|
On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:23 Penev wrote:On May 08 2014 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 08 2014 17:53 Penev wrote:On May 08 2014 08:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 08 2014 05:42 Penev wrote:
[quote]
But what's the logic in not being able to abduct biological units? The Viper's tongue can only attach to metal (or shields)?
Edit: Even worse; What about marines, ghosts, HT's etc? Because its easier to make sensical lore explaining how the blah blah of vipers don't affect biological units as opposed "Broodlords too heavy dude, I can only drag motherships" Most definitely not. It's much easier to just have the BL have a specific counter to Vipers like what Tuczniak humorously proposed, or Shellshocks idea that does work if it is only applied to the BL. Please, correct me if I'm wrong by proposing an easy explanation for Vipers not being able to abduct bio units and remember that all the races have them. Because of transparency. EMP deals damage only to shields makes sense because its a blanket statement. Archons deal +damage to bio makes sense, because its a blanket statement. If archons said +15 to marines, +25 to Ultras, +17 to burrowed zerglings, and +12 to unburrowed zerglings--people would be livid. A viper's attack "secreting chemicals that only attaches to metals" makes more sense than "affects everything but broodlords" Again, you're forgetting the Zerg aren't the only race that have bio units. A Marauder is "made" of metal. Look, I'm not advocating for having single unit exceptions; It's ugly, I agree. I was just responding to a post that said that it would make more sense to have abduct not working against bio lore wise. It obviously is not. It's much more believable to just have 1 unit, the Brood Lord in this case, have a feature, let's say, secretes a fluid, that makes the tongue not be able to attach than "only attach to metal". Why would a creature evolve whit such a feature. You'd think the original creature (before "assimilation") would have used it as a chameleon does. To feed on biological organisms, not metal. But forget the lore. I'm far more appalled at the idea of removing a spell from a match up completely just to solve this problem (and not being able to abduct ghosts and HT's), how can that ever be viewed as a better solution than change one unit? It's clearly the bigger evil. Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore. Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There.  And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better.
Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair.
OR
We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0.
|
It seems like a reasonable change.
However lets think about the situation when a zerg gets to a large amount of swarm hosts surrounded by spores with a cloud of corrupters and vipers and overseers.
The game becomes trench warfare and leads to the games that can last hours. I do not think the changes to bio damage really changes anything to help break the stalemate.
I have been thinking that a subtle change that could make a huge difference would be to make swarmhost visible, ie the opponenet does not need detection to see them when they are burrowed.
In the above scenario an opponent has to win the air battle, kill the overseers, kill the sporecrawlers before their own detection can get anywhere close.
Think about what making them visible at all times could do.
In ZvZ with reasonable timing speedlings could run into the swarmhosts from another direction in between locust waves.
Use banelings to instantly kill a wave of locusts and then just run forward with your ground force, no need to get an overseer in there.
Of course not sustainable but the player can pick their moment to rush forward.
Likewise for ZvP an oracle revelation plus tempest combo becomes more threatening. tempest can pick of swarm hosts while the dance between feedback/storms voidrays versus corrupter/viper/infestor goes on
For ground, storm the locusts, blink/charge forward or have separate groups coming from different angles to get on top of the swarm hosts, no need for an observer.
Less relevant in ZvT due to scans but still helpful.
There would no longer be the need to beat everything just so you can bring in detection to even start work on the swarm hosts and would open up the game and provide more options for the players.
Zerg would have to be more careful with positioning and support for their swarm hosts.
