|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 19 2013 03:43 ReMinD_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 12:41 Ioannis wrote:
I will agree with Duran the OP is saying for everything.
I want to add that SC2 is certainly fun for the newcomers but for us old dudes who were playing years of BW, there is just something missing from the game, which there is no way to get it back, unless they redo the engine or whatnot, which will not happen. I'm a newcomer, having played this game for only 3 months and I've already had enough of it. Pretty much every game I pick up these days is more fun than SC2 and I have Dota 2 for all my 'competitive' needs, a game which I've been playing on and off for past 7 years. This game lives only thanks to the ladder system. Us humans are competitive by nature and SC2 ladder is one way to entertain those needs. I think without the ladder, no one would even play this game. The illusion of progression via ladder system is the only thing that keeps people hooked to this game
'I did not like this game, therefore game must be bad except for $(something_related_to_something_in_SC2_that_is_good)''. Uhem, did i shorten it right?
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 19 2013 03:54 skiersteve wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 03:43 ReMinD_ wrote:On October 18 2013 12:41 Ioannis wrote:
I will agree with Duran the OP is saying for everything.
I want to add that SC2 is certainly fun for the newcomers but for us old dudes who were playing years of BW, there is just something missing from the game, which there is no way to get it back, unless they redo the engine or whatnot, which will not happen. I'm a newcomer, having played this game for only 3 months and I've already had enough of it. Pretty much every game I pick up these days is more fun than SC2 and I have Dota 2 for all my 'competitive' needs, a game which I've been playing on and off for past 7 years. This game lives only thanks to the ladder system. Us humans are competitive by nature and SC2 ladder is one way to entertain those needs. I think without the ladder, no one would even play this game. The illusion of progression via ladder system is the only thing that keeps people hooked to this game ^^^^^^ This, dont play anymore but do watch from time to time, the problem with sc2 is its simply boring
Play zerg, and get into area of ladder where there are only ZvZs. All varieties of early pools, greedy openers, mass banelings and other kinds of madness. You may like it, never ever going to be bored.
|
On October 19 2013 03:56 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 03:54 skiersteve wrote:On October 19 2013 03:43 ReMinD_ wrote:On October 18 2013 12:41 Ioannis wrote:
I will agree with Duran the OP is saying for everything.
I want to add that SC2 is certainly fun for the newcomers but for us old dudes who were playing years of BW, there is just something missing from the game, which there is no way to get it back, unless they redo the engine or whatnot, which will not happen. I'm a newcomer, having played this game for only 3 months and I've already had enough of it. Pretty much every game I pick up these days is more fun than SC2 and I have Dota 2 for all my 'competitive' needs, a game which I've been playing on and off for past 7 years. This game lives only thanks to the ladder system. Us humans are competitive by nature and SC2 ladder is one way to entertain those needs. I think without the ladder, no one would even play this game. The illusion of progression via ladder system is the only thing that keeps people hooked to this game ^^^^^^ This, dont play anymore but do watch from time to time, the problem with sc2 is its simply boring Play zerg, and get into area of ladder where there are only ZvZs. All varieties of early pools, greedy openers, mass banelings and other kinds of madness. You may like it, never ever going to be bored.
No matter what race I play Zerg is always my worse matchup...
TvZ
PvZ
ZvZ
ZvZ is never boring to play and always more kinetic than any of the other matchups, to play.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 18 2013 17:31 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 15:46 BigFan wrote:On October 17 2013 21:42 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:38 Velr wrote:On October 17 2013 21:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:28 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 21:22 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:21 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:
[quote]
Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void. The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2. Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'. BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense. You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated. Ahm... All Marines that actually can get in firing range will still maximise their DPS and be as effective as possible? Whats your point? Point is that maximizing DPS of ALL marines won't be done automatically. It will be done for 1-2 (at most 3, assuming serious range difference) lines marines, rest will just bunch up behind. Hence the concaves, because it is the real way to maximize DPS. Oh, noticed your answer. Cute, so you do not play the game and thus compare 2 different units with completely different roles. Makes sense, yes. SCII's AI will automatically spread marines pretty fast as long as they aren't at a choke which in turn maximizes damage output. His point was actually right: SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. In BW, the AI was slower so you had to 'help' it with the spread to try to maximize dps and due to unit and their model(collision model its called I believe), you won't get anywhere near the dps of marines in SCII. Btw, last part of your post. For someone like you who also isn't that familiar with BW(you mentioned several games with AI in another thread if I recall), you shouldn't be comparing the games either ^^ Just saying lol. 1st. Nearly instantly only works in open space And even then they will probably bunch up actually spreading out, since SC2 is only calculating pathing only once before actually giving a path to each unit, so spreading out helps, maybe not as much as clumping up marines helps storm in BW but close. Also yes, in BW marines won't ever get close to DPS of SC2 marines, but saying that they maximize their DPS nearly instantly is BS. + Show Spoiler +2nd. Not few games with AI, but ~50 games on Iccup, before i got fed up with mouse behavior and what not. But yeah, that's not much to compare.
