|
On September 22 2013 03:52 KingAlphard wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 03:34 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:30 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:27 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:25 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:22 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:16 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:13 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
I see a lot of short battles tho. You see short battles but you see a lot of them, because Terran and Zerg have huge production capacities. TvZ has always arguably been the best match-up to spectate for this reason. It's fast paced with a lot of action -- the antonym of actual deathball match-ups which is usually anything with a Protoss in it. edit: On September 22 2013 02:40 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
And playing the game is utterly boring now too. When I used to que up on ladder (mid/high masters) sometime in 2011, I had no idea what was coming, no matter what race I was up against. If it was Terran, it could be a CC first, it could be any variation of 1-1-1, it could be 2 rax pressure expand, ect... There were so many viable strategies, that Starcraft II was what you made it. With enough effort, you could take any playstyle to the top, from cannon rushing to macro play. That made the game exciting, I had so much to learn. But now, I just need to learn a few builds and do them solidly. That makes it easy, but unfortunately my mechanics, and everyone mechanics have a limit, and then you are stuck. You can't be inventive, you can't make the game what you want it to be. For instance, Terran can't just invent new timings to kill Protoss early like they could in WOL, because the MSC is just too strong against any early attack. Not sure which metagame you were playing in 2011 but towards the latter end of the year, 2 rax pressure was pretty much dead, and after the summer of the 1-1-1, the all-in variant was virtually solved and slowly fell off from the ladder. Like, 80% of openers from Terran in any match-up was the exact same 1 rax fe. I would say that Protoss needs a revamp more than anything. Then work from there. I dare to bet that Terran needs more variety in styles first, before we are talking revamp of toss (not implying toss is well designed) A revamp of Toss might provide Terran the opportunity to play with more variety (mech). Only in TvP. Revamp of toss will not affect Terran's mech outside of TvP. TvP is the match-up everyone wants to see mech in the most, or at least the BW fans do, and the way Protoss is designed will never allow mech to be competitive at the highest level. TvP is match-up where i want to see the mech the least tbh. Because instead of TvDeathball we get to see DeathballvP or even deathball vs deathball (lol). Mech isn't deathball. Mech is all about carefully positioning your tanks and shit so that they can fuck shit up without getting fucked themselves. It's slow pushing and controlling space and/or areas of the map. A deathball just moves around and fucks shit up as it moves. On September 22 2013 03:34 Rabiator wrote:On September 22 2013 03:06 Incognoto 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.
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. I don't see deathball in TvZ Deathball is a bad word, because too many people get hung up on about the BALL part of it and keep arguing "X isnt a deathball, because it isnt ball-shaped", which is totally unimportant. The term "deathball" is outdated and a bit misleading and the real problem is "critical numbers". Units are balanced for a certain "state", but once there are a certain number of units on the battlefield - in that automatically maximized unit density of SC2 - you achieve a "higher state" because they can kill approaching units more easily and with less risk than they could do before having such high numbers. This is why having such a second state in a (supposed) strategy game is rather terrible, because you can balance for only one state of existence. For some units balance has been pushed to "critical number state" and many times the casters say something like "unit x is useless unless you have X of them" ... usually connected to one-shotting a certain type of opposing unit. The existence of critical numbers is a consequence of unlimited unit selection, massive production capability and the "perfect" unit pathing. These are the things that need to be changed in order to get rid of it on the ground and there need to be good AoE damage against critical numbers in the air ... stuff like the Scourge, Corsair and Valkyrie which by themselves are unattractive to build and wont win you the game. Solutions are just around the corner ... just look at how BW did it, compare it to the state of SC2 and you are fine. Wow nice post. I think I agree with you So you are saying that as a protoss you can amove across the map against ghost/viking and win?
Oh come on ... since when was the Protoss deathball able to do anything without using Forcefield? "Deathball" and "critical number" dont mean that those things can be used by a-moving.
The problem is that BOTH SIDES will have critical numbers of their units, so the challenge becomes to engage in one area where you can field superior forces of sufficient power to kill off more than your opponent will kill off and then go on from there.
In any case critical numbers result in battles where one side "cant do anything efficient" and this makes such engagements bad due to taking player skill out of the equasion ... and thus ultimately boring to watch.
----
I am right now watching the TLS qualifier game SouthPark vs Fold and it is a really exciting back and forth with lots of surprising swings even after one player had a 100 supply lead for some time. Due to the BW mechanics and defensive strength he couldnt have rolled over the opponent as he could have in SC2 ...
|
On September 22 2013 03:58 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 03:54 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? Edit: well I might if I day9/artosis manage to keep the game interesting. Only stupid person or a blind fan will buy a game (or expansion for it) without seeing what it's like first. So with this edit you pretty much join 95% of people who may buy LotV.
It's just a negligible sum of money, why is ones intelligence in question if you buy it without thoroughly investigating it?
