|
The video made me happy.
It's a reveal of mechanisms that can be used to balance the game. Mechanisms that blizzard's balancing efforts have addressed rarely and never in subtle way (pheonix moving shot / viking flower) or not at all (unit turrets). I would really like to see some in depth discussion of these issues from Blizzard representatives.
The video makes me sad.
There is a lot of snark in there. Ending with 20 minutes of Brood War micro porn? Hey! Hey you there! Blizzard employee? Look at these things which you could be using to balance the game better. BY THE WAY. More than a decade ago your company made a game and it was the best game ever made. Your game sucks in comparison, we all know it, you know it. Tell you what, why don't you just copy them. Problem solved. Err... Why do you have your fingers in your ears?
For the first time I'm following some of Riot's posts about balance between seasons. The level of depth and interaction in the discussions about balance is literally mind blowing when you are coming from SC2. There's a thread on Soraka where I feel like I'm looking inside the head of the design team and, while I may not agree with the result, I am fully cognisant of their reasoning, I have also seen most arguments for / against changes made and responded to. You look at the discussion before HotS and it just isn't the same. The LoL Season 4 stuff reads like co-operation. The HotS stuff reads like battle.
After that I think there needs to be some more effort to bring Blizzard's SC2 design / balance team and the community closer together. This video isn't going to do that.
Still an incredible job though. Really amazing LaLuSh and Decemberscalm you guys should be proud of it. I'd just like to see some dialling back the sarcasm and dreams of Atlantis lost as I think it maximises chances of change.
|
The thread makes me sad.
Period.
|
On October 31 2013 22:47 Xxio wrote:
LaLuSh ♥
I really hope that Blizzard makes the sensible fixes for LoTV. I can't think of a good reason not to.
This is their last chance... of the many people i know most of them didn't buy HoTs , nor did I.
I won't buy Legacy of the Void unless Blizzard attitude changes for the long term Esports Goodness.
User was banned for this post.
|
Poland3772 Posts
On October 31 2013 23:31 BroodWarforever1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:47 Xxio wrote:
LaLuSh ♥
I really hope that Blizzard makes the sensible fixes for LoTV. I can't think of a good reason not to. This is their last chance... of the many people i know most of them didn't buy HoTs , nor did I. I won't buy Legacy of the Void unless Blizzard attitude changes for the long term Esports Goodness.
I'm afraid they can't do that in LotV - the game will be on fundamental level too different.
I recall that it was said, that LotV can introduce no changes to multiplay at all.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On October 31 2013 21:27 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 21:19 DinoToss wrote:On October 31 2013 20:18 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 31 2013 19:47 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:27 Chaggi wrote:On October 31 2013 18:19 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:05 DinoToss wrote:On October 31 2013 17:54 Highspeedfreak wrote:
Very interesting. Good job.
But... I would like to think that the developers had this in mind when developing the game?
