|
On December 30 2014 23:51 nottapro wrote:
I hear you Asjo, I quit playing because the game is too much chore too little fun.
I am a casual player and the game suffers from different problems than what bothers a pro.
1) The gameplay is too fast - there's almost no time to think or time to recover, you have to rely purely on mechanical skill and having solid knee jerk reactions
2) 200 supply is too big of an army to get any degree of control over unless you are a pro
3) Hard counters are way too harsh. If you play match Gold level or above, the metagame locks you into a blind precise build order timings then punishes you for blindly picking the wrong one.
4) 3 levels of attack / armor upgrades, widen the statistical advantage of the winning player without them doing any micro or strategic maneuver. It's frustrating to play against, its frustrating to watch anyone's mechanics and strategy absolutely fail them because their unit becomes temporarily or permanently worthless in a fight. 1 upgrade attack/armor is enough to differentiate late game and early game. There are better ways to do upgrades, like stim, roach burrowing, blink which add both visually interesting and strategic elements.
If you discuss CS:GO the main reason these games work competitively is that the winning team doesn't get to buy long lasting statistical upgrades over the player they are beating, if they could buy 3+ armour 3+ attack the game would snowball out of control in the first 12 minutes of the game just like SC2.
Ahhh I'm gonna disagree with a lot of this. I've played a lot of both games at a decently competitive level, but none of these are really reasons I feel that SC2 stagnates in excitement.
1. Fasted paced gameplay is great. BW had good fast-paced combat. I agree that SC2 might *feel* too quick, but I think that's a result of a few other game issues, not necessarily the speed of the game. I'll touch in this a bit later.
2. 200 supply is a large army, sure, but what really bugs me is how quickly you can reach it. Everyone talks about the SC2 "deathballs", and honestly that's the real problem. A 200/200 army can fit into a small ball in the middle of your screen. Unit collision size and movement mechanics make entire armies pile up into tiny balls.
Yet controlling a 200 army isn't that bad, because you can simply select everything and attack-move, which we see a decent amount with the deathballs. You end up trying to spread your forces out, but engagements still look awkward.
3. Agree. Build-order wins are too prevalent.
4. Totally disagree. Upgrades done the starcraft way add so many wonderful timing windows. You saw this all the time in BW, and it was great. Certain upgrade levels changed the game. Zealots with +1 have a huge advantage over lings until zerg catches up in armor. Air attack and carapace level make a huge difference with corsair/muta/scourge fights. Terran infantry weapons and zerg ground weapons open tons of timing windows. Protoss ground2 upgrades lets zealots 1shot mines, which makes a huge difference in skirmishing. Toss air armor drastically cuts wraith damage if terran doesn't waste armory time on attacks. This is a *great* part of the game, and not at all what's wrong with sc2.
The problems with SC2 that I personally notice are as follows. So again, I'm no pro. I played BW ages ago, C+ level. I played SC2 when it was new, masters level. I am not a professional gamer, but I love starcraft, and feel like I understand the games enough to know what I'm talking about.
-Economy speed: The rate at which workers can be produced, the rate at which they harvest, and the gimmicks for collecting more money mean that players grab bases super quick, saturate them instantly, and just mass units. The game rewards macro far more than micro. This really favors the deathball approach.
-It's hard to disengage. Unit speed, combined with abilities like fungal, marauder-slow shots, blink, time warp, mean that once armies begin fighting, it's almost always at a disadvantage to retreat. You either straight up can't get away due to slows/snares, or you're going to get chased down and destroyed if you try, and so had might as well fight to the death. This leads to...
-Single huge, quick, dull battles ending the game. Watching the latest SSL10 games, I've seen multiple matches with fantastic back-and-forth gameplay, where I was never sure who would win. I rarely see this in SC2. The deathballs clash, and whoever wins quickly annihilates his opponent. This doubles with the unit collision size... 200/200 deathballs are SMALL, and the entire fight happens quickly on one screen. BW lategame battles not old took place on multiple parts of the map, but a toss trying to crush a terran advancement could last minutes and spam 3-4 screens. It was awesome.