When we blindly buy milk from the store or go to a movie there is no one going ''how idiotic not checking everything before doing that''
Every blizzard game has been great, why would it change now? Especially in regards to how good sc2 and hots were
|
On September 22 2013 03:58 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 03:51 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:45 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:42 Incognoto wrote:So the only difference is move speed and deployment time? Yes that difference is so ridiculously fundamental it does indeed make a difference. You can catch a mech army out of position, you can't do so with a deathball. Also having more time to prepare for a push and take advantage of immobility is also a very huge advantage. You can catch deathball out of position, but that implies existence of such positions on maps and that is another question. Average speed of mech army between deployments > average speed of deathball if we imply that average speed of composition is speed of it's slowest part. On September 22 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:36 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:34 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:30 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:27 rd wrote:
[quote]
A revamp of Toss might provide Terran the opportunity to play with more variety (mech). Only in TvP. Revamp of toss will not affect Terran's mech outside of TvP. TvP is the match-up everyone wants to see mech in the most, or at least the BW fans do, and the way Protoss is designed will never allow mech to be competitive at the highest level. TvP is match-up where i want to see the mech the least tbh. Because instead of TvDeathball we get to see DeathballvP or even deathball vs deathball (lol). Mech isn't deathball. Mech is all about carefully positioning your tanks and shit so that they can fuck shit up without getting fucked themselves. It's slow pushing and controlling space and/or areas of the map. A deathball just moves around and fucks shit up as it moves. So the only difference is move speed and deployment time  ? On September 22 2013 03:33 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:30 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:27 rd wrote:
[quote]
A revamp of Toss might provide Terran the opportunity to play with more variety (mech). Only in TvP. Revamp of toss will not affect Terran's mech outside of TvP. TvP is the match-up everyone wants to see mech in the most, or at least the BW fans do, and the way Protoss is designed will never allow mech to be competitive at the highest level. TvP is match-up where i want to see the mech the least tbh. Because instead of TvDeathball we get to see DeathballvP or even deathball vs deathball (lol). A revamp of Protoss would imply the breaking of Protoss death balls. See BW for details. Hence DeathballvP instead of TvDeathball Because mech isn't actually a ball. It's more like a line. So it'd actually be PvDeathlineofcreepingdeath. The only thing mech and the Protoss "deathball" have in common is that they're both defensive strategies that initially turtle. But they're vastly different in application and how they're dealt with. It's pretty sad how little you know of it, even if this is a different game. Agree, since i was fed up with seeing 2 mech games in my life: one of encounters between Flash vs Best (do not recall map sadly) and one of encounters between Bogus and Soulkey (ground zero). They both were frustrating to watch tbh, even if that implied great skill of winner. And yes, i am aware that mech is deathball without a ball, but with line. Also, application for both is simple: kill you enemy. By your definition anything is a death ball. It's rather unfortunate you embrace ignorance and summarily dismiss something rather than looking into it at all and just assuming your irrational whims are correct. But this is why the game isn't designed around irrational whims (or at least not anymore). On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? I would say so, yes. The Diablo III team just removed the auction house after a LOT of community feedback (and by feedback I mean bitching, moaning, and quitting), which is a huge, huge admittance of a fundamental mistake, and they're going to be forced to redesign itemization entirely. They're independent teams, but Blizzard has recently seemed to move in a direction where they're much more receptive to complaints about their games that follow up with a decline in players. There is a big difference though. The AH isn't an integral part of the gameplay in D3, if you added or removed it would have little to no impact on the game. Where as the redesigns of the protoss race that people are suggesting or changing the pathing or combat in SC2, is orders of magnitude harder because it is ingrained into the game by now. As much as I hate to say this, I don't think it is realistic to expect a redesign of SC2 on such a large scale, at this point it would be much better to consolidate the lessons learned and make a better SC3. The only type of games where I saw changes to core design issues was in MMOs like WoW, where from BC to WoTLK to Cataclysm they kept revamping, classes, redesigning broken concepts, buffing weakened ones, adding in fun elements and so forth, but WoW is a fundamentally different game from WoW, and its success literally dependent on such patches to keep the game fresh, + the game is subscription based.
Have you played D3, or even D2? The AH is HUUUUUUUUUUUGELY fundamental to a problem that alters a core aspect of how Diablo works, which is a hack and slash RPG where you find powerful items, and then hack and slash more for more better items. The trading economy in Diablo was disjointed, which means you relied primarily on finding your items, which was why the game was fun. The AH introduced inflation, and in order to compensate for this, items and their drop rates were nerfed into the ground. So now when you hunt monsters you aren't (or are extremely rarely) given the immediate reward of becoming more powerful. You found garbage to sell on the AH, and you would have to spend hundreds of hours trading on the AH to work your way to the powerful item that makes you feel like a badass.
Not to mention, they lose revenue doing this, ontop of the fact that the concept of the AH came from their cash cow WoW (a hugely successful MMO I'm sure you know). The entire game is going to be flipped on it's head to accomodate this change. The power of items, how they're found and obtained, etc. This is probably the single biggest overhaul blizzard could do to fix D3.
