The History of Blizzard Balancing during the WoL era + Show Spoiler +
If anyone has followed the history of balance patches ever since Starcraft II beta, Blizzard never had a consistent method. First approach was to give severe nerfs to OP certain units such as void rays, broodlords, and siege tanks and provide extreme buffs to units such as the infestors and void rays, though void rays were still heavily underutilized during the WoL times. These methods have ultimately been deemed as a failure because of the constant deathball play and how many Zerg simply won with Broodlord/Infestor, seeing how the last WoL GSL has 4 zergs on the top 4.
Yummy!
The Definition of Reworking + Current State of Balancing: + Show Spoiler +
There is also another method called reworking, which consists of removing/adding new abilities or changing the design of the unit with a great mixture of buffs/nerfs. During the Heart of the Swarm Beta, Blizzard was willing to be creative and change the mold of several units such as Widow Mines, Void Rays, and Ultralisks (with its burrowing charge). Ever since the beta has ended, Blizzard has begun to mainly utilize modest buffs or incremental nerfs, which to avoid the consequences of making the game stale and imbalanced.
The good news is that Blizzard does show some care in their product and have learned from their mistakes. As we have seen from the viewership numbers and community responses, the Heart of Swarm was a success and made the game much more exciting with economic harassment opportunities and decreased amount of deathball compositions. In doing so, we can definitely hope that Blizzard will eventually design the product that will even rival its predecessor Brood War.
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: + Show Spoiler +
However, the community has begun to witness several glaring problems. In certain match ups specifically TvZ and TvP, it seems less diversity in terms of gameplay and composition. Most of the time, Terran is resorted to MMMM composition because it has been the most effective tool they have. Yes, other Terran players such as Bomber, the winner of WCS Season 2, have shown us some exciting builds. However, not every Terran can pull a Bomber because such builds situational (proxy reaper, hellion, and banshee & combat shield, + 1 marine openings) are extremely. As for TvP, with the exception of openings and all-ins, we pretty much see WoL 2.0 with the same composition (Protoss Deathball vs. MMMVG) and tactics (SCV all-in vs. building the “perfect” army).
A less brought, but equally important, is the great number of underutilized units such as carriers, battlecruisers, and thors. These units are either isolated in mirror match-ups or not used at all. Whenever we see unconventional builds by incorporating these units, the observers and casters get excited. However, as excited as they get, such tactics end up being a disappointed as the opponents do end up finding the appropriate counter or the build required perfect execution.
As an attempt to combat these problems, Blizzard should incorporate another method: reworking underutilized units. We have actually seen this method a lot more during the Beta. For example, mutalisks were given regeneration and a movement speed increase. This buff and addition of a passive had given mutalisks much more utility and placed mutalisks back into the metagame. As a result, zerg players have utilized mutalisks in every match-up for a variety of reasons. Though unproven in terms of its causation, the reworking of a variety of units has encouraged players to experiment and be excited about the game once more.
An example of a game that effectively utilizes reworking is DoTA. Unlike LoL, DoTA, which was made by Eul but then pioneered into the game at its present-state by the enigmatic IceFrog, is very conservative with its balance approach and shows a lot more similarities with Blizzard's approach. Instead of adding new heroes at a quarterly basis, DoTA has utilized a great number of modest buffs/nerfs/reworks to the heroes. Like Blizzard, DoTA buffs/nerfs were relatively modest with hero statistics, abilities, and damage. Despite this conservative approach, DoTA looked into how “useful” the heroes and items were in a team fight. Heroes were not just judged by how “strong” they were but how well they could be incorporated into the metagame. The addition of new items has given the players a greater amount of choices and approaches to the game.
One of the central themes that MOBA games extremely popular is the great amount of freedom players have. First, you have a wide variety of heroes and items to choose from. There are moments when one wants to try a different type of hero, which would have a very different playstyle and item build. Next, LoL, compared to DoTA, has its “casual-friendly” label by giving the player more options and freedom such as adding teleportation in a separate slot, which would allow the player to focus on building their hero instead of using money for the teleportation scrolls and reducing the punishment of doing poorly in the early game.
Now, SC2 definitely cannot be exactly like DoTA2/LoL because of it different genre. However, Blizzard can realize that MOBA games are fun to play AND watch because of the diversity, which is one of the main reasons. Thus, it would be nice, if SC2 focused not just on balance but also on diversity whenever there is a new patch. Implicitly, David Kim has championed ZvT as the epitome of success in terms of how “fun” the HoTS has become. Indeed, ZvT has been a fun match-up for a lot of SC2 observers. However, the game has become stale in terms of how linear the match-up has become. Compared to TvT or PvZ, ZvT, mainly suffers from a lack of diversity. Although the observer cannot predict the outcome of the game, he/she can easily predict what kind of build the Terran or Zerg will go without studying the details of the build.
Whenever balance is being issued, Blizzard should also include a rework onto underutilized units. A simple buff would actually be counterproductive because that might encourage proxy play and upset the metagame balance. Reworking a unit can include giving the underutilized units new abilities or adding a healthy mixture of nerfs and buffs. One success unit that has been successful from the reworking approach is the void ray. When Void Rays were given prismatic alignment, Protoss players now had much more freedom and ease with the application of the unit. In doing so, void rays have been an occasional integral part of the protoss composition with roles consisting but not limited toa high tech unit killer and a supportive role for the protoss army.
Reworking underutilized units can theoretically compel casual and competitive players alike to explore new and creative approaches to the game. In doing so, HoTS can be exciting for both players and viewers because there will be a greater amount of choices for the player. As seen from MOBA games, the ability to exercise more freedom and utility has been correlated with the popularity of the game. Ever game we play does not have to exhibit just minute differences but also an well manifested variation. When every game feels truly different, we are more likely to be more excited for the next game.
Now, the concerns for the addition of reworking may consist of how the approach can destabilize the metagame to the point of unpredictability or create a greater amount of uncertainty in analyzing the impact of the balance change. The biggest possible complaint is the genre difference between a RTS and MOBA game. Reworking, at its worst, can result in ruining the finished product. However, seeing how conservative Blizzard is, reworking under careful hands such those of IceFrog or Blizzard can produce different results without major side-effects. And if the rework was too catastrophic, Blizzard can find a new way to address that change. That’s the beauty of reworking, which has been practiced by DoTA (change in hero abilities and new items) and LoL (new champions). We introduce new avenues for the player. After extensive trials, designers can observe the fullest potential of the unit and make the appropriate tweaks to the unit.
The second point relates to a scientist’s approach. He/she wants to apply specific changes to analyze and make a conservative conclusion based on the changes. Blizzard, in some ways, follow this route when they steadily nerfed the hellbat. This method theoretically works because it can produce reasonable changes. However, this process is frustrating slow. Applying very specific variables is a lengthy process because it requires a lot of time to be tested. Next, once that step has been complete, the next step is to test another factor and simply rinse and repeat the process. ESports is becoming more of a commodity, which has little use for patience. Consumers don’t want to wait but instead want to be entertained a rather quickly basis. Although Blizzard should maintain this scientific approach, it should understand that being slow can make the casual viewers and players give up the game and result in the stagnation that SC2 currently exhibits.
For the final point, a different game genre absolutely does not mean that one genre can learn something from the other. For example, a stealth game such as Splinter Cell is nothing compared to an Adventure Game such as The Legend of Zelda. However, Splinter Cell has utilized the principle of exploration and exploitation, which is main focus of the Legend of Zelda. In the recent Splinter Cell game, Blacklist, there are multiple ways to approach towards the objective. As for the Legend of Zelda, Link has been placed in stealth and FPS scenarios. Both of them are completely different games, yet they incorporate similar elements, which add a greater amount of dimension.
Overall, SC2 is a beautiful game and continues to survive as the sole representative with the MOBA dominated world for multiple reasons. However, Blizzard should learn to incorporate certain element of MOBA approaches, which primarily focuses on reworking and granting players and observers more options. One option can utilize is reworking a heavily underused unit because this practice has been used in the Beta, which has been met with some success, and excite the SC2 community with new paths to take.
League of Legends does patches between seasons called “quality of life” patches, where they buff underused heroes and try to get them back into play. They don’t change or push out the current meta, but try to add in more factors by bring underused champions and items into use. Of course, after they do that, the game settles down to a new meta, but there is always this period of invention and creativity that comes with each of those patches. Dota 2 also has been patching in a similar fashion, trying to avoid nerfing heroes into the ground.
I feel SC2 could use this after the first WCS season. There is not reason to nerf dominant styles. Rather it would be more productive to buff units and buildings that are undersused in the current meta and try to get people to add them into the current match ups:
Thinks like:
Carriers Tempest Thors BC Tanks, Hellion transformation Nydus Broodlords(I know, but they have fallen off and they were pretty cool when there were like 3 of them) Banshees Reapers(yeah, I know, but I think their “jump down” animation could be made a bit snappier)
You don’t break anything that is working, you just push forward stuff that isn’t. It’s a better, more interesting and exciting way to balance.
great writeup on a very important topic imo, i really think blizzard should be more active about buffing underpowered and underused units
i really think this one reddit thread after release of hots where people asked blizzard to not change anything was bad in the long run. people at that time expected blizzard to mostly nerf units that seem too strong in order to balance which was mostly the case in wol. if blizzard used more reworking instead people would be excited about every upcoming patch whichallows people to explore new stuff, use previously unviable compositions and all in all sc2 would not be as stale as it is with this overly cautios approach blizzard is taking in hots.
Don't make expansions, just add buffs to underused or underpowered units and buildings (yes, think spore crawler buff) and add the content on a streamlined basis. Valve never catches us offguard by adding a ton of heroes (equate this to an expansion) and buffs/nerfs simultaneously. Instead, they add them over time and see how the changes affect the meta.
I applaud the effort you put into writing this, but in my opinion it's a completely pointless thread and discussion.
"Now, SC2 definitely cannot be exactly like DoTA2/LoL because of it different genre."
I'll even say that SC2 is a _completely_ different game that cannot be in any way compared to LoL/Dota/All-Stars.
We could very well be discussing what the SCII team can learn from WoW and Diablo teams, but that seems like a vicious circle, doesn't it?
PS. Some old units got reworked in HotS already and new options were added as well. Really not sure what the lesson here is supposed to be after all.
__ To the posts above: both games you brought up are f2p games, so they don't have any expansions. Also, I wonder how happy the pros would be to see the rules of a super tight game that SC2 is largely reworked every other patch. Even the smallest changes already bring a ton of complaints and riot (pun not intended).
I think your entire post overanalyzes a game that isn't even considered fully finished. Majority of these posts are thinking within what they believe is a long term goal of "oh a couple months down the line it should be stablized then its cool". You guys are failing to realize that LoTV is still to be released and with it multiple new things.
Now you need to then consider the following: Any changes done now will also have to possibly take into consideration what the devs have in store for LoTV (As it would be utterly stupid to not consider this then buff units up then when LOTV comes you realize you have a mess of overbuffed units with the inability to add anything cool). For those of you that believe blizzard does not think that far ahead, you should take into consideration that a lot of stuff was present in betas but then taken out for later use (Also evident in SC and SCBW with lurkers and such in the earlier betas of the first SC even (correct me If I am wrong)).
What I have to say is, the people over analyzing the wrong areas and posting beatufiul posts like this, maybe should be less shortsighted and spend more time analyzing.
Although I agree with some of the points made. I think it is some what unfair to compare SC2 to DoTA. The way the 2 games work is so different that the difficulty to balance to totally different. Look at how a +2 range on a defensive unit changed the whole metagame (BL-infestor) in TvZ. RTS is all about resources and the choice between eco/army/tech. Even giving a slight buff to one of these in the early game (Queen's let zergs build less army in the early game), and the whole things snowballs and timing windows are shutdown.
I know that MOBA snowballs and well but no where as drastic.
Plus you can always ban out OP champs. And more importantly, teams can pick the 'OP' heroes themselves. So the bigger champion pool you have, the better you will be to gain advantages from buff/nerfs. But in SC, especially at the highest levels, players stick to one race. So if you have an 'OP' race, you run into a lot more issues.
On September 06 2013 22:43 tombigbimbom wrote: I applaud the effort you put into writing this, but in my opinion it's a completely pointless thread and discussion.
"Now, SC2 definitely cannot be exactly like DoTA2/LoL because of it different genre."
I'll even say that SC2 is a _completely_ different game that cannot be in any way compared to LoL/Dota/All-Stars.
We could very well be discussing what the SCII team can learn from WoW and Diablo teams, but that seems like a vicious circle, doesn't it?
PS. Some old units got reworked in HotS already and new options were added as well. Really not sure what the lesson here is supposed to be after all.
Yeah, I am aware that Blizzard is not going to listen, but it's an attempt to steer the community from balance whining more towards how the game can be fun for everyone. Hopefully, the community would change its approach and influence Blizzard to do same. The lesson here is that Blizzard should on balancing AND reworking the game design. Bringing up the Beta was to provide an example of how Blizzard can easily rework the design, if it wanted to.
We could definitely bring up how SC2 can learn from other games, but games such as WoW and Diablo have actually been losing popularity. So, such games, although they still have their share of popular support, are not as relevant as the MOBA games, which have been on the rise.
I think your entire post overanalyzes a game that isn't even considered fully finished. Majority of these posts are thinking within what they believe is a long term goal of "oh a couple months down the line it should be stablized then its cool". You guys are failing to realize that LoTV is still to be released and with it multiple new things.
Now you need to then consider the following: Any changes done now will also have to possibly take into consideration what the devs have in store for LoTV (As it would be utterly stupid to not consider this then buff units up then when LOTV comes you realize you have a mess of overbuffed units with the inability to add anything cool). For those of you that believe blizzard does not think that far ahead, you should take into consideration that a lot of stuff was present in betas but then taken out for later use (Also evident in SC and SCBW with lurkers and such in the earlier betas of the first SC even (correct me If I am wrong)).
What I have to say is, the people over analyzing the wrong areas and posting beatufiul posts like this, maybe should be less shortsighted and spend more time analyzing.
That part makes sense from a business standpoint. However, that point has its share of assumption, believing that reworking will push Blizzard to the corner where it cannot introduce anything new to LoTV. Based on what I have seen, that belief is somewhat untrue because, if you look at LoL or DoTA2, the designers always find new problems and solutions. This dynamic helps the scene grow and evolve, making the game and just as organic as the player and eSport scene.
While I don’t think you will ever get Blizzard to latch onto a specific balance change, they have been willing to listen to the community in the past if there is a clear message. Larger maps and removing close spawns took a while, but they did remove them and they have added features we have been asking for. If the majority community and professionals supported the idea of buffing under used units, upgrades and buildings between WCS seasons, I think Blizzard would be willing to consider that and put it into place. The key is to make sure that what is being requested in clear and concise, rather than a laundry list of different changes.
There is nothing to learn from MOBA balance like DOTA2 or LOL. Both games are horrendously imbalanced, understandably so especially in the case of LOL where there are over 100 champions (gotta keep the new champ + skins coming for that cash flow, despite game balance). The result is people discovering the FOTM OP champs and compositions, abusing them, patches rolling out to buff / nerf underused / overused champions.... repeat ad infinitum. It's an easy and lazy way to go about balancing a game, but probably also the only way to balance a game like League of Legends. You can never have a truly balanced MOBA if you insist on regurgitating out new champions every couple weeks.
Blizzard's balance decisions over the course of WOL and HOTS so far have not been great. They've been extremely slow in addressing issues (BL infestor anyone) in the past, and have made strange buffs / nerfs in the games history. That being said, I'd much rather have a game that aims for true balance between races, than a game of lets see who can win at the character select screen with OP hero selections / bans.
ya but if blizzard tries to change too much its like putting everyone back in the beta in sc2 if you rework say the banshee or thor people will still find a best general strategy that will fall into a few possible compositions people make up. people use MMMM because it is currently what people figured out to be the best way to play in TvZ some moba games may have a shitton of heroes/champions but there will always be a small group of heroes that are viable in a certain position doesn't it? the game is not imbalanced, it is flawed, but they would have never have seen it given the ingenuity of koreans and their tendency to figure out optimum strats and openers really fast. they try to fix whatever problems appeared by 'reworking' units in expansions but it snowballs into some more problems that they didn't have the foresight for.
tl;dr blizzard is not iNcontroL of the meta, the players are.
On September 06 2013 23:03 Zanzabarr wrote: There is nothing to learn from MOBA balance like DOTA2 or LOL. Both games are horrendously imbalanced, understandably so especially in the case of LOL where there are over 100 champions (gotta keep the new champ + skins coming for that cash flow, despite game balance). The result is people discovering the FOTM OP champs and compositions, abusing them, patches rolling out to buff / nerf underused / overused champions.... repeat ad infinitum. It's an easy and lazy way to go about balancing a game, but probably also the only way to balance a game like League of Legends. You can never have a truly balanced MOBA if you insist on regurgitating out new champions every couple weeks.
Blizzard's balance decisions over the course of WOL and HOTS so far have not been great. They've been extremely slow in addressing issues (BL infestor anyone) in the past, and have made strange buffs / nerfs in the games history. That being said, I'd much rather have a game that aims for true balance between races, than a game of lets see who can win at the character select screen with OP hero selections / bans.
There are over 100 heroes in dota as well. Infact, for the majority of its existence, lol had less champions than dota.
if you change one small thing in sc2 the win rates can swing wildly in the favor of one race, this doesn't happen in moba, there is much less risk involved in changing skills on an underused champion in LoL than changing a unit in sc2.
The big problem of the design of SC2 is indeed the large number of underused units. Currently the following units are only used in mirror matchups or barely at all: Terran: Siege Tank Hellbat Thor Banshee Raven Battle Cruiser
Protoss: Carrier (This is the only unit, where I don´t see that as a problem, since the carrier shut´ve been cut and only remained in the game for the fluff)
Zerg: Ultralisks - they are on their way onto that list.
Right now terran has the bigger end of that problem, but in the past we had f.e. hydralisks also sharing their seats in here. Balancewise terran does not suffer from the problem, that half of their units are pretty much useless in non mirrors, because of the strength of bio. But designwise in is a complete disaster, to have so many useless units in a game and on top of that in one fraction.
On September 06 2013 22:50 vthree wrote: Although I agree with some of the points made. I think it is some what unfair to compare SC2 to DoTA. The way the 2 games work is so different that the difficulty to balance to totally different. Look at how a +2 range on a defensive unit changed the whole metagame (BL-infestor) in TvZ. RTS is all about resources and the choice between eco/army/tech. Even giving a slight buff to one of these in the early game (Queen's let zergs build less army in the early game), and the whole things snowballs and timing windows are shutdown.
I know that MOBA snowballs and well but no where as drastic.
Plus you can always ban out OP champs. And more importantly, teams can pick the 'OP' heroes themselves. So the bigger champion pool you have, the better you will be to gain advantages from buff/nerfs. But in SC, especially at the highest levels, players stick to one race. So if you have an 'OP' race, you run into a lot more issues.
Pretty much this, please stop comparing two different genres. Changing things in MOBA's affect both teams, either one can pick champion or ban it out. Focusing on shutting down chosen champion while giving up the help to other lanes can help in MOBA's. You cannot do that in RTS. No rush 15 before the game huh? Too big change might bring bad things to balance. The truth is, RTS is shading out. Look at the other RTS games. All went dead. It's great game but i think it wouldn't be developed so much if it wasn't named Starcraft.
I really don't think they need to look at Moba games at all. And they won't care. Blizzard really doesn't care what the community says when they make games. They have this sense that they are above every other developer.
On September 06 2013 23:21 MattD wrote: if you change one small thing in sc2 the win rates can swing wildly in the favor of one race, this doesn't happen in moba, there is much less risk involved in changing skills on an underused champion in LoL than changing a unit in sc2.
When a big patch comes out for Dota 2, it throws the entire meta out the window and its kinda awesome. Which is also why Blizzard is reluctant to do it. However, if the community were totally in support of doing that and said “We don’t mind if its unstable for a little while if the game is made more interesting” then they might be more willing to do it. Right now, they are reluctant to throw anything out of balance they believed(and we have informed them) the community values a stable game over all other things.
On September 06 2013 23:26 czaku wrote: The truth is, RTS is shading out. Look at the other RTS games. All went dead. It's great game but i think it wouldn't be developed so much if it wasn't named Starcraft.
On September 06 2013 22:49 Cite wrote: I think your entire post overanalyzes a game that isn't even considered fully finished. Majority of these posts are thinking within what they believe is a long term goal of "oh a couple months down the line it should be stablized then its cool". You guys are failing to realize that LoTV is still to be released and with it multiple new things.
Now you need to then consider the following: Any changes done now will also have to possibly take into consideration what the devs have in store for LoTV (As it would be utterly stupid to not consider this then buff units up then when LOTV comes you realize you have a mess of overbuffed units with the inability to add anything cool). For those of you that believe blizzard does not think that far ahead, you should take into consideration that a lot of stuff was present in betas but then taken out for later use (Also evident in SC and SCBW with lurkers and such in the earlier betas of the first SC even (correct me If I am wrong)).
What I have to say is, the people over analyzing the wrong areas and posting beatufiul posts like this, maybe should be less shortsighted and spend more time analyzing.
When the game is released to the public and is being played in sanctioned tournaments for money, then "the game isn't finished because we still have LotV" isn't an excuse.
The general idea of "buffing more than nerfing" is a good one that Blizzard never understood, partially because it's also a hard thing to do. That style lends itself to power creep very easily, but if pulled off successfully, is the method of balancing that pretty much anyone would prefer, as it opens up more options and excitement than what Blizzard does.
That said, don't ever expect Blizzard to learn anything. Ever.
DotA/LoL balancing methods 'work' because not every champion/hero is used in every game. They are both incredibly poorly balanced with heroes becoming completely OP or useless overnight.
On September 06 2013 23:26 czaku wrote: The truth is, RTS is shading out. Look at the other RTS games. All went dead. It's great game but i think it wouldn't be developed so much if it wasn't named Starcraft.
fucking truth right here
It is also better designed and supported than every other RTS in the last 10 years. I know, I played all of them and they were all left is some state of imbalance and garbage.
Balance the game by making everything overpowered. This is how Dota and afaik bw work. And contrary to belief, the community should be balancing the game. Icefrog gathers feedback from pros all the time and bw had map makers.
Honestly, if Blizzard would allow the use of a community balanced custom map of starcraft 2 for competitive play, everything could work out.
Won't ever happen though, because Blizzard. It's not what can Blizzard learn, it's will they ever.
They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
On September 06 2013 23:45 FLeK0 wrote: They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
That is 100% incorrect. Balance is not changed weekly in Dota 2. Balance patches are few and far between. The patches weekly are updates to the store and other bug fixes. They also break the fucking game every week, normally in the middle of match making.
Only thing I think they can learn from aRTS-genre is that succesful esports games grow organically. MOBA's/aRTS's aren't just iteratively balanced, they are also iteratively designed through gauging gameplay and community response.
The "beta" cycles for these games were really long and thus open for reworking the entire game if necessary. I think that's how esports games in the future will be designed, balanced and tested.
With Blizzard 95% of the design is set in stone by the time the game reaches beta. Beta is basically only there for balance purposes and for weeding out one or two unpopular unit concepts.
TL;DR: Blizzard would do well in not assuming they sit on supreme knowledge of what their audience wants.
On September 06 2013 23:55 LaLuSh wrote: Only thing I think they can learn from aRTS-genre is that succesful esports games grow organically. MOBA's/aRTS's aren't just iteratively balanced, they are also iteratively designed through gauging gameplay and community response.
The "beta" cycles for these games were really long and thus open for reworking the entire game if necessary. I think that's how esports games in the future will be designed, balanced and tested.
With Blizzard 95% of the design is set in stone by the time the game reaches beta. Beta is basically only there for balance purposes and for weeding out one or two unpopular unit concepts.
TL;DR: Blizzard would do well in not assuming they sit on supreme knowledge of what their audience wants.
On September 06 2013 23:53 myRZeth wrote: Great post, but Blizzard doesn t care so i think you shouldn t waste any effort, as sad as it is :/
Yep. Every time something like this comes up people get passionate and excited at the possibility of something changing. I think by now we all know that it's just not going to happen. Starcraft 2 will never have LAN. Blizzard don't listen.
On September 06 2013 22:42 NeThZOR wrote: Don't make expansions, just add buffs to underused or underpowered units and buildings (yes, think spore crawler buff) and add the content on a streamlined basis. Valve never catches us offguard by adding a ton of heroes (equate this to an expansion) and buffs/nerfs simultaneously. Instead, they add them over time and see how the changes affect the meta.
Actually, most of the time, whenever there is a balance patch (which comes in DotA with Dota2 following) not many heroes are left untouched by icefrog. The changes that are made vary on impact but some of them can really kill a hero or make another good in one/few patches (see how lycan, the most banned hero, died after his wolves became chihuahuas).
On September 06 2013 23:55 LaLuSh wrote: Only thing I think they can learn from aRTS-genre is that succesful esports games grow organically. MOBA's/aRTS's aren't just iteratively balanced, they are also iteratively designed through gauging gameplay and community response.
The "beta" cycles for these games were really long and thus open for reworking the entire game if necessary. I think that's how esports games in the future will be designed, balanced and tested.
With Blizzard 95% of the design is set in stone by the time the game reaches beta. Beta is basically only there for balance purposes and for weeding out one or two unpopular unit concepts.
TL;DR: Blizzard would do well in not assuming they sit on supreme knowledge of what their audience wants.
best example of this is Blackberry hehe.
Blackberry could easily be the innovator's dilemma.
Assuming your audience knows what they want can give you new coke.
DotA and LoL follow 2 completely different balancing concepts and blizzard is currently in between the two
in a nutshell DotA balance design is: "well that seems pretty imba, but so's this", resulting in major overhauls once every 6 or so months and mostly bugfixes and minor changes in between.
and LoL balance design is: "well players aren't playing the game we want to see so lets change things", resulting in monthly moderate patches that often completely overhaul individual champions or items
Blizzard's WoL balancing is actually quite similar to LoL balancing in the way that it reacted relatively quickly and reflexively to community opinions and changed individual things, which doesn't work out so well given blizzard's community structure and the inherent asymmetry in Starcraft.
The biggest difference between Sc2 and Dota/LoL in terms of balancing is that balance in those games are shared between all players as opposed to sc2, in which balance changes are much harder to come by since they do not affect all players in the same manner. Because tweaking a unit has significant consequences in 3 matchups without a self regulating system of ban/picks to act as a buffer to overly disruptive changes in the metagame, iterative, individual changes are simply bad for sc2 due to its consequences on the game as a whole.
On September 06 2013 23:37 oxxo wrote: DotA/LoL balancing methods 'work' because not every champion/hero is used in every game. They are both incredibly poorly balanced with heroes becoming completely OP or useless overnight.
Yep, exactly. LoL has 100+ champs, but the meta revolves around like 15 of them. Which 15 that is just changes every few weeks.
MOBA games have a different balance... In most top games, you see the same heroes banned and picked over and over again. Because moba games are a set of 5 characters per team, the game is more forgiving. 1v1 RTS games are so much more complex in its design, because one small change can give someone a slight advantage that would mean the difference between winning and losing. I think blizzard has learned far well that buffing underused units can go can just break some builds and make the game one dimensional. The only problem sc2 has is that its sc2. bw has the same issue, just mostly ignored. its just the fate of these types of games.
On September 06 2013 23:45 FLeK0 wrote: They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
Imagine situation like this. One week you have OP BL-INF. Then, in spirit of your balance patches, we nerf bl-inf or buff something else. And so on. Zero metagame development and RTS thinking. It is strategy game. You need to work things out. Give the game time.
On September 06 2013 23:45 FLeK0 wrote: They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
Imagine situation like this. One week you have OP BL-INF. Then, in spirit of your balance patches, we nerf bl-inf or buff something else. And so on. Zero metagame development and RTS thinking. It is strategy game. You need to work things out. Give the game time.
He is also wrong, Balance patches come every 6 months or more. Not every week. The weekly patches are for store updates and sometimes really minor balance changes.
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.
On September 06 2013 23:45 FLeK0 wrote: They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
Imagine situation like this. One week you have OP BL-INF. Then, in spirit of your balance patches, we nerf bl-inf or buff something else. And so on. Zero metagame development and RTS thinking. It is strategy game. You need to work things out. Give the game time.
He is also wrong, Balance patches come every 6 months or more. Not every week. The weekly patches are for store updates and sometimes really minor balance changes.
Yes, and no. You're not including the meta changes of implementing new, very strong champs. Some champs are immediately played at the top level as soon as they release: Vi, Kha'zix, Rengar, Elise, Diana, Zac, Draven, Thresh.
On September 06 2013 23:45 FLeK0 wrote: They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
Imagine situation like this. One week you have OP BL-INF. Then, in spirit of your balance patches, we nerf bl-inf or buff something else. And so on. Zero metagame development and RTS thinking. It is strategy game. You need to work things out. Give the game time.
He is also wrong, Balance patches come every 6 months or more. Not every week. The weekly patches are for store updates and sometimes really minor balance changes.
Yes, and no. You're not including the meta changes of implementing new, very strong champs. Some champs are immediately played at the top level as soon as they release: Vi, Kha'zix, Rengar, Elise, Diana, Zac, Draven, Thresh.
He is talking about Dota 2, not LoL. League nerfs the shit out of everything that is good.
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
On September 06 2013 23:45 FLeK0 wrote: They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
Imagine situation like this. One week you have OP BL-INF. Then, in spirit of your balance patches, we nerf bl-inf or buff something else. And so on. Zero metagame development and RTS thinking. It is strategy game. You need to work things out. Give the game time.
He is also wrong, Balance patches come every 6 months or more. Not every week. The weekly patches are for store updates and sometimes really minor balance changes.
Yes, and no. You're not including the meta changes of implementing new, very strong champs. Some champs are immediately played at the top level as soon as they release: Vi, Kha'zix, Rengar, Elise, Diana, Zac, Draven, Thresh.
He is talking about Dota 2, not LoL. League nerfs the shit out of everything that is good.
Well then, I have nothing to say about DotA2 since I don't follow it (played it a bit, actually I think I'll switch from LoL).
On September 06 2013 23:45 FLeK0 wrote: They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
Imagine situation like this. One week you have OP BL-INF. Then, in spirit of your balance patches, we nerf bl-inf or buff something else. And so on. Zero metagame development and RTS thinking. It is strategy game. You need to work things out. Give the game time.
He is also wrong, Balance patches come every 6 months or more. Not every week. The weekly patches are for store updates and sometimes really minor balance changes.
Yes, and no. You're not including the meta changes of implementing new, very strong champs. Some champs are immediately played at the top level as soon as they release: Vi, Kha'zix, Rengar, Elise, Diana, Zac, Draven, Thresh.
He is talking about Dota 2, not LoL. League nerfs the shit out of everything that is good.
Well then, I have nothing to say about DotA2 since I don't follow it (played it a bit, actually I think I'll switch from LoL).
The recent trend in patching in Dota 2 is to patch about every 6-8 months and to only provide minor nerfs to dominant heroes and buffs to unloved heroes. It basically keeps the games sort of stable, but encourages new things in the game play. It has lead me to believe that nerfs are bad, buffs are good. If you are looking to give it a spin, let me know. I am terr-bad, but the game is more fun with good people.
On September 06 2013 23:45 FLeK0 wrote: They released only two real patches since the expansion release in march, with a changelog as long as DotA 2 gets done in a few weeks time. Basically there is no ongoing support for this game, they are probably in a hurry to get the next expansion out asap before the community completely fades away.
Imagine situation like this. One week you have OP BL-INF. Then, in spirit of your balance patches, we nerf bl-inf or buff something else. And so on. Zero metagame development and RTS thinking. It is strategy game. You need to work things out. Give the game time.
He is also wrong, Balance patches come every 6 months or more. Not every week. The weekly patches are for store updates and sometimes really minor balance changes.
Yes, and no. You're not including the meta changes of implementing new, very strong champs. Some champs are immediately played at the top level as soon as they release: Vi, Kha'zix, Rengar, Elise, Diana, Zac, Draven, Thresh.
He is talking about Dota 2, not LoL. League nerfs the shit out of everything that is good.
Well then, I have nothing to say about DotA2 since I don't follow it (played it a bit, actually I think I'll switch from LoL).
The recent trend in patching in Dota 2 is to patch about every 6-8 months and to only provide minor nerfs to dominant heroes and buffs to unloved heroes. It basically keeps the games sort of stable, but encourages new things in the game play. It has lead me to believe that nerfs are bad, buffs are good. If you are looking to give it a spin, let me know. I am terr-bad, but the game is more fun with good people.
I appreciate the invite, but I'm almost exclusively playing Smite right now with about 10-12 of my old WoW and LoL buddies. We're absolutely hooked on the Arena game mode, it's just... exactly what we've been looking for since the fall of WoW PvP. It's f2p, so let me know if you wanna give it a try.
A debate between me and a person who disagrees with the OP
Jayomat: People need to understand that every RTS "gets figured out" at some point. The pros are playing all day and find ways to abuse certain styles. To think it is realistic that you can "just play as random as you please" and it will all be feasible at the highest level is pretty naiv. If you have a limited set of units, maps and abilities, you have a limited set of things to do. Yes the meta changes and evolves, but there will always be dominant build that rule over most others. Not saying that's good, but that's what it is folks.
Larse: You are right to some extent.
But the pragmatic solution is to increase that "ceiling of diversity", so that this "figuring out" process will be long enough for the life time of the game. Theoretically, I think it lies in the field of Combinatorics.
Jayomat: you really cannot compare SC2 (RTS) and DOta2/LoL (MOBA) in that regard. Reading the first couple of most upvoted comments, the repeating "facts" are these:
There are MILLIONS of permutations of viable hero compositions. On top of that, item and skill builds are flexible and situational.
You won't find optimal builds here, there's just too much combinations.
Strategies vary team to team. There are so many possible compositions, interactions, and variations that you'll see quite a bit of diversity in DOTA. On top of that, you have a slew of different item builds from game to game, and the laning setup can be extremely diverse.
I mean it's pretty obvious what their simple argument is: the variables are in higher numbers. So many heroes who can pick so many items. Combine that with the fact that you play in teams of five. I mean come on man, isn't it obvious to you that they say the same thing which I said, just with higher numbers?
The viable strats in SC2 are limited. Of course there are always situations where a crazy strat might work (GSL, BC+Hellion+marine vs zerg on 2base). But you cannot compete in a consistant manner in a 1v1 game with builds like these. They are TOO situational, and SC2 in general is very predictable. If there was no pro play, sure, it would take quite some time to figure stuff out. But with the pros playing, you see what is viable at the highest level after 1 month. If MMMM is the safest way to win in TvZ, that's what people will do. If the amount of dota2 heroes would be decreased to 10 with set combinations and only 20 items, you'd see the same happen there.
You cannot simply add more and more units/skills to a RTS game like SC2. The balance is already a "clusterfuck", how do you think adding 10 units will play out? It was always the same, C&C, WC3, AOE and SC. All have "best builds" after X amount, and only "mindgames" and "metaing" bring diversity, not the game itself.
Larse: I see your point and I said you are right to some extent. Almost all RTS games have this problem. But I am more optimistic as I think there are pragmatic solutions to reduce the degree of this problem (since it can't be eliminated in practice). Increasing the amount of units is an obvious solution, though you said it will cause balance problem. It doesn't need to be 10 new units at the same time. But if you gradually add units as the game staggering, it will change the stagnation and the impact on balance will be more modest. At least, the impact will be much smaller than the impact of an expansion.
Also, making the unused existing units more viable is another obvious solution. Blizzard has a more conservative approach to this as they are very careful about balance. But my personal opinion is that they can be a little bit more progressive in changing the less viable units in the game.
Also, I feel that your "moba can do it but RTS can't" sounds more like an excuse for me to not innovate and progress. Sorry if the tone sounds rude.
Jayomat: I agree that adding units gradually and changing the unused ones would "help", no doubt. but that doesn't help all that much because most people play to win, especially pro gamers. you will witness how they figur out the stuff that works. also, the units will be too similar at some point. yeah sure you can think of many crazy, very specialized units with spells'n'stuff, but in the end what do you end up with? basically WC3 with more eco, or dota2 without eco. I don't even know man, I want SC2 to be "a better game", whatever that means, but I think we also must understand that the "ever evolving" never "stagnant" RTS game has yet to exist.
Larse: There won't be one as theoretically the optimal and near optimal builds will be figured out eventually, unless the game is designed by mathematic grandmasters for a long time.
As I said, all that matters it's a pragmatic solution to reduce the degree of this problem so that in the life time of a game it won't reach that point permanantly. In other words, every time it reaches that point and people are getting bored, the designers should implement changes to disrupt the optimality and thus naturally reinforce the emergence of another optimal one. Once this new optimal one gets figured out and they are getting bored, do it again, until the game eventually get old enough to die out.
The approach of expansion is the same way at the fundamental level, but they do it as a big chunk while my solution is more gradual, though admittedly it is close to the tattoo model in this subreddit.
There will be no reworking of any units i guarantee it.If you want a reworking then you will have to pay for it just like we did for HOTS. When you look at the units used currently they are almost exclusively revamped WOL units, only the widow mine is used to any great effect( i am not counting the mothership core as it has replaced the old mothership)
The next reworking will be LOTV and i for one will not be purchasing it. i have already paid for one reworking and i fail to see why i should pay again. If you doubt what i am saying just look at the track record over the last 3 years, its not good.
The design team are number crunchers, they have no flair or creativity so LOTV will just be more of the same if its released. Dont get your hopes up for fundamental issues to be resolved !!!!!!!
The quote "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" sums up how i feel perfectly
Blizzard never learn. Both LoL developers and icefraud constantly nerf different heroes to the ground, and buff some I am growing to hate. The world is doomed, only BW was / is perfect.
You simply don't understand that Starcraft 2 and LoL have different business models. Blizzard does not have magically infinite money to be able to pump out new abilities and release them for free. Their time is better spent on developing LoTV.
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.
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.
BW / Dota 2 approach - developers mostly don't have control over the balance, always prefer entertainment over strictness. LoL / Sc2 approach - developers dictate the balance, and have control over entire pro scene.
to be honest, I can't take "freedom in moba games" aspect seriously. whole game is too much structered to talk about any freedom compared to starcraft 2.
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.
I think Blizzard just needs to learn more from BW. I am not necessarily suggesting the same game, just that there are plenty of lessons available from BW.
On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote: Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season.
Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same.
That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play.
It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us.
Sadly Blizzard seem much more content to just tweak some stats here and there and leave it at that. They're a lot more patient and smart about it than they used to be two or three years ago, I'll give them that, but a lot of the issues stem from the design itself, not from one unit being too strong and whatnot, like the whiners would have you believe.
One thing to note is that in comparison to other RTSes, Blizzard's RTSes have always had very different races(civilizations) and wildly different unit designs between races. This has not meant that the games were imbalanced before, for two primary reasons: one, there were always only 2-4 races to balance to begin with, which makes balance much easier (in comparison to the 8 and then later 11/14 of AoE3 for example) and 2, the simplicity of other common RTS facets (such as resources) means that it is not incredibly hard to see whether a balance issue is a fundamental game design flaw or an actual (unit) stats imbalance flaw.
As far as SC2 goes, almost all of the balance issues arise from fundamental game design flaws. The design is just awful, particularly the inclusion of new units (to WoL) such as Roach, Marauder, etc. which do not fit the design of the races to which they were given. In particular, it seems like Protoss has long been neglected in comparison. Many of their key units were either removed and replaced by inferior units or have been nerfed directly and/or indirectly so hard that the whole race no longer feels the same way it did in BW. In a sense this might not have been a bad thing if the race was still fun and balanced, but it's neither. Protoss in SC2 has never been particularly fun to play, and as a random player I always found it my least favorite of the three (though I still liked the challenge of it) in SC2.
The fact that even map design doesn't really change gameplay all that much should ring a lot of alarm bells. As people have said earlier in this thread (one above me even), one of BW's strengths was its emphasis on map control and terrain usage. You could potentially entertain yourself in any good matchup just by watching unit movements on the minimap. SC2 just feels like war of the blobs.
Despite the fact that people say SC2 devs can't learn anything from DotA/LoL balance I would have to strongly disagree. They may be different genres but it would be a very good thing if SC2 adopted some changes in the vein of buffing underutilized and weaker units, and in the future introducing new units that either are innovative and fill certain niches, or are much more difficult to use with high reward (a la the reaver)
On September 07 2013 01:16 purakushi wrote: I think Blizzard just needs to learn more from BW. I am not necessarily suggesting the same game, just that there are plenty of lessons available from BW.
I think that has horse has been beaten to death for a while already.
W/ Regards to game design, I'm not really sure what they can do because they've said that they aren't WILLING to do certain things so *shrug*. W/ regards to the scene and stuff, I dunno, I'm guessing they're going to fix the WCS problems next year so we'll see. Maybe theyll make it like DOTA2 or something.
On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote: Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season.
Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same.
That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play.
It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us.
Sadly Blizzard seem much more content to just tweak some stats here and there and leave it at that. They're a lot more patient and smart about it than they used to be two or three years ago, I'll give them that, but a lot of the issues stem from the design itself, not from one unit being too strong and whatnot, like the whiners would have you believe.
To be fair to them, I don't think any publisher has tried to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play. We give them a lot of shit, but its not like there is a book of best practices out there. There will be after they and the MOBAs have been doing this for several years. But its all been trial and error up to this point.