-Boring units. I honestly feel that the roach, marauder, and colossus, are horrible for the game. They're boring, spamable, attack-movey units that reward dull playstyles. You build a lot of these things, and attack with them. We've developed a game where ZERGLINGS, the staple unit, are hardly used past the first few minutes. Marauders are incredibly un-terran, and the colossus lacks all the charm of the reaver, which was so fun and exciting to watch!
-And finally, and I know this is unpopular, but autocast is boring. I'm hesitant to advocate a return to a limiting interface to increase skill demands, but autocast spells are dull. When a protoss blanket-storms an enemy army, I know how he did it, and I'm not impressed. He selected all his templars, and spammed T+click over the enemy. Ditto with forcefields, emp, fungal, etc etc. Watching a BW player land crushing storms mid-fight, or chaining beautifully split irradiates, or scourge on vessels, etc, you knew just how much control was taken to do that.
I really really wanted sc2 to be fantastic, but it's just not there yet. And we can discuss a million ways to make the game profitable for Blizzard, but at the end of the day, it's gameplay which is going to get people interested in playing, or watching tournaments.
|
Seems like you agree with a lot of it with really minor digressions. I'm in agreement with your additional points too. I like the marauder though, concussive shells are fun to see good used well.
I do think I could convince you that attack /armour upgrades could be heavily simplified to one, maximum two tiers. The third tier is pointless, too many games decided by the opponent being two upgrades ahead making a comeback impossible and all engagements unfavorable regardless of positioning, micro or strategy. Its an invisible snowball mechanic that people overlook.
|
On December 31 2014 06:25 Haemonculus wrote:
-It's hard to disengage. Unit speed, combined with abilities like fungal, marauder-slow shots, blink, time warp, mean that once armies begin fighting, it's almost always at a disadvantage to retreat. You either straight up can't get away due to slows/snares, or you're going to get chased down and destroyed if you try, and so had might as well fight to the death. This leads to...
I agree with most of the points, I'd just complete about the disengage problem. If you compare with the BW counterparts, almost nothing did modify the movement speed. Look at those spells, like plague, dark swarm, irradiate, EMP, recall,... not a single one of them (except for Stasis Field that is kind of an exception, and can rarely block an entire army, the mechanics that saves the units being frozen is interesting too) have an effect on the fact you can retreat, and I think that was one of the best parts in BW.
If you didn't want to fight, just retreat and try to get a better position, or flee until your back hit your bases. I feel like in SC2, if you want to take a step behind, you have to do it before a fight, if not you're gonna get caught by marauders with their freezing bullets, force field, fungal growth, etc.
And welcome back to TL Haemonculus!
