|
On September 22 2013 01:15 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 00:36 lamprey1 wrote:On September 22 2013 00:32 Destructicon wrote:On September 22 2013 00:29 lamprey1 wrote:
there is no problem with SC2.
people expected too much.
it is a base-building resource gathering RTS game.
it is a small niche market which has only gotten smaller over the past decade.
generally speaking, i'm happy with the game and i feel blizzard delivered full value for an RTS title. No that's not true at all, SC2 is an excellent RTS, no doubt about that, but it is still missing a lot of intricacies of what made BW a great game, and it has some notable design issues, some that had been apparent since the beginning of the game (Larva Inject, Warp Gate), and some that only became more apperant as time went by (lack of proper high ground mechanics, lessened defender's advantage, pathing). I watched Browder directly address the high ground advantage and defender's advantage. They've made their design decisions. None of these design decisions will convince girls who play Animal Crossing and Grandma's who go on Pogo to play the game. It captured the largest piece of the strategy gaming market possible. Now its waning. If you are not happy with these mechanics then pull an Ice Frog and make your own game. Blizzard provided you with the tools. If u r not happy with this .. use the MOD kit that comes to CoH2 or Rome2 or the new C&C. Oh Wait, none of those games even has a map maker.  I was happy with WC3 even though DOTA exceeded it in popularity. Blizzard did its job. On September 22 2013 00:21 Destructicon wrote:On September 21 2013 22:08 RaZorwire wrote:
I also have to say that I find it a bit weird that people try to attribute the supposed decline of SC2 to the gameplay itself being flawed. Don't get me wrong, having opinions on and suggestions for the gameplay mechanics is good, but it's not like deathballs and a lack of reaver drops are things that just popped up in the game recently and turned people off from watching. If the game was doing fine the first few years, why would issues with the gameplay mechanics become an issue after such a long time? I mean, what happened? People were enjoying SC2 for two years and then suddenly their reaver drop withdrawal kicked in and made them leave?
Again, there's nothing wrong if you dislike the way SC2 is played, but the game would never have reached the state and size it was at in 2011 if a majority of the community agreed with you. The fact that it's supposed decline didn't start until several years after release suggest the gameplay was never the problem. Also, HotS generally seems better suited for multi-tasking and less focused on death balls than WoL was, so if the game is still in decline (which might not even be true, but if), doesn't that imply that the way the game plays out never was the problem?
And if it really is true (as someone tried to point out last page) that a majority of SC2 players have never played BW, why would the supposed superiority of BW matter? If hardcore BW-fans really are a small part of the community, then SC2 being different than BW wouldn't hurt viewership numbers much. Actually I have an explanation for this. In the first year to 18 months of SC2, some of the flaws of the game weren't immediately apparent, the game wasn't at all figured out and the level of play was very low. So in this time SC2 experienced a boom because there was so much excitement in discovering new things. Once SC2 settled down and the level of play got sufficiently high we started to see the problems and viewership/interest started to decline. there are many reasons.. your explanation is a small contributor to this effect... i have a simpler, more primal explanation that every employee of EA and Activision knows about. it was the excitement of cool new graphics. the excitement of cool new graphics have been powering the industry since its birth. this factor is part of SC2 as well. Its for the very reason that I love the SC franchise that I continue to post about its shortcomings and why I believe some design decisions are flawed. I love the game but that doesn't mean I can't post and talk about things that I feel are clearly shortcomings, and there are plenty of other people that seem to agree with me. You also have no idea what you are talking about when you said pull an Icefrog and make your own game. It took Icefrog years just to refine DoTA to the level it currently is, even a team of people working on a game mod in any engine would have their work cut out for a good 3-4 years.
i never made any comment about you not being allowed to criticize the game.
go for it. criticism is part of the iterative design process. But, Blizzard has already responded to these criticisms. Maybe if someone comes up with a more elaborate more detailed criticism about exactly why these are problems Blizzard will revisit these issues. But, I doubt it.
changing small design concepts in an already made game won't take "4 good years".
redesigning an entire game from scratch will take 4 good years though.
|
On September 22 2013 01:44 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 01:15 Destructicon wrote:On September 22 2013 00:36 lamprey1 wrote:On September 22 2013 00:32 Destructicon wrote:On September 22 2013 00:29 lamprey1 wrote:
there is no problem with SC2.
people expected too much.
it is a base-building resource gathering RTS game.
