|
Based on a lot of comments I see, I think a lot of people completely misunderstand what my central idea is here. It would be nice if some people read before commenting. My central idea is to include buff/nerfs and a modest rework on a unused unit on a balance testing patch. I think Blizzard is definitely right to focus on modest balancing, but I mentioned why that method alone is not enough to keep the scene growing.
Also, a lot of people are jumping the gun too quickly and basically repeat my counterarguments. Why not read what my responses to those concerns were and comment how valid or invalid my rebuttals are?
I never stated how Blizzard should be exactly like LoL because that would definitely ruin the game. When I used to play LoL, I actually disliked how new champions were constantly added because a lot of the champions broke the metagame. The game was fun to me because of how much utility/freedom I had when I played the game. As a result, I only played LoL, not watch it.
DoTA is my second go-to game, Starcraft being the first. In the proscene, DoTA scene definitely surrounds itself with a group of heroes such as Visage, Puck, Antage, etc. However, we do see a mix up in team composition. DoTA definitely has its own problems like Admirmal Bulldog's rather overuse of Lone Druid, which lead to an enormous bounty increase for the bear. Also, it would be definitely ricidulous to rework every unit SIMULTANEOUSLY because that wouldn't give the metagame enough time to stabilize.
However, I am stating how Blizzard should understand that diversity of gameplay has as much merit as balancing, so it should take 1 page from the massive MOBA book, which specializes specifically on metagame change-up and increasing viewership. In other words, CAREFULLY and CONSERVATIVELY apply the MOBA mindset. I believe Blizzard can apply the rework correctly, seeing how a lot of units such as the mothership, void ray, and mutalisk have turned into quick great units and the TvT and ZvP (to a certain extent) has become a balanced AND diversified match up.
|
My problem with Blizzards approach to balance is that they only seem to look on winrates. If TvP is 50% because pulling all scvs gives you a 50% chance to win they wont do anything. And that is clearly wrong. It is becoming so boring. Only looking at matchups when the winrates are off leads to this stale meta game. Moreover, with the MSC in Hots, there is not even the possiblity to cheese in TvP, and because the Protosses are fine with the lategame, they dont cheese, too.
To truly balance a game, you have to watch and play it yourself... and I dont think they are really doing that. Otherwise, they would have added chatchannels, better observer functions, better replay options and all that by themselves, and not after YEARS.
|
On September 07 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 04:59 Incognoto wrote: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.
That map wasn’t the best balanced map
^That's basically why there's no modern day equivalent of the Xel Naga map. You can have a pro scene with even the slightest imbalance.
I agree that map diversity is nice. The way the game is designed however, means that there'll be one strongest style which is go-to in each match up, maps can only serve to vary different openings and such (mech sucks atm). Also maps need to take protoss forcefields into account which severly limits map diversity. look at star station.
|
On September 07 2013 05:12 graNite wrote:
My problem with Blizzards approach to balance is that they only seem to look on winrates. If TvP is 50% because pulling all scvs gives you a 50% chance to win they wont do anything. And that is clearly wrong. It is becoming so boring. Only looking at matchups when the winrates are off leads to this stale meta game. Moreover, with the MSC in Hots, there is not even the possiblity to cheese in TvP, and because the Protosses are fine with the lategame, they dont cheese, too.
To truly balance a game, you have to watch and play it yourself... and I dont think they are really doing that. Otherwise, they would have added chatchannels, better observer functions, better replay options and all that by themselves, and not after YEARS.
I have not seen any evidence that they only look at win rates and if Terrans pulled SCVs in every game, Blizzard would likely change something up. Blizzard does cite win rates a lot, but there is nothing that confirms that it is the only information or evidence they use for balance. And they do play SC2, even DB has tweeted a number of times about laddering and being called a noob by other players when he wins.
|
On September 07 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 04:59 Incognoto wrote: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.
Xel'naga Caverns would be a lot less fun to play on if it were reintroduced today. People are way better than they were back then, and most of the flaws in XNC were to do with strategies/tactics that, today, have been refined to an insane level. Can you imagine FFEing against a competent Zerg of 2013 on XNC? It would be a joke.
The problem with 3base maps is that 3basing is actually just the best style. Every macro strategy is practically centered around "how can I get three bases and max out?" Making the bases harder to take doesn't promote new macro strategies; it promotes all-ins, because you can't really take a super late third as Protoss against Zerg unless you do something to mess with the Zerg economy in a serious way. The only reliable way to do that is to all-in. All pressures are easy to counter, unreliable, or subject to numerous nerfs because they're "guaranteed" damage.
