|
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
|
On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote:
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
|
I think there is no way I can appreciate the skill of a well executed teamfight as much as what the best sc2 players can do.
However, back to the music analogy: some imstruments are easier than others to sound reasonably good on. The problem is just that it is just as easy for everyone else playing that instrument and: the tasks which are considered normal to master are becoming much harder. Lets take an an easy instrument like percussion... everyone can make a bang, but to get a job in a symphony you need master up to 15 very different instruments, unlike string players who only need one, winds one or two. Compare the clarinet part and the trumpet part of any symphony and see that the trumpet is harder to play, therfore given easier parts.
From what I have learned, the same goes for soccer vs american football. Soccer players are way more diverse in skill, and can all do fairly well on any position on the field (-gk). But then, the NFL players need to drill 100s of accurately planned plays with their team, all coded, where everything only takes a few seconds.
For mobas, the attention not needed for macro and controlling huge armies is put into teamplay.
The skillcap of what a human can do seems to be pretty constant, if the task itself is easy, a higher achievementlevel is expected. This is especially true when we compete for money and glory...
|
On September 09 2013 14:08 KingAce wrote:
The answer to this thread should be nothing. How can we even compare?
First I will say understanding design is an ability within itself. Some people simply can't grasp balance better than others. It's what I came to understand when I was competitive in the Fighting game community.
Here is the thing. I will use Fighting games as an example. The more diversity you want from each tool,(unit/champ/character) the more difficult it becomes to balance.
Fighting games like Moba games have large roster of characters, around 30+. Now some fighters like Street fighter or other 2d fighters usually have champs with very small movesets. Lets say around 10 unique moves. LoL has 5 moves QWER. And you can combo those. Easy to balance because the problems are easily visible.
Some fighters like Tekken have a 40+ roster with characters having a tool set of 50+ moves. Much more difficult to balance. But the current Tekken, Tekken Tag 2 is a balanced game. Because these games about six or seven in the series build on foundation of the previous games.
Most important each fighter has core moves that are essential to the principle of the fighting system. Launchers, good lows, fast jabs or good punishers, throws etc. Now these might be unique but they virtually perform the same thing for each character. And in Tekken unlike Street fighter, each character has the same health and defense abilities.
MOBAs rely on farm, kills and items. So even if one champ is better than another on level 1, if the other champ is fed that advantage is negligible. So the games have self balancing mechanics.
SC2's biggest issue is that the core foundation of the game is weak. Unit clumping is a nightmare. It shits on zerg as a race. And favors ranged units. It's the reason tanks were nerfed, storm, hellions, hellibats, etc. Warpgates core to the protoss race, are another nightmare, everything that's wrong with protoss starts there. All protoss patches always relate back to having warpgates in the game. The way the races mine is Mules=/= chrono boosting probes=/=larva inject. In many ways changing this was a direct nerf to worker harassment. The value of a scv isn't the same as a probe.
Terran off the gate were the least fundamentally changed race, and they benefited the most from it. So it wasn't so much that terran was too strong as much as the other races were too weak. And so IMO until the fundamental problems are fixed, the game will have balance issues for awhile. Small little touches on units like MOBAs do won't cut it. It won't fix the problems, just shut up people for awhile until something else surfaces.
Balancing requires that you know what actual problems are so that you can tackle them straight up. Blizzard doesn't seem to know what the problems are.
Well said.
|
On September 09 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote:
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs. The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well.
Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks.
|
Northern Ireland26505 Posts
On September 09 2013 23:58 hansonslee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote:
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs. The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options. If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well. Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks.
We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense.
|
On September 10 2013 00:00 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 23:58 hansonslee wrote:On September 09 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote:
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs. The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options. If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well. Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks. We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense.
Yeah, its not a binary state at all of "impossible to take third" and "easy to take third". I am saying we need to find a middle of the road that allows players to take a third base without giving it to them for free. Although I did not love the map in every way, Neo Planet S made for some pretty exciting games. We need a few more maps with features that make games interesting. Hell, I would even been open to times pathways that open up once the game reaches a specific point. Anything and everything to spice the game up a bit.
|
On September 10 2013 00:00 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 23:58 hansonslee wrote:On September 09 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote:
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs. The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options. If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well. Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks. We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense.
