EPTLegacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1613 Posts
| ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13990 Posts
| ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2655 Posts
On February 13 2015 08:15 Jenia6109 wrote: What's the thing with scan range? | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On February 13 2015 08:17 Cricketer12 wrote: Protoss need a unit to get through midgame not gateway unit...i dunno about herc remove everything else is fine Good thing Protoss has access to Gateway units in the mid-game! http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Protoss_Tech_Tree | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
On February 13 2015 07:57 ZenithM wrote: I'd be fine with it, if it gave way for some other crazy change of course. Nerfs just for the sake of nerfing isn't all that fun. What is happening here is a new unit with new spells being introduced that allegedly render one of the most controversial abilities in Starcraft 2 less powerful. Call me crazy but I don't think it's that bad, really. I'd be fine if Marines took a more secondary role in favor of something else. For example, I'd trade some of my marines' power for Protoss being a more interesting race, that's how much I like the game. Manly Terrans are like that, we will take nerfs if it makes the game more interesting. Quite unlike Protoss wusses who just like ever faster oracles and tempests shooting colossus beams, and Zerg sissies who would love nothing more than cliff-hopping banelings and mutalisks spawning by pairs. It all sounds fine until you realise why Blizzard insists gateway units must be weaker. Because of force fields. If you want to make force field useless, that's fine, but you have to fix gateway then. | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
Imo this will reduce the "win bec of luck" or "lose bec of a split sec mistake" in sc2. Excited for the New toss unit. Also can anyone elaborate this? : Scan range experimentation | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
| ||
|
usopsama
6502 Posts
| ||
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
| ||
|
KingofdaHipHop
United States25602 Posts
| ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
On February 13 2015 08:35 Ragnarork wrote: Interesting, but that experimentation with the "reduce by 40% the attack speed" seems a bit off... I don't think what's wanted is slower fights for the sake of being slower, it's just that units don't clump as much and the "terrible" damage... I think this move is to remove or at least lessen the "split-second mistake = autolose" factor in the game. Because its really frustrating when it happens. In BW there's no such thing like that that you'll lose your entire army in less than 10 secs. I think it's a good idea. But not sure about 40%. But we'll have to see. | ||
|
Magnifico
1958 Posts
I think that the speed and the violence of the current state of the game are charming and something that should be praised. Look how awful Grey Goo is. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
1) I do not understand how blizzard designers have not pushed out more unit ideas through all this time. The shade seems forced and will be scrapped 100% because it does not fit an RTS. They keep coming up with ideas that would be great MOBA CHAMPION IDEAS (*COUGH LEAGUE OF LEGENDS ZED*) but have absolutely no place in an RTS where you can make 20 of that unit. There's so many units that already exist that blizzard could use or do similar things to. Dark archon...ghost lockdown ability...some of the single player campaign units? Either way, you can tell their design resources are coming from people that are either working on Heroes of the Storm or MOBA-ish. You cannot put units into SC2 with champion like abilities because SC2 is on a way different scale and having 20 ravagers aka 20 Kog Maws running around shooting artillery barrage is just going to break the game lol. 2) Economy changes. Are. BAD. Most of you guys have maybe never played other RTS games. The smaller percentage of you that have played RTS other than Brood War/SC2 probably have never played an RTS game that went through with a similar and drastic economy change. I am talking about Command and Conquer 3. I played CnC3 throughout it's entire life span, from beginning to it's death. It's death came from no patches (which we already see has happened to SC2) but also from a mis-guided economy change to the game that players and designers all hoped would "encourage more micro opportunities and action." Yeah...it basically screwed the game, made it slower. It was an excuse to not patch and balance the game essentially. Rather than balancing out the issues that plagued the game in terms of balance, that economy change went through and massively slowed down CnC3, and made for less action on the map because of less units. In regards to SC2...at this point in the game guys, economy change is one of the worst possible ideas for SC2. It will not do what a lot of you guys think it will by "forcing action all over the map." It will destroy the game, i am telling you right now from experience of having seen an RTS go through it. No one has to believe me, just reference this post and my thoughts when you see SC2 game play is screwed up with LOTV due to an unnecessary and misguided economy change. 3) SLowing down of the game is a terrible idea, once again i know a lot of the circle jerk right now is that "slowing down the game will create more micro!" Well guess what, once again any of you that think this are wrong. Slowing down the game isn't going to create more micro - it's going to make the game slow...and easier, and so anyone can micro or do amazing things. The best analogy i can make and the best statement i can make to succinctly describe my feelings on this is: "Slowing down SC2 will make SC2 melt into Grey Goo." For those of you that have not looked up or read about the RTS "Grey Goo," it's a brand new RTS advertised as basically not being fast like SC2. It's slow as fuck, and basically doomed from the start. We do not want SC2 to become Grey Goo or to get slower where it's bad for spectators, and bad for players because then it's harder for players to distinguish themselves from others via unique micro actions. As an aside, Grey Goo should probably do what SC1 did and add a faster/fastest setting and that game might have the potential to take off  So yeh, that's about it. To sum up: a lot of casual SC2 observers and even some progamers seem very uninformed about the SC2 economy change. It's not going to create "mega action all over the map." It's most likely going to end up hurting the game hard. Slowing down the game is bad, despite the circle jerk being to the contrary. 