|
Despite the HotS changes to promote more harassment and multiple engagements, Protoss is still the race that encourages deathball play, especially in PvZ. While the warp prism buff is a step in the right direction, is Blizzard considering any other options to change this often-complained about aspect of Protoss?
DK: Not just Protoss in specific, just across the board every single race should have more harassment options, the more skirmishes there are in a given matchup, I think the better. And the reason is because like back in WoL right before HotS came out, if you take any matchup for example PvT, we saw many very similar games because Protoss players are defending drops so well that both players just macro up and don't fight for like 15 minutes and the game ends in 2 or 3 big engagements, if you watch 10 PvT games even on different maps, you see exact same games over and over again. We don't think that's a good thing, across the board we try to do our best to make sure we have more skirmishes. For Protoss specifically we currently don't have plans to change anything right now, but if Protoss or any race appear to be a little weak, the way we want to buff those races is by adding more options to be more on the aggressive.
I just... buff gateway units so they don't get totally decimated by bio/zerg and nerf colossi/hts. Then protoss doesn't need to deathball. Protoss is just way to reliant on their power units to bring the pain while the gateway units are mostly just to tank. Sadly nothing will be done until LotV at first 
|
And not a single word on economy, which is at the heart of everything turning into deathballs in the end. What is he expecting if the natural counter to a strategy doesn't exist with the current combination of economy model and map size? Wasteful, production/momentum-oriented Sauron-style play just can't exist the way things currently are.
The SC2 econ model can give that natural Sauron > Turtle > Harassment > Sauron style wheel of strategy, but for that to happen the maps need to be more oldskool (SC2 oldskool that is): 2 bases "standard" instead of 3, third farther away and needing the player to stretch to defend, smaller games mean the 200 cap isn't hit that much which then allows for Sauron style drowning people in production.
The moment 3 bases is something that is expected instead of being greedy, the SC2 economy breaks down and the strategy-level counter to deathball play ceases to exist. All these caster-style units surely don't help because they further enable trading mana for money.
It's hilarious that they still can't accept that the oldschool lobby system works and that they should use it. But hey, new's better right?
On August 24 2013 18:49 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +Despite the HotS changes to promote more harassment and multiple engagements, Protoss is still the race that encourages deathball play, especially in PvZ. While the warp prism buff is a step in the right direction, is Blizzard considering any other options to change this often-complained about aspect of Protoss?
DK: Not just Protoss in specific, just across the board every single race should have more harassment options, the more skirmishes there are in a given matchup, I think the better. And the reason is because like back in WoL right before HotS came out, if you take any matchup for example PvT, we saw many very similar games because Protoss players are defending drops so well that both players just macro up and don't fight for like 15 minutes and the game ends in 2 or 3 big engagements, if you watch 10 PvT games even on different maps, you see exact same games over and over again. We don't think that's a good thing, across the board we try to do our best to make sure we have more skirmishes. For Protoss specifically we currently don't have plans to change anything right now, but if Protoss or any race appear to be a little weak, the way we want to buff those races is by adding more options to be more on the aggressive. I just... buff gateway units so they don't get totally decimated by bio/zerg and nerf colossi/hts. Then protoss doesn't need to deathball. Protoss is just way to reliant on their power units to bring the pain while the gateway units are mostly just to tank. Sadly nothing will be done until LotV at first
You do that, gateway pushes will become unholdable. The insane logistical advantages warpgates are already the actual core thing that makes those pushes strong: give stronger gateway units to toss and everything will go to hell. The buffs also have to be upgrade-type things that happen later on in the game, early game Marine-Stalker balance is already hanging on by a thread for example. But something could be done, yes. It's a different matter entirely if the devs are willing to, because doing anything would necessitate giving Protoss a solid foundation. Fundamentals instead of gimmicks and all that.
|
..The goal for us is to create exciting games to watch and as long as strategies are good, as long as every matchup is diverse..