It's not like you could design a map with impossible-to-take thirds and expect brilliant games. It'd just be all-ins in most matchups, because not having a third base impacts one's economy negatively over time in an exponential fashion i.e. it just gets worse and worse and even worse. The only way to promote diverse gameplay and move away from this boring 3base turtle garbage would be to revive or create some aggressive strategies that are compatible with macro and which work pretty much all the time. The old Hellion openers in TvZ (pre Queen buff) were an example of this.
|
On September 07 2013 05:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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.
Very true. This is the type of comment I like because it illustrates a point I missed out on. Business responses work well too!
That is why I am stating for Blizzard to add a simple rework onto a simple balance TEST patch. MOBA balance can be a bit more liberal with the tweaks because of the plethora of items. However, at the same time, Blizzard can use occasional use of reworks like it did during the Beta. Now, I might be optimistic, but seeing HoTs Beta has somewhat revamped SC2 makes me an advocate for reworking.
Basically, it's a debate between potential utter destruction of the metagame and a possible revolutionized metagame.
|
I do agree Blizzard should promote some more diversity in certain matchups by buffing underused playstyles. Mech in TvP is the obvious example, where Terran have been using basically the same composition bio+vikings comp since the WoL beta. One of the goals of HotS was to make two underused tech trees viable: stargate, and factory. They succeed with Stargate, and as a result PvP and PvZ are much better matchups than in WoL. But the main change for mech from WoL to HotS is that mines replaced tanks in TvZ, which doesn't really seem like much of an improvement.
However, beyond that very basic point, I don't think comparing free MOBAs to an RTS is really that useful.
|
On September 07 2013 05:16 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 04:59 Incognoto wrote: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. Xel'naga Caverns would be a lot less fun to play on if it were reintroduced today. People are way better than they were back then, and most of the flaws in XNC were to do with strategies/tactics that, today, have been refined to an insane level. Can you imagine FFEing against a competent Zerg of 2013 on XNC? It would be a joke. The problem with 3base maps is that 3basing is actually just the best style. Every macro strategy is practically centered around "how can I get three bases and max out?" Making the bases harder to take doesn't promote new macro strategies; it promotes all-ins, because you can't really take a super late third as Protoss against Zerg unless you do something to mess with the Zerg economy in a serious way. The only reliable way to do that is to all-in. All pressures are easy to counter, unreliable, or subject to numerous nerfs because they're "guaranteed" damage. It's not like you could design a map with impossible-to-take thirds and expect brilliant games. It'd just be all-ins in most matchups, because not having a third base impacts one's economy negatively over time in an exponential fashion i.e. it just gets worse and worse and even worse. The only way to promote diverse gameplay and move away from this boring 3base turtle garbage would be to revive or create some aggressive strategies that are compatible with macro and which work pretty much all the time. The old Hellion openers in TvZ (pre Queen buff) were an example of this.
It promotes all ins at first, but then people figure out how to hold them and we move forward. The point is that a lot of players are totally unwilling to go through that process and simply want to have the same options in every single match. They want the same three base timings on every things map and that leads to boring gameplay.
Its not binary, like a lot of people are claiming. There is a middle of the road where bases we need to fight over that third base.
PS. I agree that XNC would be terrible if they released it right now and we would all be very sad. But it was fun at the time and maps that let you try new things are interesting.
|
On September 07 2013 05:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 05:16 Shiori wrote:On September 07 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 04:59 Incognoto wrote: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. Xel'naga Caverns would be a lot less fun to play on if it were reintroduced today. People are way better than they were back then, and most of the flaws in XNC were to do with strategies/tactics that, today, have been refined to an insane level. Can you imagine FFEing against a competent Zerg of 2013 on XNC? It would be a joke. The problem with 3base maps is that 3basing is actually just the best style. Every macro strategy is practically centered around "how can I get three bases and max out?" Making the bases harder to take doesn't promote new macro strategies; it promotes all-ins, because you can't really take a super late third as Protoss against Zerg unless you do something to mess with the Zerg economy in a serious way. The only reliable way to do that is to all-in. All pressures are easy to counter, unreliable, or subject to numerous nerfs because they're "guaranteed" damage. It's not like you could design a map with impossible-to-take thirds and expect brilliant games. It'd just be all-ins in most matchups, because not having a third base impacts one's economy negatively over time in an exponential fashion i.e. it just gets worse and worse and even worse. The only way to promote diverse gameplay and move away from this boring 3base turtle garbage would be to revive or create some aggressive strategies that are compatible with macro and which work pretty much all the time. The old Hellion openers in TvZ (pre Queen buff) were an example of this. It promotes all ins at first, but then people figure out how to hold them and we move forward. The point is that a lot of players are totally unwilling to go through that process and simply want to have the same options in every single match. They want the same three base timings on every things map and that leads to boring gameplay. Its not binary, like a lot of people are claiming. There is a middle of the road where bases we need to fight over that third base. PS. I agree that XNC would be terrible if they released it right now and we would all be very sad. But it was fun at the time and maps that let you try new things are interesting.
