|
On July 22 2014 18:23 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Marine beeing kited from dragoons was already an issue when we had the marauder. Marauder had the same range as marines and were kited also. When we made the range upgrade +2 for Marauders the problem was solved. Now the Marauder is gone. So the problem of kiting dragoons remains. Shock deals with that quite nicely.
Yeah sure. Because protoss starting with 50energy on the nexus doesnt contribute to more dragoons.
Which doesnt put a burden on the terran, right? Going bio against mass dragoon force in the opening, how can i survive?
Its a survival game for him.
Goons had almost instant attackpoint back then to, nah kalevi you never see the whole picture, you always see small pictures here and there and it makes you think you see the whole picture
|
On July 22 2014 18:23 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Marine beeing kited from dragoons was already an issue when we had the marauder. Marauder had the same range as marines and were kited also. When we made the range upgrade +2 for Marauders the problem was solved. Now the Marauder is gone. So the problem of kiting dragoons remains. Shock deals with that quite nicely.
I don't really agree that the kiting-problem is that signifcaint. I think it was different back then as Chronoboost was stronger, overcharge weaker. Mauruaders took 15 damage from Goons, which made medic healing less significant. Maurauders also took 20 damage from stim. And then Maurauder also suffered from being much worse vs Zealots and couldn't do anything vs Sentinels.
Overall, it just balancewise didn't make sense to have Mauraduer that weak vs kiting.
I think if you try Marine/Medic today, it's not like Dragoon kiting owns it that bad.
Anyway, that's not really my point. If you read my most recent post the issue is still that it doesn't encourage battles as it gives a double-reward here. Why does it do both of the following things;
1) Disable attacks/reduce attack speed
2) Slows
This is basically what i have asked about so many times by now and noone seems to know why. If you want to disencourage kiting and reward straight up battles, then do not create a penalty for attacking with Dragoons, but only a penalty for kiting.
If Ghosts are intended to be good during actual battles and reward micro, then there shouldn't be any slow-penalty but only a disable attack/reduce attack-speed effect.
Regardless of how you look at it, it just doesn't make sense.
|
On July 22 2014 18:29 O.P. wrote:
Marine + medic worked fine in BW at least, against zealot + dragoon. It was only when reavers or high templar came out that P got the upper hand.
I'm wondering, is shock shutting down drop play too hard, or is it in a good place right now?
Hard to say already.
We are playing with the idea that shock does not disable abilities, but that the optical flare (blind) from the medics should do that instead.
|
So shock doesnt need a slow. It doesnt need to be ensnare version 2.
Why cant my idea work out?
75mana
10range
Unsiege siegetanks
Undeploys drops (warpprism, overlord, dropship).
When a warpprism comes with reaver, terran can choose to get the reaver down and fire at it while protoss needs to be careful and load the reaver up asap.
Against mech, terran will need to accurately hit his shocks. Good execution, good flank etc.
While the mech player can siege his tanks as fast as he can, maybe even go back with them and siegethem.
There are play for both here while bio will require some tactical sense and not the spamfest we have now.
Singletarget btw, maybe 50mana is better idk.
Maybe a small radius is better so it can unsiege two siegetanks and if it is a small radius, its possible for the warpprism to dodge the spell to. Pre-dodge it that is.
Fast projectile btw.
-It makes it possible to reduce the cost of the ghost.
-It makes it possible to increase his movementspeed
-It makes it possible to get a speedboost on his cloak.
Now the ghost doesnt hardcounter anything. Its more in line of softcounter. Why should bio be able to slow down dragoons which already suck in direct combat? They slow their movementspeed and their attackspeed.
Bio is already strong even without the nerfed stim +medic healing. Perhaps revert it tho tbh, since the game is designed that way
=Protoss have best tech in the game
=Terran have the best cost effecient units
=Zerg is the race with the most units, swarmstyle.
But now if zealots beat marines, it makes it a little weird since when toss adds his tech ontop of this, then what?