it is a small niche market which has only gotten smaller over the past decade.
generally speaking, i'm happy with the game and i feel blizzard delivered full value for an RTS title. No that's not true at all, SC2 is an excellent RTS, no doubt about that, but it is still missing a lot of intricacies of what made BW a great game, and it has some notable design issues, some that had been apparent since the beginning of the game (Larva Inject, Warp Gate), and some that only became more apperant as time went by (lack of proper high ground mechanics, lessened defender's advantage, pathing). I watched Browder directly address the high ground advantage and defender's advantage. They've made their design decisions. None of these design decisions will convince girls who play Animal Crossing and Grandma's who go on Pogo to play the game. It captured the largest piece of the strategy gaming market possible. Now its waning. If you are not happy with these mechanics then pull an Ice Frog and make your own game. Blizzard provided you with the tools. If u r not happy with this .. use the MOD kit that comes to CoH2 or Rome2 or the new C&C. Oh Wait, none of those games even has a map maker. I was happy with WC3 even though DOTA exceeded it in popularity. Blizzard did its job. On September 22 2013 00:21 Destructicon wrote:On September 21 2013 22:08 RaZorwire wrote:
I also have to say that I find it a bit weird that people try to attribute the supposed decline of SC2 to the gameplay itself being flawed. Don't get me wrong, having opinions on and suggestions for the gameplay mechanics is good, but it's not like deathballs and a lack of reaver drops are things that just popped up in the game recently and turned people off from watching. If the game was doing fine the first few years, why would issues with the gameplay mechanics become an issue after such a long time? I mean, what happened? People were enjoying SC2 for two years and then suddenly their reaver drop withdrawal kicked in and made them leave?
Again, there's nothing wrong if you dislike the way SC2 is played, but the game would never have reached the state and size it was at in 2011 if a majority of the community agreed with you. The fact that it's supposed decline didn't start until several years after release suggest the gameplay was never the problem. Also, HotS generally seems better suited for multi-tasking and less focused on death balls than WoL was, so if the game is still in decline (which might not even be true, but if), doesn't that imply that the way the game plays out never was the problem?
And if it really is true (as someone tried to point out last page) that a majority of SC2 players have never played BW, why would the supposed superiority of BW matter? If hardcore BW-fans really are a small part of the community, then SC2 being different than BW wouldn't hurt viewership numbers much. Actually I have an explanation for this. In the first year to 18 months of SC2, some of the flaws of the game weren't immediately apparent, the game wasn't at all figured out and the level of play was very low. So in this time SC2 experienced a boom because there was so much excitement in discovering new things. Once SC2 settled down and the level of play got sufficiently high we started to see the problems and viewership/interest started to decline. there are many reasons.. your explanation is a small contributor to this effect... i have a simpler, more primal explanation that every employee of EA and Activision knows about. it was the excitement of cool new graphics. the excitement of cool new graphics have been powering the industry since its birth. this factor is part of SC2 as well. Its for the very reason that I love the SC franchise that I continue to post about its shortcomings and why I believe some design decisions are flawed. I love the game but that doesn't mean I can't post and talk about things that I feel are clearly shortcomings, and there are plenty of other people that seem to agree with me. You also have no idea what you are talking about when you said pull an Icefrog and make your own game. It took Icefrog years just to refine DoTA to the level it currently is, even a team of people working on a game mod in any engine would have their work cut out for a good 3-4 years. i never made any comment about you not being allowed to criticize the game. go for it. criticism is part of the iterative design process. But, Blizzard has already responded to these criticisms. Maybe if someone comes up with a more elaborate more detailed criticism about exactly why these are problems Blizzard will revisit these issues. But, I doubt it. changing small design concepts in an already made game won't take "4 good years". redesigning an entire game from scratch will take 4 good years though.
Basically boys and gals, give up on trying to improve the design aspect of the game because as history demonstrates, Blizzard will certainly not listen to your demands regarding it. So yeah this is the game you have and will perpetually persists until time indefinite.
|
The underlying problem is still the deathball.
Why is SC2 boring to watch? Deathball.
Why is SC2 3v3/4v4 broken? Deathball. It's just who can make the bigger deathball.
Why was BW more exciting to watch? Less deathball, because of control group cap.
SC2 would be more exciting to watch if they reimplemented control group cap and lowered the supply cap from 200 to 150. Fights would start earlier. Players would not wait to max to 200 before attacking. Etc. Etc.
