|
On September 07 2013 03:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 03:50 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 03:44 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:36 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:32 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:29 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote:
SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ from sales)
So SC2 needs 2 expansions to be complete
D3 needs 2 expansions to be complete (for example D3 Expansion each only adds 1 hero, as opposed to D2 single xpack which added 2 heroes)
Perhaps we need to just wait patiently until David Kim and the team roll out LOTV, then all the complete unit balance will be there? lol..... This post is simply wrong. None of the games you mentioned above were complete. There were a lot of things you could improve upon them. I don't even need to tell you the flaws of all those games. Everyone who played them know it. BW releasing the units then patches following, did not complete the game? WC3 frozen throne releasing all the units, then the patches afterwards did not make the best WC3 possible? was D2's expack and following patches, not the best D2 complete experience? They werent perfect games but they were the best complete experience possible I'm saying with SC2, and D3, Blizzard is looking LONGTERM, and thinking of ways to hold back stuff so they can include it it in the FINAL expack then finally SC2/D3 will have the complete units to work with, then patches from there can further balance the game Those games were far from the best they could be. You assume they are holding back stuff but there's the interview with Chris Sigaty that he doesn't even know if there will be new units in LotV and if there is then they may remove some units. Looking longterm doeesn't mean they are holding back. It could mean they are willing to improve it for longer. This is derailing the thread so I won't argue further. who said they were the "best they can be"? who said they were perfect? the expansions completed the games units, so from there patches could tweak things Perhaps English is not your first language? complete does not mean PERFECT Complete means having all the necessary or appropriate parts. In other words, the expacks released all the necessary parts (that BLIZZARD deemed was a complete game, SC1needs BW, WC3 needs TFT, D2 needs expack, etc) Noone said the expacks automatically made the game PERFECT, they just added all the base components that Blizzard deems a complete saga/game And right now, SC2 Game as a whole, is not complete, neither is D3, SC2 needs 1 more expack, and D3 needs 2 more expans Your argument is slowly shifting to the point where no one can challenge it because it is so broad. It seems to be "the game is done when they said it is done" which was always true. Argument has not shifted, perhaps read the posts again 1. Game is not complete (Blizzard says SC2 is a trilogy when completed) 2. Dont expect perfect balanced gameplay, since SC2 is not complete at the HOTS level, and Blizzard is holding back stuff for the final expansion 3. Same is happening with D3 4. $$Profit? Your initial post denotes sarcasm and derision due to the question at the end and the lol with three periods. I am not really seeing the point you are trying to make, that activision is greedy for making 2 expansions, even thought they told us long ago that they were?
1. Yes I think Activision is Leaning towards the "Business" "Profit" orientated (greedy?) (investors want profit plain and simple) side, when previously the major Blizzard blockbusters only required a single expansion to be completed
2. Now SC2 requires 2, and D3 requires 2 expansions
(for example, D2 single expansion added 2 heroes, whereas D3 expansions only adds 1 hero, so needs to buy both expacks to have the same amount of heroes added as the D2 single xpack)
3. As Blizzard deems SC2 not complete Saga until LOTV, dont expect the "arguably" balanced and interesting compositions of BW while we are still in the HOTS phase
|
On September 07 2013 04:03 mikumegurine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 03:57 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 03:50 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 03:44 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:36 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:32 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:29 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote:
SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ from sales)
So SC2 needs 2 expansions to be complete
D3 needs 2 expansions to be complete (for example D3 Expansion each only adds 1 hero, as opposed to D2 single xpack which added 2 heroes)
Perhaps we need to just wait patiently until David Kim and the team roll out LOTV, then all the complete unit balance will be there? lol..... This post is simply wrong. None of the games you mentioned above were complete. There were a lot of things you could improve upon them. I don't even need to tell you the flaws of all those games. Everyone who played them know it. BW releasing the units then patches following, did not complete the game? WC3 frozen throne releasing all the units, then the patches afterwards did not make the best WC3 possible? was D2's expack and following patches, not the best D2 complete experience? They werent perfect games but they were the best complete experience possible I'm saying with SC2, and D3, Blizzard is looking LONGTERM, and thinking of ways to hold back stuff so they can include it it in the FINAL expack then finally SC2/D3 will have the complete units to work with, then patches from there can further balance the game Those games were far from the best they could be. You assume they are holding back stuff but there's the interview with Chris Sigaty that