|
On September 07 2013 00:59 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season. Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same.
That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play.
It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us.
|
Expansion model is a really really bad way for SC2.
Only gradual, constant, and consistent adjustments to balance and design can make SC2 a sustainable game.
|
Blizzard, even though I criticize DK a lot, is right not to make big ass changes every other week. The meta-game is more fragile than people think
|
I think Blizzard just needs to learn more from BW. I am not necessarily suggesting the same game, just that there are plenty of lessons available from BW.
|
On September 07 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 00:59 vthree wrote:On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season. Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same. That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play. It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us.
Sadly Blizzard seem much more content to just tweak some stats here and there and leave it at that. They're a lot more patient and smart about it than they used to be two or three years ago, I'll give them that, but a lot of the issues stem from the design itself, not from one unit being too strong and whatnot, like the whiners would have you believe.
|
One thing to note is that in comparison to other RTSes, Blizzard's RTSes have always had very different races(civilizations) and wildly different unit designs between races. This has not meant that the games were imbalanced before, for two primary reasons: one, there were always only 2-4 races to balance to begin with, which makes balance much easier (in comparison to the 8 and then later 11/14 of AoE3 for example) and 2, the simplicity of other common RTS facets (such as resources) means that it is not incredibly hard to see whether a balance issue is a fundamental game design flaw or an actual (unit) stats imbalance flaw.
As far as SC2 goes, almost all of the balance issues arise from fundamental game design flaws. The design is just awful, particularly the inclusion of new units (to WoL) such as Roach, Marauder, etc. which do not fit the design of the races to which they were given. In particular, it seems like Protoss has long been neglected in comparison. Many of their key units were either removed and replaced by inferior units or have been nerfed directly and/or indirectly so hard that the whole race no longer feels the same way it did in BW. In a sense this might not have been a bad thing if the race was still fun and balanced, but it's neither. Protoss in SC2 has never been particularly fun to play, and as a random player I always found it my least favorite of the three (though I still liked the challenge of it) in SC2.
The fact that even map design doesn't really change gameplay all that much should ring a lot of alarm bells. As people have said earlier in this thread (one above me even), one of BW's strengths was its emphasis on map control and terrain usage. You could potentially entertain yourself in any good matchup just by watching unit movements on the minimap. SC2 just feels like war of the blobs.
Despite the fact that people say SC2 devs can't learn anything from DotA/LoL balance I would have to strongly disagree. They may be different genres but it would be a very good thing if SC2 adopted some changes in the vein of buffing underutilized and weaker units, and in the future introducing new units that either are innovative and fill certain niches, or are much more difficult to use with high reward (a la the reaver)
|
On September 07 2013 01:16 purakushi wrote:
I think Blizzard just needs to learn more from BW. I am not necessarily suggesting the same game, just that there are plenty of lessons available from BW.
I think that has horse has been beaten to death for a while already.
W/ Regards to game design, I'm not really sure what they can do because they've said that they aren't WILLING to do certain things so *shrug*. W/ regards to the scene and stuff, I dunno, I'm guessing they're going to fix the WCS problems next year so we'll see. Maybe theyll make it like DOTA2 or something.
|
On September 07 2013 01:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 00:59 vthree wrote:On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season. Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same. That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play. It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us. Sadly Blizzard seem much more content to just tweak some stats here and there and leave it at that. They're a lot more patient and smart about it than they used to be two or three years ago, I'll give them that, but a lot of the issues stem from the design itself, not from one unit being too strong and whatnot, like the whiners would have you believe.
To be fair to them, I don't think any publisher has tried to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play. We give them a lot of shit, but its not like there is a book of best practices out there. There will be after they and the MOBAs have been doing this for several years. But its all been trial and error up to this point.
I still want to know if you can block all vision from one direction, like a cliff face or overhang.
|
On September 07 2013 01:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 01:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On September 07 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 00:59 vthree wrote:On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season. Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same. That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play. It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us. Sadly Blizzard seem much more content to just tweak some stats here and there and leave it at that. They're a lot more patient and smart about it than they used to be two or three years ago, I'll give them that, but a lot of the issues stem from the design itself, not from one unit being too strong and whatnot, like the whiners would have you believe. To be fair to them, I don't think any publisher has tried to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play. We give them a lot of shit, but its not like there is a book of best practices out there. There will be after they and the MOBAs have been doing this for several years. But its all been trial and error up to this point. I still want to know if you can block all vision from one direction, like a cliff face or overhang.
But if you look at Blizzard as a company, their goal is not "to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play". Their goal is to sell you and millions of other people Legacy of the Void. Supporting the SC2 competitive scene is only a bonus, because if people are interested in competing they're essentially obligated to buy whatever new expansion's thrown at them.
