|
by the way I'd love to see videos of SH redesigns.
If anybody fluent with the editor is trying out stuff, I'd love to see it 
|
On May 09 2014 03:41 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: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.
Spore Crawler is +Bio and not +Bio Air, it just so happens that Spore Crawlers only hit air. But if you lift a ground unit that is biological with a phoenix (say you mind control a phoenix and use it to pick up zealots by spore crawlers, the +bio damage still holds true while an overly specific +bio air would not hold true)
|
United States97277 Posts
Imagine how strong hydra spore phoenix 2v2 teams are going to be vs zerg teams
|
On May 09 2014 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 03:41 plogamer wrote:On May 09 2014 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. Spore Crawler is +Bio and not +Bio Air, it just so happens that Spore Crawlers only hit air. But if you lift a ground unit that is biological with a phoenix (say you mind control a phoenix and use it to pick up zealots by spore crawlers, the +bio damage still holds true while an overly specific +bio air would not hold true)
I think if properly implemented (with a different attack animation for example), such attacks make quite sense.
Especially on the hydralisk, since antiair is one of its most distinct differences to the roach.
Edit: not that I believe blizzard will walk that extra mile of creating another animation/projectile (though it wouldn't be too hard). But they did it with the queen, so who knows.
|
On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are.
Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech.
Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs.
|
On May 09 2014 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are. Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech. Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs.
Well, at the end of the day I think "more fun" strategies (once figured out, so also Keen knows how to break someone off of an adavantage e.g. with BCs) will stay interesting even at the lower levels of play. Since you basically "only" need the know-how, assuming both players are equally skilled and the game is balanced. Meanwhile the "more boring" strategies like SH wars in ZvZ may be extremely skillbased (I have yet to see Stephano not outplaying an opponent in that scenario), necessarily not even boring to play(I had like 5 of those games up to now in all of HotS; and I enjoyed them quite a bit, since there is so much "figuring what to do" around it) will rather become worse and worse to watch the lower the level.
|
On May 09 2014 04:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are. Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech. Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs. Well, at the end of the day I think "more fun" strategies (once figured out, so also Keen knows how to break someone off of an adavantage e.g. with BCs) will stay interesting even at the lower levels of play. Since you basically "only" need the know-how, assuming both players are equally skilled and the game is balanced. Meanwhile the "more boring" strategies like SH wars in ZvZ may be extremely skillbased (I have yet to see Stephano not outplaying an opponent in that scenario), necessarily not even boring to play(I had like 5 of those games up to now in all of HotS; and I enjoyed them quite a bit, since there is so much "figuring what to do" around it) will rather become worse and worse to watch the lower the level.
No personal disagreements from me.
I don't really agree with it academically, since I feel that a good game is better only when top level players play and noobs "should" look bad doing it which would then give the audience a *reason* to watch top level play outside of strategy in that it should look good only if top players do it.
But personally, I do agree with you.
|
I really misses the times of TvT WOL...
Tanks vs Tanks....
Now its SH vs SH...
The true hard counter was air...
oh and nukes (See the epic game of Boxer vs Jjaki?)
It seems very boring but for the players is very interesting chess game.
I wonder why nobody is using banelingbombs/zerglings on the SH? Its extremely hard to pull of but game ending move. I always used nukes or Yamato against tanks though its very hard to pull off but game ending move always. Ive tried the zerglings/banelings also against SH several times SUCCESFULLY. Why focus on the "damage-output" if you focus on the unit who causes the damage?
Less effective is the "cutting the supply-line" tactic. Kill the hatcheries and kill overlords (do not kill drones).
Im happy that people are using SH massively, keep using it and I keep winning
|
On May 09 2014 04:55 ILOVEWAR wrote:I really misses the times of TvT WOL... Tanks vs Tanks.... Now its SH vs SH... The true hard counter was air... oh and nukes (See the epic game of Boxer vs Jjaki?) It seems very boring but for the players is very interesting chess game. I wonder why nobody is using banelingbombs/zerglings on the SH? Its extremely hard to pull of but game ending move. I always used nukes or Yamato against tanks though its very hard to pull off but game ending move always. Ive tried the zerglings/banelings also against SH several times SUCCESFULLY. Why focus on the "damage-output" if you focus on the unit who causes the damage? Less effective is the "cutting the supply-line" tactic. Kill the hatcheries and kill overlords (do not kill drones). Im happy that people are using SH massively, keep using it and I keep winning
Its partially the Spore Buff (well, majorly)
Other that Broods all zerg air is short range. Try doing overlord drops into a line of spores and Swarm Hosts and you'll see what I mean.