I don't think 2011 maps are good either because they do not fit with the current metagame. Instead, why not occasionally bring back Cloud Kingdom? Basically, recycle some of the VERY GOOD maps.
|
On September 07 2013 05:16 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 04:59 Incognoto wrote: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. Xel'naga Caverns would be a lot less fun to play on if it were reintroduced today. People are way better than they were back then, and most of the flaws in XNC were to do with strategies/tactics that, today, have been refined to an insane level. Can you imagine FFEing against a competent Zerg of 2013 on XNC? It would be a joke. The problem with 3base maps is that 3basing is actually just the best style. Every macro strategy is practically centered around "how can I get three bases and max out?" Making the bases harder to take doesn't promote new macro strategies; it promotes all-ins, because you can't really take a super late third as Protoss against Zerg unless you do something to mess with the Zerg economy in a serious way. The only reliable way to do that is to all-in. All pressures are easy to counter, unreliable, or subject to numerous nerfs because they're "guaranteed" damage. It's not like you could design a map with impossible-to-take thirds and expect brilliant games. It'd just be all-ins in most matchups, because not having a third base impacts one's economy negatively over time in an exponential fashion i.e. it just gets worse and worse and even worse. The only way to promote diverse gameplay and move away from this boring 3base turtle garbage would be to revive or create some aggressive strategies that are compatible with macro and which work pretty much all the time. The old Hellion openers in TvZ (pre Queen buff) were an example of this.
Granular comments such as "how would toss FFE on XNC" is meaningless because defensive buffs are easily added. Cheaper mothership core, faster gateway build time, shield battery, etc... The point about bringing back old maps like XNC is the transparency of map objectives. It was fun watching players fight over the gold in the middle. It was fun watching players poke back and forth at the watchtower on scrap station. As viewers, we associated maps with terrain features to fight for. The current maps today are interchangeable, and that's boring. What planxis is asking for is terrain with valuable hotspots that *force* engagements, that force player's hands.
|
It's not like you could design a map with impossible-to-take thirds and expect brilliant games. It'd just be all-ins in most matchups, because not having a third base impacts one's economy negatively over time in an exponential fashion i.e. it just gets worse and worse and even worse. The only way to promote diverse gameplay and move away from this boring 3base turtle garbage would be to revive or create some aggressive strategies that are compatible with macro and which work pretty much all the time. The old Hellion openers in TvZ (pre Queen buff) were an example of this.
The Warp Prism buff in HotS was a good example of a buff to harass and aggression that meshes with macro play. Even extremely macro-oriented Protoss like Rain and First nearly always get Warp Prisms and stay active with them throughout the game.