Is it really the developers lack of knowledge that is the problem?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a response from Blizzard, even if it is only about latency due to the fact that it is an online game as lamprey1 wrote. They admitted they had no idea that Carrier behaved like that in BW, and based on Nony explanation they implemented it, so its reasonable to assume there is possibility that they lacked insight on those matters. Oh wow, does that mean Blizzard developers had no ideas of the side effects of their code? That supports the "BW was just a bunch of warcraft developers trying to build orcs in space accidently creating a masterpiece" theory. Since I'm at work, I'll watch the video later, but already the points mentioned seem to be really interesting! you have to remember that basically no one on the BW team is on the SC2 team and that while they can find out cool stuff from the code, there are far more players that spend so much more time with the game Good point, didn't know this. This theory is right though. Granted the reason we had not an orcs in space but masterpiece is because of essentially forced reset of project due to some faked preview. Also, Carrier code in BW was so buggy, that devs had to make changes to MAIN behavior code and then to CARRIER behavior part. Also, i am yet to watch the vid (going to do it right now), but i have a serious question to everyone thinking that A. implementing features/bugs of BW in SC2 is good. Are you sure? BW's parts from technical point of view were all terrible, yet it created a masterpiece (it's probably music and story, i bet). B. are you sure that those features like moving shot, stacking and what not were intended? Watched the vid. Now it makes sense for me to hate BW's bugs ala air unit stacking so much. Also, overkill detection is working as intended, hey, it even opens possibility to micro: only use attack move on oracle that needs to do the killing blow :3 On October 31 2013 20:21 Sissors wrote:
Do I think faster clicking should be rewarded more in SC2? Nop. Well, tbh, clicking faster is rewarded in SC2 too, it is just riskier :d Audience will judge if they want to see more BW actions or not. You can definitely make a claim that removing rocket jumps from Quake or quick scoping from CS will have certain positive impact on competetive play. It will certainly put more risk on your actions because the escape mechanic and quick shot mechanic will cease to exist, hence it will be viewed more "strategical" to play without those. But on the other hand you won't be able to strategically abuse those mechanics. In the end you remove another possibility and force people to play "standard" and because this lesser variety the options you have, weigh more. As a CS player who loved to delve into small things, the idea of removing things like proper air accelaration, quick duck (to see behind crates for example) in CS GO can be only viewed as negative to me because there are less things to explore and abuse. Also there are less things to be aware of. My claim is that if a game has a bug, that turned out to be good. It does not mean that this bug should be ported to another game. If my English is that bad that it was not understandable, excuse me. Second point is right but it is subjective. Granted, gameplays of CS and CS:GO IIRC do not differ nearly enough in general, so those 'small' features make it a game. Now that raises a question: is SC2's gameplay that different for removal of abusive mechanics of BW (yes, i am going to call moving shot in it's BW version and especially (!!!) muta stacking abusive mechanic, and that's just a misinformed opinion, so whatever) to be an issue. Answer for yourself.
Wrong, very wrong. I remember the old "give SC2 time arguments." Because I was one the ones making it in 2010. We said give the game time because the cool micro tricks will be discovered. The waiting was predicated on cool micro tricks, the so-called abusive mechanics, materializing. Some tricks were discovered. But for the most part the cool micro tricks never materialized. Turns out the very engine is a limiting factor to get those micro tricks working. Now that we know that, we don't need to make a 'give it time' argument so much as let's get this changed and get cracking.
The argument for simpler macro mechanics and features that stopped players from so-called 'fighting against the game' was so that there would be more time to perform cool tactics and maneuvers. These are the cool maneuvers that we want more time to perform. Rather than being limited then SC2's buggy engine that won't fire when you want it to fire for no other reason then it is status quo.
Things will be need to be rebalanced, but we will get fun micro as incentive.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On October 31 2013 23:45 nimdil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 23:31 BroodWarforever1 wrote:On October 31 2013 22:47 Xxio wrote:
LaLuSh ♥
I really hope that Blizzard makes the sensible fixes for LoTV. I can't think of a good reason not to. This is their last chance... of the many people i know most of them didn't buy HoTs , nor did I. I won't buy Legacy of the Void unless Blizzard attitude changes for the long term Esports Goodness. I'm afraid they can't do that in LotV - the game will be on fundamental level too different. I recall that it was said, that LotV can introduce no changes to multiplay at all.
That's not true at all and was clarified very recently by Blizz over on reddit.
|
On October 31 2013 23:45 nimdil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 23:31 BroodWarforever1 wrote:On October 31 2013 22:47 Xxio wrote:
LaLuSh ♥
I really hope that Blizzard makes the sensible fixes for LoTV. I can't think of a good reason not to. This is their last chance... of the many people i know most of them didn't buy HoTs , nor did I. I won't buy Legacy of the Void unless Blizzard attitude changes for the long term Esports Goodness. I'm afraid they can't do that in LotV - the game will be on fundamental level too different. I recall that it was said, that LotV can introduce no changes to multiplay at all.
By who? There is no way LotV will not have changes to the multiplayer. They could change a number of things if they wanted.