The Air switch in TvT had Yamato + PDD + Vikings to allow them to fight away from a turret line. But even without that, the air fight was constant in TvT. A Viking advantage means you can push your tanks forward while they couldn't, meaning it was never a "BC switch" but a steady progression into air play. You went Vikings to get the sight advantage. At some point you have so many vikings that PDD is really what makes or breaks the engagement. You then get to the point that BC's are needed to break the air stall and give you a way to keep the push going without a-moving into a line of tanks.
SH does not need sight. It does not need air support. And in ZvZ, a spore line is better anti-air than any other option in the game. Which leads to abduct shenanigans.
|
I'd like to see Spore Crawlers do splash in some teeny radius - think somewhere along the lines of .25 - so that they stomp large muta flocks that try to focus-fire them without proper magic boxing, but they're still unlikely to get much splash in against Brood Lords. It would have the benefit of forcing Phoenix harass to be slightly more carefully controlled, although not to any crazy excess.
|
On May 09 2014 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 04:33 Big J wrote:On May 09 2014 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are. Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech. Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs. Well, at the end of the day I think "more fun" strategies (once figured out, so also Keen knows how to break someone off of an adavantage e.g. with BCs) will stay interesting even at the lower levels of play. Since you basically "only" need the know-how, assuming both players are equally skilled and the game is balanced. Meanwhile the "more boring" strategies like SH wars in ZvZ may be extremely skillbased (I have yet to see Stephano not outplaying an opponent in that scenario), necessarily not even boring to play(I had like 5 of those games up to now in all of HotS; and I enjoyed them quite a bit, since there is so much "figuring what to do" around it) will rather become worse and worse to watch the lower the level. No personal disagreements from me. I don't really agree with it academically, since I feel that a good game is better only when top level players play and noobs "should" look bad doing it which would then give the audience a *reason* to watch top level play outside of strategy in that it should look good only if top players do it. But personally, I do agree with you.
oh yeah, that is of course true. Yet, looking bad =/= making a boring game, imo. Which people often do when the pace of the game is strategically very slow to begin with, so that Captain Careful (=the proper gameplay if you can't handle as much as the best can) makes it underwhelming.
|
It won´t be enough. The games that involve swarm host are getting way too long despite killing the "stalemate" situation when we think about tournaments with bo3, bo5 and bo7.
Swarm host games are not benefitting players, casters or most of the viewers. It is not just healthy in any situation, when a single game in best of 3 lasts more than a soccer game.
|
On May 09 2014 05:28 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 04:33 Big J wrote:On May 09 2014 04:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 03:36 Big J wrote:On May 09 2014 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, so much difference despite how similar the tactics are. Its one of the most annoying thing about variance in skill in a competitive scene. GomTvT was "all the same" strats except watching MVP do mech was not the same as watching Keen do mech. Too often people use bad players as examples for buffs and good players as examples for nerfs. Well, at the end of the day I think "more fun" strategies (once figured out, so also Keen knows how to break someone off of an adavantage e.g. with BCs) will stay interesting even at the lower levels of play. Since you basically "only" need the know-how, assuming both players are equally skilled and the game is balanced. Meanwhile the "more boring" strategies like SH wars in ZvZ may be extremely skillbased (I have yet to see Stephano not outplaying an opponent in that scenario), necessarily not even boring to play(I had like 5 of those games up to now in all of HotS; and I enjoyed them quite a bit, since there is so much "figuring what to do" around it) will rather become worse and worse to watch the lower the level. No personal disagreements from me. I don't really agree with it academically, since I feel that a good game is better only when top level players play and noobs "should" look bad doing it which would then give the audience a *reason* to watch top level play outside of strategy in that it should look good only if top players do it. But personally, I do agree with you. oh yeah, that is of course true. Yet, looking bad =/= making a boring game, imo. Which people often do when the pace of the game is strategically very slow to begin with, so that Captain Careful (=the proper gameplay if you can't handle as much as the best can) makes it underwhelming.
I have the same opinions in the whole striking vs grappling in MMA.
