EPTWhat can Blizzard Learn from MOBA Balancing/Design - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JonIrenicus
Italy602 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On September 07 2013 20:04 JonIrenicus wrote: I don't understand why you all are debating over a subject that for you , singurarly, doesn't matter. Right now there are no problems with balance and Blizzard never cared about it anyway (I've quit Wol for the infestor- broodlord combination)- If Blizzard wishes to improve the game, they will do. If they wish just to get the maximum money they could and let it die after, they will do as well. you cannot change any of their ideas or things would have gone differently from the beginning. There are so many issue that arised through the past : I saw many mapmakers quit , especially people that asked blizzard to change, and to change for the best, while their shriek was barely noticed by Blizzard, if noticed at all. I saw pro asking to make obvious change but their tips remained unheard. I even remember Grubby interview with David kim. It is all smoke and mirrors Just Enjoy the game and if it will die, don't worry, it wasn't your fault. Everyone just by playing it did what they had to do. Being that this is a discussion on what methodologies Blizzard should use in their patching process and not a discussion on what types of patches should be implemented, I fail to see the reason for this post? The OP said that MOBAs do tonnes of quality of life patches to regularly tweak the metagame by constantly buffing unused champions and nerfing overused champions. He was asking if this methodology would work well in an RTS. I disagree with it because of the delicate nature of an RTS and how buffing a weak unit (like a Carrier) only affects 1/3 of the race picks. But apart from how delicate the balance is (Overlord speed broke ZvP and Queen Range broke TvZ in WoL for example) his idea has a lot of merit--that of providing constant changes to the metagame preventing stagnation of overall game when it comes to casuals. People will be able to always carrier rush (for example) because they know that even if it sucks this month, Blizzard might buff it next month and he will already have practice using carriers. etc... Like I said, I disagree with the methodology, but I see its merits. What does Blizzard's not listening to map makers/pros have anything to do with this type of discussion? Especially when we are not talking about the quality or quantity of their patches, merely the overall goals of their patches. It would be a lot easier on them to simply follow the MOBA style of patching. Battlecruiser is least used unit? This season it has +DPS marine used too much? No more combat shield etc... Don't worry if it breaks game, fix it next season, etc... | ||
|
Taipoka
Brazil1224 Posts
On September 08 2013 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote: Being that this is a discussion on what methodologies Blizzard should use in their patching process and not a discussion on what types of patches should be implemented, I fail to see the reason for this post? The OP said that MOBAs do tonnes of quality of life patches to regularly tweak the metagame by constantly buffing unused champions and nerfing overused champions. He was asking if this methodology would work well in an RTS. I disagree with it because of the delicate nature of an RTS and how buffing a weak unit (like a Carrier) only affects 1/3 of the race picks. But apart from how delicate the balance is (Overlord speed broke ZvP and Queen Range broke TvZ in WoL for example) his idea has a lot of merit--that of providing constant changes to the metagame preventing stagnation of overall game when it comes to casuals. People will be able to always carrier rush (for example) because they know that even if it sucks this month, Blizzard might buff it next month and he will already have practice using carriers. etc... Like I said, I disagree with the methodology, but I see its merits. What does Blizzard's not listening to map makers/pros have anything to do with this type of discussion? Especially when we are not talking about the quality or quantity of their patches, merely the overall goals of their patches. It would be a lot easier on them to simply follow the MOBA style of patching. Battlecruiser is least used unit? This season it has +DPS marine used too much? No more combat shield etc... Don't worry if it breaks game, fix it next season, etc... If i got right, the reason is: Stop. Blizzard won´t do what you want, they will do what they want and what is better for them. So stop suffering and enjoy the game. Thats what i got. And it makes sense. Edit: And peple should stop to think companies, teams, etc, cares about that magic thing called "the scene". They care about $, because its their jobs. We care because its something we do for fun. Just take a look at korean teams all going to have LOL teams. Why do you think theyre doing this? To grown the sc2 "scene"? Because they are investing more on sc2 "scene"? | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