he doesn't even know if there will be new units in LotV and if there is then they may remove some units. Looking longterm doeesn't mean they are holding back. It could mean they are willing to improve it for longer. This is derailing the thread so I won't argue further. who said they were the "best they can be"? who said they were perfect? the expansions completed the games units, so from there patches could tweak things Perhaps English is not your first language? complete does not mean PERFECT Complete means having all the necessary or appropriate parts. In other words, the expacks released all the necessary parts (that BLIZZARD deemed was a complete game, SC1needs BW, WC3 needs TFT, D2 needs expack, etc) Noone said the expacks automatically made the game PERFECT, they just added all the base components that Blizzard deems a complete saga/game And right now, SC2 Game as a whole, is not complete, neither is D3, SC2 needs 1 more expack, and D3 needs 2 more expans Your argument is slowly shifting to the point where no one can challenge it because it is so broad. It seems to be "the game is done when they said it is done" which was always true. Argument has not shifted, perhaps read the posts again 1. Game is not complete (Blizzard says SC2 is a trilogy when completed) 2. Dont expect perfect balanced gameplay, since SC2 is not complete at the HOTS level, and Blizzard is holding back stuff for the final expansion 3. Same is happening with D3 4. $$Profit? Your initial post denotes sarcasm and derision due to the question at the end and the lol with three periods. I am not really seeing the point you are trying to make, that activision is greedy for making 2 expansions, even thought they told us long ago that they were? 1. Yes I think Activision is Leaning towards the greedy side, when previously the major Blizzard blockbusters only required a single expansion to be completed 2. Now SC2 requires 2, and D3 requires 2 expansions (for example, D2 single expansion added 2 heroes, whereas D3 expansions only adds 1 hero, so needs to buy both expacks to have the same amount of heroes added as the D2 single xpack) 3. As Blizzard deems SC2 not complete Saga until LOTV, dont expect the "arguably" balanced and interesting compositions of BW while we are still in the HOTS phase
Well that is one opinion, but I don't agree. I think Blizzard just wanted to release a couple of expansions per game, since their previous expansions did so well and people always seemed to want more. But at the end of the day its your opinion and your are entitled to it.
|
On September 07 2013 03:50 mikumegurine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 03:44 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:36 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:32 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:29 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote:
SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ from sales)
So SC2 needs 2 expansions to be complete
D3 needs 2 expansions to be complete (for example D3 Expansion each only adds 1 hero, as opposed to D2 single xpack which added 2 heroes)
Perhaps we need to just wait patiently until David Kim and the team roll out LOTV, then all the complete unit balance will be there? lol..... This post is simply wrong. None of the games you mentioned above were complete. There were a lot of things you could improve upon them. I don't even need to tell you the flaws of all those games. Everyone who played them know it. BW releasing the units then patches following, did not complete the game? WC3 frozen throne releasing all the units, then the patches afterwards did not make the best WC3 possible? was D2's expack and following patches, not the best D2 complete experience? They werent perfect games but they were the best complete experience possible I'm saying with SC2, and D3, Blizzard is looking LONGTERM, and thinking of ways to hold back stuff so they can include it it in the FINAL expack then finally SC2/D3 will have the complete units to work with, then patches from there can further balance the game Those games were far from the best they could be. You assume they are holding back stuff but there's the interview with Chris Sigaty that he doesn't even know if there will be new units in LotV and if there is then they may remove some units. Looking longterm doeesn't mean they are holding back. It could mean they are willing to improve it for longer. This is derailing the thread so I won't argue further. who said they were the "best they can be"? who said they were perfect? the expansions completed the games units, so from there patches could tweak things Perhaps English is not your first language? complete does not mean PERFECT Complete means having all the necessary or appropriate parts. In other words, the expacks released all the necessary parts (that BLIZZARD deemed was a complete game, SC1needs BW, WC3 needs TFT, D2 needs expack, etc) Noone said the expacks automatically made the game PERFECT, they just added all the base components that Blizzard deems a complete saga/game And right now, SC2 Game as a whole, is not complete, neither is D3, SC2 needs 1 more expack, and D3 needs 2 more expans Your argument is slowly shifting to the point where no one can challenge it because it is so broad. It seems to be "the game is done when they said it is done" which was always true. Argument has not shifted, perhaps read the posts again 1. Game is not complete (Blizzard says SC2 is a trilogy when completed) 2. Dont expect perfect balanced gameplay, since SC2 is not complete at the HOTS level, and Blizzard is holding back stuff for the final expansion (HOTS simply cant be too large, and then LOTV small cause people would complain about that...in other words one expansion cant have too much more than the other expack) 3. Same is happening with D3 4. $$$Profit?