Valve and Riot have to ensure an enjoyable experience for players and spectators because they make their money off microtransactions, and you're not going to make money off microtransactions unless you have a lot of players and you keep your players content and willing to continue playing your game and buying little things every once in a while.
It's a cynical way of looking at things, but realistic nevertheless.
I'm not saying Blizzard are making the game shit on purpose. I'm just saying this isn't their top priority, and it makes sense for it not to be their top priority considering their business model. Valve and Riot are banking on people continuing to play their game, whereas Blizzard is banking on people buying their game (and most people only buy it for the Single Player campaign, so hey there you go)
|
Are the LoL and dota community's so fucking melodramatic like the SC community? I thought this shit was finally over with the ohhh no LoL is more popular, and the whole we need the casuals guys!
The thing that ruins my time with starcraft is people over reacting to everything. Seeing so much negative comments so frequently just gets kind of disheartening.
I can understand people wanting the game they like to be more popular. But this game is not a particularly social game and never will be. How can you hope to compete with games where friends play an important aspect and will put a bit more pressure on you to play. I'm not sure what other peoples experiences are with mmo's, but quitting one of those feels like you've been kind of exiled from a community. I can imagine it's the same with LoL and dota if you had a group of friends playing frequently.
|
they could take ideas from LoL in a lot of ways and implement them into sc2. can you imagine if we had a bunch of lee sins for a protoss unit? so fun and thats what this game is missing sometimes between unti interactions. the fun.
|
On September 07 2013 01:40 haffy wrote:
Are the LoL and dota community's so fucking melodramatic like the SC community? I thought this shit was finally over with the ohhh no LoL is more popular, and the whole we need the casuals guys!
The thing that ruins my time with starcraft is people over reacting to everything. Seeing so much negative comments so frequently just gets kind of disheartening.
I can understand people wanting the game they like to be more popular. But this game is not a particularly social game and never will be. How can you hope to compete with games where friends play an important aspect and will put a bit more pressure on you to play. I'm not sure what other peoples experiences are with mmo's, but quitting one of those feels like you've been kind of exiled from a community. I can imagine it's the same with LoL and dota if you had a group of friends playing frequently.
The LoL and DotA communities are too busy bitching at each other after each game to complain about Riot/Valve.
|
On September 07 2013 01:40 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 01:31 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 01:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On September 07 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 00:59 vthree wrote:On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season. Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same. That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play. It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us. Sadly Blizzard seem much more content to just tweak some stats here and there and leave it at that. They're a lot more patient and smart about it than they used to be two or three years ago, I'll give them that, but a lot of the issues stem from the design itself, not from one unit being too strong and whatnot, like the whiners would have you believe. To be fair to them, I don't think any publisher has tried to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play. We give them a lot of shit, but its not like there is a book of best practices out there. There will be after they and the MOBAs have been doing this for several years. But its all been trial and error up to this point. I still want to know if you can block all vision from one direction, like a cliff face or overhang. But if you look at Blizzard as a company, their goal is not "to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play". Their goal is to sell you and millions of other people Legacy of the Void. Supporting the SC2 competitive scene is only a bonus, because if people are interested in competing they're essentially obligated to buy whatever new expansion's thrown at them. Valve and Riot have to ensure an enjoyable experience for players and spectators because they make their money off microtransactions, and you're not going to make money off microtransactions unless you have a lot of players and you keep your players content and willing to continue playing your game and buying little things every once in a while. It's a cynical way of looking at things, but realistic nevertheless. I'm not saying Blizzard are making the game shit on purpose. I'm just saying this isn't their top priority, and it makes sense for it not to be their top priority considering their business model. Valve and Riot are banking on people continuing to play their game, whereas Blizzard is banking on people buying their game (and most people only buy it for the Single Player campaign, so hey there you go)
It does make total sense, since SC2 is not their main revenue stream and there is no reason to put your top artist and model makers on changes you won't make money directly from. It also doesn't help that the majority of the people who buy SC2(or any RTS) don't play multiplayer. I have a friend to loves SC2, but will never touch multiplayer. And he player hard games. Stupidly hard games like Super Meat Boy and other stuff, but he won't touch SC2 multiplayer. With that sort of market, the only time they can justify huge changes is when they are moving to a new expansion. And its not like there is a F2P button they can hit to fix the issue.
I still think that map design is the silver bullet for SC2, but it can't be all the crazy stuff people were trying to do, like fewer resources at bases. New terrain features and things that block LOS and allow players to do one way damage would allow for players to control space without directly buffing units. Its just a question of if it can be done with the current map tools.
|
Hopefully after Blizzard has pushed Legacy of the void down are throats , they will start to properly balance units that are not being used , so that they can be used again .
|
Starcraft definitely needs an off-period, even if only for a couple of weeks. During this period Blizzard would get the chance to innovate and make smaller or bigger balance/design changes on certain maps that people will try out. There will always be lower GM players that have time over and find joy in doing some random stuff at times to blow of some steam from the constant pressure of ladder.