|
On September 07 2013 05:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 05:16 Shiori wrote:On September 07 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2013 04:59 Incognoto wrote: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. Xel'naga Caverns would be a lot less fun to play on if it were reintroduced today. People are way better than they were back then, and most of the flaws in XNC were to do with strategies/tactics that, today, have been refined to an insane level. Can you imagine FFEing against a competent Zerg of 2013 on XNC? It would be a joke. The problem with 3base maps is that 3basing is actually just the best style. Every macro strategy is practically centered around "how can I get three bases and max out?" Making the bases harder to take doesn't promote new macro strategies; it promotes all-ins, because you can't really take a super late third as Protoss against Zerg unless you do something to mess with the Zerg economy in a serious way. The only reliable way to do that is to all-in. All pressures are easy to counter, unreliable, or subject to numerous nerfs because they're "guaranteed" damage. It's not like you could design a map with impossible-to-take thirds and expect brilliant games. It'd just be all-ins in most matchups, because not having a third base impacts one's economy negatively over time in an exponential fashion i.e. it just gets worse and worse and even worse. The only way to promote diverse gameplay and move away from this boring 3base turtle garbage would be to revive or create some aggressive strategies that are compatible with macro and which work pretty much all the time. The old Hellion openers in TvZ (pre Queen buff) were an example of this. Granular comments such as "how would toss FFE on XNC" is meaningless because defensive buffs are easily added. Cheaper mothership core, faster gateway build time, shield battery, etc... The point about bringing back old maps like XNC is the transparency of map objectives. It was fun watching players fight over the gold in the middle. It was fun watching players poke back and forth at the watchtower on scrap station. As viewers, we associated maps with terrain features to fight for. The current maps today are interchangeable, and that's boring. What planxis is asking for is terrain with valuable hotspots that *force* engagements, that force player's hands.
That is the point. There is merit to amazing split map games that end up with 8 bases. But it is also nice to force the players to engage before they reach that point and give them something to fight over. You had stuff to fight over in XNC. Its was kinda fucked up and imbalanced stuff, but we fought over it non the less.
And we can have both in a Bo5 and it could be dope.
|
blizzard is already do some of the things ur talking about thats why lately we have been having the balance updates with like just overseer speed increasing and other small minute changes as opposed to the old massive patchs that changed 20+ things
|
On September 07 2013 05:32 psychotics wrote:
blizzard is already do some of the things ur talking about thats why lately we have been having the balance updates with like just overseer speed increasing and other small minute changes as opposed to the old massive patchs that changed 20+ things
Yeah, it definitely has (although it has focused more on fixing the units). I know Blizzard is currently reworking mech, and I am saying that this is the right approach but would like to see how other units such as carriers and battlecruisers can come into play.
Or to make a bit of stretch (though may be stupid) is to improve ground vikings LOL
|
On September 07 2013 05:45 hansonslee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 05:32 psychotics wrote:
blizzard is already do some of the things ur talking about thats why lately we have been having the balance updates with like just overseer speed increasing and other small minute changes as opposed to the old massive patchs that changed 20+ things Yeah, it definitely has (although it has focused more on fixing the units). I know Blizzard is currently reworking mech, and I am saying that this is the right approach but would like to see how other units such as carriers and battlecruisers can come into play. Or to make a bit of stretch (though may be stupid) is to improve ground vikings LOL
Ya make the ground viking radius smaller so you can have a higher density of dps and allow them to be made in ground mode just like hellbats (why not?  )
|
On September 07 2013 05:45 hansonslee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 05:32 psychotics wrote:
blizzard is already do some of the things ur talking about thats why lately we have been having the balance updates with like just overseer speed increasing and other small minute changes as opposed to the old massive patchs that changed 20+ things Yeah, it definitely has (although it has focused more on fixing the units). I know Blizzard is currently reworking mech, and I am saying that this is the right approach but would like to see how other units such as carriers and battlecruisers can come into play. Or to make a bit of stretch (though may be stupid) is to improve ground vikings LOL
The problem with Blizzard's attempt to fix mech is their lack of desire to give it identity.
Seige Tanks are great, but Thors feel like fat Marauders and Hellbats look like slow marines without stim being healed by medivacs.
What advantage does making thors have over making marauders?
What advantage does making Hellbats have over making Marines?
What advantage does making Siege Tanks have over making Widow Mines?
Unless they provide something different, buffing them won't make people choose to play them.
carriers and battlecruisers have an easy fix--replace Vikings with Goliaths and replace Corruptors with zergy goliaths. Right now, its pointless to make capital ships because their counters outrun them and outmaneuver them. Jangbi carriers vs goliaths were fun to watch because the carriers could run away and hit a different part of the map. It created a game within the game feel where the capital ships could escape their counters, but their counters couldn't preemptively be present.
In BW Zerg had Scourge--but you would never have a pack of scourge just sitting around en mass like you do corruptors, because when there was nothing to hit you wasted your gas. Corruptors can eventually transition into broodlords so it never feels wasted to make them. This gave capital ships an opening where they could kill a base, then retreat before the scourge could arrive to kill them.
|
On September 07 2013 05:09 hansonslee wrote:
However, I am stating how Blizzard should understand that diversity of gameplay has as much merit as balancing, so it should take 1 page from the massive MOBA book, which specializes specifically on metagame change-up and increasing viewership. In other words, CAREFULLY and CONSERVATIVELY apply the MOBA mindset. I believe Blizzard can apply the rework correctly, seeing how a lot of units such as the mothership, void ray, and mutalisk have turned into quick great units and the TvT and ZvP (to a certain extent) has become a balanced AND diversified match up.