3rd. I do not compare unit behaviors in games to begin with, i compare the 'feel' of them without pretending to be objective, aka purely subjective thing that is downright stupid to be criticized.
In my point, I was taking it as open space and not choke(bolded). Of course, at choke, dps is minimized and they take longer to spread but at the same time, SCII's AI packs them faster than BW's AI. It might not be instantly maximized but dps is still pretty damn high and the AI makes a big difference in SCII in comparison to BW.
ps mouse behaviour? I've never had issues with my mouse and I'm using a laptop. You need to pay more before just giving up lol. Either way, to each his own ^^
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 19 2013 04:59 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 17:31 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 18 2013 15:46 BigFan wrote:On October 17 2013 21:42 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:38 Velr wrote:On October 17 2013 21:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:28 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 21:22 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:21 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons.
Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void.
The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2. Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'. BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense. You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated. Ahm... All Marines that actually can get in firing range will still maximise their DPS and be as effective as possible? Whats your point? Point is that maximizing DPS of ALL marines won't be done automatically. It will be done for 1-2 (at most 3, assuming serious range difference) lines marines, rest will just bunch up behind. Hence the concaves, because it is the real way to maximize DPS. Oh, noticed your answer. Cute, so you do not play the game and thus compare 2 different units with completely different roles. Makes sense, yes. SCII's AI will automatically spread marines pretty fast as long as they aren't at a choke which in turn maximizes damage output. His point was actually right: SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. In BW, the AI was slower so you had to 'help' it with the spread to try to maximize dps and due to unit and their model(collision model its called I believe), you won't get anywhere near the dps of marines in SCII. Btw, last part of your post. For someone like you who also isn't that familiar with BW(you mentioned several games with AI in another thread if I recall), you shouldn't be comparing the games either ^^ Just saying lol. 1st. Nearly instantly only works in open space And even then they will probably bunch up actually spreading out, since SC2 is only calculating pathing only once before actually giving a path to each unit, so spreading out helps, maybe not as much as clumping up marines helps storm in BW but close. Also yes, in BW marines won't ever get close to DPS of SC2 marines, but saying that they maximize their DPS nearly instantly is BS. + Show Spoiler +2nd. Not few games with AI, but ~50 games on Iccup, before i got fed up with mouse behavior and what not. But yeah, that's not much to compare.
3rd. I do not compare unit behaviors in games to begin with, i compare the 'feel' of them without pretending to be objective, aka purely subjective thing that is downright stupid to be criticized.
In my point, I was taking it as open space and not choke(bolded). Of course, at choke, dps is minimized and they take longer to spread but at the same time, SCII's AI packs them faster than BW's AI. It might not be instantly maximized but dps is still pretty damn high and the AI makes a big difference in SCII in comparison to BW. ps mouse behaviour? I've never had issues with my mouse and I'm using a laptop. You need to pay more before just giving up lol. Either way, to each his own ^^
1st: yes, in open space they will auto spread out, and will do so at the very least faster in SC2 than in BW. But then again, this is example from vacuum in this case.
2nd: mouse behaviour called the fact that version of wine (i am using Linux after all) i was using when used to play BW did not support locking in mouse in BW's window (w-mode <3), so my mouse was getting out of it all the time. And no, full screen did not work correctly either. IIRC they have fixed it already, so thanks for that, but kinda too late. But yeah, on part i've bolded, we can finish our pointless, but cute thisthreadbumpfest
|
The game is not dead
But the glory we had for this game is gone, forever
It did not
|
Actually, the tournaments are already helping out SC2 a great deal. Without the current tournaments, the game would be in an even worse position.