Especially team games. Have supply cap be 120. Fights would happen more often and in more places, instead of just build a death ball for 20 minutes, clash, and game over.
|
4713 Posts
On September 22 2013 01:44 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 01:15 Destructicon wrote:On September 22 2013 00:36 lamprey1 wrote:On September 22 2013 00:32 Destructicon wrote:On September 22 2013 00:29 lamprey1 wrote:
there is no problem with SC2.
people expected too much.
it is a base-building resource gathering RTS game.
it is a small niche market which has only gotten smaller over the past decade.
generally speaking, i'm happy with the game and i feel blizzard delivered full value for an RTS title. No that's not true at all, SC2 is an excellent RTS, no doubt about that, but it is still missing a lot of intricacies of what made BW a great game, and it has some notable design issues, some that had been apparent since the beginning of the game (Larva Inject, Warp Gate), and some that only became more apperant as time went by (lack of proper high ground mechanics, lessened defender's advantage, pathing). I watched Browder directly address the high ground advantage and defender's advantage. They've made their design decisions. None of these design decisions will convince girls who play Animal Crossing and Grandma's who go on Pogo to play the game. It captured the largest piece of the strategy gaming market possible. Now its waning. If you are not happy with these mechanics then pull an Ice Frog and make your own game. Blizzard provided you with the tools. If u r not happy with this .. use the MOD kit that comes to CoH2 or Rome2 or the new C&C. Oh Wait, none of those games even has a map maker. I was happy with WC3 even though DOTA exceeded it in popularity. Blizzard did its job. On September 22 2013 00:21 Destructicon wrote:On September 21 2013 22:08 RaZorwire wrote:
I also have to say that I find it a bit weird that people try to attribute the supposed decline of SC2 to the gameplay itself being flawed. Don't get me wrong, having opinions on and suggestions for the gameplay mechanics is good, but it's not like deathballs and a lack of reaver drops are things that just popped up in the game recently and turned people off from watching. If the game was doing fine the first few years, why would issues with the gameplay mechanics become an issue after such a long time? I mean, what happened? People were enjoying SC2 for two years and then suddenly their reaver drop withdrawal kicked in and made them leave?
Again, there's nothing wrong if you dislike the way SC2 is played, but the game would never have reached the state and size it was at in 2011 if a majority of the community agreed with you. The fact that it's supposed decline didn't start until several years after release suggest the gameplay was never the problem. Also, HotS generally seems better suited for multi-tasking and less focused on death balls than WoL was, so if the game is still in decline (which might not even be true, but if), doesn't that imply that the way the game plays out never was the problem?
And if it really is true (as someone tried to point out last page) that a majority of SC2 players have never played BW, why would the supposed superiority of BW matter? If hardcore BW-fans really are a small part of the community, then SC2 being different than BW wouldn't hurt viewership numbers much. Actually I have an explanation for this. In the first year to 18 months of SC2, some of the flaws of the game weren't immediately apparent, the game wasn't at all figured out and the level of play was very low. So in this time SC2 experienced a boom because there was so much excitement in discovering new things. Once SC2 settled down and the level of play got sufficiently high we started to see the problems and viewership/interest started to decline. there are many reasons.. your explanation is a small contributor to this effect... i have a simpler, more primal explanation that every employee of EA and Activision knows about. it was the excitement of cool new graphics. the excitement of cool new graphics have been powering the industry since its birth. this factor is part of SC2 as well. Its for the very reason that I love the SC franchise that I continue to post about its shortcomings and why I believe some design decisions are flawed. I love the game but that doesn't mean I can't post and talk about things that I feel are clearly shortcomings, and there are plenty of other people that seem to agree with me. You also have no idea what you are talking about when you said pull an Icefrog and make your own game. It took Icefrog years just to refine DoTA to the level it currently is, even a team of people working on a game mod in any engine would have their work cut out for a good 3-4 years. i never made any comment about you not being allowed to criticize the game. go for it. criticism is part of the iterative design process. But, Blizzard has already responded to these criticisms. Maybe if someone comes up with a more elaborate more detailed criticism about exactly why these are problems Blizzard will revisit these issues. But, I doubt it. changing small design concepts in an already made game won't take "4 good years". redesigning an entire game from scratch will take 4 good years though.