You simply don't understand. You said all D2 and BW gave the original games all units they needed to have but in fact it didn't Blizzard COULD make more xpacs for those games but they didn't. They could make 10 xpacs from BW and you wouldn't know at which point is when the game is complete. SC2 has 2 xpac doesn't really mean they would hold back in HotS to wait for LoTV. They could do their best in HotS then try to improve upon what needed to be improved in LotV because NOTHING is perfect and I am not trying to say all those games were complete. You understand my logic here?
|
On September 07 2013 04:06 Wildmoon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 03:50 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 03:44 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:36 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:32 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:29 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote:
SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ from sales)
So SC2 needs 2 expansions to be complete
D3 needs 2 expansions to be complete (for example D3 Expansion each only adds 1 hero, as opposed to D2 single xpack which added 2 heroes)
Perhaps we need to just wait patiently until David Kim and the team roll out LOTV, then all the complete unit balance will be there? lol..... This post is simply wrong. None of the games you mentioned above were complete. There were a lot of things you could improve upon them. I don't even need to tell you the flaws of all those games. Everyone who played them know it. BW releasing the units then patches following, did not complete the game? WC3 frozen throne releasing all the units, then the patches afterwards did not make the best WC3 possible? was D2's expack and following patches, not the best D2 complete experience? They werent perfect games but they were the best complete experience possible I'm saying with SC2, and D3, Blizzard is looking LONGTERM, and thinking of ways to hold back stuff so they can include it it in the FINAL expack then finally SC2/D3 will have the complete units to work with, then patches from there can further balance the game Those games were far from the best they could be. You assume they are holding back stuff but there's the interview with Chris Sigaty that he doesn't even know if there will be new units in LotV and if there is then they may remove some units. Looking longterm doeesn't mean they are holding back. It could mean they are willing to improve it for longer. This is derailing the thread so I won't argue further. who said they were the "best they can be"? who said they were perfect? the expansions completed the games units, so from there patches could tweak things Perhaps English is not your first language? complete does not mean PERFECT Complete means having all the necessary or appropriate parts. In other words, the expacks released all the necessary parts (that BLIZZARD deemed was a complete game, SC1needs BW, WC3 needs TFT, D2 needs expack, etc) Noone said the expacks automatically made the game PERFECT, they just added all the base components that Blizzard deems a complete saga/game And right now, SC2 Game as a whole, is not complete, neither is D3, SC2 needs 1 more expack, and D3 needs 2 more expans Your argument is slowly shifting to the point where no one can challenge it because it is so broad. It seems to be "the game is done when they said it is done" which was always true. Argument has not shifted, perhaps read the posts again 1. Game is not complete (Blizzard says SC2 is a trilogy when completed) 2. Dont expect perfect balanced gameplay, since SC2 is not complete at the HOTS level, and Blizzard is holding back stuff for the final expansion (HOTS simply cant be too large, and then LOTV small cause people would complain about that...in other words one expansion cant have too much more than the other expack) 3. Same is happening with D3 4. $$$Profit? You simply don't understand. You said all D2 and BW gave the original games all units they needed to have but in fact it didn't Blizzard COULD make more xpacs for those games but they didn't. They could make 10 xpacs from BW and you wouldn't know at which point is when the game is complete. SC2 has 2 xpac doesn't really mean they would hold back in HotS to wait for LoTV. They could do their best in HotS then try to improve upon what needed to be improved in LotV because NOTHING is perfect and I am not trying to say all those games were complete.
Blizzard has planned for a 3 part SC2, you think they dont set away some ideas for LOTV as they are working in HOTS?
you think after HOTS, they have expended all their ideas, and must start anew for LOTV?
Blizzard sets aside some stuff for WoL, some stuff for HOTS, and then some stuff for LOTV
You think HOTS includes everything they wanted to do for SC2? obviously not
they have tons of ideas and only some of it makes it into HOTS, and the rest they plan for LOTV
You dont think BW and TFT, and LOD were complete? well sorry to say, but Blizzard says those games were complete and did not add more expacks to them
You want to argue that a game is never complete since the Game Developers can arbitrarily add another expansion to it? lol?
In your words:
"Blizzard COULD make more xpacs for those games but they didn't. They could make 10 xpacs from BW and you wouldn't know at which point is when the game is complete. "
Then by your definition anything "completed" would never be complete?
A cake is never finished, cause the baker could always put 1 more gram of cream on it, right?
|
Tweaking units in SC2 is more risky than in Dota2.
Make a unit imbalanced in SC2 and you potentially make a race imbalanced. Pros cant easily switch races.