Its a double win for the protoss.
So with the ghost not hardcountering anything, will reavers tear bio apart? No, there are so much stuff to do here without hardcountering anything.
Make Medic the one that can block the reaver shots:
50mana
Singletarget(only friendly targets)
Blocks the next singletarget spell
Since reavers have a mark its possible to reactively use this medic spell and it blocks the primary damage 100%, if it blocks all aoe or not is the question. Perhaps not block the aoe but let it do like 20aoe only.
Now we will see some fun play here between these things and no hardcounter either.
|
With reduced stimpack it makes it alot harder to do dropharass, send smaller squads of units etc.
Against zerg, protoss and terran.
Tho if stimpack gets reverted, and perhaps medic to, some things need to change:
-Firebat->Nerf, reduce his hp from 100 to 60 but keep the armored type. Smaller size btw so he takes one space in the dropship+can walk through that map in the middle(dont know the name)
-Make it so medics doesnt fuck zergling a.i. AKA, blocking the movement pathing and so on.
Now, i dont know the reason 100% here why zerglings have a hard time vs bio especially but franscar mentioned the medic.
If it aint the medic then just fix this problem.
-Remove the medic speedboost.
its not needed when the baneling doesnt do damage and now bio will have a weakness to.
If these things doesnt help zerg versus it, then the baneling exists.
I think i like this armor type=Making baneling a true support unit.
So if he doesnt work consistently, perhaps add a charge ability on him:
He charges at 3 movementspeed but cant turn right or left.
A 1sec casttime before using it.
With firebats still at armored. Maybe, just maybe it could be worth to snipe those firebats with the hydras and then attack with the zerglings. Mutas will atleast snipe them easier.
All in all, terran will need to protect his firebats more careful wihch is probably for the better.
|
On July 22 2014 17:08 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Hider you keep mentioning this countermicro on and on but fact is it doesnt really matter as long as ability itself is balanced and its easy to see how at least half the spells in bw are click and forget, so why its so bad for starbow to have them? You want to name how you countermicro stasis, maelstorm, feedback, mindcontrol, dweb vs turrets, blind, iradiate on targeted unit, lockdown, dark swarm, plague, broodling, ensnare, parasite...... ?
Why did you mtention Dark Swarm. I wrote this in the last page: Show nested quote +Dark Swarm has countermicro (except for Siege Tanks). That's FYI also why I am a big fan of faster unsieging for Siege Tanks (for both Sc2 and Starbow). I think siege-duration is important as it creates immobility, but there could be so many more improved unit interactions with 50% faster unsiege. Imagine, how much more "lame" the Lurker would be if it had a 3-4 second unburrow duration. IMO part of what makes the Lurker fun to use is it's unburrow/borruw duration is as fast as it possibly can without creating imbalances.
Given that there have been discussions of buffing Siege Tanks anyway, I just feel that one should look at ways to make it more microrewarding at the same time. There are two ways Irradiate creates countermicro: - SV's moves closer to the zerg units, which makes it possble for the zerg to try to pick them of with Scourges (so there is an interesting interaction here). - Zerg can split his units vs Irradiate. Stasis also has countermicro in the way it impacts how the reinforcements (both races) are controlled. To the rest of your examples, yeh, they are boring abilities. In some ways, BW had an easier time getting away with boring/bad abilities due to no smartcast which made consisten usage of them more difficult. Abilities with smartcast on the other hand needs to have a much higher focus on counterbased micro. Balance is the only thing that matters for abilities? I don't think you get alot of support from zerg players if you try and claim that Forcefields are fine. Most zergs hate to play vs it, exactly because it prevents any type of countermicro + comes from a core unit (note that if forcefields came from a rarely seen Tier 3 unit, the ability would still be poorly designed, but it would be much less criticised as it wouldn't be something we saw all day, and thus the design flaws wouldn't be obvious.) That's obviously taking your argumentation to the extreme, but I just wanted to point out that design matters much more than balance here. Balance is easily fixable by tweaking stats, getting design right is more challenging. But ofc noncounterbased abilities doesn't neccsasrily prevent micro from the enemy player. Sbow-Matrix doesn't do that, which IMO rather make it boring than "bad for gameplay". Shock, on the other hand does prevent micro as it in some situations isn't possible to pull back some injured units as they would not be able to escape due to the slow-effect. Show nested quote +I dont understand you hider :/ you say darkswarm has countermicro, but all you do vs it is runaway because your army will get destroyed under it. for ex. marines vs zerglings. shhock is basically the same, except now you can make the decision to fight if you think you can. If the intention behind Shock-micro is to make it possible for enemy to run away, why does it slow down the enemy units? All that accomplishes is to make runaway micro less practical. Bascially your putting a penalty on players that try and micro here. For what cause? That's why I made this suggestion previously: Show nested quote +- No slow effect
- Projectile speed around 50% slower
- Casting range = 10(maybe 11)
- Shock radius around 25-40% larger
- Prevents attacks/abilities of all units for X seconds.
