| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:29 Chaggi wrote: I'm not sure if it's cause it's new, but that TvP in Starbow looked fucking amazing I'm pretty sure that's just because it's good. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:29 Chaggi wrote: I'm not sure if it's cause it's new, but that TvP in Starbow looked fucking amazing I am willing to be it is because it is new. There is stupid bull shit in that game and we just need to find it. It will be a different flavor of bullshit that SC2, but it will be bullshit. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On January 11 2014 21:10 Ammanas wrote: Just to go back to my previous points about Starbow I made in this thread - TB casted Ryung vs Impact game in Starbow and I think it ilustrates the point pretty well. Moreso, try to watch this game. It is a TvP, and you can just see how amazing it plays out as opposed to SC2. Everything the community has been wanting is present in that game - action all over the map all the time, carriers, mech TvP... And it works! Now I am not saying the pro scene should switch to Starbow or anything but the mod greatly illustrates the point of design faults in SC2, things that all community was concerned with since start of SC2 and shows how to deal with them. No sentries, delayed warp tech, etc. Goliaths present. Numerous things that SC2 designers told us are impossible in SC2 (lurkers, reavers) or 'have no real impact' (the unit movement/not clumping). That TvP clearly demonstrates the economy aspect that I was on and on about in numerous threads and how to 'punish' turtling player by outexpanding him. Seriously, just watch that TvP and tell me it is not better/more exciting to watch than what we currently have. And bear in mind, that it is just a 'random' masters players going against each other. And than just think, what could Flash/Inno/Taeja do against Rain/Dear/sOs after few months of practice... EDIT: Or watch this. When was the last time we had such a game in SC2? And between amateurs! That was an interesting video, thanks. Quite reminiscent of Broodwar is it not? (Even if I did not watch and do not care much for BW.) However, that does not tell me of the value of the mod in terms of daily ladder play or even competitively. As you say, more work is still required. It's quite easy to point to a really good game and say this is typical of the experience (especially when it is TvP which is, by and large, in comparison, the worst or at least the most restrictive match-up in SC2). I have watched a couple of other SB vods and been just bored. That said, good work to the team designing and working on the mod over the last couple of years. Kudos to the persistence in delivering an increasingly better developed game . I'll keep more of an eye on it and maybe even try it out next weekend when I have a long weekend (planning a ladder day next Monday). | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:31 Plansix wrote: I am willing to be it is because it is new. There is stupid bull shit in that game and we just need to find it. It will be a different flavor of bullshit that SC2, but it will be bullshit. Every game has bullshit. You seem terrified by the thought of something just plain being better than SC2. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On January 11 2014 20:12 Danglars wrote: He's looking at statistics for players factoring in their MMRs, which is affected by the other matchups. Any rube knows you rise to the league/ranking that gives you near that 50%, so now let's look at players that play TvZ and TvT at equal skill at one level and TvP at another! He makes a powerful case for slight changes. He is presenting exactly the kind of statistics that make his case. I wouldn't mind breakdowns with game length, but we're not looking at that now. You're hating on statistics but statistics ARE the games. He will get matched with more T's, Z's, R's and P's. If he loses against P's his same skill in all matchups, that shows through. If his case is repeated across the ladder, they generate the exact statistics he quotes. That says nothing about the quality of games or how dumb some victories or losses are. Your complaint is unfounded here. You suppose they have equal skill cause they are in the same league, but if a 80 APM toss have a 50% winrate vs a 200 APM terran you can't call it balance but the stats will say the winrate is normal. And the 200 APM Terran will have 50% winrate vs 200 APM T/Z, so you can say he has pretty the same winrates vs P/T/Z, so he plays vs equal skill opponent (ofc APM is not all but it's an example). And what about the 200 APM toss ? He is in GM league, so you don't see his 80% winrates vs 200 APM terran. You can see this if you look for the GM repartition but if you choose to ignore this... But if you look is win rate he will have 52% vs 300 APM kor T so it's ok... Of course i have no idea what's the reality because this statistics done are not enough to interpret anything. You can't ignore variable such difficulty of playing/reach a level while playing one race when you speak about balance. Moreover, when you use stats you should calculate if the difference is signifiant or not, you can't just pretend it's close to 50% so it's OK. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:26 Squat wrote: I don't doubt that DK plays the game, he might even be good at it. It's the conclusions he's drawing from playing the game that are in question. Honestly, if you start with balance and then look for fun, your game will likely be shit. You have to go at it the other way around. We don't know if that was the design philosophy that Blizzard had when they developed SC2. Certainly SC2 had a lot more arguably imba but fun aspects in the beta phases of both WOL and HOTS. But beta feedback lead to these being pulled or muted. WOL balance approach lead to a lot of potentially good things taken out (as the balance team, I think, were still learning). It's too easy to throw out random statements like, "he should look for fun" which can mean almost anything. Moreover, people have different ideas of fun, believe it or not. For many constantly losing to something imba (really imba or not) is not fun. One reason why people complain all the time.The fact that SC2 is and has been largely balanced is a strength for the game, as it means that usually against an approximately equal opponent, I have an equal chance of winning. If not now, then in 3 months when whatever the dominant strategy flavour of the time gets figured out - or I figure it out myself. The main thing is that there is nothing preventing me from beating a roughly equal opponent other than my thinking and my skills. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:42 aZealot wrote: We don't know if that was the design philosophy that Blizzard had when they developed SC2. Certainly SC2 had a lot more arguably imba but fun aspects in the beta phases of both WOL and HOTS. But beta feedback lead to these being pulled or muted. WOL balance approach lead to a lot of potentially good things taken out (as the balance team, I think, were still learning). It's too easy to throw out random statements like, "he should look for fun" which can mean almost anything. Moreover, people have different ideas of fun, believe it or not. For many constantly losing to something imba (really imba or not) is not fun. One reason why people complain all the time.The fact that SC2 is and has been largely balanced is a strength for the game, as it means that usually against an approximately equal opponent, I have an equal chance of winning. If not now, then in 3 months when whatever the dominant strategy flavour of the time gets figured out - or I figure it out myself. The main thing is that there is nothing preventing me from beating a roughly equal opponent other than my thinking and my skills. It seemed to work fine in BW. Every race had shit that would have seemed stupidly imba on paper, yet somehow the end product turned out to be the greatest RTS ever made. And yet they could never have predicted what an impact the game would have had during development. Funny thing is, had they known, the game would probably never have been as good, since the developers would have been terrified of causing imbalances. I don't care if Starbow is brokenly imba right now, it's FUN. It looks cool, fights are exciting, it actually makes me smile. Balance can be fixed with time, a bad foundation cannot. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:42 aZealot wrote: We don't know if that was the design philosophy that Blizzard had when they developed SC2. Certainly SC2 had a lot more arguably imba but fun aspects in the beta phases of both WOL and HOTS. But beta feedback lead to these being pulled or muted. WOL balance approach lead to a lot of potentially good things taken out (as the balance team, I think, were still learning). It's too easy to throw out random statements like, "he should look for fun" which can mean almost anything. Moreover, people have different ideas of fun, believe it or not. For many constantly losing to something imba (really imba or not) is not fun. One reason why people complain all the time.The fact that SC2 is and has been largely balanced is a strength for the game, as it means that usually against an approximately equal opponent, I have an equal chance of winning. If not now, then in 3 months when whatever the dominant strategy flavour of the time gets figured out - or I figure it out myself. The main thing is that there is nothing preventing me from beating a roughly equal opponent other than my thinking and my skills. We actually know they started with fun based on basically every post blizzcon interview when they debuted HotS when people were complaining about the balance and there response was "we have not even thought about balance yet we are more concerned with making good units for now" | ||
|
tshi
United States2495 Posts
| ||
|
Ammanas
