|
On October 31 2013 18:05 DinoToss wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That just doesn't make sense to me. I learned about the effects of backswing and frontswing from dota years ago, and while it's possible I have some sort of insight that most have (I don't think so) at the very least the developers should know about them.
|
On October 31 2013 18:05 DinoToss wrote:Show nested quote +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!
|
|
|
On October 31 2013 18:19 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On October 31 2013 08:54 Orome wrote:
Very, very awesome. When I started playing Sc2 I realised quickly that units felt a lot more sluggish and harder to micro, but I never really understood why until after watching this video.
Also the depth to which you've analysed all this stuff in the editor is amazing.
This is mostly about air units though. I was a bit sleepy watching the video, is any of it relevant for the stalker, hydra or roach for instance? :o
|
I have been wondering why there's no micro highlights like there are in League or BW. No wonder...
|
On October 31 2013 18:19 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +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!
Only the graphic guys were part of the BW team. The masterminds behind BW are not part of Blizzard anymore or dont work on SC2.
|
Wow LaLuSH would be so much better than David Kim. Maybe he could bring the glory of BW to SC2 ! Shame on Blizzard coz they do not know what they are doing.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
|
This is freaking amazing. Blizzard, make it so!
|
Two very different things are being mixed here, maybe a little unfortunately.
1. The problem of inconsistency: in my opinion, any inconsitency and unpredictability in the behaviour of the engine should be immediately patched. This seems agreeable at first, but is it really the common opinion of TL? Because while people in this thread are generally supporting the fix to the obvious bugs (i.e. Oracle stopping), many of these are the same people who are known to continually praise things like Reaver unpredictability - which is, in my opinion, also a bug: if it were present in SC2, I would strongly argue for an immediate patch!
2. The question of "adding micro" to SC2. That's something I am not really in favour of. If you "make units more microable" you change the balance. Certain units become stronger, when used correctly and others weaker. But the game to be competitive, needs to be balanced for the highest level - it needs to be balanced around the correct use of the units, around how strong the units are when microed. That can quickly lead to a huge imbalance and decreased playability at the low levels, destroying the casual playerbase - and that's how you easily write off a game, because you lose the crowd and goodbye, esports. You really don't have to go very far for an example of a game that has seen the same end, do you?
|
On October 31 2013 08:47 Plansix wrote:
Another thread where we compare BW to SC2. Its an interesting topic, but but will these ever end?
community needs more ppl like the OP and contributors and less like these.
On October 31 2013 08:45 TaShadan wrote:
I appreciate your effort but Blizzard showed several time that they give a shit. Overkill prevention is the greatest crap they ever implemented.
nothing wrong in trying. Nony did it before :p
|
Amazing and depressing at the same time to see how much more depth a 15 year old game had. This stuff is most likely going to go waaaaay above the designers heads just like most suggestions have. We don't even have decent high ground advantage ffs.
On the plus side, Browder appears to not be the lead game designer any more, so maybe there is a chance that the next expansion will bring a bit more then just a couple of new shiny units.
|
On October 31 2013 19:04 opisska wrote:
Two very different things are being mixed here, maybe a little unfortunately.
1. The problem of inconsistency: in my opinion, any inconsitency and unpredictability in the behaviour of the engine should be immediately patched. This seems agreeable at first, but is it really the common opinion of TL? Because while people in this thread are generally supporting the fix to the obvious bugs (i.e. Oracle stopping), many of these are the same people who are known to continually praise things like Reaver unpredictability - which is, in my opinion, also a bug: if it were present in SC2, I would strongly argue for an immediate patch!
2. The question of "adding micro" to SC2. That's something I am not really in favour of. If you "make units more microable" you change the balance. Certain units become stronger, when used correctly and others weaker. But the game to be competitive, needs to be balanced for the highest level - it needs to be balanced around the correct use of the units, around how strong the units are when microed. That can quickly lead to a huge imbalance and decreased playability at the low levels, destroying the casual playerbase - and that's how you easily write off a game, because you lose the crowd and goodbye, esports. You really don't have to go very far for an example of a game that has seen the same end, do you?
Yea I wrote about your second point in the reddit topic that I linked to at the end of the OP.
If you want to break the rules of consistency/reliability, then you have to have a justification for it. Does the random nature of some ability/attack add to the entertainment value despite being unreliable? Then I have no qualms about seeing such a unit implemented.
What bothers me, instead, is that units with your standard run-of-the-mill attacks are designed in an inconsistent and unreliable manner (when there is no reason to!).
|
I feel like the only reason Blizzard balanced the game around these mechanics is that it looks better graphically, because i feel like that is the only good thing about how sc2 is at the time. I feel like most of these changed would not go through because it would have to heavy impact on the fundamental game balance. Great work Lalush i hope this video can help sc2 to improve.
|
nice. u made sc2 look like a trash game.
good work though i really liked how he did the research of why things are the way they are!
|
8 minutes into the video, and I already prefer the modified vikings/banshees to the originals.
|
+1 this for front page news please 
|
Before people give too much credit to old-school Blizzard, I'd guess that a lot of this stuff is like explosive movement boost (rocket jumping) in Quake - sure, it was something they intentionally programmed into the game, but they likely had no idea how important it was from a competitive point of view - after all, early SC testers would have barely been microing at all by pro standards.
|
On October 31 2013 18:27 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
