EPTLegacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
gh0st
United States98 Posts
On November 20 2014 06:51 TheDwf wrote: The problem with their "we'll add micro!" campaign is that they don't seem to understand what is micro (or rather interesting micro) in Starcraft to begin with. They seem to have a MOBA (or War3-like, but it cannot work when applied to a different genre) conception about it; but microing ≠ casting a spell. It is no coincidence if the race that received the biggest amount of SC2 nonsense, Protoss, has the most spellcasters—and despite that is not the most micro-intensive race! No one yells "great micro!" when a Terran presses 1T. Activating Cloak is the trivial part of Banshee micro. Waaah, the l4z0r of your Void ray is twice its size after you pressed the button; how thrilling. Micro is so much more than clicking buttons that trigger a mere bonus effect. It is about reflexes, mouse accuracy, speed of execution, anticipating adverse movements… Probably the spell that manages to add the most depth based on this is Blink, but Protoss has to pay a heavy tribute for that. Pay special attention to the kind of environement in which Blink micro is the most efficient: low or medium eco situations with only a handful of units. Certainly not the 150-200 supply scenarii which are nonetheless constantly featured since more than 2 years… If you want to see "more micro," how about allowing players to play more low or medium eco situations in which more interactions like this can occur? But instead of that you promote the high eco model that propels players towards the fateful "big engagements" in which the battle is won or lost in the 4 first seconds. Please work on solid fundamentals. An economy that makes sense. Simple units with elegant interactions. Don't bother adding 36 buttons to the Thor or the Colossus, they would still be garbage. Showering the game in MOBA gimmicks to create fake excitement that will die 4 months after LotV is out is not the way to go… This is exactly what I think. Please read and reflect on this, Blizzard. Like the posters above, I don't understand what "visible v. invisible micro" means. But if more "visible" micro = pressing a button to trigger a spell, then no, that is the wrong direction. Let's get back to basics. | ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: There are already some examples in this thread what blizard could mean, but nobody really seems to care, it is easier to hate on blizzard, classic Well, we shouldn't to do a guessing game. They should really be able to explain to us what they mean... but if they don't even know themselves, then it's all pointless isn't it? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:51 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Well, we shouldn't to do a guessing game. They should really be able to explain to us what they mean... but if they don't even know themselves, then it's all pointless isn't it? I am pretty sure they know what they mean. But yeah, maybe a specific example from blizzard would help here. Actually, i don't really think we have to guess, the name "invisible" micro itself is pretty clear. Micro which isn't as easy to see, kinda easy to understand? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:53 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am pretty sure they know what they mean. But yeah, maybe a specific example from blizzard would help here. Actually, i don't really think we have to guess, the name "invisible" micro itself is pretty clear. Micro which isn't as easy to see, kinda easy to understand? Well, your and mishimaBeef's examples were both essentially the same: focus fire. Which depends on the unit, like Vikings focusing a Colossus is really far from invisible. And I'm 100% certain they didn't mean focus fire  mishimaBeef's example in particular wasn't even about SC2 so it's really hard to comment on them removing BW-micro that doesn't exist in SC2 from SC2. ^^ | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
| ||
|
Zanzabarr
Canada217 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:24 -Kyo- wrote: I am not really sure where they are planning on going with the WarpGate research assuming they keep the 8 second warp in and 200%(?) damage on units. If that is the case then it is ultimately better to just manually produce your units by 8 seconds and saves you losing anything in a stupid way. In terms of overall efficiency, assuming you're warping in 4 rounds of stalkers every 30 seconds until 10 minutes you'd end up with nearly nearly a minute of extra unit production manually from between 7-10 minutes. That's a pretty big deal and definitely caters to defenders advantage. ?? Warpgate has always reduced the build time of units by 10 seconds (zealot from 38 to 28, stalker/sentry from 42 to 32, etc). That's why it's always beneficial to get warpgate. It speeds up production. Increasing the warp-in time for units from like 4-5 seconds to 8 doesn't change this. Even if the warp-in time was like 12 seconds, warpgates would still yield faster production by the second warp-in onwards, since the warp-in time doesn't delay the cooldown of the next cycle. | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1612 Posts
