|
On September 14 2013 00:39 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:34 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 23:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote:
So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed". its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together. WoW is major chunk of it. Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online. Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K. ~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%. Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW. You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie 
I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
|
On September 14 2013 00:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:39 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:34 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 23:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote:
So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed". its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together. WoW is major chunk of it. Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online. Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K. ~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%. Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW. You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
but if you play the single player you'll still be online, same with diablo 3, so it does count for the number of active players maybe?
|
Dota 2 is only realeased in the western world, it is still in closed beta in China and Korea, just saying.
|
On September 14 2013 00:48 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:46 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:39 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:34 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 23:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote:
So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed". its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together. WoW is major chunk of it. Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online. Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K. ~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%. Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW. You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games. but if you play the single player you'll still be online, same with diablo 3, so it does count for the number of active players maybe?
Who knows, these are all skimmed numbers from sites that pull data from B.net. Diablo 3 could be games that are joinable online or have several party member, but not include games that just have one player. Also, is that number of games or players(since 4 players can be in a game). The same with SC2. If I log in right now and fire up one of my single player saves, do I count as being online or not? If I am in the arcade, am I online or does it not count me? There are the same problems with Dota 2 and their data pulling sites. Because I play Random draft with friends, my last game in dota 2 according to those sites is 12 months ago.
|
On September 14 2013 00:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:39 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:34 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 23:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote:
So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed". its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together. WoW is major chunk of it. Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online. Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K. ~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%. Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW. You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
I am not saying the game is dead, and I don't know the numbers for BW only my addiction to BW, so I won't compare. SC2 is far from any sort of a dead thing because as long as there is pro play and pros keep improving people will like to watch and play the game some. I do think it is less grabbing than BW because of the Blizzard fuck ups with WoL and how the social aspect of the game was basically ignored. Team games, UMS, 1v1 w/ OBS were huge factors to the casual fan base and the pro scene was supplemental. I feel like the pro scene in this game is what keeps the game going nowadays, but regardless this game is far from dead.
Now, as far as getting back to the OP. To inspire the variety of gameplay you desire Blizzard would have to seriously rework the game. The expensive gas units in this game are a big issue in my opinion. These units most of the time are countered too easily or simply don't do enough and sometimes some do too much (ghost). The Ultra, Broodlord, Infestor, Thor, Tank, BC, Raven, Immortal, Carrier, Templar, Archon, Void Ray are all great units, but they don't function well and are rarely worth their cost. That list seems long to some, but in many cases these units resources allocated to tier 1 units would be a better investment unless you're in the limited scenario where they work.
I also never liked armored vs light issues. Stuff should kill stuff regardless.
I also never liked the anti air and early splash options T has when compared to the other races. Simply put they can defend against air and put out splash damage much better than the other races in the early game. Hydras are expensive, individual queens are weak, banes have to die to attack. Meanwhile stalkers do alright against air, but aren't shit when compared to marines, and protoss has no early game splash that is cheap. Storm takes a while, and colossi aren't cheap. This by no means fucks either race, I just don't like that imbalance.
On September 14 2013 00:49 Crytash wrote:
Dota 2 is only realeased in the western world, it is still in closed beta in China and Korea, just saying.
Doesn't matter if Dota 2 has a billion players every day as long as people watch SC2 as well. There isn't a need to make another Moba vs Sc2 arguement.
On September 14 2013 00:48 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:46 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:39 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:34 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 23:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote:
So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed". its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together. WoW is major chunk of it. Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online. Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K. ~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%. Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW. You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games. but if you play the single player you'll still be online, same with diablo 3, so it does count for the number of active players maybe?
My guess is that most companies would include everyone they possibly could. You know increase that e-peen.
|
Now, as far as getting back to the OP. To inspire the variety of gameplay you desire Blizzard would have to seriously rework the game. The expensive gas units in this game are a big issue in my opinion. These units most of the time are countered too easily or simply don't do enough and sometimes some do too much (ghost). The Ultra, Broodlord, Infestor, Thor, Tank, BC, Raven, Immortal, Carrier, Templar, Archon, Void Ray are all great units, but they don't function well and are rarely worth their cost. That list seems long to some, but in many cases these units resources allocated to tier 1 units would be a better investment unless you're in the limited scenario where they work.