I still want to know if you can block all vision from one direction, like a cliff face or overhang.
On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote: Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season.
Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same.
That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play.
It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us.
Sadly Blizzard seem much more content to just tweak some stats here and there and leave it at that. They're a lot more patient and smart about it than they used to be two or three years ago, I'll give them that, but a lot of the issues stem from the design itself, not from one unit being too strong and whatnot, like the whiners would have you believe.
To be fair to them, I don't think any publisher has tried to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play. We give them a lot of shit, but its not like there is a book of best practices out there. There will be after they and the MOBAs have been doing this for several years. But its all been trial and error up to this point.
I still want to know if you can block all vision from one direction, like a cliff face or overhang.
But if you look at Blizzard as a company, their goal is not "to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play". Their goal is to sell you and millions of other people Legacy of the Void. Supporting the SC2 competitive scene is only a bonus, because if people are interested in competing they're essentially obligated to buy whatever new expansion's thrown at them.
Valve and Riot have to ensure an enjoyable experience for players and spectators because they make their money off microtransactions, and you're not going to make money off microtransactions unless you have a lot of players and you keep your players content and willing to continue playing your game and buying little things every once in a while.
It's a cynical way of looking at things, but realistic nevertheless.
I'm not saying Blizzard are making the game shit on purpose. I'm just saying this isn't their top priority, and it makes sense for it not to be their top priority considering their business model. Valve and Riot are banking on people continuing to play their game, whereas Blizzard is banking on people buying their game (and most people only buy it for the Single Player campaign, so hey there you go)
Are the LoL and dota community's so fucking melodramatic like the SC community? I thought this shit was finally over with the ohhh no LoL is more popular, and the whole we need the casuals guys!
The thing that ruins my time with starcraft is people over reacting to everything. Seeing so much negative comments so frequently just gets kind of disheartening.
I can understand people wanting the game they like to be more popular. But this game is not a particularly social game and never will be. How can you hope to compete with games where friends play an important aspect and will put a bit more pressure on you to play. I'm not sure what other peoples experiences are with mmo's, but quitting one of those feels like you've been kind of exiled from a community. I can imagine it's the same with LoL and dota if you had a group of friends playing frequently.
they could take ideas from LoL in a lot of ways and implement them into sc2. can you imagine if we had a bunch of lee sins for a protoss unit? so fun and thats what this game is missing sometimes between unti interactions. the fun.
On September 07 2013 01:40 haffy wrote: Are the LoL and dota community's so fucking melodramatic like the SC community? I thought this shit was finally over with the ohhh no LoL is more popular, and the whole we need the casuals guys!
The thing that ruins my time with starcraft is people over reacting to everything. Seeing so much negative comments so frequently just gets kind of disheartening.
I can understand people wanting the game they like to be more popular. But this game is not a particularly social game and never will be. How can you hope to compete with games where friends play an important aspect and will put a bit more pressure on you to play. I'm not sure what other peoples experiences are with mmo's, but quitting one of those feels like you've been kind of exiled from a community. I can imagine it's the same with LoL and dota if you had a group of friends playing frequently.
The LoL and DotA communities are too busy bitching at each other after each game to complain about Riot/Valve.
On September 07 2013 00:26 FLuE wrote: Sometimes I wonder if they should focus less on balancing and more on creating a constant state of flux. The game gets boring when the meta settles. It becomes very cookie cutter. Balance actually isn't exciting. The game has been fun when certain races or builds are a bit OP because it forces the other races to try new and think outside the box.
It would be cool if after each WCS they did major patches, added abilities/removed abilities, buffed and nerfed certain units. Then gave everyone 2 weeks to practice with the changes and the new season starts up. That is what makes the game so fun to watch after the initial WoL release and HotS. The uncertainty. Ultimately you keep the core of each race the same but it would be a change. Instead of trying to achieve perfect balance instead achieve good balance with variety that then rewards mechanics, decision making, and adaptability.
The game these days stagnates very quickly. With replays, team houses, forums, build order programs people find the ideal builds to fast and then don't try anything new. This would be a way to create some new play each season.
Actually, BW did this by changing up maps and that help the meta evolve or new tactics came about. But in sc2, high ground advantage is minimal and not many map control units (a lot of matchups don't even require map control). So most maps play out the same.
That would be the most amazing change in LotV, updated map features. What if they added cliff faces the blocked flying LOS, but did not block LOS for units on the cliff? Does anyone know if you can do that currently in the map maker? There are so many awesome terrain features in SC2 that are canceled by flying units and that would be a great place to add some depth to the game play.
It is little stuff like this that I love, rather than "nerf widow mine" which doesn't do anything for us.
Sadly Blizzard seem much more content to just tweak some stats here and there and leave it at that. They're a lot more patient and smart about it than they used to be two or three years ago, I'll give them that, but a lot of the issues stem from the design itself, not from one unit being too strong and whatnot, like the whiners would have you believe.
To be fair to them, I don't think any publisher has tried to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play. We give them a lot of shit, but its not like there is a book of best practices out there. There will be after they and the MOBAs have been doing this for several years. But its all been trial and error up to this point.
I still want to know if you can block all vision from one direction, like a cliff face or overhang.
But if you look at Blizzard as a company, their goal is not "to balance a competitive game over the span of several years for both mass market and high level competitive play". Their goal is to sell you and millions of other people Legacy of the Void. Supporting the SC2 competitive scene is only a bonus, because if people are interested in competing they're essentially obligated to buy whatever new expansion's thrown at them.
Valve and Riot have to ensure an enjoyable experience for players and spectators because they make their money off microtransactions, and you're not going to make money off microtransactions unless you have a lot of players and you keep your players content and willing to continue playing your game and buying little things every once in a while.
It's a cynical way of looking at things, but realistic nevertheless.
I'm not saying Blizzard are making the game shit on purpose. I'm just saying this isn't their top priority, and it makes sense for it not to be their top priority considering their business model. Valve and Riot are banking on people continuing to play their game, whereas Blizzard is banking on people buying their game (and most people only buy it for the Single Player campaign, so hey there you go)
It does make total sense, since SC2 is not their main revenue stream and there is no reason to put your top artist and model makers on changes you won't make money directly from. It also doesn't help that the majority of the people who buy SC2(or any RTS) don't play multiplayer. I have a friend to loves SC2, but will never touch multiplayer. And he player hard games. Stupidly hard games like Super Meat Boy and other stuff, but he won't touch SC2 multiplayer. With that sort of market, the only time they can justify huge changes is when they are moving to a new expansion. And its not like there is a F2P button they can hit to fix the issue.
I still think that map design is the silver bullet for SC2, but it can't be all the crazy stuff people were trying to do, like fewer resources at bases. New terrain features and things that block LOS and allow players to do one way damage would allow for players to control space without directly buffing units. Its just a question of if it can be done with the current map tools.
Hopefully after Blizzard has pushed Legacy of the void down are throats , they will start to properly balance units that are not being used , so that they can be used again .
Starcraft definitely needs an off-period, even if only for a couple of weeks. During this period Blizzard would get the chance to innovate and make smaller or bigger balance/design changes on certain maps that people will try out. There will always be lower GM players that have time over and find joy in doing some random stuff at times to blow of some steam from the constant pressure of ladder.
Right now, Blizzard is doing most of their stuff behind closed door and don't share enough of their process with the public. I would bet that if Blizzard actively put out different maps with different race design/balance changes then people would play on them and Blizzard would get to see more types of gameplay and some of them might be supercool. Right now they only go with one type of fix they figure would steer the metagame in one direction which they think the people might like. They really do forget that it is us who play the game mostly, all of the thousands of people that login every day and all the people that watch and want to be entertained? What danger could it cause if they just for example threw out a map with the design change to remove WarpTech and buff the stalker for example? Why not? This could generate a more fun gameplay and perhaps even remove the Deathball in TvP, but we'll never know this way. Why do we not get any say in what kind of gameplay we would like to see?
They should simply put out more different balancing scenarios of maps at the same time that we should get to play on/vote on. The way that they come out with a suggested change out of nowhere right now - like the Ultralisk +50hp buff. Would people not rather see a nerf to splash dmg to the Mine or something else? We don't know anything about what they do and it's frustrating.
Reworking usually involves taking almost scary balance gambles. DotA allows sides to veto and pick whatever "race" they want; the same cannot be said for SC2. If Blizzard was going to do this, they'd need more high-level players involved in the decision-making process itself, and they'd need to have a community willing to sacrifice near-perfect balance in favor of variation in the metagame. Given the romps I've taken through places that allow balance whining, and our tendency to bash Blizzard into the ground no matter what they do, I don't think the community fits the bill yet.
On September 07 2013 02:41 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Reworking usually involves taking almost scary balance gambles. DotA allows sides to veto and pick whatever "race" they want; the same cannot be said for SC2. If Blizzard was going to do this, they'd need more high-level players involved in the decision-making process itself, and they'd need to have a community willing to sacrifice near-perfect balance in favor of variation in the metagame. Given the romps I've taken through places that allow balance whining, and our tendency to bash Blizzard into the ground no matter what they do, I don't think the community fits the bill yet.
From the reports of Blizzard, high level players are not as helpful as one might think. DK said that a lot of the players he spoke with are super bias toward their own race and most of their suggestions relate to the specific area they have trouble in the match up. I am sure there is a set of pros that provide good suggestions and insight that the balance team talks with, but I doubt that every pro's input would be useful.
On September 07 2013 02:41 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Reworking usually involves taking almost scary balance gambles. DotA allows sides to veto and pick whatever "race" they want; the same cannot be said for SC2. If Blizzard was going to do this, they'd need more high-level players involved in the decision-making process itself, and they'd need to have a community willing to sacrifice near-perfect balance in favor of variation in the metagame. Given the romps I've taken through places that allow balance whining, and our tendency to bash Blizzard into the ground no matter what they do, I don't think the community fits the bill yet.
From the reports of Blizzard, high level players are not as helpful as one might think. DK said that a lot of the players he spoke with are super bias toward their own race and most of their suggestions relate to the specific area they have trouble in the match up. I am sure there is a set of pros that provide good suggestions and insight that the balance team talks with, but I doubt that every pro's input would be useful.
Ah, so that's why even a semi-pro like Cloud felt he "wasn't good enough" to comment on balance. Extremely interesting, thanks for the knowledge.
On September 07 2013 02:41 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Reworking usually involves taking almost scary balance gambles. DotA allows sides to veto and pick whatever "race" they want; the same cannot be said for SC2. If Blizzard was going to do this, they'd need more high-level players involved in the decision-making process itself, and they'd need to have a community willing to sacrifice near-perfect balance in favor of variation in the metagame. Given the romps I've taken through places that allow balance whining, and our tendency to bash Blizzard into the ground no matter what they do, I don't think the community fits the bill yet.
From the reports of Blizzard, high level players are not as helpful as one might think. DK said that a lot of the players he spoke with are super bias toward their own race and most of their suggestions relate to the specific area they have trouble in the match up. I am sure there is a set of pros that provide good suggestions and insight that the balance team talks with, but I doubt that every pro's input would be useful.
Ah, so that's why even a semi-pro like Cloud felt he "wasn't good enough" to comment on balance. Extremely interesting, thanks for the knowledge.
Yeah, a lot of the pro-players may not be the most objective people when it comes to balance suggestions. I know Blizzard tried it, but at the end of the day, the pros are more invested in winning games than designing them. I am sure there are gems out there that are very helpful to Blizzard, but I think they are in the sharp minority.
Maybe Blizzard could copy a feature from MMOs and implement a ''Test Server'' to experiment on. A parallel ladder would be more convenient than the custom maps I believe.
I'd jump on it from time to time, I never try those custom maps due to lack of partners/interest.
On September 06 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote: League of Legends does patches between seasons called “quality of life” patches, where they buff underused heroes and try to get them back into play. They don’t change or push out the current meta, but try to add in more factors by bring underused champions and items into use. Of course, after they do that, the game settles down to a new meta, but there is always this period of invention and creativity that comes with each of those patches. Dota 2 also has been patching in a similar fashion, trying to avoid nerfing heroes into the ground.
I feel SC2 could use this after the first WCS season. There is not reason to nerf dominant styles. Rather it would be more productive to buff units and buildings that are undersused in the current meta and try to get people to add them into the current match ups:
Thinks like:
Carriers Tempest Thors BC Tanks, Hellion transformation Nydus Broodlords(I know, but they have fallen off and they were pretty cool when there were like 3 of them) Banshees Reapers(yeah, I know, but I think their “jump down” animation could be made a bit snappier)
You don’t break anything that is working, you just push forward stuff that isn’t. It’s a better, more interesting and exciting way to balance.
This is probably the best thing that Blizzard can do. Unfortunately, they need to be extremely careful due to the way units synergize which is why they don't strictly follow this path. For instance if you buff Tanks or Banshees without doing anything about unupgraded Marines, and then the 1-1-1 becomes unstoppable.
Still, I'd really like to see them buff Battle Cruisers and Carriers. I really think it is foolish, and MC recently noted this too, that the counter to high tech units is often low tech unit. Marines countering Immortals, Marauders countering Ultralisks, Vikings countering Carrier/Broods/Battle Cruisers ect... Terran in particular suffers from this issue, and it is why everyone goes Marine/Marauder/Medivac, because it can handle nearly everything, and all their tech units suffer from it too.
On September 06 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote: League of Legends does patches between seasons called “quality of life” patches, where they buff underused heroes and try to get them back into play. They don’t change or push out the current meta, but try to add in more factors by bring underused champions and items into use. Of course, after they do that, the game settles down to a new meta, but there is always this period of invention and creativity that comes with each of those patches. Dota 2 also has been patching in a similar fashion, trying to avoid nerfing heroes into the ground.
I feel SC2 could use this after the first WCS season. There is not reason to nerf dominant styles. Rather it would be more productive to buff units and buildings that are undersused in the current meta and try to get people to add them into the current match ups:
Thinks like:
Carriers Tempest Thors BC Tanks, Hellion transformation Nydus Broodlords(I know, but they have fallen off and they were pretty cool when there were like 3 of them) Banshees Reapers(yeah, I know, but I think their “jump down” animation could be made a bit snappier)
You don’t break anything that is working, you just push forward stuff that isn’t. It’s a better, more interesting and exciting way to balance.
This is probably the best thing that Blizzard can do. Unfortunately, they need to be extremely careful due to the way units synergize which is why they don't strictly follow this path. For instance if you buff Tanks or Banshees without doing anything about unupgraded Marines, and then the 1-1-1 becomes unstoppable.
Still, I'd really like to see them buff Battle Cruisers and Carriers. I really think it is foolish, and MC recently noted this too, that the counter to high tech units is often low tech unit. Marines countering Immortals, Marauders countering Ultralisks, Vikings countering Carrier/Broods/Battle Cruisers ect... Terran in particular suffers from this issue, and it is why everyone goes Marine/Marauder/Medivac, because it can handle nearly everything.
I think the most critical issue is that air units counter other air units. It is one of the largest problems in SC2 and they low cost ground units are so valuable. If terran had better ground anti air to deal with the colossi, then the viking could be a more well rounded unit and we would see carriers and BCs.
On September 06 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote: League of Legends does patches between seasons called “quality of life” patches, where they buff underused heroes and try to get them back into play. They don’t change or push out the current meta, but try to add in more factors by bring underused champions and items into use. Of course, after they do that, the game settles down to a new meta, but there is always this period of invention and creativity that comes with each of those patches. Dota 2 also has been patching in a similar fashion, trying to avoid nerfing heroes into the ground.
I feel SC2 could use this after the first WCS season. There is not reason to nerf dominant styles. Rather it would be more productive to buff units and buildings that are undersused in the current meta and try to get people to add them into the current match ups:
Thinks like:
Carriers Tempest Thors BC Tanks, Hellion transformation Nydus Broodlords(I know, but they have fallen off and they were pretty cool when there were like 3 of them) Banshees Reapers(yeah, I know, but I think their “jump down” animation could be made a bit snappier)
You don’t break anything that is working, you just push forward stuff that isn’t. It’s a better, more interesting and exciting way to balance.
This is probably the best thing that Blizzard can do. Unfortunately, they need to be extremely careful due to the way units synergize which is why they don't strictly follow this path. For instance if you buff Tanks or Banshees without doing anything about unupgraded Marines, and then the 1-1-1 becomes unstoppable.
Still, I'd really like to see them buff Battle Cruisers and Carriers. I really think it is foolish, and MC recently noted this too, that the counter to high tech units is often low tech unit. Marines countering Immortals, Marauders countering Ultralisks, Vikings countering Carrier/Broods/Battle Cruisers ect... Terran in particular suffers from this issue, and it is why everyone goes Marine/Marauder/Medivac, because it can handle nearly everything.
I think the most critical issue is that air units counter other air units. It is one of the largest problems in SC2 and they low cost ground units are so valuable. If terran had better ground anti air to deal with the colossi, then the viking could be a more well rounded unit and we would see carriers and BCs.
That's another good point.
Not to mention that when you have an air unit countering air units, it ruins any chance for micro or harassment. Marines and Thors countering Mutalisks in WOL made for very exciting exchange. Sure, the Marines and Thors win in a straight up fight, but the Mutalisks have such a mobility advantage due to the fact they fly and ignore terrain that they can divide and conquer and harass effectively.
There should be no straight air unit counters (Phoenix, Vikings, Corrupters) in the game for those reasons.
The cynic in me thinks Blizzard won't do a "quality of life" update because its hard to come up with new units, and updating underused units is much easier to do to make an expansion feel "complete". Think about if all of these reworks that are done in HOTS would had been done instead in WoL: what compelling change would Hots have really brought? I guess Widow mines would have drastically changed the game, and so would have Vipers and hellbats, but ultimately the things that have caused the metagame in HOTS to diverge are adjustments.
Medivac boost, hydra speed, fungal change, reaper change, Voidray and pheonix change, Muta speed/health buff. I think everyone is in agreement with you: we'd like to see a lategame tank upgrade, or reaper upgrade, or thor change. But we probably have to wait for LotV because of $$$$$.
I don't think the thing you suggested is really good. StarCraft is really diffrerent from Dota-games. You could change the whole hero in Dota and it may not cause a balance issue as whole because in the end there are like 100 heroes for you to choose from. In StarCraft, one small changes could be really impactful and you have to be extremely careful about it. Adding more and more new things to StarCraft is one of the worst thing Blizzard could ever do too. I am never fond of balance in all these Dota like games too.
The imbalance of MOBE hides itself behind picking system. You could pick and ban heroes. Just not making a hero too good that you see it every game is good enough for MOBA. SC simply doesn't work like that. You tweak 1 thing and you have to wait atleast 3 months to see the game evolve let alone keep channging things for the sake for dictating metagame. What Blizzard should do is exploring underused units or techs that are left and make all of them viable BUT they have to be careful not to break the thing that are good now. For a certain point where the game is diverse enough then let the game alone.
On September 06 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote: League of Legends does patches between seasons called “quality of life” patches, where they buff underused heroes and try to get them back into play. They don’t change or push out the current meta, but try to add in more factors by bring underused champions and items into use. Of course, after they do that, the game settles down to a new meta, but there is always this period of invention and creativity that comes with each of those patches. Dota 2 also has been patching in a similar fashion, trying to avoid nerfing heroes into the ground.
I feel SC2 could use this after the first WCS season. There is not reason to nerf dominant styles. Rather it would be more productive to buff units and buildings that are undersused in the current meta and try to get people to add them into the current match ups:
Thinks like:
Carriers Tempest Thors BC Tanks, Hellion transformation Nydus Broodlords(I know, but they have fallen off and they were pretty cool when there were like 3 of them) Banshees Reapers(yeah, I know, but I think their “jump down” animation could be made a bit snappier)
You don’t break anything that is working, you just push forward stuff that isn’t. It’s a better, more interesting and exciting way to balance.
This is probably the best thing that Blizzard can do. Unfortunately, they need to be extremely careful due to the way units synergize which is why they don't strictly follow this path. For instance if you buff Tanks or Banshees without doing anything about unupgraded Marines, and then the 1-1-1 becomes unstoppable.
Still, I'd really like to see them buff Battle Cruisers and Carriers. I really think it is foolish, and MC recently noted this too, that the counter to high tech units is often low tech unit. Marines countering Immortals, Marauders countering Ultralisks, Vikings countering Carrier/Broods/Battle Cruisers ect... Terran in particular suffers from this issue, and it is why everyone goes Marine/Marauder/Medivac, because it can handle nearly everything.
I think the most critical issue is that air units counter other air units. It is one of the largest problems in SC2 and they low cost ground units are so valuable. If terran had better ground anti air to deal with the colossi, then the viking could be a more well rounded unit and we would see carriers and BCs.
That's another good point.
Not to mention that when you have an air unit countering air units, it ruins any chance for micro or harassment. Marines and Thors countering Mutalisks in WOL made for very exciting exchange. Sure, the Marines and Thors win in a straight up fight, but the Mutalisks have such a mobility advantage due to the fact they fly and ignore terrain that they can divide and conquer and harass effectively.
There should be no straight air unit counters (Phoenix, Vikings, Corrupters) in the game for those reasons.
Phoenix are not a huge problem because they are at least limited to light units, and they don't really kick the shit out of mutas(I mean they do, but the units can dance all day). Vikings are like sky tanks that alpha strike down any air unit that comes near them, the more expensive the better. I would love to see them change the viking up and buff the Thor's single target anti air to make air units more viable. Hell, I would give it a mini stun to deal with collossi and go from there. I will watch colossi dance around thors all day, rather than watch the viking blob try to bring down the colossi before they get off to many shots.
There is nothing to learn from MOBA's in terms of balancing to be honest. Slight buffs/nerfs can have HUGE effects in SC2 and it is very hard to predict how far it can go and leaves the game in a imbalanced state for tournaments. In Moba's new stuff is usually held back in tournaments(for example certain heroes are not allowed in cm after a rework/them being new) and there is a BAN phase which makes it possible to cut out certain imbalances. While these things can be fixed by releasing custom maps(the way blizzard is doing right now) it is very hard to recognize if something is balanced or not since the high level players will probably not have the time to play the custom maps all the time which leaves us with players that do not play at the highest level to judge whether something is balanced or not, making it impossible to say whether it is balanced for the highest level of play or not.
At this point they could give it a try though to release custom maps with a bit more "drastic" changes. Maybe you could just release different maps(normal maps without balance changes) that could break the "metagame" cause they require different strategies(Like it was done in bw i believe? you can correct me on that if im wrong) but in a game a like sc2 it can be quite hard to do since there is no mechanic related to the map(e.g. no high-ground mechanic)
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.
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 $$$ from sales)
So SC2 needs 2 expansions to be complete
D3 needs 2 expansions to be complete (for example D3 Expansion each only adds 1 hero, as opposed to D2 single xpack which added 2 heroes)
Perhaps we need to just wait patiently until David Kim and the team roll out LOTV, then all the complete unit balance will be there? lol.....
This post is simply wrong. None of the games you mentioned above were complete. There were a lot of things you could improve upon them. I don't even need to tell you the flaws of all those games. Everyone who played them know it.
Like the fact that they kept releasing balance patches for D2 for almost 10 years. And WC3 for a number of years as well. But lets just have selective memory and assume they were perfect right when they came out of the box.
On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote: SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ 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
then finally SC2/D3 will have the complete units to work with, then patches from there can further balance the game
COMPLETE does not mean perfect, it means the game has gotten all its base tools to work with
Obviously expansions do not make the game IMMEDIATELY perfect, who said that?
but the expansions give the units/base tools, which then patches can work on that
without all the units/base tools, (IE HOTS right now or D3 1st expack) , Blizzard isnt even planning to be fully balanced
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,
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 $$$ from sales)
So SC2 needs 2 expansions to be complete
D3 needs 2 expansions to be complete (for example D3 Expansion each only adds 1 hero, as opposed to D2 single xpack which added 2 heroes)
Perhaps we need to just wait patiently until David Kim and the team roll out LOTV, then all the complete unit balance will be there? lol.....
This post is simply wrong. None of the games you mentioned above were complete. There were a lot of things you could improve upon them. I don't even need to tell you the flaws of all those games. Everyone who played them know it.
BW releasing the units then patches following, did not complete the game?
WC3 frozen throne releasing all the units, then the patches afterwards did not make the best WC3 possible?
was D2's expack and following patches, not the best D2 complete experience?
They werent perfect games but they were the best complete experience possible
I'm saying with SC2, and D3, Blizzard is looking LONGTERM, and thinking of ways to hold back stuff so they can include it it in the FINAL expack
then finally SC2/D3 will have the complete units to work with, then patches from there can further balance the game
Those games were far from the best they could be. You assume they are holding back stuff but there's the interview with Chris Sigaty that he doesn't even know if there will be new units in LotV and if there is then they may remove some units. Looking longterm doeesn't mean they are holding back. It could mean they are willing to improve it for longer. This is derailing the thread so I won't argue further.
On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote: SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ 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. If units are the only things you think make the game the best they could be then I don't know. 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.
Its such a weird argument for expansions to games(which Blizzard is the only one doing now a days). IF they add new content and features, people are upset that they were not in the original game and point to press releases were Blizzard said they wanted to add those features. If Blizzard doesn't add new features, then people get upset because there isn’t enough in the expansion.
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
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.
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)
Idk if they can apply the same stuff to their patching, but I hope they would some day look back and realize how much they could have taken from past. Since the beginning they have lacked proper highground advantage and worker scaling, combine this with micro limiting, spammable abilities or even passives. But all that stuff is too "core" for the game and wont get touched, ever. So we can just hope they will work with the units how they can, maybe LotV will remove some of the most obnoxious units and replace/add better ones.
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. $$Profit?
Your initial post denotes sarcasm and derision due to the question at the end and the lol with three periods. I am not really seeing the point you are trying to make, that activision is greedy for making 2 expansions, even thought they told us long ago that they were?
On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote: SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ 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. $$Profit?
Your initial post denotes sarcasm and derision due to the question at the end and the lol with three periods. I am not really seeing the point you are trying to make, that activision is greedy for making 2 expansions, even thought they told us long ago that they were?
1. Yes I think Activision is Leaning towards the "Business" "Profit" orientated (greedy?) (investors want profit plain and simple) side, when previously the major Blizzard blockbusters only required a single expansion to be completed
2. Now SC2 requires 2, and D3 requires 2 expansions (for example, D2 single expansion added 2 heroes, whereas D3 expansions only adds 1 hero, so needs to buy both expacks to have the same amount of heroes added as the D2 single xpack)
3. As Blizzard deems SC2 not complete Saga until LOTV, dont expect the "arguably" balanced and interesting compositions of BW while we are still in the HOTS phase
On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote: SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ 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. $$Profit?
Your initial post denotes sarcasm and derision due to the question at the end and the lol with three periods. I am not really seeing the point you are trying to make, that activision is greedy for making 2 expansions, even thought they told us long ago that they were?
1. Yes I think Activision is Leaning towards the greedy side, when previously the major Blizzard blockbusters only required a single expansion to be completed
2. Now SC2 requires 2, and D3 requires 2 expansions (for example, D2 single expansion added 2 heroes, whereas D3 expansions only adds 1 hero, so needs to buy both expacks to have the same amount of heroes added as the D2 single xpack)
3. As Blizzard deems SC2 not complete Saga until LOTV, dont expect the "arguably" balanced and interesting compositions of BW while we are still in the HOTS phase
Well that is one opinion, but I don't agree. I think Blizzard just wanted to release a couple of expansions per game, since their previous expansions did so well and people always seemed to want more. But at the end of the day its your opinion and your are entitled to it.
On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote: SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ 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. $$$Profit?
You simply don't understand. You said all D2 and BW gave the original games all units they needed to have but in fact it didn't Blizzard COULD make more xpacs for those games but they didn't. They could make 10 xpacs from BW and you wouldn't know at which point is when the game is complete. SC2 has 2 xpac doesn't really mean they would hold back in HotS to wait for LoTV. They could do their best in HotS then try to improve upon what needed to be improved in LotV because NOTHING is perfect and I am not trying to say all those games were complete. You understand my logic here?
On September 07 2013 03:22 mikumegurine wrote: SC1 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
WC3 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
D2 only had 1 expansion, and that expansion made the game complete
Now Activision comes along...and splits up expansions into 2 parts (so more $$$ 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 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.
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 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 04:33 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.
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."
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 04:33 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:32 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 05:32 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 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 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 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.
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.
This is lost on me, but I sure they nerf or buffed a lot of stuff and it either became fun or not fun?
I sort of want to clarify, what is the end-goal for this post? To just have patches that shake up the meta? I always thought the goal would be, one day (meaning not literally, just at some point) after LotV to stop balance patching altogether and let maps decide the balance.
This is an aside from "re-working/redesign/fixing issues/etc". This post comes off as blizz should be patching basically until the end of the pro scene.
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.
Exactly how does Blizzard learn from Dota2 how to balance SC2 for diversity? Have a concrete example?
And yes, people like dota2 patches because they're basically risk free. Trying out new characters and dumping old ones is easy. The draft system is more or less self-balancing. In contrast, all SC2 players look at new patch notes with bated breath because a bad patch can really screw things up for a while (2nd half 2012, anyone?).
Now if you mean in the very general sense: "Hey Blizz, diversity is good. Look at dota2 and LoL." Then, that's a legit thing to say, but I doubt you're blowing their mind with some brand new concept.
On September 07 2013 06:36 HeavenResign wrote: I sort of want to clarify, what is the end-goal for this post? To just have patches that shake up the meta? I always thought the goal would be, one day (meaning not literally, just at some point) after LotV to stop balance patching altogether and let maps decide the balance.
This is an aside from "re-working/redesign/fixing issues/etc". This post comes off as blizz should be patching basically until the end of the pro scene.
Shaking up the meta and providing player with new ways to play the game is what keeps the game fresh and exciting. So the point is that while there are under or unused units in the game, those should be patched/buffed to pull them into the meta and make the game more interesting.
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.
Exactly how does Blizzard learn from Dota2 how to balance SC2 for diversity? Have a concrete example?
And yes, people like dota2 patches because they're basically risk free. Trying out new characters and dumping old ones is easy. The draft system is more or less self-balancing. In contrast, all SC2 players look at new patch notes with bated breath because a bad patch can really screw things up for a while (2nd half 2012, anyone?).
Now if you mean in the very general sense: "Hey Blizz, diversity is good. Look at dota2 and LoL." Then, that's a legit thing to say, but I doubt you're blowing their mind with some brand new concept.
That isn't 100% true and Valve even switched up the drafting system itself to encourage more diverse line ups. Almost every dominant hero was only slightly nerfed, while every other hero received some sort of buff. Some of them were interactions with specific powers or abilities, such as illusions or black king bar. One hero received a turn speed buff, which was a huge help for him to get a spell off quicker. Its all super tiny, minor stuff. But in the end, none of the dominant heroes fell fully out of favor and a lot of the other heroes worked their way into the meta(in specific cases).
The hands off approach people are advocating from BW may not be the best approach, which is what the discussion is about. Just because it worked then does not mean it is perfect or ideal.
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.
This is lost on me, but I sure they nerf or buffed a lot of stuff and it either became fun or not fun?
Wizards of the coast released a magic the gathering set that literally broke the game. Everything was too fast, too powerful, etc...
The masses whined.
In response, Wizards of the Coast followed the set up with one the slowest, safest, least broken set magic had ever had. Nothing was too good, nothing was too bad, everything was "balanced"
And it bored the player base to tears. What Wizards of the coast realized is that you need to give players dynamic cards that are only powerful in narrow situations and give them support cards that are useful in many situations but are not very powerful in and of themselves. Making everything powerful and making everything balanced produced the same results bad.
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.
This is lost on me, but I sure they nerf or buffed a lot of stuff and it either became fun or not fun?
Wizards of the coast released a magic the gathering set that literally broke the game. Everything was too fast, too powerful, etc...
The masses whined.
In response, Wizards of the Coast followed the set up with one the slowest, safest, least broken set magic had ever had. Nothing was too good, nothing was too bad, everything was "balanced"
And it bored the player base to tears. What Wizards of the coast realized is that you need to give players dynamic cards that are only powerful in narrow situations and give them support cards that are useful in many situations but are not very powerful in and of themselves. Making everything powerful and making everything balanced produced the same results bad.
Its almost like they tried new things and learned as they went, and the community learned with them. That we need both the stupidly broken and safety. I feel there is a lesson here.
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.
This is lost on me, but I sure they nerf or buffed a lot of stuff and it either became fun or not fun?
Wizards of the coast released a magic the gathering set that literally broke the game. Everything was too fast, too powerful, etc...
The masses whined.
In response, Wizards of the Coast followed the set up with one the slowest, safest, least broken set magic had ever had. Nothing was too good, nothing was too bad, everything was "balanced"
And it bored the player base to tears. What Wizards of the coast realized is that you need to give players dynamic cards that are only powerful in narrow situations and give them support cards that are useful in many situations but are not very powerful in and of themselves. Making everything powerful and making everything balanced produced the same results bad.
Its almost like they tried new things and learned as they went, and the community learned with them. That we need both the stupidly broken and safety. I feel there is a lesson here.
I always look back to Wizard of the Coast's rocky road to balance when I think about balance in other games.
This thread makes me sad in that everyone realizes Blizzard is a shadow of its former self. I remember when SC2 was coming out everyone was expecting the end of everyone's social lives and it wasn't the greatest rts ever. Then Diablo 3 and once again everyone expected the greatest game ever and it was just a pale shadow of its glorious predecessor. I can't speak on WoW as I never played it, but I've heard many things about Cataclysm and how it made it easier etc etc.
TLDR: I am sad that Act.-Blizzard and their games are just a pale comparison to their predecessors as separate entities and games that existed for 10 years.
On September 07 2013 07:10 Olferen wrote: This thread makes me sad in that everyone realizes Blizzard is a shadow of its former self. I remember when SC2 was coming out everyone was expecting the end of everyone's social lives and it wasn't the greatest rts ever. Then Diablo 3 and once again everyone expected the greatest game ever and it was just a pale shadow of its glorious predecessor. I can't speak on WoW as I never played it, but I've heard many things about Cataclysm and how it made it easier etc etc.
TLDR: I am sad that Act.-Blizzard and their games are just a pale comparison to their predecessors as separate entities and games that existed for 10 years.
In defense of D3--it is many times better and more complex than D2. There is more things viable, interactions are cleaner, and the trade system is hundreds of times better.
What people failed to realize is that D2 was fun when they were young, but now they need more than just the daily grind to enjoy a hack and slash.
D3 was harder, less cookie cutter, and and less buggy than D2
Its not the game that is at fault, its the nerd scene.
EDIT
I still enjoy D2 more than D3, but I am honest with myself that it has nothing to do with the design of D3. I just don't enjoy the act of killing the same monsters for the Nth time in a row using the same 1-3 spells over and over and over again.
Excellent post, possibly the best which wasn't a TL guide for 2013. I agree with the idea of a post WCS patch to buff the underused units, but very slight buffs for everything. A BC buff for example may make them more viable vZ and vP, but could potentially destroy TvT.
Some units have the issue of being niche in the meta like corrupters in TvZ but that's only because another unit (BL) isn't in the meta. A BL buff would reintroduce the corrupter to that match up.
I think, broadly speaking, Blizzard do a good job balancing. 2012 Lings of Liberty lasted far too long but it did force Mech TvZ to become viable whereas before it wasn't explored in any great depth and that's the only real example of an abysmal decision by them.
The people who blame balance for the stagnation/deflation of the SC2 viewership numbers are missing the fundamental point that team games are more fun/accessible and easier at entry level for people. SC2 was always going to look like this, at least until LotV is released.
EDIT: I do think a stubbornness to reconsider poor macro mechanic designs such as the warp gate is bad though. Blizzard basically made a couple of items the focal point of the 'new and improved' SC:BW and when they didn't work, they felt they'd invested too much in them to not follow through.
I'm glad someone finally mentioned wizards of the coast with mtg. The other thing they have now is a "futures league" where ex pros and hall of famers play the next set and try to find broken things before the set is released. Notice they use retired pros not current ones to help them. This is a big distinction. Even capcom gets it more than blizzard asking the community for help with changes for the next iteration of sf4 and hiring combofiend.
From my experience in Dota2 and SC2, comparing the genius IceFrog and his team, to David Kim and his team is a joke itself.
But from a game-design point of view - competitive Dota2 is CM which means that players 'balance' the game by baning heroes they consider 'OP' or are actually hard countering them. If this gets implented in a SC2-ish way - cool, but what remains? SC2 is not diversive at all in most of the matchups. You have mostly 1-2 styles that can be played while most of the time always 1 of the styles is way better than the 2nd.
So the problem is just that SC2 isn't diverse. It needs way more units that can lead to pro gamers creating viable playstyles with them (not just allins)
I even despise some of the buffs blizzard gives us, specifically the ones that take away our decision making. Taking away the siege mode upgrade and combining armory upgrades are sloppy fixes to an obvious problem. Blizzard just needs to add back the siege mode upgrade and give siege tanks 50 damage across the board. I mean, for a unit that is completely stationary while attacking, it should have terrible terrible damage.
As far as the armory upgrades, once again just keep air and ground uopgrade separate and increase the siege tank damage upgrade intervals to +10 for each level. Protoss could deal with this but zerg might be a bit unhappy. You'd probably need to lower the cost and time for Hive research so that zerg would be on equal footing and have more strategies at their disposal.
On September 07 2013 06:36 HeavenResign wrote: I sort of want to clarify, what is the end-goal for this post? To just have patches that shake up the meta? I always thought the goal would be, one day (meaning not literally, just at some point) after LotV to stop balance patching altogether and let maps decide the balance.
This is an aside from "re-working/redesign/fixing issues/etc". This post comes off as blizz should be patching basically until the end of the pro scene.
Shaking up the meta and providing player with new ways to play the game is what keeps the game fresh and exciting. So the point is that while there are under or unused units in the game, those should be patched/buffed to pull them into the meta and make the game more interesting.
I guess I inherently don't care for this approach then. The whole concept of trends/'meta' in gameplay means that some units will invariably be out of fashion and come back into fashion. It's one thing to keep trying to improve the game if a unit isn't in a good spot in any matchup, but I just don't think the ending point should be patches with the sole intent to change the trends of gameplay - that should be left to the maps and users. To each his own, I guess.
There isn't that much diversity in MOBAs, there's around 10-15 heros that are picked/banned every single game and the rest of the composition .
I think Blizzard have a lot of work to do on this game, since the strategic element of the game is basically gone. It is baffling to me how Terrans still haven't been changed for TvZ.
lol i feel like many people who make these posts don't even play on ladder o.o. the biggest problem for sc2 by far is maphackers. I don't play sc2 anymore because there are so many maphackers on ladder. I don't know about lower leagues but masters - GM are infested with hackers, some are obvious some are not. If you look at sc2ranks there's less than 200k 1v1 players this season Its been decreasing steadly just like the viewership =P.
At times I wonder if it would be worth it to pay for Battle.net access, something like $4.95 per month or even $2.95 month.
Now before everyone freaks out about paying... I think we do take for granted that Battle.net is pretty cool for free, they very easy could have charged a month service for it, especially since there was a lot of effort to make the single player campaign a stand alone entity.
Only reason I bring it up is that if we paid a small fee for Battle.Net so that Blizzard generated revenue after sales from Battle.Net I think it would get more attention in terms of balancing, patches, adding/removing units and spells ,etc. As it stands right now, I imagine their budget is basically a certain percent of sales from HotS to put toward patching HotS, supporting the competitive scene, etc. I don't mind paying more to get more, and maybe that is the problem. Why would they support the game, either just Battle.net in general or the competitive scene, after we buy the game? I know they want us to buy the expansion, but they know we will buy it either way.
Just a thought. I would certainly pay for battle.net if it meant better post release development.
Those mobas learned from blizzard and other companies, who were there before them, how to do patches, I think it doesnt work the other way around. It's simply a mix of Starcraft's complex balance and Starcrafts business model why that doesnt happen.
Maybe blizzard should DRASTICALLY look at map design so that when players match up for games, you can go for a quick MAP veto/pick and look at a BO3 system instead of BO1. That said I can see this being abused to no end.
I actually enjoy the linear PvTs but I think PvZ and PvP has enough diversity right now. I agree with your post tho and hopefully blizzard considers a more pro active stance on balance.
The smallest change that will give the greatest impact is what we need for a better environment for professional players who do this for a living, unless it's an expansion. So as long as everything falls into that, it makes sense.
On September 07 2013 11:54 desRow wrote: I actually enjoy the linear PvTs but I think PvZ and PvP has enough diversity right now. I agree with your post tho and hopefully blizzard considers a more pro active stance on balance.
I love how Protoss runs the gamut of full aggression and full turtle in all its match ups with equal grace.
Either you're holding drops, stopping pushes, or using warp prism/stargate harass to whittle down the opponents.
Some terrans pull SCVs, others don't, it's a great place right now.
I believe the best way to balance the game and change the strategies used are through maps. The hard part is transitioning players into new maps. Players want to play maps they understand and feel comfortable on, as a result you get a stale meta game that never changes.
I rather have a pool of balanced maps, imbalanced maps toward certain races, small maps, large maps, maps with 4 actual spawning positions. All the maps currently in the pool play very similar and nearly all strategies between all the races can be used interchangeably on the maps. We're still playing Daybreak-esque (2011) maps and it's 2013.