Slovakia2166 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:32 aZealot wrote: That was an interesting video, thanks. Quite reminiscent of Broodwar is it not? (Even if I did not watch and do not care much for BW.) However, that does not tell me of the value of the mod in terms of daily ladder play or even competitively. As you say, more work is still required. It's quite easy to point to a really good game and say this is typical of the experience (especially when it is TvP which is, by and large, in comparison, the worst or at least the most restrictive match-up in SC2). I have watched a couple of other SB vods and been just bored. That said, good work to the team designing and working on the mod over the last couple of years. Kudos to the persistence in delivering an increasingly better developed game . I'll keep more of an eye on it and maybe even try it out next weekend when I have a long weekend (planning a ladder day next Monday). Yeah, I was never saying that Starbow should be replacing SC2 proscene. No. I don't even think BW should come back and replace SC2 in Korea or anywhere else - no. What I think though, and what I was trying to say is that there ARE design flaws in SC2, that have to be solved in order for the game to become better. And I was just using Starbow to illustrate those flaws (and also ways how to fix them). Economy (explained already multiple times - 60 workers on 5 bases should be better than 60 workers on 3 bases which is not the case in SC2), unit movement/clumping (they said it doesn't have any impact but imo it has to have at least some impact). Also some units, mainly sentry - as a protoss player I like it a lot, but I came to realize that it really just forces map designers to design around it, which is not good imo. Protoss warping tech - again, amazing idea and the reason why I chose to play protoss, but it forces protoss units to be too weak as opposed to other races and is easily solvable by creating a drawback to using it. Those are imo the main things. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:57 Squat wrote: It seemed to work fine in BW. Every race had shit that would have seemed stupidly imba on paper, yet somehow the end product turned out to be the greatest RTS ever made. And yet they could never have predicted what an impact the game would have had during development. Funny thing is, had they known, the game would probably never have been as good, since the developers would have been terrified of causing imbalances. I don't care if Starbow is brokenly imba right now, it's FUN. It looks cool, fights are exciting, it actually makes me smile. Balance can be fixed with time, a bad foundation cannot. Did it? Was that just because of the game or the environment where players, while I am sure they complained, also had to get on with it because Blizzard were not going to wield the nerf hammer or the wave the buff wand at the drop of a few tears? Was it also because of the general lack of competition from other games and the lack of a comparable E-Sport environment? Moreover, look at these balance numbers between 2007 - 2011 (as I understand it the game really only settled into a solid framework for strategy development after about 2004/2005): http://i.imgur.com/gmXwO.png ZvT and PvZ were virtually unwinnable for a period of years. That is not fun, at all. Would that be put up with were that the case today? I very much doubt it. I know I would not want to play a game where the odds were so strongly against me for so very long even if not, perhaps, fundamentally imbalanced at the core because eventually strategies and maps solved the problem. In BW the mechanical difficulty and the match-ups appeared to make a significant proportion of the player base just watch the game and play customs. SC2 does not have this feature (for better or for worse) but it also means that more players are actually exposed to the difficulty and frustration of the game which also leads to a lot more complaining. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23772 Posts
On January 12 2014 04:02 Adreme wrote: We actually know they started with fun based on basically every post blizzcon interview when they debuted HotS when people were complaining about the balance and there response was "we have not even thought about balance yet we are more concerned with making good units for now" They don't pay attention, beyond a 'yeah we saw that video' dismissal to a shitload of good, easily implementable ideas though. It's infuriating. Then they keep the Carrier, without fully fixing it as if to throw a bone to the fanbase. Keep it or get rid, but making it functional and a good unit was the crux of Nony's famous video, not just 'SAVE THE CARRIER' for no apparent reason. I have yet to see a sensible explanation for the recent Oracle speed buff either, it made no sense at the time to anybody who was even vaguely familiar with proxy oracles in PvT and it makes even less sense after we've seen it in action. This isn't to say that us TLers know better than Blizzard how to design games, but think of certain suggestions as like strategic experimentation in Starcraft. Often it's the mediocre players who explore possibilities, the Koreans may refine them but the basic ideas have been looked at. Players like Destiny popularising infestor useage and the potential of the unit weren't just dismissed as bad ideas because they weren't being explored by the very finest exponents of the game. Again, it comes off as bitching a lot I do realise that, people have different ideas on what they want. I'd rather have a Protoss race that is harder to play, more mechanical, and more 'fun', even if it made my ladder PvT bad, or whatever. Some people want 50-50 parity in all the matchups, which is equally their prerogative but I do feel the strive to achieve that has actually damaged the game from a variety/fun aspect. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On January 12 2014 04:22 aZealot wrote: Did it? Was that just because of the game or the environment where players, while I am sure they complained, also had to get on with it because Blizzard were not going to wield the nerf hammer or the wave the buff wand at the drop of a few tears? Was it also because of the general lack of competition from other games and the lack of a comparable E-Sport environment? Moreover, look at these balance numbers between 2007 - 2011 (as I understand it the game really only settled into a solid framework for strategy development after about 2004/2005): http://i.imgur.com/gmXwO.png ZvT and PvZ were virtually unwinnable for a period of years. That is not fun, at all. Would that be put up with were that the case today? I very much doubt it. I know I would not want to play a game where the odds were so strongly against me for so very long even if not, perhaps, fundamentally imbalanced at the core because eventually strategies and maps solved the problem. In BW the mechanical difficulty and the match-ups appeared to make a significant proportion of the player base just watch the game and play customs. SC2 does not have this feature (for better or for worse) but it also means that more players are actually exposed to the difficulty and frustration of the game which also leads to a lot more complaining. And despite those periods of imbalance, brood war become bigger in Korea than SC2 ever could. Hell, brood war is bigger than SC2 is today. Yes, a lot of people played mainly customs, as I already said. They did it because it was fun. Who cares if people play ranked ladder or BGH, as long as they are playing and get a feeling of enjoyment out of it. The lack of competition argument is valid, but is applies just as much to SC2, there is no other RTS than is even remotely likely to be an esport right now, unless you count zombie-wc3. Having a game that many people like to watch even if they don't play is a strength, not a weakness. How many percent of world cup soccer viewers do you think play football regularly? If Starbow becomes a huge thing and more or less cannibalizes SC2 in the process, wouldn't that be a good thing? If we are going to be realistic, SC2 is never going to really change. If anything was to be done, it had to come from the community, or so we were told for years. And now it has. Surely this should be a cause to rejoice, something to promote and support as much as we possibly can. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23772 Posts
| ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
| ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On January 12 2014 04:09 Ammanas wrote: Yeah, I was never saying that Starbow should be replacing SC2 proscene. No. I don't even think BW should come back and replace SC2 in Korea or anywhere else - no. What I think though, and what I was trying to say is that there ARE design flaws in SC2, that have to be solved in order for the game to become better. And I was just using Starbow to illustrate those flaws (and also ways how to fix them). Economy (explained already multiple times - 60 workers on 5 bases should be better than 60 workers on 3 bases which is not the case in SC2), unit movement/clumping (they said it doesn't have any impact but imo it has to have at least some impact). Also some units, mainly sentry - as a protoss player I like it a lot, but I came to realize that it really just forces map designers to design around it, which is not good imo. Protoss warping tech - again, amazing idea and the reason why I chose to play protoss, but it forces protoss units to be too weak as opposed to other races and is easily solvable by creating a drawback to using it. Those are imo the main things. Ah, I see. That is good work. And yeah, I don't want to see BW back, either. I like SC2 more. That said, even if SB does get better and see tournament play, I do not think that would be such a bad thing. If people choose to play and watch SB because they enjoy it that is very much up to them. Even if SB becomes just a popular custom mod that would be cool too. You would get all the kudos of everyone enjoying your game (because they voluntarily choose to play it on its own terms) without the drawbacks of the constant criticism that Blizzard gets.  I agree with you regarding some of those design issues (these days, I hesitate to call them flaws). I don't want to go into it here, but one thing I would personally like to see in LOTV is more moments of asymmetrical balance where a player/race has an advantage due, for example, to a significant upgrade or a significant unit. SC2 had more of these in WOL, I think, before nerfs removed or neutered them. DK mentioned at the BlizzCon conference that they were looking to incorporate more of these "moments". Personally, I hope that holds true for LOTV because it would lead to more of those back and forth and ebb and flow of advantage and disadvantage gameplay that I (and, I think, most people) like - even if the economy may limit the total number of these moments. That's just a personal thought that occurred to me when reading your last paragraph. Good luck to you and your contributors. I'll look to enjoy a game or three of SB next weekend.  | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On January 12 2014 04:46 Squat wrote: OH holy sheit yes, the release of Bnet 2.0 in that state is inexcusable, absolutely no other word will do justice to the sheer level of incompetence and baffling quantity of cluelessness that must have been funneled into that decision. It's like releasing a car with no steering wheel and then saying "yeah we'll patch it in later". They copied the xbox stuff, sort of. They forgot that we, the PC master race, have actual standards and stuff. The mistake with Bnet is one of the few heavily criticised aspects of SC2 they have admitted to. | ||
|
SC2Labs
Ireland6 Posts
I do play a lot versus Protoss and tried a lot ranging from Mech to Sky to simple Bio Timings and I do agree that lots of times it does appear the Protoss player has an advantage. But even this really depends on the map, the mindset and the actual use. I heard very often complains about the Oracle but if you do not scout and found your mineral line destroyed than you simply did not scout well enough. There are a few All-Ins that are difficult to hold but think of the tools we Terran Player have (e.g. Cloak Banshee, Stim, Ghost). All in All I think the situation is not as bad as everyone is saying and there always needs to be the constant reminder that there simply can't be a perfect balance for the game. If you do look at the numbers we are actually doing not bad at all! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 12 2014 03:33 Squat wrote: Every game has bullshit. You seem terrified by the thought of something just plain being better than SC2. Not at all. If someone likes something more that SC2, that's fine. Its all personal opinion. The people who run around claiming it is "objectively better than SC2" just amuse me. On January 12 2014 05:05 Sapphire.lux wrote: They copied the xbox stuff, sort of. They forgot that we, the PC master race, have actual standards and stuff. The mistake with Bnet is one of the few heavily criticised aspects of SC2 they have admitted to. Bnet 2.0 should just be called 2009-2010's ideas on how multiplayer works. Fresh off the success of CoD 4 and MW2, the all video game industry was talking about how the standard concepts of multiplayer was dead. No more servers, no more chat rooms. Just auto match making and parties. Fast forward to 2011-2012 and everyone is like "You fuckers, we liked chat rooms in all their flawed bullshit" and computers games take off again on Steam. Everyone realizes that Xbox live is not the be all end all and we start getting chat rooms back. Really Bnet 2.0 is just a causality of Xbox Live's success. | ||
|
Rad
United States935 Posts
On January 11 2014 21:10 Ammanas wrote: Just to go back to my previous points about Starbow I made in this thread - TB casted Ryung vs Impact game in Starbow and I think it ilustrates the point pretty well. Moreso, try to watch this game. It is a TvP, and you can just see how amazing it plays out as opposed to SC2. Everything the community has been wanting is present in that game - action all over the map all the time, carriers, mech TvP... And it works! Now I am not saying the pro scene should switch to Starbow or anything but the mod greatly illustrates the point of design faults in SC2, things that all community was concerned with since start of SC2 and shows how to deal with them. No sentries, delayed warp tech, etc. Goliaths present. Numerous things that SC2 designers told us are impossible in SC2 (lurkers, reavers) or 'have no real impact' (the unit movement/not clumping). That TvP clearly demonstrates the economy aspect that I was on and on about in numerous threads and how to 'punish' turtling player by outexpanding him. Seriously, just watch that TvP and tell me it is not better/more exciting to watch than what we currently have. And bear in mind, that it is just a 'random' masters players going against each other. And than just think, what could Flash/Inno/Taeja do against Rain/Dear/sOs after few months of practice... EDIT: Or watch this. When was the last time we had such a game in SC2? And between amateurs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rzxiEuRx24 Thanks for posting this. I watched the games and they were amazing. Definitely want to see something more come out of that mod. Maybe if it gets some more recognizable community support (like TB casting ryung and impact, thanks TB!) and raises in popularity, blizz might have some motivation to make some more significant changes to the core design of sc2. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g14515 shahzam992 JimRising  684WinterStarcraft443 Maynarde154 ViBE104 Trikslyr65 JuggernautJason27 |
|
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