I swear david kim is playing a different game than the rest of us 
|
I read digmouse‘s article in popsoft since i was a child.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On August 24 2013 18:49 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +Despite the HotS changes to promote more harassment and multiple engagements, Protoss is still the race that encourages deathball play, especially in PvZ. While the warp prism buff is a step in the right direction, is Blizzard considering any other options to change this often-complained about aspect of Protoss?
DK: Not just Protoss in specific, just across the board every single race should have more harassment options, the more skirmishes there are in a given matchup, I think the better. And the reason is because like back in WoL right before HotS came out, if you take any matchup for example PvT, we saw many very similar games because Protoss players are defending drops so well that both players just macro up and don't fight for like 15 minutes and the game ends in 2 or 3 big engagements, if you watch 10 PvT games even on different maps, you see exact same games over and over again. We don't think that's a good thing, across the board we try to do our best to make sure we have more skirmishes. For Protoss specifically we currently don't have plans to change anything right now, but if Protoss or any race appear to be a little weak, the way we want to buff those races is by adding more options to be more on the aggressive. I just... buff gateway units so they don't get totally decimated by bio/zerg and nerf colossi/hts. Then protoss doesn't need to deathball. Protoss is just way to reliant on their power units to bring the pain while the gateway units are mostly just to tank. Sadly nothing will be done until LotV at first
You can't do that without making 3-7gate timings with blink or charge overpowered as hell. It's a much more complex issue.
|
United Kingdom12071 Posts
The goal for us is to create exciting games to watch and as long as strategies are good, as long as every matchup is diverse,
You mean... like TvP which has been stale since the release of the game? Damnit T_T Why do people find TvP entertaining.
|
On August 24 2013 18:49 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +Despite the HotS changes to promote more harassment and multiple engagements, Protoss is still the race that encourages deathball play, especially in PvZ. While the warp prism buff is a step in the right direction, is Blizzard considering any other options to change this often-complained about aspect of Protoss?
DK: Not just Protoss in specific, just across the board every single race should have more harassment options, the more skirmishes there are in a given matchup, I think the better. And the reason is because like back in WoL right before HotS came out, if you take any matchup for example PvT, we saw many very similar games because Protoss players are defending drops so well that both players just macro up and don't fight for like 15 minutes and the game ends in 2 or 3 big engagements, if you watch 10 PvT games even on different maps, you see exact same games over and over again. We don't think that's a good thing, across the board we try to do our best to make sure we have more skirmishes. For Protoss specifically we currently don't have plans to change anything right now, but if Protoss or any race appear to be a little weak, the way we want to buff those races is by adding more options to be more on the aggressive. I just... buff gateway units so they don't get totally decimated by bio/zerg and nerf colossi/hts. Then protoss doesn't need to deathball. Protoss is just way to reliant on their power units to bring the pain while the gateway units are mostly just to tank. Sadly nothing will be done until LotV at first
Its like they want to solve the "passiveness" by giving you more and more harassment tools.. but all this does is make the defender X times more paranoid and more turtley.
Its quite sad that they dont realise the problem with the passiveness is actually a combination of the macro boost mechanics + the econ system + the 3 base standard maps + high ground mechanics + lack of zone control units.
If getting more bases actually meant something instead of being capped at 3 bases.. would result into -> less income -> less units -> getting bases very important -> more skirmishes to defend/gain bases because now its more important as ever.
Also if high ground meant = bonus to those units vs lower ground, there would be an incentive to start capturing those critical ramps/hills/area (that links bases) and move out (so the battles now occur in the middle of the map NOT at the natural/3rd which is always the case in SC2, - its very weird to see lots of engagements mid map). But SC2 has zero to none zone control units and instead you need half or more of your army parked there.
|
On August 24 2013 18:56 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 18:49 Zarahtra wrote:Despite the HotS changes to promote more harassment and multiple engagements, Protoss is still the race that encourages deathball play, especially in PvZ. While the warp prism buff is a step in the right direction, is Blizzard considering any other options to change this often-complained about aspect of Protoss?