I know what you mean, but making the three base an option and not a rule ties up the Zerg's hands. Unlike other races, Zerg cannot pull off a powerful 2 base all-in like other races can. As a matter of fact, the only viable all-ins they usually have either 1 base or 3 base. That's how the race was designed unfortunately.
|
On September 10 2013 00:05 hansonslee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 00:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On September 09 2013 23:58 hansonslee wrote:On September 09 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote:
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs. The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options. If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well. Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks. We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense. I know what you mean, but making the three base an option and not a rule ties up the Zerg's hands. Unlike other races, Zerg cannot pull off a powerful 2 base all-in like other races can. As a matter of fact, the only viable all-ins they usually have either 1 base or 3 base. That's how the race was designed unfortunately.
Right, but zerg, terran and protoss all have different ways of defending their bases as well. In a lot of ways, they are better at defending quick expansions in the early game beyond their natural. They can design maps where it is possible for zerg to take a third base earlier than the other two races, without making it free.
|
The OP is putting way too little effort on the infestor change and just focused on the broodlord infestor deathball.
It was the biggest change that WoL has ever got and probably lead to the highest growth point of SC2 and also caused the 2012 WoL GGlord infestors deathball nightmare.
Destiny, Catz and another zerg were constantly discussing about the change in timings, how Z can be on even based with T/P because now Z can be cost efficient etc.
Spanishwa icefisher (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=207017) becomes almost standard and modern builds were derived from it. That guide itself has more pages that all hots TL strategies (with all the fancy graphics and good layouts) adds up.
We also saw EU zergs start adapting the new style while the koreans (and idra) stayed on muta style. Both muta/infestors style were viable etc. terran tries to answer with both bio and mech.
The only issue was that blizzard didn't find a sweet spot to nerf the broodlord deathball and everyone blames blizzard for patching that infestor change too aggressively and affected the meta. Yet rarely anyone complained about lack of change in the late WoL stage after hots is released.
Blizzard is too afraid to make a change as big as infestors in WoL again and so we are stucked with limited tools and limited change.
and now we have a simplistic match up in TvZ with bio mine vs ling baneling muta and it is easier to balance. but what about stuff like map favoring what style, can T land the 3rd easily, or can Z defend the 4th easily etc?
I just hope blizzard will man up and do something big to some underused units again and just ignore balance completely for a while.
hots almost didn't have any change since the beta and the metagame probably won't change so much until lotv which is god knows when
|
On September 09 2013 14:08 KingAce wrote:
The answer to this thread should be nothing. How can we even compare?
First I will say understanding design is an ability within itself. Some people simply can't grasp balance better than others. It's what I came to understand when I was competitive in the Fighting game community.
Here is the thing. I will use Fighting games as an example. The more diversity you want from each tool,(unit/champ/character) the more difficult it becomes to balance.
Fighting games like Moba games have large roster of characters, around 30+. Now some fighters like Street fighter or other 2d fighters usually have champs with very small movesets. Lets say around 10 unique moves. LoL has 5 moves QWER. And you can combo those. Easy to balance because the problems are easily visible.
Some fighters like Tekken have a 40+ roster with characters having a tool set of 50+ moves. Much more difficult to balance. But the current Tekken, Tekken Tag 2 is a balanced game. Because these games about six or seven in the series build on foundation of the previous games.
Most important each fighter has core moves that are essential to the principle of the fighting system. Launchers, good lows, fast jabs or good punishers, throws etc. Now these might be unique but they virtually perform the same thing for each character. And in Tekken unlike Street fighter, each character has the same health and defense abilities.
MOBAs rely on farm, kills and items. So even if one champ is better than another on level 1, if the other champ is fed that advantage is negligible. So the games have self balancing mechanics.
SC2's biggest issue is that the core foundation of the game is weak. Unit clumping is a nightmare. It shits on zerg as a race. And favors ranged units. It's the reason tanks were nerfed, storm, hellions, hellibats, etc. Warpgates core to the protoss race, are another nightmare, everything that's wrong with protoss starts there. All protoss patches always relate back to having warpgates in the game. The way the races mine is Mules=/= chrono boosting probes=/=larva inject. In many ways changing this was a direct nerf to worker harassment. The value of a scv isn't the same as a probe.