|
On December 31 2014 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2014 03:26 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 13:44 DoubleReed wrote:On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years. Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up. But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models. I don't think you understand the problem with your development model. Starcraft 2's development model is not to make drastic changes over and over. The goal for it's development is to make as few changes as possible, until you don't have to make any more changes. Once the game gets to a state where changes aren't necessary, Blizzard will have successfully balanced Starcraft 2. Following MtG's development model, Starcraft 2 will never be balanced. It will be forever in a flux of chaos and randomness. As I said before, MtG keeps making changes because each change brings in more revenue. For Starcraft 2, each change means more cost. Blizzard will go broke if they tried your approach. I understand you like the idea of constantly shaking up the meta, and maybe for another RTS game that model could work, but it would absolutely destroy Starcraft 2. You're saying that my model won't work for Starcraft 2 because of Starcraft 2's model which is different from mine. That's practically a tautology. The whole point is that I'm suggesting a different model. Plenty of games in plenty of genres work by constantly changing and updating to keep the game fresh and innovative. There's no reason why Starcraft 2 is somehow exceptional to this. The whole point of Destiny's post is that Starcraft needs to keep development up to rejuvenate their game. That is fundamentally about changing models. You act as if "forever in a flux of chaos" is somehow a bad thing, when that's usually what keeps games going. Hell, a 'calm metagame' is basically a broken one, most of the time. If there's no flux, then something is usually very wrong. That's precisely what they should be going for. You can still maintain balance and metagame in a changing landscape. In fact, with a more active development cycle, it's far easier to learn from your mistakes and introduce new and cool ideas that don't break the game. Also, the idea would be that such things are planned out. Heart of the Swarm came out March 2013, approximately three years after Wings of Liberty July 2010. Legacy of the Void is coming out sometime in 2015. Were people whining about balance and chaos and randomness, or were they so excited about playing the new expansion that they didn't care? You're acting like Starcraft 2 doesn't even have expansions, when it does. Do you really think that if more expansions were planned, and the expansions came out sooner, people would be annoyed? No, they would get excited. They would want to try out the new stuff. They want to see what kind of fun stuff is available in the new game.
I do understand your suggestion, I just respectfully disagree with it. Destiny's blog post wasn't about keeping "development up to rejuvenate their game". His post was about the lack of communication between the development team and the community. That is why he compared it to CS:GO, which apparently Valve had a lot of communication with their community.
We obviously have a different opinion on how we want Starcraft 2 to turn out, which is good.
I don't think a calm metagame means its broken, unless the meta has no variety. If every race aimed to get xyz army composition regardless of the opponent's composition, then the meta is broken. We saw this near the end of WoL, when zerg went BL/Infestor against protoss and terran. But as we reach the end of HotS, I think army compositions have gotten a lot more variety, and LotV will add more compositions.
I agree, if there were more expansions, and Blizzard kept changing/adding/removing units, it would keep interest in the game. However, you run into power creeping as more units keep getting added, which ultimately turns into a forever unbalanced game. So I disagree with your statement "You can still maintain balance and metagame in a changing landscape." As well, the game will just become even more complex, and eventually some units will never be used, even if its still in the game. The more complex you make it, the bigger barrier to entry you create, which is counter intuitive to our goal of getting more people interested in Starcraft 2.
I don't know how people would react with more expansions. You assume everyone will be excited, but I don't think the allure of something shiny and new will keep people interested in Starcraft 2 alone. A lot of us here like this game because its highly competitive, but if we keep having to learn new units because Blizzard decided to develop infinite expansions, then some of us will tire of this forever changing game.
|
On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun.
What about professional players?
|
On December 30 2014 22:40 Asjo wrote:
I just know that despite my love of Starcraft, playing SC2 seems more like a tiresome task than an adventure or exploration of any kind. More often than not, it ends in frustration rather than fun.
On December 30 2014 23:51 nottapro wrote:
I hear you Asjo, I quit playing because the game is too much chore too little fun.
I am a casual player and the game suffers from different problems than what bothers a pro.
I have recently stopped playing because I am usually miserable after playing the game. What used to be really fun ends up feeling really emotionally bad after each loss :/
I used to not care if I won or lost, cause there was something to learn from each game! Many times, I feel there is nothing to learn from the game, except that I missed the warp prism flying into my main, or I learned that I let the other guy get too close to my base and he is really good with forcefields.
This isn't just a occasional thing with me it happens most games and from what I understand other people are affected by the game in a similar way. For me, I think I might just attach my self-esteem to how I fair in competition.
Another thing I have noticed (and others have commented on), is that each game is won in a matter of seconds. For example, I play zerg, and I play the first 7-8 minutes perfectly I'm ready to build my army and attack. Then I just notice the warp prism full of sentries as it ff's my ramp, GG. Or terran just misclicks and doesn't split in time, GG. Or Im toss and I missed my ff's and a 200/200 roach ling army is on top of me, GG.
Too much rides on too little.