DK: Not just Protoss in specific, just across the board every single race should have more harassment options, the more skirmishes there are in a given matchup, I think the better. And the reason is because like back in WoL right before HotS came out, if you take any matchup for example PvT, we saw many very similar games because Protoss players are defending drops so well that both players just macro up and don't fight for like 15 minutes and the game ends in 2 or 3 big engagements, if you watch 10 PvT games even on different maps, you see exact same games over and over again. We don't think that's a good thing, across the board we try to do our best to make sure we have more skirmishes. For Protoss specifically we currently don't have plans to change anything right now, but if Protoss or any race appear to be a little weak, the way we want to buff those races is by adding more options to be more on the aggressive. I just... buff gateway units so they don't get totally decimated by bio/zerg and nerf colossi/hts. Then protoss doesn't need to deathball. Protoss is just way to reliant on their power units to bring the pain while the gateway units are mostly just to tank. Sadly nothing will be done until LotV at first You can't do that without making 3-7gate timings with blink or charge overpowered as hell. It's a much more complex issue.
I know, hence warp gate is a stupid mechanic too. That's ofcourse one of the basis of buffing the gateway units, it's removal(hence LotV hopefully)
I wonder if they never thought of the hidden cost of warp gates when they were designing WoL. That the 30-50 sec cut "commute time" would just mean that the units would be weaker and those that weren't combat ready after those 5 sec warp time(or 30-50 sec walk time) would be the ones to pick up the slack of the protoss army.
|
On August 24 2013 19:04 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 18:56 Teoita wrote:On August 24 2013 18:49 Zarahtra wrote:Despite the HotS changes to promote more harassment and multiple engagements, Protoss is still the race that encourages deathball play, especially in PvZ. While the warp prism buff is a step in the right direction, is Blizzard considering any other options to change this often-complained about aspect of Protoss?
DK: Not just Protoss in specific, just across the board every single race should have more harassment options, the more skirmishes there are in a given matchup, I think the better. And the reason is because like back in WoL right before HotS came out, if you take any matchup for example PvT, we saw many very similar games because Protoss players are defending drops so well that both players just macro up and don't fight for like 15 minutes and the game ends in 2 or 3 big engagements, if you watch 10 PvT games even on different maps, you see exact same games over and over again. We don't think that's a good thing, across the board we try to do our best to make sure we have more skirmishes. For Protoss specifically we currently don't have plans to change anything right now, but if Protoss or any race appear to be a little weak, the way we want to buff those races is by adding more options to be more on the aggressive. I just... buff gateway units so they don't get totally decimated by bio/zerg and nerf colossi/hts. Then protoss doesn't need to deathball. Protoss is just way to reliant on their power units to bring the pain while the gateway units are mostly just to tank. Sadly nothing will be done until LotV at first You can't do that without making 3-7gate timings with blink or charge overpowered as hell. It's a much more complex issue. I know, hence warp gate is a stupid mechanic too. That's ofcourse one of the basis of buffing the gateway units, it's removal(hence LotV hopefully) I wonder if they never thought of the hidden cost of warp gates when they were designing WoL. That the 30-50 sec cut "commute time" would just mean that the units would be weaker and those that weren't combat ready after those 5 sec warp time(or 30-50 sec walk time) would be the ones to pick up the slack of the protoss army.
It's just not the commute time. It's the frontloaded production screwing up reinforcement dynamics and allowing the construction of production buildings way, way late (compare gate=>tranform=>get unit to getting the first units out of a reactored rax or getting a hatch up and having the first inject wave finally spawn), it's the ability to proxy nearly everything for 100 without leaving your base defenseless, it's not being able to ambush reinforcements or camp production. It breaks just about every fundamental logistics-side thing games like this are built upon, and that cause things to make sense.