Edi: ok it appears to be an error that was corrected later
|
On October 31 2013 23:49 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 23:45 nimdil wrote:On October 31 2013 23:31 BroodWarforever1 wrote:On October 31 2013 22:47 Xxio wrote:
LaLuSh ♥
I really hope that Blizzard makes the sensible fixes for LoTV. I can't think of a good reason not to. This is their last chance... of the many people i know most of them didn't buy HoTs , nor did I. I won't buy Legacy of the Void unless Blizzard attitude changes for the long term Esports Goodness. I'm afraid they can't do that in LotV - the game will be on fundamental level too different. I recall that it was said, that LotV can introduce no changes to multiplay at all. That's not true at all and was clarified very recently by Blizz over on reddit.
Really ? This is interesting.
|
On October 31 2013 23:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 21:27 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 31 2013 21:19 DinoToss wrote:On October 31 2013 20:18 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 31 2013 19:47 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:27 Chaggi wrote:On October 31 2013 18:19 boxerfred wrote:On October 31 2013 18:05 DinoToss wrote:On October 31 2013 17:54 Highspeedfreak wrote:
Very interesting. Good job.
But... I would like to think that the developers had this in mind when developing the game?
Is it really the developers lack of knowledge that is the problem?
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a response from Blizzard, even if it is only about latency due to the fact that it is an online game as lamprey1 wrote. They admitted they had no idea that Carrier behaved like that in BW, and based on Nony explanation they implemented it, so its reasonable to assume there is possibility that they lacked insight on those matters. Oh wow, does that mean Blizzard developers had no ideas of the side effects of their code? That supports the "BW was just a bunch of warcraft developers trying to build orcs in space accidently creating a masterpiece" theory. Since I'm at work, I'll watch the video later, but already the points mentioned seem to be really interesting! you have to remember that basically no one on the BW team is on the SC2 team and that while they can find out cool stuff from the code, there are far more players that spend so much more time with the game Good point, didn't know this. This theory is right though. Granted the reason we had not an orcs in space but masterpiece is because of essentially forced reset of project due to some faked preview. Also, Carrier code in BW was so buggy, that devs had to make changes to MAIN behavior code and then to CARRIER behavior part. Also, i am yet to watch the vid (going to do it right now), but i have a serious question to everyone thinking that A. implementing features/bugs of BW in SC2 is good. Are you sure? BW's parts from technical point of view were all terrible, yet it created a masterpiece (it's probably music and story, i bet). B. are you sure that those features like moving shot, stacking and what not were intended? Watched the vid. Now it makes sense for me to hate BW's bugs ala air unit stacking so much. Also, overkill detection is working as intended, hey, it even opens possibility to micro: only use attack move on oracle that needs to do the killing blow :3 On October 31 2013 20:21 Sissors wrote:
Do I think faster clicking should be rewarded more in SC2? Nop. Well, tbh, clicking faster is rewarded in SC2 too, it is just riskier :d Audience will judge if they want to see more BW actions or not. You can definitely make a claim that removing rocket jumps from Quake or quick scoping from CS will have certain positive impact on competetive play. It will certainly put more risk on your actions because the escape mechanic and quick shot mechanic will cease to exist, hence it will be viewed more "strategical" to play without those. But on the other hand you won't be able to strategically abuse those mechanics. In the end you remove another possibility and force people to play "standard" and because this lesser variety the options you have, weigh more. As a CS player who loved to delve into small things, the idea of removing things like proper air accelaration, quick duck (to see behind crates for example) in CS GO can be only viewed as negative to me because there are less things to explore and abuse. Also there are less things to be aware of. My claim is that if a game has a bug, that turned out to be good. It does not mean that this bug should be ported to another game. If my English is that bad that it was not understandable, excuse me. Second point is right but it is subjective. Granted, gameplays of CS and CS:GO IIRC do not differ nearly enough in general, so those 'small' features make it a game. Now that raises a question: is SC2's gameplay that different for removal of abusive mechanics of BW (yes, i am going to call moving shot in it's BW version and especially (!!!) muta stacking abusive mechanic, and that's just a misinformed opinion, so whatever) to be an issue. Answer for yourself. Things will be need to be rebalanced, but we will get fun micro as incentive.