(By the way ultralisks actually can be abducted)
|
On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:23 Penev wrote:On May 08 2014 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 08 2014 17:53 Penev wrote:On May 08 2014 08:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because its easier to make sensical lore explaining how the blah blah of vipers don't affect biological units as opposed "Broodlords too heavy dude, I can only drag motherships" Most definitely not. It's much easier to just have the BL have a specific counter to Vipers like what Tuczniak humorously proposed, or Shellshocks idea that does work if it is only applied to the BL. Please, correct me if I'm wrong by proposing an easy explanation for Vipers not being able to abduct bio units and remember that all the races have them. Because of transparency. EMP deals damage only to shields makes sense because its a blanket statement. Archons deal +damage to bio makes sense, because its a blanket statement. If archons said +15 to marines, +25 to Ultras, +17 to burrowed zerglings, and +12 to unburrowed zerglings--people would be livid. A viper's attack "secreting chemicals that only attaches to metals" makes more sense than "affects everything but broodlords" Again, you're forgetting the Zerg aren't the only race that have bio units. A Marauder is "made" of metal. Look, I'm not advocating for having single unit exceptions; It's ugly, I agree. I was just responding to a post that said that it would make more sense to have abduct not working against bio lore wise. It obviously is not. It's much more believable to just have 1 unit, the Brood Lord in this case, have a feature, let's say, secretes a fluid, that makes the tongue not be able to attach than "only attach to metal". Why would a creature evolve whit such a feature. You'd think the original creature (before "assimilation") would have used it as a chameleon does. To feed on biological organisms, not metal. But forget the lore. I'm far more appalled at the idea of removing a spell from a match up completely just to solve this problem (and not being able to abduct ghosts and HT's), how can that ever be viewed as a better solution than change one unit? It's clearly the bigger evil. Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore. Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0.
Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself.
|
On May 09 2014 00:38 Plansix wrote:
Wow the lore discussion is still going on. I think we should have given up long ago when we saw the mutas flap their wings in space. Lore and logic do not need to apply to my video games is they get in the way of fun.
Just because there is one rotten apple doesn't mean that the entire tree should start growing them.
|
On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:23 Penev wrote:On May 08 2014 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 08 2014 17:53 Penev wrote:
[quote]
Most definitely not. It's much easier to just have the BL have a specific counter to Vipers like what Tuczniak humorously proposed, or Shellshocks idea that does work if it is only applied to the BL. Please, correct me if I'm wrong by proposing an easy explanation for Vipers not being able to abduct bio units and remember that all the races have them. Because of transparency. EMP deals damage only to shields makes sense because its a blanket statement. Archons deal +damage to bio makes sense, because its a blanket statement. If archons said +15 to marines, +25 to Ultras, +17 to burrowed zerglings, and +12 to unburrowed zerglings--people would be livid. A viper's attack "secreting chemicals that only attaches to metals" makes more sense than "affects everything but broodlords" Again, you're forgetting the Zerg aren't the only race that have bio units. A Marauder is "made" of metal. Look, I'm not advocating for having single unit exceptions; It's ugly, I agree. I was just responding to a post that said that it would make more sense to have abduct not working against bio lore wise. It obviously is not. It's much more believable to just have 1 unit, the Brood Lord in this case, have a feature, let's say, secretes a fluid, that makes the tongue not be able to attach than "only attach to metal". Why would a creature evolve whit such a feature. You'd think the original creature (before "assimilation") would have used it as a chameleon does. To feed on biological organisms, not metal. But forget the lore. I'm far more appalled at the idea of removing a spell from a match up completely just to solve this problem (and not being able to abduct ghosts and HT's), how can that ever be viewed as a better solution than change one unit? It's clearly the bigger evil. Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore. Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself.
I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb.
Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit.
|
I'd like to just see hydras get +4 damage to air always, even in other matchups.
They lose to so many things in the air, it's really sad.
|
On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:23 Penev wrote:On May 08 2014 23:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because of transparency.
EMP deals damage only to shields makes sense because its a blanket statement.
Archons deal +damage to bio makes sense, because its a blanket statement.
If archons said +15 to marines, +25 to Ultras, +17 to burrowed zerglings, and +12 to unburrowed zerglings--people would be livid.