I also never liked armored vs light issues. Stuff should kill stuff regardless.
I also never liked the anti air and early splash options T has when compared to the other races. Simply put they can defend against air and put out splash damage much better than the other races in the early game. Hydras are expensive, individual queens are weak, banes have to die to attack. Meanwhile stalkers do alright against air, but aren't shit when compared to marines, and protoss has no early game splash that is cheap. Storm takes a while, and colossi aren't cheap. This by no means fucks either race, I just don't like that imbalance.
What you are noticing is what happens when unit drawbacks are replaced by unit strengths.
As an example, in TvT, when bio plays versus mech and the mech player gets his siege tanks at your cliff and your bio army can't do anything but watch your main die--you as a player are okay with that because tanks are immobile units that have blind spots and long attack cooldowns. You, as a player, feel it was your fault for letting them get in that position.
If instead of tanks those were colossus, then most players would bitch and moan about easy a-move units.
We, as gamers, understand the concept of give and take when it comes to interaction dynamics. Rogues should deal more damage than tanks, mages should have longer range thank rogues, etc... We feel that there is a fairness to our gaming experience that comes from this inherent yin and yang of the tools at our disposal. It creates a tension for us to play with.
Siege tanks are better sieged up, but can't move. So we have them move to the right spots, and siege them. A whole game comes about where you babysit tanks, and your opponents attempt to hit them while they aren't sieged. It's a great game with lots of tension.
When you remove that tension, that's when rock papers scissors happens. Colossus, for example, have the weakness of being both an air and ground unit. The only way to interact with that is unit composition--which is boring.
Let's go back to the tank. Whether you have a ground army or an air army, you're interaction with it is the same. Hit them while they're moving, run when they're entrenched. You can make your army, the opponent can make his, and you both play with your armies.
Colossus is different. Since its weakness is based on its unit type, there is no way to interact with it except through unit compositions. Without an air army, colossus will rape you--period. So though your opponent can make any unit composition he wants (and lets say he like building colossus), because he built colossus, you HAVE to make vikings/corruptors because if you don't you die. You can't simply make your army and then have your army interact with his army.
People keep bringing up the Reaver, here's why they do.
The reaver would ride inside a shuttle, hop out of the shuttle, shoot, and then be picked back up by the shuttle to run away. When the reaver is mobile in the shuttle, he can't attack. When the reaver hops out of the shuttle to attack, he can't move. So you chase it when it moves, and you run from it when it can't--just like the siege tank.
This means you can play against the reaver with almost ANY unit composition of your liking since its weakness is something tactical and not something compositional. The colossus will always be mobile and it will always be attacking. It doesn't have a "weak point" outside of forcing unit compositions.
What people want are tactical weaknesses, not compositional weaknesses.
It's what you want.
|
Northern Ireland26604 Posts
Physically impossible for me to agree more with a post. Well-articulated points good sir!
|
|
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
Now that is a good post <3
|
I think that colossi are like the chimera in Warcraft 3: high tech, vulnerable to anti-air, expensive, needs proper support, but potentially the strongest anti-ground unit. I don't think the chimera is compatible with Starcraft, since micro in SC2 is like an impressionist painting that requires broad strokes, but the weakness of the chimera was largely its vulnerability to focus fire and disabling abilities, which requires a different approach to micro.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
@ Thieving Magpie, I believe the poster above you wanted to address how easy and forgiving it is to turtle as a Terran, and current metagame and metamaps have shifted to easy-to-hold-3-bases. There are many things that are "flawed" with Starcraft 2, even though it being the hardest game I've played competitively (I've skipped BW with W3, soz diehard SC fans).