Terran off the gate were the least fundamentally changed race, and they benefited the most from it. So it wasn't so much that terran was too strong as much as the other races were too weak. And so IMO until the fundamental problems are fixed, the game will have balance issues for awhile. Small little touches on units like MOBAs do won't cut it. It won't fix the problems, just shut up people for awhile until something else surfaces.
Balancing requires that you know what actual problems are so that you can tackle them straight up. Blizzard doesn't seem to know what the problems are.
You may be right in many cases. However, there is one problem with your statement. Is your problem applicable? In other words, do your statements bring any solutions to the table?
I definitely agree with you on your core foundation argument, but the problem is that it's just not feasible to ask for Blizzard to overhaul the game because that would cost them and those part of the eSports scene dearly!
Giving underused units a role is not the best solution, but it's a tested method that has had some success. Will it perfect the game? Maybe not. But will it IMPROVE game? Chances are likely, if Blizzard is careful with it.
On September 10 2013 00:15 ETisME wrote:
The OP is putting way too little effort on the infestor change and just focused on the broodlord infestor deathball.
It was the biggest change that WoL has ever got and probably lead to the highest growth point of SC2 and also caused the 2012 WoL GGlord infestors deathball nightmare.
Destiny, Catz and another zerg were constantly discussing about the change in timings, how Z can be on even based with T/P because now Z can be cost efficient etc.
Spanishwa icefisher (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=207017) becomes almost standard and modern builds were derived from it. That guide itself has more pages that all hots TL strategies (with all the fancy graphics and good layouts) adds up.
We also saw EU zergs start adapting the new style while the koreans (and idra) stayed on muta style. Both muta/infestors style were viable etc. terran tries to answer with both bio and mech.
The only issue was that blizzard didn't find a sweet spot to nerf the broodlord deathball and everyone blames blizzard for patching that infestor change too aggressively and affected the meta. Yet rarely anyone complained about lack of change in the late WoL stage after hots is released.
Blizzard is too afraid to make a change as big as infestors in WoL again and so we are stucked with limited tools and limited change.
and now we have a simplistic match up in TvZ with bio mine vs ling baneling muta and it is easier to balance. but what about stuff like map favoring what style, can T land the 3rd easily, or can Z defend the 4th easily etc?
I just hope blizzard will man up and do something big to some underused units again and just ignore balance completely for a while.
hots almost didn't have any change since the beta and the metagame probably won't change so much until lotv which is god knows when
Infestors were a result of series of buffs, which one can argue as reworking (although it did receive a great amount of steady nerfs). For me, I defined reworking as the realm of either providing a healthy dose of nerfs and buffs or changing the way the unit operates.
On September 10 2013 00:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 00:05 hansonslee wrote:On September 10 2013 00:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On September 09 2013 23:58 hansonslee wrote:On September 09 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote:On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote:
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs. The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options. If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well. Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks. We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense. I know what you mean, but making the three base an option and not a rule ties up the Zerg's hands. Unlike other races, Zerg cannot pull off a powerful 2 base all-in like other races can. As a matter of fact, the only viable all-ins they usually have either 1 base or 3 base. That's how the race was designed unfortunately. Right, but zerg, terran and protoss all have different ways of defending their bases as well. In a lot of ways, they are better at defending quick expansions in the early game beyond their natural. They can design maps where it is possible for zerg to take a third base earlier than the other two races, without making it free.
Every race does have a defense mechanism, for sure. The question is who will get the better end of that exchange. Protoss now have MSC, sentries, and warp gate units who are decent in the early game. Terran have mules, supply depot walls, and salvageable bunkers to keep their economy going while under pressure. Although Zerg has larva, Queen, and creep, Zerg has to sacrifice economy (drones that could have been produced) for units (I mean creep is meaningless without units, and the Queens cannot defense by themselves).
Again, Zerg is the reason why we have a three base as a necessity in the first place. The best solution I can come up with is to provide Zerg with a unit that greatly help the early game or buffen the queen. But such changes I believe would greatly upset the balance.