So yes, there is hope for SC2. But unfortunately, SC2 hasn't dealt with such a huge backlash as D3 has. SC2 has several years of fairly big success. So it's just hope at this point, not a guarantee.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On September 22 2013 04:03 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 03:52 KingAlphard wrote:On September 22 2013 03:34 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:30 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:27 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:25 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:22 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:16 rd wrote:
[quote]
You see short battles but you see a lot of them, because Terran and Zerg have huge production capacities. TvZ has always arguably been the best match-up to spectate for this reason. It's fast paced with a lot of action -- the antonym of actual deathball match-ups which is usually anything with a Protoss in it.
edit:
[quote]
Not sure which metagame you were playing in 2011 but towards the latter end of the year, 2 rax pressure was pretty much dead, and after the summer of the 1-1-1, the all-in variant was virtually solved and slowly fell off from the ladder. Like, 80% of openers from Terran in any match-up was the exact same 1 rax fe. I would say that Protoss needs a revamp more than anything. Then work from there. I dare to bet that Terran needs more variety in styles first, before we are talking revamp of toss (not implying toss is well designed) A revamp of Toss might provide Terran the opportunity to play with more variety (mech). Only in TvP. Revamp of toss will not affect Terran's mech outside of TvP. TvP is the match-up everyone wants to see mech in the most, or at least the BW fans do, and the way Protoss is designed will never allow mech to be competitive at the highest level. TvP is match-up where i want to see the mech the least tbh. Because instead of TvDeathball we get to see DeathballvP or even deathball vs deathball (lol). Mech isn't deathball. Mech is all about carefully positioning your tanks and shit so that they can fuck shit up without getting fucked themselves. It's slow pushing and controlling space and/or areas of the map. A deathball just moves around and fucks shit up as it moves. On September 22 2013 03:34 Rabiator wrote:On September 22 2013 03:06 Incognoto 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.
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. I don't see deathball in TvZ Deathball is a bad word, because too many people get hung up on about the BALL part of it and keep arguing "X isnt a deathball, because it isnt ball-shaped", which is totally unimportant. The term "deathball" is outdated and a bit misleading and the real problem is "critical numbers". Units are balanced for a certain "state", but once there are a certain number of units on the battlefield - in that automatically maximized unit density of SC2 - you achieve a "higher state" because they can kill approaching units more easily and with less risk than they could do before having such high numbers. This is why having such a second state in a (supposed) strategy game is rather terrible, because you can balance for only one state of existence. For some units balance has been pushed to "critical number state" and many times the casters say something like "unit x is useless unless you have X of them" ... usually connected to one-shotting a certain type of opposing unit. The existence of critical numbers is a consequence of unlimited unit selection, massive production capability and the "perfect" unit pathing. These are the things that need to be changed in order to get rid of it on the ground and there need to be good AoE damage against critical numbers in the air ... stuff like the Scourge, Corsair and Valkyrie which by themselves are unattractive to build and wont win you the game. Solutions are just around the corner ... just look at how BW did it, compare it to the state of SC2 and you are fine. Wow nice post. I think I agree with you So you are saying that as a protoss you can amove across the map against ghost/viking and win? Oh come on ... since when was the Protoss deathball able to do anything without using Forcefield? "Deathball" and "critical number" dont mean that those things can be used by a-moving. The problem is that BOTH SIDES will have critical numbers of their units, so the challenge becomes to engage in one area where you can field superior forces of sufficient power to kill off more than your opponent will kill off and then go on from there. In any case critical numbers result in battles where one side "cant do anything efficient" and this makes such engagements bad due to taking player skill out of the equasion ... and thus ultimately boring to watch. ---- I am right now watching the TLS qualifier game SouthPark vs Fold and it is a really exciting back and forth with lots of surprising swings even after one player had a 100 supply lead for some time. Due to the BW mechanics and defensive strength he couldnt have rolled over the opponent as he could have in SC2 ...
Deathball was able to do everything without sentries ever since 2010, you would not ever get to deathball without sentries though. Also, second state is called positioning and apparently everyone loved it in mech. I like your point about deathball being wrong term though.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On September 22 2013 04:06 Facultyadjutant wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 03:58 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:54 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? Edit: well I might if I day9/artosis manage to keep the game interesting. Only stupid person or a blind fan will buy a game (or expansion for it) without seeing what it's like first. So with this edit you pretty much join 95% of people who may buy LotV. It's just a negligible sum of money, why is ones intelligence in question if you buy it without thoroughly investigating it? When we blindly buy milk from the store or go to a movie there is no one going ''how idiotic not checking everything before doing that'' Every blizzard game has been great, why would it change now? Especially in regards to how good sc2 and hots were
Poor man's philosophy: if you buy cat in the bag, you are not being smart about your money.
Also, i do like sc2, but i for one, would never buy it or HotS without seeing what is it first.
|
On September 22 2013 04:07 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:06 Facultyadjutant wrote:On September 22 2013 03:58 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:54 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? Edit: well I might if I day9/artosis manage to keep the game interesting. Only stupid person or a blind fan will buy a game (or expansion for it) without seeing what it's like first. So with this edit you pretty much join 95% of people who may buy LotV. It's just a negligible sum of money, why is ones intelligence in question if you buy it without thoroughly investigating it? When we blindly buy milk from the store or go to a movie there is no one going ''how idiotic not checking everything before doing that'' Every blizzard game has been great, why would it change now? Especially in regards to how good sc2 and hots were Poor man's philosophy: if you buy cat in the bag, you are not being smart about your money. Also, i do like sc2, but i for one, would never buy it or HotS without seeing what is it first.
Lol? What kind of game do you think you're going to buy? Welp, I just bought Legacy of the Void, I hope this game is go-- wait a minute, this is command and conquer! SHOULD HAVE WAITED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS FIRST!
It's the exact same fucking game with new units and a different metagame. By not buying it, you're basically quitting, because the entire community is going to move ahead without you. You're just ridiculous now. If you like SC2 -- the game, starcraft 2, and it's fundamental components, you're going to enjoy any expansion that is made for it.
|
On September 22 2013 03:34 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 03:06 Incognoto 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.