Look at the no. of viewers on twitch now, hearthstone has 7-8k more viewers than SC2.
|
On October 19 2013 06:22 SpecialistSc wrote:
The game is not dead
But the glory we had for this game is gone, forever
It did not
Ah my friend, it is not. As the U.S. figures it self out so will SC2 when the big players straighten up. (companies ie: TL)
|
The biggest part I think needs to be addressed is the following (from OP) and I don't think it is impossible given the games design. I think tweaks are very possible, if difficult.
quote:
What's the problem: I feel like SC2's gameplay is inherently less fun to watch than Brood War, aside from the graphics. Matches feel stale and anticlimactic.
There was a really great article HERE that discusses the issue of why Brood War and StarCraft 2 are different games. It hinges on Day9's analysis of 'frisbee vs baseball'. Unfortunately for StarCraft 2, the 'frisbee' is more fun and exciting to watch. What I mean by this is, using the information provided in the aforementioned article, battles in StarCraft 2 are much less interesting than in Brood War. The game aspects that make StarCraft 2 insanely difficult to master and challenging go largely unappreciated by viewers.
For example: the positioning and posturing of two armies prior to a battle are absolutely key in StarCraft 2, because once the battle starts, little can be done to change the outcome. This posturing however is incredibly hard to translate into excitement on the part of the viewer. StarCraft 2 battles feature things blowing up, and blobs disappearing. There is much less micro and "play" potential in StarCraft 2 because of how its pathing and units are designed.
In Brood War, actual battles are much more exciting, and I feel as if these are the lynchpin of the viewer experience. Seeing an intensely micro'd battle, or a player with a smaller force taking down a player with a bigger force because of superior unit control and micro is exciting. Knowing that Brood War is more difficult to execute gives the viewer more appreciation for incredible marine splits, storms, and multi-tasking in battle. It is easy to see the impact of the player directly on the battlefield because you know that every action is manually performed by the user, while StarCraft 2's battles are essentially simulations: there is comparatively little the player can do to impact the outcome of a battle in StarCraft 2.
I don't really see how this problem can be fixed since it is part of the game design.
|
The fundamental flaw with professional SC2 (I'm not discussing casuals here) i the simple fact that while it works great as a sport, it fails miserably as a spectator sport.
Nothing in the way a SC2 match plays out caters to the spectators. Battles and exiting moments are short and usually determined beforehand and everything happens too fast for the audience to enjoy and appreciate it.
Compare BW to Football (Soccer for you North Americans). Both games have fairly slow paced action that is easy to follow, and is prevalent during most of the game. Sure there are quiet periods, but action can always pick up at any moment in the game, and when it does you can clearly see the skill of the players performing. You rarely see slow motion footage of extraordenary plays, mainly due to the pace allowing spectators to appreciate whats happening without the need to slow things down.
I would have loved to compare SC2 to Handegg (Football to our American friends), but that comparison simply doesn't work. Handegg is also a great spectator sport, mainly due to the fact that while the exitement is short and fairly messy, the pause before new exitement is short and quite forgivable. Imagine if the pause between each play in Handegg was 20-30 minutes, and you had to watch the whole thing due to the important strategy that happens during this setup time.
Instead I would like to compare it to professional Tug-of-war - Yeah thats actually a thing. For someone not familiar with this sport, its hard to see anything more than a bunch of muscle men pulling a rope and hoping that they happen to be the stronger side. There is no doubt more depth and strategy to this sport, but its hidden from the spectators, and most of it happens before the contest anyways. Thse men (and women I imagine) enjoy their sport, but never expect it to be a spectator phenomenon. It might get some focus from a sports channel looking for non-mainstream sports every once in a while, but never more than that.
How could Blizzard fix this problem? Do they even want to fix it?
There really are quite a few things that can be done to make this game better:
Make battles slower.
Give units more scaling with micro.
Make units more extreme (stronger with more weaknesses)
Make units counters less extreme.
Reward early agression more
Increase defenders advantage.
