|
On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote:
What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general.
Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back.
I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
|
On February 14 2015 23:43 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2015 21:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 14 2015 18:49 ZenithM wrote:On February 14 2015 18:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On February 14 2015 18:39 ZenithM wrote:On February 14 2015 16:29 OtherWorld wrote:On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote:
why does blizzard need to make mech work? Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play. Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible. I don't understand what you're saying. Thank god I can currently kill them, no shit, I'm talking about when the much-desired mech super buff will come. What then, mech will still be "extremely vulnerable"? What people mean when they want a "mech buff" is being able to sit on their asses with 50 APM and build nothing but tanks safely for 20 minutes (then lose all the same when they try to get out) because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away. As for the watching experience, only super top players (I'm not talking about Avilo and random European terrans) make mech interesting. So yeah, sure, buff mech, but just for those 5-10 players then. What super buff? All we really wanted is a better harass and mobile unit, not very turtly, and the softening of stupid hard counters like the Immortal. One of the most satisfying things of playing mech is killing bio Terran players that expect to stim 1a a blob of marauders and win without any sense of tactics, baiting, flanking, or, any RTS general knowledge. The strength of the Marine in direct fights is really a blight on Terran and Terran players IMO. Gives a false sense of skill at lower levels. I don't know, when I play mech and people run bio into my tanks and all their units die, it doesn't make me feel good at all ;D. More like "well, bro, I didn't even move my mouse and your shit is dead all the same, what a great battle".
I find it a lot of fun because it shows the incompetence of the opposing player followed by rage. Or when a Zerg player looses a lot of Mutas to a couple of Thor voleys because he doesn't understand splash, or, in rare occasions, when you beat a Protoss player with mech :D Hearing P players rage that mech is to strong is truly the sweetest thing. D
I may be slightly exaggerating my contempt for mech for the sake of argument, but everyone who has watched a bit of SC2 has seen what mech is in the hands of a third-rate Terran player: something boring that loses games anyway. In contrast, good mech games are much, much rarer.
I'm very biased pro mech, and i'll argue that the fault of poor games of x vs mech is as much to do with x as with mech. Mech is not going to attack you on all sides, so if you turtle with bio and rush for air or something, then, who's really to blame? It's a L2P case for both players i think.
Edit: of course, it would be good if Terran had more than one viable playstyle/composition, I'm not arguing against that. What I don't want is a big buff to the siege tank because people on forums think it doesn't hold the line well enough. If you can manage to make mech viable AND interesting (preferably at all levels of play, otherwise I'll settle for viable only at the highest level ;D), then I'm all for it.
I personally think the Tank is fine in TvT. It's really a few specific units that are the problem, like the Immortal, SH, and maybe Tempests that are to blame for making mech way to passive or even non viable.
I'll say that there is another big problem in regards to Terran players. Because Tanks are not used a lot, many players at lower levels and even low pro level (think the people Avilo plays against) don't really know how to use the unit correctly, and thus how to fight against it.
My favorite MU to play is TvT mech vs mech, because it's a case of finding openings and out thinking the opponent. As much as i like using Tanks, breaking defensive positions is a great filling, especially when you don't have 1a "counters" but have to relay on exploiting openings, finding weak spots, etc. In a game like SC2 that is so fucking focused on composition wars and counters, TvT is the epitome of good RTS IMO. Taking map position and wining space is actually relevant (as opposed to moving around with blobs up and down for a couple of fights that decide the game), The strong defensive capability of the Tank allows for comebacks (a rarity in SC2), map terrain is more relevant then ever, and so on.
Long live the Tank!!
|
On February 15 2015 01:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote:
What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general.
Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I think having huge potential damage in units is very good, but it has to be about skill, not unit stats. The classic comparison is Oracle vs Reaver. Both can do massive dmg, but one is on auto pilot.
|
On February 14 2015 23:06 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2015 23:02 TheDwf wrote:On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote:
why does blizzard need to make mech work? 1. Factory tech was designed as autonomous (unlike for instance "skytoss" for people who use that dumb comparison) + mech works in TvT and TvZ, so the foundations are there. 2. Mech is a very different style from bio, which allows Terran players AND their opponent to show something else and thus use a broader spectrum of their skill set (not only "Terran attacks and the other defends," to caricature). In particular, mech TvP would allow players to reverse the roles at last, which would more than spice up the match-up that changed the least between 2011 and 2015! See for instance Maru vs herO. 3. Mech has, per se, nothing to do with endless camping or "mass Ravens" (which is a lategame transition, different from mech play). It absolutely can deliver action-packed and tense games, as long as the "bio vs mech" dynamic (where bio = bio Terran or Zerg or Protoss) is well done. It's already the case in TvT (where bio vs mech produce the best macro games) and can be obtained in TvP and TvZ with a few trivial changes in both sides. Can you elaborate on what these changes could be to make mech work vP and overall to make it less prone to a turtlefest?
Yeah. Mech TvP is passive because it lacks punch in midgame, particularly because some units such as Archons and Immortals overperform against it (while the general threats of being pulled apart via Blink attacks, Prisms, warp-ins are still there; not to mention the possibility of an air transition). Basically there are too many constraints in the Terran side of the equation and you cannot handle them properly. On the other hand, Protoss has many options to deal with mech.
There are four things to be done so mech TvP games become more active:
a) Allow mech to push during midgame = increase the supply efficiency of mech armies below max supply;
b) Allow better raiding from mech = increase the threats that are currently blocked by warp-ins, PO and overall the loss of map control;
c) Make it so mech has a structural weakness to lategame air fleets = already the case with Tempests/Templars or Carriers/Templars beating Terran fleets;
d) Make it so mech is vulnerable to harassment and multi-pronged attacks = already the case with things mentioned in the first paragraph.
All those points are there in TvT, and they were also present in WoL TvZ mech (poorly balanced, but OK in design). For HotS TvZ, Swarm hosts largely destroyed the first point while Ravens/BCs unwisely unmade the third one. As a result, activity is (generally) punished and passivity rewarded.
The first priority would be to tone down the power of the Immortal against mech. For that, I had suggested:
On December 22 2013 23:18 TheDwf wrote:
- Rework Hardened Shields in the following way: it still reduces damage from 10 to 20 to 10 (unchanged), but attacks that deal more than 20 damage are halved instead (e. g. a Siege Tank would deal 25 damage to the shields instead of 10).
It seems Blizzard is going that way (and even further) with Barrier now blocking only 100 points of damage (currently, Hardened Shields blocks 400 to 550 damage from Tanks in Siege Mode—accomplishing the little miracle of becoming even more effective when Terran upgrades his Tanks!). That's good, because it opens the possibility for mech to perform (and even more importantly, threaten) midgame pushes, which prevents Protoss from teching too aggressively to Tempests or Carriers, or simply take over the map knowing that stalling for several rounds of warp-ins would crush any sudden push. It also makes small mech armies more efficient, which is much needed.
To further achieve the first and second goals, I would propose the following changes for Terran units. Values are of course there as a rough guide only:
+ Show Spoiler +HellbatAn alternate mode is a good idea, but it shouldn't take the form of an 1a AoE Zealot supported by the Medivac heal. I think it should retain the form of a raider, but not anti-Light like the Hellion; it should be able to threaten buildings and thus have a better damage output against Armored targets to challenge small amount of static defence. It should retain the higher resistance of Hellbats because past a certain point, Hellions are simply not enough as a cannon fodder. It should not be melee so mech players have to micro their front line to maximize damage and mitigate splash damage.Hellions in the modified "Hellbat" ModeHit points decreased to 125 (up from 90 in Hellion) Range increased to 5 (same as Hellion) Movement speed increased to 4.25 (same as Hellion) Decrease damage point / unit doesn't fully decelerate before shooting (Vulture-like behaviour for the connoisseurs) Damage/attack cooldown changed to 12 every 1.67 second (7.18 dps vs Armored, up from 3.2 for Hellions); single target, no splashNot biological Widow MineNeeds to cost 1 supply so it can be incorporated into mech play as a defensive/zoning tool + Tank line guardian; individual power to be decreased accordingly. Bio play could take back the form of a Marines/Tanks core in TvZ, with Mines as a support (not as a core unit like