99% of the SC2 community just sees a youtube video about slowing down the game and believe what they are told about "more micro" when that is not going to be the case. And blizzard needs to really get their stuff together right now and push out new units for LOTV...or use old units like the dark archon and rebrand them! | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On February 13 2015 08:35 Ragnarork wrote: Interesting, but that experimentation with the "reduce by 40% the attack speed" seems a bit off... I don't think what's wanted is slower fights for the sake of being slower, it's just that units don't clump as much and the "terrible" damage... Uh, wouldn't the terrible damage be lowered? If this applies to spells as well it would do a lot. Colossus attacking 40% less often would mean that clumped units get less damage, so I think if we can't get different pathing thats the next best thing. On February 13 2015 08:46 Tiaraju9 wrote: I'm concerned that this damage reduction change would reduce the skill ceiling too much. Everything would get easier - from blink micro, forcefields, split to defending harass on the mineral lines... You will need way less reaction time speed also. I think that the speed and the violence of the current state of the game are charming and something that should be praised. Look how awful Grey Goo is. Right now most of the fights are determined pre - fight, no? I.e. how you position, when and with what you attack. During the fight it's just spam all your abilities and then move out quickly enough or go full force. Little micro involved because most of the time your micro will do less for you than it actually is gaining you apart from spellcasters. By lowering the attack speed by 40% it's not terribly slower, even though it might be too harsh(maybe going down to something like 30%), and by letting all other values such as movement and damage values stay the same, you don't really take micro opportunities away but reward adjusting units mid-fight. Also fights are over slower so you actually have a little bit more time to look at the fight and see how it's going. Right now disengaging is, if you don't have the right units for that, impossible. This might actually encourage that! | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
On February 13 2015 08:46 Tiaraju9 wrote: I'm concerned that this damage reduction change would reduce the skill ceiling too much. Everything would get easier - from blink micro, forcefields, split to defending harass on the mineral lines... You will need way less reaction time speed also. I think that the speed and the violence of the current state of the game are charming and something that should be praised. Look how awful Grey Goo is. current pace is kinda off imo. In BW its way slower but you can't say that it has lower skill ceiling in terms of micro. | ||
|
Doc Daneeka
United States577 Posts
On February 13 2015 08:51 shin_toss wrote: current pace is kinda off imo. In BW its way slower but you can't say that it has lower skill ceiling in terms of micro. brood war AI was also retarded, raising the skill ceiling. i hope some version of this slower combat makes it to beta though so we can at least see for ourselves how it pans out. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
Starcraft 1 is an absolutely terrible RTS game...on normal speed. I had to make the above statement because it's absolutely true. The reason why SC1 is never played on normal speed is because the game is absurdly slow, very boring, and literally anyone can micro units when the game is put on normal speed. Starcraft 1 never would have become the e-sport it is today if it did not have a fastest speed setting. It would have just been another random video game that people played for a bit and quit. Fastest setting is what allowed Starcraft 1 to make magic happen and be a game driven by user skill. What i would recommend everyone here to do is go attempt to play an SC2 game on normal speed. Or SC1 if you still play. Then come back to this thread with your mind blown at how much worse the game is @_@ Just had to get this thought out there, i'm sure others realize it too | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13990 Posts
On February 13 2015 08:56 avilo wrote: Another thought i had to add that warrants it's own post and can create discussion: Starcraft 1 is an absolutely terrible RTS game...on normal speed. I had to make the above statement because it's absolutely true. The reason why SC1 is never played on normal speed is because the game is absurdly slow, very boring, and literally anyone can micro units when the game is put on normal speed. Starcraft 1 never would have become the e-sport it is today if it did not have a fastest speed setting. It would have just been another random video game that people played for a bit and quit. Fastest setting is what allowed Starcraft 1 to make magic happen and be a game driven by user skill. What i would recommend everyone here to do is go attempt to play an SC2 game on normal speed. Or SC1 if you still play. Then come back to this thread with your mind blown at how much worse the game is @_@ Just had to get this thought out there, i'm sure others realize it too The training missions (like the rush defense etc crap) is all set at normal, and I remember that being agonizingly slow | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24238 Posts
On February 13 2015 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote: The training missions (like the rush defense etc crap) is all set at normal, and I remember that being agonizingly slow Oh yeah. I remember going through them to get I don't know which portrait, and that was infuriating. | ||
| ||