Not all of them needs to be done, but all of them would improve the game as a spectator experience.
The reason unit pathing gets mentioned so much is because that was how BW achieved these things. BW was enjoyable to watch because the pathing slowed down the game in the right places for spectators to enjoy it, while promoting the type of plays that kept the game exiting throughout.
BW pathing is not nessesary to do the same things in SC2, but the game needs to be better at displaying the skills of the players, and promote individualism in their plays in some other way.
|
On October 22 2013 16:52 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The fundamental flaw with professional SC2 (I'm not discussing casuals here) i the simple fact that while it works great as a sport, it fails miserably as a spectator sport.
Nothing in the way a SC2 match plays out caters to the spectators. Battles and exiting moments are short and usually determined beforehand and everything happens too fast for the audience to enjoy and appreciate it.
Compare BW to Football (Soccer for you North Americans). Both games have fairly slow paced action that is easy to follow, and is prevalent during most of the game. Sure there are quiet periods, but action can always pick up at any moment in the game, and when it does you can clearly see the skill of the players performing. You rarely see slow motion footage of extraordenary plays, mainly due to the pace allowing spectators to appreciate whats happening without the need to slow things down.
I would have loved to compare SC2 to Handegg (Football to our American friends), but that comparison simply doesn't work. Handegg is also a great spectator sport, mainly due to the fact that while the exitement is short and fairly messy, the pause before new exitement is short and quite forgivable. Imagine if the pause between each play in Handegg was 20-30 minutes, and you had to watch the whole thing due to the important strategy that happens during this setup time.
Instead I would like to compare it to professional Tug-of-war - Yeah thats actually a thing. For someone not familiar with this sport, its hard to see anything more than a bunch of muscle men pulling a rope and hoping that they happen to be the stronger side. There is no doubt more depth and strategy to this sport, but its hidden from the spectators, and most of it happens before the contest anyways. Thse men (and women I imagine) enjoy their sport, but never expect it to be a spectator phenomenon. It might get some focus from a sports channel looking for non-mainstream sports every once in a while, but never more than that.
How could Blizzard fix this problem? Do they even want to fix it?
There really are quite a few things that can be done to make this game better:
Make battles slower.
Give units more scaling with micro.
Make units more extreme (stronger with more weaknesses)
Make units counters less extreme.
Reward early agression more
Increase defenders advantage.
Not all of them needs to be done, but all of them would improve the game as a spectator experience.
The reason unit pathing gets mentioned so much is because that was how BW achieved these things. BW was enjoyable to watch because the pathing slowed down the game in the right places for spectators to enjoy it, while promoting the type of plays that kept the game exiting throughout.
BW pathing is not nessesary to do the same things in SC2, but the game needs to be better at displaying the skills of the players, and promote individualism in their plays in some other way.
Those things you suggested, I'm trying to implement them in custom mod. Please PM if you have time to help.
So far I had negative feedback, its understandable though, the MOD is not properly tested/polished yet. But with some help from people I feel it could be done.