In Dota2, if you buff a character too much, it gets banned in draft. Or if it doesn't, at least all teams have an equal opportunity to use that imba character. The same isn't at all true in SC2. Zerg players can't use a newly-imba Terran unit.
Nerf a dota character too much and teams can choose to use one of 100 other characters instead. The cost of incorporating a different character into a dota teams line-up is relatively cheap compared to SC2 adjustments especially if the impact is big enough to make a race noncompetitive.
|
On September 07 2013 00:32 zezamer wrote:
SC2 needs some really powerful units that are hard to control, allowing players to make more plays outside standard macro, try to counter opponent unit comp, ball of units clash style. I've never played BW but from watching some epic games, I'd say it had some cool units
I think the problem is everything dies way too quickly. Carriers have this opportunity to be utilized to great effect, but what they're attacking dies too quickly, they die too quickly, and their meat shields die too quickly. You can't spend the required amount of time to utilize the impressive micro necessary for these units or everything else will be dead and your sick micro would be useless.
|
One design issue that I think would be good to emulate would be the action starting earlier. Maybe if early-game cheeses were better at hurting opponents, but worse at irreparably crippling opponents, we'd see more tactical cheese, rather than all these cheeses that are (usually) strictly designed to outright win the game. Similarly, maybe if players started with 8 workers instead of 6, the action would start about 30-40 seconds earlier than it does, at the cost of the 6-pool build, which would be replaced by a slightly quicker version of the current 8-pool.
The other issue that I really like about a MOBA, when it's performed well and the players are evenly matched, is that you feel a very tangible sense of who is winning and by how much - it's almost like a tactical tug-of-war. I got that sense more out of BW, with its longer battles and more pronounced reinforcement routes, but less so from SC2. While each major engagement in SC2 is extremely exciting, even more so than the biggest fights in BW or MOBAs, there are rarely a multitude of them each game. I sometimes compare games to bad sex. There's the ineffectual foreplay, as each player macros hard and tries to get a bigger army than the other player, and then they smash their armies into each other in a giant premature ejaculation, and it's all over. I think it gives the sense that games are being won incrementally through frequent, subtle skillful performances, it would return that exciting appreciation for the game management that is often (but certainly not always) missing from SC2.
The mod One Goal actually had a really neat way of dealing with this, by switching the zerg tech tree around so that Roaches could be pricier but healthier and more armored, and hydras could have lower dps but cost what roaches used to. It's really cool to watch a long battle that rages over a large area and a long time. As I covered before, it gives that same sense of tug-of-war and tangible, incremental gain that I appreciate about MOBAs.
|
On September 07 2013 04:13 mikumegurine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 04:06 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:50 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 03:44 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:36 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:32 mikumegurine wrote:On September 07 2013 03:29 Wildmoon wrote:On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote:
SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ from sales)
So SC2 needs 2 expansions to be complete
D3 needs 2 expansions to be complete (for example D3 Expansion each only adds 1 hero, as opposed to D2 single xpack which added 2 heroes)
Perhaps we need to just wait patiently until David Kim and the team roll out LOTV, then all the complete unit balance will be there? lol..... This post is simply wrong. None of the games you mentioned above were complete. There were a lot of things you could improve upon them. I don't even need to tell you the flaws of all those games. Everyone who played them know it. BW releasing the units then patches following, did not complete the game? WC3 frozen throne releasing all the units, then the patches afterwards did not make the best WC3 possible? was D2's expack and following patches, not the best D2 complete experience? They werent perfect games but they were the best complete experience possible I'm saying with SC2, and D3, Blizzard is looking LONGTERM, and thinking of ways to hold back stuff so they can include it it in the FINAL expack then finally SC2/D3 will have the complete units to work with, then patches from there can further balance the game Those games were far from the best they could be. You assume they are holding back stuff but there's the interview with Chris Sigaty that he doesn't even know if there will be new units in LotV and if there is then they may remove some units. Looking longterm doeesn't mean they are holding back. It could mean they are willing to improve it for longer. This is derailing the thread so I won't argue further. who said they were the "best they can be"? who said they were perfect? the expansions completed the games units, so from there patches could tweak things Perhaps English is not your first language? complete does not mean PERFECT Complete means having all the necessary or appropriate parts. In other words, the expacks released all the necessary parts (that BLIZZARD deemed was a complete