Your comment of "if you don't like it pull a &%^, and do something about it" implied that. Not everyone has the time, the aptitude or the love for making games. So I'll continue to play SC2, I'll watch tournaments and I'll enjoy it, but every opportunity I get I will remind Blizzard that some of their design decisions where total garbage, perhaps in retrospect they will realize this too.
|
On September 21 2013 23:44 Holy_AT wrote:
I think it is also time to demystify broodwar.
Broodwar is put on the highest of high pedestal, but does it really deserve to be there ?
Outside of korea, meaning the rest of the world, BW was not *the hit*. Yes there was a sworn in hardcore community and many people played it, it was not that multiplayer hit people believe it to be nowadays.
It rose to *fame* one can say in korea, but also under special circumstances.
Also it is a strategy game and fewer casual players will play it and they will leave if there is nothing for them in the game anymore.
SC 2 had a great start, it was picked up especially by the foreign scene at the beginning while Korea was slow. The game was hyped, many casuals played SCI or broodwar single player and wanted to play this game as well so there was a relative broad basis at the start.
But this basis of people never really got that much bigger after the first few month or the first year in my opinion.
The casuals started to loose interest, now even the amateurs and pro players start to loose interest in the game.
I dont talk for the pro players, but why does the average Joe loose interest ?
Because there is nothing new in the game. No content, no new units or major changes or diversions. There may be changes on how the game is played when new meta games emerges, but the game is stall and thats something the average video gamer dislikes. He wants something new, to try something new, he wants blizzard to provide something new, advertize tournaments and what not.
II do not like LoL that much gameplaywise, but just look at it. New heroes every month, new skinns, games or tournaments beeing advertised on the fucking client. There are news videos and what not on the fucking client.
Riot is working hard even though the game is out to make the people enjoy and pay for it (although its free).
And look at blizzard: They made the game and now their job is done for them. They may do some minor balance patches when their lofty highborn David Kim feels up to it and that's it. Blizzard is like fire and forget, buy and die.
Just like they did with diablo 3. Buy the crap and play it we're not doing anything for you although everyone is upset and hattin. They of course screwd around with the balance a bit and that's it. After month or more then a year ??? they finally included the arena multiplayer pvp stuff they had more or lesson promised from the start and what not.
And I do not understand it. Blizzard is making WoW where they throw in new stuff every month or so to keep players happy. New gear, new bosses and monsters new pets new.. new everything. Well it must not go to that extreme but I think there is always some place in a game for change.
So many misconceptions and stop trying to compare the two communities from over a decade ago to today. Back then for it's time the scene was strong. Believe whatever you want to believe because I'm getting tired of ripping through people like you. -_-
|
How to get rid of Deathball?
1. Alter Unit pathing
2. Introduce more harassment-oriented units (BW had Lurkers, higher Storm dmg, Reavers, faster Vulture firing rate, andWratih/Mutalisk micromanagement)
3. High ground advantage so the game become more positional-based to salvage units.
4. Higher AOE dmg, this forces splits, this also helps with the harass elements.
Pretty simplistic conceptual overhaul. Blizzard won't do them btw.
Oh yeah get rid of all macro mechanics, it builds army way too fast. Why harass when I get there, the base will be heavily defended? Better to build my own ball of death, its far more efficient.
|
On September 22 2013 01:12 ander wrote:
To me, the answer is in this question: If SC2 was NOT released as a successor to BW and had a completely different name, would it be as popular as it is now? I don't really think so.
Tbh, i think it would be otherwise. All these comparisons to BW would stop and guess where 99% of the "problems with SC2" come from? I really think it would have been better to release it as a different name. It would have a chance to work its way up on its own and if it failed so be it. Just read all the fixes here, it comes down to a single thing "make it like BW".
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 22 2013 01:57 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The underlying problem is still the deathball.
Why is SC2 boring to watch? Deathball.
Why is SC2 3v3/4v4 broken? Deathball. It's just who can make the bigger deathball.
Why was BW more exciting to watch? Less deathball, because of control group cap.
SC2 would be more exciting to watch if they reimplemented control group cap and lowered the supply cap from 200 to 150. Fights would start earlier. Players would not wait to max to 200 before attacking. Etc. Etc.
Especially team games. Have supply cap be 120. Fights would happen more often and in more places, instead of just build a death ball for 20 minutes, clash, and game over.
It would shift game to build deathball at 10 minutes, clash and game is over :D
|
On September 22 2013 01:57 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The underlying problem is still the deathball.
Why is SC2 boring to watch? Deathball.