This way, it works vs HT's and Reavers and all battle units (so terran has an easier time surviving with bio vs templars without SV's). But it is better vs the slower units as they have a more difficult time escaping from the projectile speed (without warp prism at least) while more mobile units can more actively avoid it.
When a unit get hits, it can escape from the battle due to the no-slow effect.
Perhaps terran bio can still have a slow-effect in some way, but I think that should be put into a different situation (Not shock). I don't think it makes sense to mix slow-effect with the lack of ability to attack. Slow-effects should have the purpose of deincentivizing kiting and rewarding actual battles.
Balance aside, this ability should have two types of countermicro; 1) Splitting vs the Shock projectile as it is much slower. This is also more rewarded as AOE is much larger which means the penalty for not splitting is higher. 2) Running away with Shocked units which is more practical due to no sloweffect.
Your opinion of some spells changes with the wind. After months of arguing that irradiate is bad designwise as it does not allow any countermicro you now argue it does have countermicro? LOL
If the game is so bad designwise as you claim it to be, why are you still here after so many months?
Hider is never wrong in discussions, he just keeps arguing until everyone leaves the discussion.
PS: Please don't start arguing.
|
Your opinion of some spells changes with the wind. After months of arguing that irradiate is bad designwise as it does not allow any countermicro you now argue it does have countermicro? LOL
First of all, I always said Irradiate had split-based micro. When your going to criticise other people, please try and represent their arguments in a decent way.
Further, I think you can find some old posts/skype logs where I admitted I previously overlooked the importance of the Scourge vs SV interaction when Irradiate attacks Lurkers. Somewhere (can't remember to who) I actually wrote that it was that nerfing Irradiate was the biggest mistake I made (second biggest mistake was being too late too realize the whole Hydra bust PvZ problem).
The mistake I did back then was to only focussed on SV's vs Lurker which indeed is a dumb interaction in it self. That said, the interaction never directly destroyed any forms of micro, rather my beef on it was that it replaced other types of micro's and/or made dropships, banshee's and vikings less worth getting in the mid/late game. I disliked that as I rather wanted to watch those units.
So let me be clear: Irradiate, Stasis nor Dark Swarm are not perfect in every single way. Abilities rarely are, but there is no doubt that there exists some forms of countermicro here.
Since you try to make it out as I am not using a dobble-standard and just changed my mind now on Irradiate in order to fit my criticism on Shock. Let me at least show you a quote where I proove that I have had this opinion on Irradiate for at least 2½ month:
Irradiate leads to splitting, and an interaction is created when SV's goes into to Irradiate Lurkers which means Scourges can pick them off.
Source: http://starbowmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=506&page=3
From my experience, you also changed your mind on Blink Stalkers where you at one point in time previously said that it could not be balanced and then later on argued it fitted PvZ. Pretty sure I never put that against you, as it seemed obvious to me you changed your mind, which there IMO is nothing with. In fact, I've done it multiple times over the year(s) - you could surely find more examples, but I think learning where you were wrong previously in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future is quite important.
