|
@Naysayers, I don't really feel like getting into it, but your counterarguments aren't really addressing my thesis. (Which makes sense since I only listed the conclusion and not the argumentation, which has happened piecemeal elsewhere.) Next time there's a thread about this, I welcome discussion. Suffice to say,
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.
I completely agree and this is what I'm driving at. Less clumpy --> slower fights and defenders advantage --> more "narrative" micro opportunities.
[edit]
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.
That's why I phrase it the way I do. It's the one simple thing you could change that would have the greatest effect. (imo). There are of course lots of things that you could change that would arguably make the game better.
|
On September 10 2013 06:23 EatThePath wrote:@Naysayers, I don't really feel like getting into it, but your counterarguments aren't really addressing my thesis. (Which makes sense since I only listed the conclusion and not the argumentation, which has happened piecemeal elsewhere.) Next time there's a thread about this, I welcome discussion. Suffice to say, Show nested quote +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. I completely agree and this is what I'm driving at. Less clumpy --> slower fights and defenders advantage --> more "narrative" micro opportunities.
I don't disagree about clumping, I just think its an arbitrary mechanic. Similar effects can be made by simply slowing the game speed down.
The reason I said what I said is because the goal should not be to find the *fix all* change, nor should it be to make the game harder/easier, nor should it be about trying to create a specific game. There is no one size fits all, there is no "bring back _____" solution. The answer is difficult and will take lots of work, and will lead to MANY mistakes. (Broodfestor for example)
Trying to fit a one size fits all answer means you blind yourself from possible solutions.
[For example, slower game speed + larger clumping + reduced mineral patches is my favorite fix to slow down the game, but I'm not going to pretend that this is the *only* way to appropriately slow down the game.]
|
My point is not that there are other changes you could make to improve the game, it's that the issues that the pathfinding implementation presents can be solved by other means than changing the pathfinding algorithm.
A pathfinding algorithm is really a starting point for further design, you don't end the design process there.
|
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 am not planning on blaming/criticizing it. I want to write about it to introduce how this mechanic influenced overall gameplay and the race's design. Not much whining, as past threads have done. It's more of an analysis and the introduction of other perspectives. I usually avoid whining because those threads have been closed disgracefully, and I did have one thread where it got REMOVED by the Administrator.
|
Northern Ireland26512 Posts
I don't really mind what is done. I find the refusal to at least attempt to look at some 'design fundamentals' infuriating. Warpgate, clumping, macro mechanics, how mineral saturation works etc etc.
It's more that stubbornness to really look at the more fundamental aspects of the game in favour of tweaking unit balance that imo has lead to the periods of stagnant play we've seen in the past.
|
On September 10 2013 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't really mind what is done. I find the refusal to at least attempt to look at some 'design fundamentals' infuriating. Warpgate, clumping, macro mechanics, how mineral saturation works etc etc.
It's more that stubbornness to really look at the more fundamental aspects of the game in favour of tweaking unit balance that imo has lead to the periods of stagnant play we've seen in the past.
The play isn't really stagnant. Strategic play has been moving leaps and bounds.
But finding new timings, and better positioning does not fix how boring lasers shooting roaches looks. Sure its innovative and interesting on paper, but often times the images on the screen just doesn't translate the same way.
I mean, I love reading about chess, for example, but does one get hot and bothered by e2-e4?
|
Northern Ireland26512 Posts
That's what I mean. There's a lot of depth and strategic subtelty, but max vs max armies just melt, which imo is a problem.
The damage output just scales exponentially. Now, I know people aren't a big fan, but those gateway Protoss timings vs Zerg, can occasionally lead to 2/3 minute long back-and-forth battles that you can SEE the micro going on and to me at least are exciting for that period (regardless of what proceeded it).
|
On September 10 2013 08:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
That's what I mean. There's a lot of depth and strategic subtelty, but max vs max armies just melt, which imo is a problem.
The damage output just scales exponentially. Now, I know people aren't a big fan, but those gateway Protoss timings vs Zerg, can occasionally lead to 2/3 minute long back-and-forth battles that you can SEE the micro going on and to me at least are exciting for that period (regardless of what proceeded it).
111 timings and 6gate blink timings are still some of my favorite SC2 to watch. Two armies clash with MASSIVE micro battles happening in the span of 2-6 straight minutes with the winner being the one whose macro slipped the least by the end of the engagement. Wonderful starcraft that I miss dearly.
Now with maps so big and expos so safe, one never sees that anymore.
|
Russian Federation221 Posts
On September 10 2013 06:20 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 06:00 EatThePath wrote: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.
I think Blizzard will change a lot of things including pathfinding.
But that will be in SC3.
Blizzard really don’t have budget, desire and time for implementing big changes in SC2.
|
On September 10 2013 08:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
That's what I mean. There's a lot of depth and strategic subtelty, but max vs max armies just melt, which imo is a problem.
The damage output just scales exponentially. Now, I know people aren't a big fan, but those gateway Protoss timings vs Zerg, can occasionally lead to 2/3 minute long back-and-forth battles that you can SEE the micro going on and to me at least are exciting for that period (regardless of what proceeded it).
I have fond memories of PvZ games in 2011 where HuK would just build stalkers and somehow survive supply deficits through excellent micro and perseverance.
|
On September 10 2013 18:31 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 08:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
That's what I mean. There's a lot of depth and strategic subtelty, but max vs max armies just melt, which imo is a problem.