It's just how the game is designed, when people whine about Terran imbalance etc it's the fact that they are looking at the same units every game, just because Terran does not have the capacity to outproduce other races, nor do they need to stop their tier 1 and tier 1.5 production because it is so cost-effective.
|
On September 14 2013 01:20 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:46 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:39 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:34 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 23:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote:
So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed". its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together. WoW is major chunk of it. Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online. Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K. ~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%. Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW. You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games. I am not saying the game is dead, and I don't know the numbers for BW only my addiction to BW, so I won't compare. SC2 is far from any sort of a dead thing because as long as there is pro play and pros keep improving people will like to watch and play the game some. I do think it is less grabbing than BW because of the Blizzard fuck ups with WoL and how the social aspect of the game was basically ignored. Team games, UMS, 1v1 w/ OBS were huge factors to the casual fan base and the pro scene was supplemental. I feel like the pro scene in this game is what keeps the game going nowadays, but regardless this game is far from dead. Now, as far as getting back to the OP. To inspire the variety of gameplay you desire Blizzard would have to seriously rework the game. The expensive gas units in this game are a big issue in my opinion. These units most of the time are countered too easily or simply don't do enough and sometimes some do too much (ghost). The Ultra, Broodlord, Infestor, Thor, Tank, BC, Raven, Immortal, Carrier, Templar, Archon, Void Ray are all great units, but they don't function well and are rarely worth their cost. That list seems long to some, but in many cases these units resources allocated to tier 1 units would be a better investment unless you're in the limited scenario where they work. I also never liked armored vs light issues. Stuff should kill stuff regardless. I also never liked the anti air and early splash options T has when compared to the other races. Simply put they can defend against air and put out splash damage much better than the other races in the early game. Hydras are expensive, individual queens are weak, banes have to die to attack. Meanwhile stalkers do alright against air, but aren't shit when compared to marines, and protoss has no early game splash that is cheap. Storm takes a while, and colossi aren't cheap. This by no means fucks either race, I just don't like that imbalance. Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:49 Crytash wrote:
Dota 2 is only realeased in the western world, it is still in closed beta in China and Korea, just saying. Doesn't matter if Dota 2 has a billion players every day as long as people watch SC2 as well. There isn't a need to make another Moba vs Sc2 arguement. Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 00:48 Grumbels wrote:On September 14 2013 00:46 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:39 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On September 14 2013 00:34 NoobSkills wrote:On September 14 2013 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 23:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote:
So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed". its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together. WoW is major chunk of it. Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online. Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K. ~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%. Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW. You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games. but if you play the single player you'll still be online, same with diablo 3, so it does count for the number of active players maybe? My guess is that most companies would include everyone they possibly could. You know increase that e-peen.
Good post agree with most of it hopefully with the number of expansions to come blizzard would actually add more dynamics to the game and bring back lots of play style mech play and also make those units that are heavily based on gas to be more interesting .
|
On September 14 2013 06:39 Grumbels wrote:
I think that colossi are like the chimera in Warcraft 3: high tech, vulnerable to anti-air, expensive, needs proper support, but potentially the strongest anti-ground unit. I don't think the chimera is compatible with Starcraft, since micro in SC2 is like an impressionist painting that requires broad strokes, but the weakness of the chimera was largely its vulnerability to focus fire and disabling abilities, which requires a different approach to micro.
To add to this, as an example: dryads are quite similar to marauders in that they both have a slowing attack, but where dryads required sophisticated micro where you had to kite and slow as many individually targeted units at once, I've never once seen any terran bother to split up targeting with their marauders. Furthermore, you have different ways of catching up to or escaping from dryads. This doesn't mean that concussive shells are a failure of an ability, but it's food for thought. And primarily, I think that the main point is that unit design for SC2 really should not take too much inspiration from small-scale action games like WC3/Dota.
|
On September 14 2013 19:07 Grumbels wrote:I think that the main point is that unit design for SC2 really should not take too much inspiration from small-scale action games like WC3/Dota.