game, SC1needs BW, WC3 needs TFT, D2 needs expack, etc) Noone said the expacks automatically made the game PERFECT, they just added all the base components that Blizzard deems a complete saga/game And right now, SC2 Game as a whole, is not complete, neither is D3, SC2 needs 1 more expack, and D3 needs 2 more expans Your argument is slowly shifting to the point where no one can challenge it because it is so broad. It seems to be "the game is done when they said it is done" which was always true. Argument has not shifted, perhaps read the posts again 1. Game is not complete (Blizzard says SC2 is a trilogy when completed) 2. Dont expect perfect balanced gameplay, since SC2 is not complete at the HOTS level, and Blizzard is holding back stuff for the final expansion (HOTS simply cant be too large, and then LOTV small cause people would complain about that...in other words one expansion cant have too much more than the other expack) 3. Same is happening with D3 4. $$$Profit? You simply don't understand. You said all D2 and BW gave the original games all units they needed to have but in fact it didn't Blizzard COULD make more xpacs for those games but they didn't. They could make 10 xpacs from BW and you wouldn't know at which point is when the game is complete. SC2 has 2 xpac doesn't really mean they would hold back in HotS to wait for LoTV. They could do their best in HotS then try to improve upon what needed to be improved in LotV because NOTHING is perfect and I am not trying to say all those games were complete. Blizzard has planned for a 3 part SC2, you think they dont set away some ideas for LOTV as they are working in HOTS? you think after HOTS, they have expended all their ideas, and must start anew for LOTV? Blizzard sets aside some stuff for WoL, some stuff for HOTS, and then some stuff for LOTV You think HOTS includes everything they wanted to do for SC2? obviously not they have tons of ideas and only some of it makes it into HOTS, and the rest they plan for LOTV You dont think BW and TFT, and LOD were complete? well sorry to say, but Blizzard says those games were complete and did not add more expacks to them You want to argue that a game is never complete since the Game Developers can arbitrarily add another expansion to it? lol? In your words: "Blizzard COULD make more xpacs for those games but they didn't. They could make 10 xpacs from BW and you wouldn't know at which point is when the game is complete. "Then by your definition anything "completed" would never be complete?
My point is they could always make more xpacs if they want. They moved on from D2 and BW wasn't because the game were complete in the sense that they couldn't improve it further but because they are done with it and wanted to make other things. You seriously don't they couldn't do more to improve BW and D2?
They set the plan for SC2 to be trilogy and it mostly means story. It doesn't really mean they will keep adding more and more units because they planed all those units. Nonoe could ever plan multiplayer in StarCraft.
Unit set in SC2 is large enough already at this point. If you think they are holding back units then why the hell they wanted to remove Thor and Carrier? The fact is what xpac will bring is what they think the game need in order to improve not the units they planned. If it's like what you said then SC2 must have less units than BW because Blizz is holding back right? It doesn't. In LotV, they may remove units that they think are bad and add new one that they make by learning from history of HotS. This is how it works.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/05/31/starcraft-2-legacy-of-the-void-could-have-less-units-than-heart-of-the-swarm/
This interview shows that they do things step by step. They started working on LotV when HotS is finished. They didn't really plan everthing.
|
On September 07 2013 03:00 saddaromma wrote:
OP has a good point. Who would want to watch or play same game over and over again?
Making little changes and trying to keep the game "as it is" will kill the game eventually.
You have no idea how much the meta-game of a good RTS evolves do you? Brood war was untouched for YEARS and the meta-game went through HUGE changes. Look at Zerg pre-Savior and post Savior. Tell me the game died because the games were the same over and over again.
Changes are all about perfect balance, making changes over time just to fuck up with the meta can work in a Moba since "balance" is easy to achieve, in game power is based on the mechanics of the player who can last hit and utilize their hero's abilities properly. As long as a hero doesn't have something that's obviously broken, developers have a lot of freedom to play around with stats and such and still have a balanced game. Just look at LoL where they can easily release new champs or re-make old ones without touching overall balance as well.
That's because in a Moba, everyone is playing with roughly the same tools. Same items are available for everyone, everyone gets the same amount of gold for creeps and for kills, all heroes are good in some roles and bad at others.
People look at Mobas and say "look how balanced the game is" and don't realize that an RTS doesn't work the same way at all, especially NOT an RTS like SC2 where all three races are fundamentally different.
That's why I really dislike the general idea of the thread.
|
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.
Plansix, I think you and I have disagreed about things in the past, though I might not have been vocal about them so you would have had no idea. But I think this bolded quote is something that people simply disregard, which is extremely frustrating so thank you for bringing it up.