A viper's attack "secreting chemicals that only attaches to metals" makes more sense than "affects everything but broodlords" Again, you're forgetting the Zerg aren't the only race that have bio units. A Marauder is "made" of metal. Look, I'm not advocating for having single unit exceptions; It's ugly, I agree. I was just responding to a post that said that it would make more sense to have abduct not working against bio lore wise. It obviously is not. It's much more believable to just have 1 unit, the Brood Lord in this case, have a feature, let's say, secretes a fluid, that makes the tongue not be able to attach than "only attach to metal". Why would a creature evolve whit such a feature. You'd think the original creature (before "assimilation") would have used it as a chameleon does. To feed on biological organisms, not metal. But forget the lore. I'm far more appalled at the idea of removing a spell from a match up completely just to solve this problem (and not being able to abduct ghosts and HT's), how can that ever be viewed as a better solution than change one unit? It's clearly the bigger evil. Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore. Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit.
The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.
|
On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:23 Penev wrote:
[quote]
Again, you're forgetting the Zerg aren't the only race that have bio units. A Marauder is "made" of metal.
Look, I'm not advocating for having single unit exceptions; It's ugly, I agree. I was just responding to a post that said that it would make more sense to have abduct not working against bio lore wise. It obviously is not. It's much more believable to just have 1 unit, the Brood Lord in this case, have a feature, let's say, secretes a fluid, that makes the tongue not be able to attach than "only attach to metal". Why would a creature evolve whit such a feature. You'd think the original creature (before "assimilation") would have used it as a chameleon does. To feed on biological organisms, not metal.
But forget the lore. I'm far more appalled at the idea of removing a spell from a match up completely just to solve this problem (and not being able to abduct ghosts and HT's), how can that ever be viewed as a better solution than change one unit? It's clearly the bigger evil. Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore. Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit. The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.
The correct approach:
![[image loading]](http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/257125i6B387EEECF42AAAF/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1)
User was warned for this post
|
WTF making massive unit immune to abduct is absolutely insane..... really hope Blizzard doesnt implement that....
|
On May 09 2014 02:10 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore.
Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit. The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise. The correct approach:
I don't understand the problem tbh. It isn't like the starcraft lore is something amazing that makes 100% sense either way.
It is a video game which foremost tries to be fun and the ("detailed") lore is build around that.
Obviously it would be the best result possible if everything would fit 100%, but this is just not realistic.
So yeah gameplay >>>>>>>>> lore any day.
|
On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:23 Penev wrote:
[quote]
Again, you're forgetting the Zerg aren't the only race that have bio units. A Marauder is "made" of metal.
Look, I'm not advocating for having single unit exceptions; It's ugly, I agree. I was just responding to a post that said that it would make more sense to have abduct not working against bio lore wise. It obviously is not. It's much more believable to just have 1 unit, the Brood Lord in this case, have a feature, let's say, secretes a fluid, that makes the tongue not be able to attach than "only attach to metal". Why would a creature evolve whit such a feature. You'd think the original creature (before "assimilation") would have used it as a chameleon does. To feed on biological organisms, not metal.
But forget the lore. I'm far more appalled at the idea of removing a spell from a match up completely just to solve this problem (and not being able to abduct ghosts and HT's), how can that ever be viewed as a better solution than change one unit? It's clearly the bigger evil. Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore. Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit. The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise.
The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game.
We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other.
|
On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore.
Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit. The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise. The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game. We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other.
I don't really understand what you are getting at? Units already do different damage to different units, the reason they don't it all across the board is that it would be way too complex, it isn't about the lore.
Genereally i don't see what you wanna say and how this even is part of my problem with "lore should be included in balance". All i am saying is that blizzard shouldn't have to care if it makes sense "lorewise" that the broodlord is the only unit that can't be pulled by the viper. It just isn't important.
I don't say that there can't be different tastes in the presantation and concept of units, i just don't see why you would mention that in the context of lore?
|
On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 00:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Well, I'm just talking about game design from an abstract concept. If there is a way to make Broodlord specific protections I'm all ears, but the "ugliness" does bother me without the lore.
Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit. The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise. The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game. We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other.
Would it be more balanced? Someone actually would have to do all that balance work!
Seeing how little blizzard and the community want changes after a beta, I can't see when this tweaking would be done. Maybe the original values might be a tiny bit closer to balanced, yet, in an alpha and beta you severely lack the information needed to really get values right. It would be more of a design than a balance approach I'd guess.