On September 07 2013 06:36 HeavenResign wrote: I sort of want to clarify, what is the end-goal for this post? To just have patches that shake up the meta? I always thought the goal would be, one day (meaning not literally, just at some point) after LotV to stop balance patching altogether and let maps decide the balance.
This is an aside from "re-working/redesign/fixing issues/etc". This post comes off as blizz should be patching basically until the end of the pro scene.
Shaking up the meta and providing player with new ways to play the game is what keeps the game fresh and exciting. So the point is that while there are under or unused units in the game, those should be patched/buffed to pull them into the meta and make the game more interesting.
That's circular thinking. If unit X is under-utilized at a certain point in the game it because strategy Y is dominant with use of unit Z. If Blizzard intervenes to "shake things up" then a buffed unit X may alter the meta-game leading to another dominant strategy YY and leading to unit Z falling out of the Meta. Blizzard then patches unit Z leading to yet another repeat of the cycle. Ultimately, Blizzard gets locked into a loop of chasing the tail of the Meta where it will always be behind because the Meta is usually ahead of where we individually think it is. It's a flawed approach and ultimately will make the game less interesting.
This is an interesting post by the OP, but really it seems to me to be little more than a well dressed version of familiar complaints that the game is stagnating and needs diversity and that Blizzard needs to step in to keep the game "exciting".
I really like the idea. I mean its a win-win because lets look at the following scenario. Blizzard at this point in time does like the current meta and does not want to nerf things e.g. widow mine which is fair enough because it is an interesting unit (my opinion of course).
Instead of adjusting numbers (small buffs) to units that are used all the time they could instead target 3 units (that are rarely used) from each respective races and slightly re-design them (or buff them somewhat).
This would likely to add more depth to the current meta since "adjusting" the core units normally leads to more instability in the meta where suddenly its favoring race A instead now instead of the previous race B or completely shutting down certain unit compositions/builds.
But going along with such an idea, I'm imagining a scenario where blizzard devs decide to do PTRs once per month. Where they open polls from the previous month to find out what players (and from pros) would like to change in terms of unit abilities, unit stats or even the unit art for one specific unit per race.
Example 1: Polls show majority of the terran players want tanks to become relevant again in all matchups. A second poll is used to find what exactly players/users have in mind, could be supply/cost or damage etc. Blizzard than decides to give it back the flat 60 damage again (for example of course!). An incentive is now given to get tanks over widow mines for TvZ.
Polls show majority of the zerg players want more tools to deal with MMMM in the mid game. A second poll is used to find what exactly players/users have in mind, and it ranges from infestor rework/buff to even re-introducing units like the lurker. Blizzard than gives it a go to implement the lurker back, giving it a flat 25 damage in a line (so it can two shot marines without combat shield, and two shot combat shield marines with +1 wep upgrade). MMMM will now have a hard time going up ramps or fortified positions giving zerg that crucial time to get to hive on certain maps.
Polls show majority of the protoss players want immortals to look less boring or something to spice up the unit. A second poll is used to find what exactly players/users have in mind, could be that it now shoots plasma projectiles instead of the current invisible animation etc. Blizzard than decides to give it such animation with a meaner sound. Immortals are now a unit full of badassery even if the unit design is stale.
All three following are implemented to be play tested on various maps (Ive specifically made up an example with one race going ahead with unit balance, unit re-design and a change to ingame animation). And non of these could make it into the actual patch but it would be awesome to actually test these things and really settle the theorycrafting that goes on and on.
If they do this im sure it will be alot more healthier for the devs and the user base because now we are now participating into the tests and i.e. really find out the actual solutions that could make the game much more interesting than it currently stands instead of constant whining and fighting.
I actually wouldn't mind if there was TL's SC2 community PTR so that we can test some of the ideas thrown around in these discussions as some are actually really good. Not like a complete revamp e.g. starbow or onegoal, but simple changes to unit balance, abilities or even art.
3 changes, one per race (if not, general to the game e.g. pathing, game speed, control groups), once a month for play testing. Tanks, lurkers, immortal animation one month. Next month pathing, infestors, speedlots vs charge etc.
But aren't these changes already possible for players in custom games? Don't Blizzard already test these out internally? Why does Blizzard have to make a monthly PTR when the community can do many of these things themselves (i.e. reworking units etc). And complete revamps are possible and accessible to play, such as Starbow and Onegoal but most people don't play them for various reasons. I've never tried but have watched a couple of vods. They've looked interesting but nothing special.
It's too late for blizzard to learn from mobas. They will need to learn from day9's new browser rts game! That will be the next big esport and will be main stage at mlg in the future!
Pretty much every mode in HotS is just as boring as it is in WoL.
The "supposed" most popular mode such as team games are extremely dry and boring.
2v2, 3v3, 4v4, are very predictable, not chaotic.
Take the BGH games of old -- random start locations, close spawns, being able to one base the entire way through, ghetto cannon rushes and seige tank cliff dropping. Although more chaotic, it was definitely more fun than any team game of 3v3 or 4v4 I played in SC2.
On September 07 2013 16:07 aZealot wrote: But aren't these changes already possible for players in custom games? Don't Blizzard already test these out internally? Why does Blizzard have to make a monthly PTR when the community can do many of these things themselves (i.e. reworking units etc). And complete revamps are possible and accessible to play, such as Starbow and Onegoal but most people don't play them for various reasons. I've never tried but have watched a couple of vods. They've looked interesting but nothing special.
Yeah they have always been possible on custom games. But no one has taken the initiative other than complete revamps.
They say they test these things internally, but why not get the community involved (especially since the game is ultimately for us , pros and e-sports, not them)? Plus they always try to hide their internal results e.g. the debate on pathing.
It'd actually be better for the game if they are actively interacting with the community. And like Ive said, no one has taken the initiative on doing the small changes or community led PTRs so that these data/feedbacks are sent back to blizzard. I tend to think it'd be pretty awesome.
On September 07 2013 16:07 aZealot wrote: But aren't these changes already possible for players in custom games? Don't Blizzard already test these out internally? Why does Blizzard have to make a monthly PTR when the community can do many of these things themselves (i.e. reworking units etc). And complete revamps are possible and accessible to play, such as Starbow and Onegoal but most people don't play them for various reasons. I've never tried but have watched a couple of vods. They've looked interesting but nothing special.
Yeah they have always been possible on custom games. But no one has taken the initiative other than complete revamps.
They say they test these things internally, but why not get the community involved (especially since the game is ultimately for us , pros and e-sports, not them)? Plus they always try to hide their internal results e.g. the debate on pathing.
It'd actually be better for the game if they are actively interacting with the community. And like Ive said, no one has taken the initiative on doing the small changes or community led PTRs so that these data/feedbacks are sent back to blizzard. I tend to think it'd be pretty awesome.
Nobody plays those maps. You advertise, sit in the lobby for hours at a time, and then finally one guy shows up and tells you to fuck off.
There is 0% chance of someone with any pull in the community showing up to play test maps. Why should they? Blizzard ignored their feedback in the actual beta, why would they listen to them after playing some silly edited map?
On September 07 2013 16:07 aZealot wrote: But aren't these changes already possible for players in custom games? Don't Blizzard already test these out internally? Why does Blizzard have to make a monthly PTR when the community can do many of these things themselves (i.e. reworking units etc). And complete revamps are possible and accessible to play, such as Starbow and Onegoal but most people don't play them for various reasons. I've never tried but have watched a couple of vods. They've looked interesting but nothing special.
Yeah they have always been possible on custom games. But no one has taken the initiative other than complete revamps.
They say they test these things internally, but why not get the community involved (especially since the game is ultimately for us , pros and e-sports, not them)? Plus they always try to hide their internal results e.g. the debate on pathing.
It'd actually be better for the game if they are actively interacting with the community. And like Ive said, no one has taken the initiative on doing the small changes or community led PTRs so that these data/feedbacks are sent back to blizzard. I tend to think it'd be pretty awesome.
Nobody plays those maps. You advertise, sit in the lobby for hours at a time, and then finally one guy shows up and tells you to fuck off.
There is 0% chance of someone with any pull in the community showing up to play test maps. Why should they? Blizzard ignored their feedback in the actual beta, why would they listen to them after playing some silly edited map?
On September 07 2013 20:04 JonIrenicus wrote: I don't understand why you all are debating over a subject that for you , singurarly, doesn't matter. Right now there are no problems with balance and Blizzard never cared about it anyway (I've quit Wol for the infestor- broodlord combination)-
If Blizzard wishes to improve the game, they will do. If they wish just to get the maximum money they could and let it die after, they will do as well.
you cannot change any of their ideas or things would have gone differently from the beginning.
There are so many issue that arised through the past : I saw many mapmakers quit , especially people that asked blizzard to change, and to change for the best, while their shriek was barely noticed by Blizzard, if noticed at all. I saw pro asking to make obvious change but their tips remained unheard. I even remember Grubby interview with David kim. It is all smoke and mirrors
Just Enjoy the game and if it will die, don't worry, it wasn't your fault. Everyone just by playing it did what they had to do.
Being that this is a discussion on what methodologies Blizzard should use in their patching process and not a discussion on what types of patches should be implemented, I fail to see the reason for this post?
The OP said that MOBAs do tonnes of quality of life patches to regularly tweak the metagame by constantly buffing unused champions and nerfing overused champions. He was asking if this methodology would work well in an RTS.
I disagree with it because of the delicate nature of an RTS and how buffing a weak unit (like a Carrier) only affects 1/3 of the race picks.
But apart from how delicate the balance is (Overlord speed broke ZvP and Queen Range broke TvZ in WoL for example) his idea has a lot of merit--that of providing constant changes to the metagame preventing stagnation of overall game when it comes to casuals. People will be able to always carrier rush (for example) because they know that even if it sucks this month, Blizzard might buff it next month and he will already have practice using carriers. etc...
Like I said, I disagree with the methodology, but I see its merits.
What does Blizzard's not listening to map makers/pros have anything to do with this type of discussion? Especially when we are not talking about the quality or quantity of their patches, merely the overall goals of their patches.
It would be a lot easier on them to simply follow the MOBA style of patching.
Battlecruiser is least used unit? This season it has +DPS marine used too much? No more combat shield etc...
Don't worry if it breaks game, fix it next season, etc...
On September 07 2013 20:04 JonIrenicus wrote: I don't understand why you all are debating over a subject that for you , singurarly, doesn't matter. Right now there are no problems with balance and Blizzard never cared about it anyway (I've quit Wol for the infestor- broodlord combination)-
If Blizzard wishes to improve the game, they will do. If they wish just to get the maximum money they could and let it die after, they will do as well.
you cannot change any of their ideas or things would have gone differently from the beginning.
There are so many issue that arised through the past : I saw many mapmakers quit , especially people that asked blizzard to change, and to change for the best, while their shriek was barely noticed by Blizzard, if noticed at all. I saw pro asking to make obvious change but their tips remained unheard. I even remember Grubby interview with David kim. It is all smoke and mirrors
Just Enjoy the game and if it will die, don't worry, it wasn't your fault. Everyone just by playing it did what they had to do.
Being that this is a discussion on what methodologies Blizzard should use in their patching process and not a discussion on what types of patches should be implemented, I fail to see the reason for this post?
The OP said that MOBAs do tonnes of quality of life patches to regularly tweak the metagame by constantly buffing unused champions and nerfing overused champions. He was asking if this methodology would work well in an RTS.
I disagree with it because of the delicate nature of an RTS and how buffing a weak unit (like a Carrier) only affects 1/3 of the race picks.
But apart from how delicate the balance is (Overlord speed broke ZvP and Queen Range broke TvZ in WoL for example) his idea has a lot of merit--that of providing constant changes to the metagame preventing stagnation of overall game when it comes to casuals. People will be able to always carrier rush (for example) because they know that even if it sucks this month, Blizzard might buff it next month and he will already have practice using carriers. etc...
Like I said, I disagree with the methodology, but I see its merits.
What does Blizzard's not listening to map makers/pros have anything to do with this type of discussion? Especially when we are not talking about the quality or quantity of their patches, merely the overall goals of their patches.
It would be a lot easier on them to simply follow the MOBA style of patching.
Battlecruiser is least used unit? This season it has +DPS marine used too much? No more combat shield etc...
Don't worry if it breaks game, fix it next season, etc...
If i got right, the reason is: Stop. Blizzard won´t do what you want, they will do what they want and what is better for them. So stop suffering and enjoy the game. Thats what i got. And it makes sense.
Edit: And peple should stop to think companies, teams, etc, cares about that magic thing called "the scene". They care about $, because its their jobs. We care because its something we do for fun. Just take a look at korean teams all going to have LOL teams. Why do you think theyre doing this? To grown the sc2 "scene"? Because they are investing more on sc2 "scene"?
I've had the time to go trough all the OPs post and I have to say there are some fundamental problems with approaching balancing in this way consistently.
The first problem is, you assume MOBAs are fun just by virtue of being shaken up constantly, this is wrong, they are inherently more fun because they are a social experience and thus blame for a loss can be evenly distributed while a victory can be selfishly cherished to the same extent or more so then in a 1 vs 1 game. Secondly the inherent load of a RTS is much, much higher, while very fun for those of us who enjoy it, often times the shear multi-tasking of an RTS is just off putting.
The other problem is the dynamics of champions/heroes and their workings within the framework of DoTA2/LoL and the dynamics of units in SC2.
In MoBAs you only have a maximum of 10 unique heroes/champions in a game at a time. Thus balance while balance between all heroes needs to be accounted for to some extent, the nerfing/buffing of certain heroes isn't as impactful as say, an RTS where all units are available at all times for a race. Even with all the infinite combination of champions possible in MoBAs you do have some rules that you try to stick too, like making a pushing comp, aoe teamfight comp, ganking comp etc, however within the frame of those strategies heroes can be rotated in and out more easily as they are buffed/nerfed and new/unexplored synergies are discovered.
The same can not be said for an RTS, if say, you nerf the marine in the early game, you can't just replace it with another unit and make the 1/1/1 work again, if the marine gets nerfed early game it nerfs all the early game marine oriented strategies, which could also nerf the early terran defense, which could in turn also nerf the entirety of all early game terran.
Not only that, because of the way bans/picks work you can ban out perceived overpowered heroes or ban out their supports in such a way that they can never achieve that godlike synergy they need. In this sense you also can't ban out perceived overpowered units.
Yeah I agree, it would be nice for them to work on underused units more often and try to make them more relevant, but the design of an RTS at the basic level makes this very complicated because, unlike in a MoBA where you only need to worry about the interaction between 10 champions at a time, in a RTS you need to think about the interaction of all units at all times from the early to mid, late and end game.
This isn't the kind of thing you can do very often, especially because its sometimes difficult to discern between unit imbalance or terrain imbalance in conjuncture with certain units.
Also remember, it took years and years even for MoBA's to evolve to where they are in terms of unique and interesting heroes. I remember DoTA in some of the earlier versions when we had lots of heroes with duplicate skills, Medusa, Razor and Zeus all had a chain lighting spell and only Zeus's was unique, or we had Magnus and Sven with almost identical kit, just with the spells changed around, both cleave, both with an aoe stun, both with a steroid buff.
It took IceFrog years to design unique spells and interactions and roles for all those heroes, but he did it, like even if we want all the units in SC2 to be interesting and cool and have deep interactions between themselves, it could still literally take years to actually design good units/abilities/roles.
I think their current design philosophy seems the best, a patience, methodical approach. The problem is, at this point its apparent that for some reason or another the game has some really large design issues that lead to staleness and stagnation at some point, and you actually some sweeping changes to fix these.
On September 08 2013 04:56 Destructicon wrote: I've had the time to go trough all the OPs post and I have to say there are some fundamental problems with approaching balancing in this way consistently.
The first problem is, you assume MOBAs are fun just by virtue of being shaken up constantly, this is wrong, they are inherently more fun because they are a social experience and thus blame for a loss can be evenly distributed while a victory can be selfishly cherished to the same extent or more so then in a 1 vs 1 game. Secondly the inherent load of a RTS is much, much higher, while very fun for those of us who enjoy it, often times the shear multi-tasking of an RTS is just off putting.
The other problem is the dynamics of champions/heroes and their workings within the framework of DoTA2/LoL and the dynamics of units in SC2.
In MoBAs you only have a maximum of 10 unique heroes/champions in a game at a time. Thus balance while balance between all heroes needs to be accounted for to some extent, the nerfing/buffing of certain heroes isn't as impactful as say, an RTS where all units are available at all times for a race. Even with all the infinite combination of champions possible in MoBAs you do have some rules that you try to stick too, like making a pushing comp, aoe teamfight comp, ganking comp etc, however within the frame of those strategies heroes can be rotated in and out more easily as they are buffed/nerfed and new/unexplored synergies are discovered.
The same can not be said for an RTS, if say, you nerf the marine in the early game, you can't just replace it with another unit and make the 1/1/1 work again, if the marine gets nerfed early game it nerfs all the early game marine oriented strategies, which could also nerf the early terran defense, which could in turn also nerf the entirety of all early game terran.
Not only that, because of the way bans/picks work you can ban out perceived overpowered heroes or ban out their supports in such a way that they can never achieve that godlike synergy they need. In this sense you also can't ban out perceived overpowered units.
Yeah I agree, it would be nice for them to work on underused units more often and try to make them more relevant, but the design of an RTS at the basic level makes this very complicated because, unlike in a MoBA where you only need to worry about the interaction between 10 champions at a time, in a RTS you need to think about the interaction of all units at all times from the early to mid, late and end game.
This isn't the kind of thing you can do very often, especially because its sometimes difficult to discern between unit imbalance or terrain imbalance in conjuncture with certain units.
Also remember, it took years and years even for MoBA's to evolve to where they are in terms of unique and interesting heroes. I remember DoTA in some of the earlier versions when we had lots of heroes with duplicate skills, Medusa, Razor and Zeus all had a chain lighting spell and only Zeus's was unique, or we had Magnus and Sven with almost identical kit, just with the spells changed around, both cleave, both with an aoe stun, both with a steroid buff.
It took IceFrog years to design unique spells and interactions and roles for all those heroes, but he did it, like even if we want all the units in SC2 to be interesting and cool and have deep interactions between themselves, it could still literally take years to actually design good units/abilities/roles.
I think their current design philosophy seems the best, a patience, methodical approach. The problem is, at this point its apparent that for some reason or another the game has some really large design issues that lead to staleness and stagnation at some point, and you actually some sweeping changes to fix these.
Finally, a very good response! I really appreciate it!
Ah yes, I remember DoTA 5 years ago. Magmus had Enrage to improve its DPS up to Sven's level, and Medusa and Razor used to have chain lightning LOL. Also, I remember other OP abilities like Razor's passive ult and Medusa's Purge.
You have a very good point in terms of how long the game takes to be successful. For example, it took 7 years for Blizzard to polish out Brood War. However, if we compare Brood War, SC2 has more unusable high tier units such as Battlecruisers and Carriers.
If we look at DoTA, for example, years ago, mages were strong early game with its powerful nukes but took up more of a supporting role late game because the nukes doesn't scale as well in the late game. The current metagame, to my understanding, mages are now used for support and massive nuking, thanks to the Aghanim's Scepter that reworks the mages' ult. As a result, mages can still deal the necessary burst damage in late or extreme late game.
My idea is for some unused units to have some utility in terms of the game phase. I was thinking about to make these late game units require late game upgrade to be usable in the late game, which is somewhat similar to the Aghnaim's Scepter model. If that doesn't work, then maybe it can introduce a map mechanic that will make these units more useful.
Indeed, Blizzard has to be wary of balance. At the same time, Blizzard can test some reworks and seek out community feedback before the change is enforced. This is a win-win situation because community can be excited to play the game and contribute to the construction of the game while Blizzard can learn more about their design's maximum potential. Currently, the eSports market is seeking not only balance but also dynamic gameplay. Blizzard can be a niche eSport game that caters to hard-core fans, but I believe it can do much more, if Blizzard shows a little bit of creativity in terms of how they approach the game.
blizzard generally speaking shouldn't learn anything from the riot policy of :"hey guys we are releasing a new champ.let us make it op as hell so that people will buy it and buy the skins for it then after the sales finish lets forget about the champ and not care about it at all since we already have a cool looking op champ in the making" cough warwick,xin zao,khazix,pantheon,evelyn.trundle,amumu,draven,darius cough/sc2 like it or not is far more balanced than any moba,the thing that blizzard should actually learn from the mobas is the financial involvement.that is where blizzard lacks.and the community interaction.
On September 08 2013 08:04 romanianthunder wrote: blizzard generally speaking shouldn't learn anything from the riot policy of :"hey guys we are releasing a new champ.let us make it op as hell so that people will buy it and buy the skins for it then after the sales finish lets forget about the champ and not care about it at all since we already have a cool looking op champ in the making" cough warwick,xin zao,khazix,pantheon,evelyn.trundle,amumu,draven,darius cough/sc2 like it or not is far more balanced than any moba,the thing that blizzard should actually learn from the mobas is the financial involvement.that is where blizzard lacks.and the community interaction.
If you read what I said in my OP, I actually don't advocate LoL's style of designing, and I would not consider their approach "reworking" at all but more of "redesigning".
I'm not an expert on finances, so I am not sure if I can critique that, however, I am with you on the community interaction.
I think Dots 2 is a really great game. There is even tension before the game actually starts. People ban and pick their heroes, casters try to analyse the possible strategies that will conspire out of this and the game hasnt even started yet. There i no such thing really in SC2, sure you can talk about the map but ....
In my opinion SC 2 or blizzard was/were not bold enough. They didn't go for something new. Like in C&C generals you could select a general. Why not make it so that before an SC II game you can pick a general or vote for or against certain units or buffs so players have more individual strategies and what not.
Another thing in moba is that it is a team game, there is more stuff to talk about the players, and on how they work together and players with specific roles and other stuff. In SC 2 the not 1vs1 games receive no real attention, they are just for fun and there i no real investment in balancing these sort of games. Its just 1 guy vs 1 guy with always the same available units for each race, I mean yeah people produce different units play different styles but there is simply not enough dynamic and surprise like in a moba like Dota in my opinion. I also like the way valva supports E sports by tournament announcements in the fucking client, you are even able to view the games in the client and hearing the casters. You can even support teams and players in the game and what not. For casual players it is even fun to play against the bots which are ofte more challenging then real opponents when you are casual and playing against them makes more fun then playing against the SC 2 AI that behaves like a retard for most parts if it is not *cheating*. I think mobas offer many things to casual players while still having a very high skill ceiling for strategy and execution and teamwork.
Btw does anyone know what the fuck happened to "BLIZZARD DOTA"?? If i remember corrrctly, it was supposed to come out with purchase/release of hots?? Just wondering ..
On September 08 2013 08:16 ChoDing wrote: Btw does anyone know what the fuck happened to "BLIZZARD DOTA"?? If i remember corrrctly, it was supposed to come out with purchase/release of hots?? Just wondering ..
Yeah I am wondering too what happened to blizzard all stars or what the blizzard moba was called, because I'd really like to try a moba with the heroes of my favorite game universes. But I havent really heard anything about it. I have no clue about a beta or an alpha or anything, I don't even know if they are still working on it or if it is even on their list.
Icefrog just compiles community suggestions and puts them in the game, with an eye towards improving dimensions and depth of the game. I don' think it is compzreable to anything Blizzard is willing to do. I dont think that i efrog considers dota to be his game, hes just the caretaker. Blizzard will think of sc2 as their game though andthe community only has very limited input. Both models can work i think.
Also, dota heroes have more similsrities than sc2 races. One dota hero is less complex thana an sc2 race. Youj can more easily ban, counter, pick yourself an overpowered hero, vs an sc2 race. One too strong hero has less effect ina 5v5 game than in a 1v1 game. Dota matchups are aay less figured out than sc2 matchups.
The bad implementation of Bnet 2.0 and custom games in general are what personally have left me a bit jaded lately, not the state of the competitive game.
It's been mentioned before, so this isn't a new opinion by any means, but I feel the other aspects of the game are being currently neglected, while balance and game design are oft-discussed.
So the OP said about MOBA´s aproach of balance in a way of making unused SC2 units, usable again through redesigns.
And now we have people telling the OP he´s wrong because: <insert wall of text of everything about moba x sc2 with no relation with redesign unused units> <we even have a nerfed marine example>
People are comparing the 2 genres, talking about whos more complex, etc. What is wrong with read the op and discuss the op idea? "Make unused SC2 units, usable again through redesigns".
On September 08 2013 09:51 Taipoka wrote: So the OP said about MOBA´s aproach of balance in a way of making unused SC2 units, usable again through redesigns.
And now we have people telling the OP he´s wrong because: <insert wall of text of everything about moba x sc2 with no relation with redesign unused units> <we even have a nerfed marine example>
People are comparing the 2 genres, talking about whos more complex, etc. What is wrong with read the op and discuss the op idea? "Make unused SC2 units, usable again through redesigns".
There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.
For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.
On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote: I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.
For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.
Lol this is like the exact opposite of what should be done.
On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote: I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.
For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.
Lol this is like the exact opposite of what should be done.
Remind me to never trust you with game design!
That goes for 99% of the people posting on this forum. Balancing something as complex as an rts is about 10000 times harder than it looks like, or what people seem to assume it is. MOBA did not invent making all the units/weapons/tools you put in the game useable, it's very core game design and I can assure you that blizzard is interested in making everything viable. I really don't even see why there is this constant "omg why doesn't blizzard do xyz" crap, blizzard has shown over and over again that they will do the right things, it just takes a long time. And unless you can somehow make starcraft more profitable than mmos I don't think they will readjust the way they spread their human ressources among their games anytime soon. Just as it isn't the teachers fault when a kid gets bad grades, it's also not the developers fault that they have that few people working on the game. When people are willing to pay 15 bucks a month for a 60 dollar game + addons, while bitching about a 40 dollar expansion to an rts, while thousands and thousands of dollars are spent on skins and call of duty 4.8 sells more than any other game, it's the consumers fault. If people wouldn't catter so much towards shit and spent their money on shit blizzard could have 10 times the people working on starcraft and we would probably have both expansions by now and a game with many more features. As it is though EVERY other current blizzard project is more profitable and that's what they need to focus on as a profit orientated company. And that does mean that everything will take time, but eventually we should get almost everything people are asking for. Don't like that? Think about what you as a consumer can do next time you feel like spending money on lesser games.
On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote: I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.
For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.
Lol this is like the exact opposite of what should be done.
Remind me to never trust you with game design!
That goes for 99% of the people posting on this forum. Balancing something as complex as an rts is about 10000 times harder than it looks like, or what people seem to assume it is. MOBA did not invent making all the units/weapons/tools you put in the game useable, it's very core game design and I can assure you that blizzard is interested in making everything viable.
In BW at least you could get very high without ever using Ghosts, DA and Queens (a bit less so since they started becoming more standard around 2010-2012) and infested terrans (unless you happen to be Zero playing vs Kal on Holy world). Of course there are scenarios where Ghosts and DAs would be the most efficient way to deal with the scenario, but there is usually an alternative and the players don't choose the aforementioned units because of the lack of practice with those units.
Anyway I'm trying to say that Blizzard should focus on the *CORE* units, game design, AI etc. The things on the fringe come last (Which is also balance in my opinion). I prefer an imbalanced interesting and solid game that can be balanced over time with maps/patches over a bland balanced games (I'm not saying that SC2 is bland and dull because it's not, but it could certainly be improved upon on a basic level)
On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote: I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.
For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.
Lol this is like the exact opposite of what should be done.
Remind me to never trust you with game design!
That goes for 99% of the people posting on this forum. Balancing something as complex as an rts is about 10000 times harder than it looks like, or what people seem to assume it is. MOBA did not invent making all the units/weapons/tools you put in the game useable, it's very core game design and I can assure you that blizzard is interested in making everything viable. I really don't even see why there is this constant "omg why doesn't blizzard do xyz" crap, blizzard has shown over and over again that they will do the right things, it just takes a long time. And unless you can somehow make starcraft more profitable than mmos I don't think they will readjust the way they spread their human ressources among their games anytime soon. Just as it isn't the teachers fault when a kid gets bad grades, it's also not the developers fault that they have that few people working on the game. When people are willing to pay 15 bucks a month for a 60 dollar game + addons, while bitching about a 40 dollar expansion to an rts, while thousands and thousands of dollars are spent on skins and call of duty 4.8 sells more than any other game, it's the consumers fault. If people wouldn't catter so much towards shit and spent their money on shit blizzard could have 10 times the people working on starcraft and we would probably have both expansions by now and a game with many more features. As it is though EVERY other current blizzard project is more profitable and that's what they need to focus on as a profit orientated company. And that does mean that everything will take time, but eventually we should get almost everything people are asking for. Don't like that? Think about what you as a consumer can do next time you feel like spending money on lesser games.
How do you assure us, do you hang out with blizzard developers? After watching 1000 TvZs of 4M vs mutabane I'm kinda sceptical about you assurance.
On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote: I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.
For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.
Lol this is like the exact opposite of what should be done.
On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote: I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.
For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.
Lol this is like the exact opposite of what should be done.
Remind me to never trust you with game design!
Yeah, ofc, you know exactly what should be done.
No I wouldn't, but just because I can't do it better. It doesn't mean that whatever I have to say is invalid.
On September 08 2013 19:12 saddaromma wrote: I think core units like marine, zerglings, muta, stalkers should always remain unchanged. And blizzard should focus on redesigning special units.
For example: if terran constantly building one composition (mmm) then there should be a unit that directly counters it. E.g. infestor, fungal needs to be stronger. However, terran needs alternative composition (mech), but infested terran counters that too. Therefore infested terrans should be removed. So general scenario is: terran builds MMM, zerg counters it with infestors, terran transitions to mech, zerg builds vipers, zerg has too many casters and terran builds ghosts (right now I think ghosts are weak, maybe EMP should have more range), zerg transitions into something else and so on. Spreading units become even more crucial. Its much better than watching MMM vs mutabane 1000 times in a row.
If anything those are the units that should be changed first (i'd add sentry, colossus,HT(too weak hehe) to the list), because they'd left them to stagnate for far too long and issues with them have been evident for the past 2-3 years. I'm not saying they should redesign the whole game (cuz they probably mess it up more :/) but things should be made so strategy and unpredictability play higher role in the game, if people always know how it ends 20 mins before it actually ends we simply dont care to watch. If blizzards game designers were any good they would have never said "Don't touch the marine"(or something in those lines years ago in an interview for the development of WOL (one of the devs..im sure there are intelligent people there punished in the corner for suggesting such atrocity :D ) for a game designer that's really bad to think something you did is perfect and that you'd would change everything around it creating 100 more issues(as its proven now) then simply fix your "perfection".
To be honest the marine is probably the best designed T1 unit of them all. It is cheep so you can make them in bulk, it has good DPS, it is fast, so there it has many advantages, but, they have very low HP, and they clump up very much, making them very vulnerable to aoe, so they have good disadvantages too.
Because of this unique combination of attributes the marine is the most fun unit to use on a high level, you can stutter step them, you can split, you can kite and all those actions require a fair bit of skill to execute, making them not only very rewarding and satisfying if used correctly but also very visually spectacular to behold.
More units need to be like the marine, they need to have an strengths but also weaknesses and they need to be executed in such a way as to be fun and spectacular.
I can't believe some people think proper balancing revolves around constant unit composition shifts. Hard counters aren't fun - they're stupid. Good balance and good MU design does not mean I build this, you build that, so I build this...
A good MU has a fuckton of depth. You should always focus on depth before anything else. What is the depth of this composition? What can I do with it? How many things CAN I do differently with it? How many styles can I play with the same set of units?
There is a reason why there is a default composition for each MU. Let's not try to upset that. Instead, focus on depth...
How much can I do with this same set of units? How much possibility is there for me to express PLAYER SKILL with these units? Utility? ETC...
Another thing that's really fucking irritating - "If people know how the MU is going to play out they won't care to watch..." That means that there is a problem with the basic mechanics of the game. This problem IS NOT SOLVED by changing unit compositions! It means that there is a lack of tension or critical conflict between players in some mechanical aspect of the game.
Knowing how the MU is going to play out does not mean that it is no longer entertaining! In fact, that can be a major source of tension! Because you know that a specific type of engagement is going to happen, lots of drops/multi-pronged attacks...etc.
People are approaching the game from the wrong way. A lot of them. This is why the system of hard-counters and heavy/light damage is the worst designed component of the game, and out of anything, should be removed...because it forces a lot of people into thinking the easy way - easy thoughts of black and white. This counters this...this counters that...
That's not the way the game should be played OR viewed, because it removes so much depth and utility from playstyles and players...
I can't believe some people think proper balancing revolves around constant unit composition shifts. Hard counters aren't fun - they're stupid. Good balance and good MU design does not mean I build this, you build that, so I build this...
A good MU has a fuckton of depth. You should always focus on depth before anything else. What is the depth of this composition? What can I do with it? How many things CAN I do differently with it? How many styles can I play with the same set of units?
There is a reason why there is a default composition for each MU. Let's not try to upset that. Instead, focus on depth...
How much can I do with this same set of units? How much possibility is there for me to express PLAYER SKILL with these units? Utility? ETC...
Another thing that's really fucking irritating - "If people know how the MU is going to play out they won't care to watch..." That means that there is a problem with the basic mechanics of the game. This problem IS NOT SOLVED by changing unit compositions! It means that there is a lack of tension or critical conflict between players in some mechanical aspect of the game.
Knowing how the MU is going to play out does not mean that it is no longer entertaining! In fact, that can be a major source of tension! Because you know that a specific type of engagement is going to happen, lots of drops/multi-pronged attacks...etc.
People are approaching the game from the wrong way. A lot of them. This is why the system of hard-counters and heavy/light damage is the worst designed component of the game, and out of anything, should be removed...because it forces a lot of people into thinking the easy way - easy thoughts of black and white. This counters this...this counters that...
That's not the way the game should be played OR viewed, because it removes so much depth and utility from playstyles and players...
Chess and Go are great games despite having no tech switches.
The same is true for fighting games, shooters, etc...
BW would be boring if Bisu did not have a probe that never died EVERY game. BW would be boring if Jaedong and his Mutalisks were not a constant.
People mistake tactical variety with unit variety. That is silly.
Interesting topic, but it's invalid imho. SC2 is designed to be OP vs OP. What the original post is suggesting can't work in such an environment. Buffing "underused" units will most likely have disastrous side effects, as proven with WOL.
SC2 needs a complete overhaul, not little tweaks here an there.
On September 09 2013 08:02 kasumimi wrote: Interesting topic, but it's invalid imho. SC2 is designed to be OP vs OP. What the original post is suggesting can't work in such an environment. Buffing "underused" units will most likely have disastrous side effects, as proven with WOL.
SC2 needs a complete overhaul, not little tweaks here an there.
Little tweaks here and there has balanced the matchups. Now they just need to make it more spectator friendly.
Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
I can't believe some people think proper balancing revolves around constant unit composition shifts. Hard counters aren't fun - they're stupid. Good balance and good MU design does not mean I build this, you build that, so I build this...
A good MU has a fuckton of depth. You should always focus on depth before anything else. What is the depth of this composition? What can I do with it? How many things CAN I do differently with it? How many styles can I play with the same set of units?
There is a reason why there is a default composition for each MU. Let's not try to upset that. Instead, focus on depth...
How much can I do with this same set of units? How much possibility is there for me to express PLAYER SKILL with these units? Utility? ETC...
Another thing that's really fucking irritating - "If people know how the MU is going to play out they won't care to watch..." That means that there is a problem with the basic mechanics of the game. This problem IS NOT SOLVED by changing unit compositions! It means that there is a lack of tension or critical conflict between players in some mechanical aspect of the game.
Knowing how the MU is going to play out does not mean that it is no longer entertaining! In fact, that can be a major source of tension! Because you know that a specific type of engagement is going to happen, lots of drops/multi-pronged attacks...etc.
People are approaching the game from the wrong way. A lot of them. This is why the system of hard-counters and heavy/light damage is the worst designed component of the game, and out of anything, should be removed...because it forces a lot of people into thinking the easy way - easy thoughts of black and white. This counters this...this counters that...
That's not the way the game should be played OR viewed, because it removes so much depth and utility from playstyles and players...
Chess and Go are great games despite having no tech switches.
The same is true for fighting games, shooters, etc...
BW would be boring if Bisu did not have a probe that never died EVERY game. BW would be boring if Jaedong and his Mutalisks were not a constant.
People mistake tactical variety with unit variety. That is silly.
I disagree with you. Tactic variety is highly correlated with unit variety. True, every player has his/her style of play such as Jaedong's hyperaggression vs Scarlett's defensive creeping. However, that difference can be perceived by people like you and me who have experience with the game. For the newcomers and more casual players, all they will see is the same blob of units and won't be as excited. Plus, with the lack of other options, the game will feel extremely stale unless you are a competitive player on the ladder.
SC2 already has incorporated the elements of unit variety (look at PvZ and TvT). You see very different styles AND unit composition within those matchups.
ESports is like entertainment. You want to make sure that you truly don't know what to expect. If you know what unit composition is going to come out, then you already spoiled half the surprise and lost a lot of potential excitement right there.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
There is a difference between hurting something and criticizing something. Verbal assault does not help the second party while criticism can provide helpful feedback. I actually have displayed a lot of criticism with SC2, but I never get warned or banned.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
Ah cmon, thats no valid point at all. As u said in mobas (cause they are teamgames) teamwork is the most important thing by far. but was is the thing called teamwork? in the end its just experience what to do and when to do it. ofc i dont agree with celadan, that u dont need any skills for mobas at pro niveau, thats kinda absurd, but the actual moves pros do arent hard at all. the hard thing is that everybody has to do theses things in the right timing for his team, and thats only gathered by experience.
one simple example: there are 1vs1 tourneys in lol, where u play till first blood / 100 minion kills. the mechanical skillgap is that low, that even gold players can beat pros in that 1vs1 matchup. i would say there is no way in hell that can happen in a rts like starcraft.
well in the end it isnt really important, but why deny that mobas are more simple (to execute) rts games?
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Positioning is king and if you are out of position, you die. There is as much to play attention to as in any SC2 game and there are 5 people looking to kill you, not just one. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
Ah cmon, thats no valid point at all. As u said in mobas (cause they are teamgames) teamwork is the most important thing by far. but was is the thing called teamwork? in the end its just experience what to do and when to do it. ofc i dont agree with celadan, that u dont need any skills for mobas at pro niveau, thats kinda absurd, but the actual moves pros do arent hard at all. the hard thing is that everybody has to do theses things in the right timing for his team, and thats only gathered by experience.
one simple example: there are 1vs1 tourneys in lol, where u play till first blood / 100 minion kills. the mechanical skillgap is that low, that even gold players can beat pros in that 1vs1 matchup. i would say there is no way in hell that can happen in a rts like starcraft.
well in the end it isnt really important, but why deny that mobas are more simple (to execute) rts games?
Because it is a stupid argument and its wrong. Actions per minute does not relate to overall skill requirement. A piano player has to press more keys than a trumpet player and a dumber has to use both feet and hands. Which interment takes more skill? Which is harder to play, the violin or the upright bass? There are not discussions we even entertain, because we know how flawed the arguments will be.
On September 06 2013 23:26 czaku wrote: The truth is, RTS is shading out. Look at the other RTS games. All went dead. It's great game but i think it wouldn't be developed so much if it wasn't named Starcraft.
fucking truth right here
Yep. MOBAs are taking over.
The physical skill cap is vastly lower (single unit control), which appeals to a lot of people who want an equal or slightly lesser mental competition with lower physical requirements. Several recent RTSes have nix'd base-building aspects and made all units spawn as reinforcements around a "hero".
Command and Conquer 4 and End of Nations are good examples of the "future" of popular RTSes.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
Ah cmon, thats no valid point at all. As u said in mobas (cause they are teamgames) teamwork is the most important thing by far. but was is the thing called teamwork? in the end its just experience what to do and when to do it. ofc i dont agree with celadan, that u dont need any skills for mobas at pro niveau, thats kinda absurd, but the actual moves pros do arent hard at all. the hard thing is that everybody has to do theses things in the right timing for his team, and thats only gathered by experience.
one simple example: there are 1vs1 tourneys in lol, where u play till first blood / 100 minion kills. the mechanical skillgap is that low, that even gold players can beat pros in that 1vs1 matchup. i would say there is no way in hell that can happen in a rts like starcraft.
well in the end it isnt really important, but why deny that mobas are more simple (to execute) rts games?
Because it is a stupid argument and its wrong. Actions per minute does not relate to overall skill requirement. A piano player has to press more keys than a trumpet player and a dumber has to use both feet and hands. Which interment takes more skill? Which is harder to play, the violin or the upright bass? There are not discussions we even entertain, because we know how flawed the arguments will be.
From your example, piano takes the most skill, some songs require 4+ notes played at once, and not slowly that doesn't mean the others don't have a place in an orchastra, but they ARE easier
That's why MOBA's are team games You could theoretically have a best team of triangle players in the world, which would be determined by how in sync they were, how coordinated the song was, and how big the team was
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
Ah cmon, thats no valid point at all. As u said in mobas (cause they are teamgames) teamwork is the most important thing by far. but was is the thing called teamwork? in the end its just experience what to do and when to do it. ofc i dont agree with celadan, that u dont need any skills for mobas at pro niveau, thats kinda absurd, but the actual moves pros do arent hard at all. the hard thing is that everybody has to do theses things in the right timing for his team, and thats only gathered by experience.
one simple example: there are 1vs1 tourneys in lol, where u play till first blood / 100 minion kills. the mechanical skillgap is that low, that even gold players can beat pros in that 1vs1 matchup. i would say there is no way in hell that can happen in a rts like starcraft.
well in the end it isnt really important, but why deny that mobas are more simple (to execute) rts games?