Striking is more fun to watch, but grappling is the bigger skill tester. But I don't MMA to be 15 minutes of two dudes hugging each other. You need a bit of both, but it's a very hard line to tow.
What we want are games that look like they could last forever, but one big play ends it. We want the potential without actually having to grind through hour+ long games.
|
On May 09 2014 05:38 Frex wrote:
It won´t be enough. The games that involve swarm host are getting way too long despite killing the "stalemate" situation when we think about tournaments with bo3, bo5 and bo7.
Swarm host games are not benefitting players, casters or most of the viewers. It is not just healthy in any situation, when a single game in best of 3 lasts more than a soccer game.
We all know that. The problem is that zergs need SH to even compete with mech terran and P mid-lategame...
|
What about setting up locusts on a timer much like larva?
A host can store up to x (3?) locust eggs, and creates a new egg every y (20?) seconds. Locust spawn is a non-auto castable spell that triggers 1 locust per click.
Rewards mobility, timing, micro. Prevents feedback / emp negation. Allows seige breaking OR containment play.
|
On May 09 2014 06:10 B-rye88 wrote:
What about setting up locusts on a timer much like larva?
A host can store up to x (3?) locust eggs, and creates a new egg every y (20?) seconds. Locust spawn is a non-auto castable spell that triggers 1 locust per click.
Rewards mobility, timing, micro. Prevents feedback / emp negation. Allows seige breaking OR containment play.
Well, if you're just going for micro.
You can simply remove autocast and autorally with the logic of the Swarm Host is not a building. Locus need to be made, moved, and microed throughout their entire existence.
This would quickly split the strong from the chaff and end 90% of stalemates outside of the top 5% of Zerg players.
|
On May 09 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 06:10 B-rye88 wrote:
What about setting up locusts on a timer much like larva?
A host can store up to x (3?) locust eggs, and creates a new egg every y (20?) seconds. Locust spawn is a non-auto castable spell that triggers 1 locust per click.
Rewards mobility, timing, micro. Prevents feedback / emp negation. Allows seige breaking OR containment play. Well, if you're just going for micro. You can simply remove autocast and autorally with the logic of the Swarm Host is not a building. Locus need to be made, moved, and microed throughout their entire existence. This would quickly split the strong from the chaff and end 90% of stalemates outside of the top 5% of Zerg players.
Would work. Not JUST going for micro though. Looking to allow the unit to actually break a turtle position (an attack of fully 'charged' hosts + army) instead of forcing the opponent to remain turtled.
|
On May 09 2014 06:27 B-rye88 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2014 06:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2014 06:10 B-rye88 wrote:
What about setting up locusts on a timer much like larva?
A host can store up to x (3?) locust eggs, and creates a new egg every y (20?) seconds. Locust spawn is a non-auto castable spell that triggers 1 locust per click.
Rewards mobility, timing, micro. Prevents feedback / emp negation. Allows seige breaking OR containment play. Well, if you're just going for micro. You can simply remove autocast and autorally with the logic of the Swarm Host is not a building. Locus need to be made, moved, and microed throughout their entire existence. This would quickly split the strong from the chaff and end 90% of stalemates outside of the top 5% of Zerg players. Would work. Not JUST going for micro though. Looking to allow the unit to actually break a turtle position (an attack of fully 'charged' hosts + army) instead of forcing the opponent to remain turtled.
I know what you're asking for. And I agree that it would be a neat idea. Energy could do the same thing (so long as it was low enough energy so you can have "regular" locust production even at near 0 energy). I'm not sure about giving the SH a burst potential would be good for the non-ZvZ matchups without giving P and T a way to not outright die to triple the number of locus they're used to dealing with. But I do like the idea.
The reason for my suggestion is I like the concept of your idea where players need to be more active with SH and I think it would help fix a lot of the problems in ZvZ and even make it so only top level zergs can handle late game ZvX matchups. It would turn the SH into a very high skill ceiling unit.
|
I doubt about the change on hydra. Clearly for now muta cannot directly fight hydra. Muta use high mobility to attack things that are not protected by hydra, or eat small group of hydra. With this buff everything still remain the same.
|
On May 09 2014 06:39 MonkeyKing_slk wrote:
I doubt about the change on hydra. Clearly for now muta cannot directly fight hydra. Muta use high mobility to attack things that are not protected by hydra, or eat small group of hydra. With this buff everything still remain the same.
Do you think an on-creep speed increase would be better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