And I think the problem with SHs is less that they "hold terrain". It is that they stretch games by hardly inflicting damage but are nearly impossible to engage into with all the statics and support around. That's something different than a siege line, that often has angles from which it is quite attackable. And which, when attacking actually takes down an opponent or dies trying.
I think people actually don't like passive tank play either. But appart from battling against SHs, tanks usually don't have that inherent problem. (Though in the time of GomTvT I think quite a few people got quite bored of the one or other Tank v Tank lategame, since BC play and drop play both were quite underdeveloped)
|
Overall, vipers pulling everything besides Brood Lords makes as much sense lore-wise as Hydras doing 12 damage to everything but 16 damage to biological air units. So you have to ask yourself, which is better for the game? And you realize that the former fucks up a lot less shit.
|
On May 09 2014 02:44 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:
[quote]
Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit. The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise. The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game. We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other. I don't really understand what you are getting at? Units already do different damage to different units, the reason they don't it all across the board is that it would be way too complex, it isn't about the lore. Genereally i don't see what you wanna say and how this even is part of my problem with "lore should be included in balance". All i am saying is that blizzard shouldn't have to care if it makes sense "lorewise" that the broodlord is the only unit that can't be pulled by the viper. It just isn't important. I don't say that there can't be different tastes in the presantation and concept of units, i just don't see why you would mention that in the context of lore?
A videogame is the culmination of 2 aspects of enjoyment, fluff and gameplay. The fluff/lore/flavor of the game is as relevant as the gameplay portion of a videogame.
The units we have now deal different damage to armor types, not different damage to different units. In BW, units dealt different damage to unit sizes, not different damage to specific units.
The changes we want are generalist changes that fit those guidelines. For example, the spore buff was meant to be to fix Muta play in ZvZ. It also affects team games since if your protoss ally picks up enemy bio units the spore buff would still be in play. It is a generalist change that happens to only affect 1 matchup. However, in the future, if the made biological flying units for other races, the spore change would affect that as well.
Making a Broodlord only change goes against that philosophy. Making spells only counter 1 other spell (such as the blinding cloud suggestion) goes against that philosophy. Why is it important? Because the point of the game is for things to make sense within the framework of the game that way we and any other newcomer and come in and watch a random SC game and be able to grok the experience and not have to ask "Why don't they just grab the broodlord? They're grabbing everything else?" and the answer being that "high end elitists in videogame forums didn't want to adapt a different game play so Blizzard turned off certain aspects of a unit's abilities against specific units in order to force a game style that wasn't working in the initial metrics of the game."
Not that its impossible to protect broodlords. We can give Frenzy to Broodlords, there's nothing wrong with that since its already part of the lore. We can give the "can't carry massive" clause to the Viper, much like we did with the Phoenix. We can give the "bio only" or "mechanical only" which we've done with both Spawn Broodlings and Lockdown (In BW). There a lot of ways to fix the Broodlord/Viper battle that is within the confines of the game's lore and logic. We don't need to make contradictory things like "can't carry biological massive creatures" since what would be the logic in that? Why would a Broodlord be heavier than a Mothership? Because it makes the flavor of the game seem irrelevant and once that happens a lot of the dynamic game play loses meaning.
Want an example of that?
Snipe was nerfed from 45 damage to 25 (+25 to psionic). Snipe was intended to be used on spellcasters, not combat units. So Blizz decided to make the spell overly specific to only affect spellcasters. By making the spell overly specific instead of generalized, the flavor of snipe made no sense and its use became overly linear. What they disliked was Snipe killing Broodlords and Ultralisks and so instead of a blanket change of "Snipe doesn't affect/deals less damage to massive units--since they're too big to simply be sniped" we get a weird spell that only really hurts psionics. Why? Because Blizzard decided that balance superseded flavor.
Want other examples?