At last, why are you making this out as such a big insult of Starbow? I only focussed on Shock here.
Overall, I find your post somewhat ironic. You don't want to start any discussions, ok, why make this posts only intended to start a flame-war. If you wanted to ignore my comments, wouldn't it be better to not post at all?
If you want to focus on the ball instead of the man, then let me ask you: What remicro does Shock accomplish? Why does it both slow down and prevent attacks?
If the game is so bad designwise as you claim it to be, why are you still here after so many months?
Well, I don't play the game anymore, and thus don't wanna comment any more when it's just a matter of opinion or on balance-matters. You ask why I am here after all these months, but haven't you noticed that I am barely posting anymore?
Whether you realize it or not, I chose to not to go into debates which can arise from differences in opinions. E.g. unlike Dirty, I don't discussed Matrix at all as it too a large extent is a matter of opinion (even though I agree with Dirty).
I wouldn't have started any debates myself, but when Dirty started the dicussion on shock, and he was "outnumbered", I kinda felt the need to support him (since I agreed with him). Shock from my perspectiev was a different issue than just Matrix or any other debate as it simply is fundamentally flawed (regardless of opinion).
So I tried to support him by pointing out explain the effect/consequences of it and came up with a countersuggestion. Xiphias pointed out correctly that "my solution" wouldn't work due to being too good against Siege Tanks. That kinda means that you cannot really balance it around slower projectile and larger AOE, but I don't think it implies that it needs to have both a slow-effect and an effect of combat-efficiency at the same time.
But okay, I was ready to end the discussion here as I felt I brought up my points. Not sure why you thought making that post was needed.
|
I don't see what's the problem with autocasting. Irradiate implies Z micro, Storm implies Z/bio micro, mines and siege tanks P micro, Lurkers bio and zealot micro. Etc etc. If all races have to micro against something that's ok for me.
|
On July 23 2014 00:09 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Your opinion of some spells changes with the wind. After months of arguing that irradiate is bad designwise as it does not allow any countermicro you now argue it does have countermicro? LOL First of all, I always said Irradiate had split-based micro. When your going to criticise other people, please try and represent their arguments in a decent way. Further, I think you can find some old posts/skype logs where I admitted I previously overlooked the importance of the Scourge vs SV interaction when Irradiate attacks Lurkers. Somewhere (can't remember to who) I actually wrote that it was that nerfing Irradiate was the biggest mistake I made (second biggest mistake was being too late too realize the whole Hydra bust PvZ problem). The mistake I did back then was to only focussed on SV's vs Lurker which indeed is a dumb interaction in it self. That said, the interaction never directly destroyed any forms of micro, rather my beef on it was that it replaced other types of micro's and/or made dropships, banshee's and vikings less worth getting in the mid/late game. I disliked that as I rather wanted to watch those units. So let me be clear: Irradiate, Stasis nor Dark Swarm are not perfect in every single way. Abilities rarely are, but there is no doubt that there exists some forms of countermicro here. Since you try to make it out as I am not using a dobble-standard and just changed my mind now on Irradiate in order to fit my criticism on Shock. Let me at least show you a quote where I proove that I have had this opinion on Irradiate for at least 2½ month: Show nested quote +
Irradiate leads to splitting, and an interaction is created when SV's goes into to Irradiate Lurkers which means Scourges can pick them off.