Like, dunno. Oracle. Replicant. Mothership Core. Viper. Oh, wait.
|
On September 14 2013 19:07 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 06:39 Grumbels wrote:
I think that colossi are like the chimera in Warcraft 3: high tech, vulnerable to anti-air, expensive, needs proper support, but potentially the strongest anti-ground unit. I don't think the chimera is compatible with Starcraft, since micro in SC2 is like an impressionist painting that requires broad strokes, but the weakness of the chimera was largely its vulnerability to focus fire and disabling abilities, which requires a different approach to micro. To add to this, as an example: dryads are quite similar to marauders in that they both have a slowing attack, but where dryads required sophisticated micro where you had to kite and slow as many individually targeted units at once, I've never once seen any terran bother to split up targeting with their marauders. Furthermore, you have different ways of catching up to or escaping from dryads. This doesn't mean that concussive shells are a failure of an ability, but it's food for thought. And primarily, I think that the main point is that unit design for SC2 really should not take too much inspiration from small-scale action games like WC3/Dota.
Well, you will find many people that want quite the opposite. That the game focuses more on small skirmishes and interactions of few units and less deathball/crowd control.
I really don't think you should/can generalize unit design to what you are saying. Many of those things come down to actual gameplay, like, the Viper abduct is an amazing spell in SC2, as it is simply balanced in a way that you cannot use to pull "anything" but have to focus on important targets and on top of it the range/viper mobility is balanced in a way that it is very punishable from the opponent to pull units.
On the flipside, the Colossus always had that problem that it can walk over other units (so it does not get blocked when microing back) has 3-9range advantages over the usual units that are being used and is very durable.
It makes it incredibly boring to fight the Colossus, as it is simply (balancewise) out of reach for nearly anything and you cannot really rely on superior control to snipe it. You will always have to rely on very specific tools to kill it.
But that's less the Colossus designs fault, but rather the balancings fault. Had Terran tanks as stable army backbone in TvP all of that would not be true. Also, Zerg in HotS has Vipers acessible very fast, which makes Colossi much less boring as there is now a lot of interaction around the Colossus, other than brute force.
|
I loathe the viper's abduct ability though. I don't think it fits with the game. 
And well, I prefer 'broad strokes' positional movement rather than micro that's purely precision and timing based. For Starcraft 2 at least, I don't mind the latter in other games, or even in Starcraft 2, but I don't want it to be a dominant form.
For siege tanks it's important that you roughly spread them out correctly, that you roughly siege them up at the right places. To fight against siege tanks you need to primarily use spreading and flanking, as well as catching them off-guard. I think immortals and vipers, where you either use a shielded unit to soak up damage or use a special ability to pull out siege tanks, don't have that much to do with engaging positional tactical play. At least zealot bombs had more flair... you're exploiting a weakness siege tanks have because they are immobile, and you could defend it with goliaths and turrets, so it still fits with the the theme of taking advantage of positional weaknesses. Creating a unit that specifically takes no damage from siege tanks is not a real weakness, it's a made up one that's forced into the game. It feels kinda annoying to me.
|
On September 14 2013 00:49 Crytash wrote:
Dota 2 is only realeased in the western world, it is still in closed beta in China and Korea, just saying.
the dota scene is pretty much dead in hk. LoL has completely taken over the cybercafe. It isn't hard to get a key as well.
It was never that big to begin with. Lots of people played a chinese custom version of it which is based upon the three dynasties legend and they played another which is based upon the japanese history.
|
On September 14 2013 19:36 Grumbels wrote:I loathe the viper's abduct ability though. I don't think it fits with the game. And well, I prefer 'broad strokes' positional movement rather than micro that's purely precision and timing based. For Starcraft 2 at least, I don't mind the latter in other games, or even in Starcraft 2, but I don't want it to be a dominant form. For siege tanks it's important that you roughly spread them out correctly, that you roughly siege them up at the right places. To fight against siege tanks you need to primarily use spreading and flanking, as well as catching them off-guard. I think immortals and vipers, where you either use a shielded unit to soak up damage or use a special ability to pull out siege tanks, don't have that much to do with engaging positional tactical play. At least zealot bombs had more flair... you're exploiting a weakness siege tanks have because they are immobile, and you could defend it with goliaths and turrets, so it still fits with the the theme of taking advantage of positional weaknesses. Creating a unit that specifically takes no damage from siege tanks is not a real weakness, it's a made up one that's forced into the game. It feels kinda annoying to me.
