|
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. |
On April 20 2015 02:22 Grumbels wrote:
There are more benefits. You can continue to build workers on two bases to get an increase in income for longer in BW than in SC2. This means that if you're contained in BW it's not as destructive with regards to income as in SC2.
And if you lose a single worker in BW it's not as impactful as in SC2 because of the diminishing returns on workers, so this actually allows harassment units to be stronger. And it allows for more comebacks after losing workers to an early attack.
Maynarding is more useful, so is early game worker micro, these are two cool tricks for pro players to distinguish themselves with.
"losing workers is not as impactful as in sc2 so harassment units are stronger"
the logic of broodwar fanboys is mindboggling.
|
Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
User was warned for this post
|
Well call me stupid but why not implement brood war economy then?
|
Hm, what was wrong with my comment? I try to write good English. 
Logically if killing workers is less punishing then you don't have to restrict harassment capabilities as much which means you can have more powerful, flexible harassment units without the game being broken. Evaluating how this plays out in BW is beyond the scope of my post and is not something I'm willing to defend. Theoretically it should be an advantage to the BW economy though, or at least a potentially useful property.
|
On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote:
Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
This was not a mistake. If, out of 16 workers, the first 6 harvest as much as the next 10 ones (50:50), then losing 10 workers (16 → 6) "only" makes you lose 50% of your income. If, out of 16 workers, the income curve is (on average) a perfect line, this means the first 6 harvest only 6/16 (38:62), then losing 10 workers (16 → 6) makes you lose 62% of your income. Thus, losing workers is more painful.
|
But wouldnt the fact that losing workers is more impactful mean that harassment units are stronger? In the act of killing one worker, the harassment unit does more damage, thus is stronger.
|
On April 20 2015 03:46 solidbebe wrote:
But wouldnt the fact that losing workers is more impactful mean that harassment units are stronger? In the act of killing one worker, the harassment unit does more damage, thus is stronger.
I think it's more that, when killing workers is more impactful, the harassment unit doesn't have to be strong to do its job. However, if workers dying is less significant, one can compensate by making harassment units more powerful; that is, that they have the power to kill more workers.
|
On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote:
But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else.
Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too.
So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft.
At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"?
|
On April 20 2015 03:46 solidbebe wrote:
But wouldnt the fact that losing workers is more impactful mean that harassment units are stronger? In the act of killing one worker, the harassment unit does more damage, thus is stronger.
Exactly. This is why he wrote: so this [the BW economy] actually allows harassment units to be stronger. The current SC2 economy makes the harassment unit stronger by itself because of the absence of diminishing return before the 17-19th worker (which, in practice, is almost absent since people already optimize the economy with the 16/16/16 triangle). A contrario, if diminishing returns are triggered as early as the 6th worker (for instance), you can make harassment units a bit stronger since their impact will be slightly moderated.
|
Well, the larger idea behind the concept that I mentioned is creating robust systems that give freedom to the designer and improve the game. But it's a bit academic since it's a work-in-progress theory for which I can't really give good concrete examples.
The main idea is along these lines: that if smartcast exists spells should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If there are no diminishing returns on worker efficiency then harassment units should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If units work excessively well together in large groups because of the new pathing (like death balls) then army compositions should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If you remove strategic options to outplay your opponent then balancing the game becomes more difficult, so this requires more work yet again. There are more examples, but the point is that if you change the fundamentals so that designing becomes more difficult, that the game will be more likely to break at some point because you can't possibly balance everything perfectly well, unless you start to add more symmetry to the races and neuter the units.
|
Okay I understand what youre saying now 
|
On April 20 2015 04:28 Grumbels wrote:
Well, the larger idea behind the concept that I mentioned is creating robust systems that give freedom to the designer and improve the game. But it's a bit academic since it's a work-in-progress theory for which I can't really give good concrete examples.
The main idea is along these lines: that if smartcast exists spells should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If there are no diminishing returns on worker efficiency then harassment units should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If units work excessively well together in large groups because of the new pathing (like death balls) then army compositions should be weaker, removing freedom from the designer. If you remove strategic options to outplay your opponent then balancing the game becomes more difficult, so this requires more work yet again. There are more examples, but the point is that if you change the fundamentals so that designing becomes more difficult, that the game will be more likely to break at some point because you can't possibly balance everything perfectly well, unless you start to add more symmetry to the races and neuter the units.