Give them all the shit you want, but I think it's important that people stop using terms like "Blizzard sucks" or "Blizzard doesn't know how to balance games" because they have done things that most developers simply wouldn't. They could have created their game, updated it for 6 months and then moved on to the next xpak or new game. To assume that they are not putting forth a reasonable attempt at addressing issues with the game. And it's also important to recognize that for all the doom and gloom that some of you spit regarding the game, it's still wildly popular. A game doesn't have to have LoL's numbers to be a success, and for a game where they're likely getting extremely little in additional revenue from the sales themselves, they're putting in a lot of work.
|
Blizzard invented that buff the weak class style system to mix up the game and I hate them for bringing that to the market lol. It is nice for casuals, but I want to achieve true mastery, not learn everything new every 2 month.
That being said Dota and LoL have one constant thing that can be mastered and this is the map. But for a RTS it is better to keep the units stable and mix up the map and not the other way round like a rpg style game should do it.
Bio getting boring ? make the mechiest map you can do, every race can use maps like this now to some extend. Oh wait people hate maps that are not standard and pros avoid them like a disease, maybe work on that point.
At the end maps should make underused units work if that is not possible, then Blizzard should tweak the unit. (as it means the unit doesn't work at all) But one issue is that some units are treated like non standard maps and are not used on purpose despite being good or the only answer, because it would make you have to work harder.
I mean that mentality messed up WoL afterall.
|
On September 07 2013 04:33 FeyFey wrote:
Blizzard invented that buff the weak class style system to mix up the game and I hate them for bringing that to the market lol. It is nice for casuals, but I want to achieve true mastery, not learn everything new every 2 month.
That being said Dota and LoL have one constant thing that can be mastered and this is the map. But for a RTS it is better to keep the units stable and mix up the map and not the other way round like a rpg style game should do it.
Bio getting boring ? make the mechiest map you can do, every race can use maps like this now to some extend. Oh wait people hate maps that are not standard and pros avoid them like a disease, maybe work on that point.
At the end maps should make underused units work if that is not possible, then Blizzard should tweak the unit. (as it means the unit doesn't work at all) But one issue is that some units are treated like non standard maps and are not used on purpose despite being good or the only answer, because it would make you have to work harder.
I mean that mentality messed up WoL afterall.
Yeah, don't get me started about professional players and their unless bitching about new maps. Every map that is even mildly interesting gets removed from all event because pros don't want to practice on it or don't like that they can't take a 13 minute third. Everyone wants the standard, free three bases with no ability to pressure or anything interesting. And no chokes or islands, ever.
Seriously every time a new map set comes out, the pro's are asked if they like it and they always say "well that map is vetoed every time, to easy to all in". And we wonder why the game gets stale at points.
|
On September 07 2013 04:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 04:33 FeyFey wrote:
Blizzard invented that buff the weak class style system to mix up the game and I hate them for bringing that to the market lol. It is nice for casuals, but I want to achieve true mastery, not learn everything new every 2 month.
That being said Dota and LoL have one constant thing that can be mastered and this is the map. But for a RTS it is better to keep the units stable and mix up the map and not the other way round like a rpg style game should do it.
Bio getting boring ? make the mechiest map you can do, every race can use maps like this now to some extend. Oh wait people hate maps that are not standard and pros avoid them like a disease, maybe work on that point.
At the end maps should make underused units work if that is not possible, then Blizzard should tweak the unit. (as it means the unit doesn't work at all) But one issue is that some units are treated like non standard maps and are not used on purpose despite being good or the only answer, because it would make you have to work harder.
I mean that mentality messed up WoL afterall. Yeah, don't get me started about professional players and their unless bitching about new maps. Every map that is even mildly interesting gets removed from all event because pros don't want to practice on it or don't like that they can't take a 13 minute third. Everyone wants the standard, free three bases with no ability to pressure or anything interesting. And no chokes or islands, ever. Seriously every time a new map set comes out, the pro's are asked if they like it and they always say "well that map is vetoed every time, to easy to all in". And we wonder why the game gets stale at points.
Because all-ins are boring; did you see GSL's TvZs today? They were amazing! On standard maps.
:/
So your point I don't get it.
|
Apparently people don't like the existence of a standard strategy.
|
On September 07 2013 04:47 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 04:40 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 04:33 FeyFey wrote:
Blizzard invented that buff the weak class style system to mix up the game and I hate them for bringing that to the market lol. It is nice for casuals, but I want to achieve true mastery, not learn everything new every 2 month.
That being said Dota and LoL have one constant thing that can be mastered and this is the map. But for a RTS it is better to keep the units stable and mix up the map and not the other way round like a rpg style game should do it.