Reaper Speed requiring a Factory. Why does a barrack's jetpack need a factory for? The answer was because they wanted reaper speed timings to be pushed back to a later point in the game (they assumed Factory requirement provided good delay) and suddenly Reapers became useless outside of scouting. The early harass unit that was showcased as a new form of dynamic gameplay simply became a cheap scout. Why? Because they decided balance superseded flavor. They turned a unit that sometimes was used to scout and sometimes used to harass and sometimes used for timings and sometimes used as support and clipped its dynamic nature into a linear forced role.
Flavor matters. Units make more sense when Flavor supports them. The game makes more sense when the flavor supports it.
|
On May 09 2014 03:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:On May 09 2014 00:53 Squat wrote:
[quote]
Broodlords are slippery. There. Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit. The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise. The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game. We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other. Would it be more balanced? Someone actually would have to do all that balance work! Seeing how little blizzard and the community want changes after a beta, I can't see when this tweaking would be done. Maybe the original values might be a tiny bit closer to balanced, yet, in an alpha and beta you severely lack the information needed to really get values right. It would be more of a design than a balance approach I'd guess. And I think the problem with SHs is less that they "hold terrain". It is that they stretch games by hardly inflicting damage but are nearly impossible to engage into with all the statics and support around. That's something different than a siege line, that often has angles from which it is quite attackable. And which, when attacking actually takes down an opponent or dies trying. I think people actually don't like passive tank play either. But appart from battling against SHs, tanks usually don't have that inherent problem. (Though in the time of GomTvT I think quite a few people got quite bored of the one or other Tank v Tank lategame, since BC play and drop play both were quite underdeveloped)
The problem with SH is that most forum posters hate long drawn out attrition games. You're right that forum posters didn't like the tank lines in GomTvT and they don't like the locust lines in HotS. What people want are "long" 25-30 minute games max; which was about how long most WoL games were pre and post GomTvT. People will always complain about the matches being too short/long and that grindy strategies are always bad. What they want are quick less than 30 minute games that uses late game units.
|
On May 09 2014 03:10 Cheren wrote:
Overall, vipers pulling everything besides Brood Lords makes as much sense lore-wise as Hydras doing 12 damage to everything but 16 damage to biological air units. So you have to ask yourself, which is better for the game? And you realize that the former fucks up a lot less shit.
They're both bad for much the same reasons.
An overall Hydralisk buff would be much better at getting what they want wherein you give a nerf to Spore Crawlers (allowing Mutalisk play to come back without breaking Muta base race scenarios in PvZ) and compensating with a general buff to Hydralisks.
It would make more sense to give Hydralisks 14 damage overall and an increased speed movement on creep. That way Muta players can harass far bases but the Hydralisk player can "hold" a tight cluster of bases. All while maintaining the same generalist damage Hydralisks are known for. It would also make it so 3/3 Hydralisks are not as gimped vs 3/3 marines in the late game while allowing them better late game mobility assuming proper creep spread.
And if this buff increases Hydralisk play in all matchups, I don't think people would be upset either. But right now, with the "+bio air" stats, its just awkward.