|
On October 18 2013 16:32 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 16:03 Big J wrote:On October 18 2013 10:28 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 21:18 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:45 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 20:19 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote:
Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...] The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port. I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games. Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted. Then don't use them blindly. You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences. And you can't retrieve a zealot or dragoon either once it's in the enemy territory. That's not warp gates fault, but warp gate at least allows to deliever them against more mobile enemy compositions. Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.) a) Completely arbitrary statement. As can be seen by any form of runby harass which you hardly ever retain. b) Having your pylons in place/using a warp prism revolves around having certain positions/mobility and the opponent being out of position. Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack. Exactly. And it is also the exact same thing as having more mobile armies that reach the attack position faster because of their speed, even though they have to be built at home. More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter. Neither are many Zerg or Terran units that are used to harass. PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements. Yeah. Everyone would take more power over more mobility. Makes the game pretty easy if the best strategy is to headbutt with a strong army. Look, all I meant was I think warping in units across the map for harassment is a boring way to approach a potentially very exciting, skill based, fun game design. If I can be as straightforward as I can: I would like a unit/composition I can drop out of the warp prism that does great damage vs workers that is accessible early enough that I could use it to set the pace of the game early on. Being aggressive but somewhat safe at the same time. *Cough* Reaver drops kill workers fast and are a core to Protoss mid game armies *Cough* (Before you say "BW is different game", "Nostalgia noob", etc Im using this as an example because Its the god damn best example I got). Purpose to my response on this subject? ---> I would gladly trade warp gate in its entirety for the above mentioned example. Would you? Well, I have no problem with having a reaver in the game (assuming it can be balanced). I doubt you need to remove warpgate for that. or want to. No you don't need to remove Warpgate BUT you do need to buff up Gateway units to a certain extend in order to fill Protoss's mantra of being a bastion of impenetrable force. Zealots and Stalkers at this place in time are way too weak in order to fulfill that status quo. In BW you had those Zealot running around kamikaze the entire battleground fearlessly. Its something that SC2's Zealot certain lack in spirit. The idea is this, gateway units should retain accordingly to its lore in terms of durability. You can keep the WG mechanics HOWEVER when units are warped in, they lose their Shields (the magnitude is argumentative) in order to make it up for the ability. Sort of they themselves utilized psi energy in order to summon themselves. This way players have a CHOICE of being ubiquitous but without endurance or endurance but more time is required to come in. Blizzard in a sense tried to do a 1/2 ass version of both by not really committing fully to one idea but attempt to "balance" it out. Sometime you need to mitigate the powerfulness of one unit by counterbalance with another one. And making a unit that can turn the tide of a battle, THAT is what makes the audience wet their panties.
That's fantastic idea. At first I was going to complain that "Hey! That leaves toss up to getting their ass handed to in a defensive situation" but then I realised that we might be onto a reason to switch between gateway and warpgate modes. Faster reinforcements or more durable ones?
|
On October 22 2013 16:52 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
........
How could Blizzard fix this problem? Do they even want to fix it?
There really are quite a few things that can be done to make this game better:
Make battles slower.
Give units more scaling with micro.
Make units more extreme (stronger with more weaknesses)
Make units counters less extreme.
Reward early agression more
Increase defenders advantage.
..........
Sorry, but make units more extreme and make counter less extreme are not contradictory?
I agree that SC2 need more continuous action instead one or two big battles. Also I agree that some units need to be stronger and that units needs to be hard countered, nowadays, in SC2 you can mass some units and beat the supposed counter just by numbers.
Increase defender advantage right now is a bad idea because we will have more macro games with 200/200 battles.
|
On October 22 2013 17:35 drkcid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 16:52 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
........
How could Blizzard fix this problem? Do they even want to fix it?
There really are quite a few things that can be done to make this game better:
Make battles slower.
Give units more scaling with micro.
Make units more extreme (stronger with more weaknesses)
Make units counters less extreme.
Reward early agression more
Increase defenders advantage.
..........
Sorry, but make units more extreme and make counter less extreme are not contradictory? I agree that SC2 need more continuous action instead one or two big battles. Also I agree that some units need to be stronger and that units needs to be hard countered, nowadays, in SC2 you can mass some units and beat the supposed counter just by numbers. Increase defender advantage right now is a bad idea because we will have more macro games with 200/200 battles.
No contradictions.
Units should be countered by tactics, not other units. Siege tanks are naturally countered by getting close and abusing friendly fire. Zealots happens to be great at this, but they are not specifically designed to counter Siege tanks as other units can do the same thing. Immortals are designed to counter Siege tanks, and do so in a way no other units can imitate.
If units are more extreme, they can be countered by most other units as long as you abuse the weaknesses. Units designed to counter other units leads to rock/paper/scissors.
I agree that stronger defenders advantage on its own is a bad idea, but combined with stronger rewards for agression, it can lead to more agression not intended to kill.