This right here seems like the biggest obstacle to the proposed changes. That, as well as latency issues due to the fact that LANs are not possible at the moment. It might be that Blizzard intentionally put the delays the OP is mentioning due to latency issues, but I could be totally wrong, just speculating.
Back to the balance issue, should the changes go through, I wonder how much that would change everything? OP please make a custom map gogogogo 
|
Blizzard is just too afraid to make any fundemental changes. Even if they understand some of points you raise they will be so hesitant to do anything that nothing will change.
|
On October 31 2013 22:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 22:37 NukeD wrote:
Im getting a bit tired of all this BW hate aswell. One way to stop the BW hate is for people to stop using it as a talking point to be negative about SC2. For many members of the community, they do not have the strong attachment to BW, but like SC2. They respect the game, but it is slowin turning into the thing that everyone brings up to hate on the game they like.
As i have said before, as long as the name Starcraft is in the name, the game will never be free from it.
If it was named something else, then it would be a lot easier to talk about each game as independent (like BW and WC3), but as is BW will always be the albatross on the neck of SC2.
|
On October 31 2013 11:51 vaderseven wrote:Man watching these videos made me realize a UI concept I miss from BW. In BW the health bars where below the unit and when a unit and a healthbar occupied the same pixel the unit would stand on top. In SC2 the health bars are above and if a health bar overlaps a unit it goes over. Notice the interceptor in this pic: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1yUTvTB.jpg) and then notice health bars in sc2: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Uzw9g.png)
One is so pretty, the other is so ugly.
+ Show Spoiler +It can go either way really.
|
Thank you Lalush for highlighting these important points.
|
I think this is a really informative video and I agree that it's something worth looking into, but I don't get this attitude that because it was great in Broodwar, it will be great in SC2.
Like for one, many of these changes won't increase the skill needed, they just seem like micro tricks in BW, because you have to do something out of the ordinary, like patrolling.
And for instance, it would make having 30 Mutas so much better than having 12, if they could all move in a precise ball, with no turn rate and no slowing down of speed. I mean that's an actual death ball.
We also have to remember that SC2 is not at all figured out and micro tricks like this is bound to turn up.
I'm all for increasing the skill needed to play, but we don't have to make units do insane things that would probably make the best strategy be massing one type of unit, because then it's easier to micro it in a bundle.
|
I went through all 13 pages of these comments. LaLush to me is like Obama in this and this post is like his health care plan. Most people here are like the American public, there seems to be more support because shit improving SC2 seems like a good idea just like making sure everyone in the U.S. gets health care. Even those arguing on say the Republican side seem to generally agree with the principle changes LaLush proposes. Plansix you however come of in this thread like Ted Cruz of the Republican Party. You seem to suggest that all LaLush is doing is saying BW > SC2 that even comparing BW and SC2 is wrong. Kinda like a far right Tea Party guy calling Obama a socialist, a Kenyan, a Muslim etc. Seriously you have like 30 posts in this thread and its the same talking points over and over again, you would make for a good politician.
|
On November 01 2013 00:17 ejozl wrote:
I think this is a really informative video and I agree that it's something worth looking into, but I don't get this attitude that because it was great in Broodwar, it will be great in SC2.
Like for one, many of these changes won't increase the skill needed, they just seem like micro tricks in BW, because you have to do something out of the ordinary, like patrolling.
And for instance, it would make having 30 Mutas so much better than having 12, if they could all move in a precise ball, with no turn rate and no slowing down of speed. I mean that's an actual death ball.
We also have to remember that SC2 is not at all figured out and micro tricks like this is bound to turn up.
