EPTPoll: Preference as a user of said service?
Battlenet (16)
70%
Battlenet 2.0 (7)
30%
23 total votes
Battlenet 2.0 (7)
23 total votes
Your vote: Preference as a user of said service?
What can Blizzard Learn from MOBA Balancing/Design - Page 25
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
| ||
|
Sotoshi
United Kingdom24 Posts
On September 19 2013 15:04 Wombat_NI wrote: If you dislike blizzard products so much, why do you spend so much time talking about it, playing it? Are you a masochist? You're posting moronically, you're just parroting 'Blizzard knows best' without even attempting to address the VERY clear points being made. The alternative is that you're trolling. Speaking of nostalgia I remember the 'good old days' where trolling wasn't just a synonym for being a tool and generally denoted some wit/flair. Fact of the matter is the people working at blizzard have spent years earning their titles as game designers. Do you have any degrees or credentials? Didn't think so. What makes you think you can understand how to create a better game than them? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
I don't dislike their products, indeed last time I checked Blizzard created the original Battlenet interface. You know the one that worked to foster a community? The same community who became more likely to buy their products? User was warned for this post | ||
|
ETisME
12703 Posts
On September 19 2013 15:15 Sotoshi wrote: If you dislike blizzard products so much, why do you spend so much time talking about it, playing it? Are you a masochist? Fact of the matter is the people working at blizzard have spent years earning their titles as game designers. Do you have any degrees or credentials? Didn't think so. What makes you think you can understand how to create a better game than them? because of several reasons: just because you like the game doesn't make you like all the aspects of the game If the feature is so advanced and innovative, then obviously the crowd would have hopped onto it, which we don't see And no one is saying WE know how to create a better game, but we are saying the old version where we have experience of is better. And we as the player is what the game designers look at, because the game is designed for our benefits. Who else gets a better say as to which battlenet is superior? | ||
|
Sotoshi
United Kingdom24 Posts
On September 19 2013 15:31 ETisME wrote: because of several reasons: just because you like the game doesn't make you like all the aspects of the game If the feature is so advanced and innovative, then obviously the crowd would have hopped onto it, which we don't see And no one is saying WE know how to create a better game, but we are saying the old version where we have experience of is better. And we as the player is what the game designers look at, because the game is designed for our benefits. Who else gets a better say as to which battlenet is superior? Sounds like someone has no game design credentials. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
| ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 19 2013 14:55 Sotoshi wrote: You're crying about the past, see the irony here? Blizzard reviews ALL features, and some others too. Blizzard don't review the low-end complaints because they believe the decisions for those cases are valid. You just made your self look stupid by disagreeing with the most successful game company ever. Quit bringing down blizzard's morale and post something positive for once, will ya? If you're even capable of it that last part can be reported since you're insulting him, just an fyi. Gotta say, I'm kinda enjoying this troll lol. He's being taken seriously in this thread and in the naruto one although I humored him for a bit in that thread lol | ||
|
Sotoshi
United Kingdom24 Posts
On September 19 2013 15:41 Wombat_NI wrote: Irrelevant point with no reference to previous posters' points, which addressed what you just said. Really? Every second you spend in this game is inaction, which allows tragedies like inner-city poverty to occur. There is a very real human cost to this game. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26667 Posts
| ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 19 2013 15:46 Sotoshi wrote: Every second you spend in this game is inaction, which allows tragedies like inner-city poverty to occur. There is a very real human cost to this game. Every second you spend here arguing about game design allows tragedies like inner-city poverty to occur. There is a very real human cost when wasting time arguing  | ||
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
 | ||
|
ETisME
12703 Posts
On September 19 2013 15:37 Sotoshi wrote: Sounds like someone has no game design credentials. yea except I was a beta tester for several games and helped them to change some of their design flaws :x | ||
|
Rococo
United States331 Posts
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote: Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt I believe that over-complexity hurts SC2 already. Something different about LoL is that there may be over 100 champions to choose from, but each match you're only worrying about 10 of them, and you're only actually playing 1 of them. Compare that to SC2 where 66% of the game's complexity is present in a non-mirror. For one thing this makes LoL a much smoother learning experience than SC2 - the portions are smaller. But the big advantage is that LoL gets to continuously add content without increasing the cognitive workload on the player. There could be a 1000 champions in the future, but it's still only 10 at a time that you're worrying about in a given match. Adding champions in LoL makes only one choice harder: Which champion do I pick. It doesn't drown the player in an ever-increasing number of choices during gameplay like adding content to SC2 does. What LOTV would do if it were up to me: cut down each race roster by a third, ensure that each unit is A: open ended, B: sharply distinct from other units in its roster. Emphasize race asymmetries as much as possible. Think about TvZ in BW down to its essence. Overlords, Lings, Hydras, Mutas, Lurkers, Defilers, Ultras on the Zerg side. On the Terran side: Marines, Medics, Dropships, Wraiths, Siege Tanks, Vultures, Science Vessels. There are some omissions, but they wouldn't significantly hurt the matchup's depth if they were balanced for. My point isn't about adding BW units or making SC2 like BW (that ship has sailed), it's that you don't need a huge unit pool for awesome, varied, incredibly deep gameplay. What would an RTS with the widespread appeal of LoL look like? I think it'd have 9 races with 7 units each, not 3 races with 21 units each. I think it'd also have the race-equivalent of a hero like Lich or Skeleton King for new players to learn with. | ||