Do you think it actually becomes easier to design/balance if individual workers lost are less significant, or would it just a be a straight "all harass units have to do more damage" sort of thing? It doesn't seem that helpful tbh.
|
TheDwf, I just found that sentence in stuchiu's top* players of all times:
But because they were so dedicated to drop play, it meant that when speed boost came out for HotS, their style was naturally countered. While it seems illogical, think about it like this: once Blizzard implemented speed boost they decided that protoss and zerg defense wasn’t strong enough, so they created the mothership core and increase muta speed and regen.
Isn't that the perfect example for an unecessary change that takes control away from players for the sake of making games "more interesting to watch"?
|
On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote:
Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
User was warned for this post
I feel the post above this one could/ should get a warning, this one is clearly sarcastic of that unnecessarily insulting one..
|
On April 20 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote:
Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
User was warned for this post I feel the post above this one could/ should get a warning, this one is clearly sarcastic of that unnecessarily insulting one..
I reported that post, and after reporting it saw it might have sarcastic tone and somewhat regretted it, but still am not sure if he was sarcastic or not. The one above is also bad, but figured I'd at least draw a moderator to this conversation for a bit.
|
On April 20 2015 03:58 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote:
But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else. Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too. So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft. At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"?
Just something to keep in mind along with this.
The "big picture" here is EXTREMELY complex and difficult to understand. If this was an easy problem, it would have been solved with a simple answer.
I read this article and had a difficulty or couldn't grasp some of the concepts. Great article though!
THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE FEATURED MORE!
Most of the balance arguments the community has feel circular to me, and have not lead to a solid solution. We should be having discussions like the ones listed in this article.
|
On April 20 2015 10:55 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 03:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote:
But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else. Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too. So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft. At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"? Just something to keep in mind along with this. The "big picture" here is EXTREMELY complex and difficult to understand. If this was an easy problem, it would have been solved with a simple answer.
I hate when people make game design out to be rocket science... it isn't. There are a lot of complex factors here, but this isn't mission impossible and even you can understand it! Don't make me go back through my old threads to Blizzard which were full of ideas that they ended up implementing six months to a year after I suggested them, and after their ideas failed.
And there are simple solutions. The double harvesting solution put forward by TL Strategy team is one of them.
The real issue here is the current generation of game designers, like Browder, won't be able to create a next generation RTS because he isn't evolving. He keeps trying to import ideas from past RTS games or even worse, ideas from MOBAs (how many spells do units have now?). That isn't where we should be going.
The SC2 team needs to finally clean up the bad ideas they had from WOL and built on during HOTS... like Force Fields, Colossus, Fungal Growth, the Viper, the Widow Mine, Photon Overcharge... ect...
|
On April 20 2015 08:35 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote:
Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
User was warned for this post I feel the post above this one could/ should get a warning, this one is clearly sarcastic of that unnecessarily insulting one.. I reported that post, and after reporting it saw it might have sarcastic tone and somewhat regretted it, but still am not sure if he was sarcastic or not. The one above is also bad, but figured I'd at least draw a moderator to this conversation for a bit.
I was being sarcastic, but oh well, no harm done. Shouldve paid more attention to the modnote.
|
United States4883 Posts
On April 20 2015 15:50 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 10:55 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 20 2015 03:58 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 15 2015 23:36 Grumbels wrote:
But instead the mantra of the moderate was repeated: "I agree with your message, but not with your methods", i.e. the same thing repeated by every concern troll on the web seeking to distract from the actual point.