|
On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 03:09 Big J wrote:On May 09 2014 02:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 02:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:On May 09 2014 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:19 Squat wrote:On May 09 2014 01:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 01:04 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2014 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 00:57 Yrr wrote:[quote] Broodlords taste really bad. There. And hence why its silly to make arbitrary differentiations. Sillier to let some need to satisfy lore get in the way of improving/balancing the game. Lore is dumb, special exceptions are fine if the make the game better. Why don't we strip away all the fancy graphics then, just have the game be circles and squares shooting each other with triangles. So long as the game is balanced none of the fluff matters anyway. In fact, lets switch to a pen and paper RTS game and have judges preside before each move to make sure each move and decision made is decided by tribunal as being balanced and fair. OR We accept that the reason we play VIDEO GAMES is because we enjoy both VIDEOS and GAMES and we don't favor one aspect over the other. We care about the fluff and graphics as much as all the other aspects of the games. Otherwise we should just have 1's and 0's moving on a blank space to reduce graphics requirements to near 0. Oh come, now you're being fatuous. It's not even remotely close to being the same thing, and I strongly suspect you are intelligent enough to understand that for yourself. I was responding to Planxis' comment that LORE IS DUMB. All of that is lore. The graphics, the logic, and all the other silly things like supply depots that burrow. And I am of the opinion that they are not dumb. Are there things that are imperfect? Yes, there are. And it'd be great if over time we fix more of them. But outright sacrificing lore? That's bullshit. The idea that you have to balance the game around the lore if there are other easier fixes is dumb. I don't know how you can even say otherwise. The game would be much more balanced if each unit had a long list of the 30-40 variations of how they deal damage depending on unit they're shooting at and terrain they are on vs terrain the targetted unit is on. It would also be more realistic. But people would hate that. Why? Because at some point the fluff is the reason we're excited about what we see and the balance is to make the fluff fair and even when players play the game. We like seeing tanks stretched across the map holding terrain. We grok that. But when those Tanks are Swarm Hosts doing the exact same thing of holding terrain, we hate it because we don't "grok" it in the same way. Fluff matters in our enjoyment, as much as the game balance. One should never be sacrificed for the other. Would it be more balanced? Someone actually would have to do all that balance work! Seeing how little blizzard and the community want changes after a beta, I can't see when this tweaking would be done. Maybe the original values might be a tiny bit closer to balanced, yet, in an alpha and beta you severely lack the information needed to really get values right. It would be more of a design than a balance approach I'd guess. And I think the problem with SHs is less that they "hold terrain". It is that they stretch games by hardly inflicting damage but are nearly impossible to engage into with all the statics and support around. That's something different than a siege line, that often has angles from which it is quite attackable. And which, when attacking actually takes down an opponent or dies trying. I think people actually don't like passive tank play either. But appart from battling against SHs, tanks usually don't have that inherent problem. (Though in the time of GomTvT I think quite a few people got quite bored of the one or other Tank v Tank lategame, since BC play and drop play both were quite underdeveloped) The problem with SH is that most forum posters hate long drawn out attrition games. You're right that forum posters didn't like the tank lines in GomTvT and they don't like the locust lines in HotS. What people want are "long" 25-30 minute games max; which was about how long most WoL games were pre and post GomTvT. People will always complain about the matches being too short/long and that grindy strategies are always bad. What they want are quick less than 30 minute games that uses late game units.
Personally, I have no problem with games that are long. But yeah, I don't want too short games.
Thing is, there is a difference between watching HasuObs going back and forth killing creep and locusts while Jaedong respwans it, or soO desperatly trying to break Zest, who finally manages to get up a deathball that walks over the ultralisk army and withstands the muta remax.
|
On May 09 2014 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 03:10 Cheren wrote:
Overall, vipers pulling everything besides Brood Lords makes as much sense lore-wise as Hydras doing 12 damage to everything but 16 damage to biological air units. So you have to ask yourself, which is better for the game? And you realize that the former fucks up a lot less shit. They're both bad for much the same reasons. An overall Hydralisk buff would be much better at getting what they want wherein you give a nerf to Spore Crawlers (allowing Mutalisk play to come back without breaking Muta base race scenarios in PvZ) and compensating with a general buff to Hydralisks. It would make more sense to give Hydralisks 14 damage overall and an increased speed movement on creep. That way Muta players can harass far bases but the Hydralisk player can "hold" a tight cluster of bases. All while maintaining the same generalist damage Hydralisks are known for. It would also make it so 3/3 Hydralisks are not as gimped vs 3/3 marines in the late game while allowing them better late game mobility assuming proper creep spread. And if this buff increases Hydralisk play in all matchups, I don't think people would be upset either. But right now, with the "+bio air" stats, its just awkward.
It's not any more awkward than spored with + bio, units with different damage for air and for ground targets, etc. etc.
The + bio air is probably one of the most surgical balance changes to date in that it only affects 1 match up.
|
i'd be happy if they made blinding cloud visible. it's apparently so blinding that you need 20/15 vision to see it, god help you if it's on a green backdrop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