|
On October 22 2013 17:07 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 16:32 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2013 16:03 Big J wrote:On October 18 2013 10:28 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 21:18 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:45 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 20:19 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote:
Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...] The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port. I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games. Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted. Then don't use them blindly. You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences. And you can't retrieve a zealot or dragoon either once it's in the enemy territory. That's not warp gates fault, but warp gate at least allows to deliever them against more mobile enemy compositions. Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.) a) Completely arbitrary statement. As can be seen by any form of runby harass which you hardly ever retain. b) Having your pylons in place/using a warp prism revolves around having certain positions/mobility and the opponent being out of position. Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack. Exactly. And it is also the exact same thing as having more mobile armies that reach the attack position faster because of their speed, even though they have to be built at home. More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter. Neither are many Zerg or Terran units that are used to harass. PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements. Yeah. Everyone would take more power over more mobility. Makes the game pretty easy if the best strategy is to headbutt with a strong army. Look, all I meant was I think warping in units across the map for harassment is a boring way to approach a potentially very exciting, skill based, fun game design. If I can be as straightforward as I can: I would like a unit/composition I can drop out of the warp prism that does great damage vs workers that is accessible early enough that I could use it to set the pace of the game early on. Being aggressive but somewhat safe at the same time. *Cough* Reaver drops kill workers fast and are a core to Protoss mid game armies *Cough* (Before you say "BW is different game", "Nostalgia noob", etc Im using this as an example because Its the god damn best example I got). Purpose to my response on this subject? ---> I would gladly trade warp gate in its entirety for the above mentioned example. Would you? Well, I have no problem with having a reaver in the game (assuming it can be balanced). I doubt you need to remove warpgate for that. or want to. No you don't need to remove Warpgate BUT you do need to buff up Gateway units to a certain extend in order to fill Protoss's mantra of being a bastion of impenetrable force. Zealots and Stalkers at this place in time are way too weak in order to fulfill that status quo. In BW you had those Zealot running around kamikaze the entire battleground fearlessly. Its something that SC2's Zealot certain lack in spirit. The idea is this, gateway units should retain accordingly to its lore in terms of durability. You can keep the WG mechanics HOWEVER when units are warped in, they lose their Shields (the magnitude is argumentative) in order to make it up for the ability. Sort of they themselves utilized psi energy in order to summon themselves. This way players have a CHOICE of being ubiquitous but without endurance or endurance but more time is required to come in. Blizzard in a sense tried to do a 1/2 ass version of both by not really committing fully to one idea but attempt to "balance" it out. Sometime you need to mitigate the powerfulness of one unit by counterbalance with another one. And making a unit that can turn the tide of a battle, THAT is what makes the audience wet their panties. That's fantastic idea. At first I was going to complain that "Hey! That leaves toss up to getting their ass handed to in a defensive situation" but then I realised that we might be onto a reason to switch between gateway and warpgate modes. Faster reinforcements or more durable ones?
I've always wondered if people would do warp ins if warp ins had a build time instead of a cool down. 30 seconds to warp in a stalker lol
|
It like the TL death ball, of destroying SC2 by trying to monopolize a community pushed game.
|
On October 22 2013 22:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 17:07 Sabu113 wrote:On October 18 2013 16:32 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2013 16:03 Big J wrote:On October 18 2013 10:28 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 21:18 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:45 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 20:19 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:On October 16 2013 19:34 Rabiator wrote:
Warp Gate is a NECESSITY due to the inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves.[...] The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates. Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port. I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games. Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted. Then don't use them blindly. You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences. And you can't retrieve a zealot or dragoon either once it's in the enemy territory. That's not warp gates fault, but warp gate at least allows to deliever them against more mobile enemy compositions. Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.) a) Completely arbitrary statement. As can be seen by any form of runby harass which you hardly ever retain. b) Having your pylons in place/using a warp prism revolves around having certain positions/mobility and the opponent being out of position. Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack. Exactly. And it is also the exact same thing as having more mobile armies that reach the attack position faster because of their speed, even though they have to be built at home. More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter. Neither are many Zerg or Terran units that are used to harass. PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements. Yeah. Everyone would take more power over more mobility. Makes the game pretty easy if the best strategy is to headbutt with a strong army. Look, all I meant was I think warping in units across the map for harassment is a boring way to approach a potentially very exciting, skill based, fun game design. If I can be as straightforward as I can: I would like a unit/composition I can drop out of the warp prism that does great damage vs workers that is accessible early enough that I could use it to set the pace of the game early on. Being aggressive but somewhat safe at the same time. *Cough* Reaver drops kill workers fast and are a core to Protoss mid game armies *Cough* (Before you say "BW is different game", "Nostalgia noob", etc Im using this as an example because Its the god damn best example I got). Purpose to my response on this subject? ---> I would gladly trade warp gate in its entirety for the above mentioned example. Would you? Well, I have no problem with having a reaver in the game (assuming it can be balanced). I doubt you need to remove warpgate for that. or want to. No you don't need to remove Warpgate BUT you do need to buff up Gateway units to a certain extend in order to fill Protoss's mantra of being a bastion of impenetrable force. Zealots and Stalkers at this place in time are way too weak in order to fulfill that status quo. In BW you had those Zealot running around kamikaze the entire battleground fearlessly. Its something that SC2's Zealot certain lack in spirit. The idea is this, gateway units should retain accordingly to its lore in terms of durability. You can keep the WG mechanics HOWEVER when units are warped in, they lose their Shields (the magnitude is argumentative) in order to make it up for the ability. Sort of they themselves utilized psi energy in order to summon themselves. This way players have a CHOICE of being ubiquitous but without endurance or endurance but more time is required to come in. Blizzard in a sense tried to do a 1/2 ass version of both by not really committing fully to one idea but attempt to "balance" it out. Sometime you need to mitigate the powerfulness of one unit by counterbalance with another one. And making a unit that can turn the tide of a battle, THAT is what makes the audience wet their panties. That's fantastic idea. At first I was going to complain that "Hey! That leaves toss up to getting their ass handed to in a defensive situation" but then I realised that we might be onto a reason to switch between gateway and warpgate modes. Faster reinforcements or more durable ones? I've always wondered if people would do warp ins if warp ins had a build time instead of a cool down. 30 seconds to warp in a stalker lol
I will admit, seeing a 20 zealot warp-in in the main get shut down by 6 roaches would be pretty funny. Or seeing someone morph an overseer over a warping DT.
|
On October 23 2013 00:44 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 22:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 22 2013 17:07 Sabu113 wrote:On October 18 2013 16:32 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2013 16:03 Big J wrote:On October 18 2013 10:28 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 21:18 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:45 Twiggs wrote:On October 16 2013 20:19 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 20:03 zimms wrote:
[quote]
The inefficiency of the Protoss units by themselves is a NECESSITY due to Warp Gates.
Wich came first, the chicken or the egg? I think in this case Blizzard first wanted to add those cool Warp Gates and later had to weaken the Protoss units. The chicken. And in this case, the inefficiency of the gateway units. Zealots and Stalkers have essentially the same stats as Zealots and Dragoons in BW. They are kind of a 1to1 port. I htink Warpgate is actually a great idea for Protoss, because Protoss units are so immobile by design and warpgate is actually a good way to give protoss some harass tool, without completely having to replace Zealot/Dragoon/Templar/Archon with faster/more fragile units. Though the ones that Protoss has are still too beefy/low dps imo, which causes this whole deathball turtle in many games. Can we stop calling warped in units harass tools? Its a gimmick because its a coin flip, 1 to 1 relationship of attack did crucial damage and paid for the warp in or attack got smashed and resources are wasted. Then don't use them blindly. You are literally taking your production buildings and putting them into the enemy's territory, with really no way of retrieving those units once the attack commences. And you can't retrieve a zealot or dragoon either once it's in the enemy territory. That's not warp gates fault, but warp gate at least allows to deliever them against more mobile enemy compositions. Harassment revolves around highly positional and mobile tactics and more importantly it has a better chance of retaining its value and being useful throughout the whole game, especially in the hands of a professional (ex: drops can be retained and retreated and used later on, air units, mobile units etc.) a) Completely arbitrary statement. As can be seen by any form of runby harass which you hardly ever retain. b) Having your pylons in place/using a warp prism revolves around having certain positions/mobility and the opponent being out of position. Warping in "harassment