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. I don't see deathball in TvZ Deathball is a bad word, because too many people get hung up on about the BALL part of it and keep arguing "X isnt a deathball, because it isnt ball-shaped", which is totally unimportant. The term "deathball" is outdated and a bit misleading and the real problem is "critical numbers". Units are balanced for a certain "state", but once there are a certain number of units on the battlefield - in that automatically maximized unit density of SC2 - you achieve a "higher state" because they can kill approaching units more easily and with less risk than they could do before having such high numbers. This is why having such a second state in a (supposed) strategy game is rather terrible, because you can balance for only one state of existence. For some units balance has been pushed to "critical number state" and many times the casters say something like "unit x is useless unless you have X of them" ... usually connected to one-shotting a certain type of opposing unit. The existence of critical numbers is a consequence of unlimited unit selection, massive production capability and the "perfect" unit pathing. These are the things that need to be changed in order to get rid of it on the ground and there need to be good AoE damage against critical numbers in the air ... stuff like the Scourge, Corsair and Valkyrie which by themselves are unattractive to build and wont win you the game. Solutions are just around the corner ... just look at how BW did it, compare it to the state of SC2 and you are fine.
Local DPS man, local DPS is the term you're looking for! In a more general sense, you can't possibly completely prevent the dynamic you paint into "phase 1" and "phase 2" type unit strength with aggregation. That will always happen to a certain extent -- just take any ranged unit vs any melee unit and the ranged unit always scales better with increased numbers. Not that you're wrong to discuss it in terms of critical mass as well.
On September 22 2013 03:31 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 02:39 EatThePath wrote:On September 21 2013 04:28 Popkiller wrote:
MMA is winning games again, there is no problem. :D shoutout to xeris for including pathing as a culprit, if briefly. edit: and I'm glad others are noting it too I didn't want to go into too much detail because someone else already did jn the article I linked, and his analysis is better than I could have done. Read that article, it's great!
Just did, idk why I missed it. Magpie delivers.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On September 22 2013 04:09 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 04:06 Facultyadjutant wrote:On September 22 2013 03:58 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:54 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? Edit: well I might if I day9/artosis manage to keep the game interesting. Only stupid person or a blind fan will buy a game (or expansion for it) without seeing what it's like first. So with this edit you pretty much join 95% of people who may buy LotV. It's just a negligible sum of money, why is ones intelligence in question if you buy it without thoroughly investigating it? When we blindly buy milk from the store or go to a movie there is no one going ''how idiotic not checking everything before doing that'' Every blizzard game has been great, why would it change now? Especially in regards to how good sc2 and hots were Poor man's philosophy: if you buy cat in the bag, you are not being smart about your money. Also, i do like sc2, but i for one, would never buy it or HotS without seeing what is it first. Lol? What kind of game do you think you're going to buy? Welp, I just bought Legacy of the Void, I hope this game is go-- wait a minute, this is command and conquer! SHOULD HAVE WAITED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS FIRST!
Exactly! Do not forget, what game Dustin Browder is relevant to :D
EDIT4YourEDIT: Do not forget, that i buy SC2 not only for multiplayer, but for campaign too. If Blizzard went full BW on campaign gameplay, that is not really relaxing or made a campaign, that is filled with BS missions, that are impossible to complete without abusing bugs (not referencing anything here, hold on) then what is a point for me to buy it, after all i buy games to have fun. Not to mention that Blizzard may pull the genius and completely change game in LotV (not that they will do it :D) i may have a reason to not like, why would i support 'em in this case?
|
On September 22 2013 04:06 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:03 Rabiator wrote:On September 22 2013 03:52 KingAlphard wrote:On September 22 2013 03:34 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:30 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:27 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:25 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:22 Incognoto wrote:
[quote]
I would say that Protoss needs a revamp more than anything. Then work from there.
I dare to bet that Terran needs more variety in styles first, before we are talking revamp of toss (not implying toss is well designed) A revamp of Toss might provide Terran the opportunity to play with more variety (mech). Only in TvP. Revamp of toss will not affect Terran's mech outside of TvP. TvP is the match-up everyone wants to see mech in the most, or at least the BW fans do, and the way Protoss is designed will never allow mech to be competitive at the highest level. TvP is match-up where i want to see the mech the least tbh. Because instead of TvDeathball we get to see DeathballvP or even deathball vs deathball (lol). Mech isn't deathball. Mech is all about carefully positioning your tanks and shit so that they can fuck shit up without getting fucked themselves. It's slow pushing and controlling space and/or areas of the map. A deathball just moves around and fucks shit up as it moves. On September 22 2013 03:34 Rabiator wrote:On September 22 2013 03:06 Incognoto 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.