With an army that big there should be a back and forth or struggle that I often don't experience as a player (I'm typically high diamond and have been masters) and don't often see in professional games. For example, a toss gateway expands into 4 gating a zerg third. The third dies, toss barely loses anything and recalls. At this point I just get up and go make a cup of coffee, because 9/10 times there is an immortal follow up and there is no way the casters are going to convince me that the zerg has much of a chance left. I actually feel bad for the casters that they have to try and pump life into games that are clearly over, or ridiculously lopsided by a certain point. It's like watching a politician belabor an untrue talking point, trying to convince himself in the truth of it.
I'm hoping the eco change helps this. If games swing on a couple seconds of action, then I don't want the game to go long at all, make every game shorter. I don't want to play for 15 min, just to have my army smashed in 10 seconds, because of one fumble.
CSGO:
I think we could learn a lot from this game and others games as destiny said.
For example, I think the skin and crate system REALLY supports streamers directly. The game is SO stream friendly because it supports give aways in such a beautiful way, gifting to the stream etc... This just creates more interaction with the people watching and gives them another reason to watch that stream. Then they can be in game and someone can pick up their gun and maybe even see that it was from a stream giveaway if someone decides to create a sticker for their stream.
I play CSGO more than SC2 now, and I have played SC2 since the WOL beta, I love both games. I can also get frustrated with CSGO, just like I do with SC2, but when I'm down 5-10 in CSGO, I know I can come back into the game and win. I am really new to CSGO and already have come back from games where I'm down 1-14.
In SC2, if I'm a 1 base zerg vs a 3 base terran, there is no coming back ever  (pack my eggs in an overlord and go home).
|
All this commotion and talk about this blog article, and now he's switching back to LoL. rofl
|
On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players?
Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please.
|
On January 03 2015 17:23 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
All this commotion and talk about this blog article, and now he's switching back to LoL. rofl
From what I understand he is going to continue with SC2 because that's what he's good at. LoL has a lot more money in it from a personality/streamer perspective with a comparatively humongous audience, and if he does switch it will not be an overnight thing. He also confirmed that he will be playing SC2 for LotV release.
|
On January 03 2015 23:13 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players? Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please.
Uh, if it weren't for the pro scene, sc2 would be just about completely dead at this point or basically just another red alert that is straight up broken with no hope of being fixed. This isn't 2001 anymore. You either keep up with the competition or you lose.
|
On January 04 2015 00:07 johnbongham wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2015 23:13 maartendq wrote:On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players? Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please. Uh, if it weren't for the pro scene, sc2 would be just about completely dead at this point or basically just another red alert that is straight up broken with no hope of being fixed. This isn't 2001 anymore. You either keep up with the competition or you lose.
Definitely not 2001. The years around that time was delivering quality RTS games.
|
On January 04 2015 00:29 KrOmander wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 00:07 johnbongham wrote:On January 03 2015 23:13 maartendq wrote:On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players? Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please. Uh, if it weren't for the pro scene, sc2 would be just about completely dead at this point or basically just another red alert that is straight up broken with no hope of being fixed. This isn't 2001 anymore. You either keep up with the competition or you lose. Definitely not 2001. The years around that time was delivering quality RTS games.
For the time? Yes. But I think with the proper engineering power and core game design, a modern RTS can be a lot better than everything we already had including BW, SC2 and AoE.. In a way, AoS-type games are proof of that.
There's soo many mechanics not being explored in RTS, and it's really easy to think of new ideas as well. My only hope at this point is the approach Day9 has with his game, because he's trying out different ideas.
RTS is not going anywhere, we just need a developer willing to invest and a business model that suites the genre.
|
On December 17 2014 10:56 Plexa wrote:I maintain that removing forcefield/colossus from protoss would do so much positive to the game purely because of the negative connotations those units/abilities invoke when players hear about them/see them.