Because it is a stupid argument and its wrong. Actions per minute does not relate to overall skill requirement. A piano player has to press more keys than a trumpet player and a dumber has to use both feet and hands. Which interment takes more skill? Which is harder to play, the violin or the upright bass? There are not discussions we even entertain, because we know how flawed the arguments will be.
did i even mention apm? if u say mechanics are "apm" ure completely wrong.. u dont argue about the things i mention, u just do some (flawed) metaphers. u only mention knowledge as skills in dota /mobas. sports is ofc about knowledge too, but the main factor is always how hard it is to execute certain stuff. most of the actions that are required by a single player in a moba to play the game are easier than to play a rts. i dont talk about the knowledge that only comes with experience, just the difficulty to actually play the game. maybe there is more depth in mobas than in rts games, but that doesnt mean u need more skill, u just need more time and maybe could actually get better by only WATCHING and theorycrafting.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
On September 09 2013 09:03 Plansix wrote: [quote] Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
Ah cmon, thats no valid point at all. As u said in mobas (cause they are teamgames) teamwork is the most important thing by far. but was is the thing called teamwork? in the end its just experience what to do and when to do it. ofc i dont agree with celadan, that u dont need any skills for mobas at pro niveau, thats kinda absurd, but the actual moves pros do arent hard at all. the hard thing is that everybody has to do theses things in the right timing for his team, and thats only gathered by experience.
one simple example: there are 1vs1 tourneys in lol, where u play till first blood / 100 minion kills. the mechanical skillgap is that low, that even gold players can beat pros in that 1vs1 matchup. i would say there is no way in hell that can happen in a rts like starcraft.
well in the end it isnt really important, but why deny that mobas are more simple (to execute) rts games?
Because it is a stupid argument and its wrong. Actions per minute does not relate to overall skill requirement. A piano player has to press more keys than a trumpet player and a dumber has to use both feet and hands. Which interment takes more skill? Which is harder to play, the violin or the upright bass? There are not discussions we even entertain, because we know how flawed the arguments will be.
From your example, piano takes the most skill, some songs require 4+ notes played at once, and not slowly that doesn't mean the others don't have a place in an orchastra, but they ARE easier
That's why MOBA's are team games You could theoretically have a best team of triangle players in the world, which would be determined by how in sync they were, how coordinated the song was, and how big the team was
I am sure there are a bunch of drummers who would disagree. And trumpet players who learned how to breath while playing. I am talking to a drummer right now about the subject and she points out that drumming is more physically exhausting and requires the drummer to keep the beat for the entire band and adjust to them.
Its all subjective. If you say "Dota 2 requires less actions and you need to click less" then I guess they take less skill. But in the same argument, the Dota 2 player could say "In SC2 there is only one person to worry about, I have to worry about 5 and my 4 other team mates." At the end of the day, its a pointless discussion that leads no where. Both games are hard for different reasons and required different skill sets. Trying to prove which requires the most "skill", whatever the fuck that is, is a fools errand.
On September 09 2013 09:03 Plansix wrote: [quote] Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
On September 09 2013 09:08 The_Red_Viper wrote: [quote] Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
EVERY competetive game have split second descicion making. I wouldnt be so generous to MOBAS though, its the teams reaction that matter not the individual so you need a team that communicates. And btw dia in sc2 doesnt say much requires 0 practice, So how can you speak for master players? They probably spend time praccing sc2 not LOL so why do you jump to conclusions based on that?
On September 09 2013 09:08 The_Red_Viper wrote: [quote] Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
Its not worth the time arguing about it. He is just going to claim over and over the Moba are for casual players. There is no point you can make that will change his mind, so don't bother trying. He came here to troll up the thread and he got his wish. Time to stop feeding him.
On September 09 2013 09:13 Plansix wrote: [quote] He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
Its not worth the time arguing about it. He is just going to claim over and over the Moba are for casual players. There is no point you can make that will change his mind, so don't bother trying. He came here to troll up the thread and he got his wish. Time to stop feeding him.
I point out that you are wrong, so ofc i must be trolling. When i first start to argue as to why mobas are not hard compared to better games, you call me a troll. While you keep avoiding the subject itself....
On September 09 2013 09:03 Plansix wrote: [quote] Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
You sound like a young person to think teamwork is something easy to attain.... If you're not, that's just sad.
On September 09 2013 10:21 Celadan wrote: [quote] I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
Its not worth the time arguing about it. He is just going to claim over and over the Moba are for casual players. There is no point you can make that will change his mind, so don't bother trying. He came here to troll up the thread and he got his wish. Time to stop feeding him.
I point out that you are wrong, so ofc i must be trolling. When i first start to argue as to why mobas are not hard compared to better games, you call me a troll. While you keep avoiding the subject itself....
You're calling a teamwork game easy because you think teamwork is not a skill worth praising. That is a personal preference disguising itself as fact, please stop.
On September 09 2013 10:27 Plansix wrote: [quote] No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
Its not worth the time arguing about it. He is just going to claim over and over the Moba are for casual players. There is no point you can make that will change his mind, so don't bother trying. He came here to troll up the thread and he got his wish. Time to stop feeding him.
I point out that you are wrong, so ofc i must be trolling. When i first start to argue as to why mobas are not hard compared to better games, you call me a troll. While you keep avoiding the subject itself....
You're calling a teamwork game easy because you think teamwork is not a skill worth praising. That is a personal preference disguising itself as fact, please stop.
The difficulty of the teamwork depends on the difficulty of the task. You cant call a game hard just because its a team game......
On September 09 2013 09:03 Plansix wrote: [quote] Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
Ah cmon, thats no valid point at all. As u said in mobas (cause they are teamgames) teamwork is the most important thing by far. but was is the thing called teamwork? in the end its just experience what to do and when to do it. ofc i dont agree with celadan, that u dont need any skills for mobas at pro niveau, thats kinda absurd, but the actual moves pros do arent hard at all. the hard thing is that everybody has to do theses things in the right timing for his team, and thats only gathered by experience.
one simple example: there are 1vs1 tourneys in lol, where u play till first blood / 100 minion kills. the mechanical skillgap is that low, that even gold players can beat pros in that 1vs1 matchup. i would say there is no way in hell that can happen in a rts like starcraft.
well in the end it isnt really important, but why deny that mobas are more simple (to execute) rts games?
Because it is a stupid argument and its wrong. Actions per minute does not relate to overall skill requirement. A piano player has to press more keys than a trumpet player and a dumber has to use both feet and hands. Which interment takes more skill? Which is harder to play, the violin or the upright bass? There are not discussions we even entertain, because we know how flawed the arguments will be.
From your example, piano takes the most skill, some songs require 4+ notes played at once, and not slowly that doesn't mean the others don't have a place in an orchastra, but they ARE easier
That's why MOBA's are team games You could theoretically have a best team of triangle players in the world, which would be determined by how in sync they were, how coordinated the song was, and how big the team was
Are you serious? My guess is you neither play Dota nor a musical instrument.
Ignoring the fact that the number of notes in a piece has almost no correlation to its difficulty (and that only the easiest of piano pieces require less than 4 notes to be played at once), it's also a lot easier to play notes on a piano than pretty much any other instrument. A pianist can play 4 or 5 voices at once. You can't do this on a violin or trumpet and it has nothing to do with the skill of the player, it's the differences of the instrument. You could easily make some equally stupid argument like "piano is easier than violin because every key you press on a piano is guaranteed to be in tune, whereas playing the right violin notes can only be obtained through practice and muscle memory".
Regarding Dota vs BW/SC2. I switched from playing/watching BW to playing/watching Dota when BW died. I think many RTS players who have a low opinion of moba games think that Dota is just like SC but you only control one unit. If this were true then yes Dota would be a shit game. The good news is that Dota is an extremely well-made game with many elements that just aren't present in SC. For example, last hitting and denying adds a significant amount of mechanical skill into the game. And as for strategy, Dota is definitely not a watered down version of Starcraft - if anything there's more strategy in Dota because of the large hero pool. It is definitely mechanically easier to play Dota, but skills such as coordination and split-second decision making are also emphasized a lot more than in SC.
As to which game is easier? Well, it's definitely easier to win in Dota pubs than it is to win on ICCup. In dota you can jump in without knowing anything about the game and still get wins and the matchmaking always tries to equalize you at 50%. When you play on iccup you pretty much just lose again and again, even if you're a BW enthusiast, until you get good enough to win because the average skill in iccup was insane (as to be expected from a private server of a 10+ year old game). Nothing was given to you; you only won when you earned it. But if you're playing SC2 you don't have this experience either; it's pretty trivial to get out of the lower leagues on bnet.
It always amuses me when I see people here hating on moba games. I'm pretty sure the SC2 community is the only community stupid enough to dismiss BW as a mindless button-mashing game where people are too busy fighting with the AI to think up of real strategy, and then turn around and hate on Dota/LoL for not having enough mechanical skill. Quite frankly the hypocrisy of the SC2 community never ceases to amaze me.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
Its not worth the time arguing about it. He is just going to claim over and over the Moba are for casual players. There is no point you can make that will change his mind, so don't bother trying. He came here to troll up the thread and he got his wish. Time to stop feeding him.
I point out that you are wrong, so ofc i must be trolling. When i first start to argue as to why mobas are not hard compared to better games, you call me a troll. While you keep avoiding the subject itself....
You're calling a teamwork game easy because you think teamwork is not a skill worth praising. That is a personal preference disguising itself as fact, please stop.
The difficulty of the teamwork depends on the difficulty of the task. You cant call a game hard just because its a team game......
Reworking a unit in starcraft should have the ultimate goal of making it an option, apart from the core units. It shouldn't have a place just to stop something else from happening, rather if what it does makes something else less effective, or to provide an alternative path(not significantly better or worse, just different) then they'll have suceeded.
SC2 is a hard game. Dota2 is a hard game. LoL is a hard game. That should be enough. Arguing that some game takes more skill than another when there are very clearly defined "S class" teams/players is fucking stupid as well. If a game was easy you'd have a hard time distinguishing yourself if you were a really fucking good player. As this doesn't seem to be the case, clearly none of the games are easy.
On September 09 2013 11:19 Plansix wrote: [quote] Spoke like a person who has never played Dota 2 and has no idea what he is talking about, because you claim that heroes only have 4 abilities. Invoker would like to talk with you, and drop a meat ball on your head. Same with Keeper of the Light.
And as I said before, SC2 players have tried to become professional LoL and Dota 2 players, because they thought it was easier. They all failed.
-_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
Its not worth the time arguing about it. He is just going to claim over and over the Moba are for casual players. There is no point you can make that will change his mind, so don't bother trying. He came here to troll up the thread and he got his wish. Time to stop feeding him.
I point out that you are wrong, so ofc i must be trolling. When i first start to argue as to why mobas are not hard compared to better games, you call me a troll. While you keep avoiding the subject itself....
You're calling a teamwork game easy because you think teamwork is not a skill worth praising. That is a personal preference disguising itself as fact, please stop.
The difficulty of the teamwork depends on the difficulty of the task. You cant call a game hard just because its a team game......
I get it. Football is easy. Tennis is hard.
*facepalm*
I'd wager that the easier a game is, the larger teams need to be to make it competitive. The need for skillful teamwork replaces the difference in required mechanical ability (But that doesn't explain basketball)
The answer to this thread should be nothing. How can we even compare?
First I will say understanding design is an ability within itself. Some people simply can't grasp balance better than others. It's what I came to understand when I was competitive in the Fighting game community.
Here is the thing. I will use Fighting games as an example. The more diversity you want from each tool,(unit/champ/character) the more difficult it becomes to balance.
Fighting games like Moba games have large roster of characters, around 30+. Now some fighters like Street fighter or other 2d fighters usually have champs with very small movesets. Lets say around 10 unique moves. LoL has 5 moves QWER. And you can combo those. Easy to balance because the problems are easily visible.
Some fighters like Tekken have a 40+ roster with characters having a tool set of 50+ moves. Much more difficult to balance. But the current Tekken, Tekken Tag 2 is a balanced game. Because these games about six or seven in the series build on foundation of the previous games.
Most important each fighter has core moves that are essential to the principle of the fighting system. Launchers, good lows, fast jabs or good punishers, throws etc. Now these might be unique but they virtually perform the same thing for each character. And in Tekken unlike Street fighter, each character has the same health and defense abilities.
MOBAs rely on farm, kills and items. So even if one champ is better than another on level 1, if the other champ is fed that advantage is negligible. So the games have self balancing mechanics.
SC2's biggest issue is that the core foundation of the game is weak. Unit clumping is a nightmare. It shits on zerg as a race. And favors ranged units. It's the reason tanks were nerfed, storm, hellions, hellibats, etc. Warpgates core to the protoss race, are another nightmare, everything that's wrong with protoss starts there. All protoss patches always relate back to having warpgates in the game. The way the races mine is Mules=/= chrono boosting probes=/=larva inject. In many ways changing this was a direct nerf to worker harassment. The value of a scv isn't the same as a probe. Terran off the gate were the least fundamentally changed race, and they benefited the most from it. So it wasn't so much that terran was too strong as much as the other races were too weak. And so IMO until the fundamental problems are fixed, the game will have balance issues for awhile. Small little touches on units like MOBAs do won't cut it. It won't fix the problems, just shut up people for awhile until something else surfaces.
Balancing requires that you know what actual problems are so that you can tackle them straight up. Blizzard doesn't seem to know what the problems are.
On September 09 2013 11:35 Celadan wrote: [quote] -_- But then again no one from their community have succeded as a sc2 pro save for babyknight. and YES MOBAS are easier, and who is it that you refer to? can't be the good ones....(besides already addressed this) Its a lesser game, a custom game from wc3, ofcourse its easier! You sound like a guy thats never played anything but dota.
I have played SC2, Dota 2 and League of Legends. Dota 2 is an extremely hard game the punishes you at all time. It is mean, harsh and unforgiving. There are a thousand things to remember and mechanics alone will not save you from defeat. Being a good team mate, knowing who needs support and how to assist them is critical. Heroes like Meepo are as hard to play and controls an entire terran army(meepe is, infact, 5 heroes, each with their own spells).
As I said before, you are comparing Golf to Basket ball. You might as well say, "Why is that hard? You just bounce the ball on the ground and then throw it through a hoop. Try hitting a tiny ball 700 yards into a hole the size of a coffee mug and then talk to me about skill."
OH wow so you really control 5 units at some point in a moba? that seems really hard! I am not comparing golf to basketball. Making that analogy in itself just proves you dont understand the topic. And underplaying mechanics is just stupid. It just makes no sense at all. And btw "mechanics alone" is infact what seperates allot of people in terms of skill. SKILL a consept you ovliously dont understand. Go play some hard games and try get into the metagame and see how you do. Going back MOBAS then will seem like childs play. The problem with MOBAS is that the only skill you need to know is teamwork. Theres no other way to seperate the bad from the good in the game. DOTA 2 is only unforgiving in comparison to LOL btw. Make one mistake in any other game at a high level and you are probably going to get punished hard for it.
Gunz the duel, BW, Street fighter 4, CS 1.6, quake live. There, even gave you a list. GO indulge in those and see if you still think mobas are hard. Its a casual genre hence its broad appeal. You can't just blindfold yourself and think that dota 2 is the height of gamedesign. Its the very same deal with COD. Super casual and easy and alot of people compete in it to.
So in short, MOBAS are casual and easy to play. Maybe hard in comparison to an MMO or heavy rain but compared to hard games, its childs play.
In moba you should be good at split-second decision making. It comes only with training. Supports with Items have roughly 5-6 abilities and very important ultimates. And every ability should be cast at exact time and place. You can't just say MOBA is easy, ofc its easy for low levels same as sc2. Not anyone from sc2 masters can hit LoL platinum easily.
I'm diamond SC2 player but still only maintain Silver in LoL. I'm not even tryhard. Just casual player.
Its not worth the time arguing about it. He is just going to claim over and over the Moba are for casual players. There is no point you can make that will change his mind, so don't bother trying. He came here to troll up the thread and he got his wish. Time to stop feeding him.
I point out that you are wrong, so ofc i must be trolling. When i first start to argue as to why mobas are not hard compared to better games, you call me a troll. While you keep avoiding the subject itself....
You're calling a teamwork game easy because you think teamwork is not a skill worth praising. That is a personal preference disguising itself as fact, please stop.
The difficulty of the teamwork depends on the difficulty of the task. You cant call a game hard just because its a team game......
I get it. Football is easy. Tennis is hard.
*facepalm*
I'd wager that the easier a game is, the larger teams need to be to make it competitive. The need for skillful teamwork replaces the difference in required mechanical ability (But that doesn't explain basketball)
Does that mean darts is more mechanically taxing than soccer?
Or
Does that mean bobsledding is more mechanically taxing than marathon running?
I have a good sport comparison, dota is like softball and sc2 is like baseball both can be very competitive and are hard to master but its easier to begin with softball if you want these type of games
They don't have to rework the units particularly, I don't think that approach is needed at all and we can't look to MOBAs for that.
1. The UI of DOTA especially seems to be sick, with a lot of interesting things such as live observing and all, which would be potentially great in SC2. 2. Most of the things that contribute to 'fatigue' with SC2 aren't due to a monotonous metagame, but imo down to more key design mechanics. 'Terrible, terrible damage' I'm talking about you. 3 base saturation being optimal I'm also talking about you.
Without at the very least CONSIDERING altering some of those key design aspects, Blizz is operating with a pretty restrictive straightjacket on when it comes to enlivening the experience, at least to me personally.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
on the surface i agree. MOBAs look like they should be easier to master than SC2, CS or Q3. but after diving a little bit into the depth of dota2, i realized how blatantly wrong my opinion was.
the skill gaps between a good player, an excellent player and a pro gamer are astounding.
obviously you dont know what you talk about
ps: which "lack of mobas" do you talk about? LoL came first and had massive fame and following. a year later HoN came and also had a nice following. another year till dota2 was released, into a market that already had two really famous f2p mobas.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
Chess has less apm then lol and is considered a sport. There are a lot of strategies in lol with different outcome and in teamfights you have to react very fast.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
on the surface i agree. MOBAs look like they should be easier to master than SC2, CS or Q3. but after diving a little bit into the depth of dota2, i realized how blatantly wrong my opinion was.
the skill gaps between a good player, an excellent player and a pro gamer are astounding.
obviously you dont know what you talk about
This is a key part about Mobas is that the game looks easy until you dive in there any try to recreate what you saw in game. Last hitting alone and keeping up your farm is a skill unto itself and you need to do it while paying attention to everything else. Dota 2 requires knowledge of so many timings, abilities and skills that need to be used in combination, it is overwhelming. All you need to do is play windrunner and try to forcestaff into shackle shot to know how hard it can be to land a solid double stun. And even if you land all of that, you still need to do it at a time your teammates can follow up.
People who just look at the game on the surface and only see powers don't get how much harder the game is, or just don't want to learn about it because its easier to assume the game is easy.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
on the surface i agree. MOBAs look like they should be easier to master than SC2, CS or Q3. but after diving a little bit into the depth of dota2, i realized how blatantly wrong my opinion was.
the skill gaps between a good player, an excellent player and a pro gamer are astounding.
obviously you dont know what you talk about
This is a key part about Mobas is that the game looks easy until you dive in there any try to recreate what you saw in game. Last hitting alone and keeping up your farm is a skill unto itself and you need to do it while paying attention to everything else. Dota 2 requires knowledge of so many timings, abilities and skills that need to be used in combination, it is overwhelming. All you need to do is play windrunner and try to forcestaff into shackle shot to know how hard it can be to land a solid double stun. And even if you land all of that, you still need to do it at a time your teammates can follow up.
People who just look at the game on the surface and only see powers don't get how much harder the game is, or just don't want to learn about it because its easier to assume the game is easy.
They make the mistake that the solo-play aspect of the game being easy translates to the game overall being easy.
MOBA is easier to jump into, as a casual, than an RTS. Because you have 4 other people around you to help you, you have turrets to retreat to, etc...
But anyone with management experience knows how fucking hard getting 4 people to work together really is.
On September 09 2013 14:08 KingAce wrote: The answer to this thread should be nothing. How can we even compare?
First I will say understanding design is an ability within itself. Some people simply can't grasp balance better than others. It's what I came to understand when I was competitive in the Fighting game community.
Here is the thing. I will use Fighting games as an example. The more diversity you want from each tool,(unit/champ/character) the more difficult it becomes to balance.
Fighting games like Moba games have large roster of characters, around 30+. Now some fighters like Street fighter or other 2d fighters usually have champs with very small movesets. Lets say around 10 unique moves. LoL has 5 moves QWER. And you can combo those. Easy to balance because the problems are easily visible.
Some fighters like Tekken have a 40+ roster with characters having a tool set of 50+ moves. Much more difficult to balance. But the current Tekken, Tekken Tag 2 is a balanced game. Because these games about six or seven in the series build on foundation of the previous games.
Most important each fighter has core moves that are essential to the principle of the fighting system. Launchers, good lows, fast jabs or good punishers, throws etc. Now these might be unique but they virtually perform the same thing for each character. And in Tekken unlike Street fighter, each character has the same health and defense abilities.
MOBAs rely on farm, kills and items. So even if one champ is better than another on level 1, if the other champ is fed that advantage is negligible. So the games have self balancing mechanics.
SC2's biggest issue is that the core foundation of the game is weak. Unit clumping is a nightmare. It shits on zerg as a race. And favors ranged units. It's the reason tanks were nerfed, storm, hellions, hellibats, etc. Warpgates core to the protoss race, are another nightmare, everything that's wrong with protoss starts there. All protoss patches always relate back to having warpgates in the game. The way the races mine is Mules=/= chrono boosting probes=/=larva inject. In many ways changing this was a direct nerf to worker harassment. The value of a scv isn't the same as a probe. Terran off the gate were the least fundamentally changed race, and they benefited the most from it. So it wasn't so much that terran was too strong as much as the other races were too weak. And so IMO until the fundamental problems are fixed, the game will have balance issues for awhile. Small little touches on units like MOBAs do won't cut it. It won't fix the problems, just shut up people for awhile until something else surfaces.
Balancing requires that you know what actual problems are so that you can tackle them straight up. Blizzard doesn't seem to know what the problems are.
Actually, fighting games by design is much much easier to balance. Because you don't really 'snowball' nearly as much in fighting games (the only thing you have is like energy/rage bars). Let's say you take 20% off your opponent, and you both play 'evenly' after that, you will still keep the 20%. If you take 20% econ dmg in RTS or 20% gold lead in MOBA in the early game, it is almost game over. Fighting games don't really have 'resources' like RTS and MOBA.
And yes, MULES give advantage in some situations (worker harrass), but chrono gives upgrade lead and larva inject means easier tech switch and reaction.
On September 09 2013 08:57 Celadan wrote: Mobas are in essence jsut watered down RTS. The game design of a moba is utter shit. So taking ideas from them will just result in an army of newb friendly games that arent competitive at all. Although the LoL and dota2 community is really good at pretending their games require skill though.
Clearly this guy has played a lot of Dota 2 and LoL, and knows what is up. After all, those guys at TI3 had no skill at all........
Every game requires skill at pro lvl, but in the end he is kinda right, mobas are casual rts games. Not that its bad, he should say it in a different manner though^^
He is 100% wrong. He is comparing golf to basket ball, acting like liking being part of a team isn't a skill. SC2 pros have tried to move over to both LoL and Dota 2 with a 0% success rate.
I would reply to this but TL mods doesnt want their precious moba games hurt.....
No, they just want you to make real arguments, rather than throwing non-sense around. Hating on other games just because you dont play them is a shitty argument.
I have played them and its an rts where you control one unit with 4 abilities. You dont need good reflexes and you dont need more than 12 apm or a steady aim. Like anything that makes an esport an esport is missing from the moba genre. Its super popular because all the people who really liked wc3 but felt like standard was way too hard played dota. It is a watered down RTS. Strats are going to be very limited when you only got 5 units to play with and a bunch of units you can't control like creeps. So what are we left with? Less depth overall. The only reason Mobas were so popular is mostly due to wc3's success and its custom games. LoL and Dota just came when There was a lack of MOBAS so people just jumped on the chance. Just taking advantage of a gap in the gaming marked. There exists better more well made and WAY more fun custom games for wc3 so saying that Sc2 has something to learn from a MOBA is like saying that The Godfather has something to learn from The transformers movies..... Its just a lesser experience overall, and the skillgap between a MOBA pro and a noob is so infinite smaller in almost every other genre of game.
on the surface i agree. MOBAs look like they should be easier to master than SC2, CS or Q3. but after diving a little bit into the depth of dota2, i realized how blatantly wrong my opinion was.
the skill gaps between a good player, an excellent player and a pro gamer are astounding.
obviously you dont know what you talk about
This is a key part about Mobas is that the game looks easy until you dive in there any try to recreate what you saw in game. Last hitting alone and keeping up your farm is a skill unto itself and you need to do it while paying attention to everything else. Dota 2 requires knowledge of so many timings, abilities and skills that need to be used in combination, it is overwhelming. All you need to do is play windrunner and try to forcestaff into shackle shot to know how hard it can be to land a solid double stun. And even if you land all of that, you still need to do it at a time your teammates can follow up.
People who just look at the game on the surface and only see powers don't get how much harder the game is, or just don't want to learn about it because its easier to assume the game is easy.
They make the mistake that the solo-play aspect of the game being easy translates to the game overall being easy.
MOBA is easier to jump into, as a casual, than an RTS. Because you have 4 other people around you to help you, you have turrets to retreat to, etc...
But anyone with management experience knows how fucking hard getting 4 people to work together really is.
No to mechion that the pros make it look so easy to do. You see Dendi do some clutch Pudge hooks and you think “I could do that”. Then you get into the game and hook creeps all game and totally fuck up. Or hook teammates. Or you try to play Puck and realized he is made of glass and a child's innocence.
There is a reason they have a button that just types “Game is hard” into Team Chat.
I'd prefer balance gets thrown out the window in favor of fun. My opinion about why starcraft is such a nice game is the game balances itself out given enough options. There is almost always a response to a playstyle if enough thought is put into it. I wish the discussion would be about adding to the game and not changing/reworking current things. Making carriers more viable probably won't increase the popularity of the game. Adding lurkers/defilers/science vessels/scouts(lol) back and making old pros relearn the game would add far more 'excitement'. Fun should take precedence over balance because balance is mythical.
If there is rework that needs to be done, it is to add quirks to every unit. Marines digging trenches for +armor, mutas perfectly stacking like in brood war, reaver like micro, etc. I don't think there are enough units where certain players can absolutely excel at to 'break' a matchup. There is not enough character and style in top pro level players that make games worth watching as much. I hope Blizzard even considers being more radical in their changes for LotV.
The only fact that the game has been around for like forever and people still are discovering new laning tricks should be testimony of how hard and deep dota really is. This is also because it's an old style game, where bugs are considered features (stacking, all the trick for aggro in lane, from double waving, to aggro-cd harass, to de-aggro from towers, drag-pulls etc..) and design isn't a slave of the designers but is more driven by the players.
This is a stupid discussion btw, i think all old-school designed game are inerently hard because all the various aspect that emerge from the engine are not removed for the sake of "streamlined" or "modern" design but kept unless severely unbalanced, and as such those games can get so incredibly deep and hard to master in all the possible way you can abuse the engine. What is "harder" is entirely a subjective discussion.
What i think the original poster wanted to promote however, was the style in which dota balance heroes: giving them a niche. If units are buffed in particular situations, you may not see them every game, but you'll ensure that in some games you will see them because they're actually better than other units in particular situations. How to do this in SC i dunno and i think it's inherently harder, but i think it's possible.
That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote: That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
I think there is no way I can appreciate the skill of a well executed teamfight as much as what the best sc2 players can do.
However, back to the music analogy: some imstruments are easier than others to sound reasonably good on. The problem is just that it is just as easy for everyone else playing that instrument and: the tasks which are considered normal to master are becoming much harder. Lets take an an easy instrument like percussion... everyone can make a bang, but to get a job in a symphony you need master up to 15 very different instruments, unlike string players who only need one, winds one or two. Compare the clarinet part and the trumpet part of any symphony and see that the trumpet is harder to play, therfore given easier parts.
From what I have learned, the same goes for soccer vs american football. Soccer players are way more diverse in skill, and can all do fairly well on any position on the field (-gk). But then, the NFL players need to drill 100s of accurately planned plays with their team, all coded, where everything only takes a few seconds.
For mobas, the attention not needed for macro and controlling huge armies is put into teamplay.
The skillcap of what a human can do seems to be pretty constant, if the task itself is easy, a higher achievementlevel is expected. This is especially true when we compete for money and glory...
On September 09 2013 14:08 KingAce wrote: The answer to this thread should be nothing. How can we even compare?
First I will say understanding design is an ability within itself. Some people simply can't grasp balance better than others. It's what I came to understand when I was competitive in the Fighting game community.
Here is the thing. I will use Fighting games as an example. The more diversity you want from each tool,(unit/champ/character) the more difficult it becomes to balance.
Fighting games like Moba games have large roster of characters, around 30+. Now some fighters like Street fighter or other 2d fighters usually have champs with very small movesets. Lets say around 10 unique moves. LoL has 5 moves QWER. And you can combo those. Easy to balance because the problems are easily visible.
Some fighters like Tekken have a 40+ roster with characters having a tool set of 50+ moves. Much more difficult to balance. But the current Tekken, Tekken Tag 2 is a balanced game. Because these games about six or seven in the series build on foundation of the previous games.
Most important each fighter has core moves that are essential to the principle of the fighting system. Launchers, good lows, fast jabs or good punishers, throws etc. Now these might be unique but they virtually perform the same thing for each character. And in Tekken unlike Street fighter, each character has the same health and defense abilities.
MOBAs rely on farm, kills and items. So even if one champ is better than another on level 1, if the other champ is fed that advantage is negligible. So the games have self balancing mechanics.
SC2's biggest issue is that the core foundation of the game is weak. Unit clumping is a nightmare. It shits on zerg as a race. And favors ranged units. It's the reason tanks were nerfed, storm, hellions, hellibats, etc. Warpgates core to the protoss race, are another nightmare, everything that's wrong with protoss starts there. All protoss patches always relate back to having warpgates in the game. The way the races mine is Mules=/= chrono boosting probes=/=larva inject. In many ways changing this was a direct nerf to worker harassment. The value of a scv isn't the same as a probe. Terran off the gate were the least fundamentally changed race, and they benefited the most from it. So it wasn't so much that terran was too strong as much as the other races were too weak. And so IMO until the fundamental problems are fixed, the game will have balance issues for awhile. Small little touches on units like MOBAs do won't cut it. It won't fix the problems, just shut up people for awhile until something else surfaces.
Balancing requires that you know what actual problems are so that you can tackle them straight up. Blizzard doesn't seem to know what the problems are.
On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote: That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well.
Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks.
On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote: That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well.
Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks.
We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense.
On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote: That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well.
Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks.
We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense.
Yeah, its not a binary state at all of "impossible to take third" and "easy to take third". I am saying we need to find a middle of the road that allows players to take a third base without giving it to them for free. Although I did not love the map in every way, Neo Planet S made for some pretty exciting games. We need a few more maps with features that make games interesting. Hell, I would even been open to times pathways that open up once the game reaches a specific point. Anything and everything to spice the game up a bit.
On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote: That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well.
Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks.
We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense.
I know what you mean, but making the three base an option and not a rule ties up the Zerg's hands. Unlike other races, Zerg cannot pull off a powerful 2 base all-in like other races can. As a matter of fact, the only viable all-ins they usually have either 1 base or 3 base. That's how the race was designed unfortunately.
On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote: That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well.
Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks.
We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense.
I know what you mean, but making the three base an option and not a rule ties up the Zerg's hands. Unlike other races, Zerg cannot pull off a powerful 2 base all-in like other races can. As a matter of fact, the only viable all-ins they usually have either 1 base or 3 base. That's how the race was designed unfortunately.
Right, but zerg, terran and protoss all have different ways of defending their bases as well. In a lot of ways, they are better at defending quick expansions in the early game beyond their natural. They can design maps where it is possible for zerg to take a third base earlier than the other two races, without making it free.
The OP is putting way too little effort on the infestor change and just focused on the broodlord infestor deathball. It was the biggest change that WoL has ever got and probably lead to the highest growth point of SC2 and also caused the 2012 WoL GGlord infestors deathball nightmare. Destiny, Catz and another zerg were constantly discussing about the change in timings, how Z can be on even based with T/P because now Z can be cost efficient etc. Spanishwa icefisher (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=207017) becomes almost standard and modern builds were derived from it. That guide itself has more pages that all hots TL strategies (with all the fancy graphics and good layouts) adds up. We also saw EU zergs start adapting the new style while the koreans (and idra) stayed on muta style. Both muta/infestors style were viable etc. terran tries to answer with both bio and mech.
The only issue was that blizzard didn't find a sweet spot to nerf the broodlord deathball and everyone blames blizzard for patching that infestor change too aggressively and affected the meta. Yet rarely anyone complained about lack of change in the late WoL stage after hots is released. Blizzard is too afraid to make a change as big as infestors in WoL again and so we are stucked with limited tools and limited change. and now we have a simplistic match up in TvZ with bio mine vs ling baneling muta and it is easier to balance. but what about stuff like map favoring what style, can T land the 3rd easily, or can Z defend the 4th easily etc?
I just hope blizzard will man up and do something big to some underused units again and just ignore balance completely for a while. hots almost didn't have any change since the beta and the metagame probably won't change so much until lotv which is god knows when
On September 09 2013 14:08 KingAce wrote: The answer to this thread should be nothing. How can we even compare?
First I will say understanding design is an ability within itself. Some people simply can't grasp balance better than others. It's what I came to understand when I was competitive in the Fighting game community.
Here is the thing. I will use Fighting games as an example. The more diversity you want from each tool,(unit/champ/character) the more difficult it becomes to balance.
Fighting games like Moba games have large roster of characters, around 30+. Now some fighters like Street fighter or other 2d fighters usually have champs with very small movesets. Lets say around 10 unique moves. LoL has 5 moves QWER. And you can combo those. Easy to balance because the problems are easily visible.
Some fighters like Tekken have a 40+ roster with characters having a tool set of 50+ moves. Much more difficult to balance. But the current Tekken, Tekken Tag 2 is a balanced game. Because these games about six or seven in the series build on foundation of the previous games.
Most important each fighter has core moves that are essential to the principle of the fighting system. Launchers, good lows, fast jabs or good punishers, throws etc. Now these might be unique but they virtually perform the same thing for each character. And in Tekken unlike Street fighter, each character has the same health and defense abilities.
MOBAs rely on farm, kills and items. So even if one champ is better than another on level 1, if the other champ is fed that advantage is negligible. So the games have self balancing mechanics.
SC2's biggest issue is that the core foundation of the game is weak. Unit clumping is a nightmare. It shits on zerg as a race. And favors ranged units. It's the reason tanks were nerfed, storm, hellions, hellibats, etc. Warpgates core to the protoss race, are another nightmare, everything that's wrong with protoss starts there. All protoss patches always relate back to having warpgates in the game. The way the races mine is Mules=/= chrono boosting probes=/=larva inject. In many ways changing this was a direct nerf to worker harassment. The value of a scv isn't the same as a probe. Terran off the gate were the least fundamentally changed race, and they benefited the most from it. So it wasn't so much that terran was too strong as much as the other races were too weak. And so IMO until the fundamental problems are fixed, the game will have balance issues for awhile. Small little touches on units like MOBAs do won't cut it. It won't fix the problems, just shut up people for awhile until something else surfaces.
Balancing requires that you know what actual problems are so that you can tackle them straight up. Blizzard doesn't seem to know what the problems are.
You may be right in many cases. However, there is one problem with your statement. Is your problem applicable? In other words, do your statements bring any solutions to the table?
I definitely agree with you on your core foundation argument, but the problem is that it's just not feasible to ask for Blizzard to overhaul the game because that would cost them and those part of the eSports scene dearly!
Giving underused units a role is not the best solution, but it's a tested method that has had some success. Will it perfect the game? Maybe not. But will it IMPROVE game? Chances are likely, if Blizzard is careful with it.
On September 10 2013 00:15 ETisME wrote: The OP is putting way too little effort on the infestor change and just focused on the broodlord infestor deathball. It was the biggest change that WoL has ever got and probably lead to the highest growth point of SC2 and also caused the 2012 WoL GGlord infestors deathball nightmare. Destiny, Catz and another zerg were constantly discussing about the change in timings, how Z can be on even based with T/P because now Z can be cost efficient etc. Spanishwa icefisher (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=207017) becomes almost standard and modern builds were derived from it. That guide itself has more pages that all hots TL strategies (with all the fancy graphics and good layouts) adds up. We also saw EU zergs start adapting the new style while the koreans (and idra) stayed on muta style. Both muta/infestors style were viable etc. terran tries to answer with both bio and mech.
The only issue was that blizzard didn't find a sweet spot to nerf the broodlord deathball and everyone blames blizzard for patching that infestor change too aggressively and affected the meta. Yet rarely anyone complained about lack of change in the late WoL stage after hots is released. Blizzard is too afraid to make a change as big as infestors in WoL again and so we are stucked with limited tools and limited change. and now we have a simplistic match up in TvZ with bio mine vs ling baneling muta and it is easier to balance. but what about stuff like map favoring what style, can T land the 3rd easily, or can Z defend the 4th easily etc?
I just hope blizzard will man up and do something big to some underused units again and just ignore balance completely for a while. hots almost didn't have any change since the beta and the metagame probably won't change so much until lotv which is god knows when
Infestors were a result of series of buffs, which one can argue as reworking (although it did receive a great amount of steady nerfs). For me, I defined reworking as the realm of either providing a healthy dose of nerfs and buffs or changing the way the unit operates.
On September 09 2013 23:42 Coffee Zombie wrote: That lack of options is one key issue with the game. With the current economic model maps need to be a lot, lot smaller. The third base needs to be a stretch, not standard. If that gets implemented, the old triangle of expanding + meatgrinder > turtling > harassment > expanding would work again. With the current model and the current maps it doesn't, so we get deathballs.
The lack of map varity and easy of getting a secure 3rd base has been a large problem for SC2. I would like to see more maps with thirds that are a larger challenge to get and encourage more harassment. I would also like to see main's and naturals with features that allow for better harassment options.
If you remember the old SC2 days and a GSL map called Icarus, those maps were a flop because Zerg needed a third base to stay on par with other races. Furthermore, Protoss needs a third base to make its army strong enough during the mid to late game because Gateway units are not strong during that phase. Because both races need a third base, Terran also needs a third base as well.
Like it or not, third bases are very important for racial balancing. However, I do agree that SC2 maps could use more features that will benefit certain units such as high ground terrain in the middle of the map for Siege Tanks.
We're not making the point that thirds should be made harder per se, just that this bolded part shouldn't necessarily be a rule if that makes sense.
I know what you mean, but making the three base an option and not a rule ties up the Zerg's hands. Unlike other races, Zerg cannot pull off a powerful 2 base all-in like other races can. As a matter of fact, the only viable all-ins they usually have either 1 base or 3 base. That's how the race was designed unfortunately.
Right, but zerg, terran and protoss all have different ways of defending their bases as well. In a lot of ways, they are better at defending quick expansions in the early game beyond their natural. They can design maps where it is possible for zerg to take a third base earlier than the other two races, without making it free.
Every race does have a defense mechanism, for sure. The question is who will get the better end of that exchange. Protoss now have MSC, sentries, and warp gate units who are decent in the early game. Terran have mules, supply depot walls, and salvageable bunkers to keep their economy going while under pressure. Although Zerg has larva, Queen, and creep, Zerg has to sacrifice economy (drones that could have been produced) for units (I mean creep is meaningless without units, and the Queens cannot defense by themselves).
Again, Zerg is the reason why we have a three base as a necessity in the first place. The best solution I can come up with is to provide Zerg with a unit that greatly help the early game or buffen the queen. But such changes I believe would greatly upset the balance.
Furthermore, Zerg units are cheapest and therefore the weakest. So, I am not sure how we can make Zerg have an "easier" time to securing a third base than other races. To me, I daresay that such implementation is impossible.
infestors change in patch 1.4 where fungal duration was decreased and this patch changed the entire zerg matchups afterward. Then the rest that it had was almost all straight nerfs it's as close as a rework that a rts would get along side with reaper rework
On September 10 2013 00:15 hansonslee wrote: Every race does have a defense mechanism, for sure. The question is who will get the better end of that exchange. Protoss now have MSC, sentries, and warp gate units who are decent in the early game. Terran have mules, supply depot walls, and salvageable bunkers to keep their economy going while under pressure. Although Zerg has larva, Queen, and creep, Zerg has to sacrifice economy (drones that could have been produced) for units (I mean creep is meaningless without units, and the Queens cannot defense by themselves).
Again, Zerg is the reason why we have a three base as a necessity in the first place. The best solution I can come up with is to provide Zerg with a unit that greatly help the early game or buffen the queen. But such changes I believe would greatly upset the balance.