Source: http://starbowmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=506&page=3From my experience, you also changed your mind on Blink Stalkers where you at one point in time previously said that it could not be balanced and then later on argued it fitted PvZ. Pretty sure I never put that against you, as it seemed obvious to me you changed your mind, which there IMO is nothing with. In fact, I've done it multiple times over the year(s) - you could surely find more examples, but I think learning where you were wrong previously in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future is quite important. At last, why are you making this out as such a big insult of Starbow? I only focussed on Shock here. Overall, I find your post somewhat ironic. You don't want to start any discussions, ok, why make this posts only intended to start a flame-war. If you wanted to ignore my comments, wouldn't it be better to not post at all? If you want to focus on the ball instead of the man, then let me ask you: What remicro does Shock accomplish? Why does it both slow down and prevent attacks? Show nested quote +If the game is so bad designwise as you claim it to be, why are you still here after so many months? Well, I don't play the game anymore, and thus don't wanna comment any more when it's just a matter of opinion or on balance-matters. E.g. while I agree with Dirty on Matrix, I accept that other people can have different opinions on this ability and on more general matters (like how bio/mech should be balanced) and thus I am rarely commenting anymore. I wouldn't have started any debates myself, but when Dirty started the dicussion on shock, and he was "outnumbered", I kinda felt the need to support him (since I agreed with him). So I tried to support him by pointing out explain the effect/consequences of it and came up with a countersuggestion. Xiphias pointed out correctly that "my solution" wouldn't work due to being too good against Siege Tanks. That kinda means that you cannot really balance it around slower projectile and larger AOE, but I don't think it implies that it needs to have both a slow-effect and an effect of combat-efficiency at the same time. But okay, I was ready to end the discussion here as I felt I brought up my points. Not sure why you thought making that post was needed.
Big difference is i don't rant on forums 24/7 with 1000 essays with my current view on the game (that in your case changes ALL THE TIME)
|
Big difference is i don't rant on forums 24/7 with 1000 essays with my current view on the game (that in your case changes ALL THE TIME)
I actually disagree here, and I think I made much fewer posts than you think (I guess you can count them). Most likely it only appears as (relatively) many as noone else is commenting at all atm. So when I make 3 posts over 14 days, it appears as "alot". And if that's your problem with me, then your basically implying that becasue noone else is commenting, I should never comment as well.
And well you made a lot of (wrong) accusations in your post, so I tried to make a throughly comment explaining my motivation as well, so I think the lenght of my comment was justified as well. Regarding my other posts in this forum, were they really lenghty? To me they seemed of the same lenght as Foxxans comments. But basically, I tried to put "the right" number of relevant arguments into my posts in order to hope that some other people could see the logic behind it. I was actually making the same point over multiple posts, but I didn't make my self clear to Kalevi, so I had to use more posts than rginally intended. Why is lenght bad? Do you rather want short comments with "ability x is lame" or a longer comment with explanations of the effects? Or you don't want any criticism at all?
But if you don't like me criticing Starbow, at least just say it. Perhaps you could have PM'ed me nicely to tone it down/stop it. But no reason to make up completely wrong statements while insulting me in the proces.
that in your case changes ALL THE TIME)
Hmm? Historically, I def. changed my mind alot of times, but I also had a lot of opinions. So I think it would have been more worrying if I never had changed my mind.
But I am quite certain that over the last 3-4 months I have been quite consistent. If you can find any contradictions in this time period I would like to hear them, so you have something to back up your statements.
|
Guys, thats enough. If you want to discuss balance, go to the discussion thread in starbow's forum. If you want to rant, pick a trash can and just scream until your throat is sore and come back after a while.
This
is
a
place
of
starbowners
and
you
make
me
need
viagra
|
|
|
On July 22 2014 23:27 SolidSMD wrote:
If the game is so bad designwise as you claim it to be, why are you still here after so many months?
I quit playing altogether for 2 years but it didn't stop me from reviewing the community or commenting on aspects of it.
As for the game being bad design-wise, it is. Starbow is trying to make a poorly designed game actually good. And by design, I'm not referring to looks, I'm referring to value of gameplay/the dumbed down concepts/etc...
Just because he quit playing doesn't mean he doesn't care, or his input doesn't matter. If Jaedong quit playing, and he made some comment about the game, would people listen to him? Yes they would. It's same with Hider.