currently). The unit would be fully multi-purpose and usable in all phases of the game, with bio and mech alike.Decrease supply cost to 1 (down from 2) Remove bonus damage vs Shields Splash radius decreased to 1.25 Splash damage to Air targets decreased to 20 ThorThis unit is a massive failure on all plans: clunky, slow, impractical, deathbally. The equivalent of the Goliath needs to come back. The unit should retain its inferiority against capital ships.Decrease cost to 100/50/2 Decrease production time to 40 seconds Decrease GtG attack to 12 (+1) Movement speed increased to 2.5 The theme of a GtA anti-Light mode + a GtA anti-Armored mode can probably be kept. No splash, 6 range. VikingColossi should be reworked to lose their vulnerability to anti-air weapons so both Corruptors and Vikings are freed from their "Colossus counter" burden role that makes them boring and stale. With that, Vikings could be reworked into a medium range, quick anti-air fighter with possibilities of harassment thanks to the Ground mode. Decrease cost to 125/75 Increase movespeed to 3.5 Decrease range to 6.5 Decrease transformation time to 2 seconds Ground form damage decreased to 8 BansheeCosts should be decreased to alleviate the gas/slow production burden. They would retain the same role they have now. Decrease cost to 125/75/2 50 seconds production time Cloak cost increased to 125/125 On top of that: Separate air/ground upgrades should be reintroduced. Sensor Towers should be weakened (maybe individually cheaper but more expensive when it comes to the cost/area covered ratio). Ravens/Battlecruisers need changes as well, but they're not produced en masse in midgame mech anyway. For information, I had proposed this for Ravens. Battlecruisers need to lose their second Yamato.
Some things are more serious redesign but others are mere rebalancing. The idea would to be build a dynamic TvP mech based around Mines, Hellions and Tanks, with adequate support from the Starport units.
Edit — for the Protoss side, I also forgot to mention some kind of Tempest nerf is necessary. They can't stay as they are, but they're being changed anyway.
On February 14 2015 23:37 Big J wrote:
1. For these sorts of statments to be verified you actually need to ask the game designers about their design intentions. And blizzard has said they intented to make stargate-based play more viable and autonomous in the past, so the comparison is very valid from my point of view.
(of course the actual gameplay is different, while Skytoss does largely rely on gateway support by by intentional design decisions, Factory based play is even more autonomous throughout most of the game, though still quite dependend on Starport play by design decisions of HotS at least)
Then show me the working Stargate core duo from WoL. Zealots/Phoenixes/Voids? Zealots/Phoenixes/Carriers? Never worked at any point in SC2 history. Adding Oracles or Tempests changed nothing to that. Even stuff where Voids are core like Zealots/Voids/Storm or Stalkers/Voids/Colossi cannot be called "skytoss".
3. I don't see why the only way to play against Mech should be the ways of bio Terran for Protoss and Zerg. Terran can also choose to play Mech vs Mech. This goes basically to my response to 2. The game should allow me to make some deeper stylistic choices regardless of my opponent's stylistic choices.
I didn't mean it should be the only one, I simply think this is the one who produces the best games (so the design team should put particular effort into that kind of dynamic). Other game plans where you build your best ground army without much interaction or you rush straight to a lategame counter-fleet (e. g. Tempests or Carriers rushes) are more passive. It doesn't mean they should be "forbidden," but if they keep being the standard (such as Swarm host vs Raven play), people will keep complaining about camping or endless trench wars.
|
On February 15 2015 01:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote:
What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general.
Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power.
I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
|
On February 15 2015 02:19 MrFreeman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 01:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote:
What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general.
Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power. I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever...
Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
|
On February 15 2015 02:26 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 02:19 MrFreeman wrote:On February 15 2015 01:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote:
What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general.
Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power. I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever... Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
Dude if I was Blizzard I would hire you all day every day.
|
On February 15 2015 02:26 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 02:19 MrFreeman wrote:On February 15 2015 01:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote:
What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general.
Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power. I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever... Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
But the "noobs" want to play with big armies and hate the slow build up.