Furthermore, Zerg units are cheapest and therefore the weakest. So, I am not sure how we can make Zerg have an "easier" time to securing a third base than other races. To me, I daresay that such implementation is impossible.
Everything not-Queen that Zerg does is stuff that could be spent on making drones. It's that exact mentality that had people crying about making things like safety Warrens or wallins prior to the Queen patch in WoL (I mean, Terrans routinely made a Lab on their rax just in case of Roaches in the 4 Hellion contain. It's a safety measure, not an injustice)
People need to grasp that an unrestricted Zerg economy is broken. It's a very tempting and you want to have it. That brokenness is what makes it fun. But it's not something that's meant to be, like on average Marines aren't meant to counter Banelings but superb micro can make them do that. The same way, droning like a madman should be a reward of a brilliant hold or something. Something achievable, but not the default measuring stick.
And dear God, no more Queen patches please. They're already high-ranged, healing Roaches that maphack, shoot up and cost no gas in a gas-starved faction. It'd just turn into another stupid wonky no-rush POS like WoL Queens and Mothership Core are now. Seriously, I cry a little inside every time I see zerglings against a toss wall and a Core happily zapping the hapless critters with impunity. We don't need more of that. (We also don't need pausegamefields/mapeditorfields/zzzfields) We need more unit investments, we need more actual f***ing fortifications with building walls and turrets/bunkers. Actual decisions, actual money put into "you shall not pass". Not design crutches like Blizzard has done to the early game thus far. It's hideous.
Also, isn't the Zerg need for a third more of a production thing, and not so much a money one (Provided T/P is not getting to 3base)? Macro hatches are a thing as far as I know.
On September 09 2013 14:08 KingAce wrote: SC2's biggest issue is that the core foundation of the game is weak. Unit clumping is a nightmare. It shits on zerg as a race. And favors ranged units. It's the reason tanks were nerfed, storm, hellions, hellibats, etc. Warpgates core to the protoss race, are another nightmare, everything that's wrong with protoss starts there. All protoss patches always relate back to having warpgates in the game. The way the races mine is Mules=/= chrono boosting probes=/=larva inject. In many ways changing this was a direct nerf to worker harassment. The value of a scv isn't the same as a probe. Terran off the gate were the least fundamentally changed race, and they benefited the most from it. So it wasn't so much that terran was too strong as much as the other races were too weak. And so IMO until the fundamental problems are fixed, the game will have balance issues for awhile. Small little touches on units like MOBAs do won't cut it. It won't fix the problems, just shut up people for awhile until something else surfaces.
Balancing requires that you know what actual problems are so that you can tackle them straight up. Blizzard doesn't seem to know what the problems are.
The core foundation of the game is micro, macro, timings and strategy.
Nothing that you bring up addresses why these do not work. Unit clumping is something that forces you to have to micro your units properly or watch them get blown the fuck up. It doesn't inherently favour ranged units over melee units anymore then it did in starcraft 1; melee units were generally pretty trash once enough ranged units showed up and shat on them (exception ultralisks of course). Protoss patches are not always about warpgates, what about phoenixes? The economies in Broodwar were different anyway, zerg always had fewer workers on minerals and needed more gas. The value of an SCV on minerals was NOT the same as a drone in that game.
The main reason why this game can be seen as boring is because there's a huge amount of it viewable, and people generally watch tons of it, and because basic unit compositions and timings tend not to differ all that much so it starts to look very similar. Higher level players/commentators can really read into these subtleties and appreciate them.
Also the inherent asymmetry makes it much easier to complain about balance and other shit. It's hard to complain about balance in a game that gives both sides the exact same hero pool and reasonably similar map spawns. It's much easier when widow mines are a thing only 1/3rd of the races can make.
AND one other reason is that Starcraft is an incredibly punishing game where it's possible to lose to something you didn't see and just fucking destroys you immediately. Starcraft lacks natural mechanisms to let a player who is behind catch up, if it were a moba it wouldn't have towers in the lanes it would just tell you to DEAL WITH IT YOU TWAT. And that's... actually not a good thing. I think it's the biggest cause of frustration for players.
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
I think having a rhythmic mechanical backdrop to the game is pleasant and alleviates you from boredom. To pick a moba example, you're constantly positioning your hero and looking for last hits, it's not the main focus of the game but it's always there to amuse you. SC2 requires bursts of incredible control, but other times the game quiets down and then there is no safety net, no backdrop of mechanical patterns and decisions to occupy your mind. I think especially for zerg and protoss it's a recipe for restlessness. This notion that any sort of mechanical difficulty should be rooted out, as if people are only looking for strategic challenges, is just counter to human nature. First priority for a video game should be to constantly occupy and engage the player, strategy isn't really a part of this but should be put on top of that.
Just as an obvious example, would FPS games be even tolerable if you didn't have to constantly physically move the player character?
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D
I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D
I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
I don't think that's a sensible perspective. For instance, you can't explain why some match-ups are more fun than others that way. And you don't take into account that, say, the colossus takes up no space and contributes to clumping equally as the pathfinding implementation. It's also possible to find solutions for any problematic scenario in the game without ever addressing the clumping. There is no single aspect of the game that's the One RingThing that's preventing it from greatness, so given that Blizzard will never change the pathfinding I don't think it's worthwhile to campaign for it.
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D
I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
Unit clump patterns was not what made BW popular... Much like the offensive line in Football is not what makes it popular...
Whether the micro required is splitting (like it is in SC2) or tightening formations (like it is in BW) they all amount to much the same thing. What's missing right now is a tactical narrative that is easily visible on the screen.
marine splits is a tactical narrative. We see green grenades coming at low hitpoint units and those units scatter. That is a narrative that is fun to watch.
Robots shooting lasers without reprisal is not fun to watch, not because it is good/bad, but because you can't see the tactical narrative on the screen. There is an economic or strategic narrative of colossus numbers, viking numbers, positioning, and arcs--but when the fight happens the story stops. You're simply waiting for the fight to end so you can see if the story played out how you expected.
Blink stalker attacks/defenses have tactical narrative as you watch stalkers blinking back and reinforcing, you can see how meticulously controlled the fight is.
We need more fights where we can see what the units are doing to each other and what the player does in response to those units.
@Naysayers, I don't really feel like getting into it, but your counterarguments aren't really addressing my thesis. (Which makes sense since I only listed the conclusion and not the argumentation, which has happened piecemeal elsewhere.) Next time there's a thread about this, I welcome discussion. Suffice to say,
We need more fights where we can see what the units are doing to each other and what the player does in response to those units.
I completely agree and this is what I'm driving at. Less clumpy --> slower fights and defenders advantage --> more "narrative" micro opportunities.
[edit]
There is no single aspect of the game that's the One RingThing that's preventing it from greatness, so given that Blizzard will never change the pathfinding I don't think it's worthwhile to campaign for it.
That's why I phrase it the way I do. It's the one simple thing you could change that would have the greatest effect. (imo). There are of course lots of things that you could change that would arguably make the game better.
On September 10 2013 06:23 EatThePath wrote: @Naysayers, I don't really feel like getting into it, but your counterarguments aren't really addressing my thesis. (Which makes sense since I only listed the conclusion and not the argumentation, which has happened piecemeal elsewhere.) Next time there's a thread about this, I welcome discussion. Suffice to say,
We need more fights where we can see what the units are doing to each other and what the player does in response to those units.
I completely agree and this is what I'm driving at. Less clumpy --> slower fights and defenders advantage --> more "narrative" micro opportunities.
I don't disagree about clumping, I just think its an arbitrary mechanic. Similar effects can be made by simply slowing the game speed down.
The reason I said what I said is because the goal should not be to find the *fix all* change, nor should it be to make the game harder/easier, nor should it be about trying to create a specific game. There is no one size fits all, there is no "bring back _____" solution. The answer is difficult and will take lots of work, and will lead to MANY mistakes. (Broodfestor for example)
Trying to fit a one size fits all answer means you blind yourself from possible solutions.
[For example, slower game speed + larger clumping + reduced mineral patches is my favorite fix to slow down the game, but I'm not going to pretend that this is the *only* way to appropriately slow down the game.]
My point is not that there are other changes you could make to improve the game, it's that the issues that the pathfinding implementation presents can be solved by other means than changing the pathfinding algorithm.
A pathfinding algorithm is really a starting point for further design, you don't end the design process there.
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D
I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
I am not planning on blaming/criticizing it. I want to write about it to introduce how this mechanic influenced overall gameplay and the race's design. Not much whining, as past threads have done. It's more of an analysis and the introduction of other perspectives. I usually avoid whining because those threads have been closed disgracefully, and I did have one thread where it got REMOVED by the Administrator.
I don't really mind what is done. I find the refusal to at least attempt to look at some 'design fundamentals' infuriating. Warpgate, clumping, macro mechanics, how mineral saturation works etc etc.
It's more that stubbornness to really look at the more fundamental aspects of the game in favour of tweaking unit balance that imo has lead to the periods of stagnant play we've seen in the past.
On September 10 2013 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote: I don't really mind what is done. I find the refusal to at least attempt to look at some 'design fundamentals' infuriating. Warpgate, clumping, macro mechanics, how mineral saturation works etc etc.
It's more that stubbornness to really look at the more fundamental aspects of the game in favour of tweaking unit balance that imo has lead to the periods of stagnant play we've seen in the past.
The play isn't really stagnant. Strategic play has been moving leaps and bounds.
But finding new timings, and better positioning does not fix how boring lasers shooting roaches looks. Sure its innovative and interesting on paper, but often times the images on the screen just doesn't translate the same way.
I mean, I love reading about chess, for example, but does one get hot and bothered by e2-e4?
That's what I mean. There's a lot of depth and strategic subtelty, but max vs max armies just melt, which imo is a problem.
The damage output just scales exponentially. Now, I know people aren't a big fan, but those gateway Protoss timings vs Zerg, can occasionally lead to 2/3 minute long back-and-forth battles that you can SEE the micro going on and to me at least are exciting for that period (regardless of what proceeded it).
On September 10 2013 08:53 Wombat_NI wrote: That's what I mean. There's a lot of depth and strategic subtelty, but max vs max armies just melt, which imo is a problem.
The damage output just scales exponentially. Now, I know people aren't a big fan, but those gateway Protoss timings vs Zerg, can occasionally lead to 2/3 minute long back-and-forth battles that you can SEE the micro going on and to me at least are exciting for that period (regardless of what proceeded it).
111 timings and 6gate blink timings are still some of my favorite SC2 to watch. Two armies clash with MASSIVE micro battles happening in the span of 2-6 straight minutes with the winner being the one whose macro slipped the least by the end of the engagement. Wonderful starcraft that I miss dearly.
Now with maps so big and expos so safe, one never sees that anymore.
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D
I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
I don't think that's a sensible perspective. For instance, you can't explain why some match-ups are more fun than others that way. And you don't take into account that, say, the colossus takes up no space and contributes to clumping equally as the pathfinding implementation. It's also possible to find solutions for any problematic scenario in the game without ever addressing the clumping. There is no single aspect of the game that's the One RingThing that's preventing it from greatness, so given that Blizzard will never change the pathfinding I don't think it's worthwhile to campaign for it.
I think Blizzard will change a lot of things including pathfinding. But that will be in SC3.
Blizzard really don’t have budget, desire and time for implementing big changes in SC2.
On September 10 2013 08:53 Wombat_NI wrote: That's what I mean. There's a lot of depth and strategic subtelty, but max vs max armies just melt, which imo is a problem.
The damage output just scales exponentially. Now, I know people aren't a big fan, but those gateway Protoss timings vs Zerg, can occasionally lead to 2/3 minute long back-and-forth battles that you can SEE the micro going on and to me at least are exciting for that period (regardless of what proceeded it).
I have fond memories of PvZ games in 2011 where HuK would just build stalkers and somehow survive supply deficits through excellent micro and perseverance.
On September 10 2013 08:53 Wombat_NI wrote: That's what I mean. There's a lot of depth and strategic subtelty, but max vs max armies just melt, which imo is a problem.
The damage output just scales exponentially. Now, I know people aren't a big fan, but those gateway Protoss timings vs Zerg, can occasionally lead to 2/3 minute long back-and-forth battles that you can SEE the micro going on and to me at least are exciting for that period (regardless of what proceeded it).
I have fond memories of PvZ games in 2011 where HuK would just build stalkers and somehow survive supply deficits through excellent micro and perseverance.
I miss 2011 where the boring macro game was watching a 45-60 minute tvz on shakuras that was 15 minutes of nonstop fighting on the Zerg's 6th or 7th base.
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D
I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
I don't think that's a sensible perspective. For instance, you can't explain why some match-ups are more fun than others that way. And you don't take into account that, say, the colossus takes up no space and contributes to clumping equally as the pathfinding implementation. It's also possible to find solutions for any problematic scenario in the game without ever addressing the clumping. There is no single aspect of the game that's the One RingThing that's preventing it from greatness, so given that Blizzard will never change the pathfinding I don't think it's worthwhile to campaign for it.
I think Blizzard will change a lot of things including pathfinding. But that will be in SC3.
Blizzard really don’t have budget, desire and time for implementing big changes in SC2.
Blizzard may force a change on path-finding, but then you, BW fanboy, who i do not believe plays BW now, will complain that it is not good too, because you can never ever ever get up ramp or cross a choke with army. And Blizzard surely will not degenerate the engine to the point of overkilling marines (yes, IIRC all units in BW could overkill, including marines) or moving shot or air unit stacking (that was a rather neat bug, than feature).
On September 08 2013 18:50 Rabiator wrote: There is absolutely ZERO NEED (or sense) to compare Starcraft with MOBAs ... except for the reason that people are not dismissing you instantly as they do for people who compare SC2 to BW ...
but sadly every time I try to make people "see the light" they accuse me of just wanting to turn SC2 into BW HD or something similarly ridiculous
Problems with the Current State of Balance in terms of design: Countless times I have tried to explain the problem to people and maybe one more time will actually help. Lets start with something "basic": - A Stalker and a Marine have roughly the same dps. - A Stalker costs three times the amount of a Marine. - A fight between one Stalker and three Marines is FINE and WELL BALANCED, because the Stalker can run and regenerate some shields and then take another shot at the Marines chasing it.
And here is the bit that starts the problem: - A Stalker is much bigger than a Marine and accordingly you can stack the Marines much tighter than you can Stalkers ... which results in a clump of Marines having a higher dps per area (dps density) compared to the Stalkers. Consequently: - After a certain number is reached - lets call it "critical number" - there are so many Marines in close proximity to each other that a clump of them one-shots or at least seriously hurts a Stalker that comes into range. The Stalkers basically can NOT use their shield regeneration anymore because of the maximized dps density for the Marines and the total incoming dps are too high. At higher numbers the balance shifts completely in favor of the Marines due to the fact that their clump dps is much higher; BALANCE IS ONE-SIDED.
Thus a matchup which started as "fine and balanced" at low numbers ends up as "totally one-sided" at higher numbers ... which should not happen in such a game, because you can only balance the stats of the units for one "state of the game" (low unit count or high unit count).
Even though "critical number" is a nice sounding buzzword for casters it is actually at the root of the problem. Once the critical number is reached the clump of units achieves a "greater efficiency than it should have".
Now the question is: How do you fix that problem? There are basically two ways of doing it: 1. You introduce ways to "punish" such tight clumps in the form of powerful AoE attacks OR 2. you limit the unit density through artificial methods so you can not reach a critical number.
1. AoE This was present at the start of SC2, because back then the Siege Tank and other AoE effects did a lot more damage. They got nerfed rather quickly and for a good reason. That reason is quite simply the fact that you could get a critical number of those units and you still had the same problem ... you just made any non-AoE units relatively pointless after that "critical number of AoE units" was reached.
2. Limiting density Well ... you only have to look at BW to see how it can be achieved ... limited unit selection, forced unit spreading while moving AND a lower economy. Sure enough people will accuse me of being a BW fetishist or whatever, but they are mostly unwilling to think outside their own little box. Analyze what the [systematic] problem is and then find a solution ... and dont let yourself be stopped by any "oh Blizzard will never do it" mantras. Sure they are still thinking that they can "fix it" by only adjusting the units themselves, but we will see how the game and the usefulness of units evolves after the next expansion and the next batch of units they add ...
It is my personal opinion that the maximized unit density is the reason why some units are pretty much useless in the game. Reapers only have a use in the early game, but what if there wasnt a TIGHT clump of 20 super Speedlings closing in of them but only 12 that are spread apart more? You could keep those Reapers alive much longer and extend their use for example. The same is true for Carriers or BCs, which die almost instantly to tight clumps of Hydras or Marines. Stalkers would not need to have Blink to be able to survive, because they wouldnt die instantly and as a consequence you could micro much more.
Even in BW there were units which could achieve a critical number (Mutalisks and maybe Carriers), but they were countered by special abilities like Scourge, Irradiate, EMP (plus stuff that shoots), flyers with AoE attacks against flyers, ... which didnt really punish ground units in the same way. So flying critical numbers are less of a problem, because you can use "method 1" on them without screwing a player totally ... since the core of an army is ground based.
I actually plan to write about that issue very soon.
good luck, been trying to get this conversation started since beta; rabiator is like the only person I've ever noticed who publicly gets it
Plenty of people have made similar posts or even threads about this. Don't place yourself and Rabiator into some kind of unheralded prophet category.
You can be an unheralded prophet too, as soon as you pay the initiation fee. :D
I am speaking specifically about placing the blame squarely on the clumpy pathing for SC2's "inferior" gameplay. A lot of people acknowledge that clumping is bad but don't go so far as to single it out as the one thing, instead focusing on unit design or macro mechanics or what-have-you. In my mind the game would be instantly more interesting and varied at all levels if the pathing was less clumpy, like BW, and that single change would be more effective than any other single change most people propose.
I don't think that's a sensible perspective. For instance, you can't explain why some match-ups are more fun than others that way. And you don't take into account that, say, the colossus takes up no space and contributes to clumping equally as the pathfinding implementation. It's also possible to find solutions for any problematic scenario in the game without ever addressing the clumping. There is no single aspect of the game that's the One RingThing that's preventing it from greatness, so given that Blizzard will never change the pathfinding I don't think it's worthwhile to campaign for it.
I think Blizzard will change a lot of things including pathfinding. But that will be in SC3.
Blizzard really don’t have budget, desire and time for implementing big changes in SC2.
Blizzard may force a change on path-finding, but then you, BW fanboy, who i do not believe plays BW now, will complain that it is not good too, because you can never ever ever get up ramp or cross a choke with army. And Blizzard surely will not degenerate the engine to the point of overkilling marines (yes, IIRC all units in BW could overkill, including marines) or moving shot or air unit stacking (that was a rather neat bug, than feature).
Rather than focusing on path finding, I think new maps with new features are the way to keep the game active. The new seasons maps are moving away from the "free third in line with your main" that we saw so much in the last couple of seasons. Its leading to some more interesting stuff. I really like Frost and the other maps that allow for choices and styles that go beyond getting to 200/200 really fast.
On September 10 2013 22:59 _Search_ wrote: I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever.
Use and utilize are very different words....
Utilize comes from the word utility, and implies the accessing of variant aspects of an object instead of using its primary function.
Example: One uses a knife to slice, yet by utilizing a knife's handle, one can hammer open peanuts. One uses a knife to cut, but one can utilize the thin blade of a knife to pry open a pistachio. One uses a knife to peel, but by utilizing the flat side of the blade, one can also press garlic.
The only way you could honestly get tons of variety is if you threw a ton of new stuff into the game and just tried to balance it after that. When I say a ton I mean take every unit from BW and every unit in SC2 files that wasn't used and then probably same extra units to balance out numbers and then throw them into the multiplayer and see what happens. You would probably get the same kinds of imbalances that exist in MOBAs right now but you could then do there balance design of small tweaks constantly (with bigger tweaks occasionally).
I do think that style of game would be exciting but I also like how it is now so I would probably be entertained either way but if variety is your goal you need new stuff in order to foster it.
Doubt the way to fix the imbalances is to add more stuff. If anything, it would be to substract.
Any hardcore gamer from Starcraft Broodwar knows that the beauty of the game was in its simplicity (once understood it at a high level that is). This created oportunities in situations where there should not be such (as an example in sc2, when a few lings can drag wiwdow mine shots to medivacs). This is also present in SC2, but in about 5-8% of the cases you could use in Broodwar.
While things like timings and build orders were also important in Broodwar, the builds mostly used were the most flexible ones, while in sc2 it seems to be a dance between all-ins and greedy builds, with hardly any creativity or innovation.
I personally stoped at WoL (mostly 2v2 and 3v3) when i hitted a brick wall of random games (people at this level would either rush, or do a timing atack, hardly ever playing to the late game).
This, however I think its blizzards fault. They are rushing too fast into patches and expansions (probably since they are loosing customers), and the results are too caotic.
If i remmber correctly, they sold just under 5 million copies of WoL (comapred to almost 10 million of starcraft+broodwar) and around 2 million copies of heart of the swarm.
Its important to note that if those numbers are accurate (lets assume HotS will get up to 2.5 million since its a rather fresh game), that would be a 50% drop in sales moreless, meaning that the last expansion might not even sell 1 million if they wait too long.
This is rather crucial, as 1 million is not a high amount of people for all those streaming sites, tournaments and sponsors, and it might scare possible investors (looking like its a market in decline).
Broodwar basicly had two tournaments: WCG and Korean eSports. It didnt have such a huge advertisment, people didnt play games as much back in the day, and still it gets around 10 million copies sold?
I personally stoped at WoL (mostly 2v2 and 3v3) when i hitted a brick wall of random games (people at this level would either rush, or do a timing atack, hardly ever playing to the late game).
This, however I think its blizzards fault. They are rushing too fast into patches and expansions (probably since they are loosing customers), and the results are too caotic.
I all-ined every protoss i had in my casual BW exp. This is BW's fault too :3?
I think every once in awhile Blizzard should just release a huge patch, with changes they think would be cool, adding abilities or redesigning some of the design and then later add the necassary number changes to fix these crazy inputs. They're too much caught up with not breaking the balance of things and a lot of the times balance comes in the way of design, which is something that can really hurt in the long run.
It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
I can't really say anything about pathing, but I believe not having units clump up can make a big, big difference, especially small fights like Reapers vs Zerglings.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
I can't really say anything about pathing, but I believe not having units clump up can make a big, big difference, especially small fights like Reapers vs Zerglings.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't have anything against forcing units to spread.
But I personally think it is arbitrary. Whether units naturally spread or units naturally clump, we need to have mechanics that interact and play with that axiom.
Forcefield is a great example. Its a spell that can be used offensively, defensively, and creatively. It can be used to block off assaults, stop run-bys, split up armies, etc... the better the player the more effective the forcefield. It's a wonderful spell in a world of clumped units. Forcefield SUCKS in a world of pre-spread units since all it will really do is block off entrances and tighten choke points. That's boring.
The steady AOE of a colossus is TERRIBLE in clumped unit game. AOE needs to be escapable in a game where units naturally clump. Watching players like Polt split his marines against Seige Tanks and Banelings is awesome since there is enough delay in both those units that clumped armies can react to them. There is no "splitting" against colossus because the lasers overlap and don't leave a timing to split against them. This forces terran/zerg/protoss to have to use air units specifically designed to counter the colossus instead of requiring strong micro play to minimize the impact of the colossus.
It doesn't really matter if units come clumped or not, so long as you give players a chance to micro their way out of or into situations. So long as you promote dynamic play. If you're too lazy to design units with clumped armies in mind, declump them. If you're too lazy to design units with pre-split in mind, reclump them then. So long as you pick one or the other.
SC2 has this problem where it pretends that the clumping is separate from the unit design and their main goal is to make the game as unpunishing to bad mechanics as possible.
Lets take for example Kahydrin Amulet.
Warp in Storms is very powerful and would give warp gates an offensive and defensive nature that is unique and interesting. Since units come clumped Protoss had instant warp ins to give them a sense of mobility. So long as pylons were everywhere Protoss could instantly warp in templars and storm as needed. This meant that Protoss tactics would eventually become very positional, all about spreading and protecting pylons spread around the map using warp ins to defend where ever their army was absent. This made it okay that Psi Storm damage was nerfed compared to BW and made it okay that landing storms wasn't as impressive as before since good storm use showed good reflexes and map awareness.
KA was pulled because bad players couldn't deal with it. Protoss mobility disappeared and suddenly Protoss needed to be given the Nexus Cannon and the mothership core to become mobile again. Nexus cannon doesn't really interact with clumped up armies. The mothership core does due to recall and mothership bubble. If instead of pulling away from dynamic play that encourages the use of fast hands, Blizzard simply allowed their game to be a game, we wouldn't have an issue. Instead of nerfing it they could have simply given Terran and Zerg equally broken mechanics to give all three races something fun to play with.
Which goes back to my the whole clumping vs pre-spread thing. Prespread units in BW meant that Psi Storm had to kill in 1-2 ticks otherwise it would only tickle 2-3 units. Because units clump in SC2, Psi Storm had to be nerfed to compensate for the tight armies. Kahydrin Amulet gave psi storm a different identity as flexible and fast aoe meant to hit multiple areas at once and gets better with faster hands and stronger mechanics. So although it didn't hit as hard as BW storms, it hit much more often and from far more angles. With the nerf we instead get a BW style storm with a lot less oompf, the worse of both worlds.
Either be okay with units clumping, or not be okay with units clumping. The wishy washiness of blizzard is just ruining unit design.
actually you can split against collossi. it gets easier the fewer units you have. i've seen a few pro games with amazing splits and they were oh so effective in crushing the protoss army. basically you try to force the collossus to shoot single units. it's possible
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
On September 11 2013 14:49 beg wrote: @Thieving Magpie
actually you can split against collossi. it gets easier the fewer units you have. i've seen a few pro games with amazing splits and they were oh so effective in crushing the protoss army. basically you try to force the collossus to shoot single units. it's possible
Yes, I remember MMA doing it in 2011 when he was in his unbeatable streak.
The problem with the "critical mass of colossus" is that their overlapping attack speed staccatos leaving no "safe" time between hits. 1-2 colossus is actually fun as all hell and when I used to go Roach Hydra in Xel naga the fights before they get the third colossus was usually so much fun with splits and what not. But when 3-4 arrive there just isn't time.
The concept I talked about was most prevalent in BW Siege Tank lines. Overkill meant that no matter how "uber" and perfect the line was, having units run in will give the enemy army a cooldown worth of momentum.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
But visually its better when units are spread out.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
But visually its better when units are spread out.
Marching wise I agree.
For the same reason that non-glitching stalkers is visually better than glitching dragoons. Both had pros and cons visually.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
But visually its better when units are spread out.
Marching wise I agree.
For the same reason that non-glitching stalkers is visually better than glitching dragoons. Both had pros and cons visually.
On the other hand I really like animation of dragoons shooting, animation of its death, and sound of dragoon dying.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
I assumed it is self explanatory that if you have different pathing you are then obliged to redesign most of the units and game mechanics. And contrary to your opinion, I hold the stance that it is impossible to design fun units and mechanics other than marine micro with this pathing. There is simply not enough room to be creative in a time span of 2 seconds (the average time a big battle in sc2 lasts) and designing units to artificially prolong that time span isn't going to make for a fun game.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
I assumed it is self explanatory that if you have different pathing you are then obliged to redesign most of the units and game mechanics. And contrary to your opinion, I hold the stance that it is impossible to design fun units and mechanics other than marine micro with this pathing. There is simply not enough room to be creative in a time span of 2 seconds (the average time a big battle in sc2 lasts) and designing units to artificially prolong that time span isn't going to make for a fun game.
most of the micro however is done prior the actual engagement. viking poking blink stalkers defending the colossus marauder stim in for snipe cloak ghost move forward to emp/snipe while stalkers try to deny
A lot of people are just not understanding/appreciating the micro in SC2. high clumped unit has their own micro such as what we saw yesterday on WCS EU where starbuck continuously used roach hydra to bait forcefields and then constantly adjusting its flank according to the FFs and protoss firepower focus. That plus other tricks like viper abducting the colossus etc
Or you can see how zerg like JD uses split with his mutas against templar storms. Or protoss with HT flanks and warp prism storm
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
I can't really say anything about pathing, but I believe not having units clump up can make a big, big difference, especially small fights like Reapers vs Zerglings.
Which goes back to my the whole clumping vs pre-spread thing. Prespread units in BW meant that Psi Storm had to kill in 1-2 ticks otherwise it would only tickle 2-3 units. Because units clump in SC2, Psi Storm had to be nerfed to compensate for the tight armies. Kahydrin Amulet gave psi storm a different identity as flexible and fast aoe meant to hit multiple areas at once and gets better with faster hands and stronger mechanics. So although it didn't hit as hard as BW storms, it hit much more often and from far more angles. With the nerf we instead get a BW style storm with a lot less oompf, the worse of both worlds.
Either be okay with units clumping, or not be okay with units clumping. The wishy washiness of blizzard is just ruining unit design.
Can you really look at PvT and say storm doesn't have enough oompf? To me it isn't exactly lacking in that department.
And you have a romanticized image of KA, where it would be used for amazing multitasking that only bad players had issues with (which somehow did have to play against players with that amazing multitasking?). A more realistic example: Toss deathball fights terran bio army. Instead of warping in 20 zealots late game they warp in 14 zealots and 6 HTs to carpet storm the remaining army without ghosts left to deal with them.
K-Amulet was cool Counterattack and harass everywhere, to me energy upgrade is a lot cooler on high templars since it allows a new playstyle. Instead of energy upgrade on battlecruiser, where it just allows you to get yamato, a little faster and is useless without having yamato researched.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
I assumed it is self explanatory that if you have different pathing you are then obliged to redesign most of the units and game mechanics. And contrary to your opinion, I hold the stance that it is impossible to design fun units and mechanics other than marine micro with this pathing. There is simply not enough room to be creative in a time span of 2 seconds (the average time a big battle in sc2 lasts) and designing units to artificially prolong that time span isn't going to make for a fun game.
most of the micro however is done prior the actual engagement. viking poking blink stalkers defending the colossus marauder stim in for snipe cloak ghost move forward to emp/snipe while stalkers try to deny
A lot of people are just not understanding/appreciating the micro in SC2. high clumped unit has their own micro such as what we saw yesterday on WCS EU where starbuck continuously used roach hydra to bait forcefields and then constantly adjusting its flank according to the FFs and protoss firepower focus. That plus other tricks like viper abducting the colossus etc
Or you can see how zerg like JD uses split with his mutas against templar storms. Or protoss with HT flanks and warp prism storm
The micro you described is only half of the story, or at least it should be half of the story. By that I mean yeah, what you described is very important and does take a lot of skill to perform, but its still only more or less PRE-engagement micro. It should by all means remain to be there but it should then organically transition to an in-battle micro war where all those things regarding positioning and else come into play, but then you get to control your units more directly and efficiently.
Right now its just all sorts of cool micro tricks period where units dance around trying to outposition each other and gain the upper hand, which happens pre engagement, and then SPLAT, all over in 1 second. Now, obviously there is micro during battles in SC2 (marine micro, focus fire, pulling damaged units behind etc.), Im just saying there should be more of it. A lot more of it. Infact its everything this RTS game should be about and what it was aimed to be about considering it was made as an E-Sport, a game people will enjoy spectating. In my opinion it failed at that goal primarily because of the pathing.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
I assumed it is self explanatory that if you have different pathing you are then obliged to redesign most of the units and game mechanics. And contrary to your opinion, I hold the stance that it is impossible to design fun units and mechanics other than marine micro with this pathing. There is simply not enough room to be creative in a time span of 2 seconds (the average time a big battle in sc2 lasts) and designing units to artificially prolong that time span isn't going to make for a fun game.
most of the micro however is done prior the actual engagement. viking poking blink stalkers defending the colossus marauder stim in for snipe cloak ghost move forward to emp/snipe while stalkers try to deny
A lot of people are just not understanding/appreciating the micro in SC2. high clumped unit has their own micro such as what we saw yesterday on WCS EU where starbuck continuously used roach hydra to bait forcefields and then constantly adjusting its flank according to the FFs and protoss firepower focus. That plus other tricks like viper abducting the colossus etc
Or you can see how zerg like JD uses split with his mutas against templar storms. Or protoss with HT flanks and warp prism storm
Doesn't matter how hard you micro, the guy with better production wins 9/10 times. Micro has very miniscule effect in SC2. Basic micro such as stim/kite, abduct or spreading are important, but they don't deliver WOW moments.
Compare reaver's 10 scv kills to templar's 10 kills. In BW crowd would be applauding, in sc2, nevermind, terran dropped 5 mules and he's back in the game.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
I assumed it is self explanatory that if you have different pathing you are then obliged to redesign most of the units and game mechanics. And contrary to your opinion, I hold the stance that it is impossible to design fun units and mechanics other than marine micro with this pathing. There is simply not enough room to be creative in a time span of 2 seconds (the average time a big battle in sc2 lasts) and designing units to artificially prolong that time span isn't going to make for a fun game.
most of the micro however is done prior the actual engagement. viking poking blink stalkers defending the colossus marauder stim in for snipe cloak ghost move forward to emp/snipe while stalkers try to deny
A lot of people are just not understanding/appreciating the micro in SC2. high clumped unit has their own micro such as what we saw yesterday on WCS EU where starbuck continuously used roach hydra to bait forcefields and then constantly adjusting its flank according to the FFs and protoss firepower focus. That plus other tricks like viper abducting the colossus etc
Or you can see how zerg like JD uses split with his mutas against templar storms. Or protoss with HT flanks and warp prism storm
All the micro that you described would still exist if units were spread out by default. In BW there were also micro with EMP, defensive matrix, reaver-shutle, eradiate, cloak writes, scourges, mines and many more.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
I assumed it is self explanatory that if you have different pathing you are then obliged to redesign most of the units and game mechanics. And contrary to your opinion, I hold the stance that it is impossible to design fun units and mechanics other than marine micro with this pathing. There is simply not enough room to be creative in a time span of 2 seconds (the average time a big battle in sc2 lasts) and designing units to artificially prolong that time span isn't going to make for a fun game.
most of the micro however is done prior the actual engagement. viking poking blink stalkers defending the colossus marauder stim in for snipe cloak ghost move forward to emp/snipe while stalkers try to deny
A lot of people are just not understanding/appreciating the micro in SC2. high clumped unit has their own micro such as what we saw yesterday on WCS EU where starbuck continuously used roach hydra to bait forcefields and then constantly adjusting its flank according to the FFs and protoss firepower focus. That plus other tricks like viper abducting the colossus etc
Or you can see how zerg like JD uses split with his mutas against templar storms. Or protoss with HT flanks and warp prism storm
Doesn't matter how hard you micro, the guy with better production wins 9/10 times. Micro has very miniscule effect in SC2. Basic micro such as stim/kite, abduct or spreading are important, but they don't deliver WOW moments.
Compare reaver's 10 scv kills to templar's 10 kills. In BW crowd would be applauding, in sc2, nevermind, terran dropped 5 mules and he's back in the game.
I agree mules, injects and chrono boosts do not contribute to opportunities for micro. Once army gets bigger than 100 supply opportunities and need for micro in sc2 decreases dramatically.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
I assumed it is self explanatory that if you have different pathing you are then obliged to redesign most of the units and game mechanics. And contrary to your opinion, I hold the stance that it is impossible to design fun units and mechanics other than marine micro with this pathing. There is simply not enough room to be creative in a time span of 2 seconds (the average time a big battle in sc2 lasts) and designing units to artificially prolong that time span isn't going to make for a fun game.
most of the micro however is done prior the actual engagement. viking poking blink stalkers defending the colossus marauder stim in for snipe cloak ghost move forward to emp/snipe while stalkers try to deny
A lot of people are just not understanding/appreciating the micro in SC2. high clumped unit has their own micro such as what we saw yesterday on WCS EU where starbuck continuously used roach hydra to bait forcefields and then constantly adjusting its flank according to the FFs and protoss firepower focus. That plus other tricks like viper abducting the colossus etc
Or you can see how zerg like JD uses split with his mutas against templar storms. Or protoss with HT flanks and warp prism storm
Doesn't matter how hard you micro, the guy with better production wins 9/10 times. Micro has very miniscule effect in SC2. Basic micro such as stim/kite, abduct or spreading are important, but they don't deliver WOW moments.
Compare reaver's 10 scv kills to templar's 10 kills. In BW crowd would be applauding, in sc2, nevermind, terran dropped 5 mules and he's back in the game.
They didn't applaud because the damage was big, they applauded because they would at most only 2-3 of any of those units in the battle field and at most they'd see about 6-8 made per game ASSUMING you lost a lot of them.
They cheered because you used 1 unit to kill 10 workers using 1 or 2 storms.
Do you ever see 4-5 psi storms in BW? No, because that shit is hard! 90% of the time you see 1-2 storms off of 2 baby-sat templars and ONLY when the time was right.
Its hard to cheer for a storm when there are 8 happening each engagement. What's impressive about that?
What's impressing about seeing 8 storms land in the battlefield and then watching only 2 storms land in a worker line?
In BW if you were caught in a storm you were dead. But storms were rare, so it was okay. SCVs would die to storms as quickly as Hydralisks and Vultures died to storms. Storm was not X amount of damage storm was a cloud of death. It wasn't this thing that was only good against marines/zerglings but was central to the grand majority of the Protoss DPS. It simply took one or two well placed storms to turn the tide of a battle. That is the opposite in SC2. In SC2, storms damage most units, but they only really *threaten* Zerglings and Marines. When storm is used, you see 4-8 of them at a time. At some point it just becomes clouds of lights.
That's why things like Psi storm was cheered for. Mules not having existed has nothing to do with the entertaining value of a spell.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
You can also spread your units out by hand, what's your point?
I'm asking that whether or not units are clumped or not the unit design has to reflect that. right now it doesn't. The game would improve if Blizzard simply commits one way or another.
the way to have a more fun sc2 imo is either raise the skill to use some key amove boring unit like chargelot archon colossus by adding capacity to them or to provide answers for the other race that will force the player to micro its unit.
The perfect example of that is the WM. In non professional games (master and below i mean) a+click lings + bling could win decently vs bio tank. Now vs WM zerg has to be careful with his ling bane and have to use more strategies like flank, bait etc... that involve micro. Maybe microing vs mines is too hard i don't know but i think it's clearly an improve of skill for the game to have brought this kind of unit in the game.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines losing to 10 burrowed banelings. It is double edged sword.
I wouldn't mind experimenting with less clumpy pathfinding provided my units still went where I told them to without getting lost. I definitely don't want a return to BW's broken pathfinding though. Similarly, I don't want to return to limited unit selection either. I'd much rather have clumped units than a user interface I have to constantly fight with.
On September 12 2013 04:21 archwaykitten wrote: I wouldn't mind experimenting with less clumpy pathfinding provided my units still went where I told them to without getting lost. I definitely don't want a return to BW's broken pathfinding though. Similarly, I don't want to return to limited unit selection either. I'd much rather have clumped units than a user interface I have to constantly fight with.
I think we can have a happy compromise on limited unit selection. Instead of having say, an arbitrary number, we have a dynamic number based on the units supply. How this would work is that you could have a control group of more units if the unit only cost 1 supply as opposed to 6 supply. So now you could have a group of 48 lings, 24 marines, 12 zealots, 8 tanks, 6 immortals or 4 colossus/thor/ultras. This could be also made to handle any combination of supply units so long as the maximum selection cap for a group was 24. The number is fair in that it works well for both small units and large units and, in the late game you want 3-4 army hotkeys anyway, and 24 supply per group almost covers your army hotkeying need.
It would solve tons of issues especially those regarding critical masses of units that become broken because its too easy to control a critical mass.
Yeah I also agree with the pathfinding, I don't want a broken pathfinding where units get lost along the way, but I'd like a pathfinding that didn't make units clump so much.
On September 12 2013 04:21 archwaykitten wrote: I wouldn't mind experimenting with less clumpy pathfinding provided my units still went where I told them to without getting lost. I definitely don't want a return to BW's broken pathfinding though. Similarly, I don't want to return to limited unit selection either. I'd much rather have clumped units than a user interface I have to constantly fight with.
I really need to write a blog about what Day9 was actually talking about when he tried to explain the tactility of BW.
The "less clumpy" nature of BW was not due to bad pathfinding, it was due to incomplete pathfinding. The algorithms they used stopped working over time getting units trapped in loops. This was mostly not a problem in their testing until they tried using it on workers. They could not solve this issue and so simply had workers fly through each other when mining.
However, over short distances and when given constantly refreshed commands ("spamming") the commands would loop back to the start point and not deteriorate. This was due to the fact that they intended the game to be squad based in nature, hence the control groups, where you controlled small armies to engage each other.
They didn't realize Korea would say "fuck it, I'll play fast enough" that the bugs began to show (much like it showed when workers tried mining in clumps)
The tactility that people talk about stem from the attempt to circumvent these bugs on a large scale while maintaining the blitz speed that they were now expected to keep.
On September 12 2013 04:21 archwaykitten wrote: I wouldn't mind experimenting with less clumpy pathfinding provided my units still went where I told them to without getting lost. I definitely don't want a return to BW's broken pathfinding though. Similarly, I don't want to return to limited unit selection either. I'd much rather have clumped units than a user interface I have to constantly fight with.
I really need to write a blog about what Day9 was actually talking about when he tried to explain the tactility of BW.