The first problem is, you assume MOBAs are fun just by virtue of being shaken up constantly, this is wrong, they are inherently more fun because they are a social experience and thus blame for a loss can be evenly distributed while a victory can be selfishly cherished to the same extent or more so then in a 1 vs 1 game. Secondly the inherent load of a RTS is much, much higher, while very fun for those of us who enjoy it, often times the shear multi-tasking of an RTS is just off putting. The other problem is the dynamics of champions/heroes and their workings within the framework of DoTA2/LoL and the dynamics of units in SC2. In MoBAs you only have a maximum of 10 unique heroes/champions in a game at a time. Thus balance while balance between all heroes needs to be accounted for to some extent, the nerfing/buffing of certain heroes isn't as impactful as say, an RTS where all units are available at all times for a race. Even with all the infinite combination of champions possible in MoBAs you do have some rules that you try to stick too, like making a pushing comp, aoe teamfight comp, ganking comp etc, however within the frame of those strategies heroes can be rotated in and out more easily as they are buffed/nerfed and new/unexplored synergies are discovered. The same can not be said for an RTS, if say, you nerf the marine in the early game, you can't just replace it with another unit and make the 1/1/1 work again, if the marine gets nerfed early game it nerfs all the early game marine oriented strategies, which could also nerf the early terran defense, which could in turn also nerf the entirety of all early game terran. Not only that, because of the way bans/picks work you can ban out perceived overpowered heroes or ban out their supports in such a way that they can never achieve that godlike synergy they need. In this sense you also can't ban out perceived overpowered units. Yeah I agree, it would be nice for them to work on underused units more often and try to make them more relevant, but the design of an RTS at the basic level makes this very complicated because, unlike in a MoBA where you only need to worry about the interaction between 10 champions at a time, in a RTS you need to think about the interaction of all units at all times from the early to mid, late and end game. This isn't the kind of thing you can do very often, especially because its sometimes difficult to discern between unit imbalance or terrain imbalance in conjuncture with certain units. Also remember, it took years and years even for MoBA's to evolve to where they are in terms of unique and interesting heroes. I remember DoTA in some of the earlier versions when we had lots of heroes with duplicate skills, Medusa, Razor and Zeus all had a chain lighting spell and only Zeus's was unique, or we had Magnus and Sven with almost identical kit, just with the spells changed around, both cleave, both with an aoe stun, both with a steroid buff. It took IceFrog years to design unique spells and interactions and roles for all those heroes, but he did it, like even if we want all the units in SC2 to be interesting and cool and have deep interactions between themselves, it could still literally take years to actually design good units/abilities/roles. I think their current design philosophy seems the best, a patience, methodical approach. The problem is, at this point its apparent that for some reason or another the game has some really large design issues that lead to staleness and stagnation at some point, and you actually some sweeping changes to fix these. | ||
|
hansonslee
United States2027 Posts
On September 08 2013 04:56 Destructicon wrote: I've had the time to go trough all the OPs post and I have to say there are some fundamental problems with approaching balancing in this way consistently. The first problem is, you assume MOBAs are fun just by virtue of being shaken up constantly, this is wrong, they are inherently more fun because they are a social experience and thus blame for a loss can be evenly distributed while a victory can be selfishly cherished to the same extent or more so then in a 1 vs 1 game. Secondly the inherent load of a RTS is much, much higher, while very fun for those of us who enjoy it, often times the shear multi-tasking of an RTS is just off putting. The other problem is the dynamics of champions/heroes and their workings within the framework of DoTA2/LoL and the dynamics of units in SC2. In MoBAs you only have a maximum of 10 unique heroes/champions in a game at a time. Thus balance while balance between all heroes needs to be accounted for to some extent, the nerfing/buffing of certain heroes isn't as impactful as say, an RTS where all units are available at all times for a race. Even with all the infinite combination of champions possible in MoBAs you do have some rules that you try to stick too, like making a pushing comp, aoe teamfight comp, ganking comp etc, however within the frame of those strategies heroes can be rotated in and out more easily as they are buffed/nerfed and new/unexplored synergies are discovered. The same can not be said for an RTS, if say, you nerf the marine in the early game, you can't just replace it with another unit and make the 1/1/1 work again, if the marine gets nerfed early game it nerfs all the early game marine oriented strategies, which could also nerf the early terran defense, which could in turn also nerf