Why is SC2 3v3/4v4 broken? Deathball. It's just who can make the bigger deathball.
Why was BW more exciting to watch? Less deathball, because of control group cap.
SC2 would be more exciting to watch if they reimplemented control group cap and lowered the supply cap from 200 to 150. Fights would start earlier. Players would not wait to max to 200 before attacking. Etc. Etc.
Especially team games. Have supply cap be 120. Fights would happen more often and in more places, instead of just build a death ball for 20 minutes, clash, and game over.
BW didn't have the same type of deathball not because of lack of control groups, but because of different pathing of units.
|
On September 22 2013 02:09 mechengineer123 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 01:57 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The underlying problem is still the deathball.
Why is SC2 boring to watch? Deathball.
Why is SC2 3v3/4v4 broken? Deathball. It's just who can make the bigger deathball.
Why was BW more exciting to watch? Less deathball, because of control group cap.
SC2 would be more exciting to watch if they reimplemented control group cap and lowered the supply cap from 200 to 150. Fights would start earlier. Players would not wait to max to 200 before attacking. Etc. Etc.
Especially team games. Have supply cap be 120. Fights would happen more often and in more places, instead of just build a death ball for 20 minutes, clash, and game over. BW didn't have the same type of deathball not because of lack of control groups, but because of different pathing of units.
Also, unit design and balances.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 22 2013 02:04 Xiphos wrote:
How to get rid of Deathball?
1. Alter Unit pathing
2. Introduce more harassment-oriented units (BW had Lurkers, higher Storm dmg, Reavers, faster Vulture firing rate, andWratih/Mutalisk micromanagement)
3. High ground advantage so the game become more positional-based to salvage units.
4. Higher AOE dmg, this forces splits, this also helps with the harass elements.
Pretty simplistic conceptual overhaul. Blizzard won't do them btw.
1. Maybe.
2. Calling lurkers harassment-oriented unit is cute, saying that vultures were better at harass than hellions is even more cute, air unit stacking in BW was a bug, that accidentally worked out, probably Flash blessing.
3. So you can never go up ramp without ridiculous advantage? Only aspect of the game i never liked in BW, that ridiculous impossibility to end the game right away, that usually was losing you won game.
4. It's not like worker lines already evaporate in SC2 if you lose attention for a little bit.
Blizzard won't do 'em for the same reason they won't do SC:BW HD: nobody will give a ****.
|
On September 22 2013 02:10 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 02:09 mechengineer123 wrote:On September 22 2013 01:57 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The underlying problem is still the deathball.
Why is SC2 boring to watch? Deathball.
Why is SC2 3v3/4v4 broken? Deathball. It's just who can make the bigger deathball.
Why was BW more exciting to watch? Less deathball, because of control group cap.
SC2 would be more exciting to watch if they reimplemented control group cap and lowered the supply cap from 200 to 150. Fights would start earlier. Players would not wait to max to 200 before attacking. Etc. Etc.
Especially team games. Have supply cap be 120. Fights would happen more often and in more places, instead of just build a death ball for 20 minutes, clash, and game over. BW didn't have the same type of deathball not because of lack of control groups, but because of different pathing of units. Also, unit design and balances.
Yeah, I guess. But I mean from the most basic point of view, if you select units in BW and tell them to move somewhere, they will pick funky paths and block each other etc. If you do the same in SC2 they just clump up and move smoothly in one ball.
|
On September 22 2013 02:13 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 02:04 Xiphos wrote:
How to get rid of Deathball?
1. Alter Unit pathing
2. Introduce more harassment-oriented units (BW had Lurkers, higher Storm dmg, Reavers, faster Vulture firing rate, andWratih/Mutalisk micromanagement)
3. High ground advantage so the game become more positional-based to salvage units.
4. Higher AOE dmg, this forces splits, this also helps with the harass elements.
Pretty simplistic conceptual overhaul. Blizzard won't do them btw. 1. Maybe. 2. Calling lurkers harassment-oriented unit is cute, saying that vultures were better at harass than hellions is even more cute, air unit stacking in BW was a bug, that accidentally worked out, probably Flash blessing. 3. So you can never go up ramp without ridiculous advantage? Only aspect of the game i never liked in BW, that ridiculous impossibility to end the game right away, that usually was losing you won game. 4. It's not like worker lines already evaporate in SC2 if you lose attention for a little bit. Blizzard won't do 'em for the same reason they won't do SC:BW HD: nobody will give a ****.