armies" is the same damn thing as walking them over there and attacking except it takes less time to reach the attack position once the player decides to attack. Exactly. And it is also the exact same thing as having more mobile armies that reach the attack position faster because of their speed, even though they have to be built at home. More importantly the warped in units that we typically have to use as protoss are not mirco intensive so these attacks are more strategic decisions rather than micro wars and IMO that makes it completely boring to watch and execute when compared to the latter. Neither are many Zerg or Terran units that are used to harass. PS: if I ever had the choice between instant reinforcements or just all around stronger units I'd take the stronger units any day of the week. Instant reinforcing can mostly be mimicked by strong game sense and predicting where reinforcements will be needed in the future, i.e. pro players shouldn't really need instant reinforcements. Yeah. Everyone would take more power over more mobility. Makes the game pretty easy if the best strategy is to headbutt with a strong army. Look, all I meant was I think warping in units across the map for harassment is a boring way to approach a potentially very exciting, skill based, fun game design. If I can be as straightforward as I can: I would like a unit/composition I can drop out of the warp prism that does great damage vs workers that is accessible early enough that I could use it to set the pace of the game early on. Being aggressive but somewhat safe at the same time. *Cough* Reaver drops kill workers fast and are a core to Protoss mid game armies *Cough* (Before you say "BW is different game", "Nostalgia noob", etc Im using this as an example because Its the god damn best example I got). Purpose to my response on this subject? ---> I would gladly trade warp gate in its entirety for the above mentioned example. Would you? Well, I have no problem with having a reaver in the game (assuming it can be balanced). I doubt you need to remove warpgate for that. or want to. No you don't need to remove Warpgate BUT you do need to buff up Gateway units to a certain extend in order to fill Protoss's mantra of being a bastion of impenetrable force. Zealots and Stalkers at this place in time are way too weak in order to fulfill that status quo. In BW you had those Zealot running around kamikaze the entire battleground fearlessly. Its something that SC2's Zealot certain lack in spirit. The idea is this, gateway units should retain accordingly to its lore in terms of durability. You can keep the WG mechanics HOWEVER when units are warped in, they lose their Shields (the magnitude is argumentative) in order to make it up for the ability. Sort of they themselves utilized psi energy in order to summon themselves. This way players have a CHOICE of being ubiquitous but without endurance or endurance but more time is required to come in. Blizzard in a sense tried to do a 1/2 ass version of both by not really committing fully to one idea but attempt to "balance" it out. Sometime you need to mitigate the powerfulness of one unit by counterbalance with another one. And making a unit that can turn the tide of a battle, THAT is what makes the audience wet their panties. That's fantastic idea. At first I was going to complain that "Hey! That leaves toss up to getting their ass handed to in a defensive situation" but then I realised that we might be onto a reason to switch between gateway and warpgate modes. Faster reinforcements or more durable ones? I've always wondered if people would do warp ins if warp ins had a build time instead of a cool down. 30 seconds to warp in a stalker lol I will admit, seeing a 20 zealot warp-in in the main get shut down by 6 roaches would be pretty funny. Or seeing someone morph an overseer over a warping DT.
I would assume that one would warp away from the base and just do a normal drop/pick up and if you lose troops you run to an empty base and warp in there 
But I guess you could also make zealot "forcefields" to block off ramps lol
|
Blizz can save this game if they:
-reduce unit speeds across the board (and map size in certain cases)
-triple the HP of all units (to encourage skirmishing, retreats, and mitigate problems associated with AOE)
-lower max food count to 100
-add 7-10 new units per race
-add neutral mercenary units
-add unit upgrades/leveling system to increase variety
-make maps feel less flat and more immersive by adding shops, dynamic weather/terrain, breakable tiles (not just rocks), trees and other elevated environmental aspects to add more of a vertical dimension
-a F2P model could be implemented where new units and upgrades are rotated for free, but purchasable/unlockable at any time; at the very least, provide an option to customize the appearance of units with visual upgrades
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 23 2013 01:57 jdsowa wrote:
Blizz can save this game if they:
-reduce unit speeds across the board (and map size in certain cases)
-triple the HP of all units (to encourage skirmishing, retreats, and mitigate problems associated with AOE)
-lower max food count to 100
-add 7-10 new units per race
-add neutral mercenary units
-add unit upgrades/leveling system to increase variety
-make maps feel less flat and more immersive by adding shops, dynamic weather/terrain, breakable tiles (not just rocks), trees and other elevated environmental aspects to add more of a vertical dimension
-a F2P model could be implemented where new units and upgrades are rotated for free, but purchasable/unlockable at any time; at the very least, provide an option to customize the appearance of units with visual upgrades
You forgot one part:
Rename the game into Heroes of the Storm.
Bwhahahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