It's a difficult question this of stress and i don't think anyone has ever solved it.
|
Ok so i am mostly neutral on many of these, because i'm a zerg player, however i think most of these changes make 100% sense, and i get the feeling the devs are really putting a lot of thought and effort into this expansion (which is a nice change of pace).
I think the immortal change is significant....the unit is already one of the most cost effective in the game, and i think buffing it too much would have broken such a great unit...i think balancing it the way they're headed is the way to go.
the buff to roaches will keep them significant in a new expansion where it seems they will have more counters...so keeping the roach as a useable option will be great. i would love to use roaches more offensively rather than defensively vs terran and toss players...this seems to be a good change cuz it brings back a significan roach rush (tier 1) burrow can do.
lastly, i think the thor change is great. the thor is already pretty damn good...i didn't think the thor needed the auto repair honestly...but that's my opinion.
additionally, i think the viper is already one of the best casters in the game, and adding to its effectiveness (For the cost) will only make them a lot more popular in the late game higher-skilled matches we see.
it's nice for the viper to be a good counter to skytoss...it's already pretty darn good against heavy air, but i think the move from infestor to viper will be a much nicer change to the game.
let's cross our fingers and hope we get to see these new changes in action soon!
|
On February 15 2015 03:13 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 02:26 TheDwf wrote:On February 15 2015 02:19 MrFreeman wrote:On February 15 2015 01:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote:
What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general.
Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power. I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever... Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur. But the "noobs" want to play with big armies and hate the slow build up. It's a difficult question this of stress and i don't think anyone has ever solved it.
Fun is the most important for non-competitive play. It comes from interesting action rather than sheer mass of units; otherwise we wouldn't have so many complaints from low level players regarding max engagements being too brutal/fast/unforgiving.
|
On February 14 2015 23:43 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2015 21:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 14 2015 18:49 ZenithM wrote:On February 14 2015 18:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On February 14 2015 18:39 ZenithM wrote:On February 14 2015 16:29 OtherWorld wrote:On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote:
why does blizzard need to make mech work? Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play. Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible. I don't understand what you're saying. Thank god I can currently kill them, no shit, I'm talking about when the much-desired mech super buff will come. What then, mech will still be "extremely vulnerable"? What people mean when they want a "mech buff" is being able to sit on their asses with 50 APM and build nothing but tanks safely for 20 minutes (then lose all the same when they try to get out) because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away. As for the watching experience, only super top players (I'm not talking about Avilo and random European terrans) make mech interesting. So yeah, sure, buff mech, but just for those 5-10 players then. What super buff? All we really wanted is a better harass and mobile unit, not very turtly, and the softening of stupid hard counters like the Immortal. One of the most satisfying things of playing mech is killing bio Terran players that expect to stim 1a a blob of marauders and win without any sense of tactics, baiting, flanking, or, any RTS general knowledge. The strength of the Marine in direct fights is really a blight on Terran and Terran players IMO. Gives a false sense of skill at lower levels. I don't know, when I play mech and people run bio into my tanks and all their units die, it doesn't make me feel good at all ;D. More like "well, bro, I didn't even move my mouse and your shit is dead all the same, what a great battle". I may be slightly exaggerating my contempt for mech for the sake of argument, but everyone who has watched a bit of SC2 has seen what mech is in the hands of a third-rate Terran player: something boring that loses games anyway. In contrast, good mech games are much, much rarer. Edit: of course, it would be good if Terran had more than one viable playstyle/composition, I'm not arguing against that. What I don't want is a big buff to the siege tank because people on forums think it doesn't hold the line well enough. If you can manage to make mech viable AND interesting (preferably at all levels of play, otherwise I'll settle for viable only at the highest level ;D), then I'm all for it.
I disagree, good mech games are rare because high level mech games are rare, take into consideration for example MMA vs Dark, MMA never mech, but then he does and his games are as good as his bio ones, this is largely because mech as a whole is a less viable play style.
A better comparison are TvT mech vs bio games, in TvT pretty much nobody turtles not even below korean level, because since its a mirror both sides have the same units and turtling would be a pretty stupid idea (since the non-turtle player would make the same units but much faster).