1. Read the recent thread.
2. Lurkers are much more effective than Bling and Swarmhosts. Perpetual effect and immediate burst (basically its a combo of Bling and SH), Vultures does have higher DPS as shown by Falling that it have higher firing rates, cute indeed. Even though a bug but still part of the game which SC2 don't have, something to improve on.
3. Audiences loves it, give you more things to do. When you are ahead, games aren't suppose to end right there, you have to fight to keep it and get further ahead. Lazy-syndrome right there.
4. Happens more frequently in BW. It is much more of a distraction so the opponent is forced to split their main force to deal with harass and thus breaking the deathball.
Explicitly said that they won't. They don't give a shit about the game.
On September 22 2013 02:13 mechengineer123 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 02:10 Xiphos wrote:On September 22 2013 02:09 mechengineer123 wrote:On September 22 2013 01:57 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The underlying problem is still the deathball.
Why is SC2 boring to watch? Deathball.
Why is SC2 3v3/4v4 broken? Deathball. It's just who can make the bigger deathball.
Why was BW more exciting to watch? Less deathball, because of control group cap.
SC2 would be more exciting to watch if they reimplemented control group cap and lowered the supply cap from 200 to 150. Fights would start earlier. Players would not wait to max to 200 before attacking. Etc. Etc.
Especially team games. Have supply cap be 120. Fights would happen more often and in more places, instead of just build a death ball for 20 minutes, clash, and game over. BW didn't have the same type of deathball not because of lack of control groups, but because of different pathing of units. Also, unit design and balances. Yeah, I guess. But I mean from the most basic point of view, if you select units in BW and tell them to move somewhere, they will pick funky paths and block each other etc. If you do the same in SC2 they just clump up and move smoothly in one ball.
Agree on that^. All I am saying is that 60% of the problem in deathball lies in the unit pathing while 20% on the game design while the other on the balance.
There also other specially flaws lies in the Protoss design such as the WarpGates that they had to nerf the Gateway units. In BW, you constantly had Zealots forces to roam around the map to create distraction and they were incredibly hard to kill off. So this basically invoke 50% to be "deathball-focused" of the more severe degree.
|
On September 22 2013 01:57 SpeghettiJoe wrote:
The underlying problem is still the deathball.
Why is SC2 boring to watch? Deathball.
Why is SC2 3v3/4v4 broken? Deathball. It's just who can make the bigger deathball.
Why was BW more exciting to watch? Less deathball, because of control group cap.
SC2 would be more exciting to watch if they reimplemented control group cap and lowered the supply cap from 200 to 150. Fights would start earlier. Players would not wait to max to 200 before attacking. Etc. Etc.
Especially team games. Have supply cap be 120. Fights would happen more often and in more places, instead of just build a death ball for 20 minutes, clash, and game over.
That's not the only way to fix the deathball.
The problem is the speed at which a good army is produced compared to the speed at which a good army is destroyed. With the current setup, getting a single good engagement can put you in a position where your opponent cannot reproduce a comparable army before you destroy his ability to reproduce.
Therefore, a solution can be reached by either speeding up production or slowing down killing. Slowing down killing does not have to be reducing the damage that units do, it could be something like allowing for better retreat options. One of the fundamentals of good RTS play that I learned 15 years ago was to never lose your entire army. It is better to lose 25% of it while retreating than to lose it all killing half of your opponents army. The problem is that in SC2 it can be impossible to retreat, and therefore it can be too risky to attack.
When it comes to reproducing an army, the difference in mineral and gas income is very prohibitive. Even if you have a good mix of excess production facilities, you just do not have the gas income to produce from them.
By correctly balancing production capacity against killing capacity you can create a game that flows like a good TvZ does. Notice that the important units in this match-up come from cheap production buildings and both sides have good offensive mineral sinks. Compare that to PvZ where in a flowing game protoss would need a mixture of expensive production facilities (which we never see in current PvZ) and zerg would need an offensive mineral sink (which they do not have).
|
The problem I have is that the match ups are boring to watch, pvp has gotten a bit better in that there are a lot of different openings and games actually get into the mid and late game, zvz just sucks, even at the ultra high level early ling bling micro can be cool to watch but beyond that i find nothing enjoyable about the matchup, tvt I feel is really great atm we have had some great matches lately and mech vs bio is really really fun to watch, tvz is become boring since mech is nearly completely faded out and its bio mine nearly every game, tvp has become mass scv pulls with the toss trying to stay alive and then win with a max super army and zvp has gotten better since there are a few more strats, a lot of stargate play and both races have a lot of different strats that they can use however protoss just isnt intresting to watch the units are just ... uninteresting. Hope blizz can change something
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 22 2013 02:19 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 02:13 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 02:04 Xiphos wrote:
How to get rid of Deathball?