You are romantizing Tankplay. The main way to engage tanks is/was still to build the right units/compositions, you are not going to win without marauders bio vs mech and even when you don't play air units you are hugely relying on the meching player to be prepared for them in the form of less tanks.
Yeah, with the siege dynamic I completely agree that once you have the right composition the engagements are still very interesting, because unlike in roach vs marauder the marauder does still lose in marauder vs tank if the mech player outplays the bio player. That's why I say, balancing unit relations against each other is the real deal that makes gameplay good and which makes tanks interesting while Colossi are rather boring.
For the Viper abduct... designwise it's very similar to spells like yamato, spawn broodlings or Irradiate, designed to snipe single (highvalue) units. I'm not a huge fan of those either designwise, as they are just "click to counter" tasks, yet, same can be said about any form of targetfiring. For as long as they work out nicely I don't mind. When they become bullshit (like Snipe or 9range NP) they should get removed/reworked or nerfed into support roles.
|
I really don't agree with the idea of patches being about shaking up the meta. Patches should primarily be about balance, if they are primarily about shaking up the meta that means that there are serious flaws elsewhere in the game design. Map variety and innovative build orders are what should be shaking up the meta. Blizzard may take their time to introduce their balance tweaks, but making absolutely sure they are addressing the issue properly is way better than consistently destroying part of the strategy foundation with reworks in the name of shaking up the meta.
|
On September 14 2013 22:08 Fyrewolf wrote:
I really don't agree with the idea of patches being about shaking up the meta. Patches should primarily be about balance, if they are primarily about shaking up the meta that means that there are serious flaws elsewhere in the game design. Map variety and innovative build orders are what should be shaking up the meta. Blizzard may take their time to introduce their balance tweaks, but making absolutely sure they are addressing the issue properly is way better than consistently destroying part of the strategy foundation with reworks in the name of shaking up the meta.
I have a few thoughts on this, because I think your point is totally valid, but there really is no escaping a meta-game change and it shouldn't seem so scary.
Firstly, I am okay with patching to shake up meta but there is a lot of context to it. I don't way to say outright that every 3 months there should just be this "new face" patch, although I would prefer it if Blizzard messed with it disregarding the preservation of a consistent meta for having a volatile one. It will happen regardless, it is just the swing of things. Whether you gear it all towards balance or not, a patch with changes is always going to affect meta to some degree. However I think meta is a small price to pay when it comes in the name of getting effectiveness and variety from all races in terms of their units and their strategies around them. Meta is a perpetual beast that needs to change and stagnation is bad no matter what. Honestly I think it we just need to find the "right meta," the one that never seems dry and boring, one with so much depth it never quite feels like everyone is doing the same stuff over and over.
So in that same universe, the meta should be thought of more as a "happy ending" to say, making a unit better, or a particular strategy more viable. As far as I'm concerned, fuck the meta until every unit and many broad and interesting strategies have a place and viability somewhere in this game. This brings us to your remark of design flaws...
What you said about serious flaws is really interesting because there absolutely is, but what can really be done about it? The best we can do is buff/nerf/change units to sort of...monkey wrench them in. I know. It sucks. Sounds so lame, but Blizzard will never undergo such an endeavor. I would love for it to happen, but I just don't see it coming to fruition.
In the end I think you are right about pure meta-game shifting patches with no base in balance or fixing things being really bad and downright stupid. Instead, their should be a strong focus on shaking up the meta (via unit changes etc.) until it finds this place where it is endless in feeling, as well as rich and dynamic in nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