I will love to see that happen. I stopped to play and watch SC2 pro games because it's really frustating to see forcefield and colossus on the battlefield...
|
On December 31 2014 15:31 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:On December 29 2014 03:26 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 13:44 DoubleReed wrote:On December 28 2014 08:41 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On December 28 2014 02:31 DoubleReed wrote:Another game which shows just how far dev support can really go is Magic the Gathering. They have been incredibly conscious of bringing in new players and slimming down the rules for a casual audience (seriously, they've been tearing out rules for years and years, even changing the way damage works to get rid of counter-intuitiveness). MTG is now more popular than it has ever been, across demographics too. MTG is probably the best example of constantly looking at what audiences like and don't like and adjusting accordingly. MTG's model even rejuvenates itself by constantly going to a new plane every year with new themes and ideas. In fact, they're now changing their entire model to go to two planes every year because they identified serious problems with their old system. Starcraft 2 can absolutely do this. I'm sorry, but I've played with plenty of 'casuals' and the RTS gameplay is not what the problem is. It just needs constant rejuvenation and a shift in model. They could release more balance tests via mods that do drastically different numbers. I don't mind if they release 3 dozen balance test mods during LotV, but they should be very careful about what gets approved for a patch. The number of widow mine changes is an example of over patching, which in all honesty should have been tested further before approval. What would be great is an mmr for balance tests, where we can test changes with opponents of equal skill. This would give Blizzard more refined numbers regarding skill level. It can give cosmetic rewards for playing on a balance test ladder to encourage people to try. There is no ladder rankings, just testing the maps. You get more rewards if you leave feedback on the tested changes. This enables the community to get involved and rewarded, while gaining valuable data. I think a large majority of the community do not want a lot of patches, and would prefer it if the pros figured shit out, so having an MtG model might be detrimental to SC2. As well MtG releases several more decks compared to SC2 expansions. MtG can afford to make drastic changes year after year, because each change means more people buying newer cards. With Blizzard's development pattern, SC2 would be a development sinkhole if they tried to release several patches within a couple of years. Well MTG also advances the story through each set. I don't think the community would mind patches if they were more planned in advance, or had some sort of story arc to them. Like if everyone knew that every year would have a dramatic patch around the same time of year then it would just become the norm. Then it's more like a mini-expansion. That hypes people up. But either way, I was not suggesting a direct translation of models. I don't think you understand the problem with your development model. Starcraft 2's development model is not to make drastic changes over and over. The goal for it's development is to make as few changes as possible, until you don't have to make any more changes. Once the game gets to a state where changes aren't necessary, Blizzard will have successfully balanced Starcraft 2. Following MtG's development model, Starcraft 2 will never be balanced. It will be forever in a flux of chaos and randomness. As I said before, MtG keeps making changes because each change brings in more revenue. For Starcraft 2, each change means more cost. Blizzard will go broke if they tried your approach. I understand you like the idea of constantly shaking up the meta, and maybe for another RTS game that model could work, but it would absolutely destroy Starcraft 2. You're saying that my model won't work for Starcraft 2 because of Starcraft 2's model which is different from mine. That's practically a tautology. The whole point is that I'm suggesting a different model. Plenty of games in plenty of genres work by constantly changing and updating to keep the game fresh and innovative. There's no reason why Starcraft 2 is somehow exceptional to this. The whole point of Destiny's post is that Starcraft needs to keep development up to rejuvenate their game. That is fundamentally about changing models. You act as if "forever in a flux of chaos" is somehow a bad thing, when that's usually what keeps games going. Hell, a 'calm metagame' is basically a broken one, most of the time. If there's no flux, then something is usually very wrong. That's precisely what they should be going for. You can still maintain balance and metagame in a changing landscape. In fact, with a more active development cycle, it's far easier to learn from your mistakes and introduce new and cool ideas that don't break the game. Also, the idea would be that such things are planned out. Heart of the Swarm came out March 2013, approximately