Furthermore, Zerg units are cheapest and therefore the weakest. So, I am not sure how we can make Zerg have an "easier" time to securing a third base than other races. To me, I daresay that such implementation is impossible.
|
infestors change in patch 1.4 where fungal duration was decreased and this patch changed the entire zerg matchups afterward. Then the rest that it had was almost all straight nerfs
it's as close as a rework that a rts would get along side with reaper rework
|
On September 10 2013 00:15 hansonslee wrote:
Every race does have a defense mechanism, for sure. The question is who will get the better end of that exchange. Protoss now have MSC, sentries, and warp gate units who are decent in the early game. Terran have mules, supply depot walls, and salvageable bunkers to keep their economy going while under pressure. Although Zerg has larva, Queen, and creep, Zerg has to sacrifice economy (drones that could have been produced) for units (I mean creep is meaningless without units, and the Queens cannot defense by themselves).
Again, Zerg is the reason why we have a three base as a necessity in the first place. The best solution I can come up with is to provide Zerg with a unit that greatly help the early game or buffen the queen. But such changes I believe would greatly upset the balance.
Furthermore, Zerg units are cheapest and therefore the weakest. So, I am not sure how we can make Zerg have an "easier" time to securing a third base than other races. To me, I daresay that such implementation is impossible.
Everything not-Queen that Zerg does is stuff that could be spent on making drones. It's that exact mentality that had people crying about making things like safety Warrens or wallins prior to the Queen patch in WoL (I mean, Terrans routinely made a Lab on their rax just in case of Roaches in the 4 Hellion contain. It's a safety measure, not an injustice)
People need to grasp that an unrestricted Zerg economy is broken. It's a very tempting and you want to have it. That brokenness is what makes it fun. But it's not something that's meant to be, like on average Marines aren't meant to counter Banelings but superb micro can make them do that. The same way, droning like a madman should be a reward of a brilliant hold or something. Something achievable, but not the default measuring stick.
And dear God, no more Queen patches please. They're already high-ranged, healing Roaches that maphack, shoot up and cost no gas in a gas-starved faction. It'd just turn into another stupid wonky no-rush POS like WoL Queens and Mothership Core are now. Seriously, I cry a little inside every time I see zerglings against a toss wall and a Core happily zapping the hapless critters with impunity. We don't need more of that. (We also don't need pausegamefields/mapeditorfields/zzzfields)
We need more unit investments, we need more actual f***ing fortifications with building walls and turrets/bunkers. Actual decisions, actual money put into "you shall not pass". Not design crutches like Blizzard has done to the early game thus far. It's hideous.
Also, isn't the Zerg need for a third more of a production thing, and not so much a money one (Provided T/P is not getting to 3base)? Macro hatches are a thing as far as I know.
|
On September 09 2013 14:08 KingAce wrote:
SC2's biggest issue is that the core foundation of the game is weak. Unit clumping is a nightmare. It shits on zerg as a race. And favors ranged units. It's the reason tanks were nerfed, storm, hellions, hellibats, etc. Warpgates core to the protoss race, are another nightmare, everything that's wrong with protoss starts there. All protoss patches always relate back to having warpgates in the game. The way the races mine is Mules=/= chrono boosting probes=/=larva inject. In many ways changing this was a direct nerf to worker harassment. The value of a scv isn't the same as a probe.
Terran off the gate were the least fundamentally changed race, and they benefited the most from it. So it wasn't so much that terran was too strong as much as the other races were too weak. And so IMO until the fundamental problems are fixed, the game will have balance issues for awhile. Small little touches on units like MOBAs do won't cut it. It won't fix the problems, just shut up people for awhile until something else surfaces.
Balancing requires that you know what actual problems are so that you can tackle them straight up. Blizzard doesn't seem to know what the problems are.
The core foundation of the game is micro, macro, timings and strategy.
Nothing that you bring up addresses why these do not work. Unit clumping is something that forces you to have to micro your units properly or watch them get blown the fuck up. It doesn't inherently favour ranged units over melee units anymore then it did in starcraft 1; melee units were generally pretty trash once enough ranged units showed up and shat on them (exception ultralisks of course). Protoss patches are not always about warpgates, what about phoenixes? The economies in Broodwar were different anyway, zerg always had fewer workers on minerals and needed more gas. The value of an SCV on minerals was NOT the same as a drone in that game.