 (even from Protoss perspective) | ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On November 20 2014 08:02 Jenia6109 wrote: Come on, Warp Gate nerf is the second best change in LotV after Lurker (even from Protoss perspective) Agreed. It's a terrible mechanic, nerfing it allows them to buff gateway units and make the race less dependent on lategame units and FF. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:55 Big J wrote: Well, your and mishimaBeef's examples were both essentially the same: focus fire. Which depends on the unit, like Vikings focusing a Colossus is really far from invisible. And I'm 100% certain they didn't mean focus fire mishimaBeef's example in particular wasn't even about SC2 so it's really hard to comment on them removing BW-micro that doesn't exist in SC2 from SC2. ^^ Sure it depends on the units. But Moving shot in itself is a pretty obvious example though, the unit moves and it still deals damage, that is pretty much the opposite what you would expect. Just compare the moving shot to something like marine splitting or hitting good storms. If you tell me that there is no difference in visibility, well i don't know man,... | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On November 20 2014 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote: That's all that actually matters from what was said. Blizzard is totally clueless when to balancing. We learn that every time Blizzard releases a RTS game, they ignore the community, then end up giving them what they want months later after realizing it was the right thing to do, but still claim credit. It doesn't matter if you're ideas are proven to be good, 95% of the work is prototyping, testing, confirming and implementing it. You have to base balancing decisions on evidence, not speculation or assumptions — even if they're well-informed. If Blizzard based all their design decisions based on what the consequences might be, the game wouldn't have as much variety or depth as it does today. TLDR; of course Blizzard deserves the credit, dum-dum. They're doing all the real work. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2014 08:04 The_Red_Viper wrote: Sure it depends on the units. Moving shot in itself is a pretty obvious example thoughy, the unit moves and it still deals damage, that is pretty much the opposite what you would expect. Just compare the moving shot to something like marine splitting or hitting good storms. If you tell me that there is no difference in visibility, well i don't know man,... Well, moving shot isn't in the game either, right? So they are not removing it. (also I'm not a big fetishist of it. I think it makes sense that a unit has to stand for a moment when it wants to shoot; I'm rather against artificial limiting these sorts of handspeed micro further with damage point and acceleration/deceleration) I think many people can think of how invisible micro could look like (lol), but it's pretty hard to guess what they mean with it when talking about SC2. | ||
|
ddayzy
259 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:56 LaLuSh wrote: It's hard to care and hard to argue against when what they say is so vague it could mean practically anything. Indeed, which is why its interesting that people are still assuming the worst. I agree that it does not neccessarily means more spells, I clicked this button now my void rays do more damage is not really anything to write home about although I dont think that ability makes the game worse in anyway, but I dont think they are mutualy exclusive either, blink micro is a good example, splitting mutas vs fungals. TvZ is fun to watch and play because of the need to split units on multiple fronts, drop, counter, focus fire banelings and things like that. Spells that requires precision to use and reaction to avoid is a good thing in my opinion but it should not be bloated either. What I'm hoping for is that they just wanted to throw some spell abilities in their to see which will work and which wont. The midgame was allways my favourite part of sc. Being able to hit timings, hide tech and control decent sized attacks on several fronts while expanding furiously was gold in my eyes. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:56 LaLuSh wrote: It's hard to care and hard to argue against when what they say is so vague it could mean practically anything. It couldn't mean practically anything. You are just way too biased to even try to understand what they mean, that is the key difference here (as much as i agree with a lot of your points in general) But AGAIN, people on TL aren't really the focus of these statements i would think. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24193 Posts
| ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24193 Posts
On November 20 2014 06:51 TheDwf wrote: The problem with their "we'll add micro!" campaign is that they don't seem to understand what is micro (or rather interesting micro) in Starcraft to begin with. They seem to have a MOBA (or War3-like, but it cannot work when applied to a different genre) conception about it; but microing ≠ casting a spell. It is no coincidence if the race that received the biggest amount of SC2 nonsense, Protoss, has the most spellcasters—and despite that is not the most micro-intensive race! No one yells "great micro!" when a Terran presses 1T. Activating Cloak is the trivial part of Banshee micro. Waaah, the l4z0r of your Void ray is twice its size after you pressed the button; how thrilling. Micro is so much more than clicking buttons that trigger a mere bonus effect. It is about reflexes, mouse accuracy, speed of execution, anticipating adverse movements… Probably the spell that manages to add the most depth based on this is Blink, but Protoss has to pay a heavy tribute for that. Pay special attention to the kind of environement in which Blink micro is the most efficient: low or medium eco situations with only a handful of units. Certainly not the 150-200 supply scenarii which are nonetheless constantly featured since more than 2 years… If you want to see "more micro," how about allowing players to play more low or medium eco situations in which more interactions like this can occur? But instead of that you promote the high eco model that propels players towards the fateful "big engagements" in which the battle is won or lost in the 4 first seconds. Please work on solid fundamentals. An economy that makes sense. Simple units with elegant interactions. Don't bother adding 36 buttons to the Thor or the Colossus, they would still be garbage. Showering the game in MOBA gimmicks to create fake excitement that will die 4 months after LotV is out is not the way to go… My God, this post is great. Blizzard, please read and think about this. | ||
|
VArsovskiSC
Macedonia563 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:43 Big J wrote: So as a conclusion: 1) Noone really knows what invisible micro is. Especially not what blizzard perceives as such. 2) Noone is really in favor of removing micro from the game. 3) People think there are many other cool improvements that could be made and blizzard is wasting their time removing micro. 4) Noone has any clue why David Kim even made that comment to begin with. About the #2 - YES, but also shouldn't base the game design upon it, cause if that's done - we'll end up again watching (or barely playing) Marines fight and Marines die and Marines kill in all 3 Terran matchups from the start of the game to the last second of it Really sick and tired of having to have Marines and have to split them effectively, or drop with them effectively all game long I think.. About time Blizz thought of adding some Terran utility rather than more guns and more DPS-ing As for the other races - not quite sure TBH, Protoss felt, and still would feel (almost) complete even without a new unit - provided they didn't overnerf their stuff that are in the game already such as PO or Warp-In (agree about the Immortal change however overall actually) Regardless - my point is - units should be decided by role and by what their role in a certain composition is, not purely base the game by micro perspective.. Leave BW, just forget it.. If someone makes a BW mode you'd just see in fact how unbalanced it was by adding a multi-building selection and endless selection of units on one hotkey.. The game has a complete different flow, don't use BW as a starting point-of-view point (it worked yes, nice, we all loved it, we all hated it, but - it's knowledge is not usable/available in a game which has the functionality/ability to select 255 units all at once as opposed to max 12) and multi-selection of buildings | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On November 20 2014 08:08 Big J wrote: Well, moving shot isn't in the game either, right? So they are not removing it. (also I'm not a big fetishist of it. I think it makes sense that a unit has to stand for a moment when it wants to shoot; I'm rather against artificial limiting these sorts of handspeed micro further with damage point and acceleration/deceleration) I think many people can think of how invisible micro could look like (lol), but it's pretty hard to guess what they mean with it when talking about SC2. Well i actually don't think they wanna remove stuff which is already in sc2. I rather think they mean they don't wanna add "invisible" micro, they rather want focus on "visible micro" instead. I don't think they mean they wanna reduce any micro that is in sc2 atm. I think they worded that one badly? But yeah, now i kinda understand your confusion | ||
| ||