|
SsDrKosS
330 Posts
On September 19 2013 16:10 Rococo wrote: I believe that over-complexity hurts SC2 already. Something different about LoL is that there may be over 100 champions to choose from, but each match you're only worrying about 10 of them, and you're only actually playing 1 of them. Compare that to SC2 where 66% of the game's complexity is present in a non-mirror. For one thing this makes LoL a much smoother learning experience than SC2 - the portions are smaller. But the big advantage is that LoL gets to continuously add content without increasing the cognitive workload on the player. There could be a 1000 champions in the future, but it's still only 10 at a time that you're worrying about in a given match. Adding champions in LoL makes only one choice harder: Which champion do I pick. It doesn't drown the player in an ever-increasing number of choices during gameplay like adding content to SC2 does. What LOTV would do if it were up to me: cut down each race roster by a third, ensure that each unit is A: open ended, B: sharply distinct from other units in its roster. Emphasize race asymmetries as much as possible. Think about TvZ in BW down to its essence. Overlords, Lings, Hydras, Mutas, Lurkers, Defilers, Ultras on the Zerg side. On the Terran side: Marines, Medics, Dropships, Wraiths, Siege Tanks, Vultures, Science Vessels. There are some omissions, but they wouldn't significantly hurt the matchup's depth if they were balanced for. My point isn't about adding BW units or making SC2 like BW (that ship has sailed), it's that you don't need a huge unit pool for awesome, varied, incredibly deep gameplay. What would an RTS with the widespread appeal of LoL look like? I think it'd have 9 races with 7 units each, not 3 races with 21 units each. I think it'd also have the race-equivalent of a hero like Lich or Skeleton King for new players to learn with. It sounds like Wc4 or Sc3 too me  + Show Spoiler + btw you forgot bw queen, guidian to snipe tanks in seige line (+ devourer if desired). the only underused unit in zerg was good old bw infested terran :p For terran, goliath, Valkyrie (both are great vs mutas), and firebat for lings. bc was for VERY late game, ghost hardly used in TvZ  But the thing is that sc2 is not designed to use all units in a single match up (unlike bw TvZ) ppl chooses unit compositions (best e.g are 4M, mech, muta lings, hydra-roach) because of limited time and resourse (and more importantly because of synergy b/w units) The problem now is that ZvT almost always 4M vs Muta lings (+infestors) TvT mech all the way TvP bio vs ground ball and so on. They want other 'compositions' to be vailded, which of course does not meaning all units should be present in one match. Thats why some say certain unit designs are horrible because it forces players to have only one composition valid vs certain race. look at PvZ now and compare with TvZ then you will know what I mean. Edit: Btw Bw was a complicated game because of the 'timings'. players can't use all units at the same time (except in the late games perhaps). ppl always have to be ready for any cheese, rush, contain, harrass etc from the early game till the end, guess what would be their opponents 'main' army looks like (we used all units but with different ratio). Bw was the true RTS imo :p no one-big-match all win, always brain squeezing and intense, no one knows who wins till the end! Second edit! and of course, I'm not saying that SC2 sucks. :p bw had 10yrs of fixing and balancing. Sc2 is still young and have more time | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 19 2013 21:13 SsDrKosS wrote: It sounds like Wc4 or Sc3 too me + Show Spoiler + btw you forgot bw queen, guidian to snipe tanks in seige line (+ devourer if desired). the only underused unit in zerg was good old bw infested terran :p For terran, goliath, Valkyrie (both are great vs mutas), and firebat for lings. bc was for VERY late game, ghost hardly used in TvZ But the thing is that sc2 is not designed to use all units in a single match up (unlike bw TvZ) ppl chooses unit compositions (best e.g are 4M, mech, muta lings, hydra-roach) because of limited time and resourse (and more importantly because of synergy b/w units) The problem now is that ZvT almost always 4M vs Muta lings (+infestors) TvT mech all the way TvP bio vs ground ball and so on. They want other 'compositions' to be vailded, which of course does not meaning all units should be present in one match. Thats why some say certain unit designs are horrible because it forces players to have only one composition valid vs certain race. look at PvZ now and compare with TvZ then you will know what I mean. Edit: Btw Bw was a complicated game because of the 'timings'. players can't use all units at the same time (except in the late games perhaps). ppl always have to be ready for any cheese, rush, contain, harrass etc from the early game till the end, guess what would be their opponents 'main' army looks like (we used all units but with different ratio). Bw was the true RTS imo :p no one-big-match all win, always brain squeezing and intense, no one knows who wins till the end! Second edit! and of course, I'm not saying that SC2 sucks. :p bw had 10yrs of fixing and balancing. Sc2 is still young and have more time BW had 4 years of balancing or rather 3 years if we start to count from last serious expansion. After that the only balance changes pro scene had was map balance. | ||
| ||