I don't think they thought about any of that. I think they went with "this is cool and fun to do", which is exactly what you should be doing with singleplayer design. But if they intend to make a highly competitive multiplayer game, let alone one people are to play as a job, the task of design needs to be approached with much more gravity than they've been willing to do thus far. They want the glamour, they want all the fun of designing crazy things with none of the responsibility. Same damn thing happened with Diablo. Stuff done haphazardly when real money was at stake? Seriously?
|
What I really do not undestand why SC2 have to have that mach mechanic component. It takes about 100 apm minimum only to produce, build, research resonably well. Which majority of non proffecionals have less then that apm, It greatly reduce enjoyement of game for non profecionals. So, why not reduce Mechanic APM needed? It is relativelly simple to do.
Example: Make quied units use no resources untill they are in production. Make it possible to autocats production. Add easy priority order of spending resource. For zerg, make injects and creep autocast, but do remove infinite range creep.
Make SCV, probes autocats. Add easy way to see total amount scv/probe drones we have. I am sure there some way to automate zerg production too.
This few changes will reduce mechanic for non profeccionals, makes game more fun for them as they will be able to spend more time doing fun stuff, like micro there units. Pro can still execise there A and S fingers.
For mech, I believe simpel reduction medibac volume of tanks to 2 and hellions to 1 will greatly increase mech mobility, making them more valible in all mach ups and do not change T-T too mach.
|
sad to see him talk about buffing harrassment for all races if a race is weak while not doing anything to nydus, ovispeed for drop or burrow movement. maybe in the future.
otherwise nice interview and love them going from deathball or boring play to aggressive, all-over-the-map play.
|
On August 24 2013 19:19 Mutineer wrote:
What I really do not undestand why SC2 have to have that mach mechanic component. It takes about 100 apm minimum only to produce, build, research resonably well. Which majority of non proffecionals have less then that apm, It greatly reduce enjoyement of game for non profecionals. So, why not reduce Mechanic APM needed? It is relativelly simple to do.
Example: Make quied units use no resources untill they are in production. Make it possible to autocats production. Add easy priority order of spending resource. For zerg, make injects and creep autocast, but do remove infinite range creep.
Make SCV, probes autocats. Add easy way to see total amount scv/probe drones we have. I am sure there some way to automate zerg production too.
This few changes will reduce mechanic for non profeccionals, makes game more fun for them as they will be able to spend more time doing fun stuff, like micro there units. Pro can still execise there A and S fingers.
For mech, I believe simpel reduction medibac volume of tanks to 2 and hellions to 1 will greatly increase mech mobility, making them more valible in all mach ups and do not change T-T too mach.
autocast for buildings is a bad idea. you might as well have a computer play for you.
i have an idea for the warpgate: units created from gateways require 5s (or some other number) less than warpgate (overall time, including the cooldown. warpgates will still warp in units faster, this would give some defender's advantage in pvp as well as give incentive for people to revert to gateway mode.
|
On August 24 2013 19:19 Mutineer wrote:
What I really do not undestand why SC2 have to have that mach mechanic component. It takes about 100 apm minimum only to produce, build, research resonably well. Which majority of non proffecionals have less then that apm, It greatly reduce enjoyement of game for non profecionals. So, why not reduce Mechanic APM needed? It is relativelly simple to do.
Example: Make quied units use no resources untill they are in production. Make it possible to autocats production. Add easy priority order of spending resource. For zerg, make injects and creep autocast, but do remove infinite range creep.
Make SCV, probes autocats. Add easy way to see total amount scv/probe drones we have. I am sure there some way to automate zerg production too.
This few changes will reduce mechanic for non profeccionals, makes game more fun for them as they will be able to spend more time doing fun stuff, like micro there units. Pro can still execise there A and S fingers.