The "less clumpy" nature of BW was not due to bad pathfinding, it was due to incomplete pathfinding. The algorithms they used stopped working over time getting units trapped in loops. This was mostly not a problem in their testing until they tried using it on workers. They could not solve this issue and so simply had workers fly through each other when mining.
However, over short distances and when given constantly refreshed commands ("spamming") the commands would loop back to the start point and not deteriorate. This was due to the fact that they intended the game to be squad based in nature, hence the control groups, where you controlled small armies to engage each other.
They didn't realize Korea would say "fuck it, I'll play fast enough" that the bugs began to show (much like it showed when workers tried mining in clumps)
The tactility that people talk about stem from the attempt to circumvent these bugs on a large scale while maintaining the blitz speed that they were now expected to keep.
It should also be pointed out that BW was run on a "grid" and units could moved from "square" to "square". Two units couldn't "clump" like in SC2, because even when they were right next to each other, they couldn't "pack in". They cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The view in BW was much smaller as well, only being in 640/480. The whole game was in a much small space and everything worded within those constraints.
On September 10 2013 22:59 _Search_ wrote: I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever.
Use and utilize are very different words....
Utilize comes from the word utility, and implies the accessing of variant aspects of an object instead of using its primary function.
Example: One uses a knife to slice, yet by utilizing a knife's handle, one can hammer open peanuts. One uses a knife to cut, but one can utilize the thin blade of a knife to pry open a pistachio. One uses a knife to peel, but by utilizing the flat side of the blade, one can also press garlic.
Using something for its primary function is utilizing it too, you just made that distinction up. I won't say utilize can be replaced by use and confer the exact same meaning in each and every instance, but usually this holds.
Just look in any dictionary, and you'll most likely see it's indeed a synonym for 'use'. Below is Merriam Webster's entry.
Full Definition of UTILIZE : to make use of : turn to practical use or account
Synonyms apply, employ, exercise, exploit, harness, operate, use
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
You can also spread your units out by hand, what's your point?
That's why I included the marines example. Clumping (primarily related to movement) causes problems, especially for the ranged vs melee dynamic.
I'm asking that whether or not units are clumped or not the unit design has to reflect that. right now it doesn't. The game would improve if Blizzard simply commits one way or another.
I would agree that slicing the design problem specifically in relation to clumpiness and choosing one way or another would lead to better designs. Maybe it's a bit of an arcane approach given all the other design considerations, maybe not. Nevertheless I contend that less clumpy is just better for Starcraft, and possibly RTS generally, and it is more forgiving for unit design; i.e., regardless of unit design less clumpy will play better and generate better engagement dynamics.
If you want to boil it down to a very simplistic statement, requiring manual clumping is better than requiring manual declumping. For a very simple justification: default unclumpy behavior makes engagements at all scales resemble small-sided engagements locally in multiple.
On September 10 2013 22:59 _Search_ wrote: I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever.
Use and utilize are very different words....
Utilize comes from the word utility, and implies the accessing of variant aspects of an object instead of using its primary function.
Example: One uses a knife to slice, yet by utilizing a knife's handle, one can hammer open peanuts. One uses a knife to cut, but one can utilize the thin blade of a knife to pry open a pistachio. One uses a knife to peel, but by utilizing the flat side of the blade, one can also press garlic.
Using something for its primary function is utilizing it too, you just made that distinction up. I won't say utilize can be replaced by use and confer the exact same meaning in each and every instance, but usually this holds.
Just look in any dictionary, and you'll most likely see it's indeed a synonym for 'use'. Below is Merriam Webster's entry.
Full Definition of UTILIZE : to make use of : turn to practical use or account
Synonyms apply, employ, exercise, exploit, harness, operate, use
Yes, utilizing something for its primary function is utilizing it. It's called nuance. Utilize is, by and large, a hinting at an object's utility outside of what is considered "obvious."
It can be swapped out with the word use, and while the meaning remains the same, the nuance changes. Much like you could also replace use with words like implement, or phrases like bring forth, etc...
The words are not the same, they are similar or synonymous with each other, but they are not the same.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines losing to 10 burrowed banelings. It is double edged sword.
The difference is there's nothing the zerglings can do to win. The marines can easily avoid dying to banelings like that.
On September 12 2013 04:21 archwaykitten wrote: I wouldn't mind experimenting with less clumpy pathfinding provided my units still went where I told them to without getting lost. I definitely don't want a return to BW's broken pathfinding though. Similarly, I don't want to return to limited unit selection either. I'd much rather have clumped units than a user interface I have to constantly fight with.
I really need to write a blog about what Day9 was actually talking about when he tried to explain the tactility of BW.
The "less clumpy" nature of BW was not due to bad pathfinding, it was due to incomplete pathfinding. The algorithms they used stopped working over time getting units trapped in loops. This was mostly not a problem in their testing until they tried using it on workers. They could not solve this issue and so simply had workers fly through each other when mining.
However, over short distances and when given constantly refreshed commands ("spamming") the commands would loop back to the start point and not deteriorate. This was due to the fact that they intended the game to be squad based in nature, hence the control groups, where you controlled small armies to engage each other.
They didn't realize Korea would say "fuck it, I'll play fast enough" that the bugs began to show (much like it showed when workers tried mining in clumps)
The tactility that people talk about stem from the attempt to circumvent these bugs on a large scale while maintaining the blitz speed that they were now expected to keep.
It should also be pointed out that BW was run on a "grid" and units could moved from "square" to "square". Two units couldn't "clump" like in SC2, because even when they were right next to each other, they couldn't "pack in". They cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The view in BW was much smaller as well, only being in 640/480. The whole game was in a much small space and everything worded within those constraints.
Mostly my problem with Day9's vod on it was that he was playing too safe and casual and did not properly explain just *what* is different. My head was dizzy the first time I realized just how massive the screen could get in SC2 compared to BW. I'll probably have something put together by next week since people keep talking about BW pathing and BW etc... without knowing *what* it means.
On September 11 2013 07:38 NukeD wrote: It was obvious from the WoL beta that unit clumping is the number one issuse SC2 has. I was actually shocked when I realised they have no intentions on changing it. I am convinced the game would instantly be 100% better if you made pathing the way it should have been (sort of like Maverick has made it in his SC2BW mod).
I mean for that reason alone I cant take the design team seriously (and Entomb was just the icing on the cake, but I guess some people could enjoy that), without getting into some other issues that whether they are a problem or not is debatable. Current pathing isnt debatable however. If you think pathing in SC2 is good you are plain wrong. And thats objective as it gets.
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines losing to 10 burrowed banelings. It is double edged sword.
The difference is there's nothing the zerglings can do to win. The marines can easily avoid dying to banelings like that.
A lot of zerg's wins vs protoss has come about due to zergling clump being difficult to stop with forcefields unless you're parti- *cough* I mean perfect.
The way mass zerglings play in SC2 is MUCH different than it was in BW and has lead to very very very brutal results in PvZ. There's a reason Zealots mostly suck even against zerglings.
On September 12 2013 04:21 archwaykitten wrote: I wouldn't mind experimenting with less clumpy pathfinding provided my units still went where I told them to without getting lost. I definitely don't want a return to BW's broken pathfinding though. Similarly, I don't want to return to limited unit selection either. I'd much rather have clumped units than a user interface I have to constantly fight with.
I really need to write a blog about what Day9 was actually talking about when he tried to explain the tactility of BW.
The "less clumpy" nature of BW was not due to bad pathfinding, it was due to incomplete pathfinding. The algorithms they used stopped working over time getting units trapped in loops. This was mostly not a problem in their testing until they tried using it on workers. They could not solve this issue and so simply had workers fly through each other when mining.
However, over short distances and when given constantly refreshed commands ("spamming") the commands would loop back to the start point and not deteriorate. This was due to the fact that they intended the game to be squad based in nature, hence the control groups, where you controlled small armies to engage each other.
They didn't realize Korea would say "fuck it, I'll play fast enough" that the bugs began to show (much like it showed when workers tried mining in clumps)
The tactility that people talk about stem from the attempt to circumvent these bugs on a large scale while maintaining the blitz speed that they were now expected to keep.
It should also be pointed out that BW was run on a "grid" and units could moved from "square" to "square". Two units couldn't "clump" like in SC2, because even when they were right next to each other, they couldn't "pack in". They cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The view in BW was much smaller as well, only being in 640/480. The whole game was in a much small space and everything worded within those constraints.
Mostly my problem with Day9's vod on it was that he was playing too safe and casual and did not properly explain just *what* is different. My head was dizzy the first time I realized just how massive the screen could get in SC2 compared to BW. I'll probably have something put together by next week since people keep talking about BW pathing and BW etc... without knowing *what* it means.
Yeah, that is one of the biggest differences between SC2 and BW. I think I played BW on a 14 inch CRT, with a ball mouse. People really forget how far games have come in that amount of time and what has changed. The pathing is another issue that people just assume is a quick fix and would "solve everything", when it would likely just make some stuff super powered and other things suck.
On September 11 2013 09:46 archwaykitten wrote: [quote]
I dunno man. Unlike in BW, my units actually go where I tell them to in SC2 without getting lost along the way. That seems like pretty good pathing to me.
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines losing to 10 burrowed banelings. It is double edged sword.
The difference is there's nothing the zerglings can do to win. The marines can easily avoid dying to banelings like that.
A lot of zerg's wins vs protoss has come about due to zergling clump being difficult to stop with forcefields unless you're parti- *cough* I mean perfect.
The way mass zerglings play in SC2 is MUCH different than it was in BW and has lead to very very very brutal results in PvZ. There's a reason Zealots mostly suck even against zerglings.
Again, this is a "problem" with fluid clumpy movement. Perhaps it'd be better to say, "an arguably undesirable consequence of". + Show Spoiler +
In the case of PvZ, there's no mineral sink unit that range dps's zerglings that scales well into the lategame for protoss to be including in their army. So the difference between okay and not okay is very stark. That said, it's okay to add zealots to your army if you see vast quantities of lings and this is more or less effective much of the time. As long as you're fighting lings and not watching them run into your mineral lines.
On September 12 2013 04:21 archwaykitten wrote: I wouldn't mind experimenting with less clumpy pathfinding provided my units still went where I told them to without getting lost. I definitely don't want a return to BW's broken pathfinding though. Similarly, I don't want to return to limited unit selection either. I'd much rather have clumped units than a user interface I have to constantly fight with.
I really need to write a blog about what Day9 was actually talking about when he tried to explain the tactility of BW.
The "less clumpy" nature of BW was not due to bad pathfinding, it was due to incomplete pathfinding. The algorithms they used stopped working over time getting units trapped in loops. This was mostly not a problem in their testing until they tried using it on workers. They could not solve this issue and so simply had workers fly through each other when mining.
However, over short distances and when given constantly refreshed commands ("spamming") the commands would loop back to the start point and not deteriorate. This was due to the fact that they intended the game to be squad based in nature, hence the control groups, where you controlled small armies to engage each other.
They didn't realize Korea would say "fuck it, I'll play fast enough" that the bugs began to show (much like it showed when workers tried mining in clumps)
The tactility that people talk about stem from the attempt to circumvent these bugs on a large scale while maintaining the blitz speed that they were now expected to keep.
It should also be pointed out that BW was run on a "grid" and units could moved from "square" to "square". Two units couldn't "clump" like in SC2, because even when they were right next to each other, they couldn't "pack in". They cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The view in BW was much smaller as well, only being in 640/480. The whole game was in a much small space and everything worded within those constraints.
Mostly my problem with Day9's vod on it was that he was playing too safe and casual and did not properly explain just *what* is different. My head was dizzy the first time I realized just how massive the screen could get in SC2 compared to BW. I'll probably have something put together by next week since people keep talking about BW pathing and BW etc... without knowing *what* it means.
Yeah, that is one of the biggest differences between SC2 and BW. I think I played BW on a 14 inch CRT, with a ball mouse. People really forget how far games have come in that amount of time and what has changed. The pathing is another issue that people just assume is a quick fix and would "solve everything", when it would likely just make some stuff super powered and other things suck.
BW pathing as a result of the available computational power and its effect on the overall gameplay is an interesting topic, but it has little bearing on how one might improve SC2 (beyond being an oft-referred-to data point). Clearly there are any number of pathfinding implementations capable on contemporary home computers not possible in BW days, many of which could be argued to be better than what SC2 currently uses. Arguing for BW pathing is silly, true. Arguing for less clumpy pathing is not. Note that this is a high-level statement and not a descriptor for a "quick fix". Certainly it could affect game balance if the pathing was changed and no units were changed. That's not really the issue though.
With regard to the original topic, evolving unit designs changes the nature of the game significantly as a competitive endeavor, whereas tweaks to the underlying game mechanics would (hopefully) provide more emergent depth instead of a change of scenery, so to speak. Incidentally, I'll reiterate that that's what maps are for.
I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
On September 11 2013 13:00 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
He's not saying it doesn't work, he's saying its not entertaining.
Now he thinks his opinion that it isn't entertaining is fact and not simply an opinion--which is the type of snide remark that sparks flame wars.
But despite his snark, understand that he's trying to talk about visual appeal and not effectiveness of design or coding.
I personally disagree with him that unit pathing is badly implemented in SC2, but I do agree that it has not been the *cause* of entertaining play.
If AOE dps was upped so much that seige units became the norm and the game became about massive lines of aoe units not wanting to break the no man's land--then you'd get BW TvT and PvT where barracks units were pretty much never used.
Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines losing to 10 burrowed banelings. It is double edged sword.
The difference is there's nothing the zerglings can do to win. The marines can easily avoid dying to banelings like that.
A lot of zerg's wins vs protoss has come about due to zergling clump being difficult to stop with forcefields unless you're parti- *cough* I mean perfect.
The way mass zerglings play in SC2 is MUCH different than it was in BW and has lead to very very very brutal results in PvZ. There's a reason Zealots mostly suck even against zerglings.
Again, this is a "problem" with fluid clumpy movement. Perhaps it'd be better to say, "an arguably undesirable consequence of". + Show Spoiler +
In the case of PvZ, there's no mineral sink unit that range dps's zerglings that scales well into the lategame for protoss to be including in their army. So the difference between okay and not okay is very stark. That said, it's okay to add zealots to your army if you see vast quantities of lings and this is more or less effective much of the time. As long as you're fighting lings and not watching them run into your mineral lines.
Just showing you how the smooth controls did not actually nerf zerglings and have made them better 9/10 of the time. This is true for many of the units in SC2 that have transitioned from BW. (Even the firebat's better )
The clumped armies have problems, and some aspects of the game need looking into. How clumped or smooth they are is not really the problem. If the choose to declump then that's fine, declump it, but if they choose not to declump it then that is fine too since there are still many ways to improve the game whether there is clumping or not.
Melee units, to me, look great clumped. Zerglings, Zealots, Ultralisks, banelings, etc... Small ranged units look retarded clumped, reapers, marines, etc... Larger units look okay clumped like tanks, stalkers, etc... While other large units look dumb like Archons, Thors, etc...
Its not as black and white as you would like it to be.
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
On September 11 2013 14:24 NukeD wrote: [quote] Ok yeah I did want to sound a bit dramatic because I am somewhat frustrated by past discussions on the topic of SC2 pathing. Mostly by people chategorically refusing to understand what you are trying to say and dissmising the idea of not clumpy pathing with simple remarks as "ye make SC2 even easier with no spread micro" or "no more marine vs baneling" etc.
Ofcourse i am not talkin about the effectivness of the pathing in SC2. Its obviusly perfect at making the units do what you tell them to do. I am just saying, design wise however, its absolutelly abysmal (because of entertainment value if you will, but I mainly think of micro here as Rabiator explained previously).
My main grip against the "spread out the units" movement is that its not asking for the Yang to its Ying. If we spread units out, we need to design the units to be fun when fighting spread units. But the same could be said about units being clumped, if we design units to be fun to watch when fighting armies both would lead to the same end result entertainment wise.
Currently in SC2 it seems like half the units would be more entertaining if units were spread out and the other half are only interesting because the units clump. One or the other would be better.
Any units are always more fun when things are more spread out, because the lower local dps allows you time for relevant micro decisions. There can be tactics evolving within an engagement, not just a dominos release of two armies meeting.
There can be a lot of micro involved in clumped units as well.
Whether units are clumped or not are arbitrary--but units have to be designed with that arbitration in mind.
No matter how clumped or unclumped units are, RTS design remains the same.
Cheap mobile units outflank slow strong units but are squished by expensive aoe units which can't manage slow strong units.
The more transparent that trifecta is the more entertaining the game is.
In a game like BW, unit design was damage based. Dragoons dealt full damage to large units, vultures dealt full damage to small units, etc... Which works in a game with spread out units since fights are closer to the 1v1 scale that the units were designed in.
When units clump you can't have that dynamic which is why the +damage stats on units snowball. 1 maraduer compared to 1 stalker is very balanced. One is more mobile, one is more damaging, etc... They both have uses. But once you clump them up marauders hard counter stalkers so badly that it never feels fair. The reason it doesn't feel fair is that the units were designed with spread out 1v1 unit fights in mind and instead are put in a game where tight clumps allows focus fire to be easier instead of harder. (Try to focus fire with Dragoons in BW, that shit is hard! (Vultures are even tougher with the way they always wiggle a bit after stopping unless you use the hold command to stop and the patrol command to attack move))
When it is too easy to focus fire, don't give units such high damage potential. When the game is hard to focus fire in, give units high damage potential. One or the other.
But yes, declumping unit pathing is also a valid change, but it would require as much reworking of units as keeping units clumped.
I disagree for the simple reason that you can also clump your units by hand (like making a nice tight line of dragoons in BW). I can't really think of a single situation in SC2 that would be worse off with default unit clumping being reduced. Yes, the AoE spells wouldn't be as juicy but they don't have to be to be useful. At the highest level they serve as space control anyway.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines winning easily against double the supply of zerglings.
The ability to move fluidly in a clump without effort causes degenerate situations like 100 stim marines losing to 10 burrowed banelings. It is double edged sword.
The difference is there's nothing the zerglings can do to win. The marines can easily avoid dying to banelings like that.
A lot of zerg's wins vs protoss has come about due to zergling clump being difficult to stop with forcefields unless you're parti- *cough* I mean perfect.
The way mass zerglings play in SC2 is MUCH different than it was in BW and has lead to very very very brutal results in PvZ. There's a reason Zealots mostly suck even against zerglings.
Again, this is a "problem" with fluid clumpy movement. Perhaps it'd be better to say, "an arguably undesirable consequence of". + Show Spoiler +
In the case of PvZ, there's no mineral sink unit that range dps's zerglings that scales well into the lategame for protoss to be including in their army. So the difference between okay and not okay is very stark. That said, it's okay to add zealots to your army if you see vast quantities of lings and this is more or less effective much of the time. As long as you're fighting lings and not watching them run into your mineral lines.
Just showing you how the smooth controls did not actually nerf zerglings and have made them better 9/10 of the time. This is true for many of the units in SC2 that have transitioned from BW. (Even the firebat's better )
I'm not sure what you're saying. I didn't really comment on whether they're worse than they used to be in BW, I was pointing out a degenerate situation where tier 1 units have an egregious disparity in how they scale, and implicating the pathfinding. We can theorycraft (with some confidence) that zergling runby's would be worse in a world of less fluid pathing, but I'm much more interested in what engagement dynamics are like generally, and the strategic consequences. E.g. de facto defender's advantage due to inferior local dps while moving into an existing enemy formation.
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
On September 10 2013 22:59 _Search_ wrote: I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever.
Use and utilize are very different words....
Utilize comes from the word utility, and implies the accessing of variant aspects of an object instead of using its primary function.
Example: One uses a knife to slice, yet by utilizing a knife's handle, one can hammer open peanuts. One uses a knife to cut, but one can utilize the thin blade of a knife to pry open a pistachio. One uses a knife to peel, but by utilizing the flat side of the blade, one can also press garlic.
Using something for its primary function is utilizing it too, you just made that distinction up. I won't say utilize can be replaced by use and confer the exact same meaning in each and every instance, but usually this holds.
Just look in any dictionary, and you'll most likely see it's indeed a synonym for 'use'. Below is Merriam Webster's entry.
Full Definition of UTILIZE : to make use of : turn to practical use or account
Synonyms apply, employ, exercise, exploit, harness, operate, use
Not really. People don't say, "I utilize a spoon for scooping". There's a difference between denotation (definition) and conotation (context of the word).
For example, acquit and absolve mean "free from guilt". However, we use "acquit" for law freeing the suspect while absolve can be used in multiple situations such as forgiveness, debt, etc. Same goes for utilize and use. Use focuses on primary function while utilize is based on multiple functions.
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
On September 10 2013 22:59 _Search_ wrote: I really don't get why Starcraft people don't understand that the word "utilize" is just a pretentious way of saying "use". NEVER say utilize. Ever.
Use and utilize are very different words....
Utilize comes from the word utility, and implies the accessing of variant aspects of an object instead of using its primary function.
Example: One uses a knife to slice, yet by utilizing a knife's handle, one can hammer open peanuts. One uses a knife to cut, but one can utilize the thin blade of a knife to pry open a pistachio. One uses a knife to peel, but by utilizing the flat side of the blade, one can also press garlic.
Using something for its primary function is utilizing it too, you just made that distinction up. I won't say utilize can be replaced by use and confer the exact same meaning in each and every instance, but usually this holds.
Just look in any dictionary, and you'll most likely see it's indeed a synonym for 'use'. Below is Merriam Webster's entry.
Full Definition of UTILIZE : to make use of : turn to practical use or account
Synonyms apply, employ, exercise, exploit, harness, operate, use
Not really. People don't say, "I utilize a spoon for scooping". There's a difference between denotation (definition) and conotation (context of the word).
For example, acquit and absolve mean "free from guilt". However, we use "acquit" for law freeing the suspect while absolve can be used in multiple situations such as forgiveness, debt, etc. Same goes for utilize and use. Use focuses on primary function while utilize is based on multiple functions.
_Search_ was technically correct that you shouldn't use the word utilize when you actually intended to mean Use; his conclusion was wrong that you should always utilize use as a catch all word instead of utilize.
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
now you're being dishonest, sc2 pathfinding has nothing to do with scbw pathfinding. they could have kept the behavior of scbw the same while smoothing out some edge cases or 'bugs'. sc2 uses a completely different type of algorithm as far as I know.
wc3 had similar pathfinding to scbw and it never felt buggy to me there
Lot of effort in the OP, but it's a pretty pointless discussion. "Balance" in Dota etc is completely different because of the pick/ban mechanic. Both teams have access to the same heroes and have the same mechanisms to remove/abuse them. If there's a horribly OP hero in the pool he just gets banned.
That makes balance in moba games much more robust. The designers can afford to make more sweeping changes because the system can self-correct for a certain amount of imbalance. SC2, by comparison, is asymmetric and has no mechanic like the pick/ban phase, so it has to be modified in a much more conservative way.
There are a few small things SC2 might be able to learn from mobas, but it's rarely helpful to compare them.
On September 12 2013 17:00 Belisarius wrote: Lot of effort in the OP, but it's a pretty pointless discussion. "Balance" in Dota etc is completely different because of the pick/ban mechanic. Both teams have access to the same heroes and have the same mechanisms to remove/abuse them. If there's a horribly OP hero in the pool he just gets banned.
That makes balance in moba games much more robust. The designers can afford to make more sweeping changes because the system can self-correct for a certain amount of imbalance. SC2, by comparison, is asymmetric and has no mechanic like the pick/ban phase, so it has to be modified in a much more conservative way.
There are a few small things SC2 might be able to learn from mobas, but it's rarely helpful to compare them.
I had an idea that, say, contaminate was similar-ish to banning heroes in dota. You can reserve it for the strongest aspect of the opponent's race, so it helps contain more imbalanced things. :o
...but you still have to tech to contaminate, and buy the unit to cast it, and get it into your opponent's base, and it's temporary, and even then they can just build another structure. And it's available only to Zerg, which completely undermines the levelling effect of pick/ban.
It's not even remotely comparable. And please let's not try to introduce a "ban X unit from your opponent's race" minigame.
RTS games are just fundamentally different, and harder to balance.
On September 12 2013 18:32 Belisarius wrote: ...but you still have to tech to contaminate, and buy the unit to cast it, and get it into your opponent's base, and it's temporary, and even then they can just build another structure. And it's available only to Zerg, which completely undermines the levelling effect of pick/ban.
It's not even remotely comparable. And please let's not try to introduce a "ban X unit from your opponent's race" minigame.
RTS games are just fundamentally different, and harder to balance.
I think that theoretically contaminate could have an equalizing effect on balance, somewhat similar(-ish!) to banning heroes in dota. It can help contain aspects of the opponent's race that are strong. Your counter arguments are a bit pitiful and nonsensical, the specifics of resource and opportunity cost, race availability etc. really don't matter for my theory. And where did you get that I was proposing that we could "ban unit X"? :o
On September 12 2013 18:32 Belisarius wrote: ...but you still have to tech to contaminate, and buy the unit to cast it, and get it into your opponent's base, and it's temporary, and even then they can just build another structure. And it's available only to Zerg, which completely undermines the levelling effect of pick/ban.
It's not even remotely comparable. And please let's not try to introduce a "ban X unit from your opponent's race" minigame.
RTS games are just fundamentally different, and harder to balance.
RTS games are not hard to balance. It is SC2 with asymmetrical economy and production for each race that is hard to balance. Had developers kept economy like it was in BW SC2 units would have been much easier to balance.
On September 12 2013 18:32 Belisarius wrote: ...but you still have to tech to contaminate, and buy the unit to cast it, and get it into your opponent's base, and it's temporary, and even then they can just build another structure. And it's available only to Zerg, which completely undermines the levelling effect of pick/ban.
It's not even remotely comparable. And please let's not try to introduce a "ban X unit from your opponent's race" minigame.
RTS games are just fundamentally different, and harder to balance.
RTS games are not hard to balance. It is SC2 with asymmetrical economy and production for each race that is hard to balance. Had developers kept economy like it was in BW SC2 units would have been much easier to balance.
BW was balanced by being bird with human legs glued to it. Yes, that is the best description of it's engine, using WC2's path-finding but with added isometrical art, that ended up completely screwing path-finding, since Blizzard could not afford to use really small cells for path-finding.+ Show Spoiler +
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
now you're being dishonest, sc2 pathfinding has nothing to do with scbw pathfinding. they could have kept the behavior of scbw the same while smoothing out some edge cases or 'bugs'. sc2 uses a completely different type of algorithm as far as I know.
wc3 had similar pathfinding to scbw and it never felt buggy to me there
I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest.
There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick
The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid.
There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches."
On September 12 2013 05:42 Grumbels wrote: I don't know why people always bring up the Brood War pathing bugs as an example of how we should be happy to have new and improved SC2 pathfinding. They could always have fixed those bugs, for instance WC3 had largely similar pathfinding to Brood War but without so much of the clumsiness. I always thought it was annoying that SC2 doesn't allow you to do blocking micro, similar to WC3, units are just slippery and take up no space.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
now you're being dishonest, sc2 pathfinding has nothing to do with scbw pathfinding. they could have kept the behavior of scbw the same while smoothing out some edge cases or 'bugs'. sc2 uses a completely different type of algorithm as far as I know.
wc3 had similar pathfinding to scbw and it never felt buggy to me there
I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest.
There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick
The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid.
There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches."
WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm.
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.
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.
You fail to understand that Blizzard set out to make the game better when they made BW, not like HoTS which is the second part of their milking trilogy. They made the SC and D2 expansion packs to improve the game as best as they could. They didn't deliberately leave out units/story to milk the franchise at a later point in time. With SC2, it's in their best interests to not complete the game.
On September 12 2013 05:49 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-starcraft-path-finding-hack Good luck fixing! And no, i am neutral to path finding, it is simply a funny note that good part of Sc1 consisted of those bugs and dirty hacks like this.
Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
now you're being dishonest, sc2 pathfinding has nothing to do with scbw pathfinding. they could have kept the behavior of scbw the same while smoothing out some edge cases or 'bugs'. sc2 uses a completely different type of algorithm as far as I know.
wc3 had similar pathfinding to scbw and it never felt buggy to me there
I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest.
There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick
The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid.
There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches."
WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm.
simple facts :o
Simple fact to counter your 'simple facts' : WC3 pathfinding is irrelevant to SC:BW. Why? Because WC3 was not a freaking 'fake' isometric game.
On September 12 2013 06:16 Grumbels wrote: [quote] Pathfinding for WC3 works out fine even though it's based on the same algorithm, so why couldn't they fix the bugs for a sequel to Brood War?
You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
now you're being dishonest, sc2 pathfinding has nothing to do with scbw pathfinding. they could have kept the behavior of scbw the same while smoothing out some edge cases or 'bugs'. sc2 uses a completely different type of algorithm as far as I know.
wc3 had similar pathfinding to scbw and it never felt buggy to me there
I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest.
There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick
The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid.
There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches."
WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm.
simple facts :o
Simple fact to counter your 'simple facts' : WC3 pathfinding is irrelevant to SC:BW. Why? Because WC3 was not a freaking 'fake' isometric game.
What did I do to deserve this pointless discussion? Is anyone actually going to argue that you can't replicate SC:BW pathfinding just without annoying edge cases?
You keep referencing that article, but all it says is that the isometric art introduced split tiles that made corners and such difficult, so they had to increase the size of the pathfinding map. It's probably one of the reasons that units have trouble with ramps in Brood War. In any case, WC3 uses the same algorithm and doesn't have these type of problems, like I mentioned ten times before. Regardless of the reason for why it works (maybe it's because the engine is different, maybe they smoothed out some edge cases), the point is that you can have the same pathfinding as Brood War without it having to be buggy.
On September 12 2013 06:21 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
now you're being dishonest, sc2 pathfinding has nothing to do with scbw pathfinding. they could have kept the behavior of scbw the same while smoothing out some edge cases or 'bugs'. sc2 uses a completely different type of algorithm as far as I know.
wc3 had similar pathfinding to scbw and it never felt buggy to me there
I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest.
There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick
The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid.
There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches."
WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm.
simple facts :o
Simple fact to counter your 'simple facts' : WC3 pathfinding is irrelevant to SC:BW. Why? Because WC3 was not a freaking 'fake' isometric game.
What did I do to deserve this pointless discussion? Is anyone actually going to argue that you can't replicate SC:BW pathfinding just without annoying edge cases?
You keep referencing that article, but all it says is that the isometric art introduced split tiles that made corners and such difficult, so they had to increase the size of the pathfinding map. It's probably one of the reasons that units have trouble with ramps in Brood War. In any case, WC3 uses the same algorithm and doesn't have these type of problems, like I mentioned ten times before. Regardless of the reason for why it works (maybe it's because the engine is different, maybe they smoothed out some edge cases), the point is that you can have the same pathfinding as Brood War without it having to be buggy.
You can have same path-finding algorithm (i would not wonder if SC2 is using improved version of WC2 path-finding algorithm), but you cannot have Brood War's pathfinding due to that split title specific. And no, Brood War's pathfinding was not buggy (yes, there was a moment that gave birth to mineral walk, but it was not bug, it was resource consumption task, since you would not bother to direct all resources into trying to find correct path for workers) it was correctly working given where it had to work. I also keep referencing this article to just give you an idea of what StarCraft really was: rushed out game, that somehow ended up working (partially due to campaign and UMS, partially due to de-facto-free-to-play) and that was rushed out because of goddamn fake demo.
On September 12 2013 06:21 lolfail9001 wrote: [quote] You mean WC2? Since WC3's pathing is irrelevant to SC1. I have no clue about WC2, but if my memory serves me right, they used it as purely top-down rendering, so it had no problems like that problem with bridge demonstrated on pick. Also, what do you mean under sequel to Brood War?
?? Wc3 = wc3. the point is that you can't say that the bw pathfinding was buggy so you shouldn't use it in a modern game. they could have fixed the bugs and used the same sort of pathfinding for a sequel to brood war (a hypothetical sc2). in fact, they did fix it for a sequel to brood war, namely wc3
Because the bug was the pathfinding...
To "fix the bugs" is to not use the pathfinding...
There wasn't a "Dragoon Bug" there was a pathfinding bug that affected units of the size of the dragoon when navigating a space of size X from direction Y. The Dragoon was fine, the Vultures were fine. The "bug" was the pathfinding.
you really think they couldn't fix the behavior in some edge cases?
They did.
Smaller box sizes for units, smoother collisions, and better algorithms to prevent infinite loops: SC2.
Unless you want them to program units to specifically act in a buggy way except for a select few?
now you're being dishonest, sc2 pathfinding has nothing to do with scbw pathfinding. they could have kept the behavior of scbw the same while smoothing out some edge cases or 'bugs'. sc2 uses a completely different type of algorithm as far as I know.
wc3 had similar pathfinding to scbw and it never felt buggy to me there
I'm being inaccurate but I'm not being dishonest.
There are no "corner case bugs" in BW outside of glitches such as command centers landing side by side with the minerals or the drone float trick, or the observer/turret trick
The "pathing issues" were not glitches in the code, they were the code working as intended, just not as expected. There was no "Dragoon bug" there was no "Goliath bug" there was "stop micro" implemented in the game. That was just the pathfinding algorithm attempting to move different sized unit-boxes around a uniform grid make up.The reason things "bugged out" was due to unit sizes having difficulty moving through grid boxes. "Stop command" was a way to quickly reset and reposition a unit to compensate and reorient their position and orientation in the grid.
There are no "corner case" bugs that you keep referring to, the pathfinding literally was the bug. SC2 removed the grid and remove the blocky unit boxes thereby eliminating the "glitches."
WC3 pathfinding is based on SC:BW pathfinding. WC3 pathfinding is not as clumsy as BW's. SC2 uses a completely different algorithm.
simple facts :o
Simple fact to counter your 'simple facts' : WC3 pathfinding is irrelevant to SC:BW. Why? Because WC3 was not a freaking 'fake' isometric game.
What did I do to deserve this pointless discussion? Is anyone actually going to argue that you can't replicate SC:BW pathfinding just without annoying edge cases?
You keep referencing that article, but all it says is that the isometric art introduced split tiles that made corners and such difficult, so they had to increase the size of the pathfinding map. It's probably one of the reasons that units have trouble with ramps in Brood War. In any case, WC3 uses the same algorithm and doesn't have these type of problems, like I mentioned ten times before. Regardless of the reason for why it works (maybe it's because the engine is different, maybe they smoothed out some edge cases), the point is that you can have the same pathfinding as Brood War without it having to be buggy.
And I repeat.
The problem with the pathfinding was the bug. You keep bringing up WC3, so let me show you what WC3 did.
a.) reduced unit collisions b.) uniform unit boxes
in doing so they removed the stop micro of BW because you no longer had to reorient or refresh pathing algorithms in a unit. The "micro" of BW units disappeared.
WC3 replaced it with preset unit clumping and forced behavioral coding that way units would clump neatly unless split apart. That is why WC3 units form grid boxes when box selected. It's the same thing as unit clumping, but forced to look different.
So when you say "just keep BW pathfinding but remove the bugs" it is a meaningless statement.
you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
I don't think there is anything to learn from MOBA patching. MOBAs can patch once a week, buffing and nerfing. The consequences are never a big concern, because there are so many champs. They very often end up reneging on their changes -- that's exactly the kind of sloppiness SC2 can't afford.
SC2 needs a much more cautious, patient, timely approach. I honestly think Blizzard is doing fine in regards to balance. I would hate to see the constant buffing and nerfing that we see in MOBA.
Most of these MOBA creators couldn't create an RTS of 3 different races that feature stark differences, yet are still balanced. Not to the quality of SC2. Not likely at all.
On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote: you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work.
The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different..
The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map.
Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote: you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work.
The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different..
The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map.
Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
The point that he is trying to make is that units clump in all games and the only reason they didn't do so in BW was because of the limits on the pathing. Any system to make them "not clump" would cause problems with control, since the player would have to fight against the units own tendency not to clump up when controlling the unit. So if you wanted the units to bunch up against a bunch of zerglings, they would fight against that due to the fact that they are programmed not to clump up. Right now, all of the units attempt to get as lost to the point you clicked on as possible, which is what you want when attempting to control units.
I recall that there was a point on in WOL when Blizzard stated they were happy with the units and were only looking to balance specific strategies. It seems to me that this approach didn't work out at all, seeing how the meta went extremely stale at the end of WOL. It's quite possible that Blizzard has to rethink their balancing methodology for the game.
On September 13 2013 02:46 Woizit wrote: I recall that there was a point on in WOL when Blizzard stated they were happy with the units and were only looking to balance specific strategies. It seems to me that this approach didn't work out at all, seeing how the meta went extremely stale at the end of WOL. It's quite possible that Blizzard has to rethink their balancing methodology for the game.
The meta is stale because there is nothing to fight for on maps. Even MOBAs fight to defend and attack towers.
On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote: you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work.
The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different..
The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map.
Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
WC3 units don't move at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group, that's a setting you should turn off if you care about competitive play. And have you played any game of WC3 ever? The units are blocky and run into each other and have to reroute constantly. It's incredibly different from the SC2 pathfinding. However, even despite constantly rerouting, they never get stuck. In Brood War units would get stuck. Don't tell me they can't fix units getting stuck without completely changing clumping behavior and such.
On September 13 2013 02:52 Zrana wrote: Just because MOBAs have more people playing them does not necessarily equate to them being a better game. It just means they are more casual-friendly.
SC2 has more players than BW did, yet im sure most people on TL think BW was a better game.
Bias due TL being a BW site...
If we asked Forbes magazine which was the better game they'd pick SC2 because more people play it, it's more widespread, it hits a wider market share, and has tournaments happening all over the world.
On September 13 2013 02:46 Woizit wrote: I recall that there was a point on in WOL when Blizzard stated they were happy with the units and were only looking to balance specific strategies. It seems to me that this approach didn't work out at all, seeing how the meta went extremely stale at the end of WOL. It's quite possible that Blizzard has to rethink their balancing methodology for the game.
The meta is stale because there is nothing to fight for on maps. Even MOBAs fight to defend and attack towers.
Well, one of the criticism of SC2 has always been on the deathballs, which ends up in there being not being enough battles across the map. I suppose if Blizzard doesn't look as heavily into balancing push timings and compositions, it might have been easier to buff the lesser used units and bring more creative use of them into the game.
On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote: you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work.
The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different..
The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map.
Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
The point that he is trying to make is that units clump in all games and the only reason they didn't do so in BW was because of the limits on the pathing. Any system to make them "not clump" would cause problems with control, since the player would have to fight against the units own tendency not to clump up when controlling the unit. So if you wanted the units to bunch up against a bunch of zerglings, they would fight against that due to the fact that they are programmed not to clump up. Right now, all of the units attempt to get as lost to the point you clicked on as possible, which is what you want when attempting to control units.
I think the whole situation of unit clumping is a mess. I don't think it is really directly "fixable" by just saying "okay we'll just bump up that collision monitoring or change pathing." I think the issues are that clumping is something that should happen but be really bad for you. So it is bad and should be discouraged, and to include with that is that it pretty much is. AoE will eat you in this game if you don't separate too quickly.
BUT! If you say split your army off to do some stuff or cover an angle and it goes wrong...you're screwed. So people keep their armies nice and tight together and then push or get pushed on and just attack.
So to break it down, you're in between a rock and a hard place. You run the risk of having parts of your army caught and pulled apart. Or you're stuck with this really lame looking and feeling A-move style that makes gameplay boring to do and see.
Also to compare all this to say WC3 is not very constructive. There is much less damage and units in an army in WC3, also these units were enormous in comparison and had lots of abilities in need of micro'ing.
Finally on the topic! I've said it a million times, Blizzard doesn't care. They need to learn to care. Valve didn't just jump into DOTA 2 with this attitude of just giving it all away and weak incentive to continue to log on and spend money and do stuff. In-game tournament system and client. Store. News. Blogging. Extensive community tab. Quarter of your screen for JUST SEEING STEAM FRIENDS AND CHATTING WITH THEM THAT IS ALWAYS THERE. The ability to pull all these things up at pretty much anytime. Knowing your player-base is far more productive than you so letting them do everything and you checking off the work. F2P elements. Better listening and actively engaging with your community. Let your fans and players pay into the success and growth of the game and tournaments. Honestly, if Blizzard can't find a way to monetize in a predominantly F2P model they aren't thinking about it. They're one of the largest and most resourceful developers in the industry. They should have a massive brain-trust behind solving these kinds of problems. I guess that's it.
Oh and serious managerial reworking. They are getting nothing done at too slow of a pace. If they want to monopolize the tournament scene and all game viewership for say a month or 2. They better have some serious shit planned for when their tournament (premier tournament of the game, which sucks actually) is over. Get radical, change things up a lot. Spend all your time for say a month on 1 or 2 units becoming useful via re-design and patching. There is nothing wrong with saying "okay lets branch from here, it didn't work" or whatever. Disregarding the pro-scene of DOTA2, I see all the heroes all the time and there is ~100 of them. Starcraft has what, 50 units total across all races? And I know the argument "well not all units should always be useful", there should ALWAYS be a time and place for each unit and an overarching strategy.
On September 13 2013 02:46 Woizit wrote: I recall that there was a point on in WOL when Blizzard stated they were happy with the units and were only looking to balance specific strategies. It seems to me that this approach didn't work out at all, seeing how the meta went extremely stale at the end of WOL. It's quite possible that Blizzard has to rethink their balancing methodology for the game.