I'm all for increasing the skill needed to play, but we don't have to make units do insane things that would probably make the best strategy be massing one type of unit, because then it's easier to micro it in a bundle. That's why you limit control groups to 12! And remove warpgate! And macro mechanics too, while we're at it. Oh, and MBS.
No but really, we're not saying it should be just like Broodwar. We swear!
|
You forget WHY the mutalisks are in a stack.
Seperation radius is interfering with the microability of the mutas.
Removing it is the only way to garuntee removal of this bug.
I will agree that by stacking them and then micro'ing them instead of first simulating an SC2 esque separation radius does kind of lead itself more towards that direction, but the point is to squash the bug entirely where you CAN have SC2 mutas micro better, separation radius and all.
People also seem to forget that you can indeed stack your mutas in SC2, it just takes a ton of spam clicking, and when micro'ing masses of harassers like this you do this a bit anyways to get more dps when going in for the attack.
The idea that this suggested a required balance change of 12 unit selection is absurd.
|
GJ OP!
I wonder how realistic this kind of fundamental changes are when thinking of the time it takes to rebalance the game. It might be too straining for the pro-community as they have to adjust to constant balance updates again - on top of figuring out the new micro. I'm not saying they wouldn't be capable of it, but it might lead into lots of retirements for players who don't want to start from scratch again. The more extensive the beta balancing is, the easier the transition would be. If changes on this scale are implemented, Blizzard should hire some B- and C-teamers to have really extensive testing on never before seen scale before public release.
Then again, if the end result is much more enjoyable game, who cares about a year of wacky plays. It might even boost viewership if there's more unexcepted stuff going on (versus the quality of play becoming less refined for a moment).
On side note, I really have no idea what I'm talking about... 
|
On November 01 2013 00:19 ChoiSulli wrote:
I went through all 13 pages of these comments. LaLush to me is like Obama in this and this post is like his health care plan. Most people here are like the American public, there seems to be more support because shit improving SC2 seems like a good idea just like making sure everyone in the U.S. gets health care. Even those arguing on say the Republican side seem to generally agree with the principle changes LaLush proposes. Plansix you however come of in this thread like Ted Cruz of the Republican Party. You seem to suggest that all LaLush is doing is saying BW > SC2 that even comparing BW and SC2 is wrong. Kinda like a far right Tea Party guy calling Obama a socialist, a Kenyan, a Muslim etc. Seriously you have like 30 posts in this thread and its the same talking points over and over again, you would make for a good politician.
Wow, you put a lot of thought into that, so thanks? I don't think it really reflects what I said, but you are entitled to your opinion. I was just trying to point out that the 20 minutes of BW porn at the end of the video and the focus on BW seemed a bit misplaced in a thread about bugs and unit behaviors on SC2.
|
On November 01 2013 00:24 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 00:17 ejozl wrote:
I think this is a really informative video and I agree that it's something worth looking into, but I don't get this attitude that because it was great in Broodwar, it will be great in SC2.
Like for one, many of these changes won't increase the skill needed, they just seem like micro tricks in BW, because you have to do something out of the ordinary, like patrolling.
And for instance, it would make having 30 Mutas so much better than having 12, if they could all move in a precise ball, with no turn rate and no slowing down of speed. I mean that's an actual death ball.
We also have to remember that SC2 is not at all figured out and micro tricks like this is bound to turn up.
I'm all for increasing the skill needed to play, but we don't have to make units do insane things that would probably make the best strategy be massing one type of unit, because then it's easier to micro it in a bundle. That's why you limit control groups to 12! And remove warpgate! And macro mechanics too, while we're at it. Oh, and MBS. No but really, we're not saying it should be just like Broodwar. We swear!
To be fair, a lot of stuff that SC2 does is really cool too. I think Warp Gates are really awesome... just what's the point of Gateways? Are they used at all anymore past a proxy 2 gate? I would love if Warp Gates vs Gateways were a decision that Protoss could make on the fly and require some type of thinking, rather than just make that. It's things like that in SC2 that makes me confused, give more downside to things and make people make decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