Any player (and I recall Hider being up there with me and others when I played Starbow), that was higher based in rank/skill/concepts/knowledge, whether they still play or not, their input should be taken because they keep up with the game/scene, its a common fact that they do. So there is no reason to dictate why he is around playing and to go away.
|
On July 23 2014 01:49 FT.aCt)Sony wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2014 23:27 SolidSMD wrote:
If the game is so bad designwise as you claim it to be, why are you still here after so many months?
I quit playing altogether for 2 years but it didn't stop me from reviewing the community or commenting on aspects of it. As for the game being bad design-wise, it is. Starbow is trying to make a poorly designed game actually good. And by design, I'm not referring to looks, I'm referring to value of gameplay/the dumbed down concepts/etc... Just because he quit playing doesn't mean he doesn't care, or his input doesn't matter. If Jaedong quit playing, and he made some comment about the game, would people listen to him? Yes they would. It's same with Hider. Any player (and I recall Hider being up there with me and others when I played Starbow), that was higher based in rank/skill/concepts/knowledge, whether they still play or not, their input should be taken because they keep up with the game/scene, its a common fact that they do. So there is no reason to dictate why he is around playing and to go away.
Well to be fair. He had a point. I admit that in some situations I have been offering my own opinions on various subjects where it probably wasn't needed at all. And I am probably better at pointing out the things I don't like than the things I do like - though that's probably becasue I only comment on the things I want to see improved.
However, I think I do this a lot more seldomly than what Solid makes it out to be (it's like 3-4 times a month maybe).
For instance, there almost wasn't a single post in the Starbowmod forum for like 2 weeks untill Dirtybag/Foxxan started a debate on various issues he had with the game. I made a couple of replies to those suggestions and then I guess (it from Solid's perspective) appeared as if I was talking 24/7. But it only appeared that way becasue noone else was commenting.
But yeh, I would have preferred Solid pm'ing me here. Your always going to be more responsive to feedback expressed to your personally in a nice way than when you get insulted in public - especially when the insults are based of wrong statements.
|
On July 22 2014 07:41 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I find it interesting that abilities in starbow are generally designed to allow more counterplay. Rift being an example: it's more modest than recall and you can take more time to shoot the protoss units making the ability more strategic and difficult to use. On the other hand, as a protoss player recall is undoubtedly cooler to use as it's rather effective.
The way this ability is used (and always intended to be) was to make it possible for aggressive units to escape. Not to be able to defend. Since it's always used in this way, then it doesn't really have any countermicro either. I don't agree with Starbow having more any new counterbased abilities/units which didn't exist in BW. Instead, it has a lot of click-and-effect abilities/spam-oriented abilities. Relative to Sc2, the Banshee's new cloak also makes the micro more onesided than in Sc2 you can use detection/scans to counter the Banshee's. That interaction doesn't really exist in TvT starbow. Instead, Starbow moves in for 5 seconds, attacks --> moves back. No real realistic countermicro here. Show nested quote +I wonder if this could be part of the reason for why starbow has never quite caught on with the general public. Everything in the game can be countered and shut down by a superior opponent and it's difficult to exploit abusive aspects of the game as much. For casual players that take the initiative to play just once this could be rather daunting and paradoxically make it feel like you have no agency in the game, and nothing in the game is actually effective. Well, besides that's not being accurate. I think Starbow was very likely to decline regardless of what happened, but the speed at which it declined depended mostly on the game-quality. I watched everything back then, and the only entertaining game I can remember watching was Beastqt vs Dragon. 95%+ of other games were pretty bad during the first 2 months of Starbow. If there had been like a daily influx of VODS with really entertaining games, it would have motivated players to keep playing the game + more people to watch --> more sponsors.
I'm not comparing S'Bow to Brood War and I think by necessity it is a dangerous comparison because the implicit assumption is that Starbow can only fail Brood War, never transcend it. The lack of native engine compounds this as nothing in SB will feel like it exactly fits.