The damage output just scales exponentially. Now, I know people aren't a big fan, but those gateway Protoss timings vs Zerg, can occasionally lead to 2/3 minute long back-and-forth battles that you can SEE the micro going on and to me at least are exciting for that period (regardless of what proceeded it). I have fond memories of PvZ games in 2011 where HuK would just build stalkers and somehow survive supply deficits through excellent micro and perseverance.
I miss 2011 where the boring macro game was watching a 45-60 minute tvz on shakuras that was 15 minutes of nonstop fighting on the Zerg's 6th or 7th base.
|
I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 10 2013 15:56 MikeMM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 06:20 Grumbels wrote:On September 10 2013 06:00 EatThePath wrote: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. I think Blizzard will change a lot of things including pathfinding. But that will be in SC3. Blizzard really don’t have budget, desire and time for implementing big changes in SC2.
Blizzard may force a change on path-finding, but then you, BW fanboy, who i do not believe plays BW now, will complain that it is not good too, because you can never ever ever get up ramp or cross a choke with army. And Blizzard surely will not degenerate the engine to the point of overkilling marines (yes, IIRC all units in BW could overkill, including marines) or moving shot or air unit stacking (that was a rather neat bug, than feature).
|
On September 10 2013 23:04 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 15:56 MikeMM wrote:On September 10 2013 06:20 Grumbels wrote:On September 10 2013 06:00 EatThePath wrote: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. I think Blizzard will change a lot of things including pathfinding. But that will be in SC3. Blizzard really don’t have budget, desire and time for implementing big changes in SC2. Blizzard may force a change on path-finding, but then you, BW fanboy, who i do not believe plays BW now, will complain that it is not good too, because you can never ever ever get up ramp or cross a choke with army. And Blizzard surely will not degenerate the engine to the point of overkilling marines (yes, IIRC all units in BW could overkill, including marines) or moving shot or air unit stacking (that was a rather neat bug, than feature).
Rather than focusing on path finding, I think new maps with new features are the way to keep the game active. The new seasons maps are moving away from the "free third in line with your main" that we saw so much in the last couple of seasons. Its leading to some more interesting stuff. I really like Frost and the other maps that allow for choices and styles that go beyond getting to 200/200 really fast.
|
On September 10 2013 22:59 _Search_ wrote:
I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever.
Use and utilize are very different words....
Utilize comes from the word utility, and implies the accessing of variant aspects of an object instead of using its primary function.
Example:
One uses a knife to slice, yet by utilizing a knife's handle, one can hammer open peanuts.
One uses a knife to cut, but one can utilize the thin blade of a knife to pry open a pistachio.
One uses a knife to peel, but by utilizing the flat side of the blade, one can also press garlic.
|
The only way you could honestly get tons of variety is if you threw a ton of new stuff into the game and just tried to balance it after that. When I say a ton I mean take every unit from BW and every unit in SC2 files that wasn't used and then probably same extra units to balance out numbers and then throw them into the multiplayer and see what happens. You would probably get the same kinds of imbalances that exist in MOBAs right now but you could then do there balance design of small tweaks constantly (with bigger tweaks occasionally).
I do think that style of game would be exciting but I also like how it is now so I would probably be entertained either way but if variety is your goal you need new stuff in order to foster it.
|
Doubt the way to fix the imbalances is to add more stuff. If anything, it would be to substract.
Any hardcore gamer from Starcraft Broodwar knows that the beauty of the game was in its simplicity (once understood it at a high level that is).
This created oportunities in situations where there should not be such (as an example in sc2, when a few lings can drag wiwdow mine shots to medivacs).
This is also present in SC2, but in about 5-8% of the cases you could use in Broodwar.
While things like timings and build orders were also important in Broodwar, the builds mostly used were the most flexible ones, while in sc2 it seems to be a dance between all-ins and greedy builds, with hardly any creativity or innovation.
I personally stoped at WoL (mostly 2v2 and 3v3) when i hitted a brick wall of random games (people at this level would either rush, or do a timing atack, hardly ever playing to the late game).
This, however I think its blizzards fault. They are rushing too fast into patches and expansions (probably since they are loosing customers), and the results are too caotic.
If i remmber correctly, they sold just under 5 million copies of WoL (comapred to almost 10 million of starcraft+broodwar) and around 2 million copies of heart of the swarm.
Its important to note that if those numbers are accurate (lets assume HotS will get up to 2.5 million since its a rather fresh game), that would be a 50% drop in sales moreless, meaning that the last expansion might not even sell 1 million if they wait too long.
This is rather crucial, as 1 million is not a high amount of people for all those streaming sites, tournaments and sponsors, and it might scare possible investors (looking like its a market in decline).
Broodwar basicly had two tournaments: WCG and Korean eSports. It didnt have such a huge advertisment, people didnt play games as much back in the day, and still it gets around 10 million copies sold?
I guess its a game that is simply more addictive.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
I personally stoped at WoL (mostly 2v2 and 3v3) when i hitted a brick wall of random games (people at this level would either rush, or do a timing atack, hardly ever playing to the late game).
This, however I think its blizzards fault. They are rushing too fast into patches and expansions (probably since they are loosing customers), and the results are too caotic.
I all-ined every protoss i had in my casual BW exp. This is BW's fault too :3?
|
I think every once in awhile Blizzard should just release a huge patch, with changes they think would be cool, adding abilities or redesigning some of the design and then later add the necassary number changes to fix these crazy inputs.
They're too much caught up with not breaking the balance of things and a lot of the times balance comes in the way of design, which is something that can really hurt in the long run.
|
I think this sentimentality should go out the window. This thread make some great points, but being nostalgic is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