Good for TheDwf for keeping up the good fight. But at this point he is arguing to defend those who already know, rather than convince anyone else. Most people lack the ability to reason, understand context and analogies and see the big picture. Therefore, they get caught up on minor points because they don't understand the argument itself, and often end up attacking the writer rather than the argument. They also fail to see that arguments stand independent of people, and that someone else could just as easily repeat the same argument, and then they would have to attack that person too. So what happens is people just develop a label for people who think in ways they disagree with. "Broodwar Fan" is the label that is being thrown around here a lot, and is a catch all label for anyone who doubts the current direction of Starcraft. At this point the ball is in Blizzard's court. Are they going to listen to the people who think and generate solutions and enter into a productive discourse with them or see them as "Broodwar Fans"? Just something to keep in mind along with this. The "big picture" here is EXTREMELY complex and difficult to understand. If this was an easy problem, it would have been solved with a simple answer. I hate when people make game design out to be rocket science... it isn't. There are a lot of complex factors here, but this isn't mission impossible and even you can understand it! Don't make me go back through my old threads to Blizzard which were full of ideas that they ended up implementing six months to a year after I suggested them, and after their ideas failed. And there are simple solutions. The double harvesting solution put forward by TL Strategy team is one of them. The real issue here is the current generation of game designers, like Browder, won't be able to create a next generation RTS because he isn't evolving. He keeps trying to import ideas from past RTS games or even worse, ideas from MOBAs (how many spells do units have now?). That isn't where we should be going. The SC2 team needs to finally clean up the bad ideas they had from WOL and built on during HOTS... like Force Fields, Colossus, Fungal Growth, the Viper, the Widow Mine, Photon Overcharge... ect...
I actually quite disagree with this post for numerous reasons (though none of them vehemently :p).
Game design IS complicated. Let's not pretend it's not. There are thousands of factors that go into designing new units and concepts, and it's impossible to just locate anything to "the bad economy" -- when in fact we mean "worker pairing" -- or "the absence of space control" -- when in fact we mean "the effect of tanky basic units". It's way way too complicated to ever be talked about as a single conversation.
That said, I don't think that Browder and DK are having problems importing past RTS ideas; they seem to have the opposite problem. Instead of looking at what worked in the past and trying to recreate it, they see themselves as visionaries trying to create something new. Their work is not a methodical analysis of classic games, but an attempt to throw a bunch of paint on a canvas and see what comes out of it. While this worked out AMAZINGLY for games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm, the effect is very underwhelming in SC2. Again, this kind of goes back to the insanely complicated idea of "game design", and the fact that certain games are just more difficult to design and balance properly. For SC2 and RTS, we really need to commit to that paradigm of already successful games in order to create a decent game.
Finally, minor gripe: the viper is perhaps the best SC2 unit that Blizzard has produced so far. Although it kind of hard counters a lot of things currently (AKA mech), I attribute that more to the underwhelming power that space control already has. The viper is brilliant because it has 2 distinct abilities that require other units to be present, and making more than ~4 is a waste of money. This makes them niche units which add a ton of utility to an army -- something we should strive to create in an RTS (think of reavers, science vessels, defilers, etc.).
On April 20 2015 06:25 boxerfred wrote:TheDwf, I just found that sentence in stuchiu's top* players of all times: Show nested quote +But because they were so dedicated to drop play, it meant that when speed boost came out for HotS, their style was naturally countered. While it seems illogical, think about it like this: once Blizzard implemented speed boost they decided that protoss and zerg defense wasn’t strong enough, so they created the mothership core and increase muta speed and regen. Isn't that the perfect example for an unecessary change that takes control away from players for the sake of making games "more interesting to watch"?
Buffing mutalisks is one of the greatest sins Blizzard has ever committed. I don't think the speed boost in and of itself was inherently a bad change, but it has caused a lot of problems, particularly in TvP and TvT where doom drops are devastating; getting caught out of position even once can mean the end of the game. If we were to think of a MOBA like League for a second, we could try to work out a fair tradeoff for mobility. For instance, if a lot of junglers are given increased mobility, the most intuitive counter is not to buff enemy champions to be faster, but to buff wards so that map vision is easier to get and maintain; with more vision, players can react faster and get to safety despite the increased mobility of the junglers. In other words, in SC2, perhaps buffs in detection and vision control (i.e. faster observers/build time, cheaper sensor towers, etc.) would have compensated better than a straight up core unit buff.
|
On April 20 2015 08:35 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 08:14 Penev wrote:On April 20 2015 03:02 solidbebe wrote:
Definitely not a mistake in sentence, no that wouldnt explain it. Hes just an idiot broodwar fanboy!
User was warned for this post I feel the post above this one could/ should get a warning, this one is clearly sarcastic of that unnecessarily insulting one.. I reported that post, and after reporting it saw it might have sarcastic tone and somewhat regretted it, but still am not sure if he was sarcastic or not. The one above is also bad, but figured I'd at least draw a moderator to this conversation for a bit.
You should inform a mod about it now that it's clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