For mech, I believe simpel reduction medibac volume of tanks to 2 and hellions to 1 will greatly increase mech mobility, making them more valible in all mach ups and do not change T-T too mach.
I think everything should be autocast. Blink autocast so they blink behind allied units when in red health.
|
On August 24 2013 19:30 29 fps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 19:19 Mutineer wrote:
What I really do not undestand why SC2 have to have that mach mechanic component. It takes about 100 apm minimum only to produce, build, research resonably well. Which majority of non proffecionals have less then that apm, It greatly reduce enjoyement of game for non profecionals. So, why not reduce Mechanic APM needed? It is relativelly simple to do.
Example: Make quied units use no resources untill they are in production. Make it possible to autocats production. Add easy priority order of spending resource. For zerg, make injects and creep autocast, but do remove infinite range creep.
Make SCV, probes autocats. Add easy way to see total amount scv/probe drones we have. I am sure there some way to automate zerg production too.
This few changes will reduce mechanic for non profeccionals, makes game more fun for them as they will be able to spend more time doing fun stuff, like micro there units. Pro can still execise there A and S fingers.
For mech, I believe simpel reduction medibac volume of tanks to 2 and hellions to 1 will greatly increase mech mobility, making them more valible in all mach ups and do not change T-T too mach. autocast for buildings is a bad idea. you might as well have a computer play for you. i have an idea for the warpgate: units created from gateways require 5s (or some other number) less than warpgate (overall time, including the cooldown. warpgates will still warp in units faster, this would give some defender's advantage in pvp as well as give incentive for people to revert to gateway mode.
What about adding aditional seconds/time for warping in units depending on the distance between warp in location and warpgate? Which means they need longer to materialize at the warp in location.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On August 24 2013 19:19 Mutineer wrote:
What I really do not undestand why SC2 have to have that mach mechanic component. It takes about 100 apm minimum only to produce, build, research resonably well. Which majority of non proffecionals have less then that apm, It greatly reduce enjoyement of game for non profecionals. So, why not reduce Mechanic APM needed? It is relativelly simple to do.
Example: Make quied units use no resources untill they are in production. Make it possible to autocats production. Add easy priority order of spending resource. For zerg, make injects and creep autocast, but do remove infinite range creep.
Make SCV, probes autocats. Add easy way to see total amount scv/probe drones we have. I am sure there some way to automate zerg production too.
This few changes will reduce mechanic for non profeccionals, makes game more fun for them as they will be able to spend more time doing fun stuff, like micro there units. Pro can still execise there A and S fingers.
For mech, I believe simpel reduction medibac volume of tanks to 2 and hellions to 1 will greatly increase mech mobility, making them more valible in all mach ups and do not change T-T too mach.
Because sc2 is a mechanics-based rts game.
|
Why autocats building bad idea? Do you believe it is a good when beginers are advised NOT to micro there units and spend a few a lot of time train just to produce SCV's and units? It is still true that one can get to gold with 0 micro, just macro?
Where there thinking when a Lot of game is just to remember to press production key every XZsecond? Where fun in that?
I do not think it is wrong to do everything possible to reduce repetitive, mechanic component of SC2. It is nothing have to do with making computer play for you. Making Micro decisions, positional decisions are mach more fun.
|
On August 24 2013 19:46 Mutineer wrote:
Why autocats building bad idea? Do you believe it is a good when beginers are advised NOT to micro there units and spend a few a lot of time train just to produce SCV's and units? It is still true that one can get to gold with 0 micro, just macro?
Where there thinking when a Lot of game is just to remember to press production key every XZsecond? Where fun in that?
I do not think it is wrong to do everything possible to reduce repetitive, mechanic component of SC2. It is nothing have to do with making computer play for you. Making Micro decisions, positional decisions are mach more fun.