the entirety of all early game terran. Not only that, because of the way bans/picks work you can ban out perceived overpowered heroes or ban out their supports in such a way that they can never achieve that godlike synergy they need. In this sense you also can't ban out perceived overpowered units. Yeah I agree, it would be nice for them to work on underused units more often and try to make them more relevant, but the design of an RTS at the basic level makes this very complicated because, unlike in a MoBA where you only need to worry about the interaction between 10 champions at a time, in a RTS you need to think about the interaction of all units at all times from the early to mid, late and end game. This isn't the kind of thing you can do very often, especially because its sometimes difficult to discern between unit imbalance or terrain imbalance in conjuncture with certain units. Also remember, it took years and years even for MoBA's to evolve to where they are in terms of unique and interesting heroes. I remember DoTA in some of the earlier versions when we had lots of heroes with duplicate skills, Medusa, Razor and Zeus all had a chain lighting spell and only Zeus's was unique, or we had Magnus and Sven with almost identical kit, just with the spells changed around, both cleave, both with an aoe stun, both with a steroid buff. It took IceFrog years to design unique spells and interactions and roles for all those heroes, but he did it, like even if we want all the units in SC2 to be interesting and cool and have deep interactions between themselves, it could still literally take years to actually design good units/abilities/roles. I think their current design philosophy seems the best, a patience, methodical approach. The problem is, at this point its apparent that for some reason or another the game has some really large design issues that lead to staleness and stagnation at some point, and you actually some sweeping changes to fix these. Finally, a very good response! I really appreciate it!  Ah yes, I remember DoTA 5 years ago. Magmus had Enrage to improve its DPS up to Sven's level, and Medusa and Razor used to have chain lightning LOL. Also, I remember other OP abilities like Razor's passive ult and Medusa's Purge. You have a very good point in terms of how long the game takes to be successful. For example, it took 7 years for Blizzard to polish out Brood War. However, if we compare Brood War, SC2 has more unusable high tier units such as Battlecruisers and Carriers. If we look at DoTA, for example, years ago, mages were strong early game with its powerful nukes but took up more of a supporting role late game because the nukes doesn't scale as well in the late game. The current metagame, to my understanding, mages are now used for support and massive nuking, thanks to the Aghanim's Scepter that reworks the mages' ult. As a result, mages can still deal the necessary burst damage in late or extreme late game. My idea is for some unused units to have some utility in terms of the game phase. I was thinking about to make these late game units require late game upgrade to be usable in the late game, which is somewhat similar to the Aghnaim's Scepter model. If that doesn't work, then maybe it can introduce a map mechanic that will make these units more useful. Indeed, Blizzard has to be wary of balance. At the same time, Blizzard can test some reworks and seek out community feedback before the change is enforced. This is a win-win situation because community can be excited to play the game and contribute to the construction of the game while Blizzard can learn more about their design's maximum potential. Currently, the eSports market is seeking not only balance but also dynamic gameplay. Blizzard can be a niche eSport game that caters to hard-core fans, but I believe it can do much more, if Blizzard shows a little bit of creativity in terms of how they approach the game. | ||
|
romanianthunder
Romania36 Posts
| ||
|
hansonslee
United States2027 Posts
On September 08 2013 08:04 romanianthunder wrote: blizzard generally speaking shouldn't learn anything from the riot policy of :"hey guys we are releasing a new champ.let us make it op as hell so that people will buy it and buy the skins for it then after the sales finish lets forget about the champ and not care about it at all since we already have a cool looking op champ in the making" cough warwick,xin zao,khazix,pantheon,evelyn.trundle,amumu,draven,darius cough/sc2 like it or not is far more balanced than any moba,the thing that blizzard should actually learn from the mobas is the financial involvement.that is where blizzard lacks.and the community interaction. If you read what I said in my OP, I actually don't advocate LoL's style of designing, and I would not consider their approach "reworking" at all but more of "redesigning". I'm not an expert on finances, so I am not sure if I can critique that, however, I am with you on the community interaction. | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