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. I don't see deathball in TvZ Deathball is a bad word, because too many people get hung up on about the BALL part of it and keep arguing "X isnt a deathball, because it isnt ball-shaped", which is totally unimportant. The term "deathball" is outdated and a bit misleading and the real problem is "critical numbers". Units are balanced for a certain "state", but once there are a certain number of units on the battlefield - in that automatically maximized unit density of SC2 - you achieve a "higher state" because they can kill approaching units more easily and with less risk than they could do before having such high numbers. This is why having such a second state in a (supposed) strategy game is rather terrible, because you can balance for only one state of existence. For some units balance has been pushed to "critical number state" and many times the casters say something like "unit x is useless unless you have X of them" ... usually connected to one-shotting a certain type of opposing unit. The existence of critical numbers is a consequence of unlimited unit selection, massive production capability and the "perfect" unit pathing. These are the things that need to be changed in order to get rid of it on the ground and there need to be good AoE damage against critical numbers in the air ... stuff like the Scourge, Corsair and Valkyrie which by themselves are unattractive to build and wont win you the game. Solutions are just around the corner ... just look at how BW did it, compare it to the state of SC2 and you are fine. Wow nice post. I think I agree with you So you are saying that as a protoss you can amove across the map against ghost/viking and win? Oh come on ... since when was the Protoss deathball able to do anything without using Forcefield? "Deathball" and "critical number" dont mean that those things can be used by a-moving. The problem is that BOTH SIDES will have critical numbers of their units, so the challenge becomes to engage in one area where you can field superior forces of sufficient power to kill off more than your opponent will kill off and then go on from there. In any case critical numbers result in battles where one side "cant do anything efficient" and this makes such engagements bad due to taking player skill out of the equasion ... and thus ultimately boring to watch. ---- I am right now watching the TLS qualifier game SouthPark vs Fold and it is a really exciting back and forth with lots of surprising swings even after one player had a 100 supply lead for some time. Due to the BW mechanics and defensive strength he couldnt have rolled over the opponent as he could have in SC2 ... Deathball was able to do everything without sentries ever since 2010, you would not ever get to deathball without sentries though. Also, second state is called positioning and apparently everyone loved it in mech. I like your point about deathball being wrong term though.
The "second state" is NOT the same as positional advantage. You simply get that from clumping up so many of "unit X" that any enemy unit you come close to or which comes near your units dies without dealing sufficient damage to cause equal losses.
In BW it was possible to achieve such a higher concentration, BUT only for a static clump of units (which is a severe enough limitation) and that is part of the defenders advantage. In SC2 you can have your tight clump move around the battlefield while keeping that maximized unit concentration and army dps automatically.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On September 22 2013 04:14 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:06 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 04:03 Rabiator wrote:On September 22 2013 03:52 KingAlphard wrote:On September 22 2013 03:34 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:30 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:27 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:25 lolfail9001 wrote:
[quote]
I dare to bet that Terran needs more variety in styles first, before we are talking revamp of toss (not implying toss is well designed) A revamp of Toss might provide Terran the opportunity to play with more variety (mech). Only in TvP. Revamp of toss will not affect Terran's mech outside of TvP. TvP is the match-up everyone wants to see mech in the most, or at least the BW fans do, and the way Protoss is designed will never allow mech to be competitive at the highest level. TvP is match-up where i want to see the mech the least tbh. Because instead of TvDeathball we get to see DeathballvP or even deathball vs deathball (lol). Mech isn't deathball. Mech is all about carefully positioning your tanks and shit so that they can fuck shit up without getting fucked themselves. It's slow pushing and controlling space and/or areas of the map. A deathball just moves around and fucks shit up as it moves. On September 22 2013 03:34 Rabiator wrote:On September 22 2013 03:06 Incognoto 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.
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. I don't see deathball in TvZ Deathball is a bad word, because too many people get hung up on about the BALL part of it and keep arguing "X isnt a deathball, because it isnt ball-shaped", which is totally unimportant. The term "deathball" is outdated and a bit misleading and the real problem is "critical numbers". Units are balanced for a certain "state", but once there are a certain number of units on the battlefield - in that automatically maximized unit density of SC2 - you achieve a "higher state" because they can kill approaching units more easily and with less risk than they could do before having such high numbers. This is why having such a second state in a (supposed) strategy game is rather terrible, because you can balance for only one state of existence. For some units balance has been pushed to "critical number state" and many times the casters say something like "unit x is useless unless you have X of them" ... usually connected to one-shotting a certain type of opposing unit. The existence of critical numbers is a consequence of unlimited unit selection, massive production capability and the "perfect" unit pathing. These are the things that need to be changed in order to get rid of it on the ground and there need to be good AoE damage against critical numbers in the air ... stuff like the Scourge, Corsair and Valkyrie which by themselves are unattractive to build and wont win you the game. Solutions are just around the corner ... just look at how BW did it, compare it to the state of SC2 and you are fine. Wow nice post. I think I agree with you So you are saying that as a protoss you can amove across the map against ghost/viking and win? Oh come on ... since when was the Protoss deathball able to do anything without using Forcefield? "Deathball" and "critical number" dont mean that those things can be used by a-moving. The problem is that BOTH SIDES will have critical numbers of their units, so the challenge becomes to engage in one area where you can field superior forces of sufficient power to kill off more than your opponent will kill off and then go on from there. In any case critical numbers result in battles where one side "cant do anything efficient" and this makes such engagements bad due to taking player skill out of the equasion ... and thus ultimately boring to watch. ---- I am right now watching the TLS qualifier game SouthPark vs Fold and it is a really exciting back and forth with lots of surprising swings even after one player had a 100 supply lead for some time. Due to the BW mechanics and defensive strength he couldnt have rolled over the opponent as he could have in SC2 ... Deathball was able to do everything without sentries ever since 2010, you would not ever get to deathball without sentries though. Also, second state is called positioning and apparently everyone loved it in mech. I like your point about deathball being wrong term though. The "second state" is NOT the same as positional advantage. You simply get that from clumping up so many of "unit X" that any enemy unit you come close to or which comes near your units dies without dealing sufficient damage to cause equal losses.