1. Alter Unit pathing
2. Introduce more harassment-oriented units (BW had Lurkers, higher Storm dmg, Reavers, faster Vulture firing rate, andWratih/Mutalisk micromanagement)
3. High ground advantage so the game become more positional-based to salvage units.
4. Higher AOE dmg, this forces splits, this also helps with the harass elements.
Pretty simplistic conceptual overhaul. Blizzard won't do them btw. 1. Maybe. 2. Calling lurkers harassment-oriented unit is cute, saying that vultures were better at harass than hellions is even more cute, air unit stacking in BW was a bug, that accidentally worked out, probably Flash blessing. 3. So you can never go up ramp without ridiculous advantage? Only aspect of the game i never liked in BW, that ridiculous impossibility to end the game right away, that usually was losing you won game. 4. It's not like worker lines already evaporate in SC2 if you lose attention for a little bit. Blizzard won't do 'em for the same reason they won't do SC:BW HD: nobody will give a ****. 1. Read the recent thread. 2. Lurkers are much more effective than Bling and Swarmhosts. Perpetual effect and immediate burst (basically its a combo of Bling and SH), Vultures does have higher DPS as shown by Falling that it have higher firing rates, cute indeed. Even though a bug but still part of the game which SC2 don't have, something to improve on. 3. Audiences loves it, give you more things to do. When you are ahead, games aren't suppose to end right there, you have to fight to keep it and get further ahead. Lazy-syndrome right there. 4. Happens more frequently in BW. It is much more of a distraction so the opponent is forced to split their main force to deal with harass and thus breaking the deathball. Explicitly said that they won't. They don't give a shit about the game .
1. Did read, hence 'Maybe'.
2. You told harassment, as general positional unit they are greater than both banelings and SHs in SC:BW's case, nobody knows about SC2's case though. Vultures have greater single target DPS, but overkill and do not splash, so as harassment they are slightly inferior to hellions IMO. Also, you know there is something wrong with original game, if it's bug is considered great thing for the game.
3. When ahead, get more ahead is just a way to draw out game, pretty boring if you ask me, but i am no audience, so whatever.
4. Tbh BW terran games left a lack of harass feeling.
Blizzard is free to do what they want, they need money after all. I just happen to like SC2, while having a strange feeling about BW.
|
The agree with the first two points, after that you're kind of stretching.
Longevity is the biggest component, and your solution of putting the TEAM in the spotlight instead of only players is a great solution. The problem is execution. I mean there are some teams that can keep pressing forward- like EG, or top tier Korean teams, but some teams only have one or 2 stars who without them wouldn't be anyone at all and fade to the dust.
|
Considering the type of team formats some people are trying to pull off *cough.* Sometimes those 1 or 2 players can carry you quite far.
|
On September 21 2013 04:45 Topdoller wrote:
Where are all these doom and gloom threads coming from? Whilst i can the points by the OP i just cant see any real purpose to the post, other than to exacerbate perceived flaws in the game.
SC2 is over 3 years old and 1 expansion in. It will not change significantly in the future so why rehash the same topics from 3 years ago. SC2 will live or die based on its current state. If you dont like the game move on to another, there are other games to choose from
Really reminds me of the Everquest and WoW forums haunted by posts like this. Play the game, have fun then move on its simple as that. Posts such as these actually destroy the game because of the negativity they generate.
Right on the money. Self-fulfilling prophecy at its finest. The game is dying because people say it's dying, and the more you keep saying its a bad game the more people believe it. Just like good marketing can make people think bad products are good, selling negativity can make people believe a good product is bad. Like you said in the end the whole constructive debate is absolutely futile anyway since it cannot change the game, only how people perceive it. As a reminder, all of the most succesful online games ever have had thousands of haters and literally tens of thousands of threads proclaiming doom and gloom and imminent death. I wonder what that could tell us.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On September 22 2013 02:33 StarStruck wrote:
Considering the type of team formats some people are trying to pull off *cough.* Sometimes those 1 or 2 players can carry you quite far.
*cough* TaeJa *cough*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