The main reason why this game can be seen as boring is because there's a huge amount of it viewable, and people generally watch tons of it, and because basic unit compositions and timings tend not to differ all that much so it starts to look very similar. Higher level players/commentators can really read into these subtleties and appreciate them.
Also the inherent asymmetry makes it much easier to complain about balance and other shit. It's hard to complain about balance in a game that gives both sides the exact same hero pool and reasonably similar map spawns. It's much easier when widow mines are a thing only 1/3rd of the races can make.
AND one other reason is that Starcraft is an incredibly punishing game where it's possible to lose to something you didn't see and just fucking destroys you immediately. Starcraft lacks natural mechanisms to let a player who is behind catch up, if it were a moba it wouldn't have towers in the lanes it would just tell you to DEAL WITH IT YOU TWAT. And that's... actually not a good thing. I think it's the biggest cause of frustration for players.
|
On September 09 2013 10:10 hansonslee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote:There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...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 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. I actually plan to write about that issue very soon. 
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
|
Northern Ireland26505 Posts
On September 10 2013 04:31 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 10:10 hansonslee wrote:On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote:There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...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 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. I actually plan to write about that issue very soon. good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
|
I think having a rhythmic mechanical backdrop to the game is pleasant and alleviates you from boredom. To pick a moba example, you're constantly positioning your hero and looking for last hits, it's not the main focus of the game but it's always there to amuse you. SC2 requires bursts of incredible control, but other times the game quiets down and then there is no safety net, no backdrop of mechanical patterns and decisions to occupy your mind. I think especially for zerg and protoss it's a recipe for restlessness. This notion that any sort of mechanical difficulty should be rooted out, as if people are only looking for strategic challenges, is just counter to human nature. First priority for a video game should be to constantly occupy and engage the player, strategy isn't really a part of this but should be put on top of that.
Just as an obvious example, would FPS games be even tolerable if you didn't have to constantly physically move the player character?
|
On September 10 2013 05:19 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 04:31 EatThePath wrote:On September 09 2013 10:10 hansonslee wrote:On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote:There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...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 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. I actually plan to write about that issue very soon. good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D
I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
|
On September 10 2013 06:00 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 05:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On September 10 2013 04:31 EatThePath wrote:On September 09 2013 10:10 hansonslee wrote:On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote:There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...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 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. I actually plan to write about that issue very soon. good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category. You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
I don't think that's a sensible perspective. For instance, you can't explain why some match-ups are more fun than others that way. And you don't take into account that, say, the colossus takes up no space and contributes to clumping equally as the pathfinding implementation. It's also possible to find solutions for any problematic scenario in the game without ever addressing the clumping. There is no single aspect of the game that's the One RingThing that's preventing it from greatness, so given that Blizzard will never change the pathfinding I don't think it's worthwhile to campaign for it.
|
On September 10 2013 06:00 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 05:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On September 10 2013 04:31 EatThePath wrote:On September 09 2013 10:10 hansonslee wrote:On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote:There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...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 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. I actually plan to write about that issue very soon. good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category. You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
Unit clump patterns was not what made BW popular... Much like the offensive line in Football is not what makes it popular...
Whether the micro required is splitting (like it is in SC2) or tightening formations (like it is in BW) they all amount to much the same thing. What's missing right now is a tactical narrative that is easily visible on the screen.
marine splits is a tactical narrative. We see green grenades coming at low hitpoint units and those units scatter. That is a narrative that is fun to watch.
Robots shooting lasers without reprisal is not fun to watch, not because it is good/bad, but because you can't see the tactical narrative on the screen. There is an economic or strategic narrative of colossus numbers, viking numbers, positioning, and arcs--but when the fight happens the story stops. You're simply waiting for the fight to end so you can see if the story played out how you expected.
Blink stalker attacks/defenses have tactical narrative as you watch stalkers blinking back and reinforcing, you can see how meticulously controlled the fight is.
We need more fights where we can see what the units are doing to each other and what the player does in response to those units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