The meta is stale because there is nothing to fight for on maps. Even MOBAs fight to defend and attack towers.
Yeah, screw game, after all pro gamers can pick units they do not want to have... oh wait.
Fail at nit-picking. I made it abundantly clear what the circumstances would/could/should be for this.
Disregarding the pro-scene of DOTA2, I see all the heroes all the time and there is ~100 of them.
With about of 30 of 'em actually used in TI3. ^_^_^_^_^_^
You even included the context needed in my post to make yours sound even more baseless! DISREGARDING PRO SCENE (you know .0005% of the player-base) Who cares what the pros do? No one can do what the pros do, hence "pro." As far as the general populous of the game is concerned, everything should be seemingly viable.
Starcraft has what, 50 units total across all races?
Good luck balancing this.
What does balance have to do with any of it? DOTA 2 heroes aren't all perfectly balanced, but still find usefulness game after game? There's a problem when a race has 15 units and 5 of them aren't used. Scaling dude, scaling.
Quarter of your screen for JUST SEEING STEAM FRIENDS AND CHATTING WITH THEM THAT IS ALWAYS THERE.
A sole reason i uninstalled Dota 2.
Yeah because you and the super anti-social majority all hate playing games with their friends and having easy access to talking/interacting with them on some level. And that's how it is for absolutely everyone.
It's been over 3 years and blizzard has learned next to nothing in relation to SC2. What makes you think they will have a conceptual design epiphany anytime soon?
Blizzard can definately start doing some of these, but they have said that they wont rework any unit until LotV beta so they wont adopt any ideas. Overall i think one of the best things that blizzard could do is to buff underused units in sc2, this hurts the game way too much IMO, things like watching a terran everytime go bio sometimes kill me in the inside but blizzard has reasons to do so
On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote: you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work.
The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different..
The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map.
Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
WC3 also did NOT have "a crapton of units which could focus fire even high health enemy units to die in one volley" ... that game had a 12 unit selection which limited the dps concentration of an army. You also had an incentive to keep your army smaller than it could be ... which would not work in Starcraft IMO. So I think comparing the games directly is of limited use.
The "automatic fomation" would also be a bad thing for Starcraft because it removes micro potential and makes the play even more lazy than it is already.
The "bump into each other and reroute to spread out" is one of the necessary things for SC2, BUT the dev team said something like "we tested it and it didnt change much" for the Dynamic unit movement which people had come up with in 2011. Dynamic Unit Movement Even though it probably wasnt perfect the answer sounded as if Blizzard didnt understand the purpose of spreading units or such a change in behaviour OR they simply chose to ignore it. No fix to clumpy unit movement
On September 13 2013 14:34 larse wrote: Well, LotV is not going to sell much as HOTS only sold 1/3 of WOL.
WOL = 3 million
HOTS = 1.1 million
LotV = 40k???
Going F2P may be an incentive for them now.
And how are you going to get the money to pay Dustins and Davids salaries? Selling skins doesnt make sense and what other option is there? Selling maps is a terrible idea for egoshooters already ...
You dont make a crappy game more popular in the long run by making it free to play, you only make the few idiots who dont want to pay the $60 play ... for a short time.
On September 13 2013 14:34 larse wrote: Well, LotV is not going to sell much as HOTS only sold 1/3 of WOL.
WOL = 3 million
HOTS = 1.1 million
LotV = 40k???
Going F2P may be an incentive for them now.
And how are you going to get the money to pay Dustins and Davids salaries? Selling skins doesnt make sense and what other option is there? Selling maps is a terrible idea for egoshooters already ...
You dont make a crappy game more popular in the long run by making it free to play, you only make the few idiots who dont want to pay the $60 play ... for a short time.
What they can do is make LotV arcade free (idk if map market is going to be a thing) in addition to the spawning they have right now. The expansion gets you ranked/unranked 1v1 and campaign(A large majority buy the game only for the campaign). That would be a start.
Along with some fresh ideas for starcraft 2, it could be enough. At the end of the day, hardcore fans can only prop up so much of the load. The casual market is really where you make money.
Haven't read everything but blizzard has given a hint of what the community can do to help on testing things out, but no structured way of doing it ever came to be. Personally i think they should abuse more the test map way, with trying out things that dont necessarily have to go live, where they can just see how it plays out. Since they can capture data from whoever plays these maps more easilly than us.
But what the community could do is something of those sorts, there's tons of threads and posts about balances, ideas, etc... It would be awesome it there was a structured group that made custom maps trying out several of these ideas, not only to flesh out more publicly what can or not work but also to give maybe extra data to blizzard of these huge amount of ideas that never have any backing or testing behind them. A structured group for this would need exposure though, so it would need public personalities to it. Hopefully from several areas like casting, progaming or ex-progamers, mappers/custom game makers, high level players that been helping on strategy guides, etc... That would test these things more consistently and give ideas about it.
Dota even is an example of similar things, a custom game with different ideas. But while that one was completely different, something could be done to test more dramatic changes, especially since blizzard doesn't do it so publicly in test maps or they could even have 2 different types of test maps. One for ideas to go live, another to test big impact ideas.
Unfortunately i see a whole lot of talk and not as much action from our side.
All of this because, regarding to the thread itself, i agree that some changes should be tested regarding the underutilized units but it still needs to be very careful for the whole lot of reasons already mentioned throughout the thread. So an approach using custom maps but in a more structured way so we can actually learn and gather data from it, would in my opinion be the best way to go about it. Instead of doing it "half assed" in a very closed environment and then dumping to the public in a live setting, which blizzard so far only has been able to do these sort of things in a Beta environment... but again, why not have a test map(s) side of this as an ongoing beta and try to pick the solid ideas to be further tested for live and finally hitting live?
The problem with BW is that it is a skill less game and they really shouldn't have made pathing that easy to use. The Dune II way of army movement was much harder to use and the one unit selection really made micro "necessary," instead of just Dragoon a-move death balling. The need for building pavement underneath structures really allows for players macro to shine.
Nostalgic BW fanatics are really stupid to listen to sometimes and even though the clumping up of AI. is there it doesn't change the fact that most units in SC2 is better in a death ball formation and so if you changed the movement pathing it would just be, who's better at clumping up the units anyways and wouldn't change that much at all.
What they could do is nerf some of the ranged units, buff some melee, maybe add more melee units and add more splash damage. The day where people spread units like BW because they decided upon it is much greater than the day they did it, because that's how the pathing works.
On September 13 2013 16:47 ejozl wrote: The problem with BW is that it is a skill less game and they really shouldn't have made pathing that easy to use. The Dune II way of army movement was much harder to use and the one unit selection really made micro "necessary," instead of just Dragoon a-move death balling. The need for building pavement underneath structures really allows for players macro to shine.
Nostalgic BW fanatics are really stupid to listen to sometimes and even though the clumping up of AI. is there it doesn't change the fact that most units in SC2 is better in a death ball formation and so if you changed the movement pathing it would just be, who's better at clumping up the units anyways and wouldn't change that much at all.
The funny thing is that it doesn't actually have anything to do with Brood War or Brood War "fanboyism".
In a real time game, if you do not have the physical (control) obstacle that will stand between what the player wants to do, and what the player actually can do within a specific time frame given his proficiency at the game and manual dexterity, you just don't have a game. You NEVER automate the tasks to the point where the player can control the game with ease.
You want to shoot a thing with your gun in an FPS game? You have to actually point the crosshair over his head within less than a second, and if he's faster at pointing the crosshair at you than you are at pointing the crosshair at him, you die. We could easily automate aiming, but we don't, because aiming is half the game, and we do not want to take half the game away from the player because that's dumb. If you did that, it would be all about who has the better gear loadout and smarter movement (ie who makes better decisions).
You want to build an unit in an RTS? You need to select ONE building and press a hotkey to build only ONE unit at a time, so that if someone is better at building units regularly than you are, he can get the advantage he deserves from being better at macro and multitasking (skills that are barely even relevant in SC2). In traditional RTS, control and multitasking were always half - or more than half - the game. If you take that away, it's all about who has the better build and unit composition at any point in time (ie who makes better decisions).
Physical control is what makes or breaks the game for mostly any real time games, especially competitive games. Bare strategy is boring, winning by having a better strategy and decision making alone is boring, and if you turn the game into that, it's no different than a fast paced card game.
If you want to fix BW pathing, fine, I get that. But you have to give some kind of mechanic IN RETURN - something that will make the game feel the same and be a proper spiritual successor and compensate for the layer of control you just eliminated by fixing pathing. You invent a new mechanic that will split the player's attention from where he would ideally want his attention to be, you invent a mechanic that will stress the player's mouse accuracy or keyboard APM in ways that Brood War didn't have.
But Starcraft 2 didn't do that. They "fixed" pathing and interface as if they were developing a business application and didn't bring anything to compensate for the loss in the depth of core gameplay. So they ended up with a game that looks like Starcraft, but feels more like SimStarcraft than a proper sequel.
On September 13 2013 16:47 ejozl wrote: The problem with BW is that it is a skill less game and they really shouldn't have made pathing that easy to use. The Dune II way of army movement was much harder to use and the one unit selection really made micro "necessary," instead of just Dragoon a-move death balling. The need for building pavement underneath structures really allows for players macro to shine.
Nostalgic BW fanatics are really stupid to listen to sometimes and even though the clumping up of AI. is there it doesn't change the fact that most units in SC2 is better in a death ball formation and so if you changed the movement pathing it would just be, who's better at clumping up the units anyways and wouldn't change that much at all.
What they could do is nerf some of the ranged units, buff some melee, maybe add more melee units and add more splash damage. The day where people spread units like BW because they decided upon it is much greater than the day they did it, because that's how the pathing works.
OK let’s talk about pathfinding in LOL and DOTA2. What algorithm is used there? Do these games use dynamic movement?
On September 13 2013 16:47 ejozl wrote: The problem with BW is that it is a skill less game and they really shouldn't have made pathing that easy to use. The Dune II way of army movement was much harder to use and the one unit selection really made micro "necessary," instead of just Dragoon a-move death balling. The need for building pavement underneath structures really allows for players macro to shine.
Nostalgic BW fanatics are really stupid to listen to sometimes and even though the clumping up of AI. is there it doesn't change the fact that most units in SC2 is better in a death ball formation and so if you changed the movement pathing it would just be, who's better at clumping up the units anyways and wouldn't change that much at all.
What they could do is nerf some of the ranged units, buff some melee, maybe add more melee units and add more splash damage. The day where people spread units like BW because they decided upon it is much greater than the day they did it, because that's how the pathing works.
OK let’s talk about pathfinding in LOL and DOTA2. What algorithm is used there? Do these games use dynamic movement?
On September 13 2013 14:34 larse wrote: Well, LotV is not going to sell much as HOTS only sold 1/3 of WOL.
WOL = 3 million
HOTS = 1.1 million
LotV = 40k???
Going F2P may be an incentive for them now.
And how are you going to get the money to pay Dustins and Davids salaries? Selling skins doesnt make sense and what other option is there? Selling maps is a terrible idea for egoshooters already ...
You dont make a crappy game more popular in the long run by making it free to play, you only make the few idiots who dont want to pay the $60 play ... for a short time.
There are plenty of ways of monetize SC2. Not just skins. There are just so many ways. I can list a ton of. Use your imagination.
On September 13 2013 16:47 ejozl wrote: The problem with BW is that it is a skill less game and they really shouldn't have made pathing that easy to use. The Dune II way of army movement was much harder to use and the one unit selection really made micro "necessary," instead of just Dragoon a-move death balling. The need for building pavement underneath structures really allows for players macro to shine.
Nostalgic BW fanatics are really stupid to listen to sometimes and even though the clumping up of AI. is there it doesn't change the fact that most units in SC2 is better in a death ball formation and so if you changed the movement pathing it would just be, who's better at clumping up the units anyways and wouldn't change that much at all.
What they could do is nerf some of the ranged units, buff some melee, maybe add more melee units and add more splash damage. The day where people spread units like BW because they decided upon it is much greater than the day they did it, because that's how the pathing works.
OK let’s talk about pathfinding in LOL and DOTA2. What algorithm is used there? Do these games use dynamic movement?
how is that at all relevant...
I thought the thread was what Blizzard can learn from MOBA?
On September 13 2013 16:47 ejozl wrote: The problem with BW is that it is a skill less game and they really shouldn't have made pathing that easy to use. The Dune II way of army movement was much harder to use and the one unit selection really made micro "necessary," instead of just Dragoon a-move death balling. The need for building pavement underneath structures really allows for players macro to shine.
Nostalgic BW fanatics are really stupid to listen to sometimes and even though the clumping up of AI. is there it doesn't change the fact that most units in SC2 is better in a death ball formation and so if you changed the movement pathing it would just be, who's better at clumping up the units anyways and wouldn't change that much at all.
What they could do is nerf some of the ranged units, buff some melee, maybe add more melee units and add more splash damage. The day where people spread units like BW because they decided upon it is much greater than the day they did it, because that's how the pathing works.
OK let’s talk about pathfinding in LOL and DOTA2. What algorithm is used there? Do these games use dynamic movement?
how is that at all relevant...
I thought the thread was what Blizzard can learn from MOBA?
yea but... pathfinding algorithms don't really matter all that much in dotas. you're almost always controlling 1 unit. And dota just uses WC3 pathfinding anyway.
When people talk about SC/BW pathfinding/clumping they don't want retard-"big unit"-AI back... So could you guys stop allways bringing this as an argument?
SC2 has a few glaring issues: Too much clumping --> This is not the same as "to good pathfinding AI". This is what forces the deathball gameplay in the first place. Too much deathballs --> The supply-limit or supply costs are just "wrong" and units clump, so everytime you have a fight all your units actually engage in a battle, this means you can't spare much firepower for a (decently) sized raid. Terrible-Terrible-Damage --> See clumping/deathball. Too streamlined economy --> 3 bases and thats it... This is just sad. + Units that are just boring/stupid (roach, marauder, colossus, medivac, sentry, corruptor, overseer, immortal and the dumbest thing ever: Nexus cannon).
Changing some of this would force a major rework of basically the whole game. Which is what should have been done during the Beta.
On September 13 2013 17:56 Velr wrote: When people talk about SC/BW pathfinding/clumping they don't want retard-"big unit"-AI back... So could you guys stop allways bringing this as an argument?
SC2 has a few glaring issues: To much clumping --> This is not the same as "to good pathfinding AI". This is what forces the deathball gameplay in the first place. To much deathballs --> The supply-limit or supply costs are just too low/high and units clump to good that about allways all your units actually engage in a battle, so you can't spare much firepower for a (decently) sized raid. Terrible-Terrible-Damage --> See clumping/deathball. To streamlined economy --> 3 bases and thats it... This is just sad. + Units that are just boring/stupid (roach, marauder, colossus, medivac, sentry, corruptor, overseer, immortal) and the dumbest thing ever Nexus cannon
Changing some of this would force a major rework of basically the whole game. Which is what should have been done during the Beta.
Making it less deathball like, it's actually more casual friendly.
On September 13 2013 14:34 larse wrote: Well, LotV is not going to sell much as HOTS only sold 1/3 of WOL.
WOL = 3 million
HOTS = 1.1 million
LotV = 40k???
Going F2P may be an incentive for them now.
And how are you going to get the money to pay Dustins and Davids salaries? Selling skins doesnt make sense and what other option is there? Selling maps is a terrible idea for egoshooters already ...
You dont make a crappy game more popular in the long run by making it free to play, you only make the few idiots who dont want to pay the $60 play ... for a short time.
There are plenty of ways of monetize SC2. Not just skins. There are just so many ways. I can list a ton of. Use your imagination.
Well, but which ones are really useful? Sure, if this game had DotA like WC3, Arcarde selling would be useful. Skins are probably useful. Campaign selling is probably useful. there is sure more...
But I don't see those stuff really making as much as just selling the game, not to mention that there is a huge difference between having a f2p game or turning a game into one. Lots of people would go mad about this and you'd probably have to live with bad publicity ("cheap, uninspired expansion"; "not finished, that's why they made it f2p and are now charging for extra for little pieces")
On September 13 2013 17:56 Velr wrote: When people talk about SC/BW pathfinding/clumping they don't want retard-"big unit"-AI back... So could you guys stop allways bringing this as an argument?
SC2 has a few glaring issues: To much clumping --> This is not the same as "to good pathfinding AI". This is what forces the deathball gameplay in the first place. To much deathballs --> The supply-limit or supply costs are just too low/high and units clump to good that about allways all your units actually engage in a battle, so you can't spare much firepower for a (decently) sized raid. Terrible-Terrible-Damage --> See clumping/deathball. To streamlined economy --> 3 bases and thats it... This is just sad. + Units that are just boring/stupid (roach, marauder, colossus, medivac, sentry, corruptor, overseer, immortal) and the dumbest thing ever Nexus cannon
Changing some of this would force a major rework of basically the whole game. Which is what should have been done during the Beta.
Making it less deathball like, it's actually more casual friendly.
Is it? I believe the part that casuals don't like about Starcraft is mostly how you have to control different things on different screens all the time and that people lose to stuff they don't see coming and don't react in time. People are very fine with controlling a single hero somewhere, or a single guy with a gun, or a single elf or playing that jump and run game where you character is always in the middle of the screen. But how much fun is it for the casual gamer when suddenly your whole base got destroyed while you were watching shiny lazerz and felt like MKP because you did one tiny micro trick.
Making it more deathbally is very casual unfriendly in my opinion - very good for the game and should be done regardless.
On September 13 2013 14:34 larse wrote: Well, LotV is not going to sell much as HOTS only sold 1/3 of WOL.
WOL = 3 million
HOTS = 1.1 million
LotV = 40k???
Going F2P may be an incentive for them now.
And how are you going to get the money to pay Dustins and Davids salaries? Selling skins doesnt make sense and what other option is there? Selling maps is a terrible idea for egoshooters already ...
You dont make a crappy game more popular in the long run by making it free to play, you only make the few idiots who dont want to pay the $60 play ... for a short time.
There are plenty of ways of monetize SC2. Not just skins. There are just so many ways. I can list a ton of. Use your imagination.
Well, but which ones are really useful? Sure, if this game had DotA like WC3, Arcarde selling would be useful. Skins are probably useful. Campaign selling is probably useful. there is sure more...
But I don't see those stuff really making as much as just selling the game, not to mention that there is a huge difference between having a f2p game or turning a game into one. Lots of people would go mad about this and you'd probably have to live with bad publicity ("cheap, uninspired expansion"; "not finished, that's why they made it f2p and are now charging for extra for little pieces")
LoL has retail version of the game which has many features already open. Blizzard could employ same strategy. Make terran and zerg free, charge for protoss.
Or put more units into game. For example raven is free and science vessel is for money. Balance it so that not having vessel won't cause issues and make it more like alternative. Similar to ADC role in LoL. (If your team doesn't have varus, it doesn't mean you are weak.)
There are infinitely many game modes that Blizzard could have thought up to charge people for. For instance, they could have adopted a WoW-like model where every major patch introduces new content to the game, but while for WoW you pay monthly installments, for SC2 you could just buy the patch.
Examples are a campaign that's not divided into three installments, but more like twenty chapters, with five new maps released every three months. They could also have made money with the arcade marketplace, if they hadn't somehow made a mess out of that. They could sell skins; or only enable terran by default, with zerg and protoss requiring purchases; they could have offered name changes, ladder ranking resets, a higher priority in the matchmaking queue; even participating in a ranked ladder season could require cash. Offer the arcade as a platform for game creators, including matchmaking and ladder rankings, if the game creators are willing to pay. More advertisements in battle.net, from banners to sponsored arcade maps. Organized tournaments where you have to buy in with 5$, with the money going into the prize pool but with Blizzard taking a cut. In-game tournament viewing. And what about more premium maps to sell on the arcade? is there any reason Blizzard couldn't have had a larger team solely to create maps for this purpose in case they went with a f2p model? (I guess Blizz all-stars is like this?) Personally I would have also paid money just for a version of SC2 that's balanced for FFA, and I actually think it's less objectionable to redesign races for this purpose as long as I would have to buy into this feature.
Maybe many of these ideas are objectionable, but I think at least some of them show potential.
So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
Are you sure those numbers are correct? Maybe it includes Diablo III players? :o
On September 13 2013 19:44 Grumbels wrote: There are infinitely many game modes that Blizzard could have thought up to charge people for. For instance, they could have adopted a WoW-like model where every major patch introduces new content to the game, but while for WoW you pay monthly installments, for SC2 you could just buy the patch.
Examples are a campaign that's not divided into three installments, but more like twenty chapters, with five new maps released every three months. They could also have made money with the arcade marketplace, if they hadn't somehow made a mess out of that. They could sell skins; or only enable terran by default, with zerg and protoss requiring purchases; they could have offered name changes, ladder ranking resets, a higher priority in the matchmaking queue; even participating in a ranked ladder season could require cash. Offer the arcade as a platform for game creators, including matchmaking and ladder rankings, if the game creators are willing to pay. More advertisements in battle.net, from banners to sponsored arcade maps. Organized tournaments where you have to buy in with 5$, with the money going into the prize pool but with Blizzard taking a cut. In-game tournament viewing. And what about more premium maps to sell on the arcade? is there any reason Blizzard couldn't have had a larger team solely to create maps for this purpose in case they went with a f2p model? (I guess Blizz all-stars is like this?) Personally I would have also paid money just for a version of SC2 that's balanced for FFA, and I actually think it's less objectionable to redesign races for this purpose as long as I would have to buy into this feature.
Maybe many of these ideas are objectionable, but I think at least some of them show potential.
When SC2 was being developed back in 2008-2009, the subscription based model was being floated around for CoD and other games and meet with truly epic levels of resistance. Free 2 play was not even a model people took seriously for high level game development. SC2 is a product of a time before free to play really existed as we know it today.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
Are you sure those numbers are correct? Maybe it includes Diablo III players? :o
I don't know, even even if it was a 50/50 split between D3 and SC2, it would be tied with Dota 2. Really, both those games being equally as popular wouldn't shock me in the least.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
And dota2 has 6.5 million unique players monthly. The bnet number is D3/SC2/WoW
according to this site, there are only 220k over all SC2 HOTS player in the last 3 days, there is no way there are 750k Sc2 player online atm.
edit: maybe i am missread something i guess there are 220k online atm.
That seems to be accurate, though it is tough to tell if the data is current player or average at a given time. . Dota 2 has 500K, but this appears to be their peak hours and they drop down to around 300K at non-peak(at least in the last 48 hours). It is hard to know where the peak number of players for SC2 is.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
And dota2 has 6.5 million unique players monthly. The bnet number is D3/SC2/WoW
Dota 2 is a popular game that is free to play and currently the most popular game on Steam. I hope it would have high numbers of unique players, otherwise Valve wasted a lot of money.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
On September 14 2013 00:33 Crytash wrote: You think that the peak of Sc2 is on a different time than for Dota 2? (at least in hourwise there should be a similar timeline for both games)
Peak times are irreverent because we don't have a peak for SC2 online. But you are right somewhat they both should peak at the same time seeing as they have similar qualifications of PC specs meaning they have no massive influence from PC bangs.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
On September 14 2013 00:33 Crytash wrote: You think that the peak of Sc2 is on a different time than for Dota 2? (at least in hourwise there should be a similar timeline for both games)
I can't be sure, so I don't claim to know or assume. Also, Dota 2 is brand new, while SC2 is 3 years old with an expansion. The number of active players for SC2 still beats out CS:GO, CoDBO, CS Source and SC prime if you add them all together.(on steam, of course). So SC2 is doing pretty well for being a 3 year old game.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
when I was online just now it was between 1 and 2 million online on battle.net, which is more believable for wow I think. it was 12k sc2 games being played, but I don't know if that includes arcade games
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie
On September 14 2013 00:33 Crytash wrote: You think that the peak of Sc2 is on a different time than for Dota 2? (at least in hourwise there should be a similar timeline for both games)
I can't be sure, so I don't claim to know or assume. Also, Dota 2 is brand new, while SC2 is 3 years old with an expansion. The number of active players for SC2 still beats out CS:GO, CoDBO, CS Source and SC prime if you add them all together.(on steam, of course). So SC2 is doing pretty well for being a 3 year old game.
I think dota1 still has a high amount of active players too, at least above 50k daily.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie
I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie
I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
but if you play the single player you'll still be online, same with diablo 3, so it does count for the number of active players maybe?
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie
I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
but if you play the single player you'll still be online, same with diablo 3, so it does count for the number of active players maybe?
Who knows, these are all skimmed numbers from sites that pull data from B.net. Diablo 3 could be games that are joinable online or have several party member, but not include games that just have one player. Also, is that number of games or players(since 4 players can be in a game). The same with SC2. If I log in right now and fire up one of my single player saves, do I count as being online or not? If I am in the arcade, am I online or does it not count me? There are the same problems with Dota 2 and their data pulling sites. Because I play Random draft with friends, my last game in dota 2 according to those sites is 12 months ago.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie
I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
I am not saying the game is dead, and I don't know the numbers for BW only my addiction to BW, so I won't compare. SC2 is far from any sort of a dead thing because as long as there is pro play and pros keep improving people will like to watch and play the game some. I do think it is less grabbing than BW because of the Blizzard fuck ups with WoL and how the social aspect of the game was basically ignored. Team games, UMS, 1v1 w/ OBS were huge factors to the casual fan base and the pro scene was supplemental. I feel like the pro scene in this game is what keeps the game going nowadays, but regardless this game is far from dead.
Now, as far as getting back to the OP. To inspire the variety of gameplay you desire Blizzard would have to seriously rework the game. The expensive gas units in this game are a big issue in my opinion. These units most of the time are countered too easily or simply don't do enough and sometimes some do too much (ghost). The Ultra, Broodlord, Infestor, Thor, Tank, BC, Raven, Immortal, Carrier, Templar, Archon, Void Ray are all great units, but they don't function well and are rarely worth their cost. That list seems long to some, but in many cases these units resources allocated to tier 1 units would be a better investment unless you're in the limited scenario where they work.
I also never liked armored vs light issues. Stuff should kill stuff regardless.
I also never liked the anti air and early splash options T has when compared to the other races. Simply put they can defend against air and put out splash damage much better than the other races in the early game. Hydras are expensive, individual queens are weak, banes have to die to attack. Meanwhile stalkers do alright against air, but aren't shit when compared to marines, and protoss has no early game splash that is cheap. Storm takes a while, and colossi aren't cheap. This by no means fucks either race, I just don't like that imbalance.
On September 14 2013 00:49 Crytash wrote: Dota 2 is only realeased in the western world, it is still in closed beta in China and Korea, just saying.
Doesn't matter if Dota 2 has a billion players every day as long as people watch SC2 as well. There isn't a need to make another Moba vs Sc2 arguement.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie
I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
but if you play the single player you'll still be online, same with diablo 3, so it does count for the number of active players maybe?
My guess is that most companies would include everyone they possibly could. You know increase that e-peen.
Now, as far as getting back to the OP. To inspire the variety of gameplay you desire Blizzard would have to seriously rework the game. The expensive gas units in this game are a big issue in my opinion. These units most of the time are countered too easily or simply don't do enough and sometimes some do too much (ghost). The Ultra, Broodlord, Infestor, Thor, Tank, BC, Raven, Immortal, Carrier, Templar, Archon, Void Ray are all great units, but they don't function well and are rarely worth their cost. That list seems long to some, but in many cases these units resources allocated to tier 1 units would be a better investment unless you're in the limited scenario where they work.
I also never liked armored vs light issues. Stuff should kill stuff regardless.
I also never liked the anti air and early splash options T has when compared to the other races. Simply put they can defend against air and put out splash damage much better than the other races in the early game. Hydras are expensive, individual queens are weak, banes have to die to attack. Meanwhile stalkers do alright against air, but aren't shit when compared to marines, and protoss has no early game splash that is cheap. Storm takes a while, and colossi aren't cheap. This by no means fucks either race, I just don't like that imbalance.
What you are noticing is what happens when unit drawbacks are replaced by unit strengths.
As an example, in TvT, when bio plays versus mech and the mech player gets his siege tanks at your cliff and your bio army can't do anything but watch your main die--you as a player are okay with that because tanks are immobile units that have blind spots and long attack cooldowns. You, as a player, feel it was your fault for letting them get in that position.
If instead of tanks those were colossus, then most players would bitch and moan about easy a-move units.
We, as gamers, understand the concept of give and take when it comes to interaction dynamics. Rogues should deal more damage than tanks, mages should have longer range thank rogues, etc... We feel that there is a fairness to our gaming experience that comes from this inherent yin and yang of the tools at our disposal. It creates a tension for us to play with.
Siege tanks are better sieged up, but can't move. So we have them move to the right spots, and siege them. A whole game comes about where you babysit tanks, and your opponents attempt to hit them while they aren't sieged. It's a great game with lots of tension.
When you remove that tension, that's when rock papers scissors happens. Colossus, for example, have the weakness of being both an air and ground unit. The only way to interact with that is unit composition--which is boring.
Let's go back to the tank. Whether you have a ground army or an air army, you're interaction with it is the same. Hit them while they're moving, run when they're entrenched. You can make your army, the opponent can make his, and you both play with your armies.
Colossus is different. Since its weakness is based on its unit type, there is no way to interact with it except through unit compositions. Without an air army, colossus will rape you--period. So though your opponent can make any unit composition he wants (and lets say he like building colossus), because he built colossus, you HAVE to make vikings/corruptors because if you don't you die. You can't simply make your army and then have your army interact with his army.
People keep bringing up the Reaver, here's why they do.
The reaver would ride inside a shuttle, hop out of the shuttle, shoot, and then be picked back up by the shuttle to run away. When the reaver is mobile in the shuttle, he can't attack. When the reaver hops out of the shuttle to attack, he can't move. So you chase it when it moves, and you run from it when it can't--just like the siege tank.
This means you can play against the reaver with almost ANY unit composition of your liking since its weakness is something tactical and not something compositional. The colossus will always be mobile and it will always be attacking. It doesn't have a "weak point" outside of forcing unit compositions.
What people want are tactical weaknesses, not compositional weaknesses.
I think that colossi are like the chimera in Warcraft 3: high tech, vulnerable to anti-air, expensive, needs proper support, but potentially the strongest anti-ground unit. I don't think the chimera is compatible with Starcraft, since micro in SC2 is like an impressionist painting that requires broad strokes, but the weakness of the chimera was largely its vulnerability to focus fire and disabling abilities, which requires a different approach to micro.
@ Thieving Magpie, I believe the poster above you wanted to address how easy and forgiving it is to turtle as a Terran, and current metagame and metamaps have shifted to easy-to-hold-3-bases. There are many things that are "flawed" with Starcraft 2, even though it being the hardest game I've played competitively (I've skipped BW with W3, soz diehard SC fans).
It's just how the game is designed, when people whine about Terran imbalance etc it's the fact that they are looking at the same units every game, just because Terran does not have the capacity to outproduce other races, nor do they need to stop their tier 1 and tier 1.5 production because it is so cost-effective.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie
I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
I am not saying the game is dead, and I don't know the numbers for BW only my addiction to BW, so I won't compare. SC2 is far from any sort of a dead thing because as long as there is pro play and pros keep improving people will like to watch and play the game some. I do think it is less grabbing than BW because of the Blizzard fuck ups with WoL and how the social aspect of the game was basically ignored. Team games, UMS, 1v1 w/ OBS were huge factors to the casual fan base and the pro scene was supplemental. I feel like the pro scene in this game is what keeps the game going nowadays, but regardless this game is far from dead.
Now, as far as getting back to the OP. To inspire the variety of gameplay you desire Blizzard would have to seriously rework the game. The expensive gas units in this game are a big issue in my opinion. These units most of the time are countered too easily or simply don't do enough and sometimes some do too much (ghost). The Ultra, Broodlord, Infestor, Thor, Tank, BC, Raven, Immortal, Carrier, Templar, Archon, Void Ray are all great units, but they don't function well and are rarely worth their cost. That list seems long to some, but in many cases these units resources allocated to tier 1 units would be a better investment unless you're in the limited scenario where they work.
I also never liked armored vs light issues. Stuff should kill stuff regardless.
I also never liked the anti air and early splash options T has when compared to the other races. Simply put they can defend against air and put out splash damage much better than the other races in the early game. Hydras are expensive, individual queens are weak, banes have to die to attack. Meanwhile stalkers do alright against air, but aren't shit when compared to marines, and protoss has no early game splash that is cheap. Storm takes a while, and colossi aren't cheap. This by no means fucks either race, I just don't like that imbalance.
On September 14 2013 00:49 Crytash wrote: Dota 2 is only realeased in the western world, it is still in closed beta in China and Korea, just saying.
Doesn't matter if Dota 2 has a billion players every day as long as people watch SC2 as well. There isn't a need to make another Moba vs Sc2 arguement.
On September 13 2013 21:15 Latringuden wrote: So, I checked active players this morning. Dota2 had 300k online, Sc2 had 750k online. The daily peak for Dota2 is 430k. Which game has a problem?
Also, regarding balance. MOBAs are balanced around the scaling of heroes with and the idea that some of them should become unbalanced when the team has played properly and has the right items. That's why alot of write up's ends with "and then Loda snowballed".
its 750k in battle.net. All blizzard games together.
WoW is major chunk of it.
Sc2 has roughly 12k games being played at one point which I guess is around 100k players online.
Wow cannot be included in that at all. That has over 8-9 million subscribers currently. Even if all of those players were WoW subscribers, it would be less than 1% of the total number of subs. There is no possible way that WoW is included in those numbers and they are as low as 750K.
~200k SC2 ~100k Diablo ~450K WoW
Why is it not possible that wow only has 1/16th of total subscribers online while SC2 has 1/15th? It seems reasonable that these numbers apply. Also it isn't less 1% unless my brain is quitting on me. More like ~10%.
Yeah, i did the math wrong in my head and moved the zero over one to many places. 450K for wow online at a given time seems a bit low with 9 million subs, but they many not be pulling the numbers from every single server on the planet. China or some other regions might not be in that data for WoW.
You are right the numbers for WoW seem low, but I promise that my numbers for SC2 and Diablo are high. WoW is probably more like 600K. Of course I have no clue what it is, but in a reference I read before active players for SC2 compared to purchase sales is quite low, same with D3, so in the end they probably have a VERY small piece of the battle.net user online pie. Which used to be a good pie
I wouldn't take it that way. The vast majority of players who buy SC2 never touch multiplayer. The same with D3. 200k active players at a given time if you compare it to other multiplayer games like CoD Black opps or all of the CS games. For a 3 years old RTS that has had one expansion, SC2 has a ton of staying power compared to other games.
but if you play the single player you'll still be online, same with diablo 3, so it does count for the number of active players maybe?
My guess is that most companies would include everyone they possibly could. You know increase that e-peen.
Good post agree with most of it hopefully with the number of expansions to come blizzard would actually add more dynamics to the game and bring back lots of play style mech play and also make those units that are heavily based on gas to be more interesting .
On September 14 2013 06:39 Grumbels wrote: I think that colossi are like the chimera in Warcraft 3: high tech, vulnerable to anti-air, expensive, needs proper support, but potentially the strongest anti-ground unit. I don't think the chimera is compatible with Starcraft, since micro in SC2 is like an impressionist painting that requires broad strokes, but the weakness of the chimera was largely its vulnerability to focus fire and disabling abilities, which requires a different approach to micro.
To add to this, as an example: dryads are quite similar to marauders in that they both have a slowing attack, but where dryads required sophisticated micro where you had to kite and slow as many individually targeted units at once, I've never once seen any terran bother to split up targeting with their marauders. Furthermore, you have different ways of catching up to or escaping from dryads. This doesn't mean that concussive shells are a failure of an ability, but it's food for thought. And primarily, I think that the main point is that unit design for SC2 really should not take too much inspiration from small-scale action games like WC3/Dota.
On September 14 2013 19:07 Grumbels wrote:I think that the main point is that unit design for SC2 really should not take too much inspiration from small-scale action games like WC3/Dota.
On September 14 2013 06:39 Grumbels wrote: I think that colossi are like the chimera in Warcraft 3: high tech, vulnerable to anti-air, expensive, needs proper support, but potentially the strongest anti-ground unit. I don't think the chimera is compatible with Starcraft, since micro in SC2 is like an impressionist painting that requires broad strokes, but the weakness of the chimera was largely its vulnerability to focus fire and disabling abilities, which requires a different approach to micro.
To add to this, as an example: dryads are quite similar to marauders in that they both have a slowing attack, but where dryads required sophisticated micro where you had to kite and slow as many individually targeted units at once, I've never once seen any terran bother to split up targeting with their marauders. Furthermore, you have different ways of catching up to or escaping from dryads. This doesn't mean that concussive shells are a failure of an ability, but it's food for thought. And primarily, I think that the main point is that unit design for SC2 really should not take too much inspiration from small-scale action games like WC3/Dota.
Well, you will find many people that want quite the opposite. That the game focuses more on small skirmishes and interactions of few units and less deathball/crowd control.
I really don't think you should/can generalize unit design to what you are saying. Many of those things come down to actual gameplay, like, the Viper abduct is an amazing spell in SC2, as it is simply balanced in a way that you cannot use to pull "anything" but have to focus on important targets and on top of it the range/viper mobility is balanced in a way that it is very punishable from the opponent to pull units.
On the flipside, the Colossus always had that problem that it can walk over other units (so it does not get blocked when microing back) has 3-9range advantages over the usual units that are being used and is very durable. It makes it incredibly boring to fight the Colossus, as it is simply (balancewise) out of reach for nearly anything and you cannot really rely on superior control to snipe it. You will always have to rely on very specific tools to kill it. But that's less the Colossus designs fault, but rather the balancings fault. Had Terran tanks as stable army backbone in TvP all of that would not be true. Also, Zerg in HotS has Vipers acessible very fast, which makes Colossi much less boring as there is now a lot of interaction around the Colossus, other than brute force.
I loathe the viper's abduct ability though. I don't think it fits with the game.
And well, I prefer 'broad strokes' positional movement rather than micro that's purely precision and timing based. For Starcraft 2 at least, I don't mind the latter in other games, or even in Starcraft 2, but I don't want it to be a dominant form.
For siege tanks it's important that you roughly spread them out correctly, that you roughly siege them up at the right places. To fight against siege tanks you need to primarily use spreading and flanking, as well as catching them off-guard. I think immortals and vipers, where you either use a shielded unit to soak up damage or use a special ability to pull out siege tanks, don't have that much to do with engaging positional tactical play. At least zealot bombs had more flair... you're exploiting a weakness siege tanks have because they are immobile, and you could defend it with goliaths and turrets, so it still fits with the the theme of taking advantage of positional weaknesses. Creating a unit that specifically takes no damage from siege tanks is not a real weakness, it's a made up one that's forced into the game. It feels kinda annoying to me.
On September 14 2013 00:49 Crytash wrote: Dota 2 is only realeased in the western world, it is still in closed beta in China and Korea, just saying.
the dota scene is pretty much dead in hk. LoL has completely taken over the cybercafe. It isn't hard to get a key as well. It was never that big to begin with. Lots of people played a chinese custom version of it which is based upon the three dynasties legend and they played another which is based upon the japanese history.
On September 14 2013 19:36 Grumbels wrote: I loathe the viper's abduct ability though. I don't think it fits with the game.
And well, I prefer 'broad strokes' positional movement rather than micro that's purely precision and timing based. For Starcraft 2 at least, I don't mind the latter in other games, or even in Starcraft 2, but I don't want it to be a dominant form.
For siege tanks it's important that you roughly spread them out correctly, that you roughly siege them up at the right places. To fight against siege tanks you need to primarily use spreading and flanking, as well as catching them off-guard. I think immortals and vipers, where you either use a shielded unit to soak up damage or use a special ability to pull out siege tanks, don't have that much to do with engaging positional tactical play. At least zealot bombs had more flair... you're exploiting a weakness siege tanks have because they are immobile, and you could defend it with goliaths and turrets, so it still fits with the the theme of taking advantage of positional weaknesses. Creating a unit that specifically takes no damage from siege tanks is not a real weakness, it's a made up one that's forced into the game. It feels kinda annoying to me.
You are romantizing Tankplay. The main way to engage tanks is/was still to build the right units/compositions, you are not going to win without marauders bio vs mech and even when you don't play air units you are hugely relying on the meching player to be prepared for them in the form of less tanks.
Yeah, with the siege dynamic I completely agree that once you have the right composition the engagements are still very interesting, because unlike in roach vs marauder the marauder does still lose in marauder vs tank if the mech player outplays the bio player. That's why I say, balancing unit relations against each other is the real deal that makes gameplay good and which makes tanks interesting while Colossi are rather boring.
For the Viper abduct... designwise it's very similar to spells like yamato, spawn broodlings or Irradiate, designed to snipe single (highvalue) units. I'm not a huge fan of those either designwise, as they are just "click to counter" tasks, yet, same can be said about any form of targetfiring. For as long as they work out nicely I don't mind. When they become bullshit (like Snipe or 9range NP) they should get removed/reworked or nerfed into support roles.
I really don't agree with the idea of patches being about shaking up the meta. Patches should primarily be about balance, if they are primarily about shaking up the meta that means that there are serious flaws elsewhere in the game design. Map variety and innovative build orders are what should be shaking up the meta. Blizzard may take their time to introduce their balance tweaks, but making absolutely sure they are addressing the issue properly is way better than consistently destroying part of the strategy foundation with reworks in the name of shaking up the meta.