I will use worst example of deathball in SC2: PvT. Second state of posturing around is easy to fuck-up with over clumping of deathball that will result in eating AoE right away. After that... i have no need to tell about results after this.
|
I'm very intrigued by this article. I just have one simple question to ask to encourage some discussion or thought on the part of the writer and everyone here if they wish 
When you say that the emphasis on personality is bad because SC2 careers are too short-lived, I think there is one consideration that you left out of your discussion, OP. Is it possible that the right personalities are just not surfacing/surfacing too rarely? Think about it. There hasn't been a single DH champion, ever, that has been able to pop the champagne bottle, much less make the ceremony awkward. That goes for most tournaments. Let's be honest, most of the people we're watching were just nerds who played too much on their computers before they ever started making money off of SC2 and having to go up in front of thousands and thousands of people to play and perform. Very few of these players were born for the spotlight like many NBA, NFL, and Premier League players (for instance). Most players are quiet, often awkward, and rarely articulate. Granted, they're amazing guys, mostly, when you get to know them. But the vast majority of SC2 viewers will never look into the players enough to get to know them on their own time. They would rather watch a tournament and choose their favorite players from the competitors, based on interviews, ceremonies, and their play. But the players often fall short of looking very dynamic in their appearances at tournaments. I think that's the real problem with SC2's personality.
|
On September 22 2013 04:09 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 04:06 Facultyadjutant wrote:On September 22 2013 03:58 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:54 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? Edit: well I might if I day9/artosis manage to keep the game interesting. Only stupid person or a blind fan will buy a game (or expansion for it) without seeing what it's like first. So with this edit you pretty much join 95% of people who may buy LotV. It's just a negligible sum of money, why is ones intelligence in question if you buy it without thoroughly investigating it? When we blindly buy milk from the store or go to a movie there is no one going ''how idiotic not checking everything before doing that'' Every blizzard game has been great, why would it change now? Especially in regards to how good sc2 and hots were Poor man's philosophy: if you buy cat in the bag, you are not being smart about your money. Also, i do like sc2, but i for one, would never buy it or HotS without seeing what is it first. Lol? What kind of game do you think you're going to buy? Welp, I just bought Legacy of the Void, I hope this game is go-- wait a minute, this is command and conquer! SHOULD HAVE WAITED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS FIRST!It's the exact same fucking game with new units and a different metagame. By not buying it, you're basically quitting, because the entire community is going to move ahead without you. You're just ridiculous now. If you like SC2 -- the game, starcraft 2, and it's fundamental components, you're going to enjoy any expansion that is made for it.
Not buying a product is more or less the only effective form of protest that exists in the entertainment industry. One could say that he or she cares so much about SC2 that they will abstain from getting expansions in order to push to company to make changes. A tab bit melodramatic perhaps, but still it is by and large the only thing that will resonate. As shown by the AH removal from D3, once the servers were ghost-towns and people had pretty much stopped bitching and just flat out stopped playing, they panicked and hit the big red button. A game typically is not in trouble if people are complaining and arguing about it, it's in trouble when people don't log on for two months and realise they don't give a shit anymore.
Lots of sales/players = awesome, keep doing whatever it is you are doing.
Low sales/players = Ok this is not fucking working, find out what they want and make it happen.
It's just basic pragmatism, the only constant in business.
|
Does anyone remember Nada's mass Yamato in BW or Boxer's mass Lockdowns? I remember thinking to myself how incredibly difficult it was to do that because of the game mechanics and going on Bnet immediately afterwards to practice it. But in SC2, when I see mass EMP or mass storms, it's just like...whelp, the game is over now.
|
On September 22 2013 04:43 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:09 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 04:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 04:06 Facultyadjutant wrote:On September 22 2013 03:58 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:54 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? Edit: well I might if I day9/artosis manage to keep the game interesting. Only stupid person or a blind fan will buy a game (or expansion for it) without seeing what it's like first. So with this edit you pretty much join 95% of people who may buy LotV. It's just a negligible sum of money, why is ones intelligence in question if you buy it without thoroughly investigating it? When we blindly buy milk from the store or go to a movie there is no one going ''how idiotic not checking everything before doing that'' Every blizzard game has been great, why would it change now? Especially in regards to how good sc2 and hots were Poor man's philosophy: if you buy cat in the bag, you are not being smart about your money. Also, i do like sc2, but i for one, would never buy it or HotS without seeing what is it first. Lol? What kind of game do you think you're going to buy? Welp, I just bought Legacy of the Void, I hope this game is go-- wait a minute, this is command and conquer! SHOULD HAVE WAITED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS FIRST!It's the exact same fucking game with new units and a different metagame. By not buying it, you're basically quitting, because the entire community is going to move ahead without you. You're just ridiculous now. If you like SC2 -- the game, starcraft 2, and it's fundamental components, you're going to enjoy any expansion that is made for it. Not buying a product is more or less the only effective form of protest that exists in the entertainment industry. One could say that he or she cares so much about SC2 that they will abstain from getting expansions in order to push to company to make changes. A tab bit melodramatic perhaps, but still it is by and large the only thing that will resonate. As shown by the AH removal from D3, once the servers were ghost-towns and people had pretty much stopped bitching and just flat out stopped playing, they panicked and hit the big red button. A game typically is not in trouble if people are complaining and arguing about it, it's in trouble when people don't log on for two months and realise they don't give a shit anymore. Lots of sales/players = awesome, keep doing whatever it is you are doing. Low sales/players = Ok this is not fucking working, find out what they want and make it happen. It's just basic pragmatism, the only constant in business.