three years after Wings of Liberty July 2010. Legacy of the Void is coming out sometime in 2015. Were people whining about balance and chaos and randomness, or were they so excited about playing the new expansion that they didn't care? You're acting like Starcraft 2 doesn't even have expansions, when it does. Do you really think that if more expansions were planned, and the expansions came out sooner, people would be annoyed? No, they would get excited. They would want to try out the new stuff. They want to see what kind of fun stuff is available in the new game. I do understand your suggestion, I just respectfully disagree with it. Destiny's blog post wasn't about keeping "development up to rejuvenate their game". His post was about the lack of communication between the development team and the community. That is why he compared it to CS:GO, which apparently Valve had a lot of communication with their community. We obviously have a different opinion on how we want Starcraft 2 to turn out, which is good. I don't think a calm metagame means its broken, unless the meta has no variety. If every race aimed to get xyz army composition regardless of the opponent's composition, then the meta is broken. We saw this near the end of WoL, when zerg went BL/Infestor against protoss and terran. But as we reach the end of HotS, I think army compositions have gotten a lot more variety, and LotV will add more compositions. I agree, if there were more expansions, and Blizzard kept changing/adding/removing units, it would keep interest in the game. However, you run into power creeping as more units keep getting added, which ultimately turns into a forever unbalanced game. So I disagree with your statement "You can still maintain balance and metagame in a changing landscape." As well, the game will just become even more complex, and eventually some units will never be used, even if its still in the game. The more complex you make it, the bigger barrier to entry you create, which is counter intuitive to our goal of getting more people interested in Starcraft 2. I don't know how people would react with more expansions. You assume everyone will be excited, but I don't think the allure of something shiny and new will keep people interested in Starcraft 2 alone. A lot of us here like this game because its highly competitive, but if we keep having to learn new units because Blizzard decided to develop infinite expansions, then some of us will tire of this forever changing game.
This is why I suggest looking at MTG, because they have multiple ways of dealing with issues like power creep and complexity creep, and it's not that hard to translate. (Here some articles on power creep and complexity creep) For instance, complexity creep is handled in MTG by drastically limiting what kind of cards appear at Common Rarity. Similarly, basic units might only have a movement-based ability/upgrade. Blink, an activated-ability that you have to select a spot for, would be as complex as it might get for T1 units. Or maybe there's a cap on the amount of casters, or the effectiveness of casters at X tier for X race. Seriously, check out the articles. They're neat.
The idea of some units not being used is bizarre, as the units would obviously be removed or changed so that they are used. Or maybe other units with altered so that they are used again. This is not as much as a concern. I mean, even with the current state, there are units we don't see as much of (Nydus Worm, Battlecruiser, Carrier).
It's well known that people get tired of the game, but they also get tired of the metagame (which is much more rapid in a world of internet and constant streaming). The advantage here is that when you come back to the game after a couple of months, you get something fresh and captivating instantly. It's almost like playing a new game, but most of your skills translate over and you can jump right in.
|
On January 03 2015 23:13 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2014 20:53 [F_]aths wrote:On December 16 2014 18:40 ETisME wrote:
With the economy changes, there ought to be big changes, sc2 movement won't look nearly the same with the less massable economy system.
It is already looking better but I really would love blizzard to be an active patcher. Make more imba patches and patch it with imba patch patch would be so much fun. What about professional players? Blizzard has absolutely no obligations to them. It's their game, they can do with it as they please.
I completely agree, LoL has huge patches and reworks and that includes item changes that basically force feed the meta.
But the crowd are in for it, they look up to the pros to see how the new things are utilized, how to optimized it etc.
There is a most popular champion infrography that shows how each patch changes the popular picks and I don't think many pros suffered (though I am sure some had).
While dota release their big patches less often, they are often huge in scale as well.
Our hots tvz for example is almost identical since beta where reaper into quick third into bio mine, only difference is more timings and all ins which may or may not be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