You should try out Total Annihilation. It has exactly what you want.
http://zero.tauniverse.com/
Its a great mod that improves TA ever further.
|
On August 24 2013 19:40 TaShadan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 19:30 29 fps wrote:On August 24 2013 19:19 Mutineer wrote:
What I really do not undestand why SC2 have to have that mach mechanic component. It takes about 100 apm minimum only to produce, build, research resonably well. Which majority of non proffecionals have less then that apm, It greatly reduce enjoyement of game for non profecionals. So, why not reduce Mechanic APM needed? It is relativelly simple to do.
Example: Make quied units use no resources untill they are in production. Make it possible to autocats production. Add easy priority order of spending resource. For zerg, make injects and creep autocast, but do remove infinite range creep.
Make SCV, probes autocats. Add easy way to see total amount scv/probe drones we have. I am sure there some way to automate zerg production too.
This few changes will reduce mechanic for non profeccionals, makes game more fun for them as they will be able to spend more time doing fun stuff, like micro there units. Pro can still execise there A and S fingers.
For mech, I believe simpel reduction medibac volume of tanks to 2 and hellions to 1 will greatly increase mech mobility, making them more valible in all mach ups and do not change T-T too mach. autocast for buildings is a bad idea. you might as well have a computer play for you. i have an idea for the warpgate: units created from gateways require 5s (or some other number) less than warpgate (overall time, including the cooldown. warpgates will still warp in units faster, this would give some defender's advantage in pvp as well as give incentive for people to revert to gateway mode. What about adding aditional seconds/time for warping in units depending on the distance between warp in location and warpgate? Which means they need longer to materialize at the warp in location.
It still leaves in issues like frontloaded production and risk-free, cheap proxying. Or, if the time is long enough, turns the warpgate into a trap option that's never beneficial and could just as well be removed from the game. Which is incidentally a good idea because the game would make more sense and you wouldn't have to worry about esoteric corner case usage for an otherwise-useless ability with a crapton of potential for brokenness.
|
Now that Stephano retires, they don't have to worry about upcoming imba strats :D Good god I'm gonna miss him
|
On August 24 2013 19:49 Coffee Zombie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 19:40 TaShadan wrote:On August 24 2013 19:30 29 fps wrote:On August 24 2013 19:19 Mutineer wrote:
What I really do not undestand why SC2 have to have that mach mechanic component. It takes about 100 apm minimum only to produce, build, research resonably well. Which majority of non proffecionals have less then that apm, It greatly reduce enjoyement of game for non profecionals. So, why not reduce Mechanic APM needed? It is relativelly simple to do.
Example: Make quied units use no resources untill they are in production. Make it possible to autocats production. Add easy priority order of spending resource. For zerg, make injects and creep autocast, but do remove infinite range creep.
Make SCV, probes autocats. Add easy way to see total amount scv/probe drones we have. I am sure there some way to automate zerg production too.
This few changes will reduce mechanic for non profeccionals, makes game more fun for them as they will be able to spend more time doing fun stuff, like micro there units. Pro can still execise there A and S fingers.
For mech, I believe simpel reduction medibac volume of tanks to 2 and hellions to 1 will greatly increase mech mobility, making them more valible in all mach ups and do not change T-T too mach. autocast for buildings is a bad idea. you might as well have a computer play for you. i have an idea for the warpgate: units created from gateways require 5s (or some other number) less than warpgate (overall time, including the cooldown. warpgates will still warp in units faster, this would give some defender's advantage in pvp as well as give incentive for people to revert to gateway mode. What about adding aditional seconds/time for warping in units depending on the distance between warp in location and warpgate? Which means they need longer to materialize at the warp in location. It still leaves in issues like frontloaded production and risk-free, cheap proxying. Or, if the time is long enough, turns the warpgate into a trap option that's never beneficial and could just as well be removed from the game. Which is incidentally a good idea because the game would make more sense and you wouldn't have to worry about esoteric corner case usage for an otherwise-useless ability with a crapton of potential for brokenness.
True. It was just an idea in my mind. There wont be any fundamental changes anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