I'm pretty sure that Blizzard understands that diversity is good. I really doubt they have to be "taught" this by MOBAs. They also understand that SC2 balance is a much more fragile and unforgiving creature than MOBA balance, hence their conservative approach to balance.
That all said, I do hope that Blizzard takes some risks and shakes things up. Personally, I dislike the fact that terran basically has 1 choice for TvZ and TvP.
|
On September 07 2013 06:19 Smackzilla wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 05:09 hansonslee wrote:
However, I am stating how Blizzard should understand that diversity of gameplay has as much merit as balancing, so it should take 1 page from the massive MOBA book, which specializes specifically on metagame change-up and increasing viewership. In other words, CAREFULLY and CONSERVATIVELY apply the MOBA mindset. I believe Blizzard can apply the rework correctly, seeing how a lot of units such as the mothership, void ray, and mutalisk have turned into quick great units and the TvT and ZvP (to a certain extent) has become a balanced AND diversified match up. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard understands that diversity is good. I really doubt they have to be "taught" this by MOBAs. They also understand that SC2 balance is a much more fragile and unforgiving creature than MOBA balance, hence their conservative approach to balance. That all said, I do hope that Blizzard takes some risks and shakes things up. Personally, I dislike the fact that terran basically has 1 choice for TvZ and TvP.
I think how the seeing how the publishers attempt to balance competitive games and what route is more effective at making the game more diverse and exciting can be insightful. There are very few in Dota 2 who doesn't look forward to a new balance patch to see what is changed up and buffed. The idea of buffing encourages more diverse game play seems to have worked out for Dota 2 and I think WoL taught us that nerfing units only causes game play to become muted and less int resting.
|
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? A cake is never finished, cause the baker could always put 1 more gram of cream on it, right?
YEAH MAN! FIGHT THE POWER! Blizzard is nothing but a bunch of money grubbing bitches! We need to burn this motha dooooooooooown!
No but seriously, If they wanted to make starcraft 20 expansions long, and kept giving me what I consider interesting story, I'm OK with that. WoL was complete. HotS was complete. Starcraft was complete. Warcraft 2 was complete. Tides of Darkness was complete. Brood war was complete. Like the balance or content or not, these are complete, whole games that standalone with or without their expansion packs. A marine is complete and useful even if he doesn't have his combat shields. The combat shields add to the usefulness (or fun in the case of the analogy) of the unit, nothing more.
What I don't understand is why people are still arguing about this years after it was decided. There's nothing to argue over, this is what they're doing. If you don't like it you don't have to play the game, but if you think your rage is going to change their minds you're sorely mistaken.
|
On September 07 2013 06:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2013 06:19 Smackzilla wrote:On September 07 2013 05:09 hansonslee wrote:
However, I am stating how Blizzard should understand that diversity of gameplay has as much merit as balancing, so it should take 1 page from the massive MOBA book, which specializes specifically on metagame change-up and increasing viewership. In other words, CAREFULLY and CONSERVATIVELY apply the MOBA mindset. I believe Blizzard can apply the rework correctly, seeing how a lot of units such as the mothership, void ray, and mutalisk have turned into quick great units and the TvT and ZvP (to a certain extent) has become a balanced AND diversified match up. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard understands that diversity is good. I really doubt they have to be "taught" this by MOBAs. They also understand that SC2 balance is a much more fragile and unforgiving creature than MOBA balance, hence their conservative approach to balance. That all said, I do hope that Blizzard takes some risks and shakes things up. Personally, I dislike the fact that terran basically has 1 choice for TvZ and TvP. I think how the seeing how the publishers attempt to balance competitive games and what route is more effective at making the game more diverse and exciting can be insightful. There are very few in Dota 2 who doesn't look forward to a new balance patch to see what is changed up and buffed. The idea of buffing encourages more diverse game play seems to have worked out for Dota 2 and I think WoL taught us that nerfing units only causes game play to become muted and less int resting.
Anyone who has had to do the transition from the Urza Set the Masque Set in magic the gathering is greatly aware of this bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