Juxtaposing Starbow with Starcraft 2 is fairer and I think one of the characteristical differences is this dichotomy of flashy vs modest. Starbow subscribes to modesty as a virtue; as a general rule abilities taken from Starcraft 2 have been toned down, have become more difficult to use or opportunities for counterplay have been added. And it's not just abilities, the engine and the core mechanics of the game have been modified to push the game into a similar direction.
My intuition is that Starbow's design is superior to Starcraft 2. I think that if both would have had an equal start, that Starbow would have greater longevity, a more thriving e-sports scene and an overall better reception. However, Starbow specifically becomes a competitor to Starcraft 2 and therefore is not given the chance to reveal its longterm qualities. Players disillusioned with Starcraft 2, or simply interested in Starbow for a variety of reasons, care mostly about good first impressions: does the game immediately resonate, does it make them want to play on?
The first blow to the game is the inexperience of its top players that can't hope to produce games equal to Taeja vs Innovation. The second in my estimation is this lack of flashiness. It sometimes feels to me that rather than trying to produce a game that is amazing, the Starbow creators try to create one that is not bad. All the mechanics and abilities are filtered through game design philosophies that originate from former and experienced Brood War players that care primarily about the game expressing core qualities that can be found in Brood War or RTS games in general, it's more rational and mathematical than concerned with some emotional narrative.
A theory that I have for Starcraft 2 is that I always suspect Blizzard of wanting to cater to certain emotional desires of players: control a giant army of carriers and crush your opponents in an epic fight. If they can give their audience this feeling of being an army commander that does something vaguely epic then no matter the flaws of the game, Blizzard will feel like they've accomplished their main goal.
So personally I think this is bad taste, and I think that Blizzard's approach speaks to a lack of respect for their player base, who apparently can't decide for themselves how they want to find satisfaction within the game. Nevertheless, it's effective and you can find it in their general approach to Starcraft 2. That's why they don't compromise on certain mechanics and abilities even if we think they could have a lot more micro potential with a few tweaks. That's because fully maximized microability is not their main goal, they prioritize suspension of disbelief & creating memorable gameplay experiences (even if they lead to lack of counterplay).
And I think that since Starbow has a different approach it might not resonate with players as much. Apart from higher complexity, bugs, balance issues and such.
+ Show Spoiler +I don't really have any evidence for this, it's just my impression. I know someone else could argue that game X is simply superior / inferior to game Y or point to random other reasons for difference in success.
|
On July 23 2014 01:11 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Big difference is i don't rant on forums 24/7 with 1000 essays with my current view on the game (that in your case changes ALL THE TIME) I actually disagree here, and I think I made much fewer posts than you think (I guess you can count them). Most likely it only appears as (relatively) many as noone else is commenting at all atm. So when I make 3 posts over 14 days, it appears as "alot". And if that's your problem with me, then your basically implying that becasue noone else is commenting, I should never comment as well.
Hah, I don't think I made a post last week or so that you didn't respond to. You even went through my post history on reddit to reply to everything there so I had to conclude you were an obsessive debater. 
|
On July 23 2014 04:30 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 01:11 Hider wrote:Big difference is i don't rant on forums 24/7 with 1000 essays with my current view on the game (that in your case changes ALL THE TIME) I actually disagree here, and I think I made much fewer posts than you think (I guess you can count them). Most likely it only appears as (relatively) many as noone else is commenting at all atm. So when I make 3 posts over 14 days, it appears as "alot". And if that's your problem with me, then your basically implying that becasue noone else is commenting, I should never comment as well. Hah, I don't think I made a post last week or so that you didn't respond to. You even went through my post history on reddit to reply to everything there so I had to conclude you were an obsessive debater.