Your whole points comes from the fact that your experience has shown you, but what about a toss that turtles in 3 bases until colossus/storm or a zerg that goes roach/hydra into SH every game (and every MU), hell I've seen diamond TvZ games where sides don't attack until almost 200/200, we can't just make the assumption that because bad players are bad the playstyles they use are also bad, if players don't know how to play that isn't the fault of the unit design. (I'm a low level terran that hates storm and is really bad against it but that doesn't mean theres necesseraly a problem with it because of that)
As for the tank buff, one of the things that are a core of the turtle principle is the way risk/reward works with the current mech, right now mech is very fragile but strong composition (fragile because due to the nature of production it can be easily hardcountered if the mech player doesn't have the right units in the right amount), as such mid-game mech is rather weak, however with the raven the mech army becomes much more strong and all around, this gives the player 2 options:
1.- Constantly use fact units to attack
2.- make only the right amount to defend and transition to lategame
The only reason mech isn't mega-super-IMBA right now despite the strenght of the raven is the fact that the mid-game mech isn't as strong, if there is no OP raven then the whole point of turtling disapears as there is no actual goal to turtle, and that way mech players are more pressed to attack.
A good show of this was BW mech TvP, there was no real lategame transition for the terran (maybe SV but they weren't really that necessary) but they had a really strong mid-game as factory units where much stronger than gateway units, the protoss then needed to tech to stronger units (HT, reavers, carriers), however these units where expensive and as such they needed to have more bases and that way the game was a game about map control where taking and denying bases was more important than simply killing units, this what a lot of players refer to when they talk about a buff to the tank, not about making the tank strongh in direct engagements but make positional play more important and if we take into consideration LotV economy changes this becomes more important because a mech army is less mobile (at least the core of it, hellions/cyclones will be very mobile) being capable of holding ground becomes important without necessarily becoming a turtle fest (a good example is the first game of Inno vs Taeja at Blizzcon where the objetives of Inno were less about killing Taejas army and more about taking his own bases while denying Taeja's bases)
|
|
|
On February 15 2015 04:17 ionONE wrote:
Experimenting with slowing down the pacing of combat in SC2
This is a topic we got a lot of community feedback on, so we did some heavy exploration in this area. The biggest thing we tried here was reducing the attack speed of each unit in the game by 40% and altering some damage values to compensate. Even though a change like this would seemingly have a huge implication on balance, we realized the gain wasn’t as big as we expected. Games feel different from before, but the main question has to be “Is this a positive change that makes games better?” We’re just not sure of this yet. For example, we’re seeing that slower engagements seem to reduce the skill component in combat. Additionally, games feel more dragged out than before. But we’ve only had limited testing at this point, so we’ll continue to explore this area in more detail before making a final call.
Why can't we test this on an official lotv experimental testmap? (similar to riot http://boards.pbe.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gameplay-feedback/5AN5oKRM-preseason-2015-experimental-jungle-changes)
- mining
- unit movements
...
That was the fun part observing starbows developement: instant feedback, changes on the fly, communication
Lets rely on DKs testing (probably owning everybody)
Blizzard knows best ... right?
|
On February 14 2015 19:46 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2015 19:14 OtherWorld wrote:On February 14 2015 19:06 darkness wrote:On February 14 2015 18:39 ZenithM wrote:On February 14 2015 16:29 OtherWorld wrote:On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote:
why does blizzard need to make mech work? Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play. Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O I know that mech is viable in TvT (a bit too much imo :D), but what I mean is that I wouldn't wish it on Protoss and Zerg to have to beat a 30 APM mech guy every single vT game. Terran users have to remain the high APM proud manly players, not become slow-witted from building too many turrets and sensor towers. Mech can be exciting as well. For example, it is subjective but I do think BW mech made more interesting games than sc2 bio vs P. And trust me, low APM didn't really work for them back then. Well, the problem precisely is that sc2's mech is nowhere similar to BW's, and while ppl want to see mech because of BW nostalgia or some idea that mech is awesome because it was awesome in BW, a mech buff with the current design Blizz made for fac/port units wouldn't lead to BW-style mech at all. sc2 is not BW... and I don't want it to be. If you want to play BW, just go and play it. Having said that, there are many things you can learn from BW and other RTS to improve sc2.