On September 14 2013 22:08 Fyrewolf wrote: I really don't agree with the idea of patches being about shaking up the meta. Patches should primarily be about balance, if they are primarily about shaking up the meta that means that there are serious flaws elsewhere in the game design. Map variety and innovative build orders are what should be shaking up the meta. Blizzard may take their time to introduce their balance tweaks, but making absolutely sure they are addressing the issue properly is way better than consistently destroying part of the strategy foundation with reworks in the name of shaking up the meta.
I have a few thoughts on this, because I think your point is totally valid, but there really is no escaping a meta-game change and it shouldn't seem so scary.
Firstly, I am okay with patching to shake up meta but there is a lot of context to it. I don't way to say outright that every 3 months there should just be this "new face" patch, although I would prefer it if Blizzard messed with it disregarding the preservation of a consistent meta for having a volatile one. It will happen regardless, it is just the swing of things. Whether you gear it all towards balance or not, a patch with changes is always going to affect meta to some degree. However I think meta is a small price to pay when it comes in the name of getting effectiveness and variety from all races in terms of their units and their strategies around them. Meta is a perpetual beast that needs to change and stagnation is bad no matter what. Honestly I think it we just need to find the "right meta," the one that never seems dry and boring, one with so much depth it never quite feels like everyone is doing the same stuff over and over.
So in that same universe, the meta should be thought of more as a "happy ending" to say, making a unit better, or a particular strategy more viable. As far as I'm concerned, fuck the meta until every unit and many broad and interesting strategies have a place and viability somewhere in this game. This brings us to your remark of design flaws...
What you said about serious flaws is really interesting because there absolutely is, but what can really be done about it? The best we can do is buff/nerf/change units to sort of...monkey wrench them in. I know. It sucks. Sounds so lame, but Blizzard will never undergo such an endeavor. I would love for it to happen, but I just don't see it coming to fruition.
In the end I think you are right about pure meta-game shifting patches with no base in balance or fixing things being really bad and downright stupid. Instead, their should be a strong focus on shaking up the meta (via unit changes etc.) until it finds this place where it is endless in feeling, as well as rich and dynamic in nature.
Patches should freshen the game up but it should not determine the metagame. if the metagame is stagnant, that is not a reason to patch it unless there is imbalances obvious. if not, then dont change it, because you force everyone to relearn the game and changing things to change them just feels kind of wrong with blizzard's track history in balance..
On September 15 2013 00:18 c0sm0naut wrote: Patches should freshen the game up but it should not determine the metagame. if the metagame is stagnant, that is not a reason to patch it unless there is imbalances obvious. if not, then dont change it, because you force everyone to relearn the game and changing things to change them just feels kind of wrong with blizzard's track history in balance..
To be fair, IIRC, some of balance patches blizzard used to do served just to shake up the meta.
There's only been like five changes for all of HotS though. Given that there is nothing that is obviously broken at the moment, we could go with zero additional changes until LotV.
On September 15 2013 00:45 Grumbels wrote: There's only been like five changes for all of HotS though. Given that there is nothing that is obviously broken at the moment, we could go with zero additional changes until LotV.
I predict changes for PvT incoming soon. Probably some minor buff to tank, that will somehow flip winrates lol
On September 15 2013 00:45 Grumbels wrote: There's only been like five changes for all of HotS though. Given that there is nothing that is obviously broken at the moment, we could go with zero additional changes until LotV.
I predict changes for PvT incoming soon. Probably some minor buff to tank, that will somehow flip winrates lol
Well, for instance, the suggestion coming from pro terran players is to nerf the mothership core, but that's a destabilizing change since timing attacks will have to be figured out from scratch. I'm not saying that makes it a bad change, but I just wouldn't bet on Blizzard taking that step, especially since protoss players will scream murder.
On September 15 2013 00:45 Grumbels wrote: There's only been like five changes for all of HotS though. Given that there is nothing that is obviously broken at the moment, we could go with zero additional changes until LotV.
I predict changes for PvT incoming soon. Probably some minor buff to tank, that will somehow flip winrates lol
Well, for instance, the suggestion coming from pro terran players is to nerf the mothership core, but that's a destabilizing change since timing attacks will have to be figured out from scratch. I'm not saying that makes it a bad change, but I just wouldn't bet on Blizzard taking that step, especially since protoss players will scream murder.
I think MSC is good thing, but 2 photon overcharges on 2 different bases is frustrating. Blizzard will probably buff something they see as underrated.
you can not compare sc2 to a moba, and reworking units outsite of beta in a realtime strategy is a HORRIBLE idea ... also after i read your reasons etc i disagree with 95% and it rly sounded like a "meh make it work for me"
On September 15 2013 01:19 Drake wrote: you can not compare sc2 to a moba, and reworking units outsite of beta in a realtime strategy is a HORRIBLE idea ... also after i read your reasons etc i disagree with 95% and it rly sounded like a "meh make it work for me"
It's just not for me. Despite the disagreement with my comparison for MOBA, a lot of people do agree with the staleness of the game.
It's disheartening to see how many people still passionately hate SC2 while devoting a large part of their life to it all the same. Is this the future of gaming?
On September 15 2013 02:18 Splines wrote: It's disheartening to see how many people still passionately hate SC2 while devoting a large part of their life to it all the same. Is this the future of gaming?
We aren't hating it per se. We want to this game to improve but see a lot of things we don't like. Blizzard has a very stubborn record when it comes to interacting with the community, although Blizzard's reasons for neglect is not unfounded.
On September 15 2013 02:18 Splines wrote: It's disheartening to see how many people still passionately hate SC2 while devoting a large part of their life to it all the same. Is this the future of gaming?
No way man! you're seeing passion in a negative light. It may seem disparaging and gloomy but in reality it is positive passion! The word "care!" I want to see this game reach new heights. I am passionate about it like many others, we wouldn't get so worked up if we didn't care! ^_^
To clarify, any changes in a patch will of course change the meta somewhat, and blizzard does some changes to influence the meta in their balance patches on occasion, but I just think that patches don't need to have a "strong focus on shaking up the meta", the balance tweaks will alter it some, and changes will also naturally happen with a changing map pool and intuitive players creating innovative build orders. The community is what creates the meta, the balancing just has to make sure one dominant strategy doesn't rule it.
On September 15 2013 02:18 Splines wrote: It's disheartening to see how many people still passionately hate SC2 while devoting a large part of their life to it all the same. Is this the future of gaming?
I think they are actually hating Blizzard's decisions, rather than SC2 itself
Actually the biggest thing you can derive from MOBA approach is that shaking up the meta isn't all that problematic to the pro scene. While people will make the argument that you can just select other characters and avoid the changes when RTS can't, team players have to invest heavily in training with certain classes/characters yet they still adapt to the changes. The reinvigoration is oft ignored too as a stimulus boost to the competitive scene; leads to more publicity, more excitement, and directs the community to be actively thinking about the dynamics and what they think about the game. That active process goes a long way with audience engagement.
On September 15 2013 02:18 Splines wrote: It's disheartening to see how many people still passionately hate SC2 while devoting a large part of their life to it all the same. Is this the future of gaming?
I think they are actually hating Blizzard's decisions, rather than SC2 itself
Exactly ... the Blizzard dev team are too arrogant to think about their CORE GAMING CONCEPTS and think of them as perfect/unchangeable while they are really behind far too many balance changes that had to be made. They are either incapable or unwilling to actually think about this and that is very infuriating. These problems became apparent during WoL already and should have been fixed at the end of it, but since they refused to even THINK about them (as the dynamic movement and Blizzard's reply to it showed us) we will probably be stuck with a shitty core concept of massive battles with too concentrated dps until a few years after LotV ... Maybe then, but I am not getting my hopes up.
On September 15 2013 02:18 Splines wrote: It's disheartening to see how many people still passionately hate SC2 while devoting a large part of their life to it all the same. Is this the future of gaming?
I think they are actually hating Blizzard's decisions, rather than SC2 itself
Exactly ... the Blizzard dev team are too arrogant to think about their CORE GAMING CONCEPTS and think of them as perfect/unchangeable while they are really behind far too many balance changes that had to be made. They are either incapable or unwilling to actually think about this and that is very infuriating. These problems became apparent during WoL already and should have been fixed at the end of it, but since they refused to even THINK about them (as the dynamic movement and Blizzard's reply to it showed us) we will probably be stuck with a shitty core concept of massive battles with too concentrated dps until a few years after LotV ... Maybe then, but I am not getting my hopes up.
Just change the pathfinding to prevent clump up and deathball, and more than 50% of the fans will be happy. Most people like a grander scale battle than a tiny one.
I guess LotV will be more F2P than HOTS, as Blizzard specifically said they are not longer against F2P in the gamescon interview.
I don't think SC2 really suffers from underused units the same way mobas have underused heroes. It's a much different dynamic. Each race in SC2 doesn't have a million options. The units all have their roles. Buffing random ones to mix up the meta doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
On September 15 2013 17:05 Beakyboo wrote: I don't think SC2 really suffers from underused units the same way mobas have underused heroes. It's a much different dynamic. Each race in SC2 doesn't have a million options. The units all have their roles. Buffing random ones to mix up the meta doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
well they did buff infestors in wol and we saw a lot of usage eventually. if they buff'd hydra, we might see more dynamic unit composition in zvt too
Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt. The game gets very boring to watch when every player can use strategies dating back since WoL because the game really hasn't changed much since then. I personally think the metagame only changed because of the maps. A lot of the old balance changes like tank nerfs don't make as much sense today but it's still in the game because smaller maps made them imba.
Pros should be forced to learn and innovate every once in a while to keep up with the metagame. I would hope starcraft is a game where at least one new thing is uncovered every tournament that makes the game more interesting to watch and play. It's depressing sometimes to watch a figured out game to the point where only the mechanically strong survive. There should be more emphasis on players like TLO who are capable of surprising their opponents into a victory. Changes should be introduced slowly but deliberately to make the game more fun to play, learn, and watch. SC2 should not follow the footsteps of brood war. That is my opinion at least.
On September 15 2013 17:05 Beakyboo wrote: I don't think SC2 really suffers from underused units the same way mobas have underused heroes. It's a much different dynamic. Each race in SC2 doesn't have a million options. The units all have their roles. Buffing random ones to mix up the meta doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
well they did buff infestors in wol and we saw a lot of usage eventually. if they buff'd hydra, we might see more dynamic unit composition in zvt too
Those are not good examples because the unit was completely changed before they were being used.
Warp Prism saw zero use, but after being given 10 shield became standard play.
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote: Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt. The game gets very boring to watch when every player can use strategies dating back since WoL because the game really hasn't changed much since then. I personally think the metagame only changed because of the maps. A lot of the old balance changes like tank nerfs don't make as much sense today but it's still in the game because smaller maps made them imba.
Pros should be forced to learn and innovate every once in a while to keep up with the metagame. I would hope starcraft is a game where at least one new thing is uncovered every tournament that makes the game more interesting to watch and play. It's depressing sometimes to watch a figured out game to the point where only the mechanically strong survive. There should be more emphasis on players like TLO who are capable of surprising their opponents into a victory. Changes should be introduced slowly but deliberately to make the game more fun to play, learn, and watch. SC2 should not follow the footsteps of brood war. That is my opinion at least.
Blizzard had a chance to replace units in HotS, pretty much your best bet for the concept of introducing new units frequently. (since if you keep introducing new units there will be too many overlapping and useless units eventually) They initially decided on doing just that, but then declined. I don't know why...
On September 15 2013 17:05 Beakyboo wrote: I don't think SC2 really suffers from underused units the same way mobas have underused heroes. It's a much different dynamic. Each race in SC2 doesn't have a million options. The units all have their roles. Buffing random ones to mix up the meta doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
well they did buff infestors in wol and we saw a lot of usage eventually. if they buff'd hydra, we might see more dynamic unit composition in zvt too
Those are not good examples because the unit was completely changed before they were being used.
Warp Prism saw zero use, but after being given 10 shield became standard play.
yea that's what I mean, I just forgot about warp prism :p
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote: Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt. The game gets very boring to watch when every player can use strategies dating back since WoL because the game really hasn't changed much since then. I personally think the metagame only changed because of the maps. A lot of the old balance changes like tank nerfs don't make as much sense today but it's still in the game because smaller maps made them imba.
Pros should be forced to learn and innovate every once in a while to keep up with the metagame. I would hope starcraft is a game where at least one new thing is uncovered every tournament that makes the game more interesting to watch and play. It's depressing sometimes to watch a figured out game to the point where only the mechanically strong survive. There should be more emphasis on players like TLO who are capable of surprising their opponents into a victory. Changes should be introduced slowly but deliberately to make the game more fun to play, learn, and watch. SC2 should not follow the footsteps of brood war. That is my opinion at least.
Blizzard had a chance to replace units in HotS, pretty much your best bet for the concept of introducing new units frequently. (since if you keep introducing new units there will be too many overlapping and useless units eventually) They initially decided on doing just that, but then declined. I don't know why...
Well, the units they were talking about were: Overseer (not an interesting concept for a spellcaster) Corruptor (boring unit) Carrier (underused; new capital ship for Protoss incoming)
What happened was that the Corruptor and Overseer just were filling too important roles for them to risk fucking over zerg by changing them And then DB said that they are not going to remove the Carrier alone, because it would be weird. Not to mention that DK said somewhere that they simply like the concept of the Carrier, used or not.
For the constant introduction of units I agree, that's not really doable with Starcraft. But yeah, a few extra upgrades/reworks of upgrades or units wouldn't really hurt. I mean, a "rework" of a unit does not mean you change all the stats etc., but can also mean to change how a spell works (the old fungal patch), add an ability to a unit (medivac boost), or a lategame upgrade to change unit interactions (phoenix range). Blizzard has done that before and it has generally worked out very well. Simply because it's much easier to get wanted relations right after you already know how the game plays out. Something you don't get right in most cases if you only betapatch.
Well, they said that they could never buff the overseer because you could build an infinite number of them. That's why originally vipers were given a clumsy form of detection and oracles were given contaminate. And they did promise to rework the corruptor, but I think that given the focus on introducing protoss air units they were hesitant to change zerg anti-air.
The thor was also supposed to become the new super unit, with the mothership removed, and with warhounds taking up the anti-air role for terran. I think that once they had decided against the concept of replacing units (and maybe this was a higher up decision!) they were forced to put the thor back in place, but who knows.
I think that Blizzard should be able to just constantly come up with new unit concepts. They had two years, if they were to come up with one good concept per month they would have had 8 potential new units per race, they don't have to put all of them into the game, but I think it's a bit more interesting than getting 7 new units in total. That's one of the reasons I dislike e-sports sometimes, I primarily care about having a game that's fun to play for me, and I think those sort of changes are exciting. If this can't be done because of the risks of destabilizing e-sports, I think that maybe Blizzard first should have made sure that the game was in the best possible shape before trying to create an industry around it. Dota wasn't an e-sports in 2005, it took until 2011, when the game was in much better shape.
On September 15 2013 20:46 Grumbels wrote: Dota wasn't an e-sports in 2005, it took until 2011, when the game was in much better shape.
That's not true. DotA was an eSport back in 2005 too but not as large as the current DotA2. There were many tournaments back there, especially in Asia scene. I can count like 3-4 big tournaments in SE Asia alone, and many more in China would not surprise me.
EDIT: I forgot to add that there was no major force with sufficient promoting DotA esport scene back when it was a War 3 mod (Blizz focused on the Warcraft 3 but not on DotA). When Valve picked up DotA makers team (well not the original maker but still...), the scene also get a major driving force for making the scene big too.
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote: Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt. The game gets very boring to watch when every player can use strategies dating back since WoL because the game really hasn't changed much since then. I personally think the metagame only changed because of the maps. A lot of the old balance changes like tank nerfs don't make as much sense today but it's still in the game because smaller maps made them imba.
Pros should be forced to learn and innovate every once in a while to keep up with the metagame. I would hope starcraft is a game where at least one new thing is uncovered every tournament that makes the game more interesting to watch and play. It's depressing sometimes to watch a figured out game to the point where only the mechanically strong survive. There should be more emphasis on players like TLO who are capable of surprising their opponents into a victory. Changes should be introduced slowly but deliberately to make the game more fun to play, learn, and watch. SC2 should not follow the footsteps of brood war. That is my opinion at least.
Adding new units every 6 months without taking any others out is a stupid idea, because you will end up with a huge number of units in the end and one of the attractions of BW was the "simplicity" through not having so many different units. The way to do it is to have X number of slots for each category for a race (infantry, mechanical/tougher ground units, spellcasters, flyers) and then add units for these categories but force a player to choose which ones he wants to use before the game starts. That way you wont even know if you are facing a Terran with Thors or Goliaths until you see which one it is for example and it would keep everyone guessing. Balancing those "sidegrades" should be far easier than balancing a new unit to add to the game in 10 years time after there have already been 20 new units to each race. Such a "sidegrade system" is possibly open ended AND it could be themed to certain eras (like BW) and thus create tournaments of a certain style.
Not every unit is equally viable under the current "design philosophy" and this is the major issue to fix. Large units for Terrans simply dont make much sense atm because the high dps of a Zerg/Protoss army clump AND their spells prevent them from becoming useful. The really simple way of fixing that is to reduce the "clump dps" to about 1/10th (or less) the current amount by reducing the unit density accordingly. Since it makes no sense to keep the total army size the same the economy and production needs to be reduced to accomplish that reduction in unit density AND the ground units need forced unit spreading as well.
Since economic and production speed boosts would be removed I feel it could be a good thing to switch back to the "BW design" for base building and "restart" from that design point and evolve onwards. Example: Without the MULE the OC isnt a necessary thing and consequently the Comsat station addon for the CC could be a better design AND the nuke silo would be as well ... and then the damage of the nuke could be changed back to its BW state of "hey you can actually destroy stuff with it".
Now, as far as getting back to the OP. To inspire the variety of gameplay you desire Blizzard would have to seriously rework the game. The expensive gas units in this game are a big issue in my opinion. These units most of the time are countered too easily or simply don't do enough and sometimes some do too much (ghost). The Ultra, Broodlord, Infestor, Thor, Tank, BC, Raven, Immortal, Carrier, Templar, Archon, Void Ray are all great units, but they don't function well and are rarely worth their cost. That list seems long to some, but in many cases these units resources allocated to tier 1 units would be a better investment unless you're in the limited scenario where they work.
I also never liked armored vs light issues. Stuff should kill stuff regardless.
I also never liked the anti air and early splash options T has when compared to the other races. Simply put they can defend against air and put out splash damage much better than the other races in the early game. Hydras are expensive, individual queens are weak, banes have to die to attack. Meanwhile stalkers do alright against air, but aren't shit when compared to marines, and protoss has no early game splash that is cheap. Storm takes a while, and colossi aren't cheap. This by no means fucks either race, I just don't like that imbalance.
What you are noticing is what happens when unit drawbacks are replaced by unit strengths.
As an example, in TvT, when bio plays versus mech and the mech player gets his siege tanks at your cliff and your bio army can't do anything but watch your main die--you as a player are okay with that because tanks are immobile units that have blind spots and long attack cooldowns. You, as a player, feel it was your fault for letting them get in that position.
If instead of tanks those were colossus, then most players would bitch and moan about easy a-move units.
We, as gamers, understand the concept of give and take when it comes to interaction dynamics. Rogues should deal more damage than tanks, mages should have longer range thank rogues, etc... We feel that there is a fairness to our gaming experience that comes from this inherent yin and yang of the tools at our disposal. It creates a tension for us to play with.
Siege tanks are better sieged up, but can't move. So we have them move to the right spots, and siege them. A whole game comes about where you babysit tanks, and your opponents attempt to hit them while they aren't sieged. It's a great game with lots of tension.
When you remove that tension, that's when rock papers scissors happens. Colossus, for example, have the weakness of being both an air and ground unit. The only way to interact with that is unit composition--which is boring.
Let's go back to the tank. Whether you have a ground army or an air army, you're interaction with it is the same. Hit them while they're moving, run when they're entrenched. You can make your army, the opponent can make his, and you both play with your armies.
Colossus is different. Since its weakness is based on its unit type, there is no way to interact with it except through unit compositions. Without an air army, colossus will rape you--period. So though your opponent can make any unit composition he wants (and lets say he like building colossus), because he built colossus, you HAVE to make vikings/corruptors because if you don't you die. You can't simply make your army and then have your army interact with his army.
People keep bringing up the Reaver, here's why they do.
The reaver would ride inside a shuttle, hop out of the shuttle, shoot, and then be picked back up by the shuttle to run away. When the reaver is mobile in the shuttle, he can't attack. When the reaver hops out of the shuttle to attack, he can't move. So you chase it when it moves, and you run from it when it can't--just like the siege tank.
This means you can play against the reaver with almost ANY unit composition of your liking since its weakness is something tactical and not something compositional. The colossus will always be mobile and it will always be attacking. It doesn't have a "weak point" outside of forcing unit compositions.
What people want are tactical weaknesses, not compositional weaknesses.
It's what you want.
To say that the interaction of the colossus relies solely on the unit type mechanic is exaggerating. (Were you?) There are other part of the design like the transverse AoE that allow tactical depth. Moreover, even the unit type mechanic creates tactical depth and not just unit composition calculus. If zerg or terran "needs" to get air units to fight colossus (because that is their mechanic), it creates positioning situations where the stalkers or other protoss anti air have to maneuver to fend off the anti-colossus air fleets. And counter maneuvers and so on. I'm not trying to say this is a deep or enjoyable dynamic necessarily, but it is just not true that unit type mechanics provide no tactical interaction.
In general, every attribute of the game elements in RTS interact at least on some level directly or indirectly with all the others. Any given mechanic has a bleeding effect that can augment dynamics in "unrelated" areas. For a striking example, consider the "high armor morphing egg" mechanic for zerg which allows you to create a temporary walloff in a chokepoint.
On September 13 2013 02:19 Grumbels wrote: you're being obtuse, they don't have to use the exact same algorithm, they just should have the same behavior, but without edge cases like with ramps and such. And I'm just talking about the part of pathfinding that creates the slightly clumsy spread out movement, not the engine as a whole. WC3 had units that took up space, that were blocky, that were in the way of each other, that didn't clump perfectly, just like brood war, but if you'd send an army somewhere at least it would always get there and not be held up on a ramp somewhere
WC3 clumped just like in SC2, their clumps were square and rectangles, but they clumped. They even moved at the speed of the slowest unit of the selected group. WC3 actually forces clumping and you have to manually pull them apart in order for their clumps to work.
The reason they don't have the same problems as SC2 is that the AOE hit less units and damage to health ratio was different..
The reason units spread out in BW was because the collisions would force units to reroute, if they forced to reroute too much the initial route they needed to take gets bumped off their memory and suddenly they're just standing in the middle of the map.
Without blocky collisions that causes units to not be able to get up a ramp, we also would not have the self spreading movement of BW. This is what I'm talking about when I say that what you're asking for is not really "possible" to recreate because the "spreading out" nature in BW came about for the exact same reasons that all the bugs came about. You remove the bugs and you also remove the spreading out.
You can create whatever behavior you want. There's no reason that "removing the bugs" would preclude spread out unit movement.
There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
yea it's weird. I am browsing around the chatrooms now and other than the featured (max is 71) there is hardly anyone in any of the group.
and to above. I really won't consider this a progress if everyone is not even using the function. having a good heart trying to improve the game is good, but it doesn't mean they are doing it right
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
no chat channels? you must be joking. Battle.net would feel dead without them >.> Obviously Blizzard didn't know how to do the right thing since when SCII was released, a lot of features that should be included because they are standard weren't. Maybe I don't understand because I'm not a game developer but it doesn't take a genius imo to see just what SCII was missing when it was first released
Ridiculous posts, you mention progress and indeed reminded me of the year, it had totally slipped my mind. Meanwhile you don't actually name anything that has improved for the user with Bnet2.0?
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
Is this real life?
This isn't US where "freedom of speech" allows you to hide behind when you want to be a jackass. Not following old norms isn't a bad thing. The type of people who complain about this sort of thing have a negative attitude, it does nothing to help the situation. I find it sad when people can't follow simple innovations, instead they complain about the system like some 2 year old that didn't get their candy. Nobody is forcing you to play the game if you think the features are bad. Only you did because you lack self-control.
Blizzard is a special company because they have decided to step forward and tell their players "No. We won't allow old features to stagnate today's games"
Please tell me how SC:2 is the worst offender in regards of "new types and levels of toxicity".
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
An "innovation" that is a disservice to the user has no reason to be implemented.
Chat rooms is one of those things that allowed Starcraft become more of a social game, together with UMS maps. This is the kind of thing needed to grow a healthy community, which allowed Starcraft to outlive any other game of its time. So yes, they have a purpose. And no, removing them without having something better on its place is not an "innovation".
It's being out of touch and not able to understand that it takes more than a name to make a game successful on its own merit.
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
An "innovation" that is a disservice to the user has no reason to be implemented.
Chat rooms is one of those things that allowed Starcraft become more of a social game, together with UMS maps. This is the kind of thing needed to grow a healthy community, which allowed Starcraft to outlive any other game of its time.
So yes, they have a purpose. And no, removing them without having something better on its place is not an "innovation".
It's being out of touch and not able to understand that it takes more than a name to make a game successful on its own merit.
didn't want to state the obvious but I think he's trolling you guys lol:
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
Is this real life?
This isn't US where "freedom of speech" allows you to hide behind when you want to be a jackass. Not following old norms isn't a bad thing. The type of people who complain about this sort of thing have a negative attitude, it does nothing to help the situation. I find it sad when people can't follow simple innovations, instead they complain about the system like some 2 year old that didn't get their candy. Nobody is forcing you to play the game if you think the features are bad. Only you did because you lack self-control.
Blizzard is a special company because they have decided to step forward and tell their players "No. We won't allow old features to stagnate today's games"
Please tell me how SC:2 is the worst offender in regards of "new types and levels of toxicity".
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
An "innovation" that is a disservice to the user has no reason to be implemented.
Chat rooms is one of those things that allowed Starcraft become more of a social game, together with UMS maps. This is the kind of thing needed to grow a healthy community, which allowed Starcraft to outlive any other game of its time.
So yes, they have a purpose. And no, removing them without having something better on its place is not an "innovation".
It's being out of touch and not able to understand that it takes more than a name to make a game successful on its own merit.
You're crying about the past, see the irony here? Blizzard reviews ALL features, and some others too. Blizzard don't review the low-end complaints because they believe the decisions for those cases are valid. You just made your self look stupid by disagreeing with the most successful game company ever. Quit bringing down blizzard's morale and post something positive for once, will ya? If you're even capable of it
You're posting moronically, you're just parroting 'Blizzard knows best' without even attempting to address the VERY clear points being made.
The alternative is that you're trolling. Speaking of nostalgia I remember the 'good old days' where trolling wasn't just a synonym for being a tool and generally denoted some wit/flair.
On September 19 2013 15:04 Wombat_NI wrote: You're posting moronically, you're just parroting 'Blizzard knows best' without even attempting to address the VERY clear points being made.
The alternative is that you're trolling. Speaking of nostalgia I remember the 'good old days' where trolling wasn't just a synonym for being a tool and generally denoted some wit/flair.
If you dislike blizzard products so much, why do you spend so much time talking about it, playing it? Are you a masochist? Fact of the matter is the people working at blizzard have spent years earning their titles as game designers. Do you have any degrees or credentials? Didn't think so. What makes you think you can understand how to create a better game than them?
You're a Blizzard-fellating parrot who can't answer questions.
I don't dislike their products, indeed last time I checked Blizzard created the original Battlenet interface. You know the one that worked to foster a community? The same community who became more likely to buy their products?
On September 19 2013 15:04 Wombat_NI wrote: You're posting moronically, you're just parroting 'Blizzard knows best' without even attempting to address the VERY clear points being made.
The alternative is that you're trolling. Speaking of nostalgia I remember the 'good old days' where trolling wasn't just a synonym for being a tool and generally denoted some wit/flair.
If you dislike blizzard products so much, why do you spend so much time talking about it, playing it? Are you a masochist? Fact of the matter is the people working at blizzard have spent years earning their titles as game designers. Do you have any degrees or credentials? Didn't think so. What makes you think you can understand how to create a better game than them?
because of several reasons: just because you like the game doesn't make you like all the aspects of the game If the feature is so advanced and innovative, then obviously the crowd would have hopped onto it, which we don't see And no one is saying WE know how to create a better game, but we are saying the old version where we have experience of is better. And we as the player is what the game designers look at, because the game is designed for our benefits. Who else gets a better say as to which battlenet is superior?
On September 19 2013 15:04 Wombat_NI wrote: You're posting moronically, you're just parroting 'Blizzard knows best' without even attempting to address the VERY clear points being made.
The alternative is that you're trolling. Speaking of nostalgia I remember the 'good old days' where trolling wasn't just a synonym for being a tool and generally denoted some wit/flair.
If you dislike blizzard products so much, why do you spend so much time talking about it, playing it? Are you a masochist? Fact of the matter is the people working at blizzard have spent years earning their titles as game designers. Do you have any degrees or credentials? Didn't think so. What makes you think you can understand how to create a better game than them?
because of several reasons: just because you like the game doesn't make you like all the aspects of the game If the feature is so advanced and innovative, then obviously the crowd would have hopped onto it, which we don't see And no one is saying WE know how to create a better game, but we are saying the old version where we have experience of is better. And we as the player is what the game designers look at, because the game is designed for our benefits. Who else gets a better say as to which battlenet is superior?
Sounds like someone has no game design credentials.
On September 19 2013 11:51 Wombat_NI wrote: There's a lot to learn in terms of UI, DotA especially has some amazing features that would be nice to see in SC2 for sure.
I still feel that Bnet 2.0 has been a massive, massive fuckup in so many ways sadly. I would maybe have a 1:5 ratio of gametime vs loitering in Bnet in WC3, you could kill so much time just chilling.
Perhaps it's years of familiarity, but the old unique player names, /w and /f m and the likes of those commands were great. I realise that some of the commands do still exist but they are hamstrung by a really fucking annoying interface (for me anyway)
Don't even get me started on customs. The ability to NAME your fucking lobby for one. Variants of 'nr 20' or 'pros only' are the little features that made playing customs so much better for me in WC3
So you are against progress? Sheesh, would hate to know what other opinions you have. Dustin tried his best, you can't be happy with that alone? That's a selfish attitude. You should understand that blizzard is full of developers that have spent a lot of time learning how to make great games. They make good decisions that you might not understand because you're not a game developer. Try to be a little bit more open-minded.
If the world was filled with people like you we would probably not even have electricity because you would want the nostalgia of fire.
If the best Dustin can do is a regression compared to the old system, then his best is certainly not enough.
And that is the problem. This is Starcraft TWO. If you cannot improve on the original, then don't touch it, or call it something else.
Without innovation we can never move forward. It's 2013 almost 2014 now. Get used to it. This is how it is and it's here to stay, the best you can do is be positive. Chat channels might have been cool back then but we can't live in the past forever. At some point we have to move on to new things such as a game without them.
An "innovation" that is a disservice to the user has no reason to be implemented.
Chat rooms is one of those things that allowed Starcraft become more of a social game, together with UMS maps. This is the kind of thing needed to grow a healthy community, which allowed Starcraft to outlive any other game of its time.
So yes, they have a purpose. And no, removing them without having something better on its place is not an "innovation".
It's being out of touch and not able to understand that it takes more than a name to make a game successful on its own merit.
You're crying about the past, see the irony here? Blizzard reviews ALL features, and some others too. Blizzard don't review the low-end complaints because they believe the decisions for those cases are valid. You just made your self look stupid by disagreeing with the most successful game company ever. Quit bringing down blizzard's morale and post something positive for once, will ya? If you're even capable of it
that last part can be reported since you're insulting him, just an fyi.
Gotta say, I'm kinda enjoying this troll lol. He's being taken seriously in this thread and in the naruto one although I humored him for a bit in that thread lol
On September 19 2013 15:41 Wombat_NI wrote: Irrelevant point with no reference to previous posters' points, which addressed what you just said. Really?
Every second you spend in this game is inaction, which allows tragedies like inner-city poverty to occur. There is a very real human cost to this game.
On September 19 2013 15:41 Wombat_NI wrote: Irrelevant point with no reference to previous posters' points, which addressed what you just said. Really?
Every second you spend in this game is inaction, which allows tragedies like inner-city poverty to occur. There is a very real human cost to this game.
Every second you spend here arguing about game design allows tragedies like inner-city poverty to occur. There is a very real human cost when wasting time arguing
On September 19 2013 15:04 Wombat_NI wrote: You're posting moronically, you're just parroting 'Blizzard knows best' without even attempting to address the VERY clear points being made.
The alternative is that you're trolling. Speaking of nostalgia I remember the 'good old days' where trolling wasn't just a synonym for being a tool and generally denoted some wit/flair.
If you dislike blizzard products so much, why do you spend so much time talking about it, playing it? Are you a masochist? Fact of the matter is the people working at blizzard have spent years earning their titles as game designers. Do you have any degrees or credentials? Didn't think so. What makes you think you can understand how to create a better game than them?
because of several reasons: just because you like the game doesn't make you like all the aspects of the game If the feature is so advanced and innovative, then obviously the crowd would have hopped onto it, which we don't see And no one is saying WE know how to create a better game, but we are saying the old version where we have experience of is better. And we as the player is what the game designers look at, because the game is designed for our benefits. Who else gets a better say as to which battlenet is superior?
Sounds like someone has no game design credentials.
yea except I was a beta tester for several games and helped them to change some of their design flaws :x
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote: Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt
I believe that over-complexity hurts SC2 already. Something different about LoL is that there may be over 100 champions to choose from, but each match you're only worrying about 10 of them, and you're only actually playing 1 of them. Compare that to SC2 where 66% of the game's complexity is present in a non-mirror. For one thing this makes LoL a much smoother learning experience than SC2 - the portions are smaller. But the big advantage is that LoL gets to continuously add content without increasing the cognitive workload on the player. There could be a 1000 champions in the future, but it's still only 10 at a time that you're worrying about in a given match. Adding champions in LoL makes only one choice harder: Which champion do I pick. It doesn't drown the player in an ever-increasing number of choices during gameplay like adding content to SC2 does.
What LOTV would do if it were up to me: cut down each race roster by a third, ensure that each unit is A: open ended, B: sharply distinct from other units in its roster. Emphasize race asymmetries as much as possible. Think about TvZ in BW down to its essence. Overlords, Lings, Hydras, Mutas, Lurkers, Defilers, Ultras on the Zerg side. On the Terran side: Marines, Medics, Dropships, Wraiths, Siege Tanks, Vultures, Science Vessels. There are some omissions, but they wouldn't significantly hurt the matchup's depth if they were balanced for. My point isn't about adding BW units or making SC2 like BW (that ship has sailed), it's that you don't need a huge unit pool for awesome, varied, incredibly deep gameplay. What would an RTS with the widespread appeal of LoL look like? I think it'd have 9 races with 7 units each, not 3 races with 21 units each. I think it'd also have the race-equivalent of a hero like Lich or Skeleton King for new players to learn with.
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote: Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt
I believe that over-complexity hurts SC2 already. Something different about LoL is that there may be over 100 champions to choose from, but each match you're only worrying about 10 of them, and you're only actually playing 1 of them. Compare that to SC2 where 66% of the game's complexity is present in a non-mirror. For one thing this makes LoL a much smoother learning experience than SC2 - the portions are smaller. But the big advantage is that LoL gets to continuously add content without increasing the cognitive workload on the player. There could be a 1000 champions in the future, but it's still only 10 at a time that you're worrying about in a given match. Adding champions in LoL makes only one choice harder: Which champion do I pick. It doesn't drown the player in an ever-increasing number of choices during gameplay like adding content to SC2 does.
What LOTV would do if it were up to me: cut down each race roster by a third, ensure that each unit is A: open ended, B: sharply distinct from other units in its roster. Emphasize race asymmetries as much as possible. Think about TvZ in BW down to its essence. Overlords, Lings, Hydras, Mutas, Lurkers, Defilers, Ultras on the Zerg side. On the Terran side: Marines, Medics, Dropships, Wraiths, Siege Tanks, Vultures, Science Vessels. There are some omissions, but they wouldn't significantly hurt the matchup's depth if they were balanced for. My point isn't about adding BW units or making SC2 like BW (that ship has sailed), it's that you don't need a huge unit pool for awesome, varied, incredibly deep gameplay. What would an RTS with the widespread appeal of LoL look like? I think it'd have 9 races with 7 units each, not 3 races with 21 units each. I think it'd also have the race-equivalent of a hero like Lich or Skeleton King for new players to learn with.
btw you forgot bw queen, guidian to snipe tanks in seige line (+ devourer if desired). the only underused unit in zerg was good old bw infested terran :p For terran, goliath, Valkyrie (both are great vs mutas), and firebat for lings. bc was for VERY late game, ghost hardly used in TvZ
But the thing is that sc2 is not designed to use all units in a single match up (unlike bw TvZ) ppl chooses unit compositions (best e.g are 4M, mech, muta lings, hydra-roach) because of limited time and resourse (and more importantly because of synergy b/w units)
The problem now is that ZvT almost always 4M vs Muta lings (+infestors) TvT mech all the way TvP bio vs ground ball and so on. They want other 'compositions' to be vailded, which of course does not meaning all units should be present in one match.
Thats why some say certain unit designs are horrible because it forces players to have only one composition valid vs certain race.
look at PvZ now and compare with TvZ then you will know what I mean.
Edit: Btw Bw was a complicated game because of the 'timings'. players can't use all units at the same time (except in the late games perhaps). ppl always have to be ready for any cheese, rush, contain, harrass etc from the early game till the end, guess what would be their opponents 'main' army looks like (we used all units but with different ratio). Bw was the true RTS imo :p no one-big-match all win, always brain squeezing and intense, no one knows who wins till the end!
Second edit! and of course, I'm not saying that SC2 sucks. :p bw had 10yrs of fixing and balancing. Sc2 is still young and have more time
On September 15 2013 17:36 Ushi wrote: Adding a new unit/upgrade every 6 months or so would not hurt
I believe that over-complexity hurts SC2 already. Something different about LoL is that there may be over 100 champions to choose from, but each match you're only worrying about 10 of them, and you're only actually playing 1 of them. Compare that to SC2 where 66% of the game's complexity is present in a non-mirror. For one thing this makes LoL a much smoother learning experience than SC2 - the portions are smaller. But the big advantage is that LoL gets to continuously add content without increasing the cognitive workload on the player. There could be a 1000 champions in the future, but it's still only 10 at a time that you're worrying about in a given match. Adding champions in LoL makes only one choice harder: Which champion do I pick. It doesn't drown the player in an ever-increasing number of choices during gameplay like adding content to SC2 does.
What LOTV would do if it were up to me: cut down each race roster by a third, ensure that each unit is A: open ended, B: sharply distinct from other units in its roster. Emphasize race asymmetries as much as possible. Think about TvZ in BW down to its essence. Overlords, Lings, Hydras, Mutas, Lurkers, Defilers, Ultras on the Zerg side. On the Terran side: Marines, Medics, Dropships, Wraiths, Siege Tanks, Vultures, Science Vessels. There are some omissions, but they wouldn't significantly hurt the matchup's depth if they were balanced for. My point isn't about adding BW units or making SC2 like BW (that ship has sailed), it's that you don't need a huge unit pool for awesome, varied, incredibly deep gameplay. What would an RTS with the widespread appeal of LoL look like? I think it'd have 9 races with 7 units each, not 3 races with 21 units each. I think it'd also have the race-equivalent of a hero like Lich or Skeleton King for new players to learn with.
btw you forgot bw queen, guidian to snipe tanks in seige line (+ devourer if desired). the only underused unit in zerg was good old bw infested terran :p For terran, goliath, Valkyrie (both are great vs mutas), and firebat for lings. bc was for VERY late game, ghost hardly used in TvZ
But the thing is that sc2 is not designed to use all units in a single match up (unlike bw TvZ) ppl chooses unit compositions (best e.g are 4M, mech, muta lings, hydra-roach) because of limited time and resourse (and more importantly because of synergy b/w units)
The problem now is that ZvT almost always 4M vs Muta lings (+infestors) TvT mech all the way TvP bio vs ground ball and so on. They want other 'compositions' to be vailded, which of course does not meaning all units should be present in one match.
Thats why some say certain unit designs are horrible because it forces players to have only one composition valid vs certain race.
look at PvZ now and compare with TvZ then you will know what I mean.
Edit: Btw Bw was a complicated game because of the 'timings'. players can't use all units at the same time (except in the late games perhaps). ppl always have to be ready for any cheese, rush, contain, harrass etc from the early game till the end, guess what would be their opponents 'main' army looks like (we used all units but with different ratio). Bw was the true RTS imo :p no one-big-match all win, always brain squeezing and intense, no one knows who wins till the end!
Second edit! and of course, I'm not saying that SC2 sucks. :p bw had 10yrs of fixing and balancing. Sc2 is still young and have more time
BW had 4 years of balancing or rather 3 years if we start to count from last serious expansion. After that the only balance changes pro scene had was map balance.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Ver/patchzerg_fight.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2010/10/StarCraft-2-Thor-ROFLstomp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.swagling.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Carbot-Animations-StarCrafts-Mutas.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/12/oct/warhound1.jpg)
)
)