Bio getting boring ? make the mechiest map you can do, every race can use maps like this now to some extend. Oh wait people hate maps that are not standard and pros avoid them like a disease, maybe work on that point.
At the end maps should make underused units work if that is not possible, then Blizzard should tweak the unit. (as it means the unit doesn't work at all) But one issue is that some units are treated like non standard maps and are not used on purpose despite being good or the only answer, because it would make you have to work harder.
I mean that mentality messed up WoL afterall. Yeah, don't get me started about professional players and their unless bitching about new maps. Every map that is even mildly interesting gets removed from all event because pros don't want to practice on it or don't like that they can't take a 13 minute third. Everyone wants the standard, free three bases with no ability to pressure or anything interesting. And no chokes or islands, ever. Seriously every time a new map set comes out, the pro's are asked if they like it and they always say "well that map is vetoed every time, to easy to all in". And we wonder why the game gets stale at points. Because all-ins are boring; did you see GSL's TvZs today? They were amazing! On standard maps. :/ So your point I don't get it.
No I did not see the GSL today, I was getting ready for work. My point is that non-standard maps encourage interesting play styles and more diverse unit usage. And a couple great games does not disprove the point that professional players are very resistant to maps that don't let them use their standard play styles and builds.
And all ins are awesome and bad ass. MVP loves them in his best of 7s. The best SC2 players have all options under their belt.
|
Blizzard should stop nerfing units into oblivion simply because people come up with a new way of using them. They should let players figure out counters - and if a time arrives when this appears to be impossible, then gently adjust the units (or their counter) so that the unit is still viable. As it stands now, they nerf so hard that a unit is shelved and virtually ignored from that point on.
They should also do something to expand the game play beyond the "mass a huge army and push!" or "timing attack, go!" stasis that it seems to be stuck in now.
I was a huge BW fan, played it since release, as well as SC2 - and if there's one caveat I have always had with SC2 is that is just seems "flat" compared to BW with regard to the above. I know harass exists, but it seems largely to be more of a nuisance than a damage dealer - and the response to harass is usually "turtle harder (defend better), mass bigger, and punish with a push."
That's just my two cents.
|
On September 07 2013 04:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 04:47 Incognoto wrote:On September 07 2013 04:40 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 04:33 FeyFey wrote:
Blizzard invented that buff the weak class style system to mix up the game and I hate them for bringing that to the market lol. It is nice for casuals, but I want to achieve true mastery, not learn everything new every 2 month.
That being said Dota and LoL have one constant thing that can be mastered and this is the map. But for a RTS it is better to keep the units stable and mix up the map and not the other way round like a rpg style game should do it.
Bio getting boring ? make the mechiest map you can do, every race can use maps like this now to some extend. Oh wait people hate maps that are not standard and pros avoid them like a disease, maybe work on that point.
At the end maps should make underused units work if that is not possible, then Blizzard should tweak the unit. (as it means the unit doesn't work at all) But one issue is that some units are treated like non standard maps and are not used on purpose despite being good or the only answer, because it would make you have to work harder.
I mean that mentality messed up WoL afterall. Yeah, don't get me started about professional players and their unless bitching about new maps. Every map that is even mildly interesting gets removed from all event because pros don't want to practice on it or don't like that they can't take a 13 minute third. Everyone wants the standard, free three bases with no ability to pressure or anything interesting. And no chokes or islands, ever. Seriously every time a new map set comes out, the pro's are asked if they like it and they always say "well that map is vetoed every time, to easy to all in". And we wonder why the game gets stale at points. Because all-ins are boring; did you see GSL's TvZs today? They were amazing! On standard maps. :/ So your point I don't get it. No I did not see the GSL today, I was getting ready for work. My point is that non-standard maps encourage interesting play styles and more diverse unit usage. And a couple great games does not disprove the point that professional players are very resistant to maps that don't let them use their standard play styles and builds. And all ins are awesome and bad ass. MVP loves them in his best of 7s. The best SC2 players have all options under their belt.
All-ins have their place in series because a player can whip them out at any moment. There's a surprise factor and mind games in that. If you have maps where all-ins work especially well then you take out the surprise/mind-game factor that makes all-ins interesting.
What do you mean by interesting play styles anyway? Since when is back & forth macro games where two players are truly playing manly Starcraft boring? Cheesy wins can be fun and all but they're never as good as solid, evenly matched games.
|
I think the biggest reason why Dota games are more popular than Sc2 is not really due to balance decisions, but because they are fairly casual-friendly games. They can both be played competitively, but also support a healthy casual playerbase with lots of players.
