing contemptible crap. There may be, and I'm not sure about this, something for the Blizzard development team to take on board among all of that. Something they must be told for the good of the game (etc). But I find it difficult to blame them if they don't or won't. Not at all correct man to say that. I have actually said exactly what you are talking about, in a different way. I mean bar my phraseology being different to yours, I could have made that post. I acknowledge the problem exists, and how the problem impacts us. I.e, that good posts get buried etc. I just consider it a false dichotomy, it doesn't have to be 'Blizzard can do it themselves' vs 'We know better' at all. Blizzard, merely by consulting pros shows that, unless it's purely to placate the community, that they welcome input! However I'd imagine they find sifting through it hard (because of all the reasons you outlined). The solution is 100% there, at least theoretically if you think a little laterally. Hire a person to sift through that. They wouldn't even have to know much about Starcraft, just bring ideas to Blizzard that aren't necessarily good, or necessarily bad, but something that they haven't considered. Yeah it might suck, hell, it's a job right? I wouldn't expect them to do it for free, it would be hell. If anybody can tell me that that wouldn't at least bridge the gap between the good ideas of the 'silent minority' being transmitted, and them being received, to at least some degree I would be mightily impressed as to them finding a reason why. Sorry for the late-ish response. Work has been crazy recently, will continue to be so, and I don't have time to trawl the forums: just skim and post occasionally. You don't appear to see the problem in that suggestion, compounded as it is by all the factors I previously outlined. Mainly, how to identify the "good" ideas. On what metric are these to be identified? The validity of the ideas? Their testing? Their implementation? Some solutions may only appear to be solutions in terms of a current problem in the meta-game or a problem in a specific match-up. Some ideas while good may actually turn out to be bad later. The fact that, to put it bluntly, you are convinced you shit gold, does not necessarily make it so that you do. Or, even if you do, that Blizzard could and should justify sifting through layers of shit to get to your scattered gold nuggets. Rationally, they have no incentive to do so. I'm more and more convinced that Blizzard should ignore the community as far as possible when it comes to balance/design, and lend only a selective and measured ear to all suggestions screamed in its direction. Does this mean that Blizzard know more about the game than the community (extending far past TL)? Not necessarily - and in comparison to the dispersed aggregated knowledge of the overall community, probably not. But that's a long way from discounting what they do know. That said, the real answer, in my view, to many issues of balance and design when it comes to as complex a game as SC2 is, "I don't know". Given that, and whatever resource restrictions the Blizzard development team operate under in the real world, I am happy to leave the overall fate of the game in Blizzard's hands. Now, does this mean that the game will be better than if it was developed by the "community"? I don't know. But having observed this community for almost 2 years now, and having taken part myself in many a design circle jerk, I am skeptical about the next SC2 Messiah popping up on the forums convinced that he knows the way to SC2 Nirvana where the game is always innovative and fun and balanced all of the time. Even if Blizzard do indeed screw SC2 up, I am doubtful, very doubtful, that "the community" could and would do any better.
It's kind of based on the reality that Blizzard ARE listening to the community, especially the pros etc. I agree with you on that, letting Blizzard get on with it would be potentially desirable, because a lot of the community are idiots who spam them with unreasonable suggestions.
Basically my central idea isn't based on good or bad ideas, but things perhaps Blizzard hadn't considered. If they hadn't, and they became aware of something, what they DO with that information is immaterial to me. It's bridging that gap.
I've come up with suggestions for example that seemed amazing, then had a pro player mention a specific build that would make it overpowered. I thought 'damn, hadn't thought of that, back to the drawing board'
I'm not convinced I shit gold or anything, because in this instance, I thought my idea was good, but then somebody found a hole in it. We just want Blizzard to consider certain ideas, regardless of whether they think the ideas, or the solutions proposed are fucking terrible ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