Theres a difference between protesting a product due to quality, and not buying a product because you don't know enough about the product. Everyone knows exactly what LotV is going to be.
|
Papua New Guinea1058 Posts
You people have absolutely no imagination if you think that HD version of Brood War would be a long term success.
|
On September 22 2013 04:53 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:43 Squat wrote:On September 22 2013 04:09 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 04:07 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 04:06 Facultyadjutant wrote:On September 22 2013 03:58 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:54 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? Edit: well I might if I day9/artosis manage to keep the game interesting. Only stupid person or a blind fan will buy a game (or expansion for it) without seeing what it's like first. So with this edit you pretty much join 95% of people who may buy LotV. It's just a negligible sum of money, why is ones intelligence in question if you buy it without thoroughly investigating it? When we blindly buy milk from the store or go to a movie there is no one going ''how idiotic not checking everything before doing that'' Every blizzard game has been great, why would it change now? Especially in regards to how good sc2 and hots were Poor man's philosophy: if you buy cat in the bag, you are not being smart about your money. Also, i do like sc2, but i for one, would never buy it or HotS without seeing what is it first. Lol? What kind of game do you think you're going to buy? Welp, I just bought Legacy of the Void, I hope this game is go-- wait a minute, this is command and conquer! SHOULD HAVE WAITED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS FIRST!It's the exact same fucking game with new units and a different metagame. By not buying it, you're basically quitting, because the entire community is going to move ahead without you. You're just ridiculous now. If you like SC2 -- the game, starcraft 2, and it's fundamental components, you're going to enjoy any expansion that is made for it. Not buying a product is more or less the only effective form of protest that exists in the entertainment industry. One could say that he or she cares so much about SC2 that they will abstain from getting expansions in order to push to company to make changes. A tab bit melodramatic perhaps, but still it is by and large the only thing that will resonate. As shown by the AH removal from D3, once the servers were ghost-towns and people had pretty much stopped bitching and just flat out stopped playing, they panicked and hit the big red button. A game typically is not in trouble if people are complaining and arguing about it, it's in trouble when people don't log on for two months and realise they don't give a shit anymore. Lots of sales/players = awesome, keep doing whatever it is you are doing. Low sales/players = Ok this is not fucking working, find out what they want and make it happen. It's just basic pragmatism, the only constant in business. Theres a difference between protesting a product due to quality, and not buying a product because you don't know enough about the product. Everyone knows exactly what LotV is going to be.
Do we? We have an idea, certainly, but exactly? If you do, you have better sources than me.
I never thought Blizzard would have the balls to pull the plug on the AH in D3, so who's to say they won't make some substantial changes for LotV. Until some comprehensive previews are released we can't be sure.
And you are right about the difference, but the fact of the matter is that a company has no way of knowing why a game didn't sell very well. All they can see is that for some reason people are not buying their shiny new thing, and figuring out why can take quite a bit of time and effort.
I didn't buy HotS until I found a very cheap copy on a sale in a store about to close, because it simply didn't seem worth it to before. I have no way to communicate my displeasure with the product and my reasons for waiting several months post release before getting it almost for free to Blizzard. The only thing that resonates is numbers, motivations are largely irrelevant.
|
On September 22 2013 04:58 HornyHerring wrote:
You people have absolutely no imagination if you think that HD version of Brood War would be a long term success.
If SD version of BW can do it, why not an HD one? *chuckles*
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On September 22 2013 05:06 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:58 HornyHerring wrote:
You people have absolutely no imagination if you think that HD version of Brood War would be a long term success. If SD version of BW can do it, why not an HD one? *chuckles*
SD version of BW is still played by majority of gamers?
|
On September 22 2013 05:08 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 05:06 Xiphos wrote:On September 22 2013 04:58 HornyHerring wrote:
You people have absolutely no imagination if you think that HD version of Brood War would be a long term success. If SD version of BW can do it, why not an HD one? *chuckles* SD version of BW is still played by majority of gamers?
Isn't it still successful?
SC2 still played by majority of gamers?
We can go on and on.