SC2 is all about competitive 1v1, team games are fun but they most likely won't be your primary attraction if you are interested in the game as a whole (watching tournaments, following fav. players etc.) Things like ladder ranks and ladder placements put extra stress on someone who don't have more than one maybe two hours a day to spend on video games. While you can play Dota 2 with your friends in a fairly relaxed, cool and funny manner, 1v1 is a stressing and daunting experience. Now, 5v5 Captain's Mode in Dota is quite competitive and can be really stressfull too, but the fact that you are part of a team of 5 means the burden is distributed between the players. In SC2 it is you, only YOU carrying the burden of your decisions. This pretty much means unless you really, really enjoy the high competitive nature of the game, the game will burn you out eventually.
I haven't watched the game in more than a year so I can't really provide feedback on balance, however Terran seems fairly strong and Zerg seems weak from the comments I read. Balance is certainly important, but in my opinion it's not the core issue why the interest towards the game is in decline.
|
On September 07 2013 04:59 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 04:53 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 04:47 Incognoto wrote:On September 07 2013 04:40 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 04:33 FeyFey wrote:
Blizzard invented that buff the weak class style system to mix up the game and I hate them for bringing that to the market lol. It is nice for casuals, but I want to achieve true mastery, not learn everything new every 2 month.
That being said Dota and LoL have one constant thing that can be mastered and this is the map. But for a RTS it is better to keep the units stable and mix up the map and not the other way round like a rpg style game should do it.
Bio getting boring ? make the mechiest map you can do, every race can use maps like this now to some extend. Oh wait people hate maps that are not standard and pros avoid them like a disease, maybe work on that point.
At the end maps should make underused units work if that is not possible, then Blizzard should tweak the unit. (as it means the unit doesn't work at all) But one issue is that some units are treated like non standard maps and are not used on purpose despite being good or the only answer, because it would make you have to work harder.
I mean that mentality messed up WoL afterall. Yeah, don't get me started about professional players and their unless bitching about new maps. Every map that is even mildly interesting gets removed from all event because pros don't want to practice on it or don't like that they can't take a 13 minute third. Everyone wants the standard, free three bases with no ability to pressure or anything interesting. And no chokes or islands, ever. Seriously every time a new map set comes out, the pro's are asked if they like it and they always say "well that map is vetoed every time, to easy to all in". And we wonder why the game gets stale at points. Because all-ins are boring; did you see GSL's TvZs today? They were amazing! On standard maps. :/ So your point I don't get it. No I did not see the GSL today, I was getting ready for work. My point is that non-standard maps encourage interesting play styles and more diverse unit usage. And a couple great games does not disprove the point that professional players are very resistant to maps that don't let them use their standard play styles and builds. And all ins are awesome and bad ass. MVP loves them in his best of 7s. The best SC2 players have all options under their belt. All-ins have their place in series because a player can whip them out at any moment. There's a surprise factor and mind games in that. If you have maps where all-ins work especially well then you take out the surprise/mind-game factor that makes all-ins interesting. What do you mean by interesting play styles anyway? Since when is back & forth macro games where two players are truly playing manly Starcraft boring? Cheesy wins can be fun and all but they're never as good as solid, evenly matched games.
My point is we need both and maps that promote different styles are good. I like any map that does not promote the fast three base style and requires people get out on the map and mix it up. No matter which why we slice it, SC2 was a lot of fun on Xel naga caverns when we had to fight for that third base. That map wasn’t the best balanced map, but is was pretty fun to play on. We don’t need to go back to Steps of War, but mixing it up a bit is good and telling players “this map is kinda nuts, make a good build for it and impress us” isn’t bad either.
|
The problem with the comparison is the difference in design and metagame.
In a MOBA you can make a set of heroes outright mor powerful than a specific hero knowing that hero is better than mother hero. Over the course of this web of hero A > Hero B > hero C > hero A, a balance is reached.
But in sc2, we can't have a balance of T>Z>P>T and expect things to be balanced.
Now I know you're comparing heroes/champions to units and not races. But the fundamental nature of an RTS requires certain standards to be met.
Baseline units > support units > tactical units > baseline units
This is easy enough to resolve in a symmetrical RTS game like Warcraft 2, Dune, etc... But in a multi race game where the whole point is that each race works differently, this is harder to tackle.
MOBAs are symmetrical. Same gear, same heroes, same everything. Both teams have equal access to all units. This means you can balance stats and skills in the abstract. Starcraft can't be handled like that since something that fixes TvZ does not necessarily fix TvT, or TvP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