Right now, Blizzard is doing most of their stuff behind closed door and don't share enough of their process with the public. I would bet that if Blizzard actively put out different maps with different race design/balance changes then people would play on them and Blizzard would get to see more types of gameplay and some of them might be supercool. Right now they only go with one type of fix they figure would steer the metagame in one direction which they think the people might like.
They really do forget that it is us who play the game mostly, all of the thousands of people that login every day and all the people that watch and want to be entertained? What danger could it cause if they just for example threw out a map with the design change to remove WarpTech and buff the stalker for example? Why not? This could generate a more fun gameplay and perhaps even remove the Deathball in TvP, but we'll never know this way.
Why do we not get any say in what kind of gameplay we would like to see?
They should simply put out more different balancing scenarios of maps at the same time that we should get to play on/vote on. The way that they come out with a suggested change out of nowhere right now - like the Ultralisk +50hp buff. Would people not rather see a nerf to splash dmg to the Mine or something else? We don't know anything about what they do and it's frustrating.
|
Reworking usually involves taking almost scary balance gambles. DotA allows sides to veto and pick whatever "race" they want; the same cannot be said for SC2. If Blizzard was going to do this, they'd need more high-level players involved in the decision-making process itself, and they'd need to have a community willing to sacrifice near-perfect balance in favor of variation in the metagame.
Given the romps I've taken through places that allow balance whining, and our tendency to bash Blizzard into the ground no matter what they do, I don't think the community fits the bill yet.
|
On September 07 2013 02:41 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Reworking usually involves taking almost scary balance gambles. DotA allows sides to veto and pick whatever "race" they want; the same cannot be said for SC2. If Blizzard was going to do this, they'd need more high-level players involved in the decision-making process itself, and they'd need to have a community willing to sacrifice near-perfect balance in favor of variation in the metagame.
Given the romps I've taken through places that allow balance whining, and our tendency to bash Blizzard into the ground no matter what they do, I don't think the community fits the bill yet.
From the reports of Blizzard, high level players are not as helpful as one might think. DK said that a lot of the players he spoke with are super bias toward their own race and most of their suggestions relate to the specific area they have trouble in the match up. I am sure there is a set of pros that provide good suggestions and insight that the balance team talks with, but I doubt that every pro's input would be useful.
|
|
|
On September 07 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 02:41 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Reworking usually involves taking almost scary balance gambles. DotA allows sides to veto and pick whatever "race" they want; the same cannot be said for SC2. If Blizzard was going to do this, they'd need more high-level players involved in the decision-making process itself, and they'd need to have a community willing to sacrifice near-perfect balance in favor of variation in the metagame.
Given the romps I've taken through places that allow balance whining, and our tendency to bash Blizzard into the ground no matter what they do, I don't think the community fits the bill yet. From the reports of Blizzard, high level players are not as helpful as one might think. DK said that a lot of the players he spoke with are super bias toward their own race and most of their suggestions relate to the specific area they have trouble in the match up. I am sure there is a set of pros that provide good suggestions and insight that the balance team talks with, but I doubt that every pro's input would be useful.
Ah, so that's why even a semi-pro like Cloud felt he "wasn't good enough" to comment on balance. Extremely interesting, thanks for the knowledge.
|
On September 07 2013 02:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 02:41 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Reworking usually involves taking almost scary balance gambles. DotA allows sides to veto and pick whatever "race" they want; the same cannot be said for SC2. If Blizzard was going to do this, they'd need more high-level players involved in the decision-making process itself, and they'd need to have a community willing to sacrifice near-perfect balance in favor of variation in the metagame.
Given the romps I've taken through places that allow balance whining, and our tendency to bash Blizzard into the ground no matter what they do, I don't think the community fits the bill yet. From the reports of Blizzard, high level players are not as helpful as one might think. DK said that a lot of the players he spoke with are super bias toward their own race and most of their suggestions relate to the specific area they have trouble in the match up. I am sure there is a set of pros that provide good suggestions and insight that the balance team talks with, but I doubt that every pro's input would be useful. Ah, so that's why even a semi-pro like Cloud felt he "wasn't good enough" to comment on balance. Extremely interesting, thanks for the knowledge.
Yeah, a lot of the pro-players may not be the most objective people when it comes to balance suggestions. I know Blizzard tried it, but at the end of the day, the pros are more invested in winning games than designing them. I am sure there are gems out there that are very helpful to Blizzard, but I think they are in the sharp minority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