Nah it was just nice to have an interesting debate on Reddit for once  And I am just looking for all ways to avoid working on my thesis cus I am pretty lazy. ^^
Anyway, I think the reason Starbow was destined to decline was that it is very timing-based (not unlike Sc2). It requires a lot of refinement in order to produce solid games. For the first 2 months, most games were simply build an army, attack and win and with that quality there just wasn't much hope for the hype to continue to stay (that's also why I like to see what artillery is doing because I do feel like there is a big weakness in the "Starcraft-RTS model". But regardless of how the game would look like when it was figured out, it was just going to decline before it ever got "figured" out.
Today, game quaity is without a doubt a lot higher. Patches have made balance more similar to BW and players have refined their play.
But I still see Starbow as a different game catering to players that have different preferences rather than a suprerior or inferior version relative to Sc2. There are advantages and disadvantages with both games.
A theory that I have for Starcraft 2 is that I always suspect Blizzard of wanting to cater to certain emotional desires of players: control a giant army of carriers and crush your opponents in an epic fight. If they can give their audience this feeling of being an army commander that does something vaguely epic then no matter the flaws of the game, Blizzard will feel like they've accomplished their main goal.
I don't think that's the case actually. If you read interviews by David Kim, he definitely seem interested in having smaller skirmishes all over the map. It's more likely that they didn't really understand the factors leading to aggressive/passive/multitaskbased (at least not when WOL was released).
I think someone like Lalush is closer to the truth here as he argues that Blizzard went for a middleapproach. They didn't wanna make the game too difficult too learn, but in that proces they also made the game too easy in many ways.
E.g. smartcast probably shouldn't have been added.
For the Reaver, I think it's also likely that Blizzard looked at this unit as being inferior to the Collosus in two ways;
1) It looked less cool
2) It's too difficult to just use this unit as you need to manouverer it around in a Warp Prism
But Lalush's argument is that you cannot satisfy both groups (casuals and hardcore gamers). Casuals will never really like competitive 1on1 anyway, and should therefore be satifised through the Arcade.
|
On July 23 2014 04:32 Hider wrote:
But Lalush's argument is that you cannot satisfy both groups (casuals and hardcore gamers). Casuals will never really like competitive 1on1 anyway, and should therefore be satifised through the Arcade.
I have a very strong opinion on casuals: This is gonna be a rant so feel free to not read it.
+ Show Spoiler +Casuals do not care. In fact casuals have no idea what is good or bad in a game because they dont know what they are doing. The casual scene doesnt care about carrier microbility or micro in general because I have yet to see decent micro out of a true casual player. They dont care about macro mechanics either. They dont understand the deepness of a professional executed build or the deepness of the game. They just want to build an army and units or play a specific strategy like reaper/banshee/dt/6pool or turtle and go superarmy. Honestly the only sc2 playerbase I know in RL are casuals. They dont even queue for games. They make a 4v4 map vs AI. Turtle half an hour and attack with carriers/BC/broodlords. That just showcases that it is not important how the units are designed like. If SC2 would have been StarBow, the casual scene wouldnt have cared in the slightest and would have still bought the game. All this bs "oh we make compromises to satisfy casuals and pros" is just utterly dumb, because casuals shouldnt be looked at when creating an RTS imo. it would be like making chess 2.0 and making it stupid, less flexible and less pieces to make compromises. Sure the pros will still win most of the time but the game has lost alot of exciting stuff compared to its predecessor.
PS: dont read this unless you are a casual player and dont be offended by it:
+ Show Spoiler +
Also to all the casuals out there: If you dont want to play a game and improve on it, dont play it or play it without complaining about anything because you understand nothing. dont ruin the game with your complains.
|
Kalevi, as far as I understand: only people which high a lot of time and skill are endorsed to an opinion on its balance and gameplay.
That's really poor.
EDIT:
Furthermore, your opinion on balance isn't as valid as dirtybag's just because you aren't as hardcore as he is.
Btw, this would make Byleth being the most valid person on the community.
|
You know what starbow needs? A $$$FASTESTEST$$$ map. Casuals love $$$FASTESTEST$$$
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