There is even tension before the game actually starts. People ban and pick their heroes, casters try to analyse the possible strategies that will conspire out of this and the game hasnt even started yet. There i no such thing really in SC2, sure you can talk about the map but .... In my opinion SC 2 or blizzard was/were not bold enough. They didn't go for something new. Like in C&C generals you could select a general. Why not make it so that before an SC II game you can pick a general or vote for or against certain units or buffs so players have more individual strategies and what not. Another thing in moba is that it is a team game, there is more stuff to talk about the players, and on how they work together and players with specific roles and other stuff. In SC 2 the not 1vs1 games receive no real attention, they are just for fun and there i no real investment in balancing these sort of games. Its just 1 guy vs 1 guy with always the same available units for each race, I mean yeah people produce different units play different styles but there is simply not enough dynamic and surprise like in a moba like Dota in my opinion. I also like the way valva supports E sports by tournament announcements in the fucking client, you are even able to view the games in the client and hearing the casters. You can even support teams and players in the game and what not. For casual players it is even fun to play against the bots which are ofte more challenging then real opponents when you are casual and playing against them makes more fun then playing against the SC 2 AI that behaves like a retard for most parts if it is not *cheating*. I think mobas offer many things to casual players while still having a very high skill ceiling for strategy and execution and teamwork. | ||
|
ChoDing
United States740 Posts
| ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
On September 08 2013 08:16 ChoDing wrote: Btw does anyone know what the fuck happened to "BLIZZARD DOTA"?? If i remember corrrctly, it was supposed to come out with purchase/release of hots?? Just wondering .. Yeah I am wondering too what happened to blizzard all stars or what the blizzard moba was called, because I'd really like to try a moba with the heroes of my favorite game universes. But I havent really heard anything about it. I have no clue about a beta or an alpha or anything, I don't even know if they are still working on it or if it is even on their list. | ||
|
JonIrenicus
Italy602 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
One dota hero is less complex thana an sc2 race. Youj can more easily ban, counter, pick yourself an overpowered hero, vs an sc2 race. One too strong hero has less effect ina 5v5 game than in a 1v1 game. Dota matchups are aay less figured out than sc2 matchups. So its hard to compare balance of moba and sc2. | ||
|
Kuroeeah
11696 Posts
On September 08 2013 08:56 Grumbels wrote: I dont think that i efrog considers dota to be his game, hes just the caretaker. DotA 2 wouldn't exist if Icefrog didn't have an ownership over the title. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26675 Posts
It's been mentioned before, so this isn't a new opinion by any means, but I feel the other aspects of the game are being currently neglected, while balance and game design are oft-discussed. | ||
|
Taipoka
Brazil1224 Posts
And now we have people telling the OP he´s wrong because: <insert wall of text of everything about moba x sc2 with no relation with redesign unused units> <we even have a nerfed marine example> People are comparing the 2 genres, talking about whos more complex, etc. What is wrong with read the op and discuss the op idea? "Make unused SC2 units, usable again through redesigns". | ||
|
hansonslee
United States2027 Posts
On September 08 2013 09:51 Taipoka wrote: So the OP said about MOBA´s aproach of balance in a way of making unused SC2 units, usable again through redesigns. And now we have people telling the OP he´s wrong because: <insert wall of text of everything about moba x sc2 with no relation with redesign unused units> <we even have a nerfed marine example> People are comparing the 2 genres, talking about whos more complex, etc. What is wrong with read the op and discuss the op idea? "Make unused SC2 units, usable again through redesigns". You nailed it! :D | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On September 08 2013 09:19 Kuroeeah wrote: DotA 2 wouldn't exist if Icefrog didn't have an ownership over the title. I mean philosophically. I think Icefrog is more focused on community and pro feedback than Blizzard is. | ||
|
thezanursic
5498 Posts
On September 07 2013 00:12 thezanursic wrote: I'll try to explain the problem BW - TvZ MM WoL - TvZ MMM HoTs - TvZ MMMM The problem Almost forgot SC1 - TvZ M Clearly 2 is the optimal number of Ms in your composition. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
This is the BIG ONE really: + Show Spoiler + but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it. And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED. Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count). Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have". Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number. 1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached. 2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ... It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more. Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based. | ||
| ||