|
4713 Posts
On September 22 2013 04:06 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 03:58 Destructicon wrote:On September 22 2013 03:51 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:45 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:42 Incognoto wrote:So the only difference is move speed and deployment time? Yes that difference is so ridiculously fundamental it does indeed make a difference. You can catch a mech army out of position, you can't do so with a deathball. Also having more time to prepare for a push and take advantage of immobility is also a very huge advantage. You can catch deathball out of position, but that implies existence of such positions on maps and that is another question. Average speed of mech army between deployments > average speed of deathball if we imply that average speed of composition is speed of it's slowest part. On September 22 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:36 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:34 Incognoto wrote:On September 22 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:30 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:
[quote]
Only in TvP. Revamp of toss will not affect Terran's mech outside of TvP. TvP is the match-up everyone wants to see mech in the most, or at least the BW fans do, and the way Protoss is designed will never allow mech to be competitive at the highest level. TvP is match-up where i want to see the mech the least tbh. Because instead of TvDeathball we get to see DeathballvP or even deathball vs deathball (lol). Mech isn't deathball. Mech is all about carefully positioning your tanks and shit so that they can fuck shit up without getting fucked themselves. It's slow pushing and controlling space and/or areas of the map. A deathball just moves around and fucks shit up as it moves. So the only difference is move speed and deployment time ? On September 22 2013 03:33 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 22 2013 03:30 rd wrote:On September 22 2013 03:28 lolfail9001 wrote:
[quote]
Only in TvP. Revamp of toss will not affect Terran's mech outside of TvP. TvP is the match-up everyone wants to see mech in the most, or at least the BW fans do, and the way Protoss is designed will never allow mech to be competitive at the highest level. TvP is match-up where i want to see the mech the least tbh. Because instead of TvDeathball we get to see DeathballvP or even deathball vs deathball (lol). A revamp of Protoss would imply the breaking of Protoss death balls. See BW for details. Hence DeathballvP instead of TvDeathball Because mech isn't actually a ball. It's more like a line. So it'd actually be PvDeathlineofcreepingdeath. The only thing mech and the Protoss "deathball" have in common is that they're both defensive strategies that initially turtle. But they're vastly different in application and how they're dealt with. It's pretty sad how little you know of it, even if this is a different game. Agree, since i was fed up with seeing 2 mech games in my life: one of encounters between Flash vs Best (do not recall map sadly) and one of encounters between Bogus and Soulkey (ground zero). They both were frustrating to watch tbh, even if that implied great skill of winner. And yes, i am aware that mech is deathball without a ball, but with line. Also, application for both is simple: kill you enemy. By your definition anything is a death ball. It's rather unfortunate you embrace ignorance and summarily dismiss something rather than looking into it at all and just assuming your irrational whims are correct. But this is why the game isn't designed around irrational whims (or at least not anymore). On September 22 2013 03:48 Everlong wrote:
It's nice we have examined issues with SC2 so many times in such depth and passion, suggestions and so.. But is there actually ANY chance something is going to happen/change? I would say so, yes. The Diablo III team just removed the auction house after a LOT of community feedback (and by feedback I mean bitching, moaning, and quitting), which is a huge, huge admittance of a fundamental mistake, and they're going to be forced to redesign itemization entirely. They're independent teams, but Blizzard has recently seemed to move in a direction where they're much more receptive to complaints about their games that follow up with a decline in players. There is a big difference though. The AH isn't an integral part of the gameplay in D3, if you added or removed it would have little to no impact on the game. Where as the redesigns of the protoss race that people are suggesting or changing the pathing or combat in SC2, is orders of magnitude harder because it is ingrained into the game by now. As much as I hate to say this, I don't think it is realistic to expect a redesign of SC2 on such a large scale, at this point it would be much better to consolidate the lessons learned and make a better SC3. The only type of games where I saw changes to core design issues was in MMOs like WoW, where from BC to WoTLK to Cataclysm they kept revamping, classes, redesigning broken concepts, buffing weakened ones, adding in fun elements and so forth, but WoW is a fundamentally different game from WoW, and its success literally dependent on such patches to keep the game fresh, + the game is subscription based. Have you played D3, or even D2? The AH is HUUUUUUUUUUUGELY fundamental to a problem that alters a core aspect of how Diablo works, which is a hack and slash RPG where you find powerful items, and then hack and slash more for more better items. The trading economy in Diablo was disjointed, which means you relied primarily on finding your items, which was why the game was fun. The AH introduced inflation, and in order to compensate for this, items and their drop rates were nerfed into the ground. So now when you hunt monsters you aren't (or are extremely rarely) given the immediate reward of becoming more powerful. You found garbage to sell on the AH, and you would have to spend hundreds of hours trading on the AH to work your way to the powerful item that makes you feel like a badass. Not to mention, they lose revenue doing this, ontop of the fact that the concept of the AH came from their cash cow WoW (a hugely successful MMO I'm sure you know). The entire game is going to be flipped on it's head to accomodate this change. The power of items, how they're found and obtained, etc. This is probably the single biggest overhaul blizzard could do to fix D3. So yes, there is hope for SC2. But unfortunately, SC2 hasn't dealt with such a huge backlash as D3 has. SC2 has several years of fairly big success. So it's just hope at this point, not a guarantee.
The AH is a feature but it isn't a huge feature. Sure, the drop rate of items went down a lot to compensate for the potential inflation, but that's a simple number's tweak you could make in the system that would allow more drops to happen and you'd solve most of the problems left by removing the AH. The equivalent in SC2 would be to that of removing say a unused unit from one race like Carrier.
A overhaul of protoss is more akin to the overhaul of a entire class in D3, like completely rebuilding say the Demon Hunter, from the ground up, new resource system, new skills, new runes the works.
Rehauling the pathing or altering the combat in SC2 is more like Blizzard taking the entire skill and rune system in D3 and overhauling it all, everything, maybe even doing away with some of the features and adding new ones, potentially even changing the combat system and removing their RNG engine.
Removing the AH and fixing the loot drop rate is almost insignificant compared to the effort they would have to put in if they needed to rework from the ground up the combat, or skill system in D3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