Your opinion is not the only one that matters. We don't want SC2 to be like BW just to be like BW. We want SC2 to be like BW because BW is significantly better designed and we want SC2 to last.
On February 14 2015 20:10 Destructicon wrote:
No one says SC2, needs to be 100% like Brood War. What they are saying is that Blizzard could at least fucking try to take the best elements of BW and incorporate them into SC2 to make it a better game. I have no idea why most people have to be more dense then granite when it comes to this. The correct way to do iterative design is build upon existing successful elements, you don't have to reinvent the wheel, which is what Blizzard seems to desperately adamant about doing.
It's because a lot of people are newgens who got into the series with SC2, and don't necessarily have the perspective to understand what people are talking about in regards to it. In order to properly comment/understand on these things you need in-depth experience with both games.
On February 14 2015 18:49 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2015 18:42 DemigodcelpH wrote:On February 14 2015 18:39 ZenithM wrote:On February 14 2015 16:29 OtherWorld wrote:On February 14 2015 12:00 ROOTFayth wrote:
why does blizzard need to make mech work? Because Swarm Hosts and Protoss deathball suck and are boring and noskill while Mech is an insanely exciting, fun, skill-based, fast-paced, action-packed style of play. Haha, fair enough. Honestly I'm Terran and I'm not too keen on seeing mech viable, especially at low levels of play. Don't want to have to wait 20 minutes to kill a gold noob with my decayed MMR :O Then kill them. Mech is extremely vulnerable. That doesn't mean we don't need a viable mech for the best SC2 possible. because they hate that Terran is so much reliant on micro and reaction time. I love it about Terran so I don't want that to go away.
Then play bio. Mech being viable does not mean that bio has to go. Diversity should not suffer because of your personal tastes.
|
What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
Someone should do a mathematical analysis of this, but I imagine that if you remove overkill from units it generally makes them relatively stronger in higher numbers. And Starcraft 2 specifically suffers when you get to higher army counts, so it's an important notion and in my opinion Blizzard's designers should be looking out for these sort of opportunities.
|
On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)?
There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
|
On February 15 2015 05:20 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)? There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
Ultras don´t even need FF for that :D
|
On February 15 2015 05:20 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)? There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
In my eyes, it's bad AI when the units constantly clump up whenever you issue a move command instead of maintaining any kind of formation. Don't know why Blizzard thinks clump-AI is the future of RTS pathing when it's really just SC2 that uses this kind of system. Even more so given the numerous design and balance implications caused by it.
|
On February 15 2015 05:20 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)? There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure.
I don't even understand that. To remove overkill means to add travel time to the siege tank projectile or to change the weapon class or something technical like that. This will change the unit from the category of units without overkill to the other equally valid category of units with overkill. Nothing has really changed on an overarching level, but it might have positive balance implications, so it seems exactly like the sort of change that designers should rave about. Also, outside of the gameplay benefits, on a personal level I think that all siege tanks in range firing at once is a lot cooler and more understandable than the current system where siege tanks are either psychic and can tell the future or have advanced coordination of weapon systems that seems inexplicable from a lore perspective.
Like, what's the relation to dumbing down AI?
|
On February 15 2015 05:31 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 05:20 TheDwf wrote:On February 15 2015 05:12 Grumbels wrote:
What's actually stopping Blizzard from adding overkill to tanks and rebalancing accordingly? Is it mostly that the phrase isn't zooming around reddit and battle.net so the development team doesn't take notice (maybe this is too cynical)? There should be discussions around this, yes, but from memory Blizzard has some weird policy about not wanting to "dumb down" the IA of units; yet units go full derp around Forcefields since 5 years. Go figure. In my eyes, it's bad AI when the units constantly clump up whenever you issue a move command instead of maintaining any kind of formation. Don't know why Blizzard thinks clump-AI is the future of RTS pathing when it's really just SC2 that uses this kind of system. Even more so given the numerous design and balance implications caused by it.
You fight the engine, just like you did in